American Sniper. What was your take away?

[Midwest88]

As film quality goes (script, direction, production), it played very much like a made-for-tv movie. Certainly not Oscar worthy at all. Here’s the thing, though: the film did not convey a particular message, that was clear. It just pulled the curtain back on a very condensed version of the life of an american sniper. However, I could see that each viewer in the theater walked out with their own take away.

Mine was the toll being a soldier in active duty takes on the soldier and those around him.

For those who have seen the movie, what was yours?

I immensely disagree with the “played very much like a made-for-tv movie.” (Have you seen tv movies?) Still Alice is a movie that fits that description to a “T”, not American Sniper. The direction wasn’t sophomoric at all.

It was a good movie, but not as epic as some make it out to be. The war scenes were great direction but Stateside scenes directing was nothing inspirational. The fake baby was an embarrassment - automatically made Clint’s chances for Best Director turn to zero for me (thankfully he didn’t get it). I do think it deserved some of its Oscar nominations like Best Actor, though I’m borderline if I’d nominate it for Best Picture (it’s a nom I don’t mind it getting). Sienna Miller isn’t as established or as respected as an actress, yet, to get better notices than she received e.g. Laura Dern in Wild despite me thinking she got a bit shafted in praise (it’s how critics work and how the system works in movie making); she was better than the notices she got.

The narrative, for me, was a warrior’s trials and tribulations in both personal and professional life. Many do join the military out of pride and wanting to serve – really nothing more than that, and so far in the book (not yet done) that seems to be true for Chris Kyle, so the screenwriter and Clint got that right.

Many will say that this movie is jingoism and is war propaganda. All art is propaganda, so there you have it. Blue is the Warmest Color and Weekend is propaganda for same-sex relationships and all the moral relativists out there; in fact, those types of movies are incredibly more insidious in nature. Now is AS jingoism? No. It’s patriotic, but it’s critical patriotism and puts the warrior front and center and says “War is Hell. There can be No Other Way.”

American Sniper - B (solid movie, Oscar worthy nomination for Bradley Cooper, excels more than it fails)

 

[7_Sorrows]

I noticed the fake baby too. I agree, the stateside scenes were not as interesting, but it dealt with everyday life stuff and definitely showed the struggle to make a marriage work while one is in the military.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Didn’t notice the fake baby. Doesn’t bother me that they used one.

 

[AllieT]

I disagree that it played like a “made for TV” movie. Also, whether or not a movie is “Oscar-worthy” is meaningless to me…an elite group of Hollywood actors voting on these films are usually not in tune with what interests me personally as a paying customer (and obviously the general public, based on box office numbers). I don’t always need a “message” to walk away with to feel satisfied. That’s just me, though - we all look for different things in the various forms of entertainment we seek. A movie doesn’t necessarily have to be incredibly deep, off-beat or thought-provoking for me to enjoy it - sometimes the way it makes me feel is satisfying enough. I like movies that move me, and “American Sniper” did (“Birdman” absolutely did NOT, lol). “American Sniper” reminded me of the surge of patriotism and overwhelming support for our military that so many of us felt after 9/11, and gave me a little more insight as to what some soldiers experience during and after war, and how much more attention post-war psychological issues are getting these days. I think Bradley Cooper did a fantastic job of capturing the demeanor and personality of Chris Kyle, and I don’t feel the movie glorified war or guns, but it did show the reality of war - it’s scary and violent. I got the impression that Chris Kyle was deeply disturbed at times by what he had to do to protect his fellow soldiers and it was very difficult for him to bounce between the war zone and home life. Once home, helping other soldiers with PTSD regain a sense of empowerment and normalcy in their lives was therapeutic to him, although no doubt it repeatedly put him in a dangerous situation, but he was obviously not one to shy away from danger.

All in all, I loved it…and now I’m reading the book. I was not the least bit surprised that it didn’t win an Oscar, but in my book, it was better than the other Oscar-nominated movies that I’ve seen so far. That’s just my take…

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I never said you did. People often confuse blind jingoism with honoring the military. In our country people take “honoring the military” to the extreme - to point of being jingoistic. Questioning the military in any way is treated like sedition or treason. That is what I was criticizing.

In American society, the military carries out the missions that are ordered by lawful authority, i.e., the executive branch of the government. One can and should make a distinction between the military decisions that were made by Bush and Obama, and our sons and daughters who took it upon themselves to place themselves in harm’s way on behalf of their community.

