Movie Review: Birdman

Many people suffer from “negative self-talk,” which is a critical voice in their heads that says things like, “Why try out for the football team when you know you’re a loser?” Or, “You’ll never be a Class-A musician, so just give up your dream.” Or, “Your acting is horrible and the only one who doesn’t know this is you.”

This kind of “negative self-talk” is one of the central themes in Birdman, or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), starring Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Zach Galifianakis, and Naomi Watts. The film won this year’s Academy Award for Best Picture. 

In Birdman, Michael Keaton plays a man named Riggan Thomson, a washed-up film actor famous for playing a superhero (Birdman) in a series of very successful films many years ago. Riggan is shown attempting an ambitious comeback to write, direct, and star in his first play on Broadway, and it is not going the way he expected.

His daughter is unhappy as his personal assistant, he has production and public relations problems, he has girlfriend problems, but his main antagonist is actually Birdman himself. Riggan hears the near constant, droning voice of Birdman telling him that he is wasting his time and that he should give up this Broadway nonsense and come back to the superhero role that made him a star. The film examines Riggan’s near-crippling self-doubt, it satirizes the Broadway theater culture, and it features the desperation and hope of actors who just want to say, “I acted on a Broadway stage.”

While Birdman could have been filmed conventionally, the filmmakers chose the more difficult path. Similar to Alfred Hitchcock’s movie, Rope, Birdman is shot as if it was mostly one take. The camera follows characters up and down stairs, all around the stage where the play will take place, on the streets outside, up on rooftops and back again, and it’s all very impressive and seamlessly done. One of the joys in this film is to figure out where the edits are located. I assure you, it’s not as easy as it is to spot in Rope.

Best Director Oscar winner, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, and Best Cinematography Oscar winner, Emmanuel Lubezki required the cast and crew to film very long scenes without error. This involved many rehearsals since some scenes were up to fifteen minutes in length. It required a constantly moving camera, multiple settings, multiple actors, tons of flawlessly performed dialogue, and every actor and every crew person had to hit their marks perfectly, or they had to start the entire scene over again. 

It’s this combination of acting excellence and technical prowess that impressed the Academy enough to give it their highest award.

Michael Keaton is simply superb as a tortured Riggan, who we see slowly descending into madness. This really is a monumental acting performance by Keaton, as he is in most of the film’s scenes, and he is believable throughout. You can feel that this might be his character’s last shot at attaining whatever he thinks is “success,” and he sees it slowly slipping away from him. Watching Keaton’s journey through this movie, even without the technically complex element, was a truly fun experience.

Edward Norton’s role as a Broadway veteran named “Shiner” is also a standout performance. Norton plays the character with uncommon levels of confidence, but we see brief glimpses that this might be a carefully crafted facade. Other noteworthy actors in the film are Emma Stone and Naomi Watts, as Riggan’s daughter and one of the play’s stars, respectively.

Birdman was impressive on a number of levels. It has awesome acting, a great script, technical excellence, and it’s about the inner-workings of the acting profession, which the Academy always loves. So, it makes perfect sense to award Birdman with Best Picture.

While I can’t say that Birdman would have been my vote for Best Picture, it’s clearly a film-making achievement worthy of the top award because the filmmakers dared to take the more difficult path to make a good movie great, and it succeeded to produce a really amazing film experience. It’s a movie that film students will be studying for many years to come, and I can’t truly say that about all of this year’s Oscar nominees.

Leonard Nimoy Was More Than Spock To Me

   Let me take you back to a childhood. My childhood, in fact. 

   It's the early 70s, and Star Trek, the seminal TV series that spawned the sci-fi convention business that we all take for granted today, had been off the air for only a few years. These were the years when Trek was in syndication and we could see maybe two episodes every week, or sometimes an episode every weekday. 

   In 1974, I looked at the paper's TV listings and saw that there was a new Star Trek cartoon series starting in the fall. By then, Leonard Nimoy had already started doing his series seeking answers on the unexplained called In Search Of. So, in those early years of my life, I got to see Leonard Nimoy on television a lot. 

