Monday, February 9, 2015

American Sniper (a movie review post)

One thing I've learned in the past few weeks is that you shouldn't say anything bad about American Sniper. Well, unless you want to be vilified, that is. The thing is, none of the negative comments I've heard about Sniper are actually incorrect. Setting that aside for the moment, though, Sniper is a fine film. Predictable. Contrived. It's a solid piece of movie making, as you would expect from Clint Eastwood. And Bradley Cooper is good. Not great. Not best actor worthy, but he is good.

The film, as a film, is also not "best" worthy. It doesn't stand out as a movie at all. The thing that sets it apart is that it is a "true" story, so, because of its nomination, it's impossible to look at Sniper as just a movie other than to say that if it was fiction (which it is), no one would care about this movie. It is not powerful in any way other than the tragedy of the life it was based on.

And, by all accounts, that life was a tragedy. Chris Kyle was not a "good" guy. He was an asshole who liked to get into fights, who looked for any excuse to get into a fight, you know, to prove how much of a man he was or whatever. In that, he was the essence of the modern "cowboy" they played him off to be at the beginning of the movie. He was a braggart who let everyone know just how much of a "legend" he was and who exaggerated about how many men he'd killed, even making up stories about men he didn't kill just to make himself look... I don't know, even more "manly" or badass.

Of course, I didn't know Kyle, but those are the kinds of things he said, and those are the kinds of things people who knew him said about him. At least, that's the kind of stuff that was said about him before he was murdered. I don't know if he was turning his life around those last couple of years or not. What I do know is that he proclaimed that all proceeds from his book were being donated to veterans' groups, something which was completely not true. In reality, only about 2% of what was made was donated.

So, in respect to all of that, the movie does seem like a piece of propaganda to me, but a piece of propaganda about Chris Kyle more than anything else. See, in the movie he is this humble guy who doesn't like the reputation he's earned and doesn't like to talk about how many people he's killed. In fact, they play it off as if he doesn't even really know. He's just trying to protect people and the numbers don't matter. Because Kyle is being held up as "true American hero," it's like they needed to re-write his life to make him out to be a nice guy. A nice guy who does his job like any good American would; it's just that his job happens to be killing people. Something he's very humble about.

In the movie, that is. I need to stress that. Because his personality is completely the opposite in the movie to what he was supposed to be like.

Not mention all of the other things they made up for the movie. For instance, Kyle had no sniper nemesis. The whole showdown at the end of the movie was completely made up. He was much younger in life when he joined the military than he was in the movie. Why make him older? That doesn't make any sense at all. Basically, the only things they got right were the very broad strokes. There was a guy named Chris Kyle from Texas who was a SEAL and a sniper who spent time in Iraq. And he had a wife named Taya.

What all of this comes down to for me is one question: What makes a someone a hero? Why are we, as a culture, holding Kyle up as this great hero? I mean, he has his own day, now, in Texas. Is it because he killed a bunch of people? Is that what makes someone a hero? Is it because he risked his life for his country? Because lots of people do that, and we don't consider them heroes. Is it because, at the end of it all, he was murdered while trying to help someone?

I think, certainly, that the movie version of Kyle has been molded into someone whom we would call a hero. Just a humble guy doing his best to serve God, serve his country, and, mostly, sacrificing his family to do it... because family comes third after God and country. But, once home, he is going about repairing the damage he did by being away. He's become a good husband and a good dad and he's still out trying to help people. It makes the tragedy of his death that much worse.

But that's movie Kyle. Of course, that's the Kyle that most of us are going to remember. Now, it is, at any rate. I'm not so sure real life Kyle would meet those heroic standards. Maybe that's not important? Maybe the current cultural need for a "real hero" outweighs the reality of the person. I don't really know.

None of which answers the question about whether you should see this movie. I suppose it depends upon whether you want to see a very black and white (as in there are no foreigners depicted in the movie who are good; they are all savages and none of them can be trusted) representation of a fantastical hero figure who was given a gift by God to shoot people. There are no questions in this movie: We are good. Chris Kyle is good. They are bad, Period.

