|
The wife and I are planning to go see this movie. I keep hearing great things about it. One article even quoted a critic as saying it was one of the best pro-war and best anti-war films in a long time.
Not to mention, I'm a long time fan of Clint Eastwood. As well, Bradley Cooper has really been growing on me.
So, has anyone around here seen it? Or plan on seeing it?
Saw it about a month ago via screener.
Its a fairly solid flick with the real standout being Bradley Cooper's performance. It's also one of the better Clint Eastwood movies in a long while.
It does depict Chris Kyle in a more human light than his interviews did and book does and shows the toll being in a constant warrior mindset takes on the human psyche.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Best movie I've seen in a long time. Bradly Cooper gives a really nuanced performance, often conveying different emotions through nonverbals from what the character is saying.
It really is one of those films where some people are going to see what they want in it. I think it really makes you think about the war and what impact it has had.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Best movie I've seen in a long time. Bradly Cooper gives a really nuanced performance, often conveying different emotions through nonverbals from what the character is saying.
It really is one of those films where some people are going to see what they want in it. I think it really makes you think about the war and what impact it has had.
Agreed. I'm not a huge fan of actual war and actual violence having never been to war but having seen actual violence (stabbings, shootings beatings) I like the focus on what being submerged in that environment does to a person. The question of why a person puts themselves in that kind of environment and what they tell themselves the reasons is as opposed to what the reason actually might be.
People are going to bring their own world view and biases into the movie with them of course. I saw it as an anti-war movie because I value my humanity and dont like the idea of it being stripped from me for ANY reason.
But that's just my view on it.
Perhaps it is PRO-Veteran and anti-war?
|
It is def. pro-veteran but I didn't think it was anti-war. In the book he makes it very clear that he was pro-war and leaned very much to the right. In the movie they have toned that down a bunch and just concentrated on his experiences. Whether or not that is a good thing is up to the viewer to decide.
|
Seen yesterday. Solid war themed movie, with an impressive performance by the lead actor (and I didn't imagine in the least he could be so physically imposing).
Check the audio of the theatre you're going to, some scenes could lead to permanent hearing impairment.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Best movie I've seen in a long time. Bradly Cooper gives a really nuanced performance, often conveying different emotions through nonverbals from what the character is saying.
It really is one of those films where some people are going to see what they want in it. I think it really makes you think about the war and what impact it has had.
Very well said.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw it as an anti-war movie because I value my humanity and dont like the idea of it being stripped from me for ANY reason.
I'd like to think that most people value their humanity (however that is defined). I'd also like to think that most people who are seen as "pro-war" are, much like me, simply accepting of the idea that it is a necessary evil - to defend against those trying to hurt you, and or to bring someone who is "evil" (for example someone committing obvious crimes against humanity) to justice.
Pro-war, in my definition, has less to do with the need or necessity for war as it does the EAGERNESS and zealousness with which one does so. Couple that with the casual dehumanization and racism toward an enemy and a lot of pro-war types just leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
I don't doubt the need to check our enemies. I used to work right on 34th and Park (I'm still with the same company just across the street now) so I saw what happened to the World Trade Center from my office window and not through the prism of CNN or FOX. We were 22 floors up and it was beautiful, sunny day and had a clear unobstructed view of of everything including the collapse of both towers.
So believe me, someone hit my city and I wanted TO HIT BACK. But I wanted to hit the RIGHT people. Going into Afghanistan I was all for. Going into Iraq? Not so much. But I clearly remember how crazy it was in this country and especially in NYC when people pretty much were turning on ANYONE they thought might be Muslim.
I'm not Pro-War because i know and understand there's a human cost on both sides of the equation and look at that not through the lens of detachment like some math problem to be solved. That being said, if someone starts kicking you in the teeth? Youre more than within your rights to reach up and break that d00d's leg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as an addendum, I grew up with a lot of people who either let the system drag them into poverty or joined the military. At that point I think I had maybe 5 - 6 friends and / or family who were either active military or had signed up including my younger sister.
I was afraid for their safety and lives. I was afraid that they wer fighting an unnecessary war for oil, nation building and profit. If they were fighting solely in Afghanistan I guess I might have felt better about it. Thankfully all of my friends and family made it through okay. But at the time one of my son's best friends/classmates lost his dad in Afghanistan when they were in 1st or 2nd grade. So that was heartbreaking.