   You could say that the sound of Nimoy's voice is as important to me as the sound of a heartbeat, or the soothing voice of my mother, and possibly even the voice of Hall of Fame baseball announcer of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Vin Scully. 

   Nimoy's presence in my life was so frequent, that he was more than an actor or a narrator to me. He was a guide. He steered me toward logical thinking as Spock, he steered the Enterprise out of danger, and as a film director on several Trek films, he steered our hearts into bigger and better cinematic experiences.

   Leonard Nimoy's Spock character became as iconic in the 60s and 70s as the most well-known faces in pop culture. And while there was a time when he disliked his association with just this one character, he later embraced it, as fans of his work always did. 

   Many years after my initial obsession with Star Trek began, I had the privilege of seeing Leonard Nimoy speak to an audience of very dedicated fans at a Star Trek convention in the early 90s. By then, Nimoy had been doing conventions on and off for around twenty years, but he was always engaging, always funny, and I had never seen a convention crowd get so excited to see a Trek cast member. It was like he embodied everything we liked about the show. If there was a way to tap into the energy in that room and convert it to electricity, it would have been able to power a small city. (At least, a fleet of Priuses. Or, is the plural of Prius, "Prii," as in "pree-EYE?")

   I don't have any autograph or photo of him, as that is not my thing, but I have his image in my memory from that night, and I can recall the image of him standing on the convention stage whenever I want. I just can't show anyone, and that's okay. That's okay.

   More than anything else, I respected Nimoy in anything he did because he was able to use his deep voice and his superior acting skills to make the part his own. Star Trek took up the bulk of his professional life, but he did many non-Trek shows, cartoons, plays, and projects that didn't need him to glue on fake ears and shave part of his eyebrows to work. I hope people will spend the time to look at some of his non-Trek work to see his range of talents.

   Nimoy wanted to be known for more than just one role, and while that goal was not realistically possible, it didn't stop him from being a very prolific actor, writer, and director.

   His voice is now silenced, like that of many others from my childhood, but I can always hear it in a TV episode, or a radio play, or in a TV interview. His voice is recorded for all time, and for that, I am thankful.

   I think it's fitting that this tribute end with probably my favorite quote so far on the passing of this wonderful man. It's from fellow Star Trek cast member and friend, George Takei:

"The word extraordinary is often overused, but I think it's really appropriate for Leonard. He was an extraordinarily talented man, but he was also a very decent human being."

   Rest in Peace, Leonard Nimoy. You left the world better than when you entered it. 

2015 Post Oscars Report

The 2015 Oscar Awards has ended, and this is my after-Oscar report.

J.K. Simmons, for Whiplash, was the only award that demanded an Oscar award, and he won it. The fact that he implored people to call their parents, was one of the more emotional moments for me during the ceremony.

It was nice to see Interstellar win for Best Visual Effects. It definitely earned that award.

I was totally surprised at how many awards that The Grand Budapest Hotel was winning considering how many movies were predicted for wins that did not include The Grand Budapest Hotel in the title.

Also surprised at Birdman receiving Best Picture only since I haven't seen it yet. Now is the time where I see it and figure out if I agree with the Academy.

Honestly, I felt that the best film of the year was The Grand Budapest Hotel in every way, but since I haven't seen Birdman, it's difficult for me to agree or disagree with the vote.

The show was fun, filled with good jokes from Neil Patrick Harris, and it only went over time by a half an hour or so, but I've never cared about that.

Common and John Legend's performance of the Oscar winning song for Selma called "Glory" was a real crowd pleaser.

Honestly however, this year was a weak year for films if we are to compare them to other eras. Birdman is a film I cannot critique myself, but the bulk of films released this year did not captivate me like in previous years. While I loved The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I felt it was the best in the field, this group of Oscar contenders did not equal the films of other years.

However, I will have to see Birdman to see how close to perfection I think they came with this Best Picture award.

At this point, I am not sure.

