Based upon the memoir American Sniper by Chris Kyle with Scott McEwan and Jim DeFelice
Screenplay Written by Jason Hall
Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood
1/2 * (one half of one star)
"And the throne, the pulpit and the politician
Create a thirst for power in the common man
It's a taste for blood passed off as bravery
Or just patriotism hiding bigotry"
-Todd Rundgren ("Johnee Jingo")
"American Sniper," Director Clint Eastwood's tribute to the deceased United States Navy SEAL Chris Kyle whose 160 confirmed kills during the Iraq War have earned him the reputation as the "deadliest marksman in U.S. history," is a superbly filmed and brutally executed and effective piece of filmmaking. It is also, and moreso, a film of abhorrent jingoism as well as an appalling lack of moral complexity and ambiguity. It is a film that possesses an inhumanely repugnant lack of anything resembling a heart, brain or soul.
Now before any of you out there are just ready to stone your computer screens in a misguided rage as you may be wondering if I, your friendly neighborhood film enthusiast, has a disregard for our nation's soldiers, you would be sorely mistaken. I hold nothing but the highest respect for those who do take it upon themselves to fight and die for our country. I just found it inexcusably unfortunate that this film did not live up to the same level of respect for Chris Kyle plus our troops, our veterans, our fallen, the full nature of combat and war or even those we fight against, and finally, all of us in the audience who deserve a film that will speak to the complexity this particular story demands. "American Sniper" is a film of easy, empty sentiments filtered through a prism where every conceivable emotion and motivation is laid out in the strictest of black and white terms and painted with the broadest brush possible. It is also a film that makes me angrier the more I think of it, so let me just get to it because the gloves are coming off as I must give the worst film of 2014 its proper pummeling.
As you are all aware, Clint Eastwood's "American Sniper" follows the story of Chris Kyle (played by Bradley Cooper), who enlisted in the United States military at the age of 30 after witnessing the U.S. Embassy bombing attacks, an event that inspired him to serve our country. For the course of the film, Eastwood takes us through all four of Kyle's increasingly perilous tours of duty in Iraq, plus his even more perilous re-adjustments and struggles with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) once he returns home to his wife Taya (played by Sienna Miller) and their children in Texas, all the way to his death in 2013 at the hands of a veteran also suffering from PTSD.
Certainly the story of Chris Kyle is worth telling, especially as the Iraq war has not been explored in great detail within the lens of narrative driven feature films, and it deserves to be explored to allow all of us to process and gain understanding into all that has occurred and where we might potentially find ourselves as a nation. As far as war movies are concerned, I happened to come of age during the period of anti-war films that were centered around the Vietnam War. How brilliant and unforgettable was Director Michael Cimino's operatic Oscar winning "The Deer Hunter" (1978), whose structure revolved around how the Vietnam war affected a small blue-collar Pennsylvanian steel town before, during and afterwards. Director Francis For Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" (1979) treated the war as a harrowing surrealistic journey into madness. Director Oliver Stone ferociously delivered "Platoon" (1986), delved into the chaos and horror of war and his "Born On The Fourth Of July" (1989) illustrated explicitly just how much damage only one bullet can inflict. Director Stanley Kubrick's iconic "Full Metal Jacket" (1987) offered a bird's eye view of war and its various levels dehumanization. And of course, and moving backwards from the Vietnam war in time to World War II, we have Director Steven Spielberg's epic "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), which paid tribute to all of the soldiers who fought while placing us directly in the middle of the brutality and violence.
I mention all of those films not solely because I find them to be outstanding works, but each of them utilized the concept of war to explore not only the respective wars themselves but our collective humanity and inhumanity as well. By contrast, "American Sniper" is as shallow and as heartless as a first person shooting video game and it completely functions as one, as it exists to be nothing more than racist red meat to be fed to ravenous armchair warriors. It is a film that is designed to fuel our nation's collective fears of some "other" entity hell bent on destroying us all and our needs to find some savior to single-handedly uphold God, country, family and oh yes, freedom to eradicate the world of all who wish to do us harm. To that end, "American Sniper" is a film that offers no sense of morality because Eastwood never at any moment provides any details that can inform everything we are watching, from the characters to the war itself.