I respect our fighting forces. I respect what they do. But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.
Thanks for the feedback, folks!
I pre-ordered my tickets (just in case) for the wife and I. We're going to go to an Alamo Drafthouse to see it. Those places are really cool - dinner and a movie, combined in one!
I LOVE the Drafthouse!
We have one here in New York but it's up in Yonkers and I'm in Queens. BUt whenever I can convince my Brother in law to drive up there for a movie?? We Go.
Hell, they're showing Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors tonight in 35mm. It's a school night so I can't go. But if I lived closer? I'd be IN THERE.
Saw it last night. Didn't mind it, didn't think it was terrible, didn't think it was great. Honestly the only reason I saw it was to talk about it on the show. I'm never particularly interested in these sort of films.
Was solidly made, and an interesting story, just not really my thing
It really is one of those films where some people are going to see what they want in it.
Those are the best kinds of movies!
Pro-war, in my definition, has less to do with the need or necessity for war as it does the EAGERNESS and zealousness with which one does so. Couple that with the casual dehumanization and racism toward an enemy and a lot of pro-war types just leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
And that's all well and good when you keep that inside your head and don't project it by assuming that other people who use the term mean the exact same thing you do. Clearly not everyone agrees, as Aberzombie gave a great example of. But there's people on all sides too who do the projecting things, and many unnecessary fights are the result from both sides believing the other to think something opposite of what they do.
I respect our fighting forces. I respect what they do. But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.
And that's fine too. Some may disagree and find those conflicts just. That might be why they are rah-rah'ing it rather than poo-poo'ing it. There will even be people of both views IN the military, those who think it's right and those who think it's wrong, and often both have to go fight it.
I thought Eastwood did a great job in toeing the line between pro-war and anti-war, between mentioning many scandals of the war (PMCs for instance) and not focusing on them, and between showing Chris Kyle as a hero and a villain. I don't know that any other modern director could have pulled it off, and I think by not taking any one position he was very successful at not alienating any core audience.
I thought the movie was powerful and meaningful. It showed Chris Kyle as a patriot and war hero, without shying away from the events that made him both. We're talking about a movie which opens with the main character shooting a woman and a child - and still shows him as a human being. I think, in many ways, it shows the best and worst of war in Kyle. He's a man deeply devoted to his fellow soldiers, but who has virtually little empathy for the Iraqis - calling them savages.
I thought the depiction of PTSD was well done - especially relative to the usual over the top reports we get in the media (which tends to focus on the most extreme cases). I hope that the movie sparks a conversation about the people who are not incapable, who are not unable to sleep, and who are not excessively violent but who are still greatly affected by their experiences.
I thought the ending of the movie was very powerful. The use of funeral scenes and the fade to silence left my theater (packed on a Thursday afternoon!) so quiet you could hear a pin drop. I don't think I've ever seen a more subdued crowd leaving a theater.
Now, some of the drama was a little over the top (calling his wife the second time for instance, and the enemy sniper in general), but I felt it was done in such a way as to tell a coherent narrative within a limited time, and I'm willing to give it a bit of slack.
Overall one of the finer movies I've seen in recent memory, and probably the best one I've seen dealing with the Iraq War.
|
|
But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.
I can agree with this, although I think there is far less actual rah-rahing than most people see. I think if we had more politicians who served, there might be less wars.
Then again, there's always some other a&@~#!% in the world who isn't gonna play nice. And America has been the major force for stability for decades now. That's just how the ball rolls. Before us it was the Brits. Before them, it was the Romans. History repeats.
|
|
I thought Eastwood did a great job in toeing the line between pro-war and anti-war, between mentioning many scandals of the war (PMCs for instance) and not focusing on them, and between showing Chris Kyle as a hero and a villain. I don't know that any other modern director could have pulled it off, and I think by not taking any one position he was very successful at not alienating any core audience.
