I think some of the “controversy” over American Sniper feels so much like posturing, it’s almost surreal. Are there really liberals out there who are surprised that a U.S. infantryman doesn’t particularly like Iraqis or doesn’t feel awful for doing his job of killing people? I mean…really? The fact that people from Michael Moore to Bill Maher (a hero of mine who has never been naive on an issue) can be flabbergasted that the real-life Chris Kyle might not be totally diplomatic in his depictions of the people he was trained to kill and also trained to avoid feeling guilty about killing them feels less than genuine. “Chris Kyle’s not really a good person!” That’s probably true, but do snipers need to be good people? Since when?
The chief complaint about the movie seems to be that Kyle is white-washed into a hero (well duh) and that the film is a little bit too much in favor of the Iraq War to dive deep into how unnecessary it was. That’s definitely true, but I’m not sure how surprised people can be by that given that life-long Republican Clint Eastwood was only two years ago giving a big speech to a crowded auditorium (and an empty chair) at the Republican National Convention. All in all, I’m thrilled that this film is actually bringing out the “Red State” crowd to the theaters since this is a lot more accomplished and less dreary filmmaking than what they usually turn up for (looking at you “Passion of the Christ”), and there’s really nothing in it that would completely turn-off a liberal audience either.
“American Sniper” is not a very good movie, but I haven’t read a review or criticism yet that actually talks about what’s wrong with it…stay tuned…
What Works: This movie isn’t half as good as “The Hurt Locker” but it’s also worth noting that that heralded film didn’t actually touch the politics of the Iraq War either. It was also a series of context-free missions with a gung-ho hero who was almost more afraid of civilian life than the war zone. [The only Iraq War movie I’ve really seen that gets at the politics of it is the under-seen Matt Damon vehicle “Green Zone” and that wasn’t exactly celebrated by critics when it came out…or since.]
No, this movie isn’t smart enough or interesting enough or deep enough, but what it has going for it—and it turns out to be enough—is Eastwood’s finely crafted set pieces that will glue an audience to the floor. There are sequences so suspenseful in this movie that Eastwood is putting young directors a third his age to shame. The opening scene, the scene between two snipers dueling it out while a source is in danger, and the climactic sandstorm firefight are flat-out terrific. It’s worth noting that not one person got up to use the bathroom or get popcorn or take a phone call in the theater I was watching this movie in, and too few critics have graded “Sniper” on the most important quality of a movie like this: does it hold you? And I doubt even the people who hated this film’s politics weren’t thoroughly held by it when they were actually in the theater.
It’s also worth noting that Bradley Cooper does a solid job fleshing out what is—on paper—a somewhat limited character. You could probably argue that Cooper is more three-dimensional than the actual Kyle, and he knows how to tap into Kyle’s anger and paranoia while never making him less than sympathetic. Something the real Kyle may not really be depending on whether you’re reading Fox News or Salon.com and/or hearing first person accounts from his widow or former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura who got in a fistfight with the real Kyle…true story…
What Doesn’t Work:…And how true is this story exactly? The film makes no mention of the fact that stories about Kyle being a compulsive liar (who supposedly claimed to have killed people in New Orleans and carjackers in Dallas, neither of which is true) are abundant, and I guess that makes some sense, but what about more obvious historical inaccuracies? One example: the Syrian sniper Mustafa (who’s mentioned in one paragraph in the book, and was hardly a main antagonist for Kyle in the war) is expanded into a major foil for Kyle, but the movie portrays him as working for both the Shiite militia groups (true) and the sunni insurgency (false).
But beyond everything else, there was one part of this movie that was absolutely wrong, and I hated it…[Spoilers ahead]…
And I’m talking about the decision to barely show Kyle’s eventual killer, a fellow veteran Kyle was working with who shot him at the gun range. That’s right, the legendary sniper was killed by a bullet after the war and by a fellow soldier on the same side. The movie only makes mention of this in a weak post-script, but they missed a real opportunity to make a larger point about the senselessness of war and a much better movie. I see the guy who shot Kyle as being jealous of his war fame, and that could have been a fascinating angle to explore…if the film weren’t so hellbent on portraying soldiers as saints. Hey, maybe I do see some of the liberal criticisms.
What I Would Have Done Differently: The movie never really gets under Kyle’s skin, and I think exploring the obsession and jealousy of his killer could have been a great way to do that. It would have provided a sly critique of war-hero-fame while also providing a great supporting character (the film has none of them): a real-life Travis Bickle type (but more weaselly) that could have given the movie more of the psychological kick it’s missing.
Grade: B