Dick Whitman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 45,703
I guessing Eastwood set out to create an entertaining movie, that audiences would enjoy, and that would make money.
He succeeded.
Is anyone surprised that the movie version of Cris Kyle and the actual Chris Kyle are not the exact same?
I mean, seriously. Is "Dreams from my Father" Barack Obama the exact same as the real Barack Obama?
Can you tell the complete story of anyone in 132 minutes?
Of course not. But it isn't an unfair criticism that leaving out essential traits at some point becomes dishonest. Let's say someone made a documentary this year about the 1998 home run race. They leave out the steroids component. Is that OK to you? After all, you can't put everything there is to know in those 132 minutes, right?
Whatever Eastwood set out to do - and you are selling him way way, short, I think - most of his audience has decided that the film depiction IS Chris Kyle, and anything else about him or about the larger context within which he performed his job is defamatory. That's nonsense. The film is a starting point, not the final word.
Also, any serious film is supposed to challenge the audience and spark different reactions. You didn't give a shirt when, say, "Black Swan" accomplished that. Now, though, you find it abominable that people aren't treating "American Sniper" like "Frozen."