Propaganda in the 21st century - American Sniper

[Arakan]

Allright...last week I watched American Sniper, already the most successfull war movie in the history of cinema. And I was shocked. This movie is not only a disgrace for someone who did "Flags of our Fathers", "Letters from Iwo Jima" or "Unforgiven", this movie is also a masterpiece of subtle propaganda. I would even dare to say that someone like Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of this movie as this was a guy who never was a fan of brutish in-your-face propaganda.

The disturbing irony is that American Sniper reminded me of "Held der Nation" (IIRC), the movie in the movie in Inglorious Basterds. Now of course the difference is that Tarantino showed how ridiculous propaganda is whereas American Sniper is dead-serious.

It is disturbing. I never saw an A-List American war movie from Hollywood which was so full of propaganda, in every aspect. Rambo 2+3 or Red Dawn were Cold War era movies but what is the excuse for American Sniper?

What is going on?

In the past Hollywood produced movies like FMJ, Platoon or Apocalypse Now. Or Band of Brothers. And now we get Goebbels style propaganda movies and they are even by far the most successfull ever. What is going on? This development in the US is frigthening. I mean it's like watching propaganda movies from the former Eastern bloc (even though the SU produced some great movies as well).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Propaganda sucks. Aggressive nationalism sucks. I regularly get nastiness thrown my way because I do not say the "Pledge of Allegience". I don't care for its gingoistic "America is always right and just because its America" attitude and I see it as an unqualified loyalty oath.

Whether American Sniper qualifies as such I can't say because I haven't seen the film yet.

[The Killer Snark]

I have seen the film. I enjoyed it. I agree with the OP, however, on the basis that the film views the actions and psychology of the main character purely through a good vs evil moral gauge that renders it ineffective as a comment on the psychologically attritive effects of warfare, which it doesn't really try to be. Even if we are to assume full sympathy with the character, or partial, depending on personal bent, it doesn't alter the fact that his presentation as an uncomplicated do-gooder everyman Joe, without asking any questions about exactly what makes a sniper tick (which does necessitate certain sociopathic detachments even if one is fighting for the right side) is blatantly propagandist, as well as actually not being good biographical art. Even for those who beileve this was a conflict we were right to engage in, the dichotomy of US = invariably good, and Middle East = invariably evil does leave a funny taste in the mouth. The superior Zero Dark Thirty at least attempts to be objective and not to whitewash or excuse anything. With this sort of film, no romanticism should be present, so that the public is left free to absorb historical data and then make up their own moral mind.

[Arakan]

Propaganda sucks. Aggressive nationalism sucks. I regularly get nastiness thrown my way because I do not say the "Pledge of Allegience". I don't care for its gingoistic "America is always right and just because its America" attitude and I see it as an unqualified loyalty oath.

Whether American Sniper qualifies as such I can't say because I haven't seen the film yet.

From a technical pov the movie is great. But the message is dangerous. It basically is an idolizing and hero-worshipping of a very controversial figure. Is this the Michael Bay effect?

I don't know...Eastwood made great movies in the past.

By the way, I think nothing is wrong to say the "Pledge of Allegience" or to be proud of America if you are an American. All things considered it is a great country.

I don't know maybe it's due to the effects of globalization and the increasing anonymity of society that there seemingly again rises the need for the classic hero. Would be interesting to know who was responsible in building up Chris Kyle as THE national hero. Eastwood basically is just a bandwaggoner in this regard.

[Arakan]

I have seen the film. I enjoyed it. I agree with the OP, however, on the basis that the film views the actions and psychology of the main character purely through a good vs evil moral gauge that renders it ineffective as a comment on the psychologically attritive effects of warfare, which it doesn't really try to be. Even if we are to assume full sympathy with the character, or partial, depending on personal bent, it doesn't alter the fact that his presentation as an uncomplicated do-goode everyman Joe, without asking any questions about exactly what makes a sniper tick (which does necessitate certain sociopathic detachments even if one is fighting for the right side) is blatantly propagandist, as well as actually not being good biographical art. Even for those who beileve this was a conflict we were right to engage in, the dichotomy of US = invariably good, and Middle East = invariably evil does leave a funny taste in the mouth. The superior Zero Dark Thirty at least attempts to be objective and not to whitewash or excuse anything. With this sort of film, no romanticism should be present, so that the public is left free to absorb historical data and then make up their own moral mind.

Great post and "Zero Dark Thirty" was indeed a great movie. Maybe the problem I had with American Sniper is that I never would have expected such a movie by Clint Eastwood.

And as I said: it is ok to show respect to what Chris Kyle did and even if we assume that he did a job which had to be done, it is a completely different thing to idolize him for what he did and what he was, a sniper, which is maybe the most controversial profession in the military service.

