Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: American Sniper

This is topic American Sniper in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002102

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-20-2015, 01:49 AM:

After the unbelievable open weekend and the very high praise and buzz, I really wanted to see this movie sooner than later. Clint Eastwood movies have been pretty poor the last ten years but seeing that I want to see as many Oscar nominated films as possible before the awards, I gave the movie a shot. Presented on the 90 foot screen at the Toronto Scotiabank in IMAX laser.

American Sniper is Clint Eastwood's best film in the last 10 years. All the scenes that take place in the United States are vintage Eastwood style, it's the war scenes that look nothing like an Eastwood film from the past.

I thought Bradley Cooper was very good in his role, it clearly is Cooper's best work to date and it is Oscar worthy for sure. Sienna Miller was also very good, before the movie I had no idea who she was or what she has been in but she was good.

Sound editing and sound mixing is where this movie shines. War movies are usually solid for sound and Sniper does not disappoint. The dust storm is the highlight of the sound design.

The screenplay was good and there was some pretty good editing in this film. There is a pretty cool editing technique in the early stages of the movie where the film starts off in Iraq and then cuts to some background story in the United States only to come back full circle to the conclusion of the Iraq scene which was started 30 minutes earlier.

I know there has been some controversy about the movie glorifying the lead character as a hero and such. I did not find that the movie gloried the lead character or sniper's at all. What I drew from the film was that the Iraq War was a tragedy and a very unfortunate event that had some serious implications and consequences. The lead character was a victim of the Iraq war and consequences to him and his family were serious. I did not think he was hero or made out to be one in any way.

The movie could very well win best picture this year thanks to the enormous box office its getting as well as the tremendous buzz. I don't think it was the best film of the year but it certainly is in the top 5. I think it is possible that Bradley Cooper will win for best actor.

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-21-2015, 11:32 AM:

So what was your impression of the picture quality with the laser projection?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-21-2015, 03:25 PM:

It's old school Hollywood craft skills at their best: the script, acting, direction and pacing, cinematography and audio are all done extremely well, the result being an entertaining, engaging and thought-provoking movie. It did not fall back on the crutch of CGI to cover up core weaknesses: in fact, there was only one scene which used VFX heavily that I noticed (the sandstorm evacuation).

I don't want to go too far into the politics of this, but Seth Rogen's comment that this resembled a Nazi propaganda film of the sort Tarantino parodied in Inglorious Basterds really annoyed me, because it showed that he hasn't bothered to watch any actual Nazi propaganda films. Tarantino, on the other hand, clearly did when he was researching Basterds. Tarantino's "film within a film" Nazi military epic spoof, Stolz der Nation, appears to be a send-up of the 1945 film Kolberg, the central message of which is that scorched earth and everyone dead is a more worthy and honorable alternative to living to be defeated. The deaths depicted in American Sniper (the American ones, at any rate) were suffered for very different reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-21-2015, 10:04 PM:

for a 59 mill budget they couldn't afford a "real" baby ... [Wink]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-23-2015, 09:57 PM:

quote:
for a 59 mill budget they couldn't afford a "real" baby ... [Wink]

I read baby one got sick, the back up bady didn't show, so Clint Eastwood said hell with it, use a fake baby.

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-24-2015, 02:26 PM:

Comments on the laser projection???

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-24-2015, 07:23 PM:

$59m is pretty frugal by the standards of Hollywood blockbusters these days.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2015, 11:03 PM:

Pretty frugal? It's downright cheap! No wonder Clint can pretty much make any movie he wants.

We watched this today and it delivered on all fronts. By the end, the constant snipering got pretty numbing but I suppose that was the desired effect. I was surprised they didn't show more title-cards at the end telling what happened to other people in the movie, especially his brother.

Good action all around, especially Bradley Cooper. I guess I haven't seen all that many of Clint Eastwood's directorial efforts to pick out a recognizable "style" of his, but this movie doesn't waste a beat.

As mentioned, the sound mix was terrific. Really good use of the surrounds. The only complaint I had was the trumpet sound at the end seemed kind of grating to me. But that's a minor quibble. I liked the way the ending credits rolled in complete silence.

