Propaganda in the 21st century - American Sniper

[Castel]

And I'm again not surprised you completely ignore my point- that idiots and/or opportunists can and will claim anything they can as support of their ideas, no matter how thin or non-existent the connection to their ideologies is (even when- like it's the case with American Sniper, it's the exact opposite)- because it's convenient to you.

I didn't ignore your point. I wasn't concerned with it at the moment because I was noting something about the discourse in this thread for everyone to see, not just to talk to you or disprove what you said.

This isn't the first time this has happened. A point is made after you shotgun a bunch of ideas out there (including the Eastwood meme). The point is left alone until someone from either side says something that can easily be twisted to talk about something like how anti-war Eastwood is or some other simple point, and then that's what we talk about, with a bunch of other talking points and the added simulated confusion that people can't see the obvious "truth".

Remember that we were talking about your naive realism argument? Now we're no longer talking about your naive realism argument. We're back to "Clint Eastwood is soooo anti-war" and other assorted memes, the entire reason we were talking about your naive realism argument in the first place, to clarify that.

Tons of people think otherwise, so apparently it very much does support this message.

As does the guy it's based on.

No, it's like saying Clint Eastwood failed at making an anti-war movie when he made American Sniper.

How will you argue either of these points Shryke? If you try to dig into any of the bases for the opposite beliefs the thread will just enter a lull until some excuse gets us back to the talking points.

If we want to discuss the issue of framing and why things are shown what happens? We saw quite clearly, the question isn't answered and we're back to discussing Eastwood being anti-war, the entire reason the question of framing was relevant.

It's some twisted Groundhog Day-style loop.

I mean, it's one thing to disagree with the point being made. It's another to so aggressively side-step them constantly without any acknowledgment.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I also just want a movie with an Iraqi or Vietnamese perspective. I would watch that in a heartbeat. But I find that documentaries are sometimes better.

I can't comment on the quality or content on American Sniper since I haven't watched it, and don't plan to. I would read the book...then again, I don't want to add to the sales.

I haven't (and wont) see(n) AS either.

I also agree with what I bolded from your quote.

This movie clip http://youtu.be/drUSMMJ_xb8 (its viewable in clips on Youtube)

Is Oliver Stone made.

But its based on Le Ly Hayslips books

"When Heaven and Earth changed places" and

"Child of War, Woman of Peace".

It's based on her experiences before, during and after the Vietnam war.

Joan Chen does some impressive narration.

[Egalitarianism Always]

There's no way a film which shows how delusional people across the world would be made in Hollywood it would at best portray grey characters, but these can be just as cardboard as black and white characters.

There is only subjective ethics and as each of us is a being-in-the-world we are not only particulates but also part of the world.

[Lord of Rhinos]

On a conscious, cognitive level you are right. But do you now how good propaganda works? It is subtle, and addresses you on an emotional, subconscious level. All of which fits AS.

Chris Kyle fights in Iraq because of Al Qaida and Bin Laden. This is AS.

Propaganda is by definition purposeful. If American Sniper is propaganda then you should make a claim about who is responsible for that propaganda.

[The Killer Snark]

Because it's impossible that a director won't have views about a recent war they are making a film about, or they wouldn't be in the process of making it, war films will always have an element of propaganda either for or against the side the film is made about. The level of propagandist sentiment will merely vary according to whether the filmmaker is aware of this and tries to check their own opinions. Movies made about wars that happened outside our own generation have a far higher probability of being objective historical interest films.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Again, propaganda is purposeful. Eastwood is anti-Iraq war and has been documented as such since well before filming American sniper. He's stated his anti-Iraq war opinion again and again since American Sniper came out. So there's really only three options. (1) Clint Eastwood is lying, (2) someone else was in control of the movie and turned it into a propaganda movie (3) the movie isn't propaganda.

[Biglose]

Movies made about wars that happened outside our own generation have a far higher probability of being objective historical interest films.

And thats why all the movies about Alexander the Great focus on his achievements and missdeeds. Wait,they don't. They glorify him.

I know there may be some... But no, this one of those things which sounds true but actually is just so wrong. Once history has rendered a verdict in public opinion, it is not challanged often...

I think what we are seeing more and more is the fact that a lot of verdicts are rendered without even knowing the facts.

Everyone can scream out his opinion on twitter and it may get traction. If it is true or not does not matter. Half of the people agreeing/contradicting won't know alot about the topic anyway.

This brings in a huge element of randomness, where the content is far less important than the current status of mind of the "nation/world" and who throw out what first and with which topic it was linked.

[straits]

Again, propaganda is purposeful. Eastwood is anti-Iraq war and has been documented as such since well before filming American sniper. He's stated his anti-Iraq war opinion again and again since American Sniper came out.

The political views of the movie's makers don't matter. Maybe Eastwood tried making an anti-war movie and missed the mark.

So there's really only three options. (1) Clint Eastwood is lying, (2) someone else was in control of the movie and turned it into a propaganda movie (3) the movie isn't propaganda.

There really aren't 3 options, although I can see how that would make matters easier to argue. You are trying to drag the entire discussion from the nature of the movie into a debate about Eastwood's intentions and views, where you feel that you can make your point best.

[Swordfish]

The political views of the movie's makers don't matter. Maybe Eastwood tried making an anti-war movie and missed the mark.

There really aren't 3 options, although I can see how that would make matters easier to argue. You are trying to drag the entire discussion from the nature of the movie into a debate about Eastwood's intentions and views, where you feel that you can make your point best.

You miss the point entirely. It is not possible, by definition, for Eastwood to make accidental propaganda.

