Speaking of Propaganda... I just saw American Sniper

[Dr_Liszt]

It's propaganda.

I really don't know if recommend this movie or not, I did recommend Argo, saw it twice. I liked Zero Dark Thirty, I have hard on for snipers and sniper rifles. But this...

Movie lost me when they showed 9/11 as a justification for Iraq's intervention followed by a scene explaining soldiers "This guy has Al qaeda ties."
^ This right there should tell you what kind of movie this is.

[sikax]

When 9/11 happened, it was manipulated for that purpose. The movie just shows that this happened and that people were in fact inspired by that propaganda to join the military. If there was a documentary that came out about Nazis, would you think the filmmakers were Nazis? No. It's just showing reality. A really fucked up reality, but that's the point. It's a biopic. This happened. I don't think it was propaganda, though I'm sure a lot of red-blooded American people will agree with the whole "Fuck yeah, WAR!" thing that already happened in real life. Then there are the sane people who see it and get sad that shit like this happens. It's a conflicting movie because it's depicting conflicting real life events. But not supporting either side, in my opinion. I trust Clint Eastwood not to do that.

[Derived Absurdity]

If it was a biopic it would have shown Kyle for what he was, a psychopathic mass murdering thug. Instead it tried to humanize and essentially lie about the type of person he is. I think it's debatable whether it's propaganda (although my opinion is very firmly "yes", any film which presents the Iraq invasion as anything other than an illegal war crime which killed at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people and which presents Kyle as anything other than a simple-minded psychopath is vile propaganda), but can we at least not pretend that it's concerned at all with showing reality? I don't know what Eastwood's intentions were with this film, and I don't particularly care. I only care about the effects. The effects were to whitewash and trivialize a monstrous case of very straightforward evil.

[Dr_Liszt]

When 9/11 happened, it was manipulated for that purpose. The movie just shows that this happened and that people were in fact inspired by that propaganda to join the military. If there was a documentary that came out about Nazis, would you think the filmmakers were Nazis? No. It's just showing reality. A really fucked up reality, but that's the point. It's a biopic. This happened. I don't think it was propaganda, though I'm sure a lot of red-blooded American people will agree with the whole "Fuck yeah, WAR!" thing that already happened in real life. Then there are the sane people who see it and get sad that shit like this happens. It's a conflicting movie because it's depicting conflicting real life events. But not supporting either side, in my opinion. I trust Clint Eastwood not to do that.

Take Argo for example, they took 5 mins to say "Listen, we fucked things up. But now we are here so enjoy the movie!" And that was enough for me to sit back and enjoy the movie. The same with Zero Dark Thirty where they showed CIA's torturing people. I mean they took a moment of clarity.

I was hoping during the whole movie for someone or anyone to say "Huh, there were no WMD after all, huh? Maybe just maybe we shouldn't be here." And I would have been happy, I would still think it was propaganda though. But noooo, they whitewashed the whole thing, they altered facts to make the Americans the heroes and the Iraqis the evil terrorists.

[sikax]

See the movie isn't really about the war, though. It's about a guy who's convinced that the war is justified and wants to participate. There's no stage for discussion about the existence of the war or if it's justified or why it's justified. Chris Kyle was convinced that 9/11 was an Iraqi problem and that he needed to go fight in Iraq. It's about him. Whether they got his personality spot-on is another issue, but the movie isn't about the war.

On a side note, Chris Kyle's father demanded of Eastwood in no uncertain terms not to shed anything but a positive light on his son. This most definitely skewed what Eastwood would have and should have done instead, but this is what we got. Try to see the movie in a vacuum. Chris Kyle and the war aren't real. Did you like it?

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

You do realize this is a movie about a soldier who went to Iraq, not about the Iraq War itself right?

[sikax]

^

[Dr_Liszt]

The problem was that it glorified America and a war criminal during the most fabricated war we have seen lately. It's hard for me to not see that.

You know which movie I did like a lot and will rewatch it every time it's on, that is also based on true events, Black Hawk Down. I loved Black Hawk Down. There is just something so wrong about this movie. I really do enter into these movies in a vacuum, because it's true, I'm an anti-imperialist anti-american, I can't deny that at this point, and I just don't go "OH! I'm gonna hate this sooo bad." I usually go "I'm probably going to roll my eyes for a bit here and there." But I really thought I was going to enjoy it because of the sniper theme. But I couldn't. I haven't rolled my eyes this much since the last time I was possessed by a demon.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

The problem was that it glorified America and a war criminal during the most fabricated war we have seen lately. It's hard for me to not see that.

