What a shock: Hollywood pushing back at "The Sniper"

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 shit when, say, "Black Swan" accomplished that. Now, though, you find it abominable that people aren't treating "American Sniper" like "Frozen."

 

Dick, I just think it's funny that the people upset about American Sniper are upset about it for political reasons. They're mad that it doesn't give enough George Bush bashing context. They're mad it doesn't paint the Iraq was as a mistake and a failure. They're upset that it makes a hero our of a sniper.

And, you're right too that a lot of the support is political. That people are going to the movie, and supporting the movie as a way of saying they love Murica.

I just don't know why that bothers people so much.

 

As I've noted previously (and as the talented Mr. Sunshine proves again and again), social media has turned this into an either/or movie: Either you love the movie or you hate the military.

 

It's a movie that puts a positive gloss on a divisive war.

I'm not sure what you find funny or surprising. People battled to the death about the accuracy of "Moneyball." But this film, about the most polarizing American conflict since Vietnam, it leaves you open-jawed that not everyone sees it as "Rocky 7."

 

Would the movie have been any better had it included (cough cough) context?

You could've added 30 layers of context and subtext and any other kind of text, and people were coming out of that theater believing in an American hero.

 

That's not true. The New Yorker piece that drew eight comments here despite the Chris Kyle Fan Club's strong presence treated him like a flesh and blood person, not a symbol.

 

200 million bucks says we needed another goddamn hero, 8 clear-minded SJ'ers bedamned.

 

LTL and Dick are right.

But, the arguments about Moneyball weren't about left/right politics.

This is about a concerted effort from people on the left to prevent people like Chris Kyle from being viewed as heroes.

Freedom loving Muricans are not to be viewed as heroes. For God's sake, I bet Chris Kyle never sat up discussing health care with his extended family while sipping a mug of hot cocoa, and wearing a plaid onesie.

How the hell can someone like him be a hero?

It's funny, I live blocks from a public college named for Malcom X. Is Malcom X the kind of person who we should be naming public colleges after? (Or writing flattering New York Times pieces about?)

Imagine the uproar if someone wanted to name a college after Chris Kyle.

In the left's mind, Teddy Kennedy is a hero. And, if you mention that he killed a girl, you're the bad guy.

In the left's mind Bill Clinton is a hero. The guy that loathed the military, and avoided the draft is a hero, but the guy who served, Chris Kyle is not to be viewed as a hero. And, don't you dare mention that Clinton is a rapist. That's over the line.

It's a shame the Scorsese documentary about Bill is on hold. maybe we would have learned that Clinton felt deep remorse for his sexual predatory ways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/b...e-documentary-on-bill-clinton-is-stalled.html

 

You are not addressing anyone's actual arguments. You are addressing your conception of what you imagine their motivations to be for conceiving those arguments.

 

Because the arguments don't matter.

Eastwood -- especially Eastwood -- could have told the story of any soldier (or Marine) who served in Iraq, and it would have gotten the same treatment.

The Iraq war was a bad war, and it's not going to create any heroes. We're not going to get an Audie Murphy out of the Iraq war.

 

If you talk to veterans, many profess much love for their brother soldiers, but less for the armed forces.

 

Maybe not everybody thinks the world is neatly divided into "heroes" and "not heroes." You are so focussed on a word I didn't hear for about 20 years until 9/11 happened. Arguments about whether someone is or isn't a "hero" are ridiculous.