How did American Sniper become political?

[EVT1]

I have not seen this movie yet- although I want to. I can't think of too many movies I didn't like with Eastwood acting or directing.

What I want to know is what set it off- and why the hell Fox is trumpeting the box office performance as some sort of comment on politics. It's a movie. That's it.

Want to make political hay about it then go after the author of the book.  There are some real issues there.

 

[Green Eyed Lady]

The author of the book is dead.

[EVT1]

Jan 27, 2015 0:07:07 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

The author of the book is dead.

Duh- anyone not aware of that?

The political issue would be his book- not the movie. And just for argument fodder Jesse Ventura won a defamation claim against the man. Might just be a braggart that lived and died by the sword.  But we can't say that I guess. Has to be a hero. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

You asked why someone didn't go after the author of the book. I simply stated the author was dead. Going after him would be pretty difficult. 

You certainly can say he is just a braggart that lived and died by the sword.  The freedom for you to say that is exactly why he lived and died by the sword.  He wasn't all that proud of some of the things he had done and certainly never proclaimed (in anything I read) to be any angel.  But according to the men who actually WERE there with him, he saved hundreds - maybe thousands - of American lives.  When he came back home, he continued his work of helping to save his fellow soldiers.  He tried to save one that couldn't be saved evidently.

I don't know much about the law suit other than it's being appealed.  I don't really care to because it wouldn't change the way I feel about Chris Kyle.  If he told a fib in a book....meh.  There are too many out there who verify his stories.

Certainly nobody is required to see him as a hero.  We all have our own heroes.  You get to pick your own hero - whomever that may be.

[EVT1]

Jan 27, 2015 1:28:06 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

You asked why someone didn't go after the author of the book. I simply stated the author was dead. Going after him would be pretty difficult. 

You certainly can say he is just a braggart that lived and died by the sword.  The freedom for you to say that is exactly why he lived and died by the sword.  He wasn't all that proud of some of the things he had done and certainly never proclaimed (in anything I read) to be any angel.  But according to the men who actually WERE there with him, he saved hundreds - maybe thousands - of American lives.  When he came back home, he continued his work of helping to save his fellow soldiers.  He tried to save one that couldn't be saved evidently.

I don't know much about the law suit other than it's being appealed.  I don't really care to because it wouldn't change the way I feel about Chris Kyle.  If he told a fib in a book....meh.  There are too many out there who verify his stories.

Certainly nobody is required to see him as a hero.  We all have our own heroes.  You get to pick your own hero - whomever that may be.

Ventura went after him and won- a defamation suit- one of the hardest lawsuits to win. 

Other than that I want to enjoy the movie and it should not be political fodder.

And I give you another point- I could not do the job he did- probably one of the most psychologically damaging jobs out there- and I hope the movie shows that- because it isn't a fucking video game- and I feel quite sure not withstanding some of the stupid statements he made that anyone with that level of responsibility is not going to walk away without issues.

Lots of snipers served in this military, plenty in Vietnam- read any of their books?

[deziloooooo]

I agree that one with such a MOS would have a good chance of having some psych  problems after their tour...

I think that it became political for some because there are those who criticized his actions and those from the right accused those people of being unpatriotic and such...being leftest and such..something like that..

There have always been snipers since the invention of the rifled weapons..back to  the revelutionery war here and I believe the Brits had rifle units..specialist , as skirmishers even when the smooth bore Brown Bess was the weapon of choice..actually a holder of the real Brit weapon..the bayonet..

Russia had many snipers, many of the best were woman ...Aim was to take out the important ones..officers and such...Today many go to great training units...camaflogue and stealth movements..caliber up to .50 caliber..special weapons...Actually feared and hated by regular line troops..

Israel just placed many concrete shields up on the Golon..expecting attack by Hezballah over the killing of 12 high ranking Hezballah officers by air attack as well as a Iranian General...Five years ago they lost a LT Col and another officer to sniper attack there..Golon.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 27, 2015 1:53:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jan 27, 2015 1:28:06 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

You asked why someone didn't go after the author of the book. I simply stated the author was dead. Going after him would be pretty difficult. 

