My take on the Chris Kyle thread (for the little it's worth)

First off, in his duty as an American soldier Chris Kyle was a hero. Period, no question, no debate, no discussion of the politics of the war he was involved in, he was a military hero. His government gave him an assignment and he carried it out to the full extent of his abilities.

Now, I do take issue with Chris Kyle, AMERICAN SNIPER. Again, he was a hero, but is he any more of a hero than anyone else who put their lives on the line for their country? Was he any more of a hero than Joe Schmo who died in an IED explosion his second week in country. Personally, I don't think so.

Chris Kyle was a great sniper, but he was also an excellent self promoter. I have a good friend who was an Army Ranger. He was one of the first group of soldiers sent to Afghanistan after 9/11 because he was excellent at finding and killing people. However, the thing with my friend is that he won't talk about his "confirmed kills". He just says he did the job his government asked him to do, no different than any other soldier. I will say that my friend is probably wired very similar to Chris Kyle. He sees the world as black and white, good guys and bad guys, and his job was to kill bad guys. My buddy finished his service as an Army Ranger and then spent a few years working for Blackwater in Iraq. My buddy is never going to write a book about what he did because he saw it as his duty.

Chris Kyle did his job as a soldier, but then turned into Chris Kyle, the symbol of all that is good, and right, and masculine, and the narrative from that part of the story was completely written by Chris Kyle. Clint Eastwood had some tough choices to make, because there are several parts of American Sniper the book that have been discredited as either gross exaggerations or out and out falsehoods (yes, I've seen the movie and I've read the book). Eastwood took the easy way out and just ignored those parts of Chris Kyle. Hollywood wanted an infallible hero and he gave Hollywood and infallible hero, not the awesome sniper who was also no more infallible than any of us in his day to day life.

So anyway, I'll celebrate Chris Kyle the soldier as a hero, but it stops there. Again, this is just my personal opinion on the matter.

Message was edited by: drewtigeralum03®

camcgee®

All-In [28802]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 58393

Joined: 11/14/03

Re: I agree and it does go both ways

Jan 22, 2015, 5:07 PM

I guess I would just say that it's very hard to portray a true story interestingly on film without making a few artistic choices that are going to leave you vulnerable to the charge of making propaganda, especially when it's about war. In the case of movies like Kingdom or Hurt Locker, the war itself is only a context for the action of the protagonist, as you said. And in both cases, the actual campaign- The Crusade or OIF- matters less than the smaller, personal drama. That's especially the case in Hurt Locker, where the story of a soldier feeling exhilarated by war and bored at home could've been told about any ongoing war. The movie isn't a commentary on that war, it's a commentary on one kind of experience of war. And, really, it's a commentary on civilian life in contrast to war, as well. It's allegorical without being propagandistic because it leaves us to decide for ourselves what we think about the fact that war is "a force that gives us meaning" (a quote from Chris Hedges that was used in Hurt Locker, which Hedges criticized as not being sufficiently anti- war), and it says little about the current conflict.

Kingdom is somewhat different because what marks the protagonist as the protagonist is his difference from the other Crusaders. They're stereotypically either religious fanatics or bandits eager to exploit the religious fervor of those around them. Those leading the Crusades are cynical and manipulative. But that's pretty run of the mill, really, so it's hard to blame Scott for doing things that way. His film would've been far more controversial if he'd portrayed the Crusaders more positively. So there's some commentary on the mission itself implied in the delineation of Bloom's protagonist from the others, even if Scott wasn't all that interested in being historically accurate. His lack of concern for historical accuracy tells us that the movie is more allegorical than documentary, so it's supposed to tell us something about humanity in general. But weaving a lot of modern concerns and modern conceptions of the Crusades into the history tells us that there is some propaganda for a certain view present.

I think Sniper probably is more like Hurt Locker than it is like Kingdom, because I don't think Eastwood is all that interested in commenting on OIF. I do think he wants us to understand that the people Kyle is blasting away are bad guys, but I also think he wants to portray Kyle as doing what he does for his comrades and his country less than he's doing what he's doing for "the cause." Another difference is that I don't think Eastwood is just trying to give us an allegory about how war gives our lives meaning, or about the evils of religious wars or something. I do think he was concerned with portraying Kyle's excellence on the battlefield because he thinks it's a story worth telling, and I do think he wants to tell us about what happened to Kyle when he came home because it's also compelling.

But the problem that I think some people have with what Eastwood did with the material is that his message about war isn't clear enough. This is the same reason people criticized Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty. All of the movies show people successfully doing certain things that are controversial, and if you're of a certain mind, you want the movie to more obviously portray those things as questionable. What people don't seem to get is that Eastwood is more interested in portraying individual heroism, or the excellence of an individual soldier, than he is in saying anything about war, or this particular war. However, movie watchers clearly find what Eastwood did more interesting than some other war movies with clearer agendas.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

A thank you to your friend! ********

The funny thing about my friend

This is a good book about those 1st guys in

My wife's grandfather was awarded the bronze star in Korea

I completely understand that rationale.

HTML War of 1812?***

I am a veteran of many campaigns by virtue of my volunteer

I was once a No-Limit Soldier and I love to talk about it.

they call me

Every combat unit needs a medic.***

Well that really sucks

Ok I read your Kyle take and understand....soooooo

Well, I mean, he did win twice. Sounds like you got a case

Re: #twotermz***

Agree with your take...in fact,

Kyle himsef said

Re: I have a uncle that is a retired Navy SEAL

I know a Clemson man that flew one of these in Viet Nam

My only response is a question....

I just don't get the motivation to scrutinize him

He wrote the book

He had a business to run and develop.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be scrutinized at all

Come on man, "alleged fibs"

Agreed on autobiographies

Your 2nd to last sentence may be why some don't talk...

Yes, indeed...

I agree and it does go both ways

Re: I agree and it does go both ways

Saw Sniper tonight and...

Entirely agree. It's just an above average movie.

YOU'VE GONE A STEP TOO FAR NOW, PAL.

too trusting of lady truck drivers.

Did you just disparage Large Marge?!?

Come on.

Wow. Are you EVER mistaken.

Oh! MY mistake.

Pee Wee Herman's shoe mirrors

Well, that was when he was a hero.***

I'm now willing to overlook any previously perceived

wait, the sniper stuff with mustafa didn't even happen?

TigerBoard POTD