hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
Schindler's List is on at the moment - apparently Auschwitz was liberated this month, 70 years ago. No wonder so much was shown today in images and spoken memories.
So while this is on and I'm resisting the urge to grab my husband and make out with him (Seinfeld ref, before anyone bites my ass), it occurred to me that this film, its actors and director were lauded as if they themselves were liberators.
Just...strange. The vitriol and judgment and creaming selectively placed.
Based on this and the "last movie watched" thread I really want to go see this movie, only now I'll be watching it as less of a docudrama and more along the lines of Saving Private Ryan (which was only very slightly based on a true story).
"The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
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.”
4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film.
5. The Real Chris Kyle Fabricated A Story About Killing Two Men Who Tried To Carjack Him In Texas: Kyle told numerous people a story about killing two alleged carjackers in Texas. Reporters tried repeatedly to verify this claim, but no evidence of it exists.
6. Chris Kyle Was Successfully Sued For Lying About the Former Governor of Minnesota: Kyle alleged that former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura defamed Navy SEALs and got into a fight with him at a local bar. Ventura successfully sued Kyle for the passage in his book, and a jury awarded him $1.845 million.
7. Chris Kyle’s Family Claimed He Donated His Book Proceeds To Veterans’ Charity, But He Kept Most Of The Profits: The National Review debunks the claim that all proceeds of his book went to veterans’ charities. Around 2 percent – $52,000 – went to the charities while the Kyles pocketed $3 million.
Although the movie is an initial box office hit, there is a growing backlash against its simplistic portrayal of the war and misleading take on Kyle’s character. This backlash has reportedly spread among members of the Academy of Motion Picture of Arts and Sciences, which could threaten the film’s shot at racking up Oscars.
It's what I've been saying through this whole thread: it's based on a true story with Hollywood's twist. It's just a movie. No movie that is based on true stories are EVER 100% accurate. But it's a good movie. Well worth Oscar considerations.
This, in my late night addled brain way, was what I was at least partly what I was trying to get at in the life as art/ art as life thing. (Not sure it deserves to be called a "thread".) We see a movie and think that is reality.
As for "relevance"- this is so 2000's to me. Someone isn't make the front page any more so they are no longer relevant. If that is the case, I nominate the follow as people who are no longer relevant:
Albert Einstein
Mother Teressa
Pablo Picasso
George Orwell
Mahatma Gandhi
Charles Darwin
Elvis Presley
Leonardo da Vinci
Thomas Edison
Malcolm X
Henry Ford
and the number one most irrelevant person in the world:
Sigmund Freud
Anyone wanna buy a bridge? ;-)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I have never really understood the term relevant either, unless it is used in a scientific context. I hate to think that pop culture defines to us what is or is no longer relevant.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
I have never really understood the term relevant either, unless it is used in a scientific context. I hate to think that pop culture defines to us what is or is no longer relevant.
Well, I shouldn't have been so sarcastic but it really is a term that gets tossed around too often IMHO. It's part of our tenancy to throw off the past (thus not learning from history) and only going with what rolls our socks at the moment.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.”
4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film.
5. The Real Chris Kyle Fabricated A Story About Killing Two Men Who Tried To Carjack Him In Texas: Kyle told numerous people a story about killing two alleged carjackers in Texas. Reporters tried repeatedly to verify this claim, but no evidence of it exists.
6. Chris Kyle Was Successfully Sued For Lying About the Former Governor of Minnesota: Kyle alleged that former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura defamed Navy SEALs and got into a fight with him at a local bar. Ventura successfully sued Kyle for the passage in his book, and a jury awarded him $1.845 million.
7. Chris Kyle’s Family Claimed He Donated His Book Proceeds To Veterans’ Charity, But He Kept Most Of The Profits: The National Review debunks the claim that all proceeds of his book went to veterans’ charities. Around 2 percent – $52,000 – went to the charities while the Kyles pocketed $3 million.
