Monthly Archives: March 2017

The Problem with American Sniper

This week in our ASTU class we started watching the Oscar nominated picture American Sniper directed by Clint Eastwood; the movie follows the real-life story of American SEAL Chris Kyle and his experience in Iraq. I have never seen the movie before, and I’ll be honest, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it yet. On the one hand, I feel that it is important to recognize the sacrifice many soldiers make to fight for their country and this movie serves as a representation for them and their stories. On the other, I feel as though American Sniper disregards the politics of the US invasion in the Middle East by ignoring the “other side of the story”.

Sniper represents the trauma and hardships many soldiers who have gone into combat have had to deal with. While many have criticized the movie for glorifying a sniper – who is often called a coward for hiding in the shadows rather than being at the fore front – I feel that it is important to acknowledge that the things they did and what they went through can cause the same emotional and mental trauma as any other soldier. Even if I don’t condone war, I understand that these men and women fought to protect their country and their losses should not be disregarded because of that.

My issue with American Sniper is that the film really only tells one side of the story. It blatantly ignores the politics of 9/11 and the US invasion of Iraq. I remembered hearing on Entertainment Tonight of critics praising the film for focusing on the individual rather than the politics of it all. Which seemed really odd to me, because how can you tell a story of mass-bloodshed without it being political? After watching the first hour, I started to understand what they were referring to. Especially when one moment you’re watching Kyle and his wife reaction to the horrifying footage of the 9/11 attacks, then the next Kyle is being deployed to Iraq. There’s absolutely no reference to the politics behind it, simply that it happened, and now they were off to fight the “enemies”.  The lack of the political aspect contributes to creating America’s blanket narrative. They completely disregard the other side of the story and only focus on that of Chris Kyle, who is painted as a war hero. I was rather uncomfortable with a lot of the scenes where militants were invading people’s homes and shoving them to the ground while they point guns at their heads.

American Sniper plays a huge role into the topic of “us versus them”. I found that it really villainizes Middle Easterns, which has fueled the divide between the two nations for a long time now. It is through movies like these that promote xenophobia and islamophobia. They tell you who the villains are, and encourage us to demonize them. While I haven’t finished the movie yet, I feel that Eastwood’s transformation of the Iraq war into an almost PG rated production could have better reflected the politics of the war rather than glorifying a single individual and his troubles.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

89th Academy Awards and US Foreign Policy

As we know, the 89th annual Oscar awards just passed this Sunday, and while it was a great year for people of colour (POCs) – such as Viola Davis winning the award for Best Supporting Actress, and Moonlight for winning Best Picture – it also served as a political platform for POCs to voice their thoughts and sentiments. Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi, who won the Best Foreign Language Film for The Salesman – had a written message read by a colleague expressing how the US travel ban disrespects his people. His statement became the center piece for an episode of a republican’s web-show. Host Tomi Lahren became incredibly racist when voicing her opinion about the director’s speech, causing Hasan Piker – host of The Breakdown – to create a video in response. Piker essentially tears apart Lahren’s argument, and while incredibly entertaining, he makes a point that ties in nicely to what I have been discussing in my recent blog posts. Piker states, “I guess the irony is not lost on our more educated viewers who are aware the US government played in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosadden in 1953, spurring decades of fervent anti-US sentiment,” (1:45).

I had stated in a previous post that I believed that the US needed to consider their actions in the past and how they might have affected what is going on in the world today. This is a primary example of how US foreign policy has participated in less than ideal relations with the Middle East. Piker makes the argument that US foreign policy tends to relatively follow this pattern: The US meddles in the Middle Eastern affairs, disrupting the status quo à this then fuels anti-American sentiment and creates tension between the two nations (that often result in the bombing/attack of sorts) à when Middle Eastern citizens try to escape these conditions, THEY are labeled as the terrorists.

Listening to Lahren speak was honestly quite painful; she was extremely uneducated (or simply ignorant) about the darker aspects of American history. She fails to acknowledge how the US involvement has caused such a massive divide between the Middle East and the States. This video articulates a point that I have been making throughout the past couple of posts: the US can no longer stand on its high horse and ignore the problems they have essentially started. While I do not blame the US for the attacks on 9/11, nor do I think it was deserved, I do believe that their past actions have caused this anti-American sentiment, which had contributed to the reasons for the attack.

If anyone is interested in watching Piker’s episode of The Breakdown I have linked the video down below. Thanks for reading

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10154423332834205/?hc_ref=SEARCH

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized