American Sniper (2015)

American Sniper (2015)

The Battle for the Home Front

“He's a psychopath patriot, and we love him”― Bill Maher on the lead character in ‘American Sniper’

“Disrespect my son and I’ll unleash hell on you,”  - Wayne Kyle, father of real life character on which ‘American Sniper’ was based speaking to Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper

“Leftists such as Michael Moore will rage on, and professors will judge the movie without seeing it — and all that backlash may cost the movie an Oscar — but Clint Eastwood has done something far greater than win an Oscar. He reached a great nation with a story it needed to hear.”  - David French commenting on ‘American Sniper’ in the National Review

“The movie ‘Sniper’ that is made by Hollywood encourages a Christian or non-Muslim youngster to harass and offend the Muslims as far as they could” - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader

"American Sniper" lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression. - Chris Hedges, Tikkun Magazine

What does it mean to be an American who sacrifices for the good of the country? This question is at the heart of Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper”, a feature which is based on the autobiography of Chris Kyle. This much decorated Navy Seal was nicknamed “Legend” for his battlefield skill as a marksman during his four tours of duty in Iraq. He holds unofficial records for being the most lethal shot in US military history. Proof of his effectiveness as a soldier can also be found in the fact that the Iraqi insurgents had a price on his head. This did not deter him from repeatedly re-enlisting despite being shot twice and surviving six separate IED explosions.  Chief Petty Officer Kyle, by all accounts, was a fearsome warrior. 

Some people divorce an individual’s record from the contentiousness of the overall conflict. This is Eastwood’s POV and it applies not simply to the battlefield but to the complete portrait of Chris Kyle’s life. Despite the advertising campaign, the majority of action takes place state-side. This film has more in common with Jane Fonda’s anti-Vietnam “Coming Home” than John Wayne’s war tribute “The Green Berets”.  It is a journey of a man striving to balance family obligations with a desire to serve his larger community. There is a flatness to the narrative as Eastwood smooths the edges of life to highlight what he perceives as the central concern, Kyle’s struggle to do ‘good’ in a sea of ambiguity. Oddly the director eschews shading any facet of the movie. Everything is designed to showcase Chris’ struggle which ironically diminishes the story by creating a cartoonish reality. 

The film opens with Chris facing the daunting decision of whether to fire on a clearly armed young mother and her child. At this point there is a flashback regarding our heroes family. The father is a fire and brimstone Christian, active in his church, who castigates anyone who lets themselves be cowed. Chris had just rescued his younger brother from a playground bully. He and his sibling bear the scars of conflict which prompts the father’s sermon on the obligation of retaliation. One feels more nervous about the blows that would have been delivered by the deacon had the older brother failed to act or the younger one had fled in fear. The most interesting aspect of this is the disconnect between the patriarch’s adherence to Jesus’ ‘turn the other cheek’ ethic, while preaching hardscrabble no nonsense, self-defense. Unfortunately Eastwood sees any momentary reflection on the father’s seemingly contradictory message to undercut the central narrative. The father is not a father so much as a prop to exhibit Chris’ tough upbringing. That childhood included the cardinal tenant of being strong against an oppressor. Eastwood sees the takeaway as Chris being imbued from birth with the mission to violently suppress bullies.  Some audience members might wonder about Chris’ attitude towards his father. He obeyed him…. but was this born of being scared or being a true believer? or both? or neither?  Eastwood wants the audience to simply accept the deacon as merely the guiding influence on Chris. A metaphor for the difficulty of the film lies this minor plot point. This seemingly simple narrative is not simple. This flaw carries over into the wider portrayal of Chris’ marriage and his conduct on the battle field.

There are two moments that reveal the context of the fighting. The first is Chris watching the news footage of the 1998 terrorist attacks in East Africa which killed hundreds of civilians and damaged two US embassies. These coordinated assaults were directed by Islamic extremists. Witnessing live footage spurs Chris to abandon his career as a hard-living cowboy and join one of the most elite units in the US armed forces. Even the most ardent civilian knows that becoming a Navy Seal tests the limits of one’s mental and physical strength. Mr. Eastwood spends a great deal of time documenting the torment of our heroes metamorphosis from tough rodeo rider into gentleman soldier. He meets a vulnerable young woman. Their wedding day presents the second moment that gives motivation for the fighting - their nuptials were near 9/11/2001 - which leads to his deployment to Iraq. There is a conveyor-like movement to the storyline in which context is trumped by desire to present a simple narrative. The unexplored cloudiness of the relationship with his father is followed by a blurriness about this his marriage and the war. Chris respected his father, loved wife and was, by all accounts, a superb soldier. These facts are distinct from his motivations for taking on the responsibilities of starting his own family and his personal feelings about the mission. Where these acts of love or obligation? Or both? Or neither? Towards the latter part of his deployment his unit brandishes a skull symbol on their uniforms and vehicles. It is a visual representation of the horror of the deployment. Yet Eastwood never delves into a discussion of the transformation of a eager patriot to a victim of PTSD. The anguish and stoicism are exhibited but never explored.  