Side note: We've had near-sellout crowds to it since we opened it on Friday and what's amazing is, even though it's drawing an older audience, the "bathroom traffic" is minimal throughout the movie. That means the audience is riveted!

Four out of five stars from me. I liked Gran Torino much better than this, but as a modern war movie, this is about as good as it gets.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-25-2015, 07:50 PM:

It's been ridiculously busy here, too. Full weekend sellouts, even selling out some evening shows through the week last week.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2015, 12:37 AM:

Everybody talks about the "fake baby." I've even seen it mentioned in Entertainment Weekly. It's a possibility that damn fake baby could undermine the movie's Best Picture chances.... boy, Clint would be kicking his own butt if that happened!

Oh wait, this is CLINT we're talking about. He probably wouldn't give a crap.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-28-2015, 11:06 AM:

If it does, then the Oscar electors have got their priorities wrong.

I remember showing Selma and American Sniper at AFI. Selma looked to me like the promising debut from someone attempting their first full-scale A-movie feature. But, as you'd expect from any first-time director, there were significant rough edges: pacing glitches, some casting decisions that I'm guessing she might have done differently with the benefit of hindsight (Tom Wilkinson's American accent - ouch!), some pacing stutters: nothing to ruin the show, but it clearly wasn't Best Picture material if you were looking at it from the perspective of filmmaking craft skills. She's a very promising talent who I'm sure will be a serious Best Director contender in a few movies' time, but she's not there yet. American Sniper, on the other hand, got absolutely everything right. I have to confess to not noticing the fake baby, but if that's enough to convince someone voting in the Oscars to pass this one up in favor of one of the other nominees, they've got their priorities wrong IMHO.

That having been said, Selma's budget was only $20m, which (adjusted for inflation over the years) but be nearly a record low for a movie that is in serious contention for multiple Oscars.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-28-2015, 11:53 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I have to confess to not noticing the fake baby, but if that's enough to convince someone voting in the Oscars to pass this one up in favor of one of the other nominees, they've got their priorities wrong IMHO.

I didn't notice it either, not sure why you are confessing, there is nothing to be embarrassed about, I was really into the movie not to notice certain things. The fact that people and the media are actually talking about it is just amazing. It is such a silly thing to report in the news.

I am also stunned at how many people (public figures) who are commenting on the movie yet they have not see it. It is stunning to me, Noam Chomsky is the latest who somehow links the mentality of Kyle to America's drone war, he hasn't even seen the movie yet.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2015, 12:35 PM:

I didn't notice it either.

The media just likes to trumpet stuff that is randomly funny or entertaining; it's been happening since time immemorial.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-28-2015, 12:42 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Oh wait, this is CLINT we're talking about. He probably wouldn't give a crap.

apparently a lot of folk weren't too pleased in thinking that Clint was the right choice to direct 'Jersey Boys' either - he didn't give a crap then too.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-29-2015, 05:45 AM:

This was a fantastic piece of filmmaking and was great in a "Schindler's List" kind of way. It wasn't "entertaining" but it was a great look into the realities of war and the life of a man willing to risk his life for his country.

I also liked how the movie explored the different mental states of soldiers from the "just doing my job" types to the "wondering what they are doing there" types to the "on the edge of sanity" types.

I thought that Clint Eastwood did a great job in creating tension and keeping the viewer engaged when, in reality, most of the movie was repetition of similar scenes (since that's what a war is like).

All of the acting was great. I highly recommend it.

I saw it at the Frank Theatres Delray Marketplace in Delray Beach, FL on their "FDX" screen. It's a 60 foot common height screen with proper masking and features Dolby Atmos. Projector is a Barco but I can't tell if 2k or 4k (not that it mattered for this film).

The Atmos mix was really good on this film. During the war scenes, it really added to the realism that gunshots would emanate from a "spot" instead of a wall. The mix also showed off how stupid Barco's Auro 11.1 channel layout is. Some of the most realistic parts of the mix were when shooting was heard behind the audience as the camera was taking us (with Chris) off of a rooftop, for example.

I will give the best testimonial that Dolby could ever get about Atmos. My wife, who can barely tell the difference between mono and 5.1 digital (I'm exaggerating, but only a little) commented on the sound afterwards. She said, "that sound system was awesome. When the baby was crying, I thought there was a baby in the theater."

