Why You Need To See American Sniper

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." 

Dwight D. Eisenhower 

Image source: www.sofrep.com

I am struggling to understand the small but vocal backlash against Clint Eastwood’s movie, American Sniper. This movie, like many before it, is based on the real life story of Chris Kyle. He was a Navy Seal credited with the most sniper kills in US history. I have no problem with people disliking the film, or disagreeing with Eastwood’s vision but what bothers me is the unfair politicisation, seeming hypocrisy and the often one-sided arguments of many of these critics.

One critical review I read was written by Peter Maass at The Intercept (“HowClint Eastwood Ignores History in ‘American Sniper’). In this piece he chastises his fellow reviewers from the Los Angeles and New York Times as people “who spend too much time in screening rooms” because in Mr. Maass’s estimation they “are falling over themselves in praise of it.” To begin with I find his criticism rather disingenuous. He is part of the same media establishment that completely abdicated its responsibility in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq. The American media failed to challenge the veracity of every hasty, unproven claim and the numerous unverified assertions of the Bush administration for months before the invasion. I believe it amounted to the greatest failing of media in modern times.

So it seems ironic when Mr. Maass says “We got Iraq wrong in the real world. It would be nice to get it right at the multiplex,” considering he was part of the establishment that failed to question Cheney and Bush before they invaded a sovereign nation; without provocation, justification or any real or imminent threat to America. It seems convenient for Mr. Mass to again abdicate his responsibility; this time by chastising a Hollywood movie. It would seem that he wants to cleanse his conscience of all the innocent Iraqi blood on American media hands. If Mr. Maass were serious about righting the wrongs of America’s invasion, he would stop picking on soldiers who served their country and Hollywood, and work on persuading the International Court to summon Messrs. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Blair and every other architect of this illegal invasion before a war crimes tribunal.

Before I tackle some of the other criticisms that I have read in other media reviews and people’s Facebook posts, I want to clarify that it is a Hollywood film. It never claims to be a documentary, or a historically and factually accurate account of the Iraq war. Furthermore, the filmmakers have gone out of their way to say that they were not trying to make a war movie, much less present a critique of the mess America made in Iraq. Besides, the last time I checked movies are still made to entertain (and make money) by suspending reality with larger than life characters, salacious storylines and over-the-top dramatisations of actual events; even when they are based on biographies. If you want accuracy, analysis and facts, watch a PBS documentary.

Additionally, I think we can agree that no matter how brilliant a movie, nothing from Hollywood must be upheld for its historical accuracy or a realistic and honest portrayal of real-life events. That would just make for boring film. This is entertainment pure and simple; I doubt people would pay money to watch the very monotony they came to escape. So, for people to suddenly hold this movie to such a high standard would be the equivalent of saying that they get their world news from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. Then decide to take these men to task for factual inaccuracies, lack of objectivity, presenting one-sided views and for dramatising and making light of serious events. Ava DuVerney, the director of Selma, after being criticized for historical inaccuracies in her film, pointed out that we will become a very sad and dangerous society if we expect our kids to learn history through our movies.

Another major criticism that people have is that Kyle, as he states in his autobiography, seems to have relished killing and referred to Iraqis as savages. It is likely he enjoyed killing, but Kyle is hardly alone in this. It is said that we must be passionate about what we do to truly excel. So why does it not hold true for soldiers, who are trained killers? I am not saying that every soldier enjoys pulling the trigger and taking a human life, but how can we discount that a small percentage of the men we train to be cold blooded killers will get addicted to and enjoy killing? To this point, I think Kyle’s character in the movie forces us to accept that war is not pretty. It is not politically correct, it is not fair and it is always senseless. The actions taken by soldiers on the battlefield will never fit into neat our little moral codes or Geneva Conventions that make us feel warm and fuzzy in the safety of our homes. War forces good and honourable men to sometimes do both evil and dishonorable things. Soldiers see what human beings were never meant to witness, and war changes everyone. Even those who make it back lose a large part of their humanity. I don’t believe our souls can ever un-see what our eyes have seen. That is the real cost of war, beyond physical injuries. Just like Taya Kyle tells her husband Chris, there are thousands of veterans who came back physically but are yet to make it back emotionally and mentally to their families. This movie does a good job of reminding us of this very real and hidden cost to our soldiers and their families. Have you ever wondered why the largest percentages of homeless are veterans? In, 2013 alone the VA served more than 249,000 Veterans who were homeless or at risk of becoming homeless (Source: US Department of Veterans Affairs).

Another criticism that has been leveled at the filmmakers is that they chose to show only one side of Kyle’s character, leaving out the evil blood lust and racist overtones that come through in his book. I would argue that this holds true for every movie with a flawed hero, from a Gordon Gekko to Abe Lincoln to MLK to JFK. An essential part of great film making is to get an audience to feel empathy with its hero - to a point where we are able to forgive even their worst trespasses because all men have flaws. This may not be the reality, but it is what all brilliant directors and successful films do. I would even argue that Kyle's killing of a young Iraqi boy, barely ten years old, in the opening moments of the film is a big character flaw that creates a likeability deficit, which the rest of the film needs to work hard to overcome, in order to win back the audience’s empathy for its hero. I have never read his book, but I don’t see Kyle as a hero. I see him as another unfortunate victim of an unnecessary war.