These Are The Women (On Screen) That I Love

   I took a look at this year's Best Actress nominees for the Oscars, and I was surprised and a little bit embarrassed to discover that I had not seen any of their performances. Not only that, but I was shocked to learn that none of the actresses were nominated for films who were vying for the Best Picture category. Simple extrapolation from this shows that the eight Best Picture nominees focus almost entirely on men. (Or, as in "Boyhood," a boy, a teen, and then, a young man.)

   It made me wonder why this is, and I didn't have the answer. So, instead of pointing fingers at Hollywood executives or railing against a male-dominated film industry, I decided to list some of my favorite actresses of all time as a way of celebrating great women in the acting profession. I list four female actors from the Golden Age of Cinema since I have an affinity for this period. At some point, I will do a Take Two segment and focus on other eras and more women deserving of recognition. 

While the women I list are not all Oscar winners, all of them gave memorable performances in very different films.

   So, here a short list of my favorite actresses from the golden age of cinema, in no particular order of greatness:

  Greta Garbo in "Ninotchka." Simply unforgettable. One of her final films before she quit the business for good, Garbo shines as a Soviet envoy who falls for Melvyn Douglas and tastes the delights of Paris that are frowned upon in her communist country. We see her trademark Garbo seriousness, but we also see her struggle with love and even happiness, concepts that she is unfamiliar with, and it's a delight to watch Garbo act them out. It must be added that posters for this film advertised that "Garbo Laughs!" as a none-too-subtle reference to the public perception that Greta Garbo never smiled or laughed in her movies. This was not so, but never let the truth get in the way of a good ad campaign. She would make only one more movie after this, and then quit to live in seclusion. In a way, it's sad that such a great talent chose to end her career so early, but it adds to her mystique, and her considerable body of work stands as a great gift to film fans, even today.  

   Another actress worthy of note whose initials are "G.G." is Greer Garson in "Pride and Prejudice." While this adaptation of the Jane Austen novel takes certain liberties with the book, there is no other version of Elizabeth Bennet that matches Garson's in my mind. She is equal parts coy, smartly indignant, and both repulsed by and attracted to Mr. Darcy. This may not be Garson's most famous role, (which would probably be "Mrs. Miniver" two years later in which she won the Oscar for Best Actress,) but it is the one I can watch over and over again.

   Joan Crawford in "Grand Hotel." This is one of the very first Hollywood films with an "all-star" cast, as it had Crawford, Greta Garbo, Wallace Beery, and both John and Lionel Barrymore, all of whom were silent film legends at the time, and Crawford had only third-billing, behind Garbo and John Barrymore. (I would have also mentioned this as a Greta Garbo highlight, as it's another gem in her all too short filmography.) To me, "Grand Hotel" is my favorite film that includes Joan Crawford. As the stenographer in the story, she shows independence, a strong-mind, and a playful sexiness that audiences loved from her. In a sense, she is almost everything in the film that Garbo's character was not, as Garbo played a depressed ballerina. Crawford's character sees darker moments in the story, but her strength, level-headed manner, and ultimate kindness, make this film another that I can watch repeatedly without degradation. 

   Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca." While not one of the three films that earned Ingrid an Oscar statuette, no one would deny that "Casablanca" gave her a classic part in a classic film. What's most interesting about her performance is that she had two men to whom she needed to show love for, but since the script was being written as they filmed, she had no idea which of the men her character really loved. So, she had to play most of her scenes ambiguously so that when it was finally decided she would go with one or the other (see the movie to find out who she ends up with,) the audience would not know that for the bulk of the shooting she had no idea who her character loved at all. Despite being so frustrated at this ridiculous work-condition, she played Ilsa Lund with great emotion and passion. Now, if you've already seen the film, go back and watch her scenes and try to figure out if she loves one man more than the other. I have my own thoughts, but that will be for another blog.

  As for more contemporary actresses, I would include the following females to my own hall of greatness, and some of the films I think are worth a look:

Sigourney Weaver for "Alien" and "Aliens."

Tilda Swinton  for "Michael Clayton" and her nearly unrecognizable cameo in "The Grand Budapest Hotel."

Helena Bonham Carter for "Fight Club" and "The King's Speech"

Charlize Theron for "Cider House Rules" and "Young Adult." 

Anna Kendrick for "Up In the Air" and "50/50."

and,

Jennifer Lawrence for "Silver Lining's Playbook"

   At some point, I will add more women to this list, but until then, check out some of the above actresses and see if you agree with my assessments or not. I'm thinking that you just might see something you hadn't seen before and come away impressed with these awesome talents as I have. 

Why I Love the Oscars Telecast

   How many Oscar telecasts have you watched from beginning to end? 

   Oh, I’m not talking about the endless, insipid pre-Oscars show where the media hang around like hungry rats along the red carpet holding microphones out and desperately trying to catch celebrities with shouts and pleas to give them a solid 90 seconds of camera time. 

   No. I consider that a pathetic circus that I avoid at all costs. I’m really talking about the moment the show begins, from the opening music, to the opening monologues, through each and every award and overly long speech, through each and every musical number, and watching every moment; good, bad, or awkward, until the telecast goes off the air.

   Anybody do that?

   Well, I do, and I’ve done that since before I can remember. I started watching back in the days when Bob Hope and Johnny Carson hosted the show to an audience at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, a time when the Oscar host was so well-respected that no one dared criticize them in the Tuesday morning newspapers. (That’s right. The Oscars used to run on Monday nights.)

   Every year, I would count down the hours to a telecast that riveted me for three-plus hours because it was my once-a-year glimpse into a world I wanted to join. So, I would watch every category with my trusty Oscar ballot in my lap, for I would make my own Oscar predictions and see how well I did compared with the “experts.” Some years, I made friendly wagers on who could pick the most winners correctly. But more than anything, I just love the art-form of the motion picture so much that this one night, this one moment in time for me, is, dare I say it? 

   Magical.

   

   Oh, I know. Every year, we see fountains of verbal bile and vomit spewed onto websites by bitter reviewers who didn't like this joke, or that dress, or were offended by something someone said, or thought the telecast was way too long. 

   Me? I DON’T THINK IT’S LONG ENOUGH. 

   If the entire Super Bowl telecast, from pre-pre-game to pre-game to halftime to post-game can be between six and eight hours long, and NFL fans love that, I don’t see why movie fans can’t have a 4 hour ceremony. But I love it all because it’s LIVE, (it's the only major awards show that is ever shown live on the West Coast of the US,) and it’s all about the people who make the movies we love, and honoring the work of their colleagues. What’s not to love about that?

   I have always been honest about my love for the movie-making process, and the Academy Awards telecast is the one moment of the year where the best movies are awarded by the people who make the damn movies. This is no People’s Choice Awards, where the non-industry general public gets to vote. No. This is a private ceremony where ballots are only given to Academy members, members who can only vote on the category that employs them, as well as the Best Picture category. And we, the viewing public, get a mere glimpse into the world of cinema and get to share in the excitement of the ceremony.

   People say that the Oscars don’t reflect the opinions of the general movie-going audiences, and to that I say, DUH!

   What does the general public know about how to frame a shot? Are they better than a cinematographer to pick the Best Cinematography award? We know very little about special effects and what it takes to render shot after shot. Are we really qualified to vote on Best Visual Effects? No, we are not. Not unless we work in the industry, we don’t. It's better that the votes come from people who work in the industry, and not from someone who liked a movie because they think Charlize Theron is “hot.” (She is, but that’s beside the point.)

   It is ridiculous to argue that the Oscars are a waste of time because they never give awards to popular movies like “Fast and Furious” or “Magic Mike.” If you want to see the award for “Best Shirtless Performance, watch the MTV Movie Awards where the winners only show up when they know they've already won. For me, that’s not riveting. 

