We all have initial reactions to art. We all bring with us backgrounds and beliefs, personalities and preferences, which cause us to respond (usually quickly) to art with a blend of visceral emotion and reflective cognition. A critic should fight this reaction. A critic who intends to make an intelligent and insightful analysis on the effectiveness of a film should approach such an examination like a scientist. A scientist seeks evidence to disprove a hypothesis. Is this really as good/bad as I think it is? A critic should seek evidence to disprove an initial reaction. This is what I have done with American Sniper.
I saw the film, and enjoyed it very much, back when it opened on Jan. 16 (my analysis is in the Movie Reviews tab above), and I have been ruminating on it ever since. I have taken in the various condemnations, some astute, others absurd. Because those voices that were the harshest also seemed to be the loudest, I wondered if I had missed something. Had my predetermined respect for the American military, my fandom of Clint Eastwood, and my enjoyment of war cinema clouded my judgment, leading to a biased and uninformed interpretation of this film? Was I blinded by my own ideology?
So I set out to be convinced otherwise. I returned to the source material, Chris Kyle’s autobiography on which the film of the same title is based. I read Kyle’s book with an open mind (finishing just a few days ago), fully aware of the potential for a variety of sides to be taken on his presentation of himself, his service, and the Iraq war in general. If one is to go beyond a simple film review and attempt to assess the historical/personal/political implications therein, one must investigate, not just pontificate. This extended evaluation is the job of every legitimate critic.
Here’s what I discovered: anyone who has disparagingly written or said that “the real Chris Kyle” was fill-in-the-blank either hasn’t actually read Kyle’s book or is cherry picking material completely out of context. I was actually surprised, after hearing such heights of inflammatory rhetoric from critics, that the book was not more offensive. It’s much tamer than what I had anticipated. I diligently sought out examples in which Kyle could come off as heartless, jingoistic, and bloodthirsty. I truly tried to find what has made some so upset. And I couldn’t see it. The damning evidence is just not really there.
Yes, Kyle says he loves fighting. Yes, he shows some form of pleasure in killing. Yes, he calls insurgents and terrorists “evil savages.” Yes, he has absolutely no regrets for his actions and believes God will be on his side come judgment day. However, passages that contain these sentiments are sparse, and they are always couched in plenty of context, as in the following.
If he seems like he his bragging about his total number of sniper kills, as Salon has recently implied, he actually only knows such facts because our government requires soldiers to fill out reports that detail all of the conditions and reasons for taking violent action. In knowing that he had to complete arduous paperwork to legitimize his kills, he made sure only to kill when absolutely necessary. If Kyle seems like he is glib or finds humor in killing, he clearly explains this attitude also. He describes how the horrors of war are often so debilitating that if one pauses to truly deliberate on the weight of the violence and madness surrounding him, he will surely endanger himself and those that rely on him. Attempting to lighten the mood sometimes is a coping mechanism that allows for a slight separation of perspective that helps to quell fear and retain focus on the task at hand. If Kyle seems too eager to label Iraqis as less than human, it is based on what he had witnessed firsthand. He saw mujahedeen torture mentally disabled people by electrocution. He saw men strapping bombs on women and children and forcing them to fire RPGs because they knew Americans would avoid hurting them. He saw terrorists and insurgents setting up bases in hospitals, literally hiding behind innocent Iraqis who were sick and injured, because they knew Americans wouldn’t target those places. These are the evils he saw. These are the savages he describes. Not innocent Iraqi citizens.
Some claim that the film tries to connect Kyle’s enlistment to 9/11, or 9/11 to the war in Iraq. These accusations are blatantly incorrect. Kyle had already been employed in the military for quite some time. In the film, Kyle sees the attack on the towers, then there is his continued sniper training, and then there is his wedding with Taya. Only after time has passed does Kyle’s team get called to battle. (The book goes into the extended timeline much more thoroughly, of course.) Upon arriving in Fallujah, the film tells us, albeit briefly (this reasoning is also much expanded in the book), that since Saddam Hussein’s ousting, violent mujahedeen have filled the void and are harming Iraqi civilians (and creating a hotbed for potential terrorism). The Americans are there to suppress the violence and secure the area so Iraqis can eventually govern themselves. While some may disagree with this intervention in the first place in the reality of history, artistically we must acknowledge that clear explanations are present in both film and text, and they make sense from the point of view of Kyle’s protagonist.
One of the most interesting aspects of his text is the length at which he describes the rules of engagement American soldiers are required to follow. Kyle tells of the endless specific conditions under which he was allowed to shoot. He explains how he could have killed even more bad guys and his comrades could have done even more damage (and probably finished the war much more quickly) if it weren’t for the endless bureaucratic guidelines that inhibited them. He also describes how he and his fellow SEALs had been waterboarded and suffered other interrogation techniques during training that are more strenuous than what actual terrorists face. In other words, Americans actually show tremendous restraint when participating in warfare.
In his book, Kyle also questions the mission and its execution in Iraq on a number of occasions. He doubts his own government. He criticizes officials who make policy without ever experiencing a battlefield. He doesn’t believe much, like many on both sides of the aisle back home, in “exporting democracy” abroad. He explicitly says that he just wants to protect innocent people, most importantly Americans. He is not, in his book, a blind follower of the Bush administration or a vengeful and hawkish nationalist attempting to paint the world red, white, and blue. To argue otherwise, based on his text, is patently false.
Kyle is clear that he became a soldier because he wanted to challenge himself physically and mentally, to prove to himself that he was capable of withstanding pressures that very few others can handle. If critics believe soldiers join the military because they love war, they are wildly ignorant. This is like believing boxers join their sport because they love punching people in the face. Fighting in dangerous situations may be the inevitable result, but it is not the impetus. To learn to defend yourself (and others), to push yourself beyond your limits, to know what it takes to be the best at your job, that is why these people do what they do. If you are a critic who doesn’t understand this, don’t let your own unwillingness to embrace such demands allow you to diminish the discipline and bravery of others.
