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

OK. So what? No one is saying that Eastwood is the first to fail at humanizing his secondary characters. It's a pretty common flaw.

 

Don't even get me started on the WWII era Bugs Bunny cartoons.

 

This doesn't make it a bad movie, by the way. It basically takes it from an A to an A-minus, at most.

 

Look up the movie "Max," starring John Cusack and Noah Taylor as post-WWI veteran Adolph Hitler, who is torn between becoming an artist and entering politics.

 

Now you've gone too far. He masturbated three animals!

 

Interesting New Yorker article on how The Selma screenplay was reworked for the movie.

“Selma” Vs. “Selma” - The New Yorker

"A rewritten screenplay isn’t news. Film is a collaborative art, and filmmakers with strong visions often reshape the material they’re given. But in the case of “Selma,” the changes matter, because DuVernay’s depiction of L.B.J. and his relationship with King has become a source of controversy, with figures like Joseph Califano, a former policy adviser to L.B.J., on one side, and Gay Talese on the other. DuVernay, for her part, has said that Webb’s original screenplay needed extensive reworking, because it was a “traditional bio-pic” that adhered to antiquated and patronizing ideas about history and the civil-rights movement. “If, in 2014, we’re still making ‘white savior movies’ then it’s just lazy and unfortunate,” DuVernay told the Boston Globe. “We’ve grown up as a country and cinema should be able to reflect what’s true. And what’s true is that black people are the center of their own lives and should tell their own stories from their own perspectives.”

 

To your first question, yes and yes.

To your second question: apples and oranges. Fictionalized account or not, Eastwood is still depicting a historical place and time. It's irresponsible and unfortunate to conveniently leave out the nuance in order to create an easy hero/villain narrative. Lucas, on the other hand, is playing within a completely fabricated world, and there are few consequences to him depicting it without humanizing the Storm Troopers. (But he does humanize Darth Vader...)

As someone else said, it'd be stupid to say Eastwood was "required" to do anything. But a good storyteller, and a good director, makes you feel empathy for characters on both sides of the paradigm. Characters of all colors, if you will.

 

Is the logic here that mistakes don't matter if they are reincarnated? I'm not sure why Eastwood's failure to learn from others' flaws makes this malady of the movie more excusable.

And I agree that this doesn't undermine the entire movie. But it's enough to keep me from declaring it as a defining, cinematic moment, which some would have it be.

 

Such a wonderful scene. To me, the sergeant is humanized when he places his hand over his chest and stays true to his himself.

 

Eddie M, we're on the same side here. YFappears to think this is a criticism trotted out as a means to find some way, any way, to criticize this movie, and whose defense is to remind us that other directors fucked up the same way. I'm just saying in that post that this is not a criticism unique to "American Sniper." It's a criticism that is borne of concern for good storytelling, not liberal politics.

 

I thought that Dick being a possible bit torrenter was the highlight of this thread.

Turns out I was wrong.

YF admitting he hasn't seen the movie is the topper.

That's just the fucking best.

 

What part of "again" did you find new?

I said back on page three that I didn't see the movie:

And, said it again on page 11:

And, I've made no defense of anything depicted in the movie.

I just know that the left doesn't want to see any soldiers, sailers, airmen, or marines from George W. Bush's war in Iraq to be seen as some kind of hero.

How could someone in an illegal war be a hero?