American Sniper
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Sunday, June 7, 2015 01:32
VIEWED: 12920
PAGE 5 of 8
Perhaps you got confused when you inserted quote marks incorrectly, or in the wrong location.
Or you are not serious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For one thing, those were your quote marks, I merely copied them because I didn't understand your comment.
2. I am serious
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, regarding my critiques or observations. I try not to belittle, although I do nitpick, but I base it on the film itself and not whether it's left or right wing (according to your comments) propaganda. Film technique and storytelling ability, quality of cinematography, those sorts of things, that's what I look at......oh and acting performance.
Like I said, I may not like or agree with John Wayne or Clint Eastwood's politics, but I do like their movies. Their personal preferences in the political arena doesn't affect me in the least.
As for your statement regarding the Lefty leaning Hollywood industry, now I get it.
But, I have to ask, why do you think they allow Eastwood to make his films? Aren't they all commie pinko weirdos? If I was running Hollywood, I wouldn't let those right wing gestapo-loving neocons anywhere near Tinsel Town.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Perhaps you got confused when you inserted quote marks incorrectly, or in the wrong location.
Or you are not serious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For one thing, those were your quote marks, I merely copied them because I didn't understand your comment.
You inserted a begin quote after "drama," and before "acting" and an end quote after "in."
Quote:
2. I am serious
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, regarding my critiques or observations. I try not to belittle, although I do nitpick, but I base it on the film itself and not whether it's left or right wing (according to your comments) propaganda. Film technique and storytelling ability, quality of cinematography, those sorts of things, that's what I look at......oh and acting performance.
Like I said, I may not like or agree with John Wayne or Clint Eastwood's politics, but I do like their movies. Their personal preferences in the political arena doesn't affect me in the least.
All of that requires you to forfeit your libtard card. Your first priority is to identify whether anybody involved in the project is conservative, and then determine whether to use fairness and balance to your critique - always biased against conservatives, always balance tipped towards libtards.
Quote:
As for your statement regarding the Lefty leaning Hollywood industry, now I get it.
But, I have to ask, why do you think they allow Eastwood to make his films?
Eastwood makes them money, so they can spend the money on garbage libtard fliks. Eastwood learned early on how to turn around a film quickly, reducing the fiscal exposure to minimums. Eastwood's time from final wrap to film-in-the-can and ready for distribution is the shortest in the industry - he sets the standard, and this makes the bankers and the studio heads happy. The unfortunate circumstances of "Waterworld" would never have happened under his watch.
Quote:
Aren't they all commie pinko weirdos? If I was running Hollywood, I wouldn't let those right wing gestapo-loving neocons anywhere near Tinsel Town.
SGG
Praise Allah SGG is not running Hoolywood.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is getting ridiculous...............
You inserted a begin quote after "drama," and before "acting" and an end quote after "in."
1. Again - THOSE WERE YOUR QUOTES - NOT MINE!!!!!
All of that requires you to forfeit your libtard card. Your first priority is to identify whether anybody involved in the project is conservative, and then determine whether to use fairness and balance to your critique - always biased against conservatives, always balance tipped towards libtards.
2. My first priority is to live my life as a free man. I am a democrat, and proud of it, and I believe in the Constitution. I love my country and freedom (even for the Don't Tread On Me Society). Having said that, I do as I please, and I happen to love movies (not so much the industry). I enjoy having intelligent discussions about them. Politics don't come into play here, just the art of the storytelling.
FUCK Politics! Unless the movie is about politics, FUCK politics!
There is that clear enough.
Eastwood makes them money, so they can spend the money on garbage libtard fliks. Eastwood learned early on how to turn around a film quickly, reducing the fiscal exposure to minimums. Eastwood's time from final wrap to film-in-the-can and ready for distribution is the shortest in the industry - he sets the standard, and this makes the bankers and the studio heads happy. The unfortunate circumstances of "Waterworld" would never have happened under his watch.
3. The fact that Hollywood is made up of greedy men who's only interest is the bottom line, OMFG what is this world coming to. I think someone may have noticed long before you uttered the infamous words above. Liberal or Right Wing doesn't matter, as long as it makes cashy money. But really, you've discovered nothing new. Of course you have your conservative T Party bias, and that's nothing new either.
Praise Allah SGG is not running Hoolywood.
4. You know, you're really funny. If I ran Hollywood, I would drive you crazy with my Marxist, Leftist, Stalinist, Bolshevik, Communist films such as: Forrest Gump, Oscar, Some Like It Hot, Waterworld, The Postman, The Godfather, The Matrix, Serenity, A Nightmare Before Christmas, Beetlejuice, It Happened One Night, Room Service, It's A Wonderful Life, Holiday Inn, An American in Paris, Citizen Kane and Arsenic & Old Lace...........too name a few.
Ahhhh, movies.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to dig a little deeper myself:
Let me say this, you're right about it being about the affect killing has on a soldier, and that Hollywood has used this theme almost since the beginning of time. I mentioned Sgt. York (with Gary Cooper) as a prime example. He was a born again Christian who objected to killing because it was "agin the good book" - He struggled with the notion of having to kill to serve his country and protect his fellow soldiers.
It was dealt with rather simplistically, but the solution was it was okay to kill because you were defending those that were weaker. Pretty much the same story as in American Sniper. Now is that because Hollywood decided that's the best way to deal with the issue, or are they documenting the horrors of war? I don't know enough to answer that.