To this point I would also add that movies, video games and other forms of entertainment cannot ever become our yardstick for reality, values, principles, and history or life lessons. Those still need to be taught in our homes and schools, so that when we consume various forms of entertainment we are able to differentiate between good, bad, fiction and reality and never the other way around. I also disagree that the film fails to show the general disillusionment with the Iraq war, and the lack of clarity of mission. In the movie there is a very powerful scene where Kyle meets his brother, who is returning home from Iraq, as Kyle arrives for another tour. His brother’s utter disenchantment and disillusionment with America’s purpose in Iraq is juxtaposed beautifully as it clashes with Kyle’s blind patriotism and unquestioning, brainwashed, jingoistic sense of duty.

Also, I think it is very easy for us to forget how one-sided and “sanitized” the Iraq war reporting was in the American media. It felt more clean and censored than daytime soap operas, so much so that the vast majority of us barely remembered there were men and women dying and being maimed daily. This, as we blissfully continued to drive to the mall and impatiently wait in line at Starbucks, while checking our smartphones for the latest Kardashian gossip. Again this alternate reality is something the movie delves into. We see Bradley Cooper’s character struggle and have a hard time processing this total lack of care and awareness among American people, the same people he had gone to die for.

Veteran care or lack thereof is another ignored aspect of war of which American Sniper raises awareness, in a very powerful way. Benjamin Franklin said that "Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later." It is this real and ongoing human cost of war we continue to underestimate, that American Sniper delves into masterfully. None of us have to deal with the long-term effect it has on children and family members of servicemen. We all saw Obama declare an end to the war in Iraq, but consider that among those who made it back there are now a million Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans with permanent and life redefining disabilities. They include veterans with lost limbs, traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress (PTSD), depression, hearing loss, breathing disorders, diseases, and other long-term health problems (Source: Cost of War, Brown University). In fact, medical experts say that many of Kyle’s unsubstantiated claims, like punching Jesse Ventura and killing looters during Hurricane Katrina, are consistent with patients with severe PTSD. Let’s not forget that Chris Kyle served four tours; he witnessed the horror of war for close to a decade.

It is easy to politicise and be critical of everything, as we take for granted the very freedoms that the Chris Kyle’s were told they were fighting to protect. The point is not whether you see Chris Kyle as a hero or villain. This movie is worth seeing because it is ultimately an anti-war movie. One that forces us to recognise the human cost of war, through the eyes of a soldier who has an over-simplistic moral code, which actually makes him the ideal soldier. However, even he cannot escape what Eisenhower and Franklin understood - the ugliness and inhumanity of war; scars all veterans and their families bear forever.

If we understand this, then we might understand why everyone who witnesses war first hand says that there are no winners. Even the victors lose. This realization alone will ensure that we begin to hold our leaders more accountable and question any decisions to go to war the next time they try to pull the wool over our eyes and rush in. We must never forget that even though war is sometimes necessary, it should always be the last resort.

Review of the 2013 Oscar Best Picture Nominees

“Everything I learned I learned from the movies.” 
Audrey Hepburn

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Wow! Rarely, do I use the word spectacular to describe a film but if there is one must watch movie in this crop of Oscar nominees, then this is the one. I had no idea what to expect when I walked in, other than it being recommended by a number of people, online. Nobody I knew had seen it. The film is a stark, gritty and powerful portrayal of a slice of America that exists but is rarely ever seen by most of us who reside in the other, more sanitized America. What I loved most about this film, other than Quvenzhané Wallis, the six year old lead, is how beautifully and simply it has been directed, by Benh Zeitlin (making his first feature length film). It is a completely fresh and un-jaded piece of filmmaking where the audience is left feeling like someone is simply rolling a camera as life transpires. It is as if there were no script, no actors and nobody we see has any idea that there is a camera around. It is this rawness that makes it such a powerful, hopeless, beautiful, sad, and magnificent piece of storytelling. The young six year old Hushpuppy, played by Quvenzhané Wallis, steals the movie with a performance that would put every Hollywood actress to shame. This girl was born to act and the camera, and audience, cannot help but fall hopelessly in love with her. You can walk out of this movie feeling depressed, or you can find hope by opening your eyes and heart to the simple joys through these characters lives and their outlook and perspectives. In how they choose to live their lives within the circumstances into which they were born, and have no complaints. The best thing about this film might just be its greatest Achilles heel when it comes to winning the Oscar – it is real – and not in the way Hollywood portrays reality, even when they claim to be doing just that.