You know which movie I did like a lot and will rewatch it every time it's on, that is also based on true events, Black Hawk Down. I loved Black Hawk Down. There is just something so wrong about this movie. I really do enter into these movies in a vacuum, because it's true, I'm an anti-imperialist anti-american, I can't deny that at this point, and I just don't go "OH! I'm gonna hate this sooo bad." I usually go "I'm probably going to roll my eyes for a bit here and there." But I really thought I was going to enjoy it because of the sniper theme. But I couldn't. I haven't rolled my eyes this much since the last time I was possessed by a demon.

Black Hawk Down though was about the event. If it was from the point of a view of just one of the soldiers, you'd probably hate it as much as American Sniper.

[Dr_Liszt]

The problem was that it glorified America and a war criminal during the most fabricated war we have seen lately. It's hard for me to not see that.

You know which movie I did like a lot and will rewatch it every time it's on, that is also based on true events, Black Hawk Down. I loved Black Hawk Down. There is just something so wrong about this movie. I really do enter into these movies in a vacuum, because it's true, I'm an anti-imperialist anti-american, I can't deny that at this point, and I just don't go "OH! I'm gonna hate this sooo bad." I usually go "I'm probably going to roll my eyes for a bit here and there." But I really thought I was going to enjoy it because of the sniper theme. But I couldn't. I haven't rolled my eyes this much since the last time I was possessed by a demon.

Black Hawk Down though was about the event.

So American Sniper was about Iraq? I thought it wasn't.

Truth is, this movie was nothing but propaganda. It doesn't take much to see it. Why did they humanize american soldiers before they kill them? Why was everyone in Iraq a terrorist? Why is every woman and child in this movie a terrorist? And let me restate again what DA said, what effect does this movie has? It's a biopic, yes, I get it. But the movie lacks context. Sadly I can't blame it much since it's based on an autobiography, so maybe we needed a gray view rather than the point of view of an egomaniac war criminal.

Was it a good movie? Maybe if you are ignorant of the facts, and sadly most people in America are, the majority of people still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, majority of Americans think that intervention in the Middle East is necessary and justifiable, Americans think it's ok for the CIA to use torture. So does this movie have a good effect in the world, purely as entertaining or is the movie encouraging to this mentality?

That is propaganda.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

The problem was that it glorified America and a war criminal during the most fabricated war we have seen lately. It's hard for me to not see that.

You know which movie I did like a lot and will rewatch it every time it's on, that is also based on true events, Black Hawk Down. I loved Black Hawk Down. There is just something so wrong about this movie. I really do enter into these movies in a vacuum, because it's true, I'm an anti-imperialist anti-american, I can't deny that at this point, and I just don't go "OH! I'm gonna hate this sooo bad." I usually go "I'm probably going to roll my eyes for a bit here and there." But I really thought I was going to enjoy it because of the sniper theme. But I couldn't. I haven't rolled my eyes this much since the last time I was possessed by a demon.

Black Hawk Down though was about the event.

So American Sniper was about Iraq? I thought it wasn't.

Where did I say American Sniper was about Iraq? I said if Black Hawk Down had been made like American Sniper, from the point of view of a single individual involved, you'd have the same distaste for it. Are you saying it would be more realistic if the individual (who chose to go to Iraq because he felt it a just cause) dehumanized himself and his comrades in arms?

[Dr_Liszt]

I did not say that at all.

Seth Rogen said that the movie looked like Nation's Pride from Inglorious Basterds.



It's the same movie.

[Dr_Liszt]

Here's the full movie. It even portrays the Americans using human shields. Babies that is!

[Cassius Clay]

My girlfriend and I were dragged to the movie by some friends of ours (a married couple). And they both have military family. The guy's stepfather is a high-ranking officer, and the girl's family is at least 3rd or 4th generation military. The guy is a white latino and the girl is black(part Native). I mention her race because the military was vital to their success as a family. And to point out that they're not "rednecks".

So, yes, I thought the movie was propaganda..
but they didn't seem to notice or care about some of the issues I pointed out. So, I just dropped it because I didn't want to get into a fight with friends that are emotionally invested in seeing the US military in a particularly charitable light.