Although the movie is an initial box office hit, there is a growing backlash against its simplistic portrayal of the war and misleading take on Kyle’s character. This backlash has reportedly spread among members of the Academy of Motion Picture of Arts and Sciences, which could threaten the film’s shot at racking up Oscars.
It's what I've been saying through this whole thread: it's based on a true story with Hollywood's twist. It's just a movie. No movie that is based on true stories are EVER 100% accurate. But it's a good movie. Well worth Oscar considerations.
This, in my late night addled brain way, was what I was at least partly what I was trying to get at in the life as art/ art as life thing. (Not sure it deserves to be called a "thread".) We see a movie and think that is reality.
As for "relevance"- this is so 2000's to me. Someone isn't make the front page any more so they are no longer relevant. If that is the case, I nominate the follow as people who are no longer relevant:
Albert Einstein
Mother Teressa
Pablo Picasso
George Orwell
Mahatma Gandhi
Charles Darwin
Elvis Presley
Leonardo da Vinci
Thomas Edison
Malcolm X
Henry Ford
and the number one most irrelevant person in the world:
Sigmund Freud
Anyone wanna buy a bridge? ;-)
Brian, you are on the front page of AMT all the time.
What is your pick?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
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.”
4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film.
5. The Real Chris Kyle Fabricated A Story About Killing Two Men Who Tried To Carjack Him In Texas: Kyle told numerous people a story about killing two alleged carjackers in Texas. Reporters tried repeatedly to verify this claim, but no evidence of it exists.
6. Chris Kyle Was Successfully Sued For Lying About the Former Governor of Minnesota: Kyle alleged that former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura defamed Navy SEALs and got into a fight with him at a local bar. Ventura successfully sued Kyle for the passage in his book, and a jury awarded him $1.845 million.
7. Chris Kyle’s Family Claimed He Donated His Book Proceeds To Veterans’ Charity, But He Kept Most Of The Profits: The National Review debunks the claim that all proceeds of his book went to veterans’ charities. Around 2 percent – $52,000 – went to the charities while the Kyles pocketed $3 million.
Although the movie is an initial box office hit, there is a growing backlash against its simplistic portrayal of the war and misleading take on Kyle’s character. This backlash has reportedly spread among members of the Academy of Motion Picture of Arts and Sciences, which could threaten the film’s shot at racking up Oscars.
It's what I've been saying through this whole thread: it's based on a true story with Hollywood's twist. It's just a movie. No movie that is based on true stories are EVER 100% accurate. But it's a good movie. Well worth Oscar considerations.
This, in my late night addled brain way, was what I was at least partly what I was trying to get at in the life as art/ art as life thing. (Not sure it deserves to be called a "thread".) We see a movie and think that is reality.
As for "relevance"- this is so 2000's to me. Someone isn't make the front page any more so they are no longer relevant. If that is the case, I nominate the follow as people who are no longer relevant:
Albert Einstein
Mother Teressa
Pablo Picasso
George Orwell
Mahatma Gandhi
Charles Darwin
Elvis Presley
Leonardo da Vinci
Thomas Edison
Malcolm X
Henry Ford
and the number one most irrelevant person in the world:
Sigmund Freud
Anyone wanna buy a bridge? ;-)
Brian, you are on the front page of AMT all the time.
What is your pick?
For most irrelevant? Hard to say but definitely NOT this guy:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
Also, would not be so foolish as to suggest this guy is irrelevant:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
I guess if I really had to say, I'd go with these clowns:
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Agree with all plaid love above ,but did you all notice the subtle Madras/plaid combo.Not everyone can pull that off.You nailed it without even having to flip up the collar Bri.
When do you need to get Burt Bacharach back his blazer ?
Oscar contender "American Sniper" is a box office hit that has ignited a fierce debate over the film's portrayal of real-life sniper Chris Kyle. Brent speaks to former sniper Jack Coughlin about his own experiences, the morality and ethics of warfare, and criticisms of the film. Coughlin is the author of the best-selling autobiography Shooter and co-author of Shock Factor: American Snipers in the War on Terror.