Most bizarre to me, is that Eastwood has crafted a war film that offers no sense of actual politics. Now, a war film that does not delve into the politics of the war in question is not an impossibility, of course. Take Director Kathryn Bigelow's Oscar winning "The Hurt Locker" (2008), which very effectively focused more on the physical and psychological effects of war on soldiers without becoming a film that was overtly political. But with "American Sniper," the film logically brings up questions and concepts that Eastwood is not even remotely willing or even interested in confronting or answering. Basically, Eastwood's narrative is as follows: Chris Kyle goes to Iraq after 9/11 and becomes the deadliest sniper in history. That's really it. Yet, with the film's complete lack of politics at its core, there is just this one nagging detail that sits at the heart of "American Sniper" that Eastwood omitted: Iraq never attacked the United States. The United States attacked Iraq and completely based upon lies the government fed to us. But that little nugget is not mentioned at all whatsoever in the film, even though it is an unmitigated fact, and because it does not serve Eastwood's "U.S. VS. THEM" narrative.
As I stated at the outset of this review, "American Sniper" is brutally effective but it is irresponsible to a dangerous degree. It is an unrepentantly racist film where EVERY Iraqi citizen (including women and children) are depicted as potential or lethal terrorists and are often referred to as "those savages," purposeful images and words designed to ensure that Iraqi people are never perceived to be human beings. There are searing moral questions at the core of "American Sniper" including what exactly is a "terrorist" (and therefore an "invader," "hero," or "coward" as well) and how and why are terrorists produced? Additionally, what does it mean to be a soldier when forced to fight in a completely fraudulent war? And yet, none of these concepts or ideas are on this film's mind whatsoever.
Yes, there is much controversy (and deservedly so) surrounding this film and the frankly the character of Chris Kyle himself. For me, I will not fall into the all too easy descriptives that have been volleyed back and forth surrounding Kyle which have either proclaimed him to have been a "hero" or even vilified him as being a "psychopath" due to racist statements he made towards Iraqis as well as even supplying his autobiography with stories that were either embellished or invented to sweeten the narrative. I really know nothing about Chris Kyle, so I cannot (entirely) speak to either of those claims and furthermore, I have no need to necessarily like Chris Kyle. The nature of a film like this one is to help me to understand a figure like Chris Kyle. Which again leads to those pesky questions.
Did Chris Kyle harbor racist attitudes before he enlisted? Did the process of becoming a soldier, a figure where one (I would imagine) would have to demonize the enemy in order to perform their duty and survive, bring attitudes he had not carried before or did this process bring them out into the open? Again, none of this is ever mentioned in the film. If you are anything like myself, a person who thought that perhaps "American Sniper" would give you a window into Chris Kyle's world and life, be prepared to be demonstrably disappointed. After having seen the film, I can easily tell you that I really don't know anything more about the man than before I went into the movie, and you know, I think this is the way Clint Eastwood wanted it.
In my review of Director Ava DuVernay's "Selma," I praised her approach in taking the historically iconic figure of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. down from the pedestal so we could see and explore him fully as a flawed human being, this making his accomplishments that much more meaningful. By contrast, with "American Sniper," it felt as if Clint Eastwood only wanted to place Chris Kyle upon larger and higher pedestals. In a very strange way, I think the plethora of superhero films have worked tremendously well to the advantage of how audiences are designed to respond to "American Sniper" because Clint Eastwood has essentially fashioned this real life story of war, killing and death into a revenge fantasy filtered through a Marvel comics aesthetic.
As I have previously alluded, I think the fact that we really know nothing about Chris Kyle (especially anything that could be construed as controversial or upsetting) within this film is because he is just a hollow shell being utilized to uphold certain ideals. The way Eastwood depicts the man, who else is he but a real world version of Captain America who just wants to fight for his country and rid the world of the bad guys? Unfortunately, the Marvel comic films' Captain America has shown more nuance and shading.