To be continued in part two tomorrow.
I saw the film, and enjoyed it very much, back when it opened on Jan. 16 (my analysis is in the Movie Reviews tab above), and I have been ruminating on it ever since. I have taken in the various condemnations, some astute, others absurd. Because those voices that were the harshest also seemed to be the loudest, I wondered if I had missed something. Had my predetermined respect for the American military, my fandom of Clint Eastwood, and my enjoyment of war cinema clouded my judgment, leading to a biased and uninformed interpretation of this film? Was I blinded by my own ideology?
So I set out to be convinced otherwise. I returned to the source material, Chris Kyle’s autobiography on which the film of the same title is based. I read Kyle’s book with an open mind (finishing just a few days ago), fully aware of the potential for a variety of sides to be taken on his presentation of himself, his service, and the Iraq war in general. If one is to go beyond a simple film review and attempt to assess the historical/personal/political implications therein, one must investigate, not just pontificate. This extended evaluation is the job of every legitimate critic.
Here’s what I discovered: anyone who has disparagingly written or said that “the real Chris Kyle” was fill-in-the-blank either hasn’t actually read Kyle’s book or is cherry picking material completely out of context. I was actually surprised, after hearing such heights of inflammatory rhetoric from critics, that the book was not more offensive. It’s much tamer than what I had anticipated. I diligently sought out examples in which Kyle could come off as heartless, jingoistic, and bloodthirsty. I truly tried to find what has made some so upset. And I couldn’t see it. The damning evidence is just not really there.
Yes, Kyle says he loves fighting. Yes, he shows some form of pleasure in killing. Yes, he calls insurgents and terrorists “evil savages.” Yes, he has absolutely no regrets for his actions and believes God will be on his side come judgment day. However, passages that contain these sentiments are sparse, and they are always couched in plenty of context, as in the following.
If he seems like he his bragging about his total number of sniper kills, as Salon has recently implied, he actually only knows such facts because our government requires soldiers to fill out reports that detail all of the conditions and reasons for taking violent action. In knowing that he had to complete arduous paperwork to legitimize his kills, he made sure only to kill when absolutely necessary. If Kyle seems like he is glib or finds humor in killing, he clearly explains this attitude also. He describes how the horrors of war are often so debilitating that if one pauses to truly deliberate on the weight of the violence and madness surrounding him, he will surely endanger himself and those that rely on him. Attempting to lighten the mood sometimes is a coping mechanism that allows for a slight separation of perspective that helps to quell fear and retain focus on the task at hand. If Kyle seems too eager to label Iraqis as less than human, it is based on what he had witnessed firsthand. He saw mujahedeen torture mentally disabled people by electrocution. He saw men strapping bombs on women and children and forcing them to fire RPGs because they knew Americans would avoid hurting them. He saw terrorists and insurgents setting up bases in hospitals, literally hiding behind innocent Iraqis who were sick and injured, because they knew Americans wouldn’t target those places. These are the evils he saw. These are the savages he describes. Not innocent Iraqi citizens.
Some claim that the film tries to connect Kyle’s enlistment to 9/11, or 9/11 to the war in Iraq. These accusations are blatantly incorrect. Kyle had already been employed in the military for quite some time. In the film, Kyle sees the attack on the towers, then there is his continued sniper training, and then there is his wedding with Taya. Only after time has passed does Kyle’s team get called to battle. (The book goes into the extended timeline much more thoroughly, of course.) Upon arriving in Fallujah, the film tells us, albeit briefly (this reasoning is also much expanded in the book), that since Saddam Hussein’s ousting, violent mujahedeen have filled the void and are harming Iraqi civilians (and creating a hotbed for potential terrorism). The Americans are there to suppress the violence and secure the area so Iraqis can eventually govern themselves. While some may disagree with this intervention in the first place in the reality of history, artistically we must acknowledge that clear explanations are present in both film and text, and they make sense from the point of view of Kyle’s protagonist.
One of the most interesting aspects of his text is the length at which he describes the rules of engagement American soldiers are required to follow. Kyle tells of the endless specific conditions under which he was allowed to shoot. He explains how he could have killed even more bad guys and his comrades could have done even more damage (and probably finished the war much more quickly) if it weren’t for the endless bureaucratic guidelines that inhibited them. He also describes how he and his fellow SEALs had been waterboarded and suffered other interrogation techniques during training that are more strenuous than what actual terrorists face. In other words, Americans actually show tremendous restraint when participating in warfare.
In his book, Kyle also questions the mission and its execution in Iraq on a number of occasions. He doubts his own government. He criticizes officials who make policy without ever experiencing a battlefield. He doesn’t believe much, like many on both sides of the aisle back home, in “exporting democracy” abroad. He explicitly says that he just wants to protect innocent people, most importantly Americans. He is not, in his book, a blind follower of the Bush administration or a vengeful and hawkish nationalist attempting to paint the world red, white, and blue. To argue otherwise, based on his text, is patently false.
Kyle is clear that he became a soldier because he wanted to challenge himself physically and mentally, to prove to himself that he was capable of withstanding pressures that very few others can handle. If critics believe soldiers join the military because they love war, they are wildly ignorant. This is like believing boxers join their sport because they love punching people in the face. Fighting in dangerous situations may be the inevitable result, but it is not the impetus. To learn to defend yourself (and others), to push yourself beyond your limits, to know what it takes to be the best at your job, that is why these people do what they do. If you are a critic who doesn’t understand this, don’t let your own unwillingness to embrace such demands allow you to diminish the discipline and bravery of others.
To be continued in part two tomorrow.