You certainly can say he is just a braggart that lived and died by the sword.  The freedom for you to say that is exactly why he lived and died by the sword.  He wasn't all that proud of some of the things he had done and certainly never proclaimed (in anything I read) to be any angel.  But according to the men who actually WERE there with him, he saved hundreds - maybe thousands - of American lives.  When he came back home, he continued his work of helping to save his fellow soldiers.  He tried to save one that couldn't be saved evidently.

I don't know much about the law suit other than it's being appealed.  I don't really care to because it wouldn't change the way I feel about Chris Kyle.  If he told a fib in a book....meh.  There are too many out there who verify his stories.

Certainly nobody is required to see him as a hero.  We all have our own heroes.  You get to pick your own hero - whomever that may be.

Ventura went after him and won- a defamation suit- one of the hardest lawsuits to win. 

Other than that I want to enjoy the movie and it should not be political fodder.

And I give you another point- I could not do the job he did- probably one of the most psychologically damaging jobs out there- and I hope the movie shows that- because it isn't a fucking video game- and I feel quite sure not withstanding some of the stupid statements he made that anyone with that level of responsibility is not going to walk away without issues.

Lots of snipers served in this military, plenty in Vietnam- read any of their books?

So enjoy the movie and don't pay attention to that crap.  It's that easy.  I honestly do not know all that is being said.  I heard Michael Moore had some comments that people took exception to and responded to.  Why anybody cares what he has to say is beyond me, but then I don't really pay much attention to celebrities and what they have to say.

I don't think you really have to point out to anybody - except maybe a 5 year old - that his job couldn't have been performed without some lasting affects.  Some of the things he did were not "made for television" things.  They can't be prettied up.  I would guess that's the problem some of these mouth pieces have.  Frankly, it IS disturbing.  Killing a kid and his mother who were trying to blow up your entire platoon can't be that easy nor is it something I imagine could ever be forgotten.  If he made some stupid statements along the way, I agree with you, that just makes him human like the rest of us.

Go see the movie.  It's worth your time.  It's not a feel-good movie and you won't come out of there with a smile on your face, but it's most definitely worth your time.

[Value Buy]

Jan 27, 2015 9:28:08 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 27, 2015 1:53:05 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Ventura went after him and won- a defamation suit- one of the hardest lawsuits to win. 

Other than that I want to enjoy the movie and it should not be political fodder.

And I give you another point- I could not do the job he did- probably one of the most psychologically damaging jobs out there- and I hope the movie shows that- because it isn't a fucking video game- and I feel quite sure not withstanding some of the stupid statements he made that anyone with that level of responsibility is not going to walk away without issues.

Lots of snipers served in this military, plenty in Vietnam- read any of their books?

So enjoy the movie and don't pay attention to that crap.  It's that easy.  I honestly do not know all that is being said.  I heard Michael Moore had some comments that people took exception to and responded to.  Why anybody cares what he has to say is beyond me, but then I don't really pay much attention to celebrities and what they have to say.

I don't think you really have to point out to anybody - except maybe a 5 year old - that his job couldn't have been performed without some lasting affects.  Some of the things he did were not "made for television" things.  They can't be prettied up.  I would guess that's the problem some of these mouth pieces have.  Frankly, it IS disturbing.  Killing a kid and his mother who were trying to blow up your entire platoon can't be that easy nor is it something I imagine could ever be forgotten.  If he made some stupid statements along the way, I agree with you, that just makes him human like the rest of us.

Go see the movie.  It's worth your time.  It's not a feel-good movie and you won't come out of there with a smile on your face, but it's most definitely worth your time.

Go see the movie.

When my wife and I did, at the end of the movie, the audience was totally silent.

No one opened a cellphone.

No one talked

I had tears in my eyes well before the final scenes.

My wife, who is strong liberal Democrat, said in the car, one of the best movies in years.

This is not a war movie.

If you saw Gran Torino a few years back, from Clint Eastwood, understood the underlying themes and felt it was decent, you will love this one.

Eastwood is definitely good behind the camera.

[Value Buy]

How did it become political?

It was from Clint Eastwood. It had to be! According to the left.

Oprah was pretty much shot down with Selma, so it has to be political.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I noticed the same thing, VB.  Usually, when I'm at a movie there is all kinds of irritating whispering, lights from a cell phone, people up and down up and down, but not during this one.  People were silent.  At the end when people were leaving the theatre, there was no laughing and talking.  It was just...quiet.  Of course, I was bawling, so I couldn't see all that well!

