American Sniper: Anti-War Misinterpreted?
💸 Support the channel & get access to non-advertiser friendly videos: / @storytellers1
Hey guys, in this video we delve into a controversial film, American Sniper (2015), and why I think the film has been misinterpreted by partisan audiences...
Please consider supporting me if you enjoy my work:
💸 Support the channel & get access to non-advertiser friendly videos: / @storytellers1
✨ One time donation: www.paypal.me/storytellers1
✉️ Email for business inquiries: lvdpstorytellers@gmail.com
LITERATURE:
- Terministic Screens and Partisan Audiences - Daniel K. Merwin (2016)
MUSIC:
- Ross Budgen (Royalty Free Music) / @rossbugden
- Clint Mansell Kronos Quartet - Dreams
- American Sniper - Funeral
- Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross - Like Home
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Business Inquiries: lvdpstorytellers@gmail.com
💸 Support the channel & get access to non-advertiser friendly videos: kzhead.info/tools/bphDfwSJmxk1Ny_3Oicrng.htmljoin
The movie to me seemed pro-soldier but anti-war.
That's what he says during the conclusion
@ThatKidWhoLiesAboutHisAge OnTheInternet It's pro-soldier in the stance that it shows us what soldiers go through and how much they really do for this country while it is also anti-war by showing what wars do, destroying families of all parties.
Its pro-friend. Anyone who says they are "pro-war", has never been to war, usually that is your average, uneducated, moronic U.S. citizen.
@ThatKidWhoLiesAboutHisAge OnTheInternet No, it is not contradictory. It was just as stated. These people join, for whatever reason. Just as you would protect a friend/family member, soldier protect one another.
@@tater8251 .. Being "pro-soldier", for them, had nothing to do with you or this country. It is about one another, comrades.
I think the reason this film is so hard to get a clear message out of is because it tries to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be an anti-war cautionary tale about a man who's life was ruined by buying into the war propaganda machine, but also wants to celebrate that man and his wartime glory in a very traditional way. And those two things just can't really mix well, you're left with a very inconsistent tone.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. It seems a bit confused in whether he’s a holy glorious southern raised soldier or whether his belief in that is a bad thing that’s abused by the military.
well said
In what you described lies Chris Kyles truth. I think you're completely correct in saying that the film balances those two lines, but that is quite literally what Kyle was dealing with himself. In that sense I think this movie is beautifully made and tells that exact story adequately. Whether that's enjoyable to some or not is irrelevant at that point because it does Kyle's story justice.
I agree with the OP, but I see that as an unconditional win in terms of film-making and the worth of the final product we got. It doesn't have a clear message, because the concept of a war hero is incredibly complicated. To not celebrate a hero is idiotic; if they are not to be celebrated, then they are not heroes. The real question is, on what basis is one a war hero. Does the war itself change that description? Is it possible to be a war hero in WW2 but not in the middle East because of the very different nature of those wars? Is it EVER possible to be a hero if war is a moral wrong? Is war a moral wrong in the first place, or an inevitable means of dispute between states, and what does the answer say about us? And, most centrally to the film, what does that say about soldiers? None of these questions have clear answers, there is no objective worth or dismissal of soldiers, certainly not war heroes. You can have an opinion, of course, and that opinion can have more or less of a basis in reality, but you cannot have a DEFINITION. I love this film, not because it tells me what I should think about Chris Kyle, but because it bring up all of these questions, tackles them from many sides, and leaves them ultimately unanswered. It was uncomfortable finishing this film, not knowing where I stood... but it was worth feeling uncomfortable, because doing battle with that uncertainty is not only our best way forward when tackling the topic of war... it's also the only honest view of war one can have.
This. Too many in the anti-war crowd see a film like this and just say it glorifies war, full stop. What if it's just a little inconsistent in trying to get its message across? Media can be inconsistent, and open to interpretation.
The problem with this movie is that it makes the violence sexy. It makes it cool. Any typical young boy watching won't see the horrors of war, they'll see a highly trained cool dude protecting his brothers in arms.
What's cool about it? It's pretty disturbing how realistic the bodies fall.
@@alexdeghost2729 the firing stance of the SEALs, their cool guy gear, their punisher logos, etc. Watching bad guys who drill kids to death/help those guys get blown away is cathartic to the viewer.
@@TheSilentOne50 those things are in war though?
@@TheSilentOne50 but those are objectively just parts of modern war.
@@rabbidpig3480 They happen in modern war but the movie is still very selective about what it portrays and how. And that selection tends more towards glorification than an anti war message.
I do agree that an anti-war message was intended, but having the title include “the most lethal sniper in US history” definitely doesn’t support the premise
I mean, how doesn't it support the premise? If anything "The most lethal sniper in US History" is a neutral factoid. "Most lethal sniper" is not a direct endorsement. It is not a saying "War is good" or "Anti-War is bad". It is just saying "The most lethal sniper in US History"
@@SioxerNikita come on, really? Neutral factoid? People get off on supposed 'aces' of war. You get another view on this, if you take a look on this for example concerning german propaganda in wwll around flight aces. It's not neutral, it's a step in painting a picture of the uber-warriors, that are on your side, or even, that might be you in the future.
@@savonarola831 Yes, it is still a "neutral factoid", he, as far as I know, is the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US History. And you are comparing this to war time propaganda where you glorify the warriors as much as possible, in a movie where war is shown as devastating to everyone involved? Yeah, no. It is an eye catching neutral factoid made to specifically garner interest in the movie, thought up and placed by a PR firm to get as many viewers as possible. It is not making a statement about anything. Are we "glorifying" serial killers when a documentary about serial killers says "Most Deadly Serial Killer" or similar? Are we trying to paint a picture of the awesomeness of the uber-killers that murders a lot of people? Yeah, no... ...
@@SioxerNikita My thought is that maybe that headline could be like, a sign of accomplishment, akin to a title like "World Champion" but you are somewhat right that it is neutral
@@krumby3460 If it was "The US' most Awesome Sniper" it would definitely be glorifying, but stating something true, is not pro-war. "Nuclear Weapons, the most explosive weapon pound for pound" - aka. glorifying Nuclear Weapons You see how the logic doesn't follow? :)
I served in the Australian Army being deployed 7 times i could see the adjustment issues Chris faced when he got home. We had one of our own snipers who faced a similar scenario as the first scene. a woman who appeared to have something hidden under her Burqa. it got really tense as she began get nearer to the Check point until the call from the Sniper said don't shoot. the item was her Baby and she was looking for medical assistance. if it wasn't for his attention and professionalism someone on the ground may of made a bad call that day. There was always talk after the fact and the question what if had been something else... American Sniper answered that question😔 I feel that Society wants Hollywood and the media to tell our stories but If people heard them from us Veterans maybe people would understand the price of wars alot better.
+
There are much much better films that deal with PTSD and are anti-war. This film is not anti-war and there have been a ton of films that have dealt with showing the guys coming back having problems that still glorified war. The bottom line is this, Chris Kyle lied about nearly every aspect of his life. He was in violation of the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. No one should be watching a film based on this guy. Just like how the Navy wouldn't out Kyle while he was alive because of how much he had improved enlistment numbers this film shouldn't be promoted. The PTSD side is an afterthought and his death is put entirely on someone else. I guarantee you sniper enlistments saw a huge surge after this. I mean Stop-Loss (especially poignant given the amount of times you've deployed), Courage Under Fire, The Messenger, Brothers, and even documentaries like Restrepo
Michael Stott Yeah, the woman who mightve been shot because She was getting her baby medical care wouldnt have been a victim, the killer would have been... (Not that I would have blamed him, But unless its your country being blown up I dont think you can claim that you are the people paying the price.)
Michael Stott
This story made me cry and it makes me wonder, exactly what is all of this worth? Iraq is just now getting the basic control of its country back from the Islamic State, and religious tensions will, despite the best efforts of everyone involved, continue to persist and cause trouble. We can't look or walk away from this plane crash started by a plane crash. Are we just trapped in a cycle of war and deploying new troops? Or is this all leading up to a regional regression towards total tribalism and failed states?
For me, the defining scene of this film is when Chris is talking to his friend, the one who later dies and leaves the anti war letter, after a few tours and the friend is revealing his disillusionment with the war. Chris responds with his vehement belief in the righteousness of the cause and his friend looks at him like he's insane. The same thought process is continued after the friend's funeral, when Chris responds to the letter by saying how his friend had been weak and given up. All this ads up to a scenario in which Chris is not in the right. He was a victim of a system of belief that encourages people to destroy themselves and others for the glory of the system itself.
Perhaps the system Kyle believed he protected was his home family's social and economic system?
@@SCIFIguy64 Those systems didn't rely on him being in war. The economy we're talking about that needs all those wars is the one of the upper 1%. It's their endless interest that needs to be fueled by war, not the economy of the 99% that work for a living and produce real value.
@@bogeydope3022 "Those systems didn't rely on him being in war" Of course, they do. These systems rely on an economy. The economy relies on interests (supplies, materials, etc. which are not always inside the national borders, far from it) that are to be defended. And how are they defended? By militaries. And ultimately, if needed, by war.
@@Briselance Oh boy, tell me, which force attacked the economy that needs defense by means of military action? The oil keeps flowing by show of force alone, not by a war that uses it up. We are living in an age of proxy wars, that are only fueled by the military industrial complex. " The economy relies on interests (supplies, materials" No it doesn't, because the biggest part of our "economy" is printing money on computers, those interests can't be "paid" by means of real goods, because we're long over the verge of exponential rates . And here you'll find the reason for war, because it is the only way to gather real goods and power for people with a lot of worthless money. Btw, do you know the biggest Co2 producer in the world? It's the US Military. I wonder why nobody talks about them and their output.
@@bogeydope3022 honey maybe if you would stop your decadent life style there would be less wars. For now enjoy the pizza, funko pops and cape shit that is fueled by oil that soldiers Die for.
There was a movie called “thank you for your service” itsabout vets coming home and dealing with there mental trauma go give it a watch
Saw it. Disappointed.
I love that movie!!!
... with their* mental trauma ...
“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” - Frankie Boyle
@@einundsiebenziger5488 they're on their way there
Every time I see WTC footage, this quote comes to my mind: "Tomorrow there will be no shortage of volunteers, no shortage of patriots. I know you understand." - General Shepard COD MW2.
Kino
You’ll feel different when you evaluate how WTC 7 fell.
@@akira28shima32 His comment refers to a quote in the videogame Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, where a rogue U.S. General plunges the U.S. into a war with Russia for his own benefit by staging a terror attack.
@@TheCrazeturk you can change 2 words and hit the nail on the head on our invasion of the Middle East
The best way I've heard this film summed up was "It's anti-war to pro-war people, and pro-war to anti-war people". It's all down to the viewer to walk away with their own interpretation of what this movie was. I personally think it was just a movie about a man's life. It shows the details as they were and leaves it to the viewer to make their own opinion on the real person the film was based on. Edit: Guess people's political leaning based on whether they call me a conservative shithead or a liberal shithead lmao.
i wouldnt characterize those that perceive its anti war message as "pro war". just they the acknowledge that war isnt always avoidable. this is not to suggest that the iraq war was in any way unvoidable. it surely was.
I see it as a war movie period. Neither pro nor anti war, maybe some of both as long as a biopic
that's amazing if it's the case, successfully challenges everyone's opinion.
its just people thinking that they know everything, this man's struggle to keep his people safe is relatable but some dont understand that
The baby scene 😂
Love that you all at Storytellers understood my thesis on this film and God terms/Devil terms. Excited to stumble across this video! Thanks a bunch!
Wow, just a couple of days ago I was talking about this video and wondered whether at some point the writer of the thesis that forms its core would ever stumble upon it. I tried contacting you about it back when I was making this video but I was unable to find your contact information. I'm glad I managed to do it justice (be it unpacked and in a less academic form). I could observe a lot of the motifs and themes that went against the pro-Iraq war narrative but I didn't have any theoretical framework to put those findings in. Your thesis managed to do that and then some. Anyways, if all of you watching are interested in the more political angle, check out Daniel's thesis 'Terministic Screens and Partisan Audiences'! Thanks for watching man! - Thomas
@@storytellers1 hey, you k ow this actually happened right? Im prolly wrong but it seems like you think that Clint Eastwood just made that film based on nothing, but it is a documentary almost.
@@noctismortis7349 11:10
Daniel Merwin p
Why was a fake baby used daniel?
No navy recruiter recommends SEALS straight up first time like that😂
Happened to me. Then he recommended SWCC. I declined both.
I got offered a deal contract the first time I walked into their office, I immediately went to the army recruiter across the hall.
I am Jason it’s pretty common. They know most will wash out of seal training, now they’re needs of the navy.
@@swayzz5638 plus most recruiters get incentives for sending people into those slots
@@mmadmarch Why that sounds really good it has good pay and your technically elite (idk I'm not very bright when it comes to this stuff)
“The reality is soldiers are coming home , and we have to take care of them” well said
you know damn well the government wont
@@masonmax1000 then as private citizens we have a duty to our warriors. Go to a VFW or help a vet out if possible
@@masonmax1000 and the people won't either. Americans out there saying "thank you for your service" while not giving a shit about veterans with PTSD and other mental and physical problems.
Be better if they didn't.
@@andrewm.8772 troll
"Eastwood has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1964-1975), Afghanistan (2001-present), and Iraq (2003-2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Eastwood#Politics
if the USA stops play the role of global policeman now you can be damn sure another country will take our place. but I do agree with you.
@@masonmax1000 Let them, hasn't done the US any good. Honestly, the only thing that could bring down China is if they try to be like the US.
@@edwardheaney3641 LMFAO you got a good point there man.
USA is worse than PRC when it comes to world relations.
PRC is literally most hated country in the world - I award you no point and may God have mercy on your soul. Nobody lIkes PRC bro, even its own citizens hate it but Tiananmen Square shows what would happen if they voice it.
"He made a film condemning the war, not the warrior" shit that was really well put, describes it very very well
Do you seriously believe Bush and Cheney would have boarded an Abrams and single-handedly invaded Iraq if "the warrior" didn't agree to fight for them? To quote Carl Sandburg, „Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come“.
Can't have one without the other
@@michaelparker5478 Are you anti-war?
@@matthewjones39 of course
@@michaelparker5478 Well then you hate all soldiers.
Again well done. Brought me to tears, being a like minded veteran.
Thank you for your service
@@justmyopinion7201 thank you brother.
Aaron Small, you served us we serve you.
Still don't think it was a great movie tbh
You must just have been cutting onions, like me.... Not even a vet or an american... Just sad to see what we do to others and our own
I'm gonna say that it doesn't matter if the film was intending to be anti-war or not (Eastwood says it is). If there's confusion then it's failed at being anti-war.
You arent qualified to be making judgments, your opinions are not quality nor will they ever be. Loser
One thing I don't get, Is there a problem with creating a pro-war movie? There must be hundreds of famous pro-war movies thats still great, why do people make such a big deal out of it?
@@oggan97 because war is bad and promoting it is almost as bad what are you even saying lmfao
@@STANKYCHEEZEMAYNE Yes war is bad but a movie is also a movie. There is countless of movies that "promotes" bad stuff. A pro-war movie in my view is a war movie where the main character/characters survives and is displayed as heroes and perhaps "bad-ass" people. I can think of countless of movies where violence is "promoted" in that case.
@@oggan97 Every movie where violence is "promoted" is either good vs bad or is critiqued to hell. Name one movie that unapologetically promoted and glorified violence and made evil people look badass.
You kicked the hornet's nest, but I strongly agree with you. This is one of the most misinterpret war films ever. I'm glad you pointed out Clint Eastwood earlier movies, especially Letters of Iwo Jima and Flag of Our Fathers. He may be a conservative, but he also has a long history of critical movies about american history (even Gran Torino deals with topics such as immigration and racism).
Critics don't understand this because almost no war movie glorifies war. They are a testament to the brutality and destructiveness it resaults in. Ultimately it should show the tremendous price it cause those stuck on middle.
Grand Torino is not a good representation of the minorities it portrays as the ones his character has to save. The Mang were completely misrepresented with cultures and traditions they don't even participate in. I think Eastwood THINKS he is doing the right thing in those movies, but can come up short in his desire to showcase a disgruntled, flawed hero/savior. I also really like his cinematography.
Gran Torino was typical "white man's burden" drivel that is centuries old. Nothing new. Besides, Chris Kyle was a liar and fraud who committed stolen valor.
@@4realjacob637 Plenty of war movies glorify war and many more glorify war "heroes". Look at movies such as U-571, a piece of unmitigated revisionist propaganda crediting America with an achievement actually made by the British. In fact, of all the captures of Enigma machines, only one was made by the US, late in the war, at a time where the Allies were already routinely decoding Enigma messages. Screenwriter David Ayer even admitted later that it was a "mercenary decision" to rewrite history to push the film for US audiences. America loves its "heroes" and the "tremendous price" is routinely whitewashed and rosey-colored. Even something like "Saving Private Ryan" celebrates the American heroes sacrificing themselves for the good cause. Or should we talk about the celebrated "Black Hawk Down", a piece that is a whitewash of the constant humiliation and abuse of the local population by US forces? But hey, they're the victims, right? After all, the local Untermenschen scum should have known to worship the American master race. A solid "testament to the brutality and destructiveness" war results in, yes? Quote Wikipedia "Stephen A. Klien, writing in Critical Studies in Media Communication, argued that the film's sensational rendering of war had the effect of encouraging audiences to empathize with the film's pro-soldier leitmotif and "conflate personal support of American soldiers with support of American military policy" and discourage "critical public discourse concerning justification for and execution of military interventionist policy."" More: The film goes out of his ways to spit in the face of the Pakistani soldiers who ACTUALLY save the arse of those US soldiers who got out. I'd suggest you watch movies like the original German "The Bridge" from 1959 or even the Soviet "Come and see", not the least because the latter shows those actually stuck in the middle, all too often forgotten in America, where war is something that happens in faraway countries and civilians have strange names, strange looks and speak a strange language, rendering them almost inhuman. There might something in those for you to learn about the "brutality and destructiveness" war results in and the "tremendous price".
@4real Jacob every war movie glorifes war and being a soldier. The us military literally funds every war movie you see. This movie is just trying to be a sob story to feel sorry for a person who willingly joined a war for securing oil and profits. A comdien summed it up perfectly "The united states will invade your country then 10 years later make a movie about how that invasion made their soldiers sad." If america made an actually good antiwar movie it wouldn't be from the perspective of the us military and instead the millions of innocent victims it has murdered. Remember the us military will literally invade the hauge if you try to charge an american soldier for warcrimes. It also doesnt help the movie is literally about a raging shit bird warhawk named chris kyle. Dudes rotting in hell if it exists.
A source that counters your point is Chris Kyle's actual book. He had NO PROBLEM doing his job and killing people like he did. He joined the military for completely different reasons. He belittles and uses derogatory terms for the locals and the people he was killing. Look I am a veteran, but this guy had 0 problem killing and was categorically pro-war. That MAY be a distinct issue to the film, but the source material in a bio-pic absolutely matters. He had no PTSD either... He was proud of the people he killed.
Agree for the most part with your comment, but "no PTSD"?
He, Mr. Kyle, never claimed adjustment disorder or similar affects of what is known as Post Traumatic stress. He might have had some issues, but he never personally stated any symptoms that I am aware of. I can't claim to understand the inner life of someone beyond what they say, and in any of his books Chris Kyle never stated anything like PTSD. Not everyone in combat experiences PTSD, it affects many of us, but it is not universal.
Kinda hard to not Hate the locals when they send children to blow you up
That thought is kind of why we have obnoxious shit like Trump's, failed, attempt(s) to ban people from specific countries from entering our country. So my neighbor is an idiot. He doesn't mow his lawn, he lets his dog wander around and scare the kids in my yard, he has three torn up trucks laying around in his yard, and is meth head. I have several people in my area that fall largely into that mould. Therefore I can draw the conclusion that ALL people in America are all those things... It's illogical and stupid, let alone that it's narrow minded bigotry. When you make yourself a bigot who views the world as "us" and "them" you are basically the same fools as ISIS and their ilk. People are people wherever you are. There are lots of idiots and dangerous jackasses, but like it or not for the most part people are pretty decent. One last note on Trump's attempts at banning people... It actually includes some of the people who actually were helping us, the U.S. military, fight over there. I personally know that two guys I worked with who were working as translators and guides have been unable to emigrate here because of Trump's B.S.
kzhead.info/sun/etymmKuShaeFl40/bejne.html
Excellent synopsis. Very well done! I had the same inclinations as a veteran watching the movie. By that time we all (publicly or privately) came to the realization that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, period. The movie never even makes a statement in favor of the war at all; it was a character study and to deny the actual thought process of veterans like Chris Kyle as we embarked on our “Crusades” over there would be disingenuous at best. It’s what we believed, then what we tried to maintain, then what we ignored as reality set in.
Lol cry about it you monster. You can never make up for the crimes you have committed against the people's of the Arab world. Everyone of you who died deserved what they got. You're a fascist piggie whether you're aware of it or not.
I’d disagree that everyone thought the Iraq War was a mistake by 2013. Many conservatives were still condemning the Obama administration for withdrawing from the war or accusing it of being too soft on ISIS, and there even still a few people who thought Ba’athist Iraq had WMDs in 2003. But the tide was certainly turning that way.
If you want the most accurate representation of the US Military, watch Generation Kill.
Yeah that miniseries is great and definitely not pro-war or even pro-miltary, it just accurately depicts Iraq Invasion from the POV of an elite unit and doesn't hollywoodize war to make the protagonist more sympathetic or change events to show cool action scenes like American Sniper or Lone Survivor does.
I just finished it a few days ago. Absolutely phenomenal.
That's another one that manages to be clearly anti-war without being anti-warrior.
@@tissuepaper9962 Its not even necessarily anti-war. Its just a tv mini-series that accurately portrays how the military is. It shows that modern service members are irreverent, and very few are star spangled patriots. Many are there to do a job. Many are there because it gives them opportunities that they never had before. Many are also there because it got them out of a worse life (like gangs). The dynamic that service members are not these honorable, dutiful, reverent, patriotic individuals (they're patriotic, but not in a manner that is displayed). They're just regular dudes living and vibing in extraordinary historical events, and trying to survive it.
@@JohnDoe-wt9ek to quote Cpl. Ray Person, “It’s like that song ‘When Stars and Stripes and Eagles Fly.’ Fuck, man, eagles fly in Canada too. When we got back from Afghanistan my mom tried to play me that song and I was all, ‘Fuck no, Mom. I’m a Marine. I don’t need to fly a little fucking patriotic flag on my car to show that I’m patriotic.’”
Starship troopers has the same problem. In Germany the film is still banned because the people responsible misinterpret the anti-war satire as pro-war propaganda. It's sad that films with touchy subjects like war get combed over because of a biased first look.
I think, most of the audience here in Germany knows now that this film is a satire. It's more the authorities who don't get it.
gabe6550 hence "the people responsible" in his comment
the film isn't banned in Germanyi'm german and i've seen it many times on tv
Toufiq Aziz Pro-war? How? Its a fascist "utopia" playing on the duality of man. You have a prosperous society and equality between the sexes. So what ruins the good life? The states hunt for an enemy. The bugs retaliate. As if the gray and leather uniforms weren't a good enough hint.
I don't disagree. The book and the movie are worlds apart and I threat them as such. I enjoy them both for what they are.
The problem is the lack of consequences. While the conflicts and corrosion of values are shown, they are ultimately overcome and even the fictional battle against the syrian sniper is won. This leaves the viewer reassured in these named values and makes chris kyle the martyr of a greater good and finally waters down the criticism that could otherwise develope better. I guess this is the reason why i will still think about american sniper as an approving film rather than an anti-war picture.
Hans Günter Thanks for commenting Hans. You make fair points, and I do believe some viewers would agree with you. However imo, the consequences are there in the form of his friends getting killed (through his overconfidence and vengeful crusade), the deaths of the Iraqi family which he failed to protect, missing out on years of his relationship and his children growing up, and ultimately dying because of.the war anyways, leaving is destroyed family behind. But fair enough, I agree Eastwood could have been a little less subtle here and there.I wonder if there are deleted scenes which would have helped with this... - Thomas
and what does victory do for him? what did it do for anyone? the Iraq war basically was a victory. but it was an empty victory
Pyrrhic victory, A win that costs you so much it no longer seems worth it
I think it would have been a little bit better if he died when he showed his position to the Syrian Sniper. Of course, this is based off a true story so that couldn't happen but if he died during that, after the phone call, it would've shown that he gave up everything, even himself, to reach that "catharsis" and that his no giving up mentality cost him everything. He would overcome the fictional battle with the sniper, but not overall.
Are you forgetting that at the end he gets gunned down by another vet with PTSD?
*makes anti war film* People who aren’t famous any more: LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
"arent famous anymore" seth rogan mate.
Idk man Seth Rogans pretty iconic. I am nonetheless disappointed that he’d say that, I’m a big fan of his and it hurt my image of him :/
Living in Europe, I was mostly shielded from the American discussion of this movie. I watched it, liked it, but didn't connect to it as deeply as say Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby. Thank you for unlocking to me this deeper understanding and appreciation of another subtly complex masterpiece by Eastwood. Thank you very much.
It all comes down to the interpretation of the individual viewer, I think. But then again, real Chris Kyle used to brag about his killstreak, so.....
Well, as a paramilitary myself, I'd haul the gun off, too. Recovering weapons is good warcraft.
there's no way to know who's a civil and who's a terrorist in war everyone u see with an unknown face can become a potential enemy
you pussies sitting here commenting on his life. He fought to defend you, that doesnt mean you cant be critical, however you sit here like he killed good people. You havent been there or seen what actually goes on. Its more than you see on Fox, CNN, MSNBC.
That's one thing when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy dresses up exactly like the civilians, just take away his weapon and suddenly he's another civilian casaulty of war.
Killing people is fun. Killing dangerous, harmful ones is amazing. A good battle is more exciting than a threesome with two nice looking girls. Bayoneting narcos, for me, was more fun than fucking girls.
Your one-sentence descriptions of Eastwood's past films made me want to watch them all, like when Every Frame A Painting talked about Spielberg. Video essays like this one open up my appreciation for movies as a whole, and I have to thank you for introducing me to worlds I'd never bother to experience otherwise.
Letters from Iwo jima one of my favorites
speilberg the pedo propagandist? ok, great
"snipers are cowards" It's war, there is no honor.
Ganesh God I believe it is the exact opposite, or at least conventional war, because each soilder fights for there country, each solider believe there cause is grate and put there life on the line for there country, probaly the most honorable thing somebody could do, saving and protecting others, only exception is terrorists
I like chees Cake lmao what a moronic view. “Except terrorists.” You don’t think they also think what they’re doing is right? How is America not terrorist with what they’ve done a few months ago?
but facts it's only terrorism when another country does it
Japan thought of it differently
I like chees Cake my point is that it depends who you ask. For you going to war is honorable but what about to the people you are fighting. You are literally going to a country and killing them till you win. If you want to win you must kill and the more you kill the quicker you win so calling a method of killing people cowardly is irrelevant because war is about winning, not about pleasing the enemy.
The movie seems to be about the toll war takes during and after the fight. For me the important scene is where Chris is sat at home and you hear war sounds, assuming it's a film or news article he's watching on tv, only to zoom in and realise the sounds are his thoughts and the tv is switched off.
For a movie about the toll war takes, it seems to ignore the largest toll of all - paid by the civilians, and how invaders like Chris Kyle destroy somebody's home, livelihood and family over a blatant lie. It would be like making a movie about a Russian sniper that's really sad that he has to murder Ukrainian children. Most people defending this movie would be up in arms about "Russian propaganda" if a movie like that came out.
Hm I need to rewatch the movie. I only remember him sniping and that awful fake plastic baby. XD
War is something that will always happen, as long as there is conflict and extremists, but what we must try is to disarm the situation if not war will begin, families will be destroyed and more hatred will be created. A horrible cycle which will continue to destroy more and more, remember those that died for they died because of someone else's hatred.
I think this is a smart analysis of a (at best) mediocre movie. My real problem was the extremely inaccurate depiction of Chris Kyle himself as a good hearted man just doing what he thought was right. The character in the movie seemed like an OK human being who unfortunately became obsessed with the sting of failure to protect his brothers in arms and a vengeful bloodlust for the ones that attacked and killed them. That's a tragic character flaw, but a character flaw a hero could have. The real Chris Kyle legit just liked killing people and bragged about how good at it he was. Whether he was an actual hero or not, he did not act like one. As for Clint Eastwood. I think hes starting to lose his marbles just a tad. Hes not a dumb or bad person, but hes starting to lose his grip on reality as he ages and hes gotten a bit more bold about his right-ish political leanings. I think he does good work, but I think he and I do not see eye to eye much at all.
There’s always two sides to a story. Keep in mind, that’s what the other side did. They would basically parade with guys of ours that they killed. It doesn’t matter which side it is, you shouldn’t brag about taking a life at all.
@@artruisjoew5473 For some reason I don't think you'd feel the same if you saw an insurgent bragging about killing an American.
@@artruisjoew5473 Why critically think and use empathy when I have the ability to dumb myself down as a human being and not care? Not valuing life on all sides can be just as dangerous as the original threat, but it seems that your philosophy is one instilled into you rather than one that you found on your own.
@@artruisjoew5473 This isn't a video game. I thought we had realized how big of a lie nationalism was 100 years ago at the close of World War 1. Honor is a false prize dangled by a corporation. You are trying to kill another human being because they have a different flag sewn onto their jacket sleeve, all the while they are trying to accomplish the same thing to you. All because someone somewhere wanted money. If you can talk so dispassionately about killing other people for a false cause, you are a living case study of how dangerous and potent of a lie nationalism can be.
So I commented above about how I thought this was a stealth anti-war movie concealed as a barn-burner of a pro-war propaganda film. For this reason I like the film, but for the commenter's reason above, I also dislike the film. It totally misportrayed what we know about Chris Kyle from his own moribund, probably untruthful accounts and language. I'm also a multi-tour combat vet who worked extensively with special operations and there are other stories from those that worked directly with Kyle... other SEALs in fact that seem to confirm the worst of suspicions. There are scenes in this movie that seem to be deliberate white washing reinterpretations of those stories I've heard. I understand why, if the purpose was to make a stealth antiwar film, it adds resonance to use the legacy of a honored hero, but I wish the film did more than overtly double down on the accepted narrative or just simply create a composite character to tell the story through.
The first time I watched this, I saw a movie that talked about how war sucks, and it needs to stop, but had nothing to replace it. It tears people and their families apart, and it creates sick and broken people. Also Chris, in the movie, is portrayed as the protector of those that you care about. He does however realize in the movie, that though he is trying to protect those close to him, he can't protect the innocent where war takes place. I think I worded this correctly.
I understand that this film might have been done as an anti war film, and its intention might have been to show what PTSD in returning soldiers does to their lives and to the lives of the ones surrounding them, but I think that the entire thing backfired. The end result is nothing more than a propaganda film about "Us vs Them," "We are the Best", "No one messes with the US", "USA is the best country in the world", "We're the boot that squashes the ant", bla bla bla. Not just that, but this entire dark chapter in history was predicated on a corrupt government's fabricated evidence to invade a country that, even though may not be exculpated of atrocious actions, was in fact occupied in a manner completely void of any legality, which ultimately ended up distracting from the main priority of The War on Terrorism. And this film glorifies all that. In the end the message that should have been prevalent and have frontal stage is muddled in a clusterfuck interpretation of the psyche of soldiers, and the majority of the masses that went to theaters to watch this film at the time of its release, and the ones who have watched it in the years since, think they just gained another argument to validate and justify their skewed version of the United States in the world stage. As a sidenote, I'd love to see a statistics showing how many MAGA knobheads hold this film in high regard.
did you even watch the video
@@yono367 they definitely didn’t watch the video.
@@yono367 Apparently I have been somewhat misread. I know I wrote a long rant in the comment section of a KZhead video, but although I wrote 251 words in that comment, none of them was to criticize the video. All negative criticism was directed towards the movie. The creator of this video is of the opinion that the film is an anti-war movie. I respect that viewpoint and simply disagree. And my reasons for disagreeing are stipulated above. I feel that the film not just fails to make clear its stance as an anti-war film, but it could be argued that its actually easier to perceive the complete opposite and that Chris Kyle, instead of being an example of a man whose life was torn inside-out by the cruelty of war, was in fact a martyr in a justifiable invasion. Maybe it's because I have a pretty bleak view of the world and society, but I feel like that is the opinion that the average Jim Bob that watched this movie eventually retained. The political events that have been played out in the USA since the release of this film, and the growth of mindless extremist conservatism convinces me ever more.
@@pedropacheco8805 atleast youre respectful about your opinion and i do see where youre coming from, i think its kinda neat you can see this movie in a different way based on your existing perspective
@@pedropacheco8805 I don’t disagree with you, but simply point out that mindless extremist conservatism has been met with mindless extremist liberalism. Each will only continue to get worse as long as the corrupt governments, such as the one in power during the time of this movie, continue to hold power in our country.
Nice to see someone else see this movie the same way as I do. Myself a former PMC. I where struggle a lot in my two tours especially the second in Afghan. There almost all of my mates had family at home. Even If they were live separated but they had women and kids anyways. I was the only one who had nothing like that and I picked up a cross to my shoulder. I fought like Hell to protect my team and cared less If any with my own safety. I never forget the moments of preparation before we went out to do our job. I had a prayer. ''My Father. If one of us have to go today than please let me be the one! I am ready! They are not! We need them back at home!'' After my second tour my parents and Godson and cousins asked me not to get back there and I gave them my promise on it. So now I have a decent job in the most peaceful town I ever seen in my life. On last years Christmas party of my current Company I collapsed. It was the only war related thing my co-workers ever seen from me. I seen happy people. Couples family members dancing having fun joking and such a basic things like that. In one moment everything returned! I felt myself in Helmand. I felt the heat and the sun on my face. Wearing my body armor and all of my kit on myself again. I felt the same pain. I started crying unstoppable. I could not do anything against it. They was wondering and didn't understand what the Hell is wrong with me. I didn't know for a while how to tell them anything about this. I think they never will understand. My mindset maybe was horrible wrong and I have the devastating effect of that. But war hurts. No matter who you are or what do you thing. Some things break all of us, no matter what! I seen similar problems in this movie and when I read Kyle's original Book. Thank you for this kind of understanding man!
God Bless You, Sir.
A Christian PMC ... I hope you see the irony
It is what it is. I own my sh*t.
@ respect man. one of the (very many) atrocities of war, is that it can seduce the bravest men, who would fight and die for their lands and their people, to become enforcers of the corporate empire. if a war is not on your soil, it's not for your freedom, as far as i'm concerned.
I think the term 'character study' best sums up the film. Having read the book and seen the film it dawned on me that all soldiers are called upon to change their behaviour to accept psychopathic traits, and then they are expected to return to society without those traits. The fact that so many do is completely amazing.
Lots of people misinterpret war films as being saber rattling if the tragedy of war isn't in your face. Like Red Dawn, lots of critics panned it on release as being pro-war but if you really look deeper, after all that they go through, all there is is a tiny plaque on a hill in some remote mountain pass.
Had a conversation with a friend years ago in which he told me that many including him viewed the movie as a war movie, and i remember being so confused by that because to me it was clearly anti-war. Maybe that is because having ptsd it is easier for you to see how traumatic experiences disconnect you from the present and create a hypervigilance within you that is hard to convey, and knowing those struggles it is easy to get the message of how going to war fucks you up. But yeah, actually think that clint eastwood did a great job with the movie. Including the ennio morricone track in the ending, always gives me goosebumps
I didn’t think about how deep this movie goes when I watched it, but I kind of wanted to cry after watching this video
I don't know how the FUCK anyone thought this movie was PRO-WAR. When Chris saw that dog barking at his kid and he lunged at it with a steak knife you KNOW it's telling you war is fucked up and look what it does to the people who fight in them.
The problem was that to get scenes like that you basically have to lie about what Chris Kyle was actually like.
and then you read his book, and released he loved killing people. loved killing people... and there is a reason why people believe the movie is pro war, if they wanted a anti war movie, could've picked a better main character, like one who lost all of their friends and an arm, was shipped home and how had to deal with the consensus of those actions in his live. but no that makes too much sense lets instead have the movie main character be a psychopath with major mental issues,
Thekilleroftanks Lol bro I don't care if thats what Chris Kyle was like or not. The point of the movie was showing what ANY soldier could experience. Some soldiers do enjoy the killing, some hide it, some can't stand it but they all come out damaged. That was the point of the movie.
Thekilleroftanks I read the book and am a combat veteran myself. He didn't actually enjoy killing people like in the way you think. It's just that he tried to explain a subject that is extremely difficult to explain to somebody that has never been through that situation. You don't get it and you never will and that's fine. It was a mistake on his part trying to put these subjects In a book for civilians. That's why veterans usually only tell war stories to other war veterans. Like, it's just weird. It's hell. You see your friends die and you're forced to make decisions you'll have to live with for the rest of your life. But for some reason, if you ask almost any real combat veteran if they would go back, almost every single one would say in a heart beat. We don't actually enjoy the killing part. It's not like we wake up every morning thinking "I really hope I get to kill somebody today". My heart sinks just by thinking about it because this is just so difficult to explain. We love each other. I love the guys in my platoon so much and I'm closer to them than I am to my own parents. I would give my life at any moment to make sure they come back or for the ones who didn't, have the opportunity to be home with theirs. I'd rather die than lose one of them. Sometimes, you have to do something you don't want to do or immoral for that to happen in a place that horrible. When I was there, they would force children to be human shields or they'd kill their entire families. You'd have guys strap bombs to them with dead man switches so if you shot them, they'd still go off. You have to. He loved his job because these guys he served with we're family. He had to make sure they came home and it fucking sucks because I've been in that situation where I had to do things I will live with for the rest of my life and still keep me up at night so I get it. But my friends made it home. And I would leave everything right now to go back and make sure everyone there makes it home. Which is what he wants. It's super difficult to explain to civilians. They just want to turn things around on you constantly and try to decode everything to fit their agenda. You're going to believe what you want to believe. You've never been there but your pride won't let you live with the fact that you will never understand something so deep down it makes you angry so you want to bring others down for it.
Nick yeah because with every one he killed, he saved a life. They're fucking savages and the shit they do to civilians is disgusting. I'd like to kill them all myself. They would butcher children and stuff them with explosives and they would force children to stay with them as they fought so they could get killed and they'd use it as propaganda that you believe. I've been there. You haven't. But you want to have everything figured out
Seeing the public call this a propaganda movie makes me wonder if we even saw the same film, but rather than every war movie being pro-war or anti-war or anywhere in-between, its meaning is always going to be in the eye of the beholder. I see the one-mile shot and all I see is a man disregarding orders and putting his entire unit at risk to vengefully murder an Olympian who was forced to take up arms to defend a country we invaded for no reason. Other people see that same shot and say, "Wow, way to make war seem cool." What can you do? If we all took away the same thing from art then it probably wouldn't be very good art.
Whenever I see or think about war, I think about everything that's gonna come with it. I think about my family, the nation I'm representing, all the sacrifices, and the one moral question "am I ready to take a life from someone's loved one?" No matter what was the situation, the circumstance, or the wrong doing, they had someone they love back home. Am I ready to kill someone for my nation? And even if I do, even if I do come to bear it, I won't be human anymore. I'll be a dead man walking. With all the pain, blood, screams, and bodies I would see. I can never be that same person again. And that would affect me and my loved ones. It affected my grandpa (on my dad's side) after the Korean War and he was distant to my dad at some points in his life. And that's what I fear the most. To never reach for the things I love again
When he's on the phone in combat... I can't get that out of the movie for me
when i watched this the first time i just thought of this as a heroic story of chris kyle but now watching it a second time after watching this video i realise the message, i can pick out word choices that Eastwood did to convey the message. I love this video!
LowOnSuga Thank you, great to hear it opened up a new way of looking at the movie!
Excellent analysis of this flick. I never saw this movie as a “pro war” movie, but about a man’s internal struggle with his quixotic beliefs versus reality. A poignant movie done by an excellent director, Clint Eastwood.
Garry Trudeau has a nice line that roughly paraphrased says "Hate the war but honor the warrior."
“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” - Frankie Boyle
I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the number of people ready and willing to jump onto the anti-american wagon when a war movie is released. The sad part is that no one did their research into Clint Eastwood, whose best directorial works were anti-war or at least realistic about the horrors of war. Movies such as Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers, and Gran Torino.
Holy shit somebody saw this movie and thought the same thing I did! I had to listen for YEARS of people telling me this movie was not what I thought it was, and seeing a film I liked turned into some right-wing propaganda piece. Thank you for making this!
Keenan McCarty You're welcome Keenan!
The best war movies are at least slightly anti-war just by the nature of war showing through. They are "discussions about reality" as you put it. Thank you for doing this.
Maybe it's my European upbringing and general interest in history that makes me aware of what war does to countries, people and society, and therefore unable to understand the appreciation people like Chris Kyle received. Sure, he did not deserve his live to be ended as it was (even though it was pretty consistent with how his life went), but he not only knowingly killed +150 persons, he boasted about it in his book and talk show interviews, even making up stories about "rightfully" shooting looters in the 2005 Hurricane Katrina aftermath. To me that is a thoroughly despicable human being, not a hero.
Do you think the movie celebrated Chris Kyle or is just the american in general? (Kyle had become mythoman, what he said he his book were untrue about the looter in 2005) Clint Eastwood probably brush it all because he has respected for the warrior but not the war. Chris Kyle father, before seeing the film threaten Eastwood if he disrespected his son. He end up liking the film believe it was respectful. I think Eastwood stayed consistent of the family theme by allowing the family the respect of the humans. behind it.
Europeans are fucking disgusting. They want all the benefits(economic dominance, political influence) whilst at the same time keeping their hands clean and be able to judge from a moral highground. Get off your high horse, pretentious cunt. The only reason why Europe has any influence and dominance in the 21st century is because it is backed by the US (army). It is US diplomacy and militairy force that enables trade relations that keep the EU's industry alive by lowering oil prices and give unlimited acces to the global market.
@@St3v3NWL It sound like respect is a battle to you?