There is a brief moment in the film where the hapless younger brother, who has joined the service in footsteps of Chris, crosses paths with his ‘legendary’ older sibling. He attempts to mask his own shell shock and showers his brother with accolades. He closes the conversation by looking around at the stark Iraqi landscape and saying something along the lines of “it’s totally fucked here”.  The older brother clearly registers that something is wrong. Eastwood shows Chris in many searing moments of pain when comrades are brutally killed, but the passing fraternal pause is the only time there is a shade of doubt about the overall mission. Once again Eastwood focuses his attention on less nuanced readings of horrific situations. Although the battles are technically complicated, the morality is less opaque. When Chris fatally shoots the woman and child, each of them is in the process of throwing a grenade at his fellow soldiers. The director has Chris hold his fire till the last possible moment. In fact there is a tense sequence where he spares the life of another young boy as he abandons his rocket launcher. Chris haltingly rejects praise from his comrades as his moral compass is rooted in knowing that war is a dirty business. He realizes he is not an innocent but he takes solace in the fact that he feels justified. He explicitly states he will defend every one of his shots to his maker when the time comes. This is admirable but one yearns for a sense of Lincoln’s famous answer to a query about whether God favored the Union cause in the Civil War: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Chris will defend every shot.... but does that mean that he believes God will sanction his actions? Possibly, but what about his brother? Or his wife? It is the lack of bringing attention to these questions that undermines the film and gives ammunition to critics who wish to relegate the effort to being merely propaganda. The overly stylized last battle sequence sets an inappropriate tone of action-adventure heroism that crushes the important credulity of the overall story. I have no doubt about Chris Kyle’s bravery but audiences might wonder about the timing of his Iraqi exit. Did he really slay the nemesis sniper from one mile away then immediately call his wife and say “he’s had enough….he’s coming home now”? Did she really hang on the call while the dropped phone captures the James Bond-like escape with hundreds of enemy troops descending? 

Technically Eastwood deliveries a solid, albeit formulaic, film. Sienna Miller and Bradley Cooper give strong performances that rose over the emotional predictability of the script. The movie has achieved phenomenal commercial success and has won over many who are tired of feeling ashamed of proudly waving the stars and stripes. Perhaps avoiding complication is the prefect antidote to the never-ending doubtfulness of contemporary America. Our enormous wealth and technological prowess is countered by a sense of growing economic uncertainty. We are the first generation to make less and live shorter lives than our parents. We have the most powerful army in the world with science fiction-like capabilities. Yet we stumble against shadowy non-state actors that seem as ubiquitous as our Orwellian intelligence surveillance apparatus which seems to focus on ourselves as much as our adversaries. Given this setting Eastwood gives us an unvarnished, uncomplicated hero trying to do good in the morass of moral ambiguity. The closing footage of Chris Kyle’s actual Texas funeral shows how this man captured the hearts of so many. There are rows of veterans, peaces officers and first responders that literally pack a Texas-sized football stadium to say goodbye. In this sense one can view “American Sniper” as understandably one dimensional. Eastwood feels the need to prioritize the suffering of our veterans. In his view their pain trumps whether the film portrayed Muslims in an unflattering fashion. Furthermore the director feels the uncontested bravery of Chris and his comrades outweighs the need to ponder the righteousness of the war. He is not alone. The First Lady, Michelle Obama, commented on how many military families endure the numerous struggles portrayed in Mr. Eastwood’s film. True enough. Unfortunately the black title card prior to the funeral gave me pause. To paraphrase: Chris Kyle was killed while trying to help a fellow soldier in his post-war recovery.

While Eastwood’s film is setting box office records the trial of former Marine Eddie Ray Routh was commencing in the Lone Star State*. He is charged with murdering Chris Kyle and Chris’s best friend Chad Littlefield. Chris and Chad were attempting to help Mr. Routh through his own difficulties after serving in Iraq and Haiti. The film spends a great deal of time documenting Chris anguish returning state-side. Until he found comfort in helping other traumatized Vets, Chris was either in a zombie-like state of recalling the carnage or, more dangerously, drowning his sorrow in alcohol. There is a scary sequence in which Chris loses control and nearly kills the family dog in front of his children and their friends who are celebrating a birthday. Routh was also struggling but less able to control himself. Sadly the last text sent by Chris and Chad was to each other while they were in Chris’ truck with Routh. They messaged that they were nervous about Routh and both needed to watch each others’ backs.  

There is no argument that Routh committed the horrific act. There is a great deal of discussion about the culpability of Routh. There can be no logical explanation why Routh would murder two helpful strangers and then flee the scene in Chris’ vehicle. This “crazy” act of violence by a clearly mentally ill veteran does not shield him from the electric chair. According to the State’s Attorney the fact that Routh admitted in a confession that he knew he was ‘doing wrong’  makes him guilty capital murder. It is an unspeakable wrong that Routh killed these decorated soldiers but the dangers of stripping down the nuance of the situation, and ignoring the fact that Routh was not of sound mind, will amplify the tragedy. Eastwood delivers a heart-wrenching story of violence pain and sacrifice which has been scorned by some who see Chris as a simple mass murderer; just as many would see Routh as an obvious demon who needs to be put to death. It is dangerous to rush to judgement without fully understanding each person’s journey. What does it mean to be an American who sacrifices for the good of the country? The answer to that question can be found in Routh’s story as well as Chris’. There is no equivalence between these two men as soldiers. Chris was clearly a super-star who garnered massive support for his difficult actions. Routh was merely a grunt who fell victim to his dark side. “American Sniper” gives us the comfort of the former and avoids the disquiet of the latter. We can all take solace in cheering crowds gathered to remember a fallen loved one. We should also be cautious of the angry mob who cries for vengeance against an enemy. My guess is that you could fill a cheering stadium to watch the execution of Eddie Ray Routh.  Ironically Chris Kyle would be the first to person to rise up against the sea of bullies. That is the part of the story Mr. Eastwood failed to tell. We are all joined in arms, especially when we are on the home front. When we talk about Chris we need to speak about Eddie. The latter deserved more than a cue card.

* - On Feb. 25, 2015 Eddie Ray Routh was convicted of capital murder by a jury after 3 hours of deliberation. He was swiftly sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Chad Littlefield's mother said:

"We've waited two years for God to get justice for us on behalf of our son and, as always, God has proved to be faithful".

American Hustle (2013)

Do the Hustle


The Abscam affair of the late 1970s, in which several American politicians were convicted of taking bribes, gave birth to the expression: “money talks, bullshit walks”. These famous words were uttered by a Congressman being surreptitiously filmed while receiving a suitcase filled with $50,000 in cash. Ironically this phrase is never spoken in David O. Russell’s fictionalized account of the scandal titled, “American Hustle”.  The missing catchphrase is the raison d’etre for the central protagonists, a romantically involved con-artist couple. These people eat and breath the bottom line while carrying on a strange attachment which undercuts their transaction based world-view.  Their lives are tested when they come under the scrutiny of a FBI agent whose motto might be “power talks, bullshit walks”.  A tortured love triangle ensues set amidst the gritty “pre-Atlantic City ‘boom’/post NYC financial crisis ‘bust’” milieu of the Big Apple, Long Island and the Garden State. As someone who grew up in that area at that time I can vouch for the authenticity of the costuming and set-design. The acting was also superb. It is odd that such a finely crafted would fail.... but one leaves the theater with an odd feeling of missed opportunity.  “American Hustle” is merely one of the best films this year.

The first half hour was a personal ‘trip down memory lane’. My exuberance might be clouded by a wistful fondness for era which is seen by others as a fashion and cultural nadir. The movie opens with wide lapel suited Christian Bale meticulously creating a comb-over hairdo to hide his baldness. The central protagonists are introduced, complete with repulsive clothes and tortured relationships. Bale is jealous of Bradley Cooper’s hold over Amy Adams. Cooper is envious of Bale’s ability to read people. Adams is angry about being trapped and beholden to both men. The plot is revealed in wonderful Scorsese voice-over combined with just the right amount of exposition mixed with mysteries waiting to unfold.  There is a tension that propels the audience into the seedy world of cons, cops, politicians and the mob.  It explores the root word of the term ‘con man’: ‘confidence’; which in turn leads us to “trust”; which in turn leaves to the very far-removed ‘love’.  At heart this film is a romantic comedy. This turns out to be a problem as Adams, who delivers an exquisite performance, is opaque despite being the emotional linchpin of the story.  The movie drifts off course immediately after the couple is busted.  Cooper is an ambitious cop with an insatiable desire for success which in his world translates to overseeing high profile arrests. Despite his convincing portrayal, his role highlights the weakness in the characterization of Adams. Cooper plants the seeds of mistrust between the partners in crime. This leads to an extremely detailed discussion between Bale and Adams about ‘where they stand’. In witnessing these emotional negotiations the audiences channels the embarrassing voyeurism of eavesdropping on a teenage break-up or even worse; a marital impasse.  It is dramatically unfulfilling and a pale substitution for a measure of their bond. This unfortunate scene repeats itself as Adams establishes a tie with Cooper. These complicated  expository monologues are rooted in the lack of delineation in Adams’ character. Ironically the template for a successful rendering can be found in her love rival Jennifer Lawrence, who is the legal spouse of Bale.