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 26, 2015 23:56:13 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I have not seen this movie yet- although I want to. I can't think of too many movies I didn't like with Eastwood acting or directing.

What I want to know is what set it off- and why the hell Fox is trumpeting the box office performance as some sort of comment on politics. It's a movie. That's it.

Want to make political hay about it then go after the author of the book.  There are some real issues there.

I've read that Michael Moore made some anti-sniper comments. That might have something to do with it.

I'm not sure how I feel about sniping. I suppose it depends on how much you trust the man in the suit saying, "See that guy a mile away? Kill him. See that woman way over there? Kill her. See that..."

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 9:28:08 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

...

Go see the movie.  It's worth your time.  It's not a feel-good movie and you won't come out of there with a smile on your face, but it's most definitely worth your time.

In your opinion, what are the benefits of watching the movie?

[Green Eyed Lady]

It's just a good movie, Virgil.  It gives you a very small peek into what it's really like being away from home and in constant fear of death.  Obviously, it's a movie and NOT real life, but I have read comments from those who were really there, saying it's as close to reality as can be.  For those of us who will, thank God, never have to witness that, it's an eye opener.  I felt this way about the movie "Pearl Harbor".

It's a bird's eye view of the lengths people will go to to hurt others - how they will willingly send their small children into certain death.  It's a bird's eye view of what others will do in response.  I think it's just a good history lesson.  I'm not saying that every minute of it is true - I don't know.  But I do know I've read those who do know the truth and they say it is.

It opens up dialog, if you ask me.  Why were we there?  What did we accomplish?  Was it and is it worth it?  I surely don't know, but it makes you think.  It's a chapter of our history that needs to be read - one you won't find in school books - one that wasn't written by somebody sitting at their typewriter, all safe and sound in the US of A - writing about somebody else's experience.  It's chapter into the psychological issues (not to mention the physical ones) we need to address when our men and women come home.

[mroped]

Didn't see the movie or read the book.

It takes a special person to become a good sniper. There are plenty with the skill to shoot and even kill at long distances but very few can bear the psychological burden to live with it.
I am surprised that this guy gave in and wrote his memoir.

As for anybody to turn the actions of such individual into a political statement or claim of any kind, that's just wrong.
The CCCP did it with Vasily Zaytsev durring WWII just to boost morale durring the Batle of Stalingrad and that was understandable. However, that made Zaytsev the most important target of the Germans.

Nobody aparently taught that the same thing will happen to Chris Kyle, including himself.
The results of his actions were meant just for his psychologist or his priest not for the public at large.
It is sad that he survived a war to die home where he felt safe.

[Green Eyed Lady]

My recollection is muddy, but I do believe that one of the shooting competition shows that I watch re-created a shot Chris Kyle made to take out an enemy sniper almost a mile away.  A couple of guys, if I recall, were able to make the shot.  Most didn't.  He had awesome skills.  Whether or not one likes what he used them for, he did have awesome skills that people who are into marksmanship admire.  That's a bad word - because somebody was actually killed when he took that shot - but it was still a helluva shot.

It's no celebration of the loss of life but just admiration for his skills.  Period.

[mroped]

In my days in service I've seen a guy shooting in competition 2200 m or about 2420 yds using a Dragunov 8mm modified. And the conditions weren't the best either. 3 shots out of 5 in the Bulls-eye. All that skill and he couldn't shoot a duck at 100 m. The duck was alive and that messed him up.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I totally believe that, mroped.  Very different shooting at something alive, I would imagine.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2015 12:16:04 GMT -5 mroped said:

In my days in service I've seen a guy shooting in competition 2200 m or about 2420 yds using a Dragunov 8mm modified. And the conditions weren't the best either. 3 shots out of 5 in the Bulls-eye. All that skill and he couldn't shoot a duck at 100 m. The duck was alive and that messed him up.

moving targets are a bitch.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2015 11:16:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 27, 2015 9:28:08 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

...

Go see the movie.  It's worth your time.  It's not a feel-good movie and you won't come out of there with a smile on your face, but it's most definitely worth your time.

In your opinion, what are the benefits of watching the movie?

