>movies that depicted horrors of war while definitely being pro-war propaganda
<mental capacity to spew insults
- poor attempts at Veiled ad hominum
- ignoring the main point/nitpicking at insults
- shifting goal-posts
- no u
Wow you really are a champ at mental gymnastics to pack so much fallacy in one smart-ass sentence.
>smug posting of video
<just watch this long video because I don't understand what I'm talking about
Stellar argumentation... or that is to sarcastically say, you have none.
Let me break it down WHY
We start off with the initial reply
>Imagine setting an anti-war film during WW2
There is nothing implying that the film is pro-war and no explanation as to why setting it in WW2 nullifies its anti-war themes. The only conclusion to be made is that setting a film with clear depiction of the worst of war is somehow bad.
So then the goalpost is moved
>describe horrors of war all you want, but unless the character comes to the conclusion that the war [is bad], it's not anti-war
Which again is not an argument, because that is an essential part of the film even if it is not spoken. You see this in something like Platoon where different characters and their different attitudes to the war and killing are shown, with some who don't care, some who like it, but more often than not, people who hate it, but bury it under drugs, duty and survival. All of this is clearly anti-war, without exposition about "I conclude war is bad".
Then you decide to fucking move the goalposts again
>hurr a movie showing war horrors can be pro-war too!!!
As if this was even up for debate at all? It has nothing to do with the initial post or its responses.
I really suggest you rewatch the video that you sent, for one I can debate some of the points being made, but even that basic understanding and analysis by The Closer Look, shows a much better understanding than your schizophrenic crying (especially since the example of an anti-war film, Saving Private Ryan, is depicted in WW2, negating the statement of Post 1).
However to further elaborate, the video uses a rather poor explanation for why American Sniper is pro-war. The idea that war is necessary sometimes or that a soldier can view his actions as right, is not Pro-war, it is neutral. Admitting that a film has grey themes but then trying to place it on either pro-war or anti-war with no neutral inbetween is contradictory.
Moreover the entire thesis relies solely on American depictions of war and omits Soviet representation of war or even European ones. The best film about Stalingrad IMO is one made by German film-makers and follows a group of German soldiers and Soviet films like Come and See are terrifyingly anti-war.
The whole "no matter what a war film can be seen as glamorous" is fucking bullshit, because a single film can only influence a viewer to a certain extent, for someone to see Full Metal Jacket and think "Oh yeah I wanna fight a war!" comes from militaristic and violence-glorifying culture of American pop-culture. It's a simple Base-Superstructure interaction.
TL;DR Your argument is nonexistant and the video does more to prove my point than your own inane rambling.