Rolling Stone:American Sniper a story without context

[Dondilion]

The celebration of the movie "American Sniper" seems to irk Rolling Stone's
reviewer Matt Taibbi.

Matt would like some context.

I would say to him: Many people just want to be entertained.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...cize-20150121/

[finnbow]

It's totally OK to write a review that doesn't praise a movie. Movies that purport to be based on fact should indeed be factual, methinks. This criticism (of mine) applies even more so to Selma, wherein LBJ's contribution/leadership to civil rights reform is downplayed.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's totally OK to write a review that doesn't praise a movie. Movies that purport to be based on fact should indeed be factual, methinks. This criticism (of mine) applies even more so to Selma, wherein LBJ's contribution/leadership to civil rights reform is downplayed.

Finn you are looking for a documentary.

The major thrust of a movie, even if it takes some inspiration from real event,
should be entertainment.

We should not get too serious about movies. The reviewer transmitted his annoyance that the movie goers should be exultant, excited when the sniper scored big. It is a movie...just another Rambo but with a real name.

[Zeke]

American Sniper is propaganda, worse then The Green Berets.

It happens.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Finn you are looking for a documentary.

The major thrust of a movie, even if it takes some inspiration from real event,
should be entertainment.

We should not get too serious about movies. The reviewer transmitted his annoyance that the movie goers should be exultant, excited when the sniper scored big. It is a movie...just another Rambo but with a real name.

Dond, you can't say a film is 'just entertainment.' Films are, in fact, art. One of the things art does is create and share meaning. The film says things that go to 'What does this war stuff mean? What do we think about it?' This is whether the audience is consciously examining these questions or not. But perhaps, for example, it means something that we are 'exultant, excited when the sniper scored big."

No one says you have to agree with the reviewer, or even read the review in the first place. No one says you have to consciously think about anything in particular, if you don't want to for any reason. Feel totally free to just 'sit back and be entertained.' But criticism that looks at what art means, and affirms or questions it on that basis, is generally legitimate.

And it's perfectly likely that a film will have an agenda, and be pushing certain meanings.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by finnbow

This criticism (of mine) applies even more so to Selma, wherein LBJ's contribution/leadership to civil rights reform is downplayed.

LBJ's contribution is also downplayed in real life. Many are unaware of the
legislative weight of LBJ re civil rights.

Probably this is deliberate because of his Vietnam connection

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

LBJ's contribution is also downplayed in real life. Many are unaware of the
legislative weight of LBJ re civil rights.

Probably this is deliberate because of his Vietnam connection

Indeed before he got religion his voting record on civil rights was quite dismal.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Dond, you can't say a film is 'just entertainment.' Films are, in fact, art. One of the things art does is create and share meaning. The film says things that go to 'What does this war stuff mean? What do we think about it?' This is whether the audience is consciously examining these questions or not. But perhaps, for example, it means something that we are 'exultant, excited when the sniper scored big."

No one says you have to agree with the reviewer, or even read the review in the first place. No one says you have to consciously think about anything in particular, if you don't want to for any reason. Feel totally free to just 'sit back and be entertained.' But criticism that looks at what art means, and affirms or questions it on that basis, is generally legitimate.

And it's perfectly likely that a film will have an agenda, and be pushing certain meanings.

I believe the reviewer was over critical of films of this type...not artsy, not
docu.

He was looking for too much. People in a movie house are generally looking,
seeking fantasy, escapism. That Clint Eastwood or others can give them that should be viewed and appreciated in that light.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

I believe the reviewer was over critical of films of this type...not artsy, not
docu.

He was looking for too much. People in a movie house are generally looking,
seeking fantasy, escapism. That Clint Eastwood or others can give them that should be viewed and appreciated in that light.

Dond, have you seen the movie? In other words, is your critique of the RS review based on the movie or your impression of movies of that type?

Full disclosure: I haven't seen it and likely won't.

John

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Dond, have you seen the movie? In other words, is your critique of the RS review based on the movie or your impression of movies of that type?

Full disclosure: I haven't seen it and likely won't.

John

I thought Eastwoods "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" were pretty good.

But it will probably be a while before I see "American Sniper" because I'm a cheap son of a bitch and don't like to spend any more on Movies beyond the eight bucks a month for my Netflix subscription.

As for war movies in general, well, they are like most other movies, not terribly realistic.