American Sniper (2015)

[CaughtOnTape]

I obviously don't think the whole country believes it, or even says it - I know people personally who don't think that way.

 

However, America is the country that puts that message out there to the world, via films, TV, etc. Now, granted, a large part of that is down to the fact that America has one of the biggest film/TV industries, so it's natural that there'd be a higher than 'normal' concentration of that theme out there. But still, the point still stands that the message is out there. 

 

At times, some films, particularly war films, almost feel like propaganda from the Americans. 

 

Then I would suggest that maybe the harsher judgment should be for people who are looking to TV and film as an accurate depiction of an entire country full of people.  I have never understood that argument.  I don't watch TV to make a judgment about a certain faction of the human race.  I'd say that is more of a problem then someone stating they think America is the best country in the world.  TV and Movies are not reality and if someone thinks that, I have questions about their sanity over and above whatever belief it is that their spouting.

[KatWay]

Nobody is making the argument that all Americans should be judged for the rah-rah USA movies. Just that this attitude exists and is maybe a bit problematic, especially because the movie did indeed elicit a response like that from part of its audience.

 

That has nothing to do with anyone thinking that movies are reality. I'm not sure how you got that from the discussion that's been going on.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I'm just going to chime back in here and say that I, personally, don't think it's OK to look down on soldiers/military personnel, but nor do I think they should be placed on a pedestal simply for time served in the armed forces.

 

There are some that deserve the praise, some that have gone far and beyond the call of duty and, y'know, credit where credit's due. But just by signing up? You don't become a "hero", not in my eyes.

 

So then my question becomes, is there middle ground somewhere? Between putting solders on a pedestal and looking down on them, I mean. Modern war movies, like The Hurt Locker and this one, are about how much trouble military personnel have re-acclimating themselves to civilian life, and both protagonists from those movies signed up for more tours than was the requirement once you enlist. I don't think heroism can be applied individually, but I also don't entirely think all soldiers can or should be clumped together. So where's the dividing line?

[NoWillToResist]

Interesting that the discussion in this thread has focused so much on one line in the film that I thought really had very little bearing on the content of 99.9% if the rest of it. I think the film was pretty careful not to dwell on the reasons behind the war and focused more on how war emotionally/physically impacts those who have to fight it. Personally I didn't see any rah-rah patriotism that apparently others did. I saw a film about a man who, right or wrong, had to make some pretty impossible choices that would have shaken anyone to their core. He was changed as a result of his experiences as evidenced by his growing weariness as the story progressed. I didn't see that character glorify what he was doing even if he acknowledged it was (in his eyes) necessary. I expected the movie to be political in tone considering how much bickering I've observed on both sides of the political spectrum, but honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by how little I found.

 

Yes, the "America is the best" was literally one line in the entire movie - and we may have become a little carried away with that discussion as a whole. But I think some criticism of the 'rah rah patriotism' is linked to the very flattering brush with which Kyle was painted in this film. The only person who didn't seem to think that he deserved the big hero title was Kyle himself. Why? Because he didn't manage to save everyone. His biggest fault seemed to be that he signed up for more tours of duty because he hated the thought of his fellow soldiers being at risk without him there to protect them. Basically, he cared too much. What a flaw! ;) 

 

Considering some of the less savoury moments which apparently happened State-side, it just feels manipulative to me. I can't help but feel like they should have just created a character, rather than used a real person if they were going to ignore his lesser moments. I'm honestly trying to think of any moment in the film where he came off looking less than awesome and I'm failing. Even though Kyle was shown to not buy into his own hype, the movie certainly seemed to. I think that's why I found it so damned hard to give a fuck about him in this movie. He was so damned bland; there was no nuance, no complexity. He's a good guy. He loves God, his wife, his kids, his country and his fellow soldiers. He never does anything wrong, everyone loves him and he's all "aw shucks" humble. He was like a cardboard cut out to me. That's one of the reasons why I think the Oscar nom for Bradley is kind of bullshit.

 

 

 at what point did it become, for lack of a better way to put it, socially acceptable to look down on those who do the fighting?

 

I confess that when the Iraq war began, I was amazed at the number of times I saw critics of the war labelled as not supporting the troops. That always struck me as strange. If you disagree with sending men and women off to a war which was based on lies/misinformation, how is that NOT being supportive of the troops? If I'm not mistaken, quite a number of soldiers even objected to the Iraq War, to the point of seeking asylum in Canada and were branded deserters.

 

Anyway, I fear I am drifting too far from the topic of the movie here, so I'll stop here.

[NoWillToResist]

 

So then my question becomes, is there middle ground somewhere? Between putting solders on a pedestal and looking down on them, I mean. Modern war movies, like The Hurt Locker and this one, are about how much trouble military personnel have re-acclimating themselves to civilian life, and both protagonists from those movies signed up for more tours than was the requirement once you enlist. I don't think heroism can be applied individually, but I also don't entirely think all soldiers can or should be clumped together. So where's the dividing line?

 

That's a really good question and I think it comes down to how the movie chooses to show the solider in question. You have your total good guys, your total bad guys, and then everything in between.

 

Kyle was, IMO, put on a pedestal.

 

Renner's character in The Hurt Locker, to my recollection, would fall in the middle. Sure, he was brave and all but he also kind of hated his job. But he was also addicted to it and couldn't adjust to a normal life back home. So he went back for more.

 

I can't right now think of an example of a film soldier who is basically a legalized killer; the kind who gets off on the weapons and power, and thus tends to abuse that.