This is really one of the main reasons I want to see the movie - Clint Eastwood. The man is definitely one of the better filmmakers in the industry, in my never really humble opinion.
|
Pro-war, in my definition, has less to do with the need or necessity for war as it does the EAGERNESS and zealousness with which one does so. Couple that with the casual dehumanization and racism toward an enemy and a lot of pro-war types just leave a very bad taste in my mouth.And that's all well and good when you keep that inside your head and don't project it by assuming that other people who use the term mean the exact same thing you do. Clearly not everyone agrees, as Aberzombie gave a great example of. But there's people on all sides too who do the projecting things, and many unnecessary fights are the result from both sides believing the other to think something opposite of what they do.
So I though about this quite a bit, and I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone self-identify as "pro-war." I've heard people describe their opponents as pro-war, but those being described as pro-war are generally more like Aberzombie - or myself, for that matter. I.e.: A person who either supports a specific conflict because other options have failed or are not realistic or who does not put war completely off the table (depending on who the interlocutor is.)
I think that if I ever heard anyone self-identify as pro-war, I would assume their meaning was similar to what Shin describes, and I would be very much disturbed by them, and feel compelled to seek clarification on their stance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.
I can agree with this, although I think there is far less actual rah-rahing than most people see. I think if we had more politicians who served, there might be less wars.
Then again, there's always some other a*++@&% in the world who isn't gonna play nice. And America has been the major force for stability for decades now. That's just how the ball rolls. Before us it was the Brits. Before them, it was the Romans. History repeats.
I can attest that the highlighted statement is false. In my country practically every single politician (and citizen, while we're at it) has served in the army. Many politicians start their political career right as they finish their high rankling military career. For the most part, this does not discourage almost any of them from a bloodthirst that sometimes achieves almost comic proportions (so long as you are not on the receiving end, that is).
There's always someone in the world who isn't playing nice, that's true enough. The most correct solution very rarely is to spill the life of hundreds or thousands of people until everyone reaches the conclusion that they are not really capable of bringing the other side down - as has been the case with just about all wars on terror in the past 50 years. The U.S is now retreating from Afghanistan. Are the Afghans really better off now than they were before the Americans invaded? Are the Americans better off?
Wars kill absurd numbers of people. The murder of a single man by another is reason enough to judge the killer to a life time in jail. When politicians make a mistake and start a war they didn't have to, they committed the equivalence of thousands of atrocious crimes.
|
|
But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.
I can agree with this, although I think there is far less actual rah-rahing than most people see. I think if we had more politicians who served, there might be less wars.
Then again, there's always some other a*++@&% in the world who isn't gonna play nice. And America has been the major force for stability for decades now. That's just how the ball rolls. Before us it was the Brits. Before them, it was the Romans. History repeats.
I can attest that the highlighted statement is false. In my country practically every single politician (and citizen, while we're at it) has served in the army. Many politicians start their political career right as they finish their high rankling military career. For the most part, this does not discourage almost any of them from a bloodthirst that sometimes achieves almost comic proportions (so long as you are not on the receiving end, that is).
False? No. If I had left out the words "I think", then it would be false. As stated, it's merely an opinion. One I can expand on and clarify by saying "I think if more politicians served and saw active combat, they might be more aware of the horrors of war and the detrimental effect it can have on participants and victims alike".
And if how you describe your country's politicians is true, then I feel sorry for your country. I'd like to think here in the US, people like that are few and far between.
But a lot of the time I feel that they get put in harms way unnecessarily for unjust conflicts. And I hate that. HATE IT. And I think anyone who rah-rah's flying into war is doing a disservice to those men and women and what they stand for. That's just me though.
I can agree with this, although I think there is far less actual rah-rahing than most people see. I think if we had more politicians who served, there might be less wars.
Then again, there's always some other a*++@&% in the world who isn't gonna play nice. And America has been the major force for stability for decades now. That's just how the ball rolls. Before us it was the Brits. Before them, it was the Romans. History repeats.
I can attest that the highlighted statement is false. In my country practically every single politician (and citizen, while we're at it) has served in the army. Many politicians start their political career right as they finish their high rankling military career. For the most part, this does not discourage almost any of them from a bloodthirst that sometimes achieves almost comic proportions (so long as you are not on the receiving end, that is).
False? No. If I had left out the words "I think", then it would be false. As stated, it's merely an opinion. One I can expand on and clarify by saying "I think if more politicians served and saw active combat, they might be more aware of the horrors of war and the detrimental effect it can have on participants and victims alike".