As a former shooter yourself, do you think American Sniper accurately reflects what it's like to be a sniper?
Absolutely, there was a really good job portraying it and explaining the pushes and pulls of actually making the decision to pull the trigger.
A lot of people, I think, are interested in this film because modern warfare, with drones and other high tech equipment seems like the opposite of what we see. How personal is it, how different is it for a sniper than these impersonal tools of modern warfare?
Well, we're seeing it up close. When you use a drone, you're seeing it through a monitor. It's like playing a video game. When you actually are behind the scope, you're seeing the facial expressions on the target, so you see the damage that you're doing to enemy.
So what's it like for you to see the facial expressions on a person that you're about to kill?
Well, we treat them as targets. Everything on the battlefield is a target. Then we, or I, make a distinction: is it a legal target or not a legal target? "Legal target" means it's a combatant. And once I've determined that it's a combatant, I pull the trigger, I don't think of them as human beings until after the fact. Once the mission's over and you have time to think about it and reflect, that's when you think, 'Oh, I just took someone's life.' So it's not that it's inconsequential, but it's time. You can't let yourself think like that.
You thought of the targets as "targets" and not human beings. Is there a danger in dehumanizing the target that way?
No, there's definitely not, because I also break it down into "legal" and "not legal" targets, meaning bad targets or good targets. As long as you're not breaking the rules of engagement, as long as you're targeting enemy combatants, what I think in my mind means nothing. I'm not dehumanizing all life, I'm just dehumanizing the ones that I'm charged to take.
So what was it like for you the first time that you closed in on a target like that and recognized that they were a combatant and pulled the trigger?
The first time is the easiest, because you don't know the after effects. You don't know what it feels like to have taken a life. You've been trained and trained and trained, you've put thousands and thousands of rounds down range in training. You have to put all the math together to get the round on target the first time, but pulling the trigger's the easiest part, the first time.
Can you remember the image in your mind from what happened after the first time you pulled the trigger?
Yeah, absolutely. I will never forget that. You watch the round go down range with a vapour trail, and you follow the round directly into the target, and it hits, centre-left on the chest. Flipped him over, and the target rolled over onto its back, and then, you know, it was dead.
And then, what happened to you after that? When you reviewed that? You said after the fact it becomes difficult.
After the fact, meaning once you're in a safe environment and there's no threat around you and you have time to reflect. Everybody's different, so I can only give you my experience on it. That's when I sit down and make sure in my mind, 'Okay, I knew what I did, it had to be done.' You address it, and then you it put it away.
You said the first one was the easiest one. What about the second time that you hit a target?
Well, there wasn't any hesitation. Every time you go on a mission after that first one, you have that little but heaviness in your heart knowing what the outcome could be now. I think it's hard to explain that. First, before you actually take out a target, there's something missing in you as a sniper because you don't know what it feels like. And once you understand the gravity of the experience, your heart's a little heavier. Everything's a little bit more real.
Did it get easier for you as you when along?
It didn't get easier and it didn't get harder. I never enjoyed it. That's not to say, in the heat of the moment, when bullets are flying and my responsibility is to protect the troops around me, when you make that shot you're happy about that. You just saved somebody's life. That's how I look at it. Snipers save lives by taking lives. That's not a cop-out. That's a fact.
So explain the ethics of being a sniper. If a young sniper came to you and was troubled or felt that there was a moral question about what he was doing, how would you explain to him what you see is the value of his work?
First of all, I believe I would have that person removed from the sniper platoon, because if you're doubting whether your job is a good job or a righteous job - you're out there in a small team, there's no room to mess up. You're responsible to protect the troops around you. When you talk to guys who haven't gone through it yet, I tell them that they're out there to save lives. There's many different angles on how that works. each target they take off the battlefield saves ten lives. If there's a guy in a building and he's shooting out at people, they have a plethora of weapons to use on that building, correct? They have thousand-pound bombs to missiles, rockets, mortars, everything.