Anyhow, Eastwood's Chris Kyle is presented as being just an "aw shucks" Texas country boy who, as a child, is taught by his Father not only how to shoot but also about the three sets of people that make up the world: the sheep (i.e. victims), the wolves (i.e. bullies or antagonists) and the sheep dogs (i.e. the protectors), and that Chris is expected to become a "sheep dog." Taking this lesson to heart, and before you can say "with great power comes great responsibility," Kyle grows up becomes a rodeo cowboy yet discovers his gift for sharpshooting once he enters active duty after the September 11th attacks. Kyle's impressive skills and numerous kills inspires his comrades to refer to him as "The Legend" and over the course of the film and his final three tours of Iraq, The Legend comes across his arch-nemesis, the Iraqi sniper known only as "The Butcher" (played by Mido Hamada)--remember those savages aren't human so he doesn't have a real name. As more of The Legend's friends are gunned down in battle, and America is in constant imminent threat, he grows more tireless in his pursuit of The Butcher, which culminates in a purely and shamelessly cinematic "money shot."
With this display, Clint Eastwood has reduced this complicated experience down to a superhero origin story and three act structure which concludes with The Legend's death. He remains ever humbled when surrounded with the accolades by his brothers-in-arms, and he struggles with providing the same sense of support for his family at home although he is a savior on the battlefield. In combat, The Legend is fully revered, has a hefty bounty placed upon his head by the Iraqis and even adorns his combat fatigues with the insignia of Marvel comics' "The Punisher." Why stop there, Clint? You could have even added a cape for him to wear too.
Chris Kyle's Achilles heel is his PTSD, which in Eastwood's very few statements concerning the purpose of "American Sniper" is the core of the film as he wants us to understand just what damage war can do to the soldier and the family once that soldier returns home. But, for me, I felt that to all just be lip service. Yes, we do see some instances of Kyle's painful and paranoid return trips back to Texas as well as his initial visit to the Veteran Affairs psychiatrist. But, in the film's final scenes when his wife Taya exclaims how glad she is that he has finally returned to the family, being fully present as a husband and a Father to two adorable young moppets, seemingly completely cured of PTSD, it further forces the questions of how exactly did Chris Kyle become rehabilitated to domestic life? How exactly did he mentally recover from all of the carnage he saw and inflicted? What did he really think and feel about his time overall in the service? Again, not a word providing any answers to those questions are uttered at all.
In cases when a celebrated filmmaker on the level of Clint Eastwood delivers a film that I vehemently loathe like "American Sniper," I would often ponder the question: What was he thinking? But the issue I have with "American Sniper" is that I firmly believe that Clint Eastwood knew exactly what he was thinking. It is such a shame to me as he has now created a film that seemingly flies in the face of his entire output for nearly 25 years, films that have been surprisingly and provocatively fair minded, challenging, nuanced as well as enormously entertaining and powerful.
Just think of how Eastwood systematically deconstructed the Western as well as his own violent gunslinging film persona with "Unforgiven" (1992). From that point, Eastwood confronted issues of the long ranging destructive effects of child abuse in "Mystic River" (2003), euthanasia in "Million Dollar Baby" (2004), female empowerment and political corruption in "Changeling" (2008), racism, aging, mortality and violence in "Gran Turino" (2008) and post-apartheid South African politics in "Invictus" (2009). Two of the finest films of his career have been his dual study and meditation over World War II with "Letters From Iwo Jima" (2006), which focused upon the Japanese point of view and "Flags Of Our Fathers" (2006), which focused on the American point of view.
Remembering "Flags of Our Fathers," part of what was so crucial about that film was Eastwood's pointed undertaking of holding some strong criticisms against the United States Government for using the nation's young to not only fight and die for the wars they sanction but also how those same young people are used as forms of propaganda to keep the flames of war alive and at the forefront of the minds of the American people at home. With "American Sniper," Eastwood knew precisely what he was doing as he has explicitly performed the very same feat he was critical of in "Flags Of Our Fathers" because "American Sniper" is a propaganda film.