But here's the thing. You see Eastwood manipulating the audience to see a republican response to war, a gung-ho shoot-em-up extolling the virtues of killing terrorists. While I see a movie that seems to be questioning the logic behind exposing a soldier to the uncanny pressure of several tours of duty, and the effect it has on his psyche. But too, the affect it has on this one soldier as representative of the majority.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no wrong answer for either of us. Unforgiven is a revisionist tale of how the West probably really was. Killing a man, and deciding if he deserves it or not, is never to be taken lightly or for granted. But it makes you think, even for a second, about the right and wrong of it, the savageness of it. Brilliant movie.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes there is.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
As far as I'm concerned, there is no wrong answer for either of us.
The Iraq War cost trillions. They did the best they could and nobody's perfect and freedom isn't free (am I forgetting any clichés about expensive failure?), but another poorly executed war, even more expensive, can happen once Clint's political party (which shall remain unnamed) takes the American Presidency in less than two years. Remember when Iran was the preferred target of the unnamed party? “Anyone can go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran.” Iran is a big, fat target for the next war for freedom. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,671919,00.html
So that the process can be repeated again, American Sniper is an amnesia inducing movie about the last time a poorly thought out war was fought by America. Who needs a movie reminding voters of dumb-ass mistakes before beginning political maneuvering for the next trillion dollar war to keep America safe and free? Certainly Clint Eastwood does not see that as part of his “artistic” process. Clint is a simple patriot making a humble living filming an antiwar statement about families left behind, he would tell you. http://variety.com/2015/film/news/clint-eastwood-talks-american-sniper
s-antiwar-statement-bradley-coopers-weight-loss-1201414073/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is my original post of 27 Feb, unedited, unchanged, unaltered, unadulterated since it's post. Note the quote marks I mentioned are still not there, nor have they ever been there.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Ok, if I go into a theater knowing I hate a particular director for whatever the reason, then.....................my question is: Why see the movie if you know, going in, that all you will see is a pack of lies?
You bring a very heavy piece of luggage my friend? Do you do this with all the movies you watch?
And, of course, Eastwood is going into it with a particular point of view. If you know this going in, well.....................
I found out about John Wayne's politics a few years back, but yet I still watch his films and enjoy them. Art and politics can be a powerful combination, but they can also drive ya' crazy.
Dr. Strangelove!!!
You are supposed to only pay attention to the politics which are not radical leftwing extremist. All of the extreme leftwing libtard radical politics evident in the "mainstream" or "centrist" film, drama, acting are to be ignored or reveled in.
And here is your post from 9 hours and 44 minutes later, which you seemed to quote me, but I immediately noticed that you added the extra quote marks. I normally don't care that much, it happens a lot here, but this seems to have confused you.
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Oooooooo, so close!
So you're calling old stone face Eastwood a, what was it, radical leftwing extremist.
And what is this clap-trap? the "mainstream" or "centrist" film, drama,"acting are to be ignored or reveled in."
You lost me there with that one.
SGG
Regarding the "choice" of War films, I failed to recall "Fury" when I made that post - it was on the fringe of my recall, but I couldn't grasp it at the time. More poignant than I expected.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I'm going to dig a little deeper myself:
While I see a movie that seems to be questioning the logic behind exposing a soldier to the uncanny pressure of several tours of duty, and the effect it has on his psyche. But too, the affect it has on this one soldier as representative of the majority.
Perhaps you would consider this PoV:
1. The effect on the psyche applies to all (or almost all) who are exposed, varying in severity.
2. Kyle (in film) seems aware of this, his wife reminds him regularly, and actor Bradley Cooper also knew the real Kyle, perhaps when the PTSD was still prevalent.
3. Kyle, knowing this (presumably), aware that others would also suffer similar fate, but feeling that he, the superior sniper/SEAL/durable male, would take it upon himself to suffer this wound, this Disorder, this pressure, to alleviate his fellow combat servicemember of this tragedy, because he thought that he could hack it better that the others.
The sacrifice, sensitivity, valor and courage are not all wrought at the tip of the trigger finger.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right on point.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have lost total focus on the discussion at hand. I am talking about a film, regardless of who directed it, that addresses the affect of war on a human being who continually returns because of a need he has to protect and serve.
Where does the price tag on the Iraq War, and I am fully aware that it cost trillions, come into play as it relates to the main theme of the movie? Nothing in that film touches upon that fact. Yes, it did cost trillions; and yes it was poorly executed; and yes the Republicans are to blame; but the movie was about a man, a soldier. It was not about presidents, or generals or politics. It was about the grunts, the average Joe, the men and women in the field. Not Senators or Congressmen lying from both sides of their mouth. Everything that you say is a part of history, in the books, so to speak, and does have a place in the grand conversation, although everyone avoids it like the plaque.
But the film, clichés and all, spoke to a specific dialogue within that conversation that we, as a nation, must come to grips with; and that's the insidious specter of PTSD. Politics and artistic expression aside, this is no joke. Does it change any of those other things you mention?.....NO.
But amnesia inducing? I take it you didn't like the film. Fine. By the way, I think you're dead wrong about 2016. No way a Republican will be sitting in the White House come Jan 2017. Poorly thought out war; since when did we ever have a greatly planned one?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME