Kevin's Watch

I'd also point out that Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill are highly stylized deliberate exploitation send ups rather than movies that expect to have their internal moral narratives taken seriously (perhaps the opposite, as the central moral narrative is essentially amoral). Still, critical theory being what it is, it's always possible to extract truth of one kind or another out of any movie.

Fine then. Were people repulsed at the end of Captain Phillips?

There is something instinctually repugnant and dehumanizing about taking someone's life when they have no forewarning or opportunity to resist. It's along the lines of the visceral distinction between a warrior confronting a foe face to face as equals, versus an executioner doing his job on a victim bound hand and foot. Yes, there may be justice in the act, and honor in and necessity for the man doing the job, but it lacks glory or the opportunity to transcend our mortal nature and be redeemed in the service of a higher ethic. There is no beauty in being a sniper, only service and sacrifice.

Doc Hexnihilo wrote:There is something instinctually repugnant and dehumanizing about taking someone's life when they have no forewarning or opportunity to resist. It's along the lines of the visceral distinction between a warrior confronting a foe face to face as equals, versus an executioner doing his job on a victim bound hand and foot. Yes, there may be justice in the act, and honor in and necessity for the man doing the job, but it lacks glory or the opportunity to transcend our mortal nature and be redeemed in the service of a higher ethic. There is no beauty in being a sniper, only service and sacrifice.

Maybe for you, that opinion's hardly universal.

There was something disconnected from the action about the sniper job, especially when it was the only job he had, and Kyle himself seemed to feel it. Obviously there were times when he felt impelled to leave the relative safety of the snipers nest and lead men personally door to door. Later on he created his own ops team, and he seemed to relish the action. But he did not seem to enjoy pure sniping in the same way. It was more like a dirty job that has to get done.

I'm not saying sniping is dishonorable. I'm saying it's not glorious.

Doc Hexnihilo wrote:Z., is that the best definition of hero you can muster?

Probably not, but it was the most relevant definition I could muster for this particular subject.

When humans first started becoming heroic rather than merely opportunistic animals, risking one's life to save others was probably the only form of heroism there was. Cave men weren't standing up in front of communist tanks or refusing to give up bus seats. So it's quite possibly where heroism began ... why it exists at all in the world. And our tendency to risk our lives to save others was likely an important reason for our survival as a species. I think it's a damn good definition.

Snipers aren't unique in terms of killing from a distance. We've been working on that trick since the spear. Nearly every soldier in every single role uses a gun, killing from a distance. I don't think it's accurate to say their foes can't fight back. They have guns and snipers, too.

I think definitions of 'hero' that could only apply to knife fights or fist fights are needlessly simplistic.

I think heroism is a form of moral beauty. Without that beauty there is no heroism. I say Kyle was heroic but on grounds other than the act of sniping. It was in the personal and moral sacrifice his service engendered, and in the lives saved as a result of this burden. But not in the act of killing itself.

No hero who became a hero while killing is a hero for the act of killing itself. It's always because of things like the risk they took; the sacrifice they made; the lives they saved. They would still be heroes if they had accomplished their goal without killing.

Would they still be heroes if the lives they took had no emotional impact on them?

I don't know that I necessarily agree with the idea that a person can be considered a hero in an intrinsic or idealized way. I'd rather think of individual acts or series of acts as being heroic or demonstrating heroism. Any person is bound to have shortcomings and foibles that are decidedly un-heroic. Chris Kyle was no exception.

Also, I think some heroic acts can derive from the act of killing. For instance Audie Murphy or any other example like him of dogged and implacable resistance to the enemy despite seemingly unsurmountable or fatal disadvantages. But I do not put sniper kills in the same category, unless there are some unusual circumstances.

At last I got to see this tonight and was once again impressed with Eastwood's talents as a director in this film that neither glamorised nor gratuitously depicted the brutal and unpalatable demands that war places on ordinary people. I don't think Kyle was presented as a hero as such, rather than as a man uncomfortable with the misunderstanding that other people had as to why he was prepared to do the things he did. Cooper caught the role brilliantly, and was abley supported by Millar as the wife who just needed her husband back. That Kyle's end was so tragic was deeply saddening and one suspects there are lessons to be learned at a number of different levels in this moving account of one man's 'war on terror'.

[edit; Just wanted to note that Bradley Cooper has not always been universally admired, but rose superbly to the challange of this role. I note that he is currently furthering his repetoir with an acclaimed performance as Joseph Merrick in The Elephant Man at London's Haymarket Theatre in the West-End. Granted it would be hard not to be lauded for this extreme type of acting, even for an actor of medium competance, but in this case Cooper really does seem to be doing something significant; he is by all accounts carrying the play with a performance that at times is nothing short of electric.]