What the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the U.S. military do is honorable, and to value their work and their sacrifices is not blind jingoism. I don’t really see the U.S. population as following nationalistic militarism currently (or for that matter, any time in our past) - there is as much criticism of Obama’s drone war, mishandling of the Iranian treaty and his military actions as there is of Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and his conduct of the war.

It is reasonable and healthy for a culture to honor the profession of the military that protects it, if it wishes to recruit individuals who are intelligent, skilled, and moral.

 

[7_Sorrows]

In American society, the military carries out the missions that are ordered by lawful authority, i.e., the executive branch of the government. One can and should make a distinction between the military decisions that were made by Bush and Obama, and our sons and daughters who took it upon themselves to place themselves in harm’s way on behalf of their community.

What the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the U.S. military do is honorable, and to value their work and their sacrifices is not blind jingoism. I don’t really see the U.S. population as following nationalistic militarism currently (or for that matter, any time in our past) - there is as much criticism of Obama’s drone war, mishandling of the Iranian treaty and his military actions as there is of Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and his conduct of the war.

It is reasonable and healthy for a culture to honor the profession of the military that protects it, if it wishes to recruit individuals who are intelligent, skilled, and moral.

 

[DerekTM]

In American society, the military carries out the missions that are ordered by lawful authority,

Lawful and moral are not the same thing. Everything the Obama Administration is doing overseas is simply a continuation of Bush Administration policies. Don’t try to separate the two. Neither of their foreign policies are on the level.

And once again the point is missed. People don’t simply honor the military, they worship the military. If anybody questions the military it’s treated like treason. That’s my criticism.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Lawful and moral are not the same thing. Everything the Obama Administration is doing overseas is simply a continuation of Bush Administration policies. Don’t try to separate the two. Neither of their foreign policies are on the level.

And once again the point is missed. People don’t simply honor the military, they worship the military. If anybody questions the military it’s treated like treason. That’s my criticism.

I don’t think that is totally true.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Everything the Obama Administration is doing overseas is simply a continuation of Bush Administration policies.

Breathtakingly mistaken. They could hardly be more different, both in concept and in execution.

Regardless, I was mildly disappointed in the movie. It explored some really complex subject matter, but without having enough time to really quite do it. I saw the movie as a portrait of a man (and a concept) who utterly believed he was right in what he was doing as a sniper. And, we are invited to consider the rightness or wrongness of dealing out death to those who would otherwise kill others whose purpose is to save others. All the same, while the action may be totally justifiable rationally, there is the emotional side of a human being that rebels against it. Other than for the depraved, there is a war outside and a war inside, both calling for moral clarity and no small amount of fortitude in maintaining that clarity.

A tough thing to truly examine in a movie. Seemed to me Eastwood did a good job of it even so, but movies are just awfully short for something like that. Probably one really needs to think of the movie as an intro to the book. Likely I’ll read it now, whereas I probably wouldn’t have before.

I do think the characterization was excellent.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Lawful and moral are not the same thing. Everything the Obama Administration is doing overseas is simply a continuation of Bush Administration policies. Don’t try to separate the two. Neither of their foreign policies are on the level.

So you feel that Barack Obama is simply George Bush’s minion?

And once again the point is missed. People don’t simply honor the military, they worship the military. If anybody questions the military it’s treated like treason. That’s my criticism.

I understood what you said. It’s total hyperbole, but I understood what you said. To my knowledge, no one has been charged under the federal criminal code with treason for suggesting that not every action by a military employee has been correct.

However, it’s important, as I said, to remember that military servicemen and servicewomen are doing a hard job in response to lawful orders from a civilian leadership, under often life-threatening circumstances, and deserve our respect for what they are doing. That is not “worshipping” the military, as we only worship God. I am certainly appreciative of the military, for the fact that I did not grow up under Nazi or Imperial Japanese domination. It’s petty and churlish not to be appreciative of those who protect you, die for you, or lose their arms and legs for you.

 

[DerekTM]

I understood what you said. It’s total hyperbole, but I understood what you said. To my knowledge, no one has been charged under the federal criminal code with treason for suggesting that not every action by a military employee has been correct.

So, you get that it’s hyperbolic yet you insist upon treating it as if I meant it literally… that makes perfect sense.

In the court of public opinion if you don’t support everything the military has done you’re treated like a traitor.

 

[Exiled_Child]

It seemed like a made-for-TV movie to me, too. It’s Hollywood programming.

The goal seems to be producing future generations with no capacity for empathy.

But then, I suppose that holds true for all military recruitment films.