I wish that Atmos would catch on so that I didn't have to drive 30-45 minutes to hear it at one of 2 equipped auditoriums in South Florida. One glitch that I heard for the first time. When the "unfold" trailer came on, it wasn't in Atmos at first. It then went silent for a few seconds and then finally the Atmos kicked in. I assume it was an issue of the CP-850 glitching on the format change. It was interesting that apparently the Dolby Atmos trailers are recorded in PCM audio as well.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-29-2015, 12:24 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
"that sound system was awesome. When the baby was crying, I thought there was a baby in the theater."

The movie will sound awesome in all formats, its the mix that is important, not so much the sound system.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-29-2015, 01:12 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The movie will sound awesome in all formats, its the mix that is important, not so much the sound system.

OK, I'll bite. Explain to me how a baby crying can sound like it is coming from one spot (as it does in reality) and that be the correct spot (not the rear corner in IMAX) in any other current system besides Atmos.

Explain how gunfire sounds like it is behind you in Auro 11.1 that doesn't have rear channels?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-29-2015, 03:03 PM:

Lyle, what you just mentioned mentioned is just "fluff" stuff where the sound might of come directly behind you vs a corner etc etc. Everyone I have talked to about the movie thought the sound was spectacular, what your wife meant to say was "that sound mix was awesome. When the baby was crying, I thought there was a baby in the theater."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2015, 03:07 PM:

Well now you're splitting hairs. He already said that his wife doesn't know much about sound, so she probably wouldn't know what a "sound mix" is. But if you're sitting in the center of a theatre, you should definitely be able to localize where sounds are coming from in an Atmos system, provided the speakers are loud enough and the room itself is built well for sound (minimal echoes, for instance).

You're just jealous because somebody who isn't a technician actually noticed the difference.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-29-2015, 05:18 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Lyle, what you just mentioned mentioned is just "fluff" stuff where the sound might of come directly behind you vs a corner etc etc. Everyone I have talked to about the movie thought the sound was spectacular, what your wife meant to say was "that sound mix was awesome. When the baby was crying, I thought there was a baby in the theater."

We have seen hundreds of movies in high quality theatres, including many in well maintained THX auditoriums. Many of these movies had great sound mixes. My wife has NEVER mentioned anything about a sound system except to complain about how loud IMAX was when we saw The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises.

The point of my commenting about Atmos is that somebody that could really care less about the technical parts of presentation and is happy if the picture is in focus, specifically commented about how awesome the "sound system" was. This indicates that a "layperson" noticed enough of a difference that it indicates the possibility that installing Atmos can possibly result in more business.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-29-2015, 05:35 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
The point of my commenting about Atmos is that somebody that could really care less about the technical parts of presentation and is happy if the picture is in focus, specifically commented about how awesome the "sound system" was. This indicates that a "layperson" noticed enough of a difference that it indicates the possibility that installing Atmos can possibly result in more business.

Or perhaps the sound mix was just "that" good. Everyone I know who saw the movie said the sound was incredible, nobody mentioned Atmos and everyone thought the tanks, and gun fire were in the room. I doubt Atmos really had anything to do with it, the mix is what is what was important.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2015, 06:43 PM:

Most laypeople don't mention brand names when they're commenting about movie theaters. In all these years I've never heard one person say "The Dolby sound here is sure good." or "I really like that DTS!" (which we had before Dolby.)

They just say the movie sounded good.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-29-2015, 09:26 PM:

Guys, Terry is right. There is zero chance Dolby Atmos adds anything to the experience whatsoever. Dolby, a multi-billion dollar company, with it's biggest advancement since digital sound, messed up the whole thing. God knows how many millions they wasted. Really is a shame that almost completely reinventing cinema sound and adding upwards of hundreds of individually controlled and powered speakers all around the audience didn't change a darn thing. Cinemas installing this advanced garbage have wasted upwards of 100 grand. Not a person in the world that could tell a difference between 5.1 and Atmos.

[Wink]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-29-2015, 09:34 PM:

Hey Buck, have you seem American Sniper yet?

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-29-2015, 09:42 PM:

I sure have!

AMC Barrywoods 24
"Prime" Auditorium, Dolby Atmos

My review almost mirrors Mike's.