   What’s riveting to me is to see well-dressed celebrities sweating nervously like real human beings, reacting with a manufactured calm as their name is read out as a nominee, and then to see their reaction when they win (or lose) the award. This, to me, is also magical because it’s an honest, human reaction to a tremendous achievement.

   So, when you watch the Oscars coming up, (and I know you will because you are reading this,) watch the pre-Oscars show if it pleases you. Don’t let my aversion to that part of the telecast put you off. But above all, enjoy the moment. Imagine what it would be like to be a nominee, and cheer the people who made the movies you loved last year.

   Movies are a wonderful art-form, and the Oscars are the pinnacle of that art-form’s celebration of the very hard work they all did the previous year. 

   As a life-long movie aficionado, the only thing better than watching the Oscar telecast is to be sitting in a darkened movie theater and marveling at the artistry and craft employed by thousands to create a marvelous piece of filmmaking.

   After all, while it’s nice to see the ceremony, it’s the movies that make us care.

SPOILERS: The Imitation Game - Secrets Sometimes Kill the Best of People

   As a boy, I was fascinated by codes and code-breakers. Our family had a copy of Clifford B. Hicks’ children’s book, “Alvin’s Secret Code,” where the main character, Alvin, was like Thomas Edison and Sherlock Holmes mashed together, but in kid form. “Alvin’s Secret Code” was part-story and part-instruction manual for how to write your very own coded messages, and it inspired me to learn more about codes, code-breaking, and cyphers. The book intrigued me so much that I would sometimes imagine myself being a super-spy sending messages that only my friends could read.

Unfortunately, my friends weren’t as interested in codes as I was, but this childhood memory flooded back to me as I sat to watch The Imitation Game, the story of Alan Turing, the mathematical genius and legendary cryptanalyst.

During the Second World War, an isolated mansion in the English Midlands known as Bletchley Park was actually a top secret facility where the smartest people in Britain were charged with the seemingly impossible task of breaking the codes Germany used to coordinate and communicate attack plans against Allied shipping convoys in the Atlantic Ocean during the war.

Alan Turing (portrayed with imaginative subtlety and restraint by Benedict Cumberbatch,) is an awkward, somewhat asocial character in the film. However, he has an extraordinary mind, preferring isolation to collaboration in order to get his work done. He begins working to build his own version of a Polish code-breaking machine, and he feels that his improvements will succeed in cracking those “unbreakable” German codes.

However, his lack of social graces and his request for solitude wins him no friends at Bletchley. The film shows his efforts to juggle the importance of maintaining social graces with his colleagues while simultaneously building the code-breaking machine that fewer and fewer people around him believe will actually work.

Joining him in this task is a woman at Bletchley named Joan Clarke, played by Keira Knightley. Clarke would become one of the very few female cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park during the war, and would also become one of Turing’s closest allies.

The central theme of the film is secrets. German secret codes are the lure, but not all secrets are the military kind, and Turing is hiding a whopper of a secret that, if discovered, would jeopardize not only his work at Bletchley, but his very life.

Alan Turing was hiding in plain sight as a homosexual in an era when Great Britain criminalized and punished such behavior without pity. This threat of discovery hung over Turing’s head like kind of Sword of Damocles waiting to come crashing down upon him and destroy everything he had worked for. As brilliant as he was, one mistake and everything would be ruined.

   The film is split into three sections: First, there are the scenes at Bletchley. Second, there is one detective’s investigation into Turing’s life after the war. And finally, there is a series of flashbacks that shows Turing at school as a young boy. The film jumps back and forth between each setting so seamlessly that it is no surprise that the film is nominated for this year’s Best Editing Oscar Award.

   Benedict Cumberbatch plays Alan Turing as a kind of suffering genius, although we know that it isn’t just his intellect that makes him suffer. Turing was never allowed to be free about his sexuality, which might have partially fueled his desire to be left alone in his work. It’s a given that this performance would have earned Cumberbatch a Best Actor Oscar nomination, as there is depth and humanity in his performance that warrants recognition.

