Every review seen by this author has either brutally criticized the film for all the wrong reasons, completely missing more troubling mistakes, or falsely promoted the film as patriotic, pro-war or anti-Muslim, which is also wrong, completely missing Eastwood's point. It is as if the film is only seen through a political lens regardless of being critical or supportive.
The film is artfully produced and saturated with a sense of futility, empty heroism, dread and the soul sucking nature of war. Despite Eastwood's political conservatism his work and particularly stylistic choices have always been great. This author approached his latest film with trepidation but ultimately agreed with Eastwood's statement that it is an antiwar film- one that dramatizes how innocent deaths are just a fact of war, how many of the "insurgents" may be ordinary people trying to survive, assumed guilty at a critical moment, and killed, and how even the most venerated soldiers can come back in a state of spiritual crisis. The film shows nothing but horrible events carried out by all sides and a gravitational downward spiral inside the central character, who meets his fatal end.
The film's popularity with the right wing is reminiscent of the way skinheads showed up in large numbers to "Romper Stomper" a 1980's Australian film that was a scathing indictment of skinheads. Maybe fans are drawn to any dramatization of a certain character and scenario, even if the message is a critical one in order to re-enforce an identity or seek camaraderie (ie a pro-gun or anti-Muslim social phenomenon).
What is wrong with "American Sniper" is far more complex than lionizing pathological bigotry. Whatever Eastwood has done wrongly he has not done that. The screenplay itself is rather good. It is not pro-war. It does *not* elevate religious bigotry, it just depicts it plainly. It does not denigrate Iraqis in any way, it just shows the US military doing it. It shows that plainly and without bias. Anyone with a moral foundation will be repulsed to see it, regardless of how that callousness is perpetrated by the central characters. Part of Eastwood's point is there is no moral compass in war scenarios. You have to find your own way through the events in the movie just as someone might in reality. There are few indicators in reality (except bad ones), and Eastwood offers none to his viewers, yet Kyle's ultimate fate is the telling of the tale.
Eastwood's mistake, possibly inadvertent, was making Kyle seem like a reasonable person. Kyle's own autobiography may indicate he was not.
Eastwood depicts Kyle as an anti-hero, as opposed to a blustering or pathological islamophobe capable of killing at will. He depicts Kyle as someone beginning to wrestle with some form of remorse for his actions or what he had been a part of. This is actually more insidious or propagandistic than showing a plain, ugly truth but every reviewer misses this possibility (even Chris Hedges).
Eastwood may have underestimated Kyle's martyr-like stature to some people. Perhaps in order to make a more meaningful and relevant story, he cleaned up the central character and inadvertently white-washed Kyle, because who would care about the story of a patriotic psycho? Is it possible Eastwood did not know of Kyle's popularity, his subsequent popularity if the film did well, or did Kyle became popular as the film was being released, changing the social context of the film?
Whatever the case, Eastwood claims it's an anti-war film and it clearly is, but on the other hand Eastwood should make a statement about Kyle and why he erased whatever pathological ugliness existed in his biography while retaining his name. That is what he did wrong. On it's own, Eastwood's story is a good, realistic, relevant war fiction but regarding the real Kyle it is probably a dangerous, misleading white-wash. It might have the effect of lionizing the real, controversial Chris Kyle as a hero not based on his life but based on the film. His real biography probably does not support his heroism (or even anti-heroism).
There is the question of Kyle's real actions vs. macho bluster, but his writing has taken on an independent effect at this point. Eastwood needs to explain why he took such a possible license and diversion from Kyle's own biography. The popularity of the film should not translate to popularity for Kyle if it is wildly inaccurate.
The film is artfully produced and saturated with a sense of futility, empty heroism, dread and the soul sucking nature of war. Despite Eastwood's political conservatism his work and particularly stylistic choices have always been great. This author approached his latest film with trepidation but ultimately agreed with Eastwood's statement that it is an antiwar film- one that dramatizes how innocent deaths are just a fact of war, how many of the "insurgents" may be ordinary people trying to survive, assumed guilty at a critical moment, and killed, and how even the most venerated soldiers can come back in a state of spiritual crisis. The film shows nothing but horrible events carried out by all sides and a gravitational downward spiral inside the central character, who meets his fatal end.
The film's popularity with the right wing is reminiscent of the way skinheads showed up in large numbers to "Romper Stomper" a 1980's Australian film that was a scathing indictment of skinheads. Maybe fans are drawn to any dramatization of a certain character and scenario, even if the message is a critical one in order to re-enforce an identity or seek camaraderie (ie a pro-gun or anti-Muslim social phenomenon).
What is wrong with "American Sniper" is far more complex than lionizing pathological bigotry. Whatever Eastwood has done wrongly he has not done that. The screenplay itself is rather good. It is not pro-war. It does *not* elevate religious bigotry, it just depicts it plainly. It does not denigrate Iraqis in any way, it just shows the US military doing it. It shows that plainly and without bias. Anyone with a moral foundation will be repulsed to see it, regardless of how that callousness is perpetrated by the central characters. Part of Eastwood's point is there is no moral compass in war scenarios. You have to find your own way through the events in the movie just as someone might in reality. There are few indicators in reality (except bad ones), and Eastwood offers none to his viewers, yet Kyle's ultimate fate is the telling of the tale.
Eastwood's mistake, possibly inadvertent, was making Kyle seem like a reasonable person. Kyle's own autobiography may indicate he was not.
Eastwood depicts Kyle as an anti-hero, as opposed to a blustering or pathological islamophobe capable of killing at will. He depicts Kyle as someone beginning to wrestle with some form of remorse for his actions or what he had been a part of. This is actually more insidious or propagandistic than showing a plain, ugly truth but every reviewer misses this possibility (even Chris Hedges).
Eastwood may have underestimated Kyle's martyr-like stature to some people. Perhaps in order to make a more meaningful and relevant story, he cleaned up the central character and inadvertently white-washed Kyle, because who would care about the story of a patriotic psycho? Is it possible Eastwood did not know of Kyle's popularity, his subsequent popularity if the film did well, or did Kyle became popular as the film was being released, changing the social context of the film?
Whatever the case, Eastwood claims it's an anti-war film and it clearly is, but on the other hand Eastwood should make a statement about Kyle and why he erased whatever pathological ugliness existed in his biography while retaining his name. That is what he did wrong. On it's own, Eastwood's story is a good, realistic, relevant war fiction but regarding the real Kyle it is probably a dangerous, misleading white-wash. It might have the effect of lionizing the real, controversial Chris Kyle as a hero not based on his life but based on the film. His real biography probably does not support his heroism (or even anti-heroism).
There is the question of Kyle's real actions vs. macho bluster, but his writing has taken on an independent effect at this point. Eastwood needs to explain why he took such a possible license and diversion from Kyle's own biography. The popularity of the film should not translate to popularity for Kyle if it is wildly inaccurate.