I have not seen the film, but from what I understand it deals with the psychological aspect of "killing for good" really well. the men and women that do it end up having trauma from it that is hard to overcome, and it changes the way they view us and we view them.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2015 10:49:14 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

How did it become political?

It was from Clint Eastwood. It had to be! According to the left.

Oprah was pretty much shot down with Selma, so it has to be political.

Clint Eastwood is a fine director.  I doubt many on the left would question that.

this subject matter is touchy because snipers are killers.  the crazy "DC sniper" guy was a sniper, and not a hero in any sense.  so, this is a person that brings out strong feelings about the nature of war, of killing, and virtue.  I think it is inherently political.

[mroped]

It wasn't thatit was moving but the fact that it was alive!
the competition handsome moving targets they were shooting at but at shorter distances and with speeds that resemble walking/running.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 11:58:51 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

It's just a good movie, Virgil.  It gives you a very small peek into what it's really like being away from home and in constant fear of death.  Obviously, it's a movie and NOT real life, but I have read comments from those who were really there, saying it's as close to reality as can be.  For those of us who will, thank God, never have to witness that, it's an eye opener.  I felt this way about the movie "Pearl Harbor".

It's a bird's eye view of the lengths people will go to to hurt others - how they will willingly send their small children into certain death.  It's a bird's eye view of what others will do in response.  I think it's just a good history lesson.  I'm not saying that every minute of it is true - I don't know.  But I do know I've read those who do know the truth and they say it is.

It opens up dialog, if you ask me.  Why were we there?  What did we accomplish?  Was it and is it worth it?  I surely don't know, but it makes you think.  It's a chapter of our history that needs to be read - one you won't find in school books - one that wasn't written by somebody sitting at their typewriter, all safe and sound in the US of A - writing about somebody else's experience.  It's chapter into the psychological issues (not to mention the physical ones) we need to address when our men and women come home.

OK. Thanks for the synopsis.

I prefer not to watch movies where people killing each other is one of the central themes, but it's good to know just in case. I thought it might be another military propaganda film like Zero Dark Thirty, which I haven't watched precisely because numerous reviewers have convinced me it's a military propaganda film.

I strongly dislike movies based on reality in general. They're either inaccurate, in which case I find them disingenuous (and often skewed to the favour of some individual), or they're accurate and they leave you with feelings of sorrow, rage, and helplessness, which is precisely the kind of thing I don't need from a trip to the movies. This movie sounds cut from the same cloth as "Saving Private Ryan", where one walks away hating a third of the people in it, pitying a third of the people in it, and fruitlessly contemplating the mindset of a third of the people in it. I'd pay good money to avoid all three, hence I've learned to eschew that kind of movie.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Agreed.  It's not for everybody.  And you sure don't leave there feeling all happy inside.  No question about it.  I can tell you I won't see it again.  I had a bit of trouble breathing throughout parts of the movie.  It make me extremely anxious and very sad.   However, I am glad I went even though that probably doesn't make sense to anybody but me. 

Do I know how to have a fun night out or what?

[billisonboard]

Jan 27, 2015 15:25:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

I strongly dislike movies based on reality in general. They're either inaccurate, in which case I find them disingenuous (and often skewed to the favour of some individual), or they're accurate and they leave you with feelings of sorrow, rage, and helplessness, which is precisely the kind of thing I don't need from a trip to the movies. This movie sounds cut from the same cloth as "Saving Private Ryan", where one walks away hating a third of the people in it, pitying a third of the people in it, and fruitlessly contemplating the mindset of a third of the people in it. I'd pay good money to avoid all three, hence I've learned to eschew that kind of movie.

Thank you for sharing this. Good stuff for us all to contemplate.

I love Blues music. I rarely listen to it because of the effect that it has on my mood.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 15:37:31 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Agreed.  It's not for everybody.  And you sure don't leave there feeling all happy inside.  No question about it.  I can tell you I won't see it again.  I had a bit of trouble breathing throughout parts of the movie.  It make me extremely anxious and very sad.   However, I am glad I went even though that probably doesn't make sense to anybody but me. 

Do I know how to have a fun night out or what?

Yeah. I'm not quite sure where you're coming from on that.

