7 big lies ‘American Sniper’ is telling America about Iraq and Chris Kyle. Raw Story

[Quixote1818]

Someone needs to do an accurate movie about Chris Kyle. Really delve into how he was such an enigma and what made him tick. There is a very, very interesting story to be told here when it's not glossed over into a shallow, extremely inaccurate, propaganda, pro-Iraq war, flick. I think someone might also think about doing a movie about the Iraq war from the perspective of an Iraqi family whose lives are completely uprooted and their children are brutally killed in the action. It could at least fucking mention that the whole thing was based on a lie.

Zaid Jilani, AlterNet
23 Jan 2015 at 00:01 ET


The film American Sniper, based on the story of the late Navy Seal Chris Kyle, is a box office hit, setting records for an R-rated film released in January. Yet the film, the autobiography of the same name, and the reputation of Chris Kyle are all built on a set of half-truths, myths and outright lies that Hollywood didn’t see fit to clear up.

Here are seven lies about Chris Kyle and the story that director Clint Eastwood is telling:

1. The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11: One way to get audiences to unambiguously support Kyle’s actions in the film is to believe he’s there to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.

2. The Film Invents a Terrorist Sniper Who Works For Multiple Opposing Factions: Kyle’s primary antagonist in the film is a sniper named Mustafa. Mustafa is mentioned in a single paragraph in Kyle’s book, but the movie blows him up into an ever-present figure and Syrian Olympic medal winner who fights for both Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and the Shia Madhi army.

3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

More: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/7-big-lies-american-sniper-is-telling-america-about-iraq-and-chris-kyle/

[el_bryanto]

1. I have no interest in seeing American Sniper - it's just not the sort of movie that interests me

I find the debate around it interesting though. I think even it's defenders don't think it's a great film, they just think it's less one sided than it's detractors believe it to be.

Bryant

[ND-Dem]

32. defenders think snipers are "beloved" & kyle a hero.

[el_bryanto]

44. I'm sorry - i was talking about the two film critics i heard who sort of defended it.

Not right wing yahoos.

Should have been more clear.

Bryant

[UTUSN]

2. R#5 & K for, seems like the empty chair would've put an end to Clint's working n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

3. I wonder what would have happened

if they had made a movie based on the book AS written.

[Quixote1818]

4. Exactly. It would have gone over like a ton of bricks unless they focused on looking at what made

him tick. Delving in hard core into the enigma of Chris Kyle. Actually, he wasn't really much of an enigma, he was a very simple person who wanted to kill Muslims and thought the US was perfect. Someone like Thomas Jefferson was an enigma. Fought against slavery while owning slaves. Kyle had very few redeeming qualities other than him being a good shot probably saved some of his fellow soldiers.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. It would have been fascinating to watch Fox News have a melt down

screaming that the movie defamed him, then pointing out the quotes in the book (because you KNOW they would never actually read a book, even one they agreed with).

[Johonny]

31. +1

[Tom Ripley]

40. It would have been a second-rate imitation of "Taxi Driver"

Travis Bickle with a smaller vocabulary

[n2doc]

5. ...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Excellent selection.

[braddy]

26. Why would the Army use sailors for it's recruitment posters?

[ND-Dem]

35. +100

[progressoid]

6. Actually some of those lies aren't in the movie.

I get the thrust of the argument, but the title of the post should be something like '7 Facts about American Sniper's Chris Kyle'.

[Quixote1818]

7. I think you make a valid point. nt

[jalan48]

8. Defense Department Films, Inc

It should be obvious by now that the American Defense establishment is making propaganda films not only to influence public opinion but to rewrite history.

[swilton]

15. +

[ND-Dem]

36. +100

[Myrina]

9. Question about Bradley Cooper --

Is he a Repub who believes this crap, or did he just take the role because he needed work?
Is he on record anywhere?

Curious, because I couldn't portray something if I was personally against it, or knew it was blatant BS.

[kwolf68]

29. He is an actor ... his politics are not an issue

A good actor can take on any role. Kevin Sorbo (nut bag religious fundamentalist) played an atheist professor in some film he recently made. Not that Sorbo is a good actor or anything, but the role you play does not necessarily mean you are like that in real life.

Cooper also doesn't need the work. He's a sought out actor.

That said, I don't know his opinions...which lends me to believe he is NOT Republican. Those people are big mouthed blowhards and can't keep from spouting off....

however, solid Dems (like Tom Hanks) rarely speaks to political issues (like an Alec Baldwin who is very outspoken).

[Myrina]

63. Re-Read my post. I didn't *say* his politics were an issue.

I asked how he could play such a bullshit role if he personally knew it was bullshit, or is he of the inclination that the story wasn't bullshit.

Jesus people, stop looking for fights and just fucking READ.

[bigwillq]

34. Then there’s Bradley Cooper, who gave Hillary Clinton $750 in 2008

From this link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/02/oscar-nominees-award-dems/

50 Politicos to Watch: Bradley Cooper


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/50-politicos-to-watch-bradley-cooper-94201.html

~~snip~~


The star’s first official step into the political debate was at a February panel discussion at the Center for American Progress alongside Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), among others, discussing the stigma of mental illness and how to improve services for the mentally ill . Shortly after that, the actor had a West Wing visit with Vice President Joe Biden.

~~snip~~



The two links are fairly dated but that's what came up on quick google search.
Take it for what it's worth.

[MadDAsHell]

10. "The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11:

I think we're being oversensitive on this.

If the film "cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq," I strongly suspect it's because, based on what we know about Kyle, he DID want to go to Iraq in response to 9/11. That's just a reality that has nothing to do with whether the Iraq war itself was in response to 9/11, or whether Eastwood wanted to show it as such.

In fact, it'd be more dishonest to NOT show the film this way, because Kyle's attitude, unfortunately, was probably not that uncommon for military personnel in the early 2000's, especially those who hadn't yet seen real combat.

[Quixote1818]

12. It would have been easy to handle this and solve the problem

All they had to do was throw in a scene where he gets into a discussion with a fellow soldier or a group of protesters who bring up the war was based on a fucking lie. You can't tell me he and every soldier over there were not aware that this was a huge point of contention. In fact it was the whole reason he made up the fake confrontation with Jesse Ventura. He wanted to try and make people who questioned the war look un-patriotic as though they thought soldiers in Iraq should be killed. The movie could have shown how he had tunnel vision and was higher than a kite on nationalism. Or perhaps just had him pivot the way the Bush Admin did by saying Sadam was a tyrant even if he didn't attack us and was no threat to us but we need to bring democracy to the region. It would have instantly made the movie more real and interesting.

The problem with leaving it ambiguous is that millions of young people will watch this over the years and be brainwashed into thinking Iraq attacked us. Eastwood had a moral duty to INFORM the public that the whole premise of us being over there was complete and utter bullshit.

[hack89]

21. It is just a movie telling a story so a studio can make money

Eastwood had no such moral duty, especially since your premise about the war is not universally accepted.

[Quixote1818]

30. My premise? So you think Iraq attacked us on 9/11?

It may not be universally accepted just like the moon landing but those who don't accept that Iraq didn't attack us are NOT supported by any facts what so ever. Period. Anyone has a moral obligation to give the correct version of history. If they don't think they do then they should examine how moral they really are.

[hack89]

33. No. I opposed the war and think Bush lied to get us into it.

that doesn't change the fact that Eastwood was under no moral obligation to accept and present your point of view. And movie makers distort or simplify history all the time - they are creating stories to entertain. If you want accuracy go watch documentaries.

[ND-Dem]

37. It's not a 'point of view'. Eastwood presents lies dressed up as reality. The film pretends to be

about reality, and viewers take it that way.

[hack89]

38. It is still just a movie. Just entertainment. nt

[ND-Dem]

39. for those who find war propaganda entertaining

[hack89]

42. I am for the most part anti-war. Serving in combat does that to a person.

and I enjoyed American Sniper just like I have enjoyed all of Eastwood's other movies. I watch movies to be entertained.

[Rex]

47. But this is not about you, this is about gullible people that believe what they see in this movie

as factual. Sure it is fiction, but you have common sense - we are talking about people on the Right that have none or will listen to Rush say this is a war documentary and believe it.

That's the real crime imo, specially if they pass that information on to their kids as facts.

[hack89]

48. Gullibility is a universal bipartisan trait.

there are DUers that will embrace wildly inaccurate movies if it supports their point of view - Oliver Stone's JFK comes immediately to mind.