So why use a shooter?
Because I can take that one shot, take out that enemy without any collateral damage. I'm also saving civilian lives in that manner.
Michael Moore wrote a tweet this week that he was taught that snipers were cowards because they would shoot a man in the back, and I know you probably have political differences with Michael Moore, but what would you say to someone who has that line and thinks that snipers are cowards?
I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him to say that. I would also say that I think he's wrong. I don't think he's speaking with any type of information. it would be like me trying to direct a film. I can't do it. I don't have that type of skill-set.
As a former sniper yourself, what do you want people to be thinking about when they see this film and make up their own minds about it?
See him as the man, and the hero. The everyday grind he has to go through in combat and at home. And don't feel sorry for him. He volunteered. And just respect it. Whether you agree with it or not, just respect it.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
haha! Thank you, plaid fans!
From the interview above:
I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.
Does anybody here buy this? I don't. I don't think any of our troops (whom, as you know, I do support) have fought anywhere in the world in the last 50 years to fight for our freedom to say anything.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I agree 100% Brian. We haven't had to defend ourselves in more than a generation. When people credit our freedom of speech to our military (I hear it very often) I like to point to China, or North Korea, which have large militaries and limited freedoms. It isn't the warriors with guns who protect our freedom of speech, press, and assembly, it's the warriors with pens. Folks like the hated ACLU, the lawyers, and even politicians, who defend our rights should be given their proper appreciation as heroes of freedom.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,840
I agree 100% Brian. We haven't had to defend ourselves in more than a generation. When people credit our freedom of speech to our military (I hear it very often) I like to point to China, or North Korea, which have large militaries and limited freedoms. It isn't the warriors with guns who protect our freedom of speech, press, and assembly, it's the warriors with pens. Folks like the hated ACLU, the lawyers, and even politicians, who defend our rights should be given their proper appreciation as heroes of freedom.
Yeah, rg., it blows my mind that there are people in the spotlight who still make this claim. It goes clear back to the "kill a commie for Christ" (a line from a satirical cartoon during the Viet Nam war era) and cold war era. I know a guy who served in Viet Nam and another who served in Iraq. Both went in thinking they were "defending freedom" and came out scarred, disillusioned and basically fucked over and knew they had been snowed. That "fighting for freedom" bit has been a crock of shit ever since the end of WWII and I can't believe it's still being foisted off on people... or that anyone falls for that bullshit.
Wow! Heavy rant today. Struck a nerve! I'll chill- I promise!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I will grant that it was justified, but that doesn't mean we were defending ourselves. There is some ground between conquest and defense, and the Afghanistan war falls in that middle ground.
No Scott, you're actually wrong. We should've went to house of saud and liberated those people since 16 of 19 high jackers were from there.
So attack Saudi Arabia since 16 of the high jackers were born there? Pretty unlucky for saudi, wouldn't you think? The Taliban in Afghanistan were supporting, housing, and funding Bin Laden and that is why they got the war.
I will grant that it was justified, but that doesn't mean we were defending ourselves. There is some ground between conquest and defense, and the Afghanistan war falls in that middle ground.
We weren't defending ourselves? I disagree. We went over there and pretty much wiped out an entire generation of terrorists and prevented who knows how many attacks on americans.
Comments
So while this is on and I'm resisting the urge to grab my husband and make out with him (Seinfeld ref, before anyone bites my ass), it occurred to me that this film, its actors and director were lauded as if they themselves were liberators.
Just...strange. The vitriol and judgment and creaming selectively placed.
Agree.
Imagine if had been made through any others perspective.
I don't know.
There is no such thing as a lazy eye. It's a lazy brain.
The eye became lame because the brain accepted and functioned on without.