There is no need for a handbook to understand Bale’s marriage.  Lawrence possesses a charm that showcases her beauty and ugliness. The hideous narcissism intertwined with the childlike callowness is a perfect match for Bale’s need to be a family man and felon.  Their initial attraction is as understandable as their eventual repulsion. This is best shown in one of the last scenes of them together. Her astounding carelessness has led to Bale’s near execution. There is a confrontation in which Lawrence stridently gains the upper hand by reading excerpts from a self-help best seller. Bale is overcome by bewilderment and defeat. This leads to an apology: FROM BALE. He is sorry that her stupidity almost killed him. He means it despite its illogical. This is the genius of Lawrence’s performance. She also manages summons this startling ability to dominate her opponents when facing Adams.  In the midst of receiving a well deserved dressing down, in which Adams touches on her reckless drinking and inappropriate behavior, Lawrence kisses her and walks off.  Adams is right, but Lawrence wins. That small moment touches on the larger problem of the Adams character: what does she want? Is her anger at Lawrence rooted in fear of blowing the scam and ruining herself? or destroying Cooper? or out of jealousy over Bale? Or both? Or none of the above? All the exposition about her being genuinely attached to Bale while feigning love with Cooper clouds her actions.  This is a film about trust that is tied to love. Unfortunately Adams is almost too perfect at her character’s craft with the ironic result of the audience losing ‘confidence’. Once again this is a pitch perfect rendering. Adams played it as it ‘like a pro’. Romantic comedies, however, demand vulnerable  love struck protagonists. Her fierce opaqueness forces the audience to see her love interests as marks, rather than partners.

The same puzzling professionalism plagues Cooper’s G-man. His ambition seems embedded in every strand of his meticulously coiffed head of permed hair. Is he a sociopath who is incapable of friendship and love? The brief view of his home life, featuring a dominating mother and an ignored fiancee, once again raises questions of character rather than giving the audience insight into his motives. His banter with his beleaguered boss, the comedian Louis CK, is also ambiguous.  CK was a poor choice of a foil as his performance failed to have enough range to deliver the expectations he had of his underling. Did he see Cooper as merely a troublesome employee? a potential friend to mentor? Cooper returns the favor by being a friend and foe simultaneously. This is a hallmark of professional relationships but in a story about love and trust, it works against the audience’s ability to empathize with Cooper. Is he merely working the opposing characters or does he really care?

David O. Russell has a writing credit in addition to being the director. This work seemed plagued by overdrawing and over thinking. No doubt the ‘real life’ Bale had a side business in the fraudulent art market - but how does this serve the overall story? How does this help render Bale’s character? Why was his attachment to the NJ politician so important that he would actually make a face to face confession in his house in front of the mayor’s wife and children? The film firmly establishes Bale as someone who spent a career casually stealing from other family men. The unanswered questions stem from knowing too much and failing to hone down actual events into a concise story. This was a 100 minute tale and yet the end result clocks in nearly 20 minutes over the two hour mark. If Russell had exhibited the discipline to focus the narrative this film might have touched our heart rather than wowed our senses. The virtuosity of the production is amazing but the characters seemed weighted with unspoken off-script burdens. This might have been a fascinating multi-hour cable show or a less ambitious shorter feature. Unfortunately the current length renders it a splendid meandering journey. In the end we are left with characters whose actions are supported by the need to deliver a tidy finish, rather than a ‘real’ ending. It is too ‘real’ to be a light romantic comedy; yet too unreal to be a serious drama. 

The ambiguousness can be intriguing, Adams and Cooper are fun to watch. It would have been more entertaining if Russell had abandoned exposition and explanation, for action.  Less complicated talk about relationships and emotions would have lifted all boats; including Bale’s. Deliver an unabashed romantic comedy and forget all the history of what really a happened. Think of Lawrence: She is an insolent drunk with nothing to say. She spends her time burning toast, cleaning,  having sex, complaining, breaking her fingernails,  shopping and spewing nonsense.... but she is utterly captivating. She even manages to upstage  Bale, who delivers a consummate performance of the mirror image of Horatio Alger. Let David Mamet and Thomas Mann gives us the mind of con men. This movie hints at confidence men in those brief moments without tricks or confidence;  think Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway in the original “Thomas Crown Affair”. In order to care we must trust, in some measure, that everything isn’t a transaction. This superbly rendered feature plays the audience into believing in its wonder. Unfortunately the distinct parts are better than the sum. In the end, it doesn’t add up.  It’s a good film pretending to be great. True passion talks, bullshit walks.