What a shock: Hollywood pushing back at "The Sniper"

Didn't say that at all. Sorry.

 

You sound like Phil Emery, Dick.

 

I have yet to quote some weird song about being on the rim of the glass of happiness, or whatever it was.

 

Dick's problem is that deep down in places he doesn't like to talk about at cocktail parties, he wants men like Chris Kyle on that wall. He needs them on that wall.

 

Kyle actually claimed 250-plus kills in a few interviews. Not sure if that includes the mythical 30 in NOLA or just ones overseas.

 

Plus the two on the Texas highway that Rummy bailed him out on.

 

It's trickier than that. A lot trickier.

Chris Kyle certainly had fidelity to the cause. There's little doubt about that. But what was the cause? Was it heroic? Is it "hero's work" what we did in Iraq? Is whatever we were trying to do -- since, obviously, it didn't really get "done" -- heroic?

There comes a point for more free-thinking adults where you have to question what the hell it is we're doing in these places, why we willingly subject ourselves to said hell, and whether we're doing a guy like Kyle or any other soldier a favor by granting the kind of carte blanche that clearly left him comfortable enough to make up shit once he returned. It's like reading a book about all the concussions Junior Seau endured in the "cause" of getting the San Diego Chargers to the 1995 Super Bowl and not merely deciding, in a split decision, that it was an acceptable risk, but refusing to accept any notion that it was any less than great.

You have a man with a gun, a soldier in a war, returning from said war and writing a book about the people he shot in a place that is certainly more infested with terrorists than it was when we invaded it. If he's a hero -- and I'll let anybody define as they please -- he very well may have been so on a fool's errand. Which, to me, is a larger point.

 

The irony is...the movie is probably more emotionally true than the book.

I think the movie is informed, at least in part, by the true things people saw in Kyle that his book chose not to admit or, in his bluster, he hid.

And folks are always worked up about accuracy of things. That's not really the issue here. The issue is Kyle is portrayed as someone other than the asshole he was for 2-3 years there when it's quite likely he was struggling with some major shit that nobody wanted to admit, lest he lose some of the hawkish mentality.

 

For those who have seen it, does the movie give people the impression after they watch it that our troops being over there was a good thing?

I doubt we will ever get Kyle's legacy cleared up or exactly correct. I have two close friends who have a ton of military experience and even they are split on this guy. One says snipers by nature are very methodical and meticulous with their record keeping and cannot understand how this guy has missing kills. The other says the Ventura thing is 100 percent true and he is in a position that he just don't follow the thinking of the crowd on matters.

But if this movie gives people the feeling or makes them want to cheer every time he kills someone, then I could see how some people have a problem with it.

 

Good post.

I think what's more in question is how Eastwood handled this material than what Kyle did.

 

Alma you make an interesting point and I would agree somewhat. The movie is how people wanted Kyle to be and the book portrays him how he really was, which
was a cold and calculating warrior. In effect Eastwood and the writers gave Kyle a conscience.

I thought the stupidest part to the movie was the 4 tour hunt for Mustafa the "opposition" sharpshooter. Barely mentioned in the book and a highly
doubtful from a military standpoint that the US would dedicate entire missions to going after a specific sniper.

 

Certainly your right but if you've not seen the movie or read the book you're on a fools mission trying to
render an opinion about either.