Spoilers ahead...when one of the first scenes portrayed a Muslim woman willing to use her little son to attack the US troops, I knew this movie was fucked. Because that is one of the main tactics of oppressive propaganda. To suggest that they don't even care about their own people...so they must be savages...which then justifies our own fucked up behavior towards them. It's a dehumanization tactic. Israelies have used similar propaganda against the Palestinians. Claiming that they use their own children as human sheilds. And this is also one of the main reasons white people awkwardly bring up black-on-black crime. To pathologize black people, in order to justify anti-blackness/dismiss anti-black police brutality. White people kill each other as much as any other race.

And isn't Eastwood an insane republican? Why are we being so charitable regarding his intentions?

[Derived Absurdity]

I'm happy to say I haven't watched the movie (and I'm not going to, I'm not going to shell out ten bucks or two hours of my life on this repulsive piece of shit) and I only know of it based on what other people are saying, but that's the first time I've heard of the Muslim-sacrificing-her-son thing. Jesus fucking Christ. What a pile of shit. Why the hell are people here defending it?

[sikax]

And isn't Eastwood an insane republican? Why are we being so charitable regarding his intentions?

No. He's endorsed same-sex marriage and gun control and is quite firmly anti-war. Always has been. He may support the odd Republican politician, but he's essentially an Independent, supporting whatever he thinks is good for the country. Maybe me knowing his anti-war stance is what makes this movie seem different to me. Yes, there are things shown that look like propaganda to the naked eye, but consider the context and the reactions surrounding these images. It is not all black and white, fellas.

Edit: Just looked it up. He's registered as a Libertarian.

[Dr_Liszt]

I'm happy to say I haven't watched the movie (and I'm not going to, I'm not going to shell out ten bucks or two hours of my life on this repulsive piece of shit) and I only know of it based on what other people are saying, but that's the first time I've heard of the Muslim-sacrificing-her-son thing. Jesus fucking Christ. What a pile of shit. Why the hell are people here defending it?

Every muslim in Iraq according to this movie is either a terrorist or is involved somehow with terrorism. All the women and children portrayed in this movie are terrorists except for this one family that get attacked by one terrorist guy, and kills a boy by drilling through his head because they collaborated with the Americans. And the last part didn't even happen in real life. I think it's not even on the book.

[Dr_Liszt]

And isn't Eastwood an insane republican? Why are we being so charitable regarding his intentions?

No. He's endorsed same-sex marriage and gun control and is quite firmly anti-war. Always has been. He may support the odd Republican politician, but he's essentially an Independent, supporting whatever he thinks is good for the country. Maybe me knowing his anti-war stance is what makes this movie seem different to me. Yes, there are things shown that look like propaganda to the naked eye, but consider the context and the reactions surrounding these images. It is not all black and white, fellas.

Edit: Just looked it up. He's registered as a Libertarian.

Libertarianism as far as what I've learned these past few days is very pro-elite.

[sikax]

OK. Clint Eastwood is anti-war and the least racist person possibly ever. Why would he go into making a film with the intention of creating pro-war, anti-Muslim propaganda?

Here: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/mo ... rview.html

[Derived Absurdity]

And isn't Eastwood an insane republican? Why are we being so charitable regarding his intentions?

No. He's endorsed same-sex marriage and gun control and is quite firmly anti-war. Always has been. He may support the odd Republican politician, but he's essentially an Independent, supporting whatever he thinks is good for the country. Maybe me knowing his anti-war stance is what makes this movie seem different to me. Yes, there are things shown that look like propaganda to the naked eye, but consider the context and the reactions surrounding these images. It is not all black and white, fellas.

Edit: Just looked it up. He's registered as a Libertarian.

Yeah, but the thing is the Iraq War and Chris Kyle in particular are pretty black and white. There are some cases of people attempting to simplify inherently complex issues in order to advance a certain narrative, and there are also cases where people try to artificially convolute matters that in broad strokes are inherently simple in order to do essentially the same thing. People attempting to say the Iraq War and the story of Chris Kyle are "morally ambiguous" or whatever are guilty of the latter.

The Iraq War was a hideous war crime of monstrous, incomprehensible proportions, and Chris Kyle in real life was a vile sociopath who was guilty of murdering hundreds of people who were doing nothing more than attempting to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. That's the reality of the situation. There's no moral ambiguity there. It really is black and white. And anything which attempts to portray it as anything other than that - to present Kyle as some kind of humane introspective war hero, for instance - is a vile piece of propaganda.