   Keira Knightley is also worthy of her Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress as the confident, concerned friend and colleague, Joan Clarke. Her performance is self-assured, and she works very well with Cumberbatch, particularly during one scene where Clarke visits Turing after his indecency trial. It was a thrill to see Cumberbatch and Knightley hitting the emotional high points of their characters so that we really feel their struggles. 

The Imitation Game is such an entertaining and enlightening story, both about the triumph of Turing’s work as a code breaker and also the pain of his personal secrets, that any future attempts at portraying Alan Turing’s complicated life will have to meet the very high standards set with this film. 

Movie Review: Jupiter Ascending

When the Wachowskis set out to make a movie, you know it’s not going to be a simple film. After they blew our collective minds with the original Matrix film in 1999, and then disappointed the bulk of moviegoers with the remaining Matrix Trilogy, the Wachowskis have still wowed us with visuals that have no equal in the Hollywood realm.

After the Matrix films, the Wachowskis, Lana and Andy, chose their follow-up by writing and producing “V for Vendetta.” But their directorial follow-up was the amazing visual treat, but box-office bomb that was “Speed Racer.” While its visuals were amazing, anyone interested in a cohesive plot was disappointed. Then, they joined up with German “Run Lola Run” director, Tom Tykwer to co-direct the epically complex (and rumored to be unfilmable) book adaptation of “Cloud Atlas.” What resulted was a somewhat admirably ambitious exercise in both acting and plot. It was another dazzlingly visual spectacle, but another ultimately unsatisfying story adaptation, possibly proving that “Cloud Atlas” was best left on the written page.  

At this point, one wondered if their Matrix success was just a one-off, or if the Wachowskis were doomed with Orson Welles Disease, that unfortunate affliction where a director pops off a superior early effort (Citizen Kane) and never comes close to topping that early effort. The collective question about the Wachowskis has been, has their time run out?

I’d like to say it hasn’t. Jupiter Ascending, while not anywhere close to the visceral pleasures that they offered in The Matrix, is a game effort, and about as close to the ambition and epic scope that filmgoers hoped to see from this genre-innovating duo. However, it is still not an improvement in the areas of plotting, pace, and story, that make movies more than just a visual feast.

The film focuses on a Russian-American named Jupiter Jones (played by Ukranian-American, Mila Kunis, who drops some of her first language in the film very realistically,) whose father was killed when she was a baby. Jupiter is a young adult now living in Chicago with her mother and other Russian relatives and working as a toilet-scrubber and general housecleaner. This is not the life her mother wanted for her.

Suddenly, through a complex series of events, Jupiter is hunted for reasons that if one were not paying close attention, would become very confusing very fast, and she is saved from certain death by a male warrior with flying boots named Caine Wise, played by a hunky Channing Tatum wearing something akin to Spock ears. Jupiter is whisked away and informed that she is much more important than she ever dreamed. To go into the exact details of her importance would be revealing too much of the plot, but she becomes wanted by several factions. Some want to protect her, and others want to destroy her.

In another galaxy far, far away, unbeknownst to Jupiter, plans are being laid for her ultimate destruction by a powerful galactic family with machinations not unfamiliar to anyone who watches “Game of Thrones,” and soon, both Jupiter and Caine are under heavy attack.

What ensues is a grand series of action sequences, shaky alliances, trustworthy friends, outrageous betrayals, and the like, where we must weave our way through an anime-like plot complexity of strange names and unclear motivations to figure out who or what is behind the scheming and why we should really care.

I found the plot at times a chore to follow, but I feel I did reasonably well considering all of the bombast of the film and the spray of alien names and situations thrown our way. Mark my words: Anyone going into the theater to see this should be forewarned not to distract themselves with popcorn or a sip of soda for fear of missing something crucial to the story. If I had missed something of the plot along the way, I think I would have been lost and not enjoyed it for what it offers.

What it does offer is yet another visual spectacle of action sequences, fight scenes, alien settings, and wonderful visuals. Clearly, the Wachowskis love their FX departments. But the film still lacks the kind of clearly focused storytelling to match the ambition of the visuals. It’s another “fish-out-of-water” story and a story of a “chosen one,” both elements that are told much better in the first Matrix film.