As a side note, I found it very interesting that The Punisher (from Marvel Comics) was so pervasive in the movie. It is certainly symbolic of the mindset (whether that was based on a fact or not). I would point out that The Punisher is only considered a hero in that he is an anti-hero. He does bad things, evil things sometimes, to bad people because no one else will. He is the only one who decides who deserves those things to happen to them. Is that the "hero" we want America to be equated with? I hope not. If we're going to aspire to a national hero, I'd much prefer Captain America. Maybe we would have done a better job over in Iraq if Cap had been our goal.

28 comments:

  1. At least one caveat to your observations: the Iraqi translator. And the family who cooperates in tracking down the Butcher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony: The translator is one of them, I believe. Someone from the US, I mean. That was my impression, anyway. As for the family, I think the implication there is that it was all about the money. "Good" people don't need money for it.

      Delete
  2. Maybe it is because the world just wants a hero.
    Haven't seen this yet, although I want to.
    Would it have been better if they just let Cooper channel his Rocket character instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex: heh That would have changed the tone of the movie for sure.

      Delete
  3. And I'm just still laughing over the fake baby.

    I just really have no desire to see this. And after reading more about the real Chris Kyle, and all of the things he lied about to seem cool (sniping dozens of looters after Hurricane Katrina, killing would-be carjackers, beating up a mouthy Jesse Ventura) I just have no interest in seeing how Hollywood spins him into a hero.

    Give me Captain America over a compulsive liar any day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ABftS: Oh, man, the fake baby was SO bad. What the heck was up with that? Unless Cooper was just scared to hold a real baby.

      Delete
  4. I have trouble with "based on a true story" changing things too much. Especially if that is the main selling point for a story. I think Eastwood should avoid political stuff as his own biases erm... bias him... I like some of his movies, but I had suspected this one would be problematic for me. Then again I see the world in rainbows, rather than black and white.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hart: I agree with you on the "true story" thing. If I can just look up the facts and find they don't match, it's a huge issue for me. And it seems disingenuous to completely change someone's personality to make him more likable.

      Delete
  5. It sounds like another "The Social Network" where they blatantly misstated facts just to fit into the boxes of their script. I mean the whole point of that movie was Zuckerberg was this sad lonely guy pining over the girl who got away, which is why he did all that he did and why he was a jerk. In reality Zuckerberg had a girlfriend since high school; they even got married a year or two ago. So the whole premise of the movie was BS but no one (including the Academy) cared. This sounds like another case of that. Anyway, I'm hoping Best Grand Budapest wins. I like that movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat: I really don't understand the point of making a movie based on a person, like this, when you're just going to make most of it up. If the facts are out there, use them.

      Delete
    2. I think it's that they want to convey a certain message and why let facts get in the way of that?

      Delete
    3. Pat: Well, sure, but, then, just make up a story. If your story is fiction, call it fiction. Otherwise, it's like Peter Jackson talking about how faithful he was to the source material in The Hobbit.

      Delete
  6. You pretty much stated why I don't want to see this movie. It really does seem like propaganda, and the way it's being venerated is frightening. But heaven forbid you say so out loud...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeanne: It's definitely a rallying point for a particular mindset.

      Delete
  7. I haven't seen this movie, but I've read a lot about it. Some people think it's great. Some say it's pure shite. Lots of people have written negative reviews of it and some people get angry, but I don't think anyone has committed murder over it--yet. When I do my movie reviews, I've been trying to make a big point out of teaching readers that "based on a true story" means very little. I'm quite fond of Bradley Cooper, but it would be kind of sad for him to win an Academy Award for a movie that a lot of people say is a lie. I liked him with the pink curlers in American Hustle. That movie was pretty much invented, too. I'm sure I'll see this movie on DVD because I like to see all the movies that have nominations in major categories for various awards, not just the Academy Awards. Okay. That is all.