Argo

When Ben Affleck first directed Gone Baby Gone, I was both surprised and impressed, but everyone can have one hit. Talent takes more than that. Then came his second, The Town, which was also impressive and well directed, but it is really with Argo that he has come of age as and shown the type of mettle and magic that few directors have. The hardest thing for any director is to take a subject matter that is well documented, and whose outcome is well known, and make that exciting for an audience. It is always hard to turn such a subject matter into an interesting story, leave alone a compelling one. Most times such topics are better suited to documentaries or executed so poorly that they never rise to become great films. Argo is one of the exceptions. Ben Affleck not only manages to build three-dimensional characters, but also keeps the audience gripped and often on the edge of their seats, even when they all know how the story will end. The casting is also brilliant. None of the actors ever dominates or overwhelms the film, but each one adds a little unique fabric of memorability, the sum of whose parts deliver a wonderful cast of characters with whom the audience can both relate and build empathy. Funnily enough, Ben Affleck’s performance is also one I would rate as among his best. This movie is also a must watch and my second favourite for best picture.

Zero Dark Thirty

Shot almost like a covert documentary, Kathryn Bigelow delivers a gripping and thrilling piece of filmmaking, even though we are aware of the final outcome of this hunt. What she manages to do through her characters is to take us into deep into the heart of a thankless job that unfolds in the obsessive underbelly of a world that we all know exists but cannot begin to imagine. She shows us the nameless and faceless men and women all over the world who belong to this elite cadre of covert operatives, living on the fringes and operating in the shadows of society to hunt and kill people who are often nothing more than mere shadows. Ultimately, the film forces each one of us to very seriously think about the price we are all willing to pay for our safety. Because it is pretty clear that the further we progress down this path, chasing after these men and operating purely in the darkness, the harder it will be to come back. One day we may no longer be able to differentiate between these two worlds.

Life of Pi

A beautiful story told simply and with great élan. Ang Lee will one day be counted among the greats for his ability to deliver movies with subject matter as diverse as Woodstock to Pi. I have not read the book, but am told most people thought it would be impossible to turn into a film; I don’t think they will be disappointed. This is a glorious piece of filmmaking about life and the journey each one of us must undertake from the time we are born, and remain on until the day we die. The message at the core of the film is not a new one, but one that is at the core of every religion, as Pi learns. I am not sure about what your take will be about the message, but mine was that we all have to ultimately choose through which lens we view our lives. The good, the bad and the hopeless events that unfold - we can choose to see only the worst or try to find hope and see light, especially when none exists. But the beauty of the film is that this is never thrown in your face. Ang Lee leaves it each of us to interpret. Delicious is a word I would use to describe this movie. Everything from the sublime soundtrack, to the idyllic settings and the perfectly understated performances leave you feeling joyful and elated. I do believe Suraj Sharma deserved to be nominated. I thought his performance as Pi was brilliant.

Silver Linings Playbook

I walked in without any expectations and walked out with quite a bit. Silver Linings is a charming little film with an ensemble cast filled with really big name actors, playing small town characters. This seems to be a hallmark of director David O. Russell’s; the ability to get great performances from A-list actors that surprises an audience. He does it with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence this time. I will admit that she steals the movie a little bit but Cooper most certainly holds his own and shows some acting chops he has not demonstrated in the recent past. Of course Robert DeNiro and Anupam Kher are brilliant as always. The movie actually deals with the type of serious and heavy subject that could have gone horribly wrong and turned into a dark, depressing and dreary slice of blue collar America. Instead Russell delivers a delightful and uplifting film, with raw, real and three dimensional characters that we can all relate to and empathize with.

Lincoln

Some people describe this movie as a boring history lesson. Well, I love history and Daniel Day Lewis. I read that Steven Spielberg spent twelve years researching Lincoln before making this movie. There is no doubt that it is a vehicle for Daniel Day Lewis to disappear, yet again, into another great onscreen character and completely mesmerize us with his performance (I do feel sorry for all the other Best Actor contenders this year). Another noteworthy performance is one turned in by Tommy Lee Jones playing the radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens. I felt that Sally Field’s character, not her performance, lacked dimension and was came across as flat and predictable. Perhaps, the film is in some parts a lesson better suited to PBS. But in the final count I think because it is a great and defining moment in America’s history, it is a story that must never be forgotten; and Spielberg tells it brilliantly. The one solid criticism I have is the ending. There is a moment in the movie when Lincoln leaves for the Ford’s theater which I felt was a strong and moving ending to the film. For some reason it did not end there and it was almost as if Spielberg bolted on a cheesy and contrived, second ending; one that I fear was demanded by studio research driven by the fact that many people today do not know how Lincoln died.

Les Misérables

Hugely disappointing. Perhaps it is because I am tired of Hollywood casting people who cannot sing in roles that require singers. Or that after seeing the original musical, with the original cast including Colm Wilkinson, on stage in London’s West End, I felt the actors in the movie made a great effort, but in the end massacred a brilliant score. There were moments when I cringed seeing Hugh Jackman and his fellows cast members trying to hit high or low notes. It is amazing what technology can do, but even technology has only advanced so far. One last point on this. With movies like Moulin Rouge, Mama Mia and Rock of Ages, also performed by actors with little or no singing talent, I feel it is easier to get away with it because they are doing renditions of mere pop songs. Most of us have grown up hearing karaoke versions of these songs, so the bar is very low. In the case of the masterful original musical version of Victor Hugo’s masterpiece, well there is a totally different bar; one that could only be reached by performers who can sing brilliantly. One final note Anne Hathaway is a great actress but this role was not one I would have thought worthy of a nomination.