Jupiter Ascending wants to be so complex and challenging that its story arc is dizzying, its plot twists are weak and unconvincing, and it’s far too much action and visual intensity, and not nearly enough character-based or emotional complexity for me to recommend this to everyone.

The Wachowskis appear to want to make films that are heavily reliant on special effects, but they fail to see why The Matrix was such a success. That plot was very simple to understand, the villains were easy to identify, and the twists were satisfying. The directing pair, while remaining excellent visual directors, has yet to give us the same combination of complex visuals and story combined.

I would recommend Jupiter Ascending if you love visual spectacles, and for that, I definitely recommend IMAX 3D for this film. But if you want a great story, this is movie is a disappointment.

SPOILERS: American Sniper: A Reasoned Reaction

   NOTE: If you want to read a review of “American Sniper” that points an irate finger at anyone, insults anyone’s intelligence, or attacks anyone’s political beliefs, you have come to the wrong place. The purpose of this essay is to parse my own thoughts about this film into a rational context so that I can understand both the film and my reaction to it more clearly. This might be a scatter-shot attempt, but I seek to remove the extreme emotions from the equation so that I can examine the film with an unclouded eye. 

   Whether I succeed or not will be for you to determine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Much has already been written about the Clint Eastwood film, “American Sniper,” in both emotional and political terms. You are probably already aware that the film is an adaptation of a best-selling book written by Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL sniper who is credited with more confirmed kills than any other sniper in U.S. military history. The book primarily dealt with Kyle’s Iraq deployments, but the film digs deeper into his relationship with his wife, Taya, and his difficulties in acclimating to a civilian existence between tours of duty. (Tragically, Chris Kyle was murdered at a stateside gun range by an American veteran who Kyle was trying to help. The suspect in this crime is slated to be tried in the coming month.)

   More than anything else, the film is a laser-focused look at one man’s experiences as a soldier. It portrays a man dealing with intense combat situations, and it also shows a husband and father struggling to find his place in a civilian world that seems oblivious to his steadfast efforts overseas. The film holds onto that personal perspective so relentlessly that it has aggravated some viewers because it isn’t “showing the whole picture” in the Iraq War.

   I would argue that “American Sniper” is not meant to be all things to all people. For example, the film never discusses politics or the machinations that led the U.S. military to occupy Iraq to begin with. One may think this is a political dodge, but I see it as a distraction from the very personal examination of Kyle’s life. Furthermore, it doesn't fully deal with the ramifications of post-traumatic stress disorder, but again, this isn't the focus of the film. And finally, it’s not a study of the larger, sociopolitical struggles in Iraq at the time of Chris’ tours of duty. The main point of view is that of Chris Kyle - what he sees, how he acts, and what he does both at home and abroad.

   Honestly, if you want a greater examination of the reasons behind American involvement in the Middle East after 9/11, look elsewhere. There are many, many books on the larger picture of the Iraq War. But if you want the point of view of one soldier’s experiences, “American Sniper” delivers on that promise, big time.

   The film is also a straight-forward portrayal of the military mindset and the combat conditions that forge soldiers into hardened people. Chris was a sniper who was trained to kill to protect his fellow soldiers. There is no sugar-coating this. A sniper’s job is to eliminate a threat by shooting and killing it. Some may dismiss him as a cold-blooded killer, but the job of a sniper it to kill the enemy without hesitation. Kyle would have argued that he was helping to protect Americans by killing the bad guys and preventing them from maybe reaching American shores, but also by protecting the soldiers under his direct care.  

   All of the action scenes in “American Sniper” are as tense as any other quality war film, but they become more emotional as the film shows Chris Kyle interacting (or not) with his wife while still deployed. In one scene, a pregnant Taya talks to Chris over the phone as he is driving through an Iraqi city. Suddenly, his convoy falls under attack, and Chris drops his phone. A helpless Taya must listen to the chaotic sounds of gunfire over the phone, all the while wondering if she’ll ever see her husband again. I’m sure nothing in my life can compare to the emotions Taya felt on that day.

   While seeing Chris Kyle struggling to fit in back in the States, I found myself wondering if a soldier can ever effectively operate in a high-stress environment, such as in a war zone, and then successfully turn that killer instinct off back at home. As a soldier, it’s your duty to complete missions without question and kill the enemy before he kills you. The film suggests that the transition from warrior to civilian is long and arduous, and it’s a journey that some soldiers never complete.

   Much of the emotional backlash against this film seems to originate from a fundamental misunderstanding about a sniper’s role in warfare and their effectiveness on an urban battlefield. One of the criticisms came from documentary filmmaker, Michael Moore. Moore sent a message out on Twitter indicating how one of his relatives was killed by a Japanese sniper in WWII, and he recounted how his father always referred to snipers as “cowards.”

   This assessment fails to account for the fact that Americans practically invented the concept of snipers back in the American Revolutionary War. Also, Russian snipers in WWII were such a crucial part of the defense of Stalingrad  that it can be argued that without them, Germany might have been able to deal the city a decisive blow and hold off an eventual Russian counter-attack. The snipers of Stalingrad were so famous that they even made a 2001 Hollywood film about them called, “Enemy at the Gates.”

   The political pundits on both sides of the spectrum have seized “American Sniper” as a prop to advance their agendas. On the one hand, the film is perceived as an example of American heroism and military virtue. On the other hand, some think it’s about American imperialism and the glorification of war. I saw neither of these after seeing “American Sniper.” Instead, I saw a well-made depiction of a real soldier fighting in what appear to be realistic settings and battling his own desire for justice in Iraq, and trying in vain to turn the killer instinct off at home.

   So, the film’s portrayal of a man trying to save America, save his fellow soldiers, and kill the enemy, all work in and of themselves, and the film shows Chris’ emotional distance from his wife when he is back from tour, but the film left me frustrated trying to figure out his true motivation for taking four tours of duty in Iraq. Was it really to be the “sheepdog” that his father insisted he was, or was it something else? His wife seemed to think something else was involved, but this was never fully explored. Chris simply dismisses the suggestion, but it’s left open-ended.

   I’ve heard many pundits throw around comments about whether or not Chris Kyle was a “hero” or a “villain.” I think this is a misplaced attempt to label him. A better question might be, “Was Chris Kyle doing the morally right thing by killing the enemy?” But even that is spurious considering we never criticize American GIs in WWII for “killing the Imperial Japanese” or “slaughtering Nazis.” How can it be acceptable to consider American soldiers honorable in one war, but questionable in another war when the enemy is just as hell-bent on destruction of the American way of life?

   Overall, I felt that the Clint Eastwood did an admirable job depicting an extraordinary life. If I am going to judge it by another well-received film about the Iraq War, “The Hurt Locker,” I would say that “American Sniper” is the superior film since there is more time spent on the civilian side of the soldier’s life.

   This movie ends abruptly and avoids depicting Kyle’s murder by showing a title card instead. This is not to say the ending is unemotional. As the credits rolled, I sat in silence, almost frozen to my chair, pondering this man’s life, his dedication to the Navy SEALS, and to his country, and yet I felt a tremendous sense of sadness for him. Not only by the fact that he was killed in such a senseless way, but by the fact that a man who essentially put his relationship with his wife on hold because “there’s plenty of time for that later,” it never came. That time can’t be said to be wasted, but it’s still very unfortunate for his wife and kids that he didn’t have the time he thought he’d have.

   On a final note, when I saw this movie and the credits rolled, a woman seated nearby leaned over toward me and said, “Did you know that the second anniversary of his death is today?” I said I hadn’t known that until just then. “Yeah,” she said. “I heard it on the radio coming here.” She paused and then finished with, “It’s still not a happy movie.”

   No. No it is not. 

~Kevin