[Rex]

51. True. That is a good point.

However I have noticed some on our side will do their own independent investigation. Whereas most GOPers will just take it as gospel truth and move on.

I think we are more curious by nature, while the right is always clinging to the status quo and actually wants to regress back to the Reagan era or worse.

IOW, I've met very few GOPers with critical thinking skills. Which is a very bad thing overall imo.

[ND-Dem]

55. Like I said; if you think watching people get killed is entertaining. It's the raison d'etre of

that film, I believe.

[hack89]

57. You are right - the only reason to watch a war movie is to revel in death

[ND-Dem]

58. it's the main reason to watch a pro-war movie where a lot of people get killed; either that, or

to revel in jingoism.

what would the other reasons be?

oh, right "entertainment".

[hack89]

59. You are really putting a lot of effort into getting outraged over this film

I think I will leave you to it. I really don't give a shit - it is just a movie.

[ND-Dem]

60. ok. i'm actually amused, though

[hack89]

61. ok. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. There are STILL people who refuse to admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[A Simple Game]

23. I think you went too far about Kyle's reason for going to Iraq.

he DID want to go to Iraq in response to 9/11.

You would have been fine if you had stopped at:

he DID want to go to Iraq

Yes he did want to go to Iraq but not because of 9/11 but because he was a sick individual that took pleasure in killing people, and Iraq was the perfect place for that. I have no doubts that he had many kills he didn't claim because being women and children they wouldn't have looked good. He probably inflated his kills of male "terrorists" to compensate. We don't even need to talk about whether his "looter" control in New Orleans was real or an erotic fantasy.

After 9/11 many did sign up and serve from a sense of patriotism, but I see Kyle's wish to be a part of the war as the exact opposite, from selfishness.

Eastwood should be ashamed of himself for glorifying a psychopath.

[NewJeffCT]

11. was just reading about Jesse Ventura's story yesterday

and how Jesse successfully sued his estate - and won. Sounds like the guy loved to talk out of his ass.

However, in regards to #1, because of the media, many people at the time did think we went into Iraq in response to 9/11. So, if the movie is being told from his perspective, I can see how a first person account can show that connection, as many at the time believed it.

[bullwinkle428]

13. K&R. Re: #3 - I think Eastwood tried to conflate Pat Tillman's expressed feelings

about his reservations on the war, and just tried to "cut and paste" them onto Kyle in a desperate effort to make him come across as having some level of empathy.

[uhnope]

18. maybe Eastwood brought some things in from other sources

[rocktivity]

14. Sounds like they left out the scene where he dies

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2018, 09:48 PM - Edit history (3)

via a vet with PTSD who he had taken to a gun range...that would have given the film proper context and merit.


rocktivity

[mrdmk]

62. That is the real paradox in Kyle's life. Everything else seems rather shallow,

like some of Eastwood's films. If Eastwood decides to apply himself, his films are rich...

The more I hear about this movie, the more it becomes a cash-cow for the few!

[uhnope]

17. the film is both anti-war and pro-war

Eastwood has made a film where you see what you want to see

[tabasco]

22. What did anybody expect from Clint Eastwood?

He's a right-wing shmuck.

[Rex]

46. That's the best dam point I've read all day!

I agree, did people expect something different from Mr. NRA/GOP Dirty Harry?

[FairWinds]

24. There is one more REALLY big lie . .

which is that the kid in the film had to die because (as another DU poster wrote) ". .the enemy has used kids before. they did it in Vietnam as well. You have to take out the threat. Its war, and thats the way it goes."

The myth of the terrorist Vietnamese kid was burned into our brains during basic training before we were sent to Vietnam.
We were told endlessly that, "Any eight year old kid could be trying to kill you."
So of course, when we got to Vietnam we were ready to kill children because they MIGHT be a threat.

That training was part of a deliberate programming effort to dehumanize the Vietnamese, and make it easier to kill any or all of them. So is it any wonder that so many children and civilian Vietnamese were killed?

I was in Vietnam for a year, and have studied the war in detail - never heard of a single verified case of a kid sapper attacking US troops.

It was all a lie - and now with respect to Iraq, it still is.