Bradley Cooper makes a pretty good "Good ol American boy". I was pretty engrossed the whole feature and my heart just ached for his wife until he came around towards the end. I'll also echo the sentiment "the sniping got old", but agree, that it was designed to.

Also, I can see where people get that this "glorifies war", but they aren't looking past the surface and seeing all the damage that was done to everyone involved. Like Eastwood said, it's quite the opposite.

Sound was fine, but I'll admit I didn't notice the Atmos showcasing quite like I did in Gravity, the latest Capt. America, and the latest X-men.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-29-2015, 10:11 PM:

On the sound issue, some of the most clever and thought-provoking audio mixes I've heard are mono - e.g. Clint Eastwood's High Plains Drifter. Surround sound, done well, can add a lot to a movie. But if you don't get what you're going to put in the sound mix right, where you put it in the playback room isn't going to help you.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-29-2015, 10:41 PM:

Terry can't pass up an opportunity to troll on Dolby Atmos. That's the only reason why he is second guessing anyone taking notice of an Atmos mix. If the movie had only a standard 5.1 mix and someone said the mix was good Terry wouldn't have noticed.

quote: Mike Blakesley
You're just jealous because somebody who isn't a technician actually noticed the difference.

I think Terry is eaten up over the fact his beloved IMAX brand theaters use a less advanced sound format. He can't stand it. So he has to take every opportunity to shit on Dolby Atmos whenever it is mentioned.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-30-2015, 07:56 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
On the sound issue, some of the most clever and thought-provoking audio mixes I've heard are mono - e.g. Clint Eastwood's High Plains Drifter. Surround sound, done well, can add a lot to a movie. But if you don't get what you're going to put in the sound mix right, where you put it in the playback room isn't going to help you.

I'm going to have to check out High Plains Drifter. I have been saying all along, what you put into the mix is what is important.

I saw the movie T3Ken in AVX with Atmos, the sound was downright terrible [Moon]

With American Sniper the sound mix is just that good, same thing with Interstellar. Birdman is another effective use of sound and the mixing is superb. The movies that are up for Oscar nominations are all going to sound good regardless if they are played back Atmos or not [thumbsup]

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 02-09-2015, 11:14 AM:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a comment. The best sound, special effects or 3D doesn't mean diddly if the script is bad, the director is inept, or the acting sucks. Movies are about stories and the crap is just the gimmick to get the customer in the door. I can watch Casablanca, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner or hundreds of movies from the 30's, 40's and 50's over and over while I can't possibly sit through a Jupiter Ascending, or much of the other crap with poor stories and bad actors.

Movies are suppose to be about stories, how many robots get blown up or buildings fall over is just additions they can't make a bad movie good.

If American Sniper was made in black and white with 1940's technology it would still be a good movie. The Director is fantastic and so are the actors. The script is better than good and certainly well above average.

Do I like multi channel sound, YES does it make a movie more realistic possibly. It is only part of whole if the acting isn't there all the great sound isn't going to save the movie. That doesn't mean it wont make mega bucks. Man of Steel made a lot of money but it wasn't the Superman I grew up with in the comics and certainly no where near the movie that Superman 1978 was!

As to IMAX format, I have never been a fan of it. It is just the old saying that bigger is better. I don't like the big square picture or the sound in IMAX.

That is just my opinion take it with a grain of salt and call me in the morning.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-18-2015, 06:50 PM:

So after my winter boycott of chain theaters for the Interview fiasco(different matter altogether that the movie itself disappointed me), I decided to watch American Sniper. Made a mistake by going a week or two too late as it was showing in one of the smaller screens. I figure "OK, maybe the brightnesss of the picture will be good". No luck. It was dim. F you. Regal Theaters (Perimeter POint 10, Auditorium 3).

Pretty solid movie though I thought the final act of the super somber quiet stressed reluctant guy was a little too clichéd. For the record, I think the real life controversies are a little blown up, regardless of the accuracy. He probably did tell some tall tales about Katrina and Jesse Ventura. It doesn't invalidate the excellent work he did in the field(even if it is a war I didn't care for as a waste of resources) and the movie does a good job with the Iraq scenes.

