(((TL: DR -- As an amateur movie critic, what Eastwood depicted in the movie was lazy story-telling. Two-dimensional cardboard villains are uninspired. As just some guy who watches movie, what Eastwood depicted was both douchey and dangerous.))) ... on my review of American Sniper, I wrote the following: The conflict between Mustafa and the larger Iraqi insurgency drags on for too long, especially with how little characterization is provided for them. At the time, I felt this abbreviated snippet was sufficient--but, after rereading it, I wanted to clarify, and be both blunt and critical. Both Chris Kyle and other American soldiers regularly called the men and women they were fighting in Iraq terrorists, hadjis, savages, animals, or some other negative label. This label was applied to specific enemy combatants, as well as generally to the populace. That is, that guy we just shot was a hadji, and all of these people are savages. Which, from the perspective of a soldier, is... sort of?.. understood? Im not necessarily excusing it, but soldiers throughout history have long dehumanized their enemy in an attempt to rationalize their own actions. I dont fault Chris Kyle for doing the same. Again, I wasnt okay with it, but I got why he and his friends did it. War sucks. War is awful. And your brain does what it needs to do to get through it. What I took offense to, however, is that the movie did nothing to humanize the Iraqis who stayed behind in these war zones--that the movie was complicit, if not encouraging, of this idea that all those that stayed behind were evil. Evil, specifically. That word. Chris Kyle uses it. And the movie obliges him and unapologetically frames the whole movie as a fight of good against evil. There is one seemingly decent Muslim in the movie. He is quickly blown away without much screen time--and by his own people.The majority of on-screen Iraqis are there to directly shoot at Americans or indirectly aid the Iraqis shooting the Americans, including the majority of children shown. Near the end of the movie, theres an Iraqi family that--after having their house crashed by American soldiers--respectfully invites them all to sit down at his table and share a meal. Its all very sweet and a seeming reminder of our shared humanity. I thought it was a nice touch. And then its revealed that the guy is an insurgent, and he ends up eating bullets, and theyre all savages. Its kind of shit. Yeah, Chris Kyle may have been an ignorant racist. I have no idea and dont really care. He may have simply been using those words as a way to compartmentalize humanity in difficult times, as soldiers tend to do. Whatever. But... I dont want to say the media, but, seriously, it feels like there are a lot of agencies out there trying to craft this narrative that people who are Muslim will probably also kill you, and its obviously a very wrong narrative and a very dangerous narrative for the overwhelming majority of Muslims who just, you know, want to live their life and worship their God and build snowmen when it snows. Everything since 9-11, obviously. Especially in light of the attack in Australia. And the attack in Paris. I mean, shit, Fox News actually had to backtrack on their anti-Muslim stoking when they went as far as saying that Muslims had essentially taken control of areas of English cities and blocked out non-Muslims. Complete bullshit. Bobby Jindal echoed it. I imagine a number of other politicians did, too. And I imagine that lie has already worked its way into some bullshit narrative somewhere for why Muslims are a supposed problem. As an amateur movie critic, what Eastwood depicted in the movie was lazy story-telling. Two-dimensional cardboard villains are uninspired. As just some guy who watches movie, what Eastwood depicted was both douchey and dangerous. So, yeah. As I said, I had a lot of words in my original review. I tried to condense it.
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:41:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015