Real life is almost always complicated and morally ambiguous. The Iraq War and Chris Kyle are two glaring exceptions.

[sikax]

The Iraq War was a hideous war crime of monstrous, incomprehensible proportions

Sho nuff.

Chris Kyle in real life was a vile sociopath who was guilty of murdering hundreds of people who were doing nothing more than attempting to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. That's the reality of the situation.

While that may be true, that's not how he saw himself. He believed he was killing for a good cause. I highly doubt he had evil intentions, as if he would be a serial killer if he weren't in the military. But, I didn't know him or read much about the real person, so maybe you're right and he was a psychopath. I don't think that's particularly relevant when we're debating whether the film is propaganda, though.

[sikax]

And I was never suggesting that there is any moral ambiguity with the war. It's clearly a bad thing. At least from our perspective. But consider the people who join the military and believe the so-called War on Terror is a legitimate thing to participate in. Can you even fathom that train of thought? I can't. But, Chris Kyle had it. Lots of people do. How can I condemn someone for thinking differently than me? Clint Eastwood knows better. He didn't glorify Kyle or the war. He showed that war can ruin a man's life. And subsequently end it. But he and I respect someone's right to choose whatever path they want, even while being in full disagreement with it.

[Derived Absurdity]

I have read much about him. I even read his book. He saw himself as a Christian warrior taking part in a civilizational war against Islam. He didn't have evil intentions, for the exact same reason all other religious fanatics and dangerous ideologues throughout history didn't have evil intention. But the fact is that he routinely characterized all Iraqis as "savage" and that he thought killing them was "fun" and that his only regret after returning home was that he wasn't able to kill more. He also bragged about looting the apartments of Iraq families in Fallujah, although considering how much he lied about many different things that might not be true. Point is he was a piece of shit and the world is better off without him.

I don't think that's particularly relevant when we're debating whether the film is propaganda, though.

How is not relevant? That's what the film is about. It's whitewashing the actions of a murderous thug. I wonder if we showed this film to the families of his victims, would they hesitate at all in calling it propaganda?

[Dr_Liszt]

OK. Clint Eastwood is anti-war and the least racist person possibly ever. Why would he go into making a film with the intention of creating pro-war, anti-Muslim propaganda?

Here: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/mo ... rview.html

Money?

[sikax]

All right, fine. There are two versions of Chris Kyle. There's the guy who think it's good sport to hunt down Iraqis and laugh and spit on their spilt blood. Obviously an irreconcilably horrible person. We're in agreement. Since you read the book, I'll ask you and not assume anything more about his life: Did he show signs of this kind of behavior/attitude before joining the military? Or at least before being inspired to join? Maybe his thirst for "savage" blood was an acquired taste. And prior to actually killing and being told what he's doing is right, he was simply another recruit who thought that there was a justified war to go to. I believe that is the person Clint Eastwood wanted to focus on. Yes, he completely ignored the murdering psychopath, and maybe there's something to say about that, but the point of the movie was to show other aspects of Kyle's personality. So unless his insane bloodthirst consumed his entire being all the time, I think Eastwood had every right to decide what sort of person he wanted to portray.

And after all, this is just a movie. It's not going to change anyone's mind on the matter of war. If it were pro-war propaganda, those in support of war are already in support of war and those against will see it for what it is. But hopefully people have better critical thinking skills than that and don't knee-jerkingly condemn it as pro-war propaganda.

[sikax]

Every muslim in Iraq according to this movie is either a terrorist or is involved somehow with terrorism. All the women and children portrayed in this movie are terrorists except for this one family that get attacked by one terrorist guy

It was explicitly said that the city had been evacuated and anyone remaining was either "there to kill you" or in the case of that family was likely forced to stay. Yes, everyone left in the town (with an exception) was indeed the "enemy".

And what about the kid who picked up the rocket launcher and then dropped it and ran away? He was there for some reason but wasn't like the other kid who was forced to attack the American troops. He was just hanging out.

[Derived Absurdity]

All right, fine. There are two versions of Chris Kyle. There's the guy who think it's good sport to hunt down Iraqis and laugh and spit on their spilt blood. Obviously an irreconcilably horrible person. We're in agreement. Since you read the book, I'll ask you and not assume anything more about his life: Did he show signs of this kind of behavior/attitude before joining the military? Or at least before being inspired to join? Maybe his thirst for "savage" blood was an acquired taste. And prior to actually killing and being told what he's doing is right, he was simply another recruit who thought that there was a justified war to go to. I believe that is the person Clint Eastwood wanted to focus on. Yes, he completely ignored the murdering psychopath, and maybe there's something to say about that, but the point of the movie was to show other aspects of Kyle's personality. So unless his insane bloodthirst consumed his entire being all the time, I think Eastwood had every right to decide what sort of person he wanted to portray.