@@alexandrebeaudry1038 Im european myself, Im just spitting facts here. Without the US the EU would be nowhere.
@@St3v3NWL you mean without Russia and england right?. Since ww2 has been won mainly for the idiotic invasion of Russia and ww1 was just finished by Americans.
I had no idea people thought this film was pro-war. It's so clearly the opposite. Chris isn't a black-or-white character. He's a flawed human, and we get a chance in the film to see his strengths and weaknesses. We aren't meant to see him as a perfect hero. I'm amazed at how many people misinterpreted this film.
Only because Eastwood specifically chose Chris Kyle and ended the movie with that montage of the 'fallen hero'. Chris Kyle was out-spoken in his pro-war, pro-invasion of Iraq, pro-killing civilians. If you want to make an anti-war movie, you don't choose him as the central character, excuse his killing of civilians by conceit, and then glorify him at the end. The dissonance there is nowhere near enough to undermine that central point.
Wait so people thought it was a pro-war film? Huh... I guess viewers didn't find it's clear messages that obvious.
Its not that simple. Depiction of violence in war doesn't make it anti-war. Chris Kyle's belief that his actions were just can lead one to believe it as a statement that the Iraqi war is justified, therefore pro-war.
Conner Krusch Surely the blatant fact he nearly murdered a dog, as well as the shell shock of his brother AND the death of his friend would surely make one think "Wait a minute, war doesn't really seem that fun". You can almost feel the regret as well when he kills the child in this film as well. I sure as hell didn't watch any of these actions and think that war seemed like an all around good cause or anything worth fighting for, or that our main character was any better for doing any of these things. If you ask me it's almost objective that this is an anti war film considering these scenes and more.
I agree, it's clear that the Chris Kyle character abhors killing children, develops PTSD, and loses friends. It's exactly for those reasons, I think, that Kyle is deified: He's depicted as the reluctant noble figure who sacrifices himself to bring justice to the world. Viewers would be forgiven for seeing that as _more_ heroic than if Kyle had enjoyed war. As for Storytellers's and Dino's theses, I disagree. The reluctant soldier is a theme I've personally found in many of Eastwood's movies. I find that theme fits American Sniper well. The reluctant soldier does God's work and saves his families. The film heralds Kyle not in spite of his reluctant attitude, but because of it.
There is no such thing as an anti-war film if you believe that 'medium is the message'. Take Apocalypse now for example. Intellectually its anti-war but u cant escape the spectacle. This is shown in Jarhead...you see all the marines getting hyped from watching the Ride of the Valkyrie scene. And pretty much EVERY movie that is simple 'support the troops, even if you are against the war' is technically pro-war. Theres a reason why the US military supports films such as Black Hawk Down.
I think people misinterpreted the movie because Chris Kyle was killed shortly before the movie was released and everyone was thinking, "Fuck that guy, RIP Chris Kyle. This movie is in support of him." If the movie was released a little while after he died, people would have felt differently.
As an OEF/OFS vet this video speaks to my soul. Especially with the fall of Afghanistan!Thank you!
Really enjoy the editing on this video. Glad it finally blew up 5 years later hope you get the recognition you deserve!
A little bit late to comment but one point I sorely missed in the -- apart from that excellent -- summary ist that afaik the movie got supported by the us military. As with most war movies, the military offers support in the form of gear and soldiers acting as, well, soldiers. This makes production significantly cheaper. Yet, they, in turn, have a say in what remains in the script. Arguably, the movie would have been even more critical, but also way more expensive, had it not been supported, and therefore also not adjusted, by the us military.
Very eloquently put. I've always felt that great war films are indeed anti-war films. There's nothing glorious about sending our friends and family to die in the dirt. I was primed to join the SEALS myself following high school but somehow things kept getting lost or in the way of completing my final paperwork. They even lost my social and took me to get a new one made and the social security office closed the second we got to the door. I took it as a sign. I saw what it did to my childhood friend and at times I feel guilty for not having gone through it alongside him, but I guess selfishly I'm glad to have not subjected myself and my family to war like that.
Sorry for the wall of text about to come, mate. 😞 "I've always felt that great war films are indeed anti-war films." So "The Battle of Britain", "A Bridge Too Far", "The Longest Day", "Band of Brothers", "The Thin Red Line", "The Pacific", "The Darkest Hour", "Dunkrik" and maybe many others are indeed either anti-war films or bad films? They are indeed great films about war. Yet they do not wallow in the crassest, primitive anti-war hogwash. Is war bad? Sure is, and extremely so. And? Do you think everybody cares about that? During the Interwar Period, the Anti-War movement was big. Much bigger than anything we know today. The anti-war were listened to. Their litanies and rambles consisted, amongst others, in the total lack of glory in dying in war. See Lord Halifax in "Darkest Hour"? The character's quite representative of the anti-war in the Interwar Period. Suing for peace even when it had long ceased to be any semblance of a viable option. The Western democracies yielded. They wanted to avoid blood but blood still was spilled, and millions, from either side, had to die before the nightmare was over. Why did that happen? Democracies had listened to the anti-war/pacifists. And democracies had grown weaker than ever before, and allowed Hitler to rise to power without any serious reaction from the Western democracies when he annexed Czechoslovakia, when he attacked Poland (at the same time the USSR did, by the way). And even then, in France, some people vehemently cried "Not a single drop of French blood for Danzig!" (Nowadays called Gdasnk, in Poland). Whatever falseties they spread with their naivety, pacifists fail to acknowledge that their ideology is naught but weakness. And that war, despite its horror, needs to be waged at times. And that, thus, people need to be recruited, equipped, trained, supplied, paid, etc. to be ready for war, either as professional or reservist servicemembers, or as volunteers joining for the duraction of the war, or as conscripts. And since we will always need to have soldiers ready, while keeping in mind that crimes are we might as well see them and their deeds at least potentially glorious, rather than treat them as tissues to be discarded when used up, the same way US servicemembers were treated during and after the Vietnam War : sent to fight with a pat in the back by civvies who, with utmost hypocrisy, greeted them back with spits, boos, slurs and disgusting indifference to their suffering.
@@Briselance I struggled to read through your entire message. You start out disputing the claim that all the great war movies, are anti-war movies. but you provide literally nothing to back up your dispute of the claim. I don't hate war movies that are pro war, they can be very entertaining to watch, but not a single one of them has stuck with me. there is no underlying message for my brain to consume slowly over a long period of time making sure it gets stuck in there, they were good movies, about war, but they werent "The great" war movies. Public as well as professional ratings seem to agree with me quite a bit as well, so I'm assuming based on loose evidence that my opinion is the common census. and it is absolutely fine to disagree, but put an argument forward at the very least? Your interpretation of the anti-war movement is incredibly warped compared to mine, to quite a degree as well. At no point have soldiers returned from war as disatisfied with the war itself as in the middle east, not even Vietnam manage spur vets left right and center to speak out about how their brothers died for some old guys' oil war. And talking about going to war with Germany, with the knowledge we have now, should they have intervened faster? possibly, but the fact remains that wars should not be started lightly, which is what the anti-war movement is all about. people don't want their family, friends, or themselves to end up fighting a pointless war, laying down their lives wondering why the hell they are even there. theres a million reason why they didnt react in a more volatile fashion. Did they think they could settle it diplomaticly? economically? was a full scale world war necessary? if so, how should we handle it, planning, strategy, intelligence, as well as diplomacy with the rest of the allied nations. I am not gonna pretend like I know what was going on, I have read some history books, written by the people who wanted to and were allowed to speak up, and they have contradicting statements. You never actually made any arguments, you just made up facts and claimed them to be true or false, with absolutely no evidence what so ever to back it up. your gross oversimplification of War as well as the anti-war movement, your misinterpretation of weakness and pacifism makes me feel very uneasy, how many of you are out there?
@@Briselance The hypocrisy is entirely on your part - the one who openly treats civilians as subhuman scum and then doesn't want to be responsible for war crimes. Your waffling about the interwar period is just as much of whitewashing. Why did WW2 happen in the first place? Because Japan and Germany glorified the military. Your hypocrisy about war "needing to be waged" is a pitiful excuse for wars of aggression done solely and exclusively to put others "into their proper place".
Don’t feel sorry for not contributing to the violence and greed that led the US to invade Iraq twice. Your friends did nothing to help. All American involvement in Iraq has brought is instability, further poverty, and violence to the doorsteps of so many innocent people.