My problem with the movie tone of the post war Kyle is that it needlessly made him a bland clichéd figure in the post war scenes. They just show him dealing with his complaining wife (I know it's real tough on families but don't they understand that their spouses have it tougher). But what they don't show is some of his livelier personality - the same side that has him bragging about shooting people at Katrina or punching Ventura. Not to make a case about lying or anything. But to show that side of him in a non judgmental way where he probably feels the need to keep up the stories and find camaraderie with others instead of the quiet reluctant to socialize guy they show in the movie. That adds a more interesting dimension instead of the one note tone in the final part of the movie. Nothing about conversations between his brother and him after that scene where his brother says that the whole thing is crap? Show him drinking with buddies? Why not show other facets of his life that don't fall in the same old template of the Eastwood lone warrior archetype.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 02-24-2015, 08:03 AM:

I can appreciate this is well done propaganda but it looks a lot like Heartbreak Ridge II to me.
The film demonizes the Iraqi populace and glorifies the US invaders. The "good" Iraqi is included only to have a scene where the "bad" one can show sadistic evil.
Since it's loosely based on a true story, the ending is a bit sudden and disappointing. His death is still in court (murder trial) so maybe they couldn't present any version of it. Kyle may have finally been a better husband and father after discharge but he seems to have really been a fool - he started a business "helping" vets with PTSD and, amazingly, thought taking them to a live firing range was therapeutic... the PTSD affected vet who killed him appears to have (unsurprisingly) freaked out into a flashback and started shooting whatever enemies he was imagining.
There may be a worse place to take someone like that - hand him a loaded rifle and start shooting beside him - but I can't think of one.
Every soldier I have spoken to hates snipers - except for their side's of course. Hiding and killing people who can't see you doesn't quite add up to "hero" for me.
Anyway, technically good movie with good sound, I heard it in Imax "immersive" sound.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2015, 12:50 PM:

While lots of people have applied their own political spin to their interpretation of American Sniper, I don't think the movie really qualifies as propaganda. It shows plenty of horrible things about war, including the main character having to do things that are very unflattering to any "hero" archetype.

quote: Dave Macaulay
Kyle may have finally been a better husband and father after discharge but he seems to have really been a fool - he started a business "helping" vets with PTSD and, amazingly, thought taking them to a live firing range was therapeutic... the PTSD affected vet who killed him appears to have (unsurprisingly) freaked out into a flashback and started shooting whatever enemies he was imagining.

At the very least Kyle and his friend were naive and perhaps cavalier about taking someone dealing with PTSD to a gun range. I know a couple people struggling with PTSD. The sounds of gunfire and even fireworks are the last things they need to be hearing, especially if the condition is not under control. Not everyone thinks PTSD is a serious, legitimate medical/psychological problem. Some people have the attitude a veteran suffering from PTSD can just pick themselves up, "be a man" and get over it at will.

With that being said, other accounts of this double murder have suggested the killer acted deliberately. Chris Kyle owned a really nice pickup truck and may have been murdered over it.

quote: Dave Macaulay
Every soldier I have spoken to hates snipers - except for their side's of course. Hiding and killing people who can't see you doesn't quite add up to "hero" for me.

While it may seem morally repugnant to deliberatly pick off an unsuspecting enemy soldier, any arguments suggesting other forms of warfare are morally superior fall apart quickly when examining the details and end results.

If our military wants to eliminate a "bad guy" enemy target they can do it using a number of different methods. They can have a sniper surgically target that bad guy with just one bullet and know without a doubt if the bad guy was eliminated. Or they could drop a bomb on a building where the bad guy is hiding, possibly never knowing for certain if the bad guy was eliminated, but knowing without a doubt other people not intended as targets, such as civilians, would probably be killed in the bombing. In any method used the intention is still there to kill that bad guy. Sniper warfare just gets the job done with the least amount of collateral damage.

Enemy deaths that come from more conventional forms of warfare (like dropped bombs, missiles, group military operations, etc.) may seem incidental on the surface, but there really is no moral difference between those actions and those of a sniper. The enemy is being targeted either way; the difference is some methods are more focused and specific than others. Snipers are also not the only ones deliberately placing a reticle on an enemy target and pulling the trigger. A "grunt" on the field does it with his rifle. A gunner on a helicopter does it with a 20mm cannon. A drone pilot does it looking at a computer screen. In most cases the enemy won't even know what hit him. The moral salvation in all of this is knowing that enemy being targeted wants to kill you or your fellow soldiers.