[Elder Sister]

I haven't seen the movie, or read the book on which it was based, but I would expect it to be exactly as the OP describes it. It was based on an autobiography written by the main character, so of course, it's going to be one-sided and patriotic.

I am extremely conflicted when it comes to this subject. I was married to a combat veteran, and our marriage of 23 years ended because he suffers from PTSD so bad that I have woken up in choke holds to him screaming and have been punched numerous times while he slept. I walked on eggshells for years and was miserable, knowing the whole time that he was absolutely more miserable and damaged as a result of his war experiences. My marriage ended because of it. He has lost so much in his life because of how broken his combat experiences made him. He knows it, and I know it. He's currently being treated for PTSD and bipolar disorder, but it's honestly too late. I pray for him every day, and still feel guilt for leaving.

I don't have plans to see the movie or read the book. I don't need to; I feel like I have enough experience on the subject. But I think it's a bit silly to expect a nuanced, impartial movie about the Iraqi war when it's based on a book written by the soldier it portrays. It's one man's viewpoint, and it's his alone.

[The Killer Snark]

Arakan - Exactly. Snipers are indeed avoided and treated with aversion in many armies on a personal level by other soldiers, because they are seen as siciopathic personalities, necessary ones perhaps, but it doesn't really change who they are. I've no real opinion on whether Chris Kyle was a high functioning sociopath. I've never read his autobigraphy. But the aversion of the film towards any illumination of his psychological motivations in disingenuous at best.

[Arakan]

I haven't seen the movie, or read the book on which it was based, but I would expect it to be exactly as the OP describes it. It was based on an autobiography written by the main character, so of course, it's going to be one-sided and patriotic.

I am extremely conflicted when it comes to this subject. I was married to a combat veteran, and our marriage of 23 years ended because he suffers from PTSD so bad that I have woken up in choke holds to him screaming and have been punched numerous times while he slept. I walked on eggshells for years and was miserable, knowing the whole time that he was absolutely more miserable and damaged as a result of his war experiences. My marriage ended because of it. He has lost so much in his life because of how broken his combat experiences made him. He knows it, and I know it. He's currently being treated for PTSD and bipolar disorder, but it's honestly too late. I pray for him every day, and still feel guilt for leaving.

I don't have plans to see the movie or read the book. I don't need to; I feel like I have enough experience on the subject. But I think it's a bit silly to expect a nuanced, impartial movie about the Iraqi war when it's based on a book written by the soldier it portrays. It's one man's viewpoint, and it's his alone.

First of all, thank you for this very thoughtful post. With your last point I do not agree. If this was a movie by Michael Bay, then you would be right but is a movie by Clint Eastwood and he is capable of so much more. In my defence I have to add that I am not American and had no idea who Chris Kyle was and how much he was a hero in the US. Only now I have informed myself about him and his past. To be fair that is valid for many here in Germany (I guess in other countries as well).

To summarize: I expected a Clint Eastwood movie and was looking forward how he would approach the Iraq war. FOUF and LFIJ are great movie who find the right balance.

[The Killer Snark]

I'm the same way. I love Clint Eastwood as a director. I thought this was very good, but it disappointed me that he did such an obvious Hollywood job on it.

[Arakan]

Arakan - Exactly. Snipers are indeed avoided and treated with aversion in many armies on a personal level by other soldiers, because they are seen as siciopathic personalities, necessary ones perhaps, but it doesn't really change who they are. I've no real opinion on whether Chris Kyle was a high functioning sociopath. I've never read his autobigraphy. But the aversion of the film towards any illumination of his psychological motivations in disingenuous at best.

Well from my past in the military service (2001-2003), I can only say this: we regarded snipers or any similar kind of spec ops with high respect, and treated them a little bit like superhumans. But they are a very very special kind of soldiers and no one of my comrades socialized with them. This was mutual as they tended to stay within themselves. Shortly, we had great respect for their abilities but kept mutual distance.

[Elder Sister]

The movie has made dump truck loads of cash. So, there is that.

Here's my opinion on why: Americans love a war movie, but we also love to see 'justice' served. American Sniper would have been much more controversial had Kyle lived. Snipers are controversial. But they are very necessary, and I would argue that in order to survive in a combat situation for any length of time, a person had better develop some sociopathic tendencies, if they don't have them already.

But, because the main character dies, and everyone knows this, the problem that the OP has with the movie is solved. It's really no different than Elizabeth Taylor dying in the end of Butterfield 8; she was a prostitute having an affair with a married man. American morality in the 50's decreed she would have to pay the price for her sins.

[The Killer Snark]

Arakan - My brother was in the army and snipers were viewed differently within his own regiment, but obviously it varies from regiment to regiment.