And if how you describe your country's politicians is true, then I feel sorry for your country. I'd like to think here in the US, people like that are few and far between.
Didn't work for John McCain.
|
|
Even in the US. We've been involved in conflicts on a pretty constant basis since WWII, regardless of who's in office or how many of them served.
This, pretty much, and with most of the enemies being remote threats from the far side of an ocean who are less of an actual threat of the U.S (certainly rarely an existential threat) and more of a threat on U.S political and economic interests.
From what I have witnessed of both current politics and history, no country reacts well to close enemies, it's just a question of quite how bad the reaction is. Judging from time that the U.S has been under real pressure (World War II and the Cold War, to a lesser extent 9/11), it doesn't react in a very humanitarian way.
What it might change is HOW the US handles wars. There may be less control on the military and more control on the press (yes, more control...see what control over the media was like in WWII for example) if more the government were veterans.
Most likely the military would have been bigger, hence more boots on the ground, and probably a LOT stricter martial law and other things in Iraq and Afghanistan (they may have listened to Shinseki about how many they needed in order to ensure order in Iraq and stuff even!).
The other thing, and this is a big difference between Israel and the US...in Israel the foe that the military gets in fights with is right there on their doorstep. In the military, if you develop a dislike for the enemy, and that enemy is your next door neighbor...if you go into politics you probably are NOT going to like that neighbor any better...and war may seem a better option.
In the US all the enemies we've engaged in war have been overseas for the past 40 years. The politicians would be more likely to look at their military backgrounds and reflect whether the cost really was worth it or not if more were veterans (IMO). At the same time, you may have a more volatile congress in some ways. It's not like we have a group in New Mexico calling for us to give away Arizona and New Mexico as their own sovereign nation, and some of those are the same people that he congressmen veterans tangled with in battle just a few years ago.
I believe Israel on the otherhand, wrestles with that difficulty.
EDIT: That said, I am all for the volunteer military the US has, where one does NOT have to go to war or be involved with the vigors of conflict if one does not choose to be. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing to have, and something that every American should be greatful to possess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a very strong class component to it. Poor people volunteer to join the army in greater numbers not because they're more patriotic or whatever other jingoistic reason people want to claim, but because it's a better practical choice - in some cases the only practical choice.
Truth.
I've known a couple people who enlisted. Not one was overly patriotic when they went joined up. That may be something drilled into them afterwards, but the people I knew did it 1) Free College. 2) Good Pay. 3) ONE guy just had a fascination with military grade artillery... who KINDA scared me when I was younger.
And a couple uncles old enough to have been drafted...
Makes me take a lot of the Rah-rahing with a grain of salt.
EDIT: That said, I am all for the volunteer military the US has, where one does NOT have to go to war or be involved with the vigors of conflict if one does not choose to be. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing to have, and something that every American should be greatful to possess.Bear in mind that it's basically a lie though.
It's possible because we have massive technological superiority and haven't needed to throw bodies at an enemy since we switched to an all volunteer force. If we did, we'd have a draft again in a matter of weeks, regardless of all the talk about how the volunteer army is so much better. Technological changes may keep that from happening.
In the height of the Iraq War, the stop-loss policy was used to extend soldier's terms of service past their expected end dates. That was commonly called a back-door draft. The heavy reliance on reserve and national guard forces for overseas deployment, which was not really what any of those soldiers signed up for and not how they'd historically been used, was another way of expanding the military without actually using a draft.
There is also a very strong class component to it. Poor people volunteer to join the army in greater numbers not because they're more patriotic or whatever other jingoistic reason people want to claim, but because it's a better practical choice - in some cases the only practical choice.
once the bolded started happening, I started getting seriously suspicious about the war in general.
Finally saw this movie!
Definitely seems like they were fishing for both sides here, but seems to have pulled it off rather well. As was mentioned earlier, they did pretty good with the PTSD. They also focused on key, otherwise unnoticed bits, like how to re-integrate into society, and how important it is to find your focus. That thing that is important to you, your motivation, and to make it positive. (Chris Kyle's harkened back to the "Sheepdog Speech", he was a Protector. His little brother, his grown up brother, all his 'adopted' brothers in the SEALS and the Marines. Once that was gone, he couldn't get back into his family life and didn't know anything but the war. His only way to re-adapt was to continue helping and thus 'protecting' the vets at the VA.)
