Movie Review: "American Sniper"

"American Sniper": B.  American Sniper was released in a few cities before year's end to qualify for Oscar consideration, and then had its nationwide release this month.  It has set the record for the largest grossing movie ever generally released in the month of January.  As of last count, the number was over $205 million.  It's apparent that eighty-four year old director Clint Eastwood has pushed the right buttons with the viewing public for this, the thirty-ninth film he has directed.

It didn't hurt any that Chris Kyle's book, also titled American Sniper, became a best seller immediately upon its release in early 2012.  Then former Minnesota Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura gave it lots of free pub when he sued Kyle and his widow (technically, his estate), Taya, for defamation of character.  As one of the local scribes pointed out, if there was one public figure who you'd think would have a hard time convincing a jury that he was defamed, it would be The Body.  Nevertheless, the jury surprised us by voting for the plaintiff.

Notwithstanding the jury's verdict (which, by the way, is being appealed), the film is anything but a comedy; it is dead serious, no pun intended.  Bradley Cooper plays Kyle, a Navy Seal who was credited with 166 combat kills as a sniper in Iraq.  That makes him the "most lethal sniper in US military history," to borrow the subtitle of Kyle's memoirs.  Cooper put on forty pounds of muscle for the part, and the result is a very strong (again, no pun intended) likeness to the real life hero.  Sienna Miller is cast as Taya, a woman who transitions from a smart-alecky independent to a frustrated mother whose husband leaves her, and later their son, for four separate deployments to war zones on the other side of the globe.

Eastwood lays the groundwork for Kyle's marksmanship with flashbacks to his upbringing with his brother in a West Texas home headed by a no-nonsense father who teaches his sons how to hunt.  Except for those few flashbacks, the story goes back and forth between Kyle the Seal and Kyle the husband.  The former succeeds to a greater extent than the latter.

As a sniper, Kyle's main responsibilities are to scope out a combat zone from a rooftop perch with a broad overview, and to shoot anyone posing an imminent threat to his fellow soldiers below.  The job calls for split second decisions, as the modern enemy is not wearing a uniform; he (or she) often looks like an ordinary citizen.  Sometimes the human being in his scope is a child.  If the sniper makes a wrong decision by firing, possible murder charges and a court martial loom.  If he opts not to shoot, that once-intended target may end up killing dozens of Americans with artillery, a rocket, a grenade or a bomb.  There are many battles throughout, and they are expertly choreographed by Eastwood.

I wasn't that sold on the love story half of the movie.  Some acting pairs are obviously more successful than others in making us believe there is real chemistry.  I did not feel it between Cooper and Miller.  One reason could be attributable to the scene in which we're introduced to Taya.  She is drinking by herself, belly up to the bar, in a tavern patronized mostly by military guys.  Then she is offended when one of them hits on her.  What did she expect, an invitation to a bible study group?  Kyle draws up next to her moments later.  Run, Chris, run!  But no, he tries to leave but she beckons him back.

I would like to know how many of the things we see in the battle scenes were real, and how many were Eastwood fabrications.  For example, in the heat of combat, with bullets whizzing by and chaos all around, Kyle holds cell phone conversations with his wife back in Texas.  Really?  Do we permit our snipers to phone home while they are discharging their weapons.  It seems to me they should be just a little more focused on their military duty to provide cover for their comrades. In one scene, Kyle leaves his post as a sniper and decides to join the Marines in a high risk house-to-house search.  I can't believe our armed forces are so loosey goosey that such an occurrence would be permitted.  Not only that, I can't believe the Marines would consent to Kyle joining them.

And how about the final battle in Sadr City?  Two very unlikely things unfold.  First, the Americans drive several noisy vehicles to the building they have selected in the heart of the Taliban stronghold.  They stake their positions where they are under orders to hold their fire.  But Kyle, on the rooftop as usual, has a clear shot at the Taliban's leader, hiding on another rooftop a mile away.  Kyle ignores the order, firing a single shot at the enemy, the result of which is an awakening of all the bad guys within a four block radius.  So, they couldn't hear all those US trucks, but a single gunshot, from rooftop to rooftop, brings them out. That's what I would call "selective hearing."

The second Sadr City event, if accurately reflecting reality, casts doubt on the wisdom of our military brass.  Even though the senior officers knew exactly where Kyle and his group were going to be, the emergency backup helicopters were stationed twenty minutes away.  Twenty minutes!  Whoever decided that arrangement should face a military tribunal.

Should the U.S. have invaded Iraq?  What are the people like whom we were trying to save?  Was life during the reign of Saddam worse for them than it is now?  Is the positioning of snipers morally acceptable?  In addition to our combat troops killed and seriously injured physically, what is the cost for the soldiers (and their families) suffering post-traumatic psychological damage?  Not all these questions can be answered in a single film.  But with American troops having just finished their combat mission in the middle east, American Sniper is a good conversation starter as we revisit those issues.