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.

Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3

: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Now, certainly, material not intended as propaganda can be TURNED INTO propaganda, or misused.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Whether or not the movie is propaganda is irrelevant to the claim that because Eastwood is anti-war, he couldn't possibly make a movie that comes across as jingoistic, or a movie that fails to get his ideas onto the screen.

It'd be like claiming that Nick Cage has never made a bad movie because he wanted them all to be good.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Whether or not the movie is propaganda is irrelevant to the claim that because Eastwood is anti-war, he couldn't possibly make a movie that comes across as jingoistic, or a movie that fails to get his ideas onto the screen.

It'd be like claiming that Nick Cage has never made a bad movie because he wanted them all to be good.

Sure, but the main claim has been that the movie is propaganda. Once that claim is dealt with it is much easier to actually assess what the movie is trying to do and why it makes many of the choices it does. It's not trying to restart the conversation America was having in early 2003 about whether invading Iraq was justified. The fact that so many people seem to want to have that fight all over again for no reason is depressing.

I don't think American Sniper is an Anti-War movie. I think very few people are actually Anti-War. I think just about everyone on this board has certain wars that they think were necessary. The main point of the movie is the impact that war has on American soldiers and their families. It is making an implicit argument about the obligations we owe veterans and part of that argument is that we should not ask them to do dangerous and harrowing things lightly.

[Shryke]

Sure, but the main claim has been that the movie is propaganda. Once that claim is dealt with it is much easier to actually assess what the movie is trying to do and why it makes many of the choices it does. It's not trying to restart the conversation America was having in early 2003 about whether invading Iraq was justified. The fact that so many people seem to want to have that fight all over again for no reason is depressing.

I don't think American Sniper is an Anti-War movie. I think very few people are actually Anti-War. I think just about everyone on this board has certain wars that they think were necessary. The main point of the movie is the impact that war has on American soldiers and their families. It is making an implicit argument about the obligations we owe veterans and part of that argument is that we should not ask them to do dangerous and harrowing things lightly.

That may be what it's trying to do, but it does not really succeed at that goal at all.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Sure, but the main claim has been that the movie is propaganda. Once that claim is dealt with it is much easier to actually assess what the movie is trying to do and why it makes many of the choices it does. It's not trying to restart the conversation America was having in early 2003 about whether invading Iraq was justified. The fact that so many people seem to want to have that fight all over again for no reason is depressing.

I don't think American Sniper is an Anti-War movie. I think very few people are actually Anti-War. I think just about everyone on this board has certain wars that they think were necessary. ......

..................

........,,,.,

.

Well which wars would those be exactly then?

Let's say for the last 60 odd yrs, which would cover most posters lifetimes ,1950-present?

[Gears of the Beast]

Well which wars would those be exactly then?

Let's say for the last 60 odd yrs, which would cover most posters lifetimes ,1950-present?

If you're going to impose arbitrary parameters why not limit it to wars that are happening now? The war fought against ISIS is a very necessary war, I think everyone can agree.

[The guy from the Vale]

Ok. But even if wars may be necessary sometimes, most of these necessary wars are defensive ones. The Iraqi armed forces and the Kurds are defending themselves against ISIS; in WWII, Britain, the US and the Soviet Union all defended themselves (the US less so than the others, having been attacked only once, and never by Germany directly). Even if their ultimate goal may be eliminating the opponent as a threat, that's only because the other side has shown a willingness to act on that threat.

On the flip side, it's offensive wars and invasions like the Vietnam war or the Iraq war that are usually unnecessary.

So, perhaps, the better question is: Which invasions are just or necessary wars?

[TrueMetis]

So, perhaps, the better question is: Which invasions are just or necessary wars?

WW2 for most of the Commonwealth countries. WW2 is every just and unjust reason for a war all rolled up into one horrifying package.

[Gears of the Beast]

The distinction is not between wars of defense and invasions, the distinction is between wars fought to prevent/stop evil and wars that are not. The UN's R2P states that sovereign states have the responsibility to protect their people from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes etc etc. and if a state fails to do so then military intervention is not only justified but a responsibility of the international community. There are examples where intervention was justified like Libya and Bosnia and also examples where failure to intervene proved to be immoral such as Darfur.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Well regarding ISIS i'd say it's an important conflict to end not escalate.

The Shiite vs Sunni sectarian confrontation it is spawnwed out of likely

can't be solved with bombs alone.

The U.S. is challenged for a strategy because some of the groups fighting ISIS

are on our terror list or states like Iran which we don't even have an embassy in.

Noam Chomsky is a dry speaker for many, he's 86 years wise now.

But he is eminently knowledgeable about the subject.http://youtu.be/ZW_5WmusqY0

I don't feel this is a necessary war for my country to

"sledgehammer" into. As Professor Chomsky notes,

that will do nil to address the root cause and address the grievances between

Sunni and Shia. Iran and Iraq must solve this problem by

addressing the root of the conflict eventually.

I suspect there will be fighting for ages though.

Do I accept that it's "very necessary"?

No,

I view it as the unfortunate result of hitting that society with sledgehammer in

the first place. Pre Iraq invasion Sunni and Shia were not in conflict like

this. As the Professor notes.

[Gears of the Beast]

Opinions about what caused the conflict and how evil the West is are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that people in the area have a simple choice; capitulate to ISIS or resist them i.e engage them in an armed conflict therefore fighting a war against ISIS is 100% necessary.

[Crixus]

When American soldiers do shit like this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/23/us-soldier-admits-killing-afghans