 

[GAHere]

It was a good movie, but not as epic as some make it out to be. The war scenes were great direction but Stateside scenes directing was nothing inspirational. The fake baby was an embarrassment

Well, that right there is where I saw it more as a made-for-TV movie. Even soap operas use real babies! The war scenes were good, but the TV series ‘24’ and HBO’s “Generation Kill” were as good, if not better. The overall pace was slow for any Oscar nods. The story was good, though, and worth putting out there on screen.

 

[mikekle]

Is it any wonder why Americans now treat our returning soldiers with respect since those who fought in Viet Nam were so horribly treated when they came back? Sometimes the public bends over backward but it is to be expected from that history. They were spit on and called baby killers. Those men were drafted too and didn’t have much choice.

I like to see our soldiers treated respectfully now. They have a hard job that needs to be done as long as we need to be protected.

That could change at anytime though, if this ‘war on terror’ continues to drag on for many more years, I would not be surprised if the public started to regress back to they feelings of the 1960s and 70s…people back then hated the war, so they took it out on those fighting the war, it would not take much for this to happen again.

Public sentiment changes over time too.

 

[oneofmany]

That could change at anytime though, if this ‘war on terror’ continues to drag on for many more years, I would not be surprised if the public started to regress back to they feelings of the 1960s and 70s…people back then hated the war, so they took it out on those fighting the war, it would not take much for this to happen again.

Public sentiment changes over time too.

Well let’s hope they don’t do stupid again and take it out on the soldiers. The war on terror may last for many more years so when do we stop trying to defend ourselves? Societies sentiment would change if we are attacked again like on 9/11. Seems that is what ISIS wants and they may do it.

 

[punisherthunder]

It honestly made me want to join up and fight against terrorists.

I’m sorry, but how other people can torture then murder a child with a power drill is beyond me.

 

[Midwest88]

It seemed like a made-for-TV movie to me, too. It’s Hollywood programming.

What exactly do you mean by “Hollywood programming”?

The goal seems to be producing future generations with no capacity for empathy.

But then, I suppose that holds true for all military recruitment films.

Empathy for what? The native residents? The enemy?

It’s always amusing to read comments on CAF when it comes to the military. Makes me think they’d rather exchange guns and ammo for flower power.

 

[Midwest88]

Well, that right there is where I saw it more as a made-for-TV movie. Even soap operas use real babies! The war scenes were good, but the TV series ‘24’ and HBO’s “Generation Kill” were as good, if not better. The story was good, though, and worth putting out there on screen.

The baby scene was no more than two minutes in a film that’s 2 hrs long.

The overall pace was slow for any Oscar nods.

Huh? That makes little sense to me. This were I wish people on here would be familiar with the movie industry and the type of movies that are Oscar nods.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Mine take was very much the same as yours. I didn’t read the book either by the way.

Wasn’t a pro or anti war movie per se-- just examined how it impacted the lives of the soldiers and their families as it dragged on, how it changed them and their own views on what they were doing.

 

[SMHW]

Regardless, I was mildly disappointed in the movie. It explored some really complex subject matter, but without having enough time to really quite do it. I saw the movie as a portrait of a man (and a concept) who utterly believed he was right in what he was doing as a sniper. And, we are invited to consider the rightness or wrongness of dealing out death to those who would otherwise kill others whose purpose is to save others. All the same, while the action may be totally justifiable rationally, there is the emotional side of a human being that rebels against it. Other than for the depraved, there is a war outside and a war inside, both calling for moral clarity and no small amount of fortitude in maintaining that clarity.

A tough thing to truly examine in a movie. Seemed to me Eastwood did a good job of it even so, but movies are just awfully short for something like that. Probably one really needs to think of the movie as an intro to the book. Likely I’ll read it now, whereas I probably wouldn’t have before.

I do think the characterization was excellent.

Your description of the movie comes about the closest to my views on it.

I wouldn’t say I was “disappointed” in the movie, however, because I don’t see how a movie could ever be expected to thoroughly explore the life of a sniper in two or three short hours. It did leave me wanting more insights into Chris Kyle’s thinking. I haven’t read the book yet but it is on my list.

As you say, Chris Kyle was depicted as a man who believed what he did was absolutely morally correct. And while he was shown to take satisfaction in his successes, he was not shown to take pleasure in it. This was in contrast to some of his military companions who seemed to enjoy killing the enemy a bit too much.

I couldn’t help comparing this movie to “The Hurt Locker”.

There are some similarities between the lives of Chris Kyle and the fictional William James. Both are good at what they do and seem more comfortable in the military than they do at home. Both thoroughly believe in what they are doing.

But Chris Kyle craved his home life, even if he had trouble adjusting to it. James was all too ready to trade his safety and family life for his adrenaline addiction.