And after all, this is just a movie. It's not going to change anyone's mind on the matter of war. If it were pro-war propaganda, those in support of war are already in support of war and those against will see it for what it is. But hopefully people have better critical thinking skills than that and don't knee-jerkingly condemn it as pro-war propaganda.

The short answer to your question is mostly no. Although he did exhibit the behavior of a pathological liar for most of his adult life.

I don't really want to continue this conversation, to be honest. You clearly like Clint Eastwood quite a bit and you seem emotionally invested in defending his good character. Which is fine. I admittedly don't know much about Eastwood the person and I'm mostly indifferent to his movies. But it seems clear to me your respect of him is causing you to twist in pretzels trying to defend this particular movie. You're saying a few things here which I don't think you would be saying if you didn't have some type of emotional investment in defending it. Like, it's not just that the movie "ignored" the psychopathic tendencies of Kyle, it blatantly contradicted some very fundamental essences of his personality - for instance throughout the movie (from what I heard) he was apparently uneasy and troubled at what he was doing and seeing, while the real Chris Kyle unequivocally relished every single thing he did. That's not simply ignoring part of his personality, that's blatantly changing it - something I think you would be able to see easily if you weren't intent on defending Eastwood so much. No offense. I wouldn't like it if someone I respected quite a bit was accused of spreading horrible propaganda either. But those are the facts as I see them.

[sikax]

Fair enough.

[sikax]

Honestly I'm not super emotionally invested in defending Eastwood. I'm just really surprised that considering his track record that this movie is being so easily denounced as propaganda by almost everyone. But then maybe you're right and my knowledge of him is blocking my vision and everyone else is indeed correct. Whatever.

[Cassius Clay]

I'm not sure where I got the impression that Eastwood is a right-wing nut. He just strikes me as the kind of old white man that longs for the good old days when men could be men and yada yada. Maybe I'm just confusing him with the character he played in 'Gran Torino'. Or maybe I assumed he shared some of the character's sentiments because of the sympathetic way the character was shown. I just was not surprised when it was revealed to me at the end of the movie that it was directed by Eastwood. 'Cause I was questioning who would make this seemingly right-wing wet dream of a movie as I watched it. 'Cause hollywood is pretty liberal.

Then it all made sense when I saw it was Eastwood.

[Cassius Clay]

And I want to point out that I didn't pay for the movie. We got free movie tickets somewhere.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I'm not sure where I got the impression that Eastwood is a right-wing nut. He just strikes me as the kind of old white man that longs for the good old days when men could be men and yada yada. Maybe I'm just confusing him with the character he played in 'Gran Torino'. Or maybe I assumed he shared some of the character's sentiments because of the sympathetic way the character was shown. I just was not surprised when it was revealed to me at the end of the movie that it was directed by Eastwood. 'Cause I was questioning who would make this seemingly right-wing wet dream of a movie as I watched it. 'Cause hollywood is pretty liberal.

Then it all made sense when I saw it was Eastwood.

[Cassius Clay]

Lol..yeah, there's that too

[Cassius Clay]

One of the other issues I tried to bring up with my friends(which expands on one of Liszt's points about the humanity of the US soldiers) was that the Muslim people were used to prop up and center the humanity of the main character. You did not see the same kind of nuanced humanity and depth in the Muslim people as you did with the US soldiers. They were mostly portrayed as one-dimensional, disposable "savages"(which there is a rich history of in Western film portrayals of Muslims...where Muslims are killed like flies by an American hero). So, they were dehumanized on that level, then on top of that, they were dehumanized on another level when they were being used as props to stress the humanity of the main American characters. Muslims were willing to easily kill/threaten their own children and/or sacrifice them, while the main character is deeply troubled at the thought, desperately trying to save children, or deeply traumatized when he is forced to kill a Muslim child to protect his men. And you can't ignore the historical intents and consequences of that by simply saying the story is from his point-of-view. This is also a classic form of propaganda...to frame oppression/aggression as benevolent white heroes trying to save subhuman savages...to justify/obscure the truth of their terrible actions.