The issue with many many anti war movies like this is that they ultimately boost people wanting to join the military and die for a senseless cause. There will always be vulnerable people that struggle to read between the lines and who see only the "good" that is being shown. They might think that in their crusade against whoever they wouldn't make the same mistakes as him while enjoying the positive aspects that were shown to his life. A war movie needs to be incredibly excessively anti war like "All quiet on the western front" to not get some people a pro war outlook afterwards. It is difficult and that is why I still think that despite it's anti war message this movie failed to provide this as a universal experience.
I think the issue is that WW1 and the war in Iraq are distinctly different - far too different to impose the same sort of values and premise onto a film.
@@DakotaofRaptors I think all other wars besides WWI have had some sort of moral values attached to the side fighting. While that was done too at the time with with WWI it is much harder to say there was a really bad side due to everyone being incredibly inhumane. With Iraq the most pressing issue is that everyone really thinks that no one should fight there that is sane. Original documents were forged when going to war there so the US involvement is inherently evil. That makes it harder to to do a nuanced take since people will blindly follow the positive characterization done on the military, comradery while ignoring the trauma, murdering of innocents that is inflicted. The other side is in my opinion rightfully criticizing this movie because when engaging with war it is easy to engage in propaganda for war, even if one tries to critically depict it it needs to be done so well that everyone notices it because this war was, as stated before shrouded in lies and a false sense of nationalism to get American people into the meat grinder that is war. Full Metal Jacket is also an anti war movie and that one is so way more overtly but there still so many people that signed up to the military afterwards because they liked the depiction, even if it was harsh and brutal.
I've gone back and forth on this film since first seeing it, and while I don't think it is a great movie (always found it a little too much on the nose in its writing and performances) it's not terrible and I appreciate this analysis of it as I too struggled with how to interpret it as the movie really can be seen either way imo. I always thought the more interesting question that this film failed to ask (completely understandably given the circumstances and the involvement of the family) is whether the "warfighter" personality was actually Chris Kyle's real persona, that of a killer who *enjoyed* his work, rather than a upright family man devoutly beholden to his religiously instilled upbringing. Only reason I mention this is because of some anecdotal stories (as well as an in-depth one by Jesse Ventura) that seemingly show Kyle as being somewhat less than honourable in his personal life. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no idea whether these are true and if it's just all lies perpetuated by bad actors they should be ashamed, but I've always actually found that dichotomy so much more fascinating than a simple "war is bad, soldiers are good" trope. What does it say about a person who finds fulfilment in protecting one group through perforating another? Can we gleam who they really are from that? Now that's a tricky question to tackle tastefully
Biggest flaw with the analysis of the creator of the video and a lot of people in the comment section, just because a movie attempts to have a certain meaning, doesn't mean that the film succeeds at having that meaning or failing at having an opposing or other meaning. Anyone can try and be funny but can fail at getting a laugh, just because they tried to be funny doesn't make someone explaining why they aren't a good comic wrong.
NobyNobyBoy this made me think of lindsay ellis's transformer's megan fox reading that even tho the film attempted to be sympathetic to its character who faced sexism, it did the exact opposite.
NobyNobyBoy yeah I agree. It's like when a racist tries to explain to you that they're not racist.
I still remember the motorcade passing by, I was in elementary school on that dark rainy day and I felt a sense of anger and defeat as it pass by and still to this day that end film scene get to me
if the fight is not on your soil, it's not for your freedom.
The thing that all defenders of this movie very consciosly avoid is that (in the movie version) our hero was motivated by the September 11th attacks, yet the movie itself quickly cuts to Iraq, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the aforementioned attacks.
Almost as if that's the point of it.
This is the best analysis of this movie I’ve seen. I enjoyed it when it came out but saw the criticism beforehand. I wasn’t annoyed by the criticism but couldn’t comprehend why it was there. I think you articulated what I took from it. Thank you.
I knew this was an anti-war film even before I saw it. The trailers spell it out very clearly. Was I the only one who noticed that?
I understand what they were trying to do with this movie. Although, I would say the American public is unable to understand Nuance. I think in the end, it may do more harm as it is. The moral of the story should always be clear, War hurts everyone and everything it touches. There is no honor in that. This will only inspire the next generation. I see it and hear it now in new recruits. All of those who suffered or died are mostly gone. All that remains are the Officers and ncos that didn't achieve glory and will Fuel the next war.
Great video. What was that last song in the end?
i don't think this is anti-war nor anti-soldier. There's too much romance with the setting and story, but that's from my own understanding of experiences i myself have had.
0:42 Anybody else start experiencing withdrawal for no reason?
i cry every time no joke irl at the ending of that film.
Me too. Glad i'm not alone.
What happened with the duality of war video? Cant find it anywhere
My first impression of this film was exactly the same as what is said at the beginning, but this has made me see it in an interesting new light and I think I’m gonna give it another watch.
the aspect ratio is like i was driving a tank
Thank you. How he so accurately depicted ptsd was very chilling.
“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” - Frankie Boyle
I believe the critics were being led by their feelings for Eastwood's politics vs. their own, rather than having actually watched the film.
Great analysis man, I never saw it that way before, I really see that side of it now.
This changed my perspective. Great insight definitely subscribing
Just being honest id rather be seen as a "cowardly" sniper than a "fresh meat for the grinder" infantry man
Better be alive than dead
Ok I think the problem with the film that most people seem to be getting at is that it’s about number one a very controversial topic (the Iraq War) which still has left people divided to this day. So already I feel as though Eastwood would have been in hot water either way if he made a dove film or a hawk film but it’s also about a soldier who is either considered a war hero or a war criminal which also runs into the same problem. Now like you said Eastwood has done controversial topics like J. Edgar Hoover, women in sports and others but where that lead the narrative he seems to have danced around the topic and made more of a generic war drama and even though it has nuances, it’s not really addressing these topics which may leave people to believe that Eastwood’s glorifying and actions of a potential war criminal in a war of aggression which seems pretty propaganda-like but again that may not have been Eastwood’s goal. I just don’t know why Eastwood chose such a hot button topic which hardly put anything new on the table in terms of war dramas and seemed to make up its own plot. So despite the fact that it definitely doesn’t show war is awesome it seems to show when war does happen there’s good people or at least Nobel things that can occur when it does happen which is almost if not worse then the latter. Plus Eastwood’s checkered political path also makes the film seem more Hawk like
I had never known about what those celebrities said about this movie. It’s hilarious to think that someone whose job it is to entertain people would have the audacity to criticize someone who conducts warfare (at a very high level) for a living. What a time we live in.
That boy in the beginning, He's just bringing a much needed flesh-light to the troops, and he shot him.
NerdSweeper lol
It's hard to make a war biopic not appeal to the brotherhood in our blood. The intense situations that breed true camaraderie are impossible to leave out, even when attempting to cast the conflict as a whole in a negative light. Movies like "Platoon" and "Apocalypse Now" are very obviously anti-war in their tone and overall framing, but the actual experience of the grunts coming together against an overwhelming cause will never fail to appeal to the tribal hunters within our genes.
I'm so confused. The very first scene of the movie, excluding the flashback to how Chris Kyle ended up in that situation, is about this highly trained legendary sniper killing a child and his mother. Even this badass-type of a supersoldier is completely shook to the core and immediately shows regrets and doubts. How is the movie subtle about being anti-war? I don't understand
respect man amazing essay good insight never truly thought of it that way, you defiantly changed my perspective
I think you're missing the point of how people who LIKED the movie thought it was pro-war.
thespacejuice how
Thats a gross generalization because I loved the film and I left the theater thinking it was an anti-war film
It goes both ways. Some people loved it because it was America pumping. Other people hated it because it was America pumping. The movie was clearly an anti-war piece but it still had strong nationalist values, which I think confused everyone. The "pro-war" people were just hyped to see a brawny American male sacrifice everything to protect those he loves and defeat the "evil" that lives in Iraq.
The mind of the real American Sniper was twisted and demented. You know what's a better anti-war message? Real life. Even if you ignore the incredibly high veteran suicide rates, PTSD, and injuries, the psychological damage that the military puts on most people makes it extremely hard for them to get jobs because they were never taught to live in a civilian world. The United States military has overstepped significantly. What is a military? A force used to protect a nation. Sure, that force can also volunteer to help other people, but the main goal is protection of its own people and land. The Iraq war as a whole cannot be justified in any shape or form. You wanna go after terrorists? Go to Saudi Arabia. But that will never happen because they control our most valuable resource. Afghanistan's government has essentially disintegrated and we're stuck trying to force their people into how *we* want it to run.
Being about a negative aspect of war (domestic costs), doesn't make a movie anti-war. Homer's Odyssey is about the same difficult subject, if not taken as a sitcom, and yet it isn't pigeonholed into controversy.
