Skip to main content

I'm willing to meet my creator and answer for every shot that I took.

American Sniper
(2014)

There’s a prevailing trend whereby movies capturing the zeitgeist, ones that, on whatever level, become pop culture events, just aren’t all that. It happened with Mel Gibson’s sadomasochistic epistle to Roman Catholicism, The Passion of the Christ. It happened again, on an entirely superficial level, with James Cameron’s Avatar (look at that 3D go, and wonder how much carbon dioxide was created to make this environmental fable). Now there’s American Sniper, breaking box office records when most were probably expecting Clint Eastwood to topple headfirst into his grave before very long. And it’s kind of average, all told. It isn’t a terrible movie, and it certainly isn’t the reprehensible paean to misguided patriotism some have made out. But it isn’t a great movie either. By a long shot. In short, it’s pretty much what you’d expect from the Eastwood of the past decade.


But trying to extricate a film like this from the surrounding conversation is almost impossible. Seen in isolation, ignorant of the hype, would you wonder what all the fuss was about? Avatar’s a different case, in a way. It exploded globally thanks to the technological innovation it was selling. Sure, it needed Cameron’s well-oiled technique to see it along, but mostly people went along for the eye candy. With both Passion and Sniper, a good proportion of attendees went (and are still going in the case of the latter) to see what all the fuss was about, but a significant number also took a rare trip to the cinema because the picture spoke to them very specifically concerning a subject that was important to them. That, maybe even, speaks to them.


With Mel Gibson’s film, there could be little doubt about the intentions of the maker. No projection was needed, as Mad Mel was hell-bent on force-feeding viewers his particularly toxic take on Christianity. It poured from the screen with every bloody lash and tear of flesh. The key aspect of American Sniper, at least in terms of the film I saw, is that the point of view is so pervasively nebulous. Tepid even. As such, it’s easy to see why people might take away from it exactly what they want to take away. Eastwood and screenwriter Jason Hall (who wrote the poxy Paranoia) pull their punches on every level and at every stage.


One would have thought it impossible to make a movie set in the frontline of the War on Terror and not comment on it, but Eastwood and Hall succeed. It’s a success of dubious merit. I wouldn’t even say its incumbent on a filmmaker to tackle the subject matter; it’s more the case that the results of not doing so leave the makers and their delivered picture looking lost and uncertain. Sniper has an additional problem in that Eastwood isn’t even able to create a degree of balance through serving his characters. In particular, the domestic, stateside drama is incredibly basic and crudely sketched. Ultimately it serves to unravel even the bits of the picture that work.


Another point of comparison between Passion and Sniper is that their successes are predominately US ones. That may seem bleeding obvious with the latter, but where Avatar made 73% of its money in the rest of the world (that’s more than average, but it does reflect global box office trends), Sniper so far has made 70% of its money at home, a direct inversion (Passion made some 60% in the US and Canada). The conversation about Sniper isn’t as precious, provocative or pernicious elsewhere, and the picture fails to muster the same level of interest; curiosity perhaps, but it doesn’t galvanise viewers. There have been better-directed movies based on this conflict, and there have been much better written ones, so the manner in which the film, without overtly intending to, has become a flag-waving event appears somewhat mystifying (mystifying too to the studios, who wish they could bottle this kind of hit).


I don’t intend to dwell on the disparity between the real Chris Kyle and movie’s version, and I haven’t read American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History (that title in itself smacks of self-proclamation, unlike the movie version of the character).  I don’t consider the makers to have a responsibility to portray Kyle accurately. It’s a frequent and fundamental error to expect documentary accuracy from fictionalised narratives, and it becomes tiresome when it is raised time and time again. The key is how the movie works on its own terms. Many critics of Sniper’s accuracy would likely not give a second thought to praising a feature they saw as taking licence with the truth for artistically valid reasons. The problem with 90% of biopics out there is that they simply aren’t very good, not that they play fast and loose with the facts.


Kyle may have been an American Psycho rather than an American Sniper (he was a Metallica fan, so there’s a case for the prosecution right there), but I can’t see that Eastwood and Hall are making him out to be a hero. That’s also definitely not the performance I saw from Bradley Cooper. He’s the most impressive part of the picture, but he’s unable to ground it. His Kyle is huge and bearish, not a great thinker, with a cloud over his eyes. He isn’t an especially bright guy (except when called upon in the field, due to the expediencies of Hall’s plotting), and he’s weighed down with a traditionally God-fearing upbringing, and the fear of the rod from his father. He’s your red meat eating good ol’ boy.  In due course, since he lacks self-reflection, he quite naturally passes his hunter skills on to his own son.


One wonders at a guy who unquestioningly accepts everything he was raised to believe in; from the greatness of his country, to The Bible, to the nature of evil, to the view that those he is sent to fight are savages. Eastwood and Cooper (even given the former’s Republican bias) may not be seeking to celebrate or venerate a man who is so fundamentally unable to comprehend the bigger picture and his place in it, but they lack conviction on how they do wish to present him. Yet it is surely Kyle’s tunnel-vision certainty and values to which Red State Americans are responding. 


What I think Eastwood and Cooper do recognise is the craft of someone who is fundamentally good at his job, and that may indeed lead a blurring of lines (there’s a push-pull in the repeated announcements of his kill count; they’re both impressed and know it’s nothing to be proud of). Kyle is very good at killing people, and the crack shot, one who wields instant results, is by its nature a gripping profession; it’s the trade of a master, one who holds life and death in his hands.