[Biglose]

Well, I am devided on the issue, because I mostly think that any attention PTSD gets is good. No matter what else. The destructive effects missing treatment opertunities of it has on the veterans and their families is just too real.

[Arakan]

Arakan - My brother was in the army and snipers were viewed differently within his own regiment, but obviously it varies from regiment to regiment.

Oh I think we are not far off. To be sure, they have a frightening aura. We were trained to fight and if neccessary to kill. A sniper per definition is trained to kill, that's his raison d'etre, which IS frightening as hell.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

I took American Sniper as and antiwar film not propaganda. It showed men getting broken by war, the horrible toll it took on their families not to mention the people in the war zone who had their lives destroyed.

[Arkhangel]

I don't have plans to see the movie or read the book. I don't need to; I feel like I have enough experience on the subject. But I think it's a bit silly to expect a nuanced, impartial movie about the Iraqi war when it's based on a book written by the soldier it portrays. It's one man's viewpoint, and it's his alone.

I also have no intention of seeing the movie, but I think the bolded statement is pretty questionable. When one man's viewpoint is put up on a platform in front of millions of people, it becomes much more than "his alone". Don't make me invoke Godwin's Law already... :p

[Castel]

I took American Sniper as and antiwar film not propaganda. It showed men getting broken by war, the horrible toll it took on their families not to mention the people in the war zone who had their lives destroyed.

That's the new style. Yet it sets the terms of the discourse. Saddam is nowhere to be seen. A plane hits the Towers and the only threat in Iraq is Al Qaeda. It's subtle things like this that matter.

Zero Dark Thirty did the same thing. Oh, we're not saying that torture is good! We're just showing you the cost and letting you decide!

Good propaganda doesn't need to tell you what you must think it just defines the argument in a way that suits them. So if ZDT shows that torture always worked when trying to get UBL instead of it being a dead-end then an argument has been made. You try to argue against torture with that sort of success. They can't have the total victory of everyone loving torture but they can take this eminently defensible position :it worked. If it was shown to be completely ineffective another argument has been made, and so on.

Then you have a jingoist's wet dream; Sniper Superman, sacrificing for your freedoms. The fact that he suffers and breaks makes it all the more stirring.I mean, look at Jesus.

I find the comment that it's "anti-war" meaningless. The fact that war sucks doesn't change anything. WW2 sucked. No one calls movies about it anti-war movies because we feel it was a just cause. The issue is not that war in general sucked, is that the war portrayed sucked more for little reason. THAT'S what makes an anti-war movie. Not this "well...it was hell...for us" message which can be twisted by either side. And, as we saw, it was.

But most of that is bleached (except in his superior) . The evils are evils, nothing goes wrong except the evils. Chris Kyle is never wrong and the times when he said shitty things that were wrong are gone.

And, to add insult to injury, we now have the "it's about a man and his story" argument. . They cut shit out of his story and added a bunch of fairytale elements so who even knows if it's a realistic representation of his story? And his journey is really important because of what's happening behind him. This is just a common excuse for Hollywood writers that now want to dodge any pressure so they can play in a dangerous (politically) sandbox and reap the rewards of that. That's all that is, ultimately.

[NoneofYourBiz]

I took American Sniper as and antiwar film not propaganda. It showed men getting broken by war, the horrible toll it took on their families not to mention the people in the war zone who had their lives destroyed.

I took it as neither antiwar nor as propaganda. Just a stark depiction of the toll war takes on service members and their families.

I did not know Chris Kyle but I know a few of his friends and many men like him. I have watched first hand the toll war takes on them and their families. I have seen men self medicate with alcohol and fall into pits of despair, I have seen them act as if everything is fine because to do otherwise is seen as weak, then kill themselves. I have seen others who are able to become inspirational to others, whose form of "self medication" is reaching out to others. Chris Kyle was that man. He understood the demons that can follow you after war and in attempting to heal others was trying to heal himself. Chris was human and struggled with his own demons. He was good at his job, it doesn't mean it rested easy on him. I thought the movie depicted that pretty accurately.

[Lord Fauntleroy]

You folks are forgetting who MADE the movie- Hollywood. Which is full of very liberally minded people. It was not a politically slanted movie because people of all kinds of ideologies put money and effort into it.

This movie was just like every other movie- a cash grab.

[Castel]

You folks are forgetting who MADE the movie- Hollywood. Which is full of very liberally minded people. It was not a politically slanted movie because people of all kinds of ideologies put money and effort into it.

This movie was just like every other movie- a cash grab.

Horrible argument. The director is conservative and Hollywood likes money. It's not like they've constantly turned it down for the sake of some liberal principle.