American Sniper: Is it really the movie we're arguing about?
The recent cultural turmoil stemming from the blockbuster "American Sniper" has polarized the nation and kept Twitter followers anxiously awaiting the next volley from politicians, music artists, and celebrities. Eastwood and Cooper’s adaptation of Chris Kyle’s autobiography has been nominated for numerous awards and set records for R-rated movies and January openings.
Comments posted on sites from Fox News to Salon prove that audiences loved the film just as much as they hated it.
Reactions from the far right and left have resulted in "American Sniper" being labeled a truly polarizing movie, and the conflict surrounding the production has bumped the film from center stage. Somewhere in the midst of this battleground of testimonies and assumptions, the movie became the scapegoat for existing, underlying national frustrations about a decade of conflict with no victory on the horizon. The question is why?
Oddly enough, little outrage surrounded the best-selling paperback’s release two years ago.
Supporting troops is simple and expected. Condemning murderers is too. Before jumping to rash conclusions and resorting to political ideologies, one should examine the difference between killing and murder. Soldiers do the former, terrorists do the latter.
The argument that the “silent professional” mentality of SOCOM dissolves a little more each time “Tier One” operators release books and movies is valid, but criticizing or commending their works typically alludes to a larger issue. Some may find it troubling that American Sniper gripped audiences by focusing on death as an acclaimed artform and praising Kyle’s masterpiece.
The fundamental questions can be posed as follows:
Why is Chris Kyle killing 150 terrorists any more psychopathic or patriotic than 150 infantrymen each killing one?
Is saving 150 American service member lives worth killing 150 of the enemy?
Before labeling Kyle, Eastwood, or Cooper a hero, martyr, patriot, or murderer, Americans must remember that the public demanded war following the 9/11 attacks. The public overwhelmingly decided to send men to war, and in war, people die. Most civilians, blue or red, would agree that the fewer Americans who die, the better.
As the American body count in the Global War on Terror rose, the media presence slowly faded and lost interest. The dead became easy to overlook, but the living were still squarely in harm’s way. Snipers are combat multipliers; snipers save lives. The lives Kyle saved were American.
The stereotype may be that liberals don’t want war, and Republicans are already planning the next one. But the truth is this: Once troops are fighting, the goal should be to win and come home. That goal should not depend on how civilian celebrities view it ten years later.
Kyle committed no crimes. He followed orders and saved lives. This meant taking lives in the process. He put his life on the line every day, as did the troops he was protecting. The truly cowardly act is loading a nation’s worth of anger, frustration, and guilt over the war onto the shoulders of brave men who have already carried their share of America’s burden.
Liberals may hate war. But so do most veterans—probably more so actually. Republicans may acknowledge some wars are necessary. So would most generals. Either way, polarizing an issue and dividing the masses for publicity only hurts the troops currently deployed and distracts the nation from what should be the unified goal of getting those troops home.
Structure of the Lead：
WHO- no given
WHEN- January
WHAT- ecplanation
WHY- Eastwood and Cooper’s adaptation of Chris Kyle’s autobiography has been nominated for numerous awards and set records for R-rated movies
WHERE-
HOW-no given
Keywords：
- turmoil 風暴
- polarized 偏正
- testimonies 證詞
- resort to 訴諸
- ideologies 意識形態
- valid 有效
- psychopathic 變態
- patriotic 愛國
- infantrymen 步兵
- distracts 分心