I like how the equipment and tactics evolved over time with his tours. Originally they just ran in or stacked guys and didn't know what to expect, were unprepared for the suicide bombers, etc. Later they took it as a matter of course. Their armor got better over time (they originally didn't have the loops on their backs to drag them), they got drones and those bomb-resistant vehicles at the end, etc.
I like how the "If you rush in with anger and righteous fury--but no plan--you're going to get your friends killed" bit, too.
I like how his wife stuck with him through the end and was faithful. Expected the standard 'cheating military wife' slanderous stereotype here, so that was a refreshing change.
I like the how the steady growth of his PTSD and attempted integration into 'normal' society was portrayed. Each time he came back we saw examples of this process, whether it be not knowing how to explain his feelings and experiences to his wife, to being all dismissive of the guy who was thanking him in front of his son, etc.
Some of the other stuff was silly, like "Texas Everything" and the guys squat-running across rooftops when they knew a sniper was trying to kill them, rather than staying low behind the edges of the rooftops.
Did not like how every single native person was a bad guy, no matter what. Maybe I missed it on a bathroom break, but we never saw any on an individual basis who were actively helpful to his crew. I did like the $100K bit, because our view goes from "That's ridiculous! How could they expect that!" to "Ohhhhhhhhh, I see now." Already knew it, personally, but the way people around me reacted was good to see.
Did not like how the PMC thing was shoved in the background, but that's personal preference and understandable that it was done that way since was not the focus of the movie. Still, having your Mercenaries not have to follow the same laws as your soldiers is a bad idea.
Too bad the conversation has long since passed on.
Oh well! *Casts Animate Thread*
So I though about this quite a bit, and I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone self-identify as "pro-war."
This treads into the pro-life/pro-choice method of naming. Both sides prefer to call themselves by positive names, else it ends up as 'anti-life/anti-choice", which doesn't really sound as nice (Pro Death? No Choice? Yeah, good luck with that...).
Wars kill absurd numbers of people. The murder of a single man by another is reason enough to judge the killer to a life time in jail. When politicians make a mistake and start a war they didn't have to, they committed the equivalence of thousands of atrocious crimes.
These seem logically connected, but they are not.
Murder==Unlawful killing. Soldiers killing each other in a declared war is lawful, and therefore not murder. This is one reason they aren't tried for killing afterward, unless they killed the innocent.As for politicians starting a war they don't have to, there isn't a war you "don't have to start". You can be a strict, terminal pacifist and just let your enemies walk all over you, conquer your country, etc, and from your (the pacifist, not Lord Snow) point of view, you never started a war, so it's a good thing. Then there's a whole spectrum in-between 'pointless' war and 'necessary war' where everyone argues for whichever interpretation they prefer.
So... they may have done what they thought was right according to their definition, and since killing in war isn't a crime, they didn't, in fact, commit crimes.
This, pretty much, and with most of the enemies being remote threats from the far side of an ocean who are less of an actual threat of the U.S (certainly rarely an existential threat) and more of a threat on U.S political and economic interests.
Our national Defense policy since World War II has been "Do not allow this to happen again." The same reason for which the UN was founded, and we took a nominal role in it, too, since having options is good.
From what I have witnessed of both current politics and history, no country reacts well to close enemies, it's just a question of quite how bad the reaction is. Judging from time that the U.S has been under real pressure (World War II and the Cold War, to a lesser extent 9/11), it doesn't react in a very humanitarian way.
No country does well under pressure. In addition, since history began, the longer the war, the more desperate and less 'humanitarian' it becomes. That's why everyone would prefer wars to be over as fast as possible. Except the Tony Starks, I suppose.
There is also a very strong class component to it. Poor people volunteer to join the army in greater numbers not because they're more patriotic or whatever other jingoistic reason people want to claim, but because it's a better practical choice - in some cases the only practical choice.
Sadly, it's often better than some of their non-war choices, which presents the uncomfortable situation of it being good for them on a personal level but less so on a communal level.