Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

As best as I can tell, the movie American Sniper is being turned into a hate film by the liberal media

Springfield

By Springfield
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted

 

Not angling at anything.  Just stating he is a liberal political activist.  Not sure the OP declared him as liberal media, he did give two liberals and referenced news outlets as well.

 

Also the "not knowing what liberal media is".

 

When a thread is started with a premise we all get, but then we get into the semantics of well MM isn't part of the media, or the declarations that there is no such thing as media bias, well you kind are the ones angling.

 

You understand what point the OP is trying to make, but play the liberal games....

 

 

I've seen the comments by both Michael Moore and Seth Rogen.  Michael Moore tweeted:

 

"My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. "We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse."

 

 

Seth Rogen tweeted:

"American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that's showing in the third act of Inglorious Basterds."  That's a reference to a Nazi propaganda film shown in the background of a scene in Quentin Tarantino's movie.

 

 

I'm not sure what the OP was referring to when he wrote "Seeing all these... news outlets speaking out against [the film] leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  What news outlets is he referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm not sure what the OP was referring to when he wrote "Seeing all these... news outlets speaking out against [the film] leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What news outlets is he referring to?

Several news organizations might have been a stretch. Buzzfeed, among others have linked to the tweets that SHF posted basically claiming that this movie compelled them to write such insensitive things.

As I stated in the thread title. I feel like this is still in the process of being turned into "a thing".

Largely due to the subject matter and popularity of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

I know MM called Kyle a coward. Not sure what Rogan said. There was also a piece written in some magazine where the author blasted it, but admitted he hadn't seen it yet.

 

Many people find a snipers work offensive,it tends to bring war down to a more personal level they are uncomfortable with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I think that the people who come out of this movie or use this movie as an excuse to make bigoted attacks against Muslims deserve criticism. However, I don't think one can justify the claim that this movie caused that response.  Therefore, those blaming the movie for provoking hate are misguided.

 

Art is a reflection of us. Sometimes what is reflected is good, other times bad, but often the art we see is not the artist's intent but the baggage we bring along with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RVAbrendan

RVAbrendan

Posted
Posted

All war movies are kinda propaganda movies to a certain degree.  This tends to rub some people the wrong way.  They can express their opinions.  Also, Mike Huckabee thinks Beyonce is destroying the moral fabric of America's youth.

 

And all of this means….nothing.  Go see the movie if you want to, or don't.  Listen to Beyonce if you want to, or don't.

 

Quoted for emphasis. I'm a liberal dude and love war movies. You have to come at it from a different point of view...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
Posted

No clue either. I guess part of me thinks it could be something like: "oh great, here's a movie called 'American Sniper' directed by a guy who rambled at an empty chair during the RNC, pretending it was Obama." It doesn't sound like the movie was particularly insensitive so I wonder if it's just the typical polarization due to Eastwood directing. Haven't seen it yet myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpyaks3

jpyaks3

Posted
Posted

I mean I think its important to delineate the film from the man. Chris Kyle was not exactly a saint and when dealing with something with so much nuance it's extremely easy to have people run with whatever interpretation they want (think Dave Chapelle bit) so it is difficult to sift through all of that to analyze the film itself. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/real-american-sniper-hate-filled-killer-why-patriots-calling-hero-chris-kyle

 


But however effective it is as a piece of cinema, even a cursory look into the film’s backstory – and particularly the public reaction to its release – raises disturbing questions about which stories we choose to codify into truth, and whose, and why, and the messy social costs of transmogrifying real life into entertainment.

Kyle reportedly described killing as “fun”, something he “loved”; he was unwavering in his belief that everyone he shot was a “bad guy”. “I hate the damn savages,” he wrote. “I couldn’t give a flying **** about the Iraqis.” He bragged about murdering looters during Hurricane Katrina, though that was never substantiated.

...

As Laura Miller wrote in Salon: “In Kyle’s version of the Iraq war, the parties consisted of Americans, who are good by virtue of being American, and fanatic Muslims whose ‘savage, despicable evil’ led them to want to kill Americans simply because they are Christians.”

Adds Scott Foundas at Variety: “Chris Kyle saw the world in clearly demarcated terms of good and evil, and American Sniper suggests that such dichromatism may have been key to both his success and survival; on the battlefield, doubt is akin to death.”

Eastwood, on the other hand, Foundas says, “sees only shades of gray”, and American Sniper is a morally ambiguous, emotionally complex film. But there are a lot of Chris Kyles in the world, and the chasm between Eastwood’s intent and his audience’s reception touches on the old Chappelle’s Show conundrum: a lot of white people laughed at Dave Chappelle’s rapier racial satire for the wrong reasons, in ways that may have actually exacerbated stereotypes about black people in the minds of intellectual underachievers. Is that Chappelle’s fault? Should he care?

Likewise, much of the US right wing appears to have seized upon American Sniperwith similarly shallow comprehension – treating it with the same unconsidered, rah-rah reverence that they would the national anthem or the flag itself. Only a few weeks into its release, the film has been flattened into a symbol to serve the interests of an ideology that, arguably, runs counter to the ethos of the film itself. How much, if at all, should Eastwood concern himself with fans who misunderstand and misuse his work? If he, intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle – who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people – is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation? Is he a propagandist if people use his work as propaganda?

