Contrasting the realities of war with America's perceptions.

Settle down.

So...you're damning a movie you haven't seen based on a novel you haven't read, because...uh, why? I tried to glean some actual sense from your rant, but the only thing that was clear is that you don't actually know anything about this movie, but it's "liberal Hollywood" so it MUST be bad. Why don't you try actually reading the book, then having an informed opinion about whether it's "anti-war" or "anti-American"? But that would be hard. Better just to rant.

I agree 100 percent. There are a lot of liberals in Hollywood who look down on the military. I glad that Ang Lee has shown his true colors. I hope this movie tanks.

I think the real issue here is that you equate being anti-war with being "anti-American." That really shows how war obsessed our country has become that the notion of wanting peace in the world is incorrectly associated with being anti-soldiers or being against America.

I know I'm a vampire, Snookie.

I believe you answered your own question. The perception of war, and whom we should label a war hero is very often different from the real thing. Sure, the world see "live" streams of war on TVs and internet today, but it is still a dress up and far away from the reality of war. The biggest issue as I see it is that war is romanticised, and it is so easy for everyone shouting send in the troops.

Strangely enough it is very often people who never served shouting the loudest about sending in the troops, not saying that anyone in here have not served or shouts when they have not etc, so no need for a measuring contest. But think about it, whom among your friends are the people who shouts the loudest about send in the troops and kill em all.

Sorry, went off topic here, my point is this, marching bands, fireworks, parades, those things are more for the morale and pride on the home front than for the soldiers. That is what the public see, parades, fireworks and strapping young men and women putting their life on the line.

Have not seen the movie, looking forward to see it and perhaps I will post a comment at that time.

Stay safe.

[deleted]





Let me say up front I am a veteran and hardly considered by anyone who knows me as a fitting the current definition of a liberal. Now that is out of the way and some have decided to read on and others have stopped...

Since this movie has yet to open, we have no idea what political agendas, if any, exist in this film. It is true that a majority of vocal individuals within the Hollywood film industry are "left of center". And so yes, it is possible, there may be some agenda here, there is rarely a film set in a contemporary timeframe that does not contain political or social questions we face daily.

So your question was: what does that subtitle mean? "Contrasting the realities of war with America's perceptions". Frankly I believe it cuts both ways, both left and right, and one can only hope the film portrays both sides.

From the left - many see the recent conflicts as unjust. Illegal. They see Western countries grieve over individual soldier deaths while thousands of indigenous people die and suffer dislocation. They decry this disproportional suffering while seeing multi-national corporations profit. On top of this, they see the jubilant celebration of the American fighting men and women with every corporate head and political figure beginning & ending every sentence with "God Bless Our Troops" and referring to all men and women in uniform as "heroes". They also see the isolated cases of troops acting outside the Geneva Convention and the established ROE's, and see these as in conflict with the "hero cult" established by some in political leadership.

In essence, many on the left cannot separate the warrior from the war. The proliferation and speed of the media has brought to their doorsteps the truth of war in virtually real-time, and that is this: civilians ALWAYS suffer more greatly than do the warriors in terms of loss of life. This is a fact of war that has almost never changed, although the industrial age has made us much better at killing on a mass scale.

From the right - many tie the war, no matter how unjust, to the requirement to support the warrior. Many Americans on the right will never forget Vietnam, and the abandonment of the American soldier. Nor will they forget the vindication of fully supporting the troops in not only doctrine but in providing them with overwhelming firepower, as was done in the first Gulf War, and this leads to quick, decisive, and less costly conflicts in terms of both blood and treasure. Many on the right hold politicians and corporations accountable who do not recognize our fighting men and women.

And as a result, it is my opinion many in high places now play verbal praise out of rote necessity than out of true belief. And not all of us who wore the uniform are heroes. Yes, we are a small percentage willing to step up voluntarily and do what others choose not to do; but, I, speaking for myself, was not a hero...and I have served in many capacities, in many uniforms.

Because it has become profitable for politicians of all stripes to over-venerate our uniformed personnel and romanticize their exploits, we have come in some corners to romanticize war. Not everyone who respects our troops has done this, but some have. We should and must recognize those amongst us who choose to serve, but god-like reverence is not something we are all due. That should be reserved for a chosen few.

As I see it, there are issues on both sides of the coin with the concept of "separating the war from the warrior". We all become enamored with simple solutions for complex problems, and war is both the simplest and most complex of issues. We tell ourselves we should separate the war from the warrior; but, is this even a viable concept? Is it even fair to the warrior to do so? There are common experiences between a WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, and Afghanistan veteran, but there experiences are also unique to the conflicts which shaped them.

And this brings us to the film...which none of us has seen. And it seems to deal with this "romanticizing of war" theme. The main character is heard to say, "It's sorta weird to be honored for the worst day of your life".

I would think no matter which side of this you fall down on, that statement should ring true. Even if you have never fired a shot in anger, sit back and imagine the worst day of your life - a day where you lost your best friends. People who would fight and die for you. Where you watched others take their lives, and sometimes you couldn't stop that act. And then far away from that horrible bloody scene, a bunch of people you don't know want to give you a big pat on the back for...surviving it.

Now the movie is a HUGE hyperbole...no unit commander or Commander-in-Chief worth a grain of salt would allow the survivors of such an engagement with the enemy to be winged back TEMPORARILY to the states to be paraded in some kind of X-Factor/America's Got Talent/Half-Time Spectacular before millions of people, then throw them back on a plane to send them back down range.

On its face Billy Lynn is purposefully extreme, and fantastical, and a spectacle. And even some of the actor choices I think were made because of their personal anti-war stances. BUT we should remember some of the best war movies of all time were actually anti-war movies:

All Quiet on the Western Front
Apocalypse Now
Saving Private Ryan
Paths of Glory
Platoon
Black Hawk Down
Das Boot
American Sniper

The best war movies tend to be anti-war films that abhor the debilitating and dehumanizing violence of war and the cavalier manner in which some of those at a safe distance throw our brothers and sisters on the pyre, without condemning or mocking the warrior.

That is the ultimate litmus test for this new film. We shall see if Billy Lynn can pass this test, or if the Director and the Producers simply wanted to take a swing at a side of America that displeases them.