Here is why I could argue snipers like Chris Kyle are heroes: they can actually save lives.

Sniper warfare is a very powerful psychological tool. It can pin down and demoralize an enemy with a minimal loss of life and bullets spent. One of the reasons why American and British snipers were deployed in Iraq was to counter insurgent efforts of planting Improvised Explosive Devices along key roadways used by our coalition troops. Insurgents weren't quite so eager to plant remote control bombs once they knew there was a chance they could take a .50 caliber bullet through the skull from a mile away in the process.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-24-2015, 10:31 PM:

quote: Dave Macaulay
I can appreciate this is well done propaganda but it looks a lot like Heartbreak Ridge II to me.
The film demonizes the Iraqi populace and glorifies the US invaders. The "good" Iraqi is included only to have a scene where the "bad" one can show sadistic evil.

And that is beauty of this movie, those who "have" seen it have drawn different conclusions. I came to the conclusion that it was a tragedy for every person involved in the whole Iraq War. I did not find it to be well done propaganda at all, although a friend of mine tonight mentioned that he felt the same way as you.

quote: Dave Macaulay
I heard it in Imax "immersive" sound.

Great choice [thumbsup]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-25-2015, 05:58 AM:

quote: Dave Macaulay
I can appreciate this is well done propaganda

Bobby's post above was great but I wanted to add a little to it. Before you (and others) make this statement about this movie you need to learn the definition of "propaganda."

Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

What political cause or point of view is promoted by "American Sniper?" The answer is none. It doesn't make a case for the US being in Iraq. It doesn't make a case in favor of war in general.

What made the movie great is that it just showed what was happening, good and bad, in the war in general and to Chris Kyle specifically.

To echo Bobby's point about snipers. The whole concept of morally correct killing of enemy soldiers is ludicrous. The pre-Revolutionary War method of lining up on the battlefield like gentleman and shooting at each other was retarded. The goal of a war is to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible while killing and injuring as few civilians as possible until the enemy surrenders. Snipers help to achieve that goal.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-25-2015, 09:50 AM:

Exactly, a Sniper's way of shooting the enemy is valid. It's not devoid of danger. snipers get killed. We aren't talking about snipers in civilian buildings in a peaceful zone taking out civilians.

I thought the movie was above average but not great and outlined my criticisms in my prior post. But this movie being propaganda isn't one of them. The movie does nothing to spread propaganda about the war. The war is just the backdrop. They even have a scene where Chris Kyle's brother and another scene where another soldier doesn't believe in the war.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-25-2015, 01:29 PM:

"Propaganda" is a highly loaded term which, whatever its formal dictionary definition, implies to most people an organized and systematic attempt to manipulate people into supporting an action, viewpoint or policy that is not necessarily in their interest, without them knowing that they are being manipulated, and usually done by government, military or big business type agencies. Say the word to the average citizen and (s)he'll immediately think of Goebbels. It has fundamentally negative connotations, and probably always will.

Jowett and O'Donnell suggest that "persuasion" is probably a more useful way of describing movies like this one. I would suggest that American Sniper probably does have an ideological agenda, which is to make its audience feel positively about the US armed forces in general and that, in spite of all the criticism that has been voiced about the Iraq war, some good did come of it.

But I don't think there's anything underhand or deceptive about the way that agenda is communicated: Clint Eastwood's politics are well known and he makes no secret of them, and no attempt is being made to conceal who made this movie and why.

That is why Seth Rogan likening it to Nazi propaganda is so incredibly stupid. Goebbels went to great lengths to hide the political message behind a cloak of neutral-looking entertainment in about 99.5% of the films made under his leadership of the Nazi studios. You would need a history degree now to decode the propaganda elements of most of them (typical example from 1937) - the rebellious character who defies leadership meets a sticky end, the woman who has an affair and breaks up the marriage of a blonde, blue-eyed couple is dark-haired and has an eastern European accent and a Jewish-sounding name, that sort of thing.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-25-2015, 02:49 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
That is why Seth Rogan likening it to Nazi propaganda is so incredibly stupid.

Seth Rogen did not even see the movie.