No question about it, dear readers. Just as Kathryn Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012) toyed with the facts and realities of the usages of torture and their effectiveness in pursuing and killing Osama bin Laden just to promote a right wing agenda, an agenda Bigelow was not brave enough to own up to whenever questioned about it, Eastwood has performed the exact same feat with "American Sniper," as any criticisms have been met with silence from his end so far. Now, to give Eastwood a modicum of the benefit of the doubt, perhaps his reticence is simply to allow the film to speak for itself. But, the greater part of me, the much angrier part, feels that it is just a calculated move to not alienate any potential box office take, which he really has nothing to worry about since the film has already broken some box office records and has earned upwards of $200 million dollars in just a few short weeks. Eastwood's "American Sniper" feels like a military recruitment film that is also being used as fodder to perpetuate and incite anti-Muslim sentiment and venom, which makes the entire escapade feel as if it was funded by the Republican Party, the NRA and the U.S. military combined.
There have also been some commentaries concerning "American Sniper" and its similarities to the section of Director Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" (2008) that features the fictional Nazi propaganda film within the film concerning the voluminous kills from the rifle of a Nazi sniper and to that I would definitely agree with that assessment. Now this is not to say that I am comparing Chris Kyle to a Nazi. I am not. But Clint Eastwood is a master filmmaker with 44 years worth of directorial experience thus making him a film historian as well. He knows and understands exactly how film works, and how what is shown and therefore what is not shown creates an intended message designed for audiences to receive. These are the properties of film propaganda, which Bigelow flirted dangerously with in "Zero Dark Thirty" and Eastwood is openly courting with "American Sniper," so much so that it could possibly be argued is not terribly far removed from the likes of Director Leni Riefenstahl Nazi propaganda film "Triumph Of The Will" (1935). Or to slightly less incendiary effect, Eastwood used Chris Kyle just like the U.S. Armed forces used deceased U.S. soldier Pat Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire but was originally and falsely reported to have been killed in battle in the mountains of Afghanistan. Shameful, Clint. Just shameful.
Where was the subtlety and complexity in "American Sniper"? Why did Clint Eastwood feel that he needed to dictate our emotions every single step of the way in this film to an insulting degree? Why did he not think enough of the moral ambiguity contained within the man himself to just provide the information and allow us in the audience to connect any dots in any way that we wish to do? Therefore, why did Eastwood feel the need to excise anything questionable from Kyle's real life in order to present his story? Also, why is Chris Kyle's demise at the hands of another solder suffering from PTSD handled completely off screen whereas we have seen scores of American soldiers blasted apart by Iraqis on screen? Of course, because that is fully designed to make us thirst for revenge, hence the scores of Iraqis slaughtered on screen.
As for the performances, oh well...Bradley Cooper is fine I guess, certainly not deserving of an Academy Award as the character that he has been given to play is a husk of a man whose eyes flare like Bill Bixby ready to transform into The Incredible Hulk (those comic book analogies again) once his country and comrades are under fire. Sienna Miller, a very talented actress, is completely wasted in a thankless and somewhat infuriating role as Kyle wife, Taya as she is required to be nothing more than alternately shrewish, bitchy or hand-wringing and pregnant nearly all of the time. And at no point were either of them convincing as existing as three dimensional human beings.
To finally bring this to an end, I just have to return to Chris Kyle's Father's simple-minded allegory of the human race existing as either sheep, wolves or sheep-dogs for just a moment. Because as I think about "American Sniper," I am feeling that Clint Eastwood has cynically cast all of us in the audience as sheep who will so easily swallow any sense of pseudo patriotic crap he can dish out just to keep us afraid and angry enough to support the current as well as the next war our country will find itself involved in. I think that it is more than telling that Eastwood excised any and all potentially controversial matter from his depiction of Chris Kyle because he had a larger agenda to fulfill and based upon the enormous response to the film, his tactic has worked brilliantly...just as the best propaganda should.
No comments:
Post a Comment