    Love,
    Janie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janie: That's true. "Based on a true story" doesn't mean that much; that doesn't mean it shouldn't. For instance, Selma is "based on a true story," and it really keeps the facts correct (despite the controversy around the perspective difference). The Imitation Game does not. I think, though, when you're dealing with a biopic, it ought to be more closely linked to the actuality. When there's too much fiction, it ceases to be a biopic.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Some movies based on true stories are so far from the true story that it's absurd. It confuses people. Just thought I'd mention that The Hurricane was Alan Turing for Halloween. She pulled it off rather well.

      Delete
    3. Janie: That's pretty cool! I hope you took lots of pictures of that. What did she do to indicate that she was Turing?

      Delete
  8. I haven't really wanted to see this movie, and all the backlash and hype about it convinced me I was right.

    As for why we celebrate him, two things: one, he killed people in a memorable way, in war. Think of WWI flying aces -- well, at least Eddie Rickenbacker. Wasn't he one? We celebrate them because they killed people in cool ways. We also celebrate the men who invented the atomic bomb, although perhaps fittingly most people know very little about the actual pilots who dropped the bomb.

    Also, we celebrate him because people have this belief that getting sick or dying somehow means nobody can say anything negative about that person. I remember the outpouring of love for Nixon when he died, and the focus on the good things he did. Same with Michael Jackson and his music. If OJ Simpson were to get killed in prison, I bet there'd be a bunch of memorials to him. We were debating recently about a sick relative of mine and I pointed out that being sick doesn't mean you get to be an a-hole. But dying does.

    Sweetie and I were talking about this movie and about war movies in general. Think how few war movies are about people who deliberately go in and kill people. In Saving Private Ryan, they only killed people because they had to go rescue Private Ryan (after DDay, of course). In "The Hurt Locker" the guy's job wasn't to kill people at all. Those are the two that spring to mind. But most of our war movies, I think, tend to present soldiers as either fighting pure evil, or as people who only kill when absolutely necessary, leaving the 'killing because this is war so we're going to shoot everyone we see' part of war mostly offscreen.

    I bet, like my theory of Xmas movies, that that's an actual formula: In war movies the soldiers can only kill for a very rare and specific purpose.

    The best war movie I can remember seeing was "Three Kings." I loved it.

    I didn't read your comments to see how many people got mad because you dared challenge a Real American Hero, but I'm going to go look now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Briane: Hmm... It's been too long since I watched many war movies; now, I want to go back and see if your theory pans out.

      Delete
  9. I think American Military Hero's are very much needed in American society today. War is a necessary evil, a morally just person needs to be depicted defending the "American" way of life. In 50 years, the hero will still be remembered, and still may be a positive influence.

    The movie's appeal to me was an exploration of some moral issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dolorah: Then the question is about whether it's real heroes who are needed? Because if that's true, Kyle doesn't cut it. Nothing about him as an actual person fits my definition of who and what a hero is. So, then, if we're just gonna attach his name to a fictional character, which is what the movie did, why not just use Captain America?

      Delete
  10. The Oscars 2015 is going to be held on Feb 22 at the “Dolby Theatre” in Hollywood, L.A.(Loss Angles). The whole event will be host by “Neil Patrick Harris. I think, this movie will 3+ awards. So guys don't miss to watch Oscar 2015 Live Online on Sunday night.


    Watch Oscars 2015 Live Online stream and catch all hot celebrities live performances on Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is one movie I do want to see though I'll wait for the DVD. I've liked all of Eastwood's films (well I didn't see that female boxer one, but that didn't interest me) and I am curious about this one. It sounds like something I'd like. However I am getting a bit sick of all of the radio spots they've been playing to advertise the film--they could have a least done a few of them for variety so they didn't have to play the same one repeatedly.

    Arlee Bird
    A to Z Challenge Co-host
    Tossing It Out

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee: As a movie, all by itself, it's fine. Cliche but fine.

      Delete
  12. Argh.... This is the third post I know of that has eaten my comments. :(

    In any case, couldn't finish this movie. I felt it aggrandized a lot of things that really shouldn't have been. I did appreciate it's portrayal of PTSD, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex H: It's too bad it didn't focus more on the PTSD. I wouldn't have watched it if it wasn't nominated.

      Delete