Veterans For Peace

[ND-Dem]

41. +100

[Rex]

45. LOL! The truth about the movie has some particular RW people all pissed off!

Typical they would get mad at exposing lies. One is even a relative that now hates Jesse Ventura lol! BEFORE the movie, Ventura was his military GOD!

How fickle people are when they never have to do shit, like go to war or even spend one day in the military. I've heard about child snipers in Vietnam all my life. Good to hear from someone that was actually there say it is all a bunch of BS.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. What a ridiculous article.

Unless American Sniper wins Best Documentary, these are at best trifling issues. IT'S A MOVIE. IT'S A DRAMATIZATION.

There are SCORES of movies in which time is compressed, conversations are invented, characters are amalgamated into one, and events aren't depicted as they actually happened.

Show me any major, non-documentary movie about WWII made before about 1995, and with very few exceptions the soldiers are all gung-ho and full of life and bluster. They don't get blown to bits, instead they just fall. No one is shown having a nervous breakdown or suffering from the effects of war. The only scene that comes to mind is the crying wounded soldier in Patton.

Naive, stupid article.

[FairWinds]

27. Have to disagree

Respectfully, Cinema propaganda is a very powerful tool for convincing otherwise decent people to do awful things, and to generate hatred for "the other." There is nothing accidental about it.
Lots of people believe it - sorry to say.
Another central message in the film is that iraqi lives don't matter.
[I'm a Vietnam vet, and a member of Veterans For Peace]

[Dreamer Tatum]

28. HOW many movies were made about other wars?

Very much ado about nothing.

[Quixote1818]

43. And those movies should be looked at as well and are often criticized. However....

movies like the Dirty Dozen are made up stories and the directors have a ton of creative freedom, this is a movie based on a real person who really did kill a lot of real living and breathing people in a country we never should have invaded. Clint Eastwood had every right to make the movie he did and we have every right to point out why his version is a fantasy and folks should not get caught up in the propaganda.

Besides, why use Chris Kyle then? Why not just come up with a completely fictional person who killed hundreds of folks who actually did have a conscience?

Maybe this article is full of shit as well? http://www.careeraftermilitary.com/10-most-inaccurate-military-movies-ever-made/

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. I couldn't care less. The real history of Selma is known.

You can make an MLK movie with Ted Nugent as MLK and some rapper as LBJ and it wouldn't mean anything. It's just a movie.

[bigwillq]

50. Vanilla Ice read for LBJ in Selma.

They said No, No, Baby.

[Quixote1818]

56. Just so you know I dropped the part about Selma in my post for a link about inaccurate war films

I must have been exchanging it with the link around the time you responded. Your opinion isn't wrong, this is subjective. I just don't like anything that glorifies an illegal war and makes Bush look good.

[ND-Dem]

52. ....I believe a number of these were made long before 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-war_films_about_World_War_II

also this one:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_Years_of_Our_Lives

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. Then you agree with me. Thanks. nt

[ND-Dem]

54. no i obviously don't.

Show me any major, non-documentary movie about WWII made before about 1995, and with very few exceptions the soldiers are all gung-ho and full of life and bluster. They don't get blown to bits, instead they just fall. No one is shown having a nervous breakdown or suffering from the effects of war.

The best years of our lives, 1946

Running just under three hours, The Best Years of Our Lives offered ironic tribute to thje United States' conquering heroes....The Best Years of Our Lives is invested with the anxieties of return, the challenges to personal reconnection, and the physical and psychological fallout of armed conflict. As the Affrons cleverly note,

“Whether spectators were conscious of it or not, the measured pace of The Best Years of Our Lives asked of them a degree of attention unusual, perhaps unprecedented, in commercial cinema” (232).

America’s overriding patience with The Best Years of Our Lives suggests a general need for postwar catharsis. Without being ostracized as a “problem film” (i.e. a film exploring social ills; often characterized by the press as a “downer”), The Best Years of Our Lives went on to become the cinematic anthem for 1946, taking both the annual box office record and the Academy Award for Best Picture. The Affrons refer to the film as,

“simply the deepest, most moving, most disquieting, most authentically instructive portrait of the period” (201).

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc52.2010/clepper1940s/index.html

But I do think there's a reason you selected WW2 rather than any other war.

[GeorgeGist]

64. Dirty Harry for the youngens.