 

I think most soldiers fall in the middle and I find those more interesting to put on screen.

 

Movies which focus on a military group tend to show a wide range of personalities in their soldiers; I think this gives a more balanced impression of the military than movies which choose to focus on one soldier.

 

Of course, the big issue with American Sniper is that it's based on a real person, and, as with all "biopics" there will always be dissatisfaction with how the individual was portrayed in the movie. I would argue that there was no need for it to be based on a real soldier. Making someone up would have solved many of the criticisms IMO.

[CaughtOnTape]

However, America is the country that puts that message out there to the world, via films, TV, etc. Now, granted, a large part of that is down to the fact that America has one of the biggest film/TV industries, so it's natural that there'd be a higher than 'normal' concentration of that theme out there. But still, the point still stands that the message is out there. 

 

At times, some films, particularly war films, almost feel like propaganda from the Americans. 

 

 

Nobody is making the argument that all Americans should be judged for the rah-rah USA movies. Just that this attitude exists and is maybe a bit problematic, especially because the movie did indeed elicit a response like that from part of its audience.

 

That has nothing to do with anyone thinking that movies are reality. I'm not sure how you got that from the discussion that's been going on.

 

That's where I got that from the discussion that's been going on.

[BizBuzz]

While we encourage discussion, we step in when we start seeing things become circular ... which is what is happening here.  Please, let's move on since it seems everyone has had a chance and then some to state their opinion.  Thanks!

[Artsda]

Thought it was great. Bradley Cooper did a good job with the story and role.

[psychoticstate]

I saw the film this past weekend and I was blown away.  I thought it was very well done and Bradley Cooper impressed me.  I forgot I was watching BC on the screen, he was that good. 

 

I didn't see the film so much as a rah-rah America propaganda but the sad irony of a man who saved so many lives in Iraq, living through four tours, coming home and dying here.  I see it as more a story of sacrifice than glorifying Chris Kyle because of his 160+ kills.  JMO.

[missbonnie]

Interesting that the discussion in this thread has focused so much on one line in the film that I thought really had very little bearing on the content of 99.9% if the rest of it. I think the film was pretty careful not to dwell on the reasons behind the war and focused more on how war emotionally/physically impacts those who have to fight it. Personally I didn't see any rah-rah patriotism that apparently others did. I saw a film about a man who, right or wrong, had to make some pretty impossible choices that would have shaken anyone to their core. He was changed as a result of his experiences as evidenced by his growing weariness as the story progressed. I didn't see that character glorify what he was doing even if he acknowledged it was (in his eyes) necessary. I expected the movie to be political in tone considering how much bickering I've observed on both sides of the political spectrum, but honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by how little I found.

This was exactly the way I viewed it as well. I will also say that I would put money on this film being totally shut out of the Oscar's on Sunday which sucks because Bradley Cooper absolutely nailed the role no matter what people's political leanings are.

Edited February 19, 2015 by missbonnie

[raven]

My reaction to this is kind of muddled.  War movie action scenes, like in Saving Private Ryan, fall flat to me. and this one is no exception.  There was no tension in the house to house searches because we know Kyle survives and the rest weren't fully realized characters.  The "will he or won't he shoot the kid' - both scenes actually were tense because !children! but that's it.  

 

My take on Kyle is a pretty straight forward what you see is what you get.  His father's speech about sheep/wolves/sheep dogs makes it clear that Chris was a sheep dog, needing someone to protect, and was kind of aimless until finding that purpose and joining the SEALs.  He never wavered from his convictions, it might have been interesting to examine whether his PTSD had any effect on that, or if his brother's briefly shown opposite opinion did.  I wonder if the movie's focus is more on the effect he had on the people around him.  His wife felt alone and frustrated, understandable due to how many tours he went back for, though there could have been more dialogue there; she did come off as complain-y since that was all we really saw of her.  It's understandable that people he saved would consider him a hero; I think those scenes were well done, the focus is more Chris's uncomfortableness with that label, and we know he thinks about those he couldn't save.

 

Bradley Cooper I thought was very good; there's no way being a sniper wouldn't effect Kyle in some way and we see the change from a confident, quietly out-going man to a still confident but withdrawn and obviously troubled one, who looked like he was tightly holding it together, with his eventual outlet being not his family but still in the "sheep dog" role of helping others.  I know there's controversy about the man in real life but I'm not sure if Eastwood intended this movie as a full biopic. I'm not sure what his intentions were, LOL, but I think if he had created a character there would have been more of a "this is unbelievable" reaction and maybe more of a tendency to attribute traits, either bad or good, that the real man didn't have.

 

I think Eastwood did a great job in letting the viewers draw their own conclusions about the war and about Kyle as well (though Eastwood doesn't actually show Kyle violently grabbing the family dog, ha).  I mean, it is difficult for me personally to not be affected by people cowering in their homes, seeing the after effects on destroyed neighborhoods yet still want to see the person who drills people get killed (I think I read this was a compilation character).  Yes, we are shown a flag draped military funeral, but as I said, I think that is more about outside reactions to Chris Kyle than about Kyle himself, and the discussions these reactions provoke.

Edited February 22, 2015 by raven

[beetnemesis]

Not a bad movie, but as for the facts it is a little bit off on things. I served during this time, and matter of factly in the same place and time as he did on two of his tours. I did not meet Chris directly that i recall, but i met his seal team. Worth the watch, but take it at face value. Semper Fortis and Fidelis.

[BetterButter]