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
This, in my late night addled brain way, was what I was at least partly what I was trying to get at in the life as art/ art as life thing. (Not sure it deserves to be called a "thread".) We see a movie and think that is reality.
As for "relevance"- this is so 2000's to me. Someone isn't make the front page any more so they are no longer relevant. If that is the case, I nominate the follow as people who are no longer relevant:
Albert Einstein
Mother Teressa
Pablo Picasso
George Orwell
Mahatma Gandhi
Charles Darwin
Elvis Presley
Leonardo da Vinci
Thomas Edison
Malcolm X
Henry Ford
and the number one most irrelevant person in the world:
Sigmund Freud
Anyone wanna buy a bridge? ;-)
www.headstonesband.com
Well, I shouldn't have been so sarcastic but it really is a term that gets tossed around too often IMHO. It's part of our tenancy to throw off the past (thus not learning from history) and only going with what rolls our socks at the moment.
Brian, you are on the front page of AMT all the time.
What is your pick?
For most irrelevant? Hard to say but definitely NOT this guy:
Now I feel that I am often reading and wear those clothes.
Ah yes, that great duo, The Mismatched Plaids (AKA "Bad Plaid"). Truly irrelevant. Well, at least the guy on the left anyway.
LOL! You too, H! :-D
He makes news everyday along with his cohorts Allah, buddah, and the gang. But that's a different thread.
Brian, plaid is never irrelevant, especially to those of us still celebrating grunge.
When do you need to get Burt Bacharach back his blazer ?
A real American sniper on "American Sniper"
Oscar contender "American Sniper" is a box office hit that has ignited a fierce debate over the film's portrayal of real-life sniper Chris Kyle. Brent speaks to former sniper Jack Coughlin about his own experiences, the morality and ethics of warfare, and criticisms of the film. Coughlin is the author of the best-selling autobiography Shooter and co-author of Shock Factor: American Snipers in the War on Terror.
As a former shooter yourself, do you think American Sniper accurately reflects what it's like to be a sniper?
Absolutely, there was a really good job portraying it and explaining the pushes and pulls of actually making the decision to pull the trigger.
A lot of people, I think, are interested in this film because modern warfare, with drones and other high tech equipment seems like the opposite of what we see. How personal is it, how different is it for a sniper than these impersonal tools of modern warfare?
Well, we're seeing it up close. When you use a drone, you're seeing it through a monitor. It's like playing a video game. When you actually are behind the scope, you're seeing the facial expressions on the target, so you see the damage that you're doing to enemy.
So what's it like for you to see the facial expressions on a person that you're about to kill?
Well, we treat them as targets. Everything on the battlefield is a target. Then we, or I, make a distinction: is it a legal target or not a legal target? "Legal target" means it's a combatant. And once I've determined that it's a combatant, I pull the trigger, I don't think of them as human beings until after the fact. Once the mission's over and you have time to think about it and reflect, that's when you think, 'Oh, I just took someone's life.' So it's not that it's inconsequential, but it's time. You can't let yourself think like that.
You thought of the targets as "targets" and not human beings. Is there a danger in dehumanizing the target that way?
No, there's definitely not, because I also break it down into "legal" and "not legal" targets, meaning bad targets or good targets. As long as you're not breaking the rules of engagement, as long as you're targeting enemy combatants, what I think in my mind means nothing. I'm not dehumanizing all life, I'm just dehumanizing the ones that I'm charged to take.
So what was it like for you the first time that you closed in on a target like that and recognized that they were a combatant and pulled the trigger?
The first time is the easiest, because you don't know the after effects. You don't know what it feels like to have taken a life. You've been trained and trained and trained, you've put thousands and thousands of rounds down range in training. You have to put all the math together to get the round on target the first time, but pulling the trigger's the easiest part, the first time.
Can you remember the image in your mind from what happened after the first time you pulled the trigger?
Yeah, absolutely. I will never forget that. You watch the round go down range with a vapour trail, and you follow the round directly into the target, and it hits, centre-left on the chest. Flipped him over, and the target rolled over onto its back, and then, you know, it was dead.
