 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I haven't seen the film and probably won't—I'm not really interested in war movies, and Clint Eastwood isn't the director he once was—but I am curious about the negative reaction to it.
Isn't a film focusing on snipers an excellent way of confronting society's deification of soldiers? On one level, a sniper is just like any other soldier—his role is to kill enemy soldiers, just in a slightly less chivalrous way. On the other hand, it is essentially the war equivalent of king-hitting someone from behind. Merely showing the barbaric necessity of that role would, I would have thought, inevitably show the barbarity of war itself. But perhaps I'm presuming more nuance than Eastwood has.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's quite a well made movie, I think you're selling Eastwood short, he does war very well (Letters, etc).
In this instance though, we're seeing a biopic of a war hero, through the eyes of said war hero who doesn't hold to any negative narrative of the war. He regrets not being able to save more US troops and is obviously effected by PTSD, but not in the way that a non patriotic, anti war type would find 'comforting'. The movie is very good, and shows the trouble of a soldier in returning to 'normality' and displaying addiction to combat but the moral question was just never there for Kyle, he saw his actions as just and this 'vibe' flows through Eastwood's movie.
The Sniper in the article holds a different view, but never disparages Kyle's, just that he saw things differently while doing much the same job.
I also wouldn't say a Sniper's role is a 'king hit', they're often alone behind enemy lines with no support. A sniper that gets seen is dead, and many end up that way. Chivalry has little place on the modern battlefield (drone strikes for example, suicide bombing as another) |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I haven't seen the film and probably won't—I'm not really interested in war movies, and Clint Eastwood isn't the director he once was—but I am curious about the negative reaction to it.
Isn't a film focusing on snipers an excellent way of confronting society's deification of soldiers? On one level, a sniper is just like any other soldier—his role is to kill enemy soldiers, just in a slightly less chivalrous way. On the other hand, it is essentially the war equivalent of king-hitting someone from behind. Merely showing the barbaric necessity of that role would, I would have thought, inevitably show the barbarity of war itself. But perhaps I'm presuming more nuance than Eastwood has. |
David, try reading the article.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | I haven't seen the film and probably won't—I'm not really interested in war movies, and Clint Eastwood isn't the director he once was—but I am curious about the negative reaction to it.
Isn't a film focusing on snipers an excellent way of confronting society's deification of soldiers? On one level, a sniper is just like any other soldier—his role is to kill enemy soldiers, just in a slightly less chivalrous way. On the other hand, it is essentially the war equivalent of king-hitting someone from behind. Merely showing the barbaric necessity of that role would, I would have thought, inevitably show the barbarity of war itself. But perhaps I'm presuming more nuance than Eastwood has. |
David, try reading the article. |
And David, try watching the film
Seriously, how can you comment without doing so?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
sixpoints
Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Location: Lulie Street
|
| Post subject: Re: Another American Sniper | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/american-sniper-garrett-reppenhagen-speaks-out-about-the-moral-cost-he-suffered-at-war/story-fnk853hr-1227206691479
An interesting article about another sniper who fought in Iraq and sees the war and its cost through different eyes to Chris Kyle. |
That's a salient point.
There is no definitive view/story of a war. There are thousands of stories. Putting one view up and having the full weight of Hollywood behind it will however cement & legitimise that view in people's perceptions.
I haven't seen the film and I doubt that I will. War is a shitful thing and I don't tend to rush of to the cinema to see that genre.
I wouldn't go to see a film about an Iraqi sniper doing his duty either. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | I haven't seen the film and probably won't—I'm not really interested in war movies, and Clint Eastwood isn't the director he once was—but I am curious about the negative reaction to it.
Isn't a film focusing on snipers an excellent way of confronting society's deification of soldiers? On one level, a sniper is just like any other soldier—his role is to kill enemy soldiers, just in a slightly less chivalrous way. On the other hand, it is essentially the war equivalent of king-hitting someone from behind. Merely showing the barbaric necessity of that role would, I would have thought, inevitably show the barbarity of war itself. But perhaps I'm presuming more nuance than Eastwood has. |
David, try reading the article. |
And David, try watching the film
Seriously, how can you comment without doing so? |
To Stui: I did (well, to be honest, I skim read it—but I read enough to get the gist).
