American Sniper: Did The Film Miss the Mark?

Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” has proven to be this year’s most controversial film, attracting devoted defenders and adamant opposers alike. Social media has served as a platform for countless voices and insistent opinion. Mainstream media has pegged it as “fascist propaganda,” as well as “the best film of the year.” What can we make of all this?

The controversy surrounding “American Sniper” reminds me of a similar situation that gripped Martin Scorsese’s 2013 film “The Wolf of Wall Street.” The film was called an appalling and highly irresponsible glorification of excess and degeneracy. Leonardo DiCaprio’s portrayal of a scheming Wall Street broker who piggybacks on the hard earned money of clueless Americans as he boasts about consuming enough drugs on a daily basis to sedate Manhattan was a little too much for some to ignore. Which was exactly the point. When Scorsese was asked about his portrayal of sex, drugs, and money he said: “To do something that has an obvious moral message, where two characters sit in the film and hash it out, or where you have titles at the end of the film explaining the justice, the audience expects that. I didn’t want them to be able to think problem solved, and forget about it. I wanted them to feel like they’d been slapped into recognizing that this behavior has been encouraged.” Despite Scorsese’s hope that his portrayal of Jordan Belfort would lead audiences to ultimately condemn such a lifestyle, there were still those who were unable to reach that conclusion. This is not to say that Eastwood’s “American Sniper” has such lofty goals, but parallels can be made between how audiences can interpret a film. One man’s condemnation is another’s aspiration; one man’s justice is another’s crime.

Much has been said about the portrayal of Iraqi civilians in “American Sniper” as bloodthirsty and militarized. The film’s opening sequence shows a mother sending a child to attack a group of SEALS with a grenade. In his own autobiography Kyle wrote “She was blinded by hate. She just wanted Americans dead no matter what.” Naturally many would perhaps agree with him, but I saw something else. I saw a desperate family acting violently, if not desperately and defensively, to what they saw as a threat by invaders. One person sees savagery, another sees desperation. You can claim that if Eastwood wanted to show Iraqi civilians as peaceful defensive people perhaps he could have spent more time elaborating on that. Though that’s a valid point from a filmmaking standpoint, I think it is our duty as viewers to take on a proactive and analytical approach. Do we agree with the decisions our protagonist makes? Do we perceive Chris Kyle’s actions as morally correct? If so, why? Perhaps more importantly, what does our opinions say about us? Eastwood steers clear of cheap emotional triggers in the film. He doesn’t utilize techniques like sentimental soundtracks or heroic cinematography to steer sentiment in one direction. This is a major credit to the film.

A Rolling Stone editorial titled “American Sniper is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize” takes quick stabs at the film. The article states: “Eastwood, who surely knows better, indulges in countless crass stupidities in the movie. There’s the obligatory somber scene of shirtless buffed-up SEAL Kyle and his heartthrob wife Sienna Miller gasping at the televised horror of the 9/11 attacks. Next thing you know, Kyle is in Iraq actually fighting al-Qaeda – as if there was some logical connection between 9/11 and Iraq.” Eastwood, who claims to be anti-war and against violence, surely does know better – and he hopes we do to. This analysis misses the point of the scene. It claims that the film presents the events of 9/11 in such a way that it produces a logical link between the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the invasion of Iraq. It’s clear that the scene does not cater to the audience; instead it caters to Kyle himself. It shows that to Kyle his involvement in Iraq was justifiable because of 9/11. That was his reason for deploying, that was his war, which was his obsession. In hindsight, and after much deliberation, we now know that 9/11 had very little to do with the subsequent events in Iraq. It is very easy for us to say that now, but we must not forget that many, if not a majority of Americans, felt the same way Kyle did. The invasion of Iraq was accepted, if not applauded. Perhaps Eastwood didn’t want to slap the audience into “recognizing that this behavior had been encouraged,” like Scorsese does in “Wolf,” but he nonetheless shows it in a way that is equally sobering, that is to say, accurately.

The same article goes on to say: “Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards when one of Kyle’s officers suggests that they could ‘win the war’ by taking out the evil sniper who is upsetting America’s peaceful occupation of Sadr City.” The article is right in calling these ideas “super-dumb,” but I am reluctant to simply chalk it up to careless screenwriting. Of course Kyle can’t win the war by killing a single sniper. The belief that killing one enemy will create such a grand ripple effect so as to end the war is delusional, if not sad. Kyle clearly believes that he is the difference maker, the weight that will tip the scale in their favor. He eventually realizes his own mortal limitations by opting to not depart for a fifth (unrequired) tour in Iraq, instead dedicating himself to helping wounded veterans – perhaps his most redeeming quality.

Kyle’s reference of Iraqi soldiers and citizens as “savages” in the film has also been a hot topic of discussion. If anything, I found the use of the word too sparse. It’s no secret that Kyle truly believes his own rhetoric. “Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq,” he says in his book. To omit the use of the word “savages” in the film would be to omit a fundamental element of who Kyle was and what he believed. Personally I found the use of the word jolting, to say the least. I don’t believe Kyle’s hate-filled rhetoric was meant to make him a more likeable character. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone clap in the movie theater when he says that. Or perhaps you did clap, or wanted to. If that’s the case I’d ask why. Again, and more importantly, what does that reveal about you?

I’m not saying that Kyle’s depiction in the film could not have been more critical of who he was, or who he represents himself to be in his book. There is no doubt that the film could have been more critical, but when the goal becomes simply to be critical, a film can lose its essence as an honest depiction of a very human an imperfect situation. To me proof of the film’s success is the very fact that there is such a large spectrum of opinions towards it. How is it that individuals can walk out of the same theater with drastically different interpretations and feelings toward the very same film? To me this reveals more about our current political situation, about the current state of world affairs, and about us as a society than anything else. In essence, the film is about something people can talk about. Some will agree, some will disagree. It’s an open dialogue, and that’s precisely what a film is supposed to be.