Arthur Wang: Post-screening talk best accommodates opposing ideas, avoids censorship

The movie “American Sniper” is two movies to two different groups of people.

Its fans view it as a riveting film that serves up explosive action while exploring the complexity and troubles of late U.S. Navy SEAL Chris Kyle’s transition from military to civilian life.

The film’s harshest critics believe the movie glorifies the operations of American imperialism while vilifying Middle Eastern people as terrorists and “savages.”

The Campus Events Commission’s decision to screen the Clint Eastwood film Tuesday evening, as part of a series showing all 2015 Oscar best picture nominees, has brought this debate to the UCLA campus in full force. Commenters on its Facebook event page have expressed their concern by calling the showing a misappropriation of student fees and claiming that it compromises their feeling of safety on campus.

The CEC’s decision to hold a post-screening discussion represents an optimistic effort that potentially offers some insight into the ideas of the groups that hold two diametrically opposed interpretations of the film. It is the best way to discuss the film’s cinematographic merit and thematic quagmires without creating outright censorship.

The discussion is a forum for both parties to have a reasonable dialogue. It allows the movie’s critics an otherwise unavailable platform to articulate their grievances and concerns in person – which is exactly why those critics should welcome the showing of the movie in this critical context.

It’s little secret that “American Sniper,” both as a book and an adapted film, is problematic and praised for the same reason – its celebration of the U.S. military. Kyle is depicted in both mediums as a man committed to his country but seemingly incapable of understanding issues with any semblance of nuance. His world was one of dichotomies, and the preeminent binary in this context is the God-fearing patriotic freedom fighter against the “savage, despicable, (and) evil” Iraqi terrorist.

This sort of one-dimensional explanation is behind much of the appeal for the movie, and the attitudes of its intended audience reflect that. Typical moviegoers are not interested in grappling with the geopolitical nuances behind the American entrance into Iraq, nor do they seem very interested in understanding Middle Easterners as human beings not unlike Americans. They want to witness the escapades of a man who wishes he could “shoot people with Korans.”

While the fiercely Islamophobic ideas of Kyle are, ironically, not depicted to their fullest in the film, the movie offers a semblance of legitimacy and nobility for his actions, which understandably concerns some students. CEC Commissioner Greg Kalfayan said that he received an email from the Muslim Student Association urging the film to be followed up with a critical discussion.

Such students have every right to be concerned, as the movie’s depiction of Middle Easterners in opposition to Americans is another modern articulation of the antiquated concept of Orientalism. Such reliance on these tropes also befell “The Interview,” which I criticized on similar grounds. “American Sniper” celebrates these troubling ideas while giving little pause or thought for the extremely dubious reasoning behind going to war with Iraq in the first place.

Lots of students requested to watch the film, and UC Berkeley held a similar screening with a post-script discussion with few problems, said Kalfayan. In light of this, the CEC’s decision should be seen as the least controversial course of action to deal with an extremely controversial movie. Holding the discussion creates a conversation that is not merely limited to those who engaged with the Facebook posts about the event. College, after all, is a forum for exchanging ideas, and sometimes jabs, with the ultimate intent of informing all parties involved.