The other side of this is the domestic Kyle, the one with the wife (Sienna Miller, barely recognisable) and kids at home. Yet this side serves only to underline the unyielding nature of his character. Taya keeps telling him he’s changed, and pleading with him to come back to her, but there’s little evidence that he was really there before he left for Iraq. It’s as if she always had a pipe dream of a husband, one who never existed. Miller is quickly saddled with a one-note character. 


Taya is only there to brew babies and break down on the phone in the middle of a melee. She sees an altered Kyle who is suffering from PTSD, but its effects are limited to Bradley sitting in an armchair staring at an empty TV or getting a bit rough with a neighbourhood pooch. It’s very mild really, for someone used to blowing away women and children.


When Spielberg was nursing the project, he introduced enemy sniper Mustafa (Sammy Sheik) as a narrative through line for Kyle’s four tours. The personified enemy is a contrivance (along with the legend-making, price on his head device of the western hero), although it’s no more playing to easily serviceable storytelling than Kyle’s battlefield calls to his missus. It’s easy to see why Spielberg’s instincts kicked in, though. Mustafa actually serves as the only motivating glue holding the war zone scenes together. 


This is not a concise movie, and, by the halfway stage, I was wondering if it was going anywhere. The answer is, not really, the sniper aside, but it’s a device that also signals priorities; this is not a movie that is preoccupied with its message, certainly not over basic war thrills (it’s beholden to exactly the same kind of genre staples to which Saving Private Ryan, despite a bravura opening, succumbs). American Sniper is in thrall to the classical conventions of its genre.


That’s why we get Kyle doing the rounds and teaching the marines, retrieving vital information through interrogations and discovering a cache of weapons in the house of a loving father. It’s why the war movie section ends on a bravura heroic act, as he takes down his nemesis with a CGI bullet fired at a great distance. The latter sequence is built around kinetic, punch-the-air action movie making; so much so you’d be forgiven for thinking this was a sequel to the two-decades old Tom Berenger Sniper.


Yet despite these conventions, despite the seeming endorsement of the classic hero who is too modest to admit to his prowess (soldiers continually proclaim Kyle’s mythic status, to his genuine disinterest in such talk), despite the funeral cavalcade credits that look and sound as if it is aping the mournful tone of JFK, it doesn’t translate that we’re supposed to revere the man, or his undiluted patriotism.


There’s a passivity here, which I don’t think is intentional on Eastwood’s part. Or rather, I don’t think Eastwood really has a clear intent. He may have been opposed to the Iraq War, but it’s difficult to construe what he thinks of Kyle. Because, while he doesn’t eulogise him, he doesn’t get inside his head either.


I might have given credence to this being intentional; this is a portrayal of a man who doesn’t know himself, his every conviction a verbatim regurgitation of what he has been told. Such a take would be underlined by Kyle’s dazed reaction to chancing upon his fucked up brother (Keir O’Donnell) on an airport runway. His brother is coming back, Kyle is going out again. The latter genuinely can’t understand the abject mental state his brother has reached, until he gets to that place himself. At least, that’s where he appears to be heading.


Eastwood and Hall pull back from this entirely, offering Kyle complete rehabilitation based on his meeting with a few veterans. It’s a particularly perverse choice (and I bring this up only because it underlines what must have been intended explicitly with regard to forming his character), as the real Kyle didn’t kill any children (and said he couldn’t have). Eastwood and Cooper take time to show the impact this act has on the mostly unruffled Kyle, yet it is not lasting. It can be overcome through a couple of veterans’ meets and some time on the shooting range. In no time he’ll be running about the house with toy guns.


The biggest problem is that Sniper has the countenance of a picture that wants to explore what war can do to a man, but it never gets there. Indeed, it sacrifices any believability it has scraped together for a soft-touch Spielberg ending.


Nevertheless, there are some strong sequences. While Eastwood maintains a typical slackness – and repetition – overall (how many of his pictures are taut, making every scene and shot count; it’s no coincidence that Unforgiven is his best film), he does an undeniably effective job with specific scenes. We may get as little sense of Kyle’s comrades as we do the enemy they hunt, and Eastwood may leave Cooper to do all the (literally) heavy lifting, but there’s good clear geography amid the war torn streets. 


In particular, the sequence were Kyle attempts to stop the Butcher (Mido Hamada) drilling a child to death, while under fire from Mustafa, is gripping and horrifying. The final defeat of Mustafa, bringing with it an enemy onslaught, is tense and compelling. Eastwood is also to be commended for not dialling up the sentiment – as Spielberg would surely have done – with a treacly score (except with the funeral ending, which feels like a botch).


American Sniper simply isn’t very good, however. As a war movie it doesn’t address the war in question, or its protagonist, while going through the motions of announcing itself as serious-minded (again, this is exactly what Saving Private Ryan did, or rather failed to do). It soft-soaps the traumatic effects of conflict, and Eastwood singularly fails to emphasise the escalating stresses and strains of such experiences on the psyche. He’s too meat-and-potatoes a director to get up close to Kyle’s claustrophobia and meltdown. He dissipates his opportunities in Iraq and then fumbles them at home.


Does American Sniper have a responsibility? To tell a good story and tell it well, yes. To portray the effects PTSD? If Eastwood, Hall and Cooper are claiming to reflect the reality, certainly (if the effects of PTSD shown here are unconvincing, then perhaps the physical losses suffered by veterans will give potential enlisters pause).


But to be wholly accurate to Kyle’s life? How many films can claim to be entirely accurate accounts of any actual person’s life? Any given picture is guilty of confabulating events or softening its subject matter. Maybe the discussion surrounding American Sniper will inspire a documentary discussing the perception of the man, and the arising themes of fact, fiction and the ground in between. Now that might be interesting. Hopefully it would also be a good movie.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.