And then, what happened to you after that? When you reviewed that? You said after the fact it becomes difficult.
After the fact, meaning once you're in a safe environment and there's no threat around you and you have time to reflect. Everybody's different, so I can only give you my experience on it. That's when I sit down and make sure in my mind, 'Okay, I knew what I did, it had to be done.' You address it, and then you it put it away.
You said the first one was the easiest one. What about the second time that you hit a target?
Well, there wasn't any hesitation. Every time you go on a mission after that first one, you have that little but heaviness in your heart knowing what the outcome could be now. I think it's hard to explain that. First, before you actually take out a target, there's something missing in you as a sniper because you don't know what it feels like. And once you understand the gravity of the experience, your heart's a little heavier. Everything's a little bit more real.
Did it get easier for you as you when along?
It didn't get easier and it didn't get harder. I never enjoyed it. That's not to say, in the heat of the moment, when bullets are flying and my responsibility is to protect the troops around me, when you make that shot you're happy about that. You just saved somebody's life. That's how I look at it. Snipers save lives by taking lives. That's not a cop-out. That's a fact.
So explain the ethics of being a sniper. If a young sniper came to you and was troubled or felt that there was a moral question about what he was doing, how would you explain to him what you see is the value of his work?
First of all, I believe I would have that person removed from the sniper platoon, because if you're doubting whether your job is a good job or a righteous job - you're out there in a small team, there's no room to mess up. You're responsible to protect the troops around you. When you talk to guys who haven't gone through it yet, I tell them that they're out there to save lives. There's many different angles on how that works. each target they take off the battlefield saves ten lives. If there's a guy in a building and he's shooting out at people, they have a plethora of weapons to use on that building, correct? They have thousand-pound bombs to missiles, rockets, mortars, everything.
So why use a shooter?
Because I can take that one shot, take out that enemy without any collateral damage. I'm also saving civilian lives in that manner.
Michael Moore wrote a tweet this week that he was taught that snipers were cowards because they would shoot a man in the back, and I know you probably have political differences with Michael Moore, but what would you say to someone who has that line and thinks that snipers are cowards?
I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him to say that. I would also say that I think he's wrong. I don't think he's speaking with any type of information. it would be like me trying to direct a film. I can't do it. I don't have that type of skill-set.
As a former sniper yourself, what do you want people to be thinking about when they see this film and make up their own minds about it?
See him as the man, and the hero. The everyday grind he has to go through in combat and at home. And don't feel sorry for him. He volunteered. And just respect it. Whether you agree with it or not, just respect it.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
From the interview above:
I'd say that I spent 21 and a half years in the military, and that there's many men and women serving right now serving on the tip of the spear to allow him [Moore] to say that.
Does anybody here buy this? I don't. I don't think any of our troops (whom, as you know, I do support) have fought anywhere in the world in the last 50 years to fight for our freedom to say anything.
Yeah, rg., it blows my mind that there are people in the spotlight who still make this claim. It goes clear back to the "kill a commie for Christ" (a line from a satirical cartoon during the Viet Nam war era) and cold war era. I know a guy who served in Viet Nam and another who served in Iraq. Both went in thinking they were "defending freedom" and came out scarred, disillusioned and basically fucked over and knew they had been snowed. That "fighting for freedom" bit has been a crock of shit ever since the end of WWII and I can't believe it's still being foisted off on people... or that anyone falls for that bullshit.
Wow! Heavy rant today. Struck a nerve! I'll chill- I promise!
So attack Saudi Arabia since 16 of the high jackers were born there? Pretty unlucky for saudi, wouldn't you think? The Taliban in Afghanistan were supporting, housing, and funding Bin Laden and that is why they got the war.
We weren't defending ourselves? I disagree. We went over there and pretty much wiped out an entire generation of terrorists and prevented who knows how many attacks on americans.