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
~Kevin
No comments :
Post a Comment