UCLA missed the conversation they could have had, like maybe, the same one taking place in the veterans community. We talk about the power this movie has to help people understand what PTSD to the point where they actually care about the veterans and their families.
Right up front understand I have not seen it yet for a reason. I live with what combat does everyday, so I am waiting for it to come out on pay-per-view so I can walk away from it if I have to. Most of the veterans I know are doing the same thing because the last thing they want to do is sit in a huge, dark, crowded room with a bunch of strangers behind them.
This movie started a conversation few others have managed to do and that is what war does to those we send.
From their point of view, it isn't about right or wrong reasons. It is about those on their left and their right. It is about the bond they share willing to die for each other and the pain they bring home.
Politicians start wars and they are the ones who get to decide to end them. Ever since the beginning of this country, one group makes the decision to risk lives while about group decides to put their lives on the line. Even with the draft, most enlisted because it was supposed to be important enough that the security of this nation was in jeopardy. If politicians lied, the end result was the same for those who went.
Nothing is new in any of this. No wound is different. No suffering is different. No struggle trying to deal with the VA is different no matter how many times politicians want to blame the VA instead of themselves. Doesn't seem to matter this has all been going on for decades as more and more veterans are failed.
How great would it have been if students talked about any of this? How about if they talked about the history of what politicians have said about taking care of our veterans since the Patriots decided freedom was worth fighting for?
So many conversations they could have had but they decided to get political instead of historical. For heaven's sake! Reporters won't do it and if UCLA students won't who will?
CEC to hold post-film talk on ‘American Sniper’ after student outcry
Daily Bruin
BY SAM BOZOUKOV
Posted: April 20, 2015
On the undergraduate government's Campus Events Commission's Facebook event page for Tuesday's film screening of "American Sniper," students protested the free showing of the controversial, Oscar-nominated film. In response, CEC added a discussion after the screening. (Warner Bros.)
Undergraduate student government officers added a post-film discussion to their Tuesday screening of “American Sniper” after dozens of students plastered its Facebook event page with concerns that the film promotes Islamophobia and glorifies war.
“American Sniper,” released in January, is based on the true story of Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL who has the most recorded kills in U.S. military history and who served four tours during the Iraqi war.
Some who like the film say it celebrates an American war hero and sheds light on the internal struggles soldiers face after war. But many of the commenters on Facebook said they want the screening on campus to be cancelled because they said they think the film perpetuates Islamophobia and ideas of American imperialism.
Undergraduate Students Association Council Campus Events Commissioner Greg Kalfayan said he decided to show “American Sniper” for students who didn’t have the opportunity to watch it when it was first released. The commission is currently showing all films nominated for the best picture Academy Award, which includes “American Sniper.”
“We anticipated criticism, but not in the amount we received,” Kalfayan said.
The CEC staff knew “American Sniper” had already stirred controversy on other college campuses, said CEC director of films and third-year sociology student Stone Frankle.
At the University of Michigan, over 200 students signed a petition earlier this month asking the school to cancel a student-planned free showing of the movie. The school canceled the showing at first, but ended up showing the movie despite the petition, saying that canceling the event was inconsistent with its values of freedom of expression.
read more here
