The Big Picture: American Sniper Sucks (And It's Okay To Admit That)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
There a few users here and there who complain about leftist-propaganda, but what difference does Bob's views make? Don't some of you dislike it when shows or movies you like are accused of being rightist-propaganda? This video barely even constitutes as propaganda: propaganda usually doesn't isn't concerned with painting the big picture of an issue.
Anyway, even though Bob is opposed to the wars and recent Republican-Conservative politics, that's not his complaint. From Bob's point of view, the film would have benefited by being more daring and insightful about the subject on which it is about. Personally, I think that after all these years, there hasn't been a definitive film or movie which stands as an effective commentary upon the post-9/11 period and the two wars. When are we going to see our modern equivalent of Paths of Glory or Dr. Strangelove?
I want to see a film which gets right into the heart of darkness of the period we live in, but not a strictly serious and idealized melodrama. I want to see everyone covered: the nationalists, the soldiers, the innocent bystanders, the not-so innocent bystanders, the demagogues, the fanatics, the practitioners of total warfare, the leaders, and the few people who try to make things better. I want to see Full Metal Jacket crossed with the morality fables of Arabian Nights and Kipling, and combined with the archetypes of Gilgamesh. An existentialist and naturalist response to Lawrence of Arabia whose goals or ethics or not clear.
I want to something based on the wars that unlike any other before, and it still has yet to be made
P.S. I'm rather confused why Bob thinks that the King's Speech is a bad movie. It came out of nowhere, but I guess this goes to show that I can get confused by some of Bob's opinions too.
Anyway, even though Bob is opposed to the wars and recent Republican-Conservative politics, that's not his complaint. From Bob's point of view, the film would have benefited by being more daring and insightful about the subject on which it is about. Personally, I think that after all these years, there hasn't been a definitive film or movie which stands as an effective commentary upon the post-9/11 period and the two wars. When are we going to see our modern equivalent of Paths of Glory or Dr. Strangelove?
I want to see a film which gets right into the heart of darkness of the period we live in, but not a strictly serious and idealized melodrama. I want to see everyone covered: the nationalists, the soldiers, the innocent bystanders, the not-so innocent bystanders, the demagogues, the fanatics, the practitioners of total warfare, the leaders, and the few people who try to make things better. I want to see Full Metal Jacket crossed with the morality fables of Arabian Nights and Kipling, and combined with the archetypes of Gilgamesh. An existentialist and naturalist response to Lawrence of Arabia whose goals or ethics or not clear.
I want to something based on the wars that unlike any other before, and it still has yet to be made
P.S. I'm rather confused why Bob thinks that the King's Speech is a bad movie. It came out of nowhere, but I guess this goes to show that I can get confused by some of Bob's opinions too.
Eat too many Sour Grapes?
By Bobs logic we should Idealize Norman Osborn and Lex Luther as American Presidents above and beyond Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.
Bobs critic would only be valid if American Sniper was a complete fiction. However, it is a non fiction, and a biography. By those two qualifiers it is limited in what it can do. But then because it contradicts Bobs world view, and he wants to lead a mob to burn it to the ground Bobs gotten a little offended that the Mob doesn't agree with him, and would rather defend it from his Witch Hunt.
Then this begs the question.
Why waste an entire episode sobbing about it, failing to add anything substantive beyond the first review, and adding a level of idiocy with Captain America that I can only equate it to Anti Vaxers, 911 Truthers, and Birther nonsense. Really, Bob wouldn't be happy unless every decent human being on the planet was painted as a depraved sociopath unless they're fictional and then it would be fine to paint them as a hero.
By Bobs logic we should Idealize Norman Osborn and Lex Luther as American Presidents above and beyond Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.
Bobs critic would only be valid if American Sniper was a complete fiction. However, it is a non fiction, and a biography. By those two qualifiers it is limited in what it can do. But then because it contradicts Bobs world view, and he wants to lead a mob to burn it to the ground Bobs gotten a little offended that the Mob doesn't agree with him, and would rather defend it from his Witch Hunt.
Then this begs the question.
Why waste an entire episode sobbing about it, failing to add anything substantive beyond the first review, and adding a level of idiocy with Captain America that I can only equate it to Anti Vaxers, 911 Truthers, and Birther nonsense. Really, Bob wouldn't be happy unless every decent human being on the planet was painted as a depraved sociopath unless they're fictional and then it would be fine to paint them as a hero.
I respect everyone's right to disagree, but I don't think it was a bad movie. As I have said in other posts, it resonates with me. I found something familiar in it and it was something I knew that many people wouldn't understand. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on it, but you don't understand that life. I will never be a mother, so while I can appreciate art that depicts motherhood, I'll never understand that art in the way a mother would. I'm not at fault but if I wanted to truly understand, I'd have to ask a mother to explain it to me. I wonder how many of you talk to veterans or deal with them on a regular basis. God knows we need the attention and you might learn something you didn't know before. It's very easy put distance between yourself and a soldier, to "be glad that they exist" as though they were a disgusting, but necessary underclass and feel superior about it. Veterans are people: we've done amazing and terrible things, or done nothing of note at all, really. As long as we remain (conveniently) forgotten, as long as you keep us at arm's length, we're disposable and our stories, our experiences, are invalidated. So while I think it's fine to say "This wasn't a good movie because of [film reason]" I take issue at a criticism of the experience itself, especially from those who haven't lived that life and have no interest in trying to understand it.