To Jo: why can't I? It's not like I'm dismissing it or praising it to the heavens without having seen it. I'm also interested in the reaction to Zero Dark Thirty (specifically, the claims that it justified torture), but haven't seen that one either. I don't think you have to have seen a film to get involved in a discussion about it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | I haven't seen the film and probably won't—I'm not really interested in war movies, and Clint Eastwood isn't the director he once was—but I am curious about the negative reaction to it.
Isn't a film focusing on snipers an excellent way of confronting society's deification of soldiers? On one level, a sniper is just like any other soldier—his role is to kill enemy soldiers, just in a slightly less chivalrous way. On the other hand, it is essentially the war equivalent of king-hitting someone from behind. Merely showing the barbaric necessity of that role would, I would have thought, inevitably show the barbarity of war itself. But perhaps I'm presuming more nuance than Eastwood has. |
David, try reading the article. |
And David, try watching the film
Seriously, how can you comment without doing so? |
To Stui: I did (well, to be honest, I skim read it—but I read enough to get the gist).
To Jo: why can't I? It's not like I'm dismissing it or praising it to the heavens without having seen it. I'm also interested in the reaction to Zero Dark Thirty (specifically, the claims that it justified torture), but haven't seen that one either. I don't think you have to have seen a film to get involved in a discussion about it. |
Well that's the most ridiculous thing I've read here for a while. It's not a movie about snipers, it's a movie about a sniper, and the effect war had on one man.
That's like saying "To Catch A Killer" is about anyone who ever killed someone. Bit harsh when it's about a "clown" who killed 33 young men.
I haven't see it either, so I'll offer no comment on it, but I will certainly watch it when it's available on Foxtel. Then I'll comment.
And I have seen zero dark thirty. i must have slept through the justification for torture bit (it's a bit slow in places, I did have a nap!). I didn't really like the movie, too slow, but it was interesting to see the chain of info it took to get the result, and the raid part was good. If that's what really happened, they didn't go in guns blazing, they did try to keep casualties to a minimum.
Cheers
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | Well that's the most ridiculous thing I've read here for a while. It's not a movie about snipers, it's a movie about a sniper, and the effect war had on one man.
That's like saying "To Catch A Killer" is about anyone who ever killed someone. Bit harsh when it's about a "clown" who killed 33 young men. |
It's always a fraught exercise to say what a film is "about", but I'd say that many films are both about a specific subject and about the subject in general. For instance, Saving Private Ryan is about a specific incident in World War 2, but it's also about America's involvement in World War 2 and, simultaneously, about all wars.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Have you seen "last survivor?"
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Have to confess I haven't—as I was saying, I'm not really into the war genre. Haven't even gotten around to seeing classics like Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now yet!
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ah, so really, you don't "know" which war films are about war, and which are really a romance or drama, with war as a backdrop? Or which are a biography about one person who happened to spend part of their life in a war?
Seen psycho ? Rear window?
I'll give you a hint, psycho is not hotel marigold, and rear window ain't about building an apartment!
War equivalent of King hitting someone from behind! Sheesh no wonder returned service men and woman have a hard time with attitudes like that out there.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Ah, so really, you don't "know" which war films are about war, and which are really a romance or drama, with war as a backdrop? Or which are a biography about one person who happened to spend part of their life in a war? |
You seem to think we're arguing, but this is exactly my point: what a film is "about" can't necessarily be boiled down to a narrative or genre label. As you say, two "war" films can have entirely different intentions.
As for my king-hitting analogy, I thought it was fair enough. How would you describe the act of picking off enemy soldiers from a hidden location? Heroic? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
As opposed to dropping a bomb on them from 30,000 feet in the air? Or firing artillery? Or piloting a drone and firing a hellfire missile at a tank?
A sniper has to look his target in the eyes when he pulls the trigger, there is no divorcing the death from his action. Even an infantryman might no see who he kills, but a sniper knows, 100% that he has killed the man and he has to watch him die.
Sometimes you should think things through a bit more David, usually you do but I guess we've all got our blind spots. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I never said king-hitting someone from behind couldn't be traumatising. 
But yes, granted that there are many other war roles that are equally dehumanising if not more so.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