In my opinion there is a major disconnect between the movies intent as an anti war movie, and its actual effect on the viewers of being about a larger than life war hero being gloryfied, thus also indirectly glorifying war itself. While the messages about war destroying families are certainly not lost, they are overshadowed by the hero themes. The movie was not intendet to be, but it none the less ended up being to an extent, the propaganda movie that its critics decry it as. It is a good movie though. Just not quite the movie it was meant to be.
One of my favorite movies it’s a great story and I love it!!
Jeff Jeff yeah uhh ok
It's fake
Michael Moore calling anyone a coward has to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard or read...
We call that irony 🤣
@@theeternalslayer Irony is one of the better forms of humour. Shame alot of Americans don't seem to share this view. No wonder all the good comedy has come from Britain. Upper class American society on Twitter, however, is in itself comedy of epic proportions.
@@Vidhur yup or like watching the clown show that is tiktok anything for attention 🙄
Nice video essay. I'm not an american or having my country participated in Iraq war. But it took me to the scene where Kyle started to have PTSD and dreading his place back at the war to know that this is an anti-war movie. Like, what kind of pro-war movie which showed a soldier struggling with PTSD ?
If a hack like Micheal Moore dislikes it.... it can only mean one thing. Its going to be good and enjoyed by most people.
That's probably one of the simpler, more frequent statements I hear on KZhead. "well if _________ likes/dislikes it, than it must be good/bad" You don't have to see eye-to-eye with a critic on every single movie to trust their judgment or find value in their critique. Obviously. A critic's power lies in the consistency of their voice. People were saying "suicide squad was actually great" days after seeing it in theaters, while a ton of critics said it was terrible. Who the fuck do you even trust at that point? Who are really the "most people" that enjoy these films? What does a "good" film consist of? In other words, if it takes one opinion to determine how you will feel about a movie (or being pretentious enough to assume most people will agree with you) then you should really expand your perspective and not be so...sheepish.
Well Michael, I say if you like the movie then it's good, if you don't like it then it's bad.
quite so
TheHortond Hack. Idiot. Old fool...
the irony in this comment.
The pro-solider ideal was directly echoed in my viewing. I saw it with a girl in theaters. She idolize him, coming from a military family. I was disgusted, the crusade felt meaningless.
While yeah, they attempted an anti-war message, but I feel like it prioritised glorifying the men who fight wars over criticising the war itself. You need a fine balance of criticising war and telling people that soldiers are heroes no matter how unjust the war. If you go too far in not criticising war, you get dudes like Jacko or whatever he's called that Digger who made a podcast who goes into graphic detail of his war crimes. but if you don't tell people, soldiers are hero's veterans get treated like they did after Vietnam. I do understand that members of Kyle's family did send Clint death threats, so that probably impacted the movie the most.
While I think some good points are made here especially about what Eastwood was probably trying to do with the movie I think ultimately this argument really falls short. It is very difficult to make an anti-war/pro-soldier film in general and becomes almost an impossibility when that soldier is Chris Kyle. You can argue that this was not meant to be a completely faithful retelling of his story (not that Chris himself would tell one anyway in his book as multiple people have disputed his claims) but it was undeniably marketed and framed as a bio-pic. It is also undeniable that this movie venerated Chris Kyle if only this fictional movie version of him. You cannot make a movie lauding Chris Kyle as a redeemed hero and then try to have some sort of anti-war messaging as Chris Kyle personifies the inherent problem of war, imperialism, and American exceptionalism. Making this movie and making Chris out to be an ultimately innocent matryr of the American War machine is an act of insanity. Eastwood is, even if unintentionally, washing away the very real crimes of war this man committed with no remorse. He is not just some nameless solider manipulated into being a pawn for his government he was a public figure and readily admitted to and defended unspeakable acts of terror in Iraq. Making a movie that frames him as an ultimately tragic hero cannot be anti-war while simultaneously washing away the sins that were committed in this name of this war.
I also just have to say that Coopers quote about there being no political motive is laughably stupid. You cannot make a film about war that is not political. Your intent does not matter the film will, in fact, delve into politics as war is politics and politics are war. There can be no separation of these things and I think it's really telling that he can think that. It really shows how out of their depth everyone involved in the making of this film was. There is a reason that so many right-wingers love Chris Kyle and this movie and so many people who watched it felt it was pro-war. By trying to shy away from the politics of the war you inherently do not push against the status quo which is the same status quo that allowed us to engage in the war in Iraq in the first place.
Chris Kyle was a hero. End of story.
@@teosol7396he committed war crimes with no remorse don't praise this man
@@user-lp9xh2yv5h War naturally creates 3 sides to the conflict. Two of which are the sides fighting each other and then the third being the cynics. Hero’s are made by the sides fighting for what they believe and represent. The opposite side will call them villains, and the cynics will call them the same, but who they fight for will forever be in their gratitude. At the end of the day history is made by those who step up, people like you who vilify those who step up mean nothing in the end.
@TeoSol and who EXACTLY were they fighting for? the entire conflict was a scam to further exert American imperialism. We were not "protecting" anyone other than big businesses' profit margins. If that's what you call a righteous fight, I feel sorry for you. I would rather mean nothing than be responsible for so much pain and destruction to innocents.
I love the video man. I always never understood why people hated this film. I always saw it as anti war but some people thought differently and they let their political views cloud their judgement. The movie never brings up politics precisely because in this film it doesn't matter. It's not about who's wrong or right, it's about the character and how he struggles through the war. Love the vid keep it up.
When I saw the film myself, it was immediate to me that it was anti-war. Kyle joined the Navy to become a SEAL, and persevered throughtout the trials of training, and felt he was ready for combat. He enters the war with high ideals but reality broke through and Kyle was slowly becoming disillusioned by the war; disillusioned but in denial - When his best friend expressed disillusionment and died Kyle blamed it on the mans loss of faith, rather than accepting the possibility that he to could die at any time, and that "the plan" might indeed include his imminent death. He pushed through but survivors guilt ate at him, and forced him on into a final tour, but the result of his final mission was a continuation of the nothing he felt inside - no absolution, only further pain.
Christian Rodriguez this movie is very political. It glorifyes killing making the moments of his executions epic. It also does not translate the other languages, distancing the audience, thus creating a gap between the different cultures.
Sea Skimer exactly you also forget that they refuse to assimilate into western culture when they move.
There was nothing epic about any kill in the movie and "glorifying killing" is not political by any means. Never read the book so I'm gonna go ahead and assume what was written there based on people's opinions and I'm pretty sure there's something people don't understand. But if I'm wrong and he's actually the bad guy... Well... what does that change about the movie? He's depicted in completely different way
Frodo Baggins Reminded me a lot of The Hurt Locker actually with how he keeps feeling the need to go back
This is a brilliantly eloquent analysis of a gravely underappreciated film. It is incredible how the opinions of a few chat show hosts and opinionated celebrities can change people's perceptions of a film.
Ending scene makes me cry everytime. Great movie.
One thing that has always bothered me about American War films is how out of touch it is with the civilians in Iraq. People don’t even care about the people we were supposedly liberating.
Whilst I broadly agree with your analysis of the film, I fear that the audience that it's marketing campaign was primarily aimed at was never going to have such a nuanced understanding. I also feel that the film painted Chris Kyle as a far more noble individual than the reality of the man could justify. By all accounts the man was a bigot and a bullshitter, and if Eastwood wanted to make a film that was going to be perceived as anti war, then he probably should have based it on a man who was too.
just because Chris Kyle was "pro war" (no one is really pro war btw) doesnt change what the war did to him. It doesn't change the anti war message
Some people totally are pro war. Some people enjoy killing. Some people just like the state of chaos that war creates which allows for people at the bottom of the totem pole to move up.
Rob Ashton not really some of his stories in his book were inaccurate but calling insurgents savages does not make him a bigot.
I'd love to see how you came to the conclusion that he was a bigot or pro-war. Buzzwords do not prove your argument- they only make it look weaker.
Harry Howlett the only websites I'm seeing these "quotes" of Chris Kyle enjoying killing civilians is from extremely far left and untrustworthy news sites. Unless you got this info from somewhere reputable I'm going to have to call bs. Especially considering that I read the book and he never said anything like that. He did however state that he'd do it again if it meant getting more people home. Is killing civilians okay if it means getting people home? That depends on who you ask
i remember watching this movie when it came out and coming to near enough the same conclusions this video outlines. I was shocked when i asked friends about it and they all though it was "propaganda". I felt like i'd seen a different movie honestly.
Thank you so much for this video! It definitely is helping me with some of the concepts I need to cover for a psychological film analysis I need to do for a college class of this movie!❤
Was there some point to this video? I lost track about halfway through.