That question came to the fore last week on Twitter when several liberal journalists drew attention to Kyle’s less Oscar-worthy statements. “Chris Kyle boasted of looting the apartments of Iraqi families in Fallujah,” wrote author and former Daily Beast writer Max Blumenthal. “Kill every male you see,” Rania Khalek quoted, calling Kyle an “American psycho”.

....

There is no room for the idea that Kyle might have been a good soldier but a bad guy; or a mediocre guy doing a difficult job badly; or a complex guy in a bad war who convinced himself he loved killing to cope with an impossible situation; or a straight-up serial killer exploiting an oppressive system that, yes, also employs lots of well-meaning, often impoverished, non-serial-killer people to do oppressive things over which they have no control. Or that Iraqis might be fully realised human beings with complex inner lives who find joy in food and sunshine and family, and anguish in the murders of their children. Or that you can support your country while thinking critically about its actions and its citizenry. Or that many truths can be true at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjah

mjah

Posted
Posted
  

 

Also the "not knowing what liberal media is".

 

When a thread is started with a premise we all get, but then we get into the semantics of well MM isn't part of the media, or the declarations that there is no such thing as media bias, well you kind are the ones angling.

 

You understand what point the OP is trying to make, but play the liberal games....

 

It is easy to understand what point he might be trying to make.  Trying being the operative word.  No games are needed.

 

It's just that the attempted point in question is ridiculous, particularly in this case.  

 

To someone who accepts as preordained fact the goofy notion of a hopelessly directional "liberal media," there will be frustration upon seeing that the majority of people specifically addressing the "liberal media" thing as claimed in this thread are (correctly) dismissive.

 

Lord knows, everyone understands the idea.  I believe it's safe to say we all get the idea of the Easter bunny, too.  But age and experience tend to reveal the vaporous nature of both concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chipwhich

chipwhich

Posted
Posted

 

  

 

 

It is easy to understand what point he might be trying to make.  Trying being the operative word.  No games are needed.

 

It's just that the attempted point in question is ridiculous, particularly in this case.  

 

To someone who accepts as preordained fact the goofy notion of a hopelessly directional "liberal media," there will be frustration upon seeing that the majority of people specifically addressing the "liberal media" thing as claimed in this thread are (correctly) dismissive.

 

Lord knows, everyone understands the idea.  I believe it's safe to say we all get the idea of the Easter bunny, too.  But age and experience tend to reveal the vaporous nature of both concepts.

 

 

Great so the comments about not knowing that Seth Rogan or MM were part of the media were unnecessary.  With regards to media bias, there is liberal media and conservative media.  I never understood why either side gets offended when there are clearly biased media outlets on both sides.

 

The topic of the thread would better be focused on the liberal social media war, vise the news outlets.  But again, because the OP is poorly formed, instead of focusing on the subject with regards to the liberals attacking the film, it's all focused on whether or not there is a liberal media, or proclamations about the semantics of the OP....gotta love the tailgate.  :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

  With regards to media bias, there is liberal media and conservative media.  I never understood why either side gets offended when there are clearly biased media outlets on both sides..  :wacko:

 

Probably because the liberal media gets unfairly conflated with anything that's not the conservative media. For example, Daily Kos, Huff Post, and MSNBC can probably be fairly labeled "liberal media"  NPR, CBS, CNN less so.  Yet people love to believe or at least call  NPR and network news agenda based propaganda networks

 

By confusing "mainstream" with extremist liberal, conservative pundits have forged a false dichotomy as they try to draw the battle lines between the us's and thems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chipwhich

chipwhich

Posted
Posted

By confusing "mainstream" with extremist liberal, conservative pundits have forged a false dichotomy as they try to draw the battle lines between the us's and thems.

 

Just as the libs think every republican watches fox news and attends tea party rallies in their spare time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

What if it's just a meh movie?

I've heard it's quite good.  Same controversy as Selma actually.  Historical movies that compromise accuracy for the storytellers arc. I can see that as being a fair complaint although I do chide the critics b/c these are academic papers or even documentaries. There's no pretense that these are "true" and scholarly depictions, but rather are meant for entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted

It's pretty sad that people who spend no time whatsoever in war situations are deciding what kind of human being Kyle is. The guy did his job and did it well.

 

I don't know ANYHTING about this guy, or this movie, so i have no opinion one way or the other on either yet....

 

but i think its pretty sad that you think people have to have been in war situations to "decide what kind of human being somebody is"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

I've heard it's quite good.  Same controversy as Selma actually.  Historical movies that compromise accuracy for the storytellers arc. I can see that as being a fair complaint although I do chide the critics b/c these are academic papers or even documentaries. There's no pretense that these are "true" and scholarly depictions, but rather are meant for entertainment.

 

 

As long as they don't abandon pure factual accuracy for storytelling as much as Oliver Stone did for "JFK," then we all should accept this as a reasonable part of the art of film making.   There is no "objective truth" in this sort of situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chipwhich

chipwhich

Posted
Posted

As long as they don't abandon pure factual accuracy for storytelling as much as Oliver Stone did for "JFK," then we all should accept this as a reasonable part of the art of film making.   There is no "objective truth" in this sort of situation.

 

I have seen the movie, I don't think the film is that deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor703

Taylor703

Posted
Posted

I don't know ANYHTING about this guy, or this movie, so i have no opinion one way or the other on either yet....

but i think its pretty sad that you think people have to have been in war situations to "decide what kind of human being somebody is"

Calling a guy who served four tours and put his life on the line over and over again an "American psycho" is absurd. People suck, that's really all there is to it anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...