I can handle drama if it benefits me intellectually, socially, or spiritually, but if it's just depressing, forget it. I'll rent a Disney movie or something instead. At least they end well.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 15:46:07 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 27, 2015 15:25:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

I strongly dislike movies based on reality in general. They're either inaccurate, in which case I find them disingenuous (and often skewed to the favour of some individual), or they're accurate and they leave you with feelings of sorrow, rage, and helplessness, which is precisely the kind of thing I don't need from a trip to the movies. This movie sounds cut from the same cloth as "Saving Private Ryan", where one walks away hating a third of the people in it, pitying a third of the people in it, and fruitlessly contemplating the mindset of a third of the people in it. I'd pay good money to avoid all three, hence I've learned to eschew that kind of movie.

Thank you for sharing this. Good stuff for us all to contemplate.

I love Blues music. I rarely listen to it because of the effect that it has on my mood.

I fully understand the emotional impact of music, and have no trouble listening to sad music. It's beautiful and it brings a sense of fulfillment.

True-to-life movies about people killing and dying: not so much. Also, they last for a minimum of 90 minutes.

[thyme4change]

Aren't all movies that expose the true harsh realities of war treated as a political statement? I am trying to think of a war movie that hasn't made you stop and think about what we ask of our military personnel. Even as a clueless teenager I understood that I was being asked to witness a reality that people don't always care to explore.

[Virgil Showlion]

I talked to my Dad about the movie.

He exactly mirrored the sentiment in this thread: that the movie is worth watching once, but it's definitely not feel-good entertainment.

He also said it really drives home the question, "Why the hell are we even over there?"

[Value Buy]

So far, no one has talked about the story line of sniper versus sniper in this movie.

Both snipers knew of the other sniper. Both spent time hunting the other down to kill the opposing sniper. I have no way of knowing how true this scenario was.

He had a bounty placed on his head because of the amount of kills he made on the enemy

I do know, known snipers, shooting our troops are a priority target.

Another premise here is a sniper is the wrong type of military person. A bad seed, so to speak.

What about a tank commander ordering the shells be directed at a structure?

He does not see the human target(s) and does not always know if innocent civilians are also there.

Same for the jet and helicopters locking in on their targets, or a missle that might miss their target by 50 feet and hit a civilian structure instead, or the explosion takes out both structures.

A sniper sees his target. He knows he is the enemy, and knows that person is attempting to kill his fellow members.

I will leave it up to higher being to determine whether our snipers take out innocent people. I sincerely hope they are not doing this.

As was said, he preferred to think of the number of lives he saved rather than the lives he took.

Some feel suicide bombers are the worst.

War is hell.

Soldiers die.

Every side tries to make sure more of the enemy dies than on their side.

The only part of the movie I wondered about was his phone conversations home to the wife while he is on roof tops, carrying out his assignments.

I would not think this is possible, or even close to being permissible.

[EVT1]

I think Clint said it quite well:

www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2015/01/13/think_before_you_shoot_clint_eastwood_says_of_war_interview.html

If anything this might just be an anti-war movie.  Leave it to the media assholes on both sides to turn it into a controversy.

    
     “I think that’s a stupid analysis,” the American Sniper director growls from New York, when asked about the buckshot his new movie is taking, from critics who believe he’s celebrating war, killing and jingoism.

     David Edelstein of New York Magazine calls the film, opening Friday in Toronto, “a Republican platform movie” even as he praises it as “a crackerjack piece of filmmaking.” Lindy West of the Guardian newspaper bemoans “simplistic patriots” who applaud Eastwood’s portrait of Navy SEAL shooting ace Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper.

     “Pardon me for sounding defensive, but it certainly has nothing to do with any (political) parties or anything,” Eastwood, 84, tells the Star.

     “These fellows who are professional soldiers, Navy personnel or what have you, go in for a certain reason. Their commander-in-chief (U.S. President Barack Obama) is a Democrat and the administration is, and there’s no political aspect there other than the fact that a lot of things happen in war zones.”

     "I was a child growing up during World War II. That was supposed to be the one to end all wars. And four years later, I was standing at the draft board being drafted during the Korean conflict, and then after that there was Vietnam, and it goes on and on forever . . .

     “I just wonder . . . does this ever stop? And no, it doesn’t. So each time we get in these conflicts, it deserves a lot of thought before we go wading in or wading out. Going in or coming out. It needs a better thought process, I think.”