I think what irks me about Bob's expression on that point is that he understands this concept you're talking about perfectly. I know he does because he's made a point of talking about how his view of a movie has been altered in the past when seeing how people who are not like him, with different experiences than him, reacted to the movie. He said this about both "Friday" (a movie that resonates with me because I grew up in similar circumstances and despite the fact I'm not black) and "Maleficent" when he saw the reactions of some of the women who were watching the film when he went to see it a second time.Kuredan said:
The thing is, he's happy to reconsider his opinion of those films, I would guess, because both tie into his own political beliefs. If women are empowered by a movie he thought was bad, there must be more to it than he thought, right? If people connected with "Friday" there must have been something redeeming in it that he couldn't see because he didn't grow up that way. But toss out a movie who's narrative connects with people who's politics he doesn't already have a vested interest in supporting and that consideration seems to vanish. This is one of the myriad reasons I take Bob less and less seriously; he seems far too wrapped up in his preferred ideology to even be fair in his own assessments.
One can be a lying racist and a hero. Personally, I couldn't stand Chris Kyle but that doesn't mean he wasn't valorous.Cyberstrike said:
I'd watch the hell out of what you describe. Have a script on my desk by Friday and see if you can't get Scorsese to direct. If it's a hit I'll put you on the next Fast and Furious project.Abyss said:
It's always ironic that veterans that claim that they fight for our rights get hostile when we choose to exercise those rights.jacobbanks said:Enjoy your freedom of speech. Hopefully your piece of paper and its force field prevents anyone from punching you in the mouth for anything you say that may be offensiveWestonbirt said:
No, it's the hiding on roofs and shooting people in the back that would disqualify him from being valorous.Gorrath said:
The film is presented as being true, a recreation of actual events as recounted by Kyle. It IS being interpreted as such by the droves of people going to see it. The fact that the film has been the top movie at the box office for two weeks makes the film significant, and the reason for the film's success relevant.Ihateregistering1 said:
The issue that Bob is addressing in this video is that the film is NOT an genuine representation of the war while being treated by its fans (and pundits) as such and that the interpretation that viewing this film is an act of patriotism is disingenuous. It's also relevant to Bob's discussion that his expressed distaste for the film has led to him being called (both directly and indirectly) unpatriotic and/or an oppenent of the ideals of freedom by proponents of the film. I've been accused of liking and not linking films for the wrong reasons, but nobody has ever accused me of hurting my country for doing/saying so.
I don't have much appreciation for much of what Kyle had to say about the overall war upon his return, but I wouldn't discredit a sniper for being unsportsmanlike on a battlefield. Valorous isn't the best word to describe every person who volunteers to put themselves in a country where his/her uniform effectively puts a target on his/her back, but its not cowardly either.Macsen Wledig said:
You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes valor then since your definition would disqualify people like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Roza Shanina, Gary Gordon, Vasily Zaytsev, and Ben Roberts-Smith. I'm not sure what your definition would be but I've a feeling I would find it absurd.Macsen Wledig said:
Oops, fixed the ending bit. As for his kill count, 505 was actually the lowest estimate I found. Other sources credit him with as many as 542 sniper kills; and that's still not counting his approximately 150-200 kills with a submachine gun. Simo Häyhä wasn't just the deadliest sniper ever, he was the deadliest single human being in recorded history.McElroy said:
Wasn't going to post because I felt my comment was asinine but it looks like this entire thread is asinine so my two cents: gotta rein in the accent, Bob. When it starts slipping in, you just sound like someone yelling about the Patriots and I completely tune out.
Several things here:ryukage_sama said:
1: How would Bob know what was a "genuine representation" of the Iraq War? Was he there? Methinks that Bob will only accept something as a "genuine representation" if it satisfies his political beliefs, but maybe I'm just being cynical.
2: To call anything that follows one man (or even a small group) a "genuine representation" of a war is, in fact, disingenuous by itself. Wars have multiple battlefields, with lots of people doing lots of different things. No one's experience is exactly alike. I could make a war film in which we do nothing but follow the Battle Captain (google it if need be) for his/her entire deployment to Iraq. They never leave the wire, never get shot at, and never shoot at the enemy. Is that a "genuine representation"? For that individual, yes. But you show that to a group of Infantrymen who went on patrol every day and ask them if this is a "genuine representation" of the Iraq War, and they'd say hell no. If someone looks at the experience of one person and declares that it's supposed to represent the entirety of the conflict, that's their problem, not the film's.
3: I've yet to see anyone declare that watching (and liking) this movie instantly makes you a Patriot. Likewise, I've yet to see anyone declare you're un-American for disliking the film. Note that there's an important distinction between just saying "I didn't like the movie", and "I hate Chris Kyle the person", or "anyone who likes this movie is racist", which I have seen.
Are you... completely there...? He can take that kind of position because -get this- HE'S A FUCKING MOVIE CRITIC! Analysing a movie and then telling you whether it's good or bad (the "I think" part should be kind of obviously inferred automatically) is kind of HIS JOB. What kind of critic would he be if he said "I think this movie SUCKS... but that's just my opinion, you should go see it anyway and make up your own mind"? About as much use as a hessian condom.Charcharo said:
