From the Tuesday Morning Jolt:
Michael Moore: American Griper
My friend Kurt Schlichter tears into two of the celebrities complaining about American Sniper:
Bloated nobody Michael Moore hated it. He announced, in a tweet dissing Kyle, a man whose boots the tubby wannabe is not fit to lick, that “We were taught snipers were cowards.” So many lies in one sentence. First, there’s no “We.” His chunky rear end never served in uniform, and he is unworthy of associating his miserable self with those of us who did. Second, no one is trained that snipers are “cowardly.” Mikey, I commanded Army units that included sniper teams, you quivering sack of feces, and might I suggest that you not inform those courageous Americans to their faces that they don’t meet your exacting standards of bravery lest you get introduced to the butt end of their rifles via your flapping piehole.
Next, chunky iconoclast Seth Rogen weighed in with his observation that American Sniper reminded him of the fake Nazi propaganda film at the end of Inglorious Bastards. What a scumbag. This came after we conservatives stood with him when the Norks threatened him over The Interview — even to the extent of watching his piece of garbage on VOD — while his hero Barack Obama whined about people actually exercising their free speech rights.
Of course, Rogen is a Canadian, but that’s no excuse — Canada’s awesome soldiers have set their own sniper standards in the war on the very people who would disembowel the hefty likes of Seth Rogen but for the warriors who guard him. It’s pathetic that after conservatives closed ranks to protect him, Rogen decided to reassure his loser liberal cohort that he was still one of the gang by biting the hand that defended him. We can be sure his liberal pals will be there when Rogen’s films start tanking — yeah, they love him for him, not for the stardom he obtained by sheer luck. It’s not like the world isn’t full of fat funny guys who could have just as easily been him.
There are two explanations for the Moore and Rogen responses.
One explanation is that these guys are trolling. A movie making $100 million on its opening weekend in January — with NFL conference championships on, and lousy weather in some parts of the country! — is about as broad-based a public endorsement as our diffuse culture is capable of generating today. When everybody else loves something, the allegedly “edgy” and “brave” thing to do is to dislike it. Of course, our hipster-dominated pop culture is so chock-full-of-lockstep free-thinkers going against the same grain simultaneously that the only true modern iconoclasts are conservatives.
Think about it, when was the last time you mentioned “Michael Moore” to anyone? I just checked, I’ve mentioned him in the Jolt once in December and once in August. If you’re a particular kind of Leftist narcissist who relishes the furious reactions of conservatives, denouncing American Sniper is low-hanging fruit. It’s also a useful way to channel what must be spectacularly raging jealousy.
The other explanation is that my colleague David French is right and we’re having a “cultural moment” — a big director and a big star have finally satiated a long-simmering, broad-based appetite for a story of post-9/11 American life with big, bold, deep and meaningful lessons. Moore and Rogen recoil from those lessons with fury and loathing, and thus feel compelled to push back as ferociously as they can muster, in both cases by comparing Kyle and his men to our foes in World War Two.
I’ll reserve any serious comment on the film until after I have seen it — I guess I’m just not up to the standards of The New Republic — but whether or not American Sniper is “pro-war,” it appears to be resolutely and proudly pro-soldier. And that is a giant factor in moviegoers’ enthusiastic embrace of it. Note that American Sniper isn’t afraid to showcase the painful and difficult parts of military life for soldiers and their families, and my suspicion is that audiences love that part, too — because showing the pain makes it honest. Clint Eastwood, Bradley Cooper and company don’t want to tell you only one part of Chris Kyle’s story. They want to paint as complete a picture as they can in the running time that they have. If you made the story about the battlefront, without the home front, or vice versa, you would only be telling about half the story.
Think about how important it is that the film is enthusiastically endorsed by Taya Kyle, widow of Chris Kyle, and that she’s been attending the premiere and publicly praising the film. It shakes off that last nagging doubt that this film is somehow exploiting or inappropriately profiting from the extraordinarily life of Kyle.
But it’s not just telling the story of the enemy, but also of a key reality about our soldiers that many Americans don’t get. Of course war is horrifying. There are real consequences in PTSD and survivor guilt, and for tens of thousands there are real consequences in enduring physical wounds. Your psychological reality can essentially “flip” for a time so that you become a better functioning warrior than you are husband or father (in one telling moment, Kyle lands back in Iraq for yet another deployment, and a fellow SEAL tells him “welcome home”). But here’s the thing: The vast majority of soldiers get through that trauma and emerge on the other side, often better men. At the end of the movie, we see a Chris Kyle who is a good husband and father — who is truly “home” — extending his mission of helping his brothers by helping them heal.
This is an important story. Yes, there is grief that endures. And, yes, there are often wounds that won’t fully heal. But there is also fierce pride in service, new insights on life and our world, new appreciation for the blessings of liberty and the love of family, and many other perspectives and experiences that enrich the lives of veterans and veterans’ families. It was just as critical to see Chris Kyle heal as it was to see him suffer.