Lock and load. For years I’ve been covering the Oscar race and when Clint Eastwood is in shoot-em-up mode he mostly can’t be stopped when it comes to the Oscar race. We were huge supporters of Eastwood’s Mystic River, which is, to my mind, among his best films. But I’ve long been a fan of the man’s work, even Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima were my two favorites. Eastwood’s image took a bit of a hit when Obama was running for re-election. He came out in force against the President by talking to an empty chair. It didn’t go over too well. But the one thing Clint Eastwood is and will always be is a beloved icon within the Academy. They worship the man when he makes the kinds of films they like. Not so much when he does movies like Invictus or J. Edgar. American Sniper just made around $100 mil for its opening weekend, not surprising to me but apparently surprising to everyone who covers box office. The film could do more than $200 million.
The funny thing about Hollywood is that they tend to cater to reliable demographics, like the young boys who never really grow up to be men. They are a guaranteed demographic. This year they’ve seen what happens when you explore other demos, like the religious people out there, or the women, or the young women and now, with Sniper, you’re really seeing the silent majority speaking with their wallets. These are the many men who populate this country who aren’t really movie goers at all because they only pay to see movies with car crashes and lots of dead people. Sniper has it all – prestige, war hero, shooting people and the chance for Americans to feel like Americans, for better or worse.
Expect to see many more just like this one in the coming years. Money doesn’t talk, it swears.
How will Sniper do at the Oscars? Very well. Had Eastwood gotten a Best Director nomination, Sniper would be on target to upset Boyhood in a big big way. Eastwood would win his third Oscar, joining the ranks of the only three directors in Academy history to win more than two – William Wyler, Frank Capra (each with three) and John Ford (with four). Eastwood could have done that this year but the directors said no.
Remember, though, Eastwood could still win the DGA if this Sniper thing gets bigger than expected, and he could Affleck the thing all the way home. You could be looking at a potential split possibly with Sniper winning Best Picture and Linklater winning Best Director. It looked like the split could have happened with Birdman but with Sniper’s surge at the box office, the public support and the love for Eastwood in his 80s, watch out.
As it is, I expect Sniper to easily take both sound categories and editing. It could also take Adapted Screenplay (which rightly belongs to Gillian Flynn, those fuckers) and Best Actor from Michael Keaton. Sniper is not only beloved but it’s beloved by the white steak eaters – they dominate the Academy.
Sniper’s surge is going to turn this Oscar season into a bloodbath. Best Actor, for instance, has so many strong competitors in it — the British ones could be hurt by the chatter of late. Keaton deserves to win but I can’t put anything past the Academy at this point.
Stay frosty, Oscar watchers. This race just became very unpredictable. Oh and remember how everyone said no one was going to watch the Oscars because none of the movies made any money? Now, every gun toting war monger in the country could be watching. The eagle has landed.
Clint Eastwood can be stopped. He has only won once in the years we are really talking about. The Unforgiven year was not a strong year anyway, and there was nowhere near the kind of fucked up shenanigans that go on now. So the Million Dollar Baby year has kind of over-buffed up the reputation that Eastwood is a classic Oscar late-comer. That is not to say I am defending him and American Sniper – that movie, in my view, has no business in the Best Picture list. Not with the caliber of movies this year.
I will stick my neck out and say American Sniper will not do well at the Oscars – but I agree Cooper could pull off that upset in Best Actor. With all the shit on American Sniper I feel I ought to see it again, but the urge is small. What is certain is, the movie divides all kind of critics alike (including us the nobodies and audiences), and a movie to be a front-runner for accolades must logically have much more of a consensus. Not always the case I know though, right?
As for the signs and unpredictability, I think we just need to call off all bets and just expect the unexpected. The Imitation Game is good for the Score win by the way. And I still think (and this was before I saw it too) that Selma can win Best Picture. 😀
@DAVEYLOW
“There were movies with women depicted as human beings this year, they just aren’t all in the Oscar race… …they were all eligible for the Oscars this year, and there are good parts for women. But they just aren’t seen by a lot of people, for the most part.”
Right (and great list) but that’s a huge part of the fucking problem.
@MOVIERAM
“Bradley Cooper is clearly well-liked by the Academy”
He is not really, not directly. David O Russell and Clint Eastwood are. That helps.
Nah, I could see American Sniper winning a couple of smaller technical awards, but its not getting close in any of the major categories.
I thought Bradley Cooper was good, but the character was drawn with such simplistic lines. Compare it to the complexity of the character Jake Gyllenhaal plays in Nightcrawler and its farcical which one got nominated and which didnt.
Maybe I’m one of the few who were really underwhelmed by Cooper’s performance. Not that it’s bad or anything, but it’s a performance a good professional actor should be able to give in a film like this. Or maybe I hated the character too much to like the actor’s performance.
MIK, never count out Eastwood and the 11th hour as we have learned this year once again. I can see this movie winning a sound award or two just as Letters From Iwo Jima won best sound editing. I can easily see it winning at least 3 Oscars. Editing still might be Boyhood’s to lose, but a movie with action and tension should never be counted out in a category like that.
American Sniper is not going to make a significant splash at the Oscars. Its nominations are more than it deserves and for the most part as much as it will get.
“can somebody tell me where to find the movie about the beautiful young Iraqi mother whose home was being destroyed by the brutal force of foreign invaders, so she took desperate measures trying to fight a trillion-dollar army with a grenade?”
I’d say Eastwood is a great contender to make such a movie. He did amazing wonders with Letters From Iwo Jima. But really though, that’s a movie I would love to see, something from the civilian side of things.
“It hardly glorifies Kyle the way that Argo glorifies Tony Mendez”
I never got that impression that Mendez was being glorified. As a matter of fact, the way Affleck portrayed Mendez was very low key and unassuming. Also he never really seemed to be leading the pack of hostages except maybe in the airport. He was sort of in the background and let others take the lead. If Mendez was being glorified he would be brandishing guns and Affleck would’ve made Mendez the “director” of the “film” so he could take the lead. I think more than anything it may have “glorified” chance and luck but that’s about it. But great post about the “let fiction be fiction”, Hood. We’ve defended so many other fact-based films for taking dramatic licenses but when American Sniper does, oh boy it gets torn apart. This is the sort of Oscar smear campaign we should all be hating!
Have been rooting all this time for Michael Keaton to win the Oscar. Then…
Saw “American Sniper” this weekend. Sorry. Bradley Cooper is astonishing. Astonishing in that same way when 20 years ago you watched Tom Hanks transform from comic movie star to bona fide Hollywood leading man. It’s a calculated, emotional, raw performance that’s so much better than the film.
Isn’t that what people also say about Julianne Moore and “Still Alice?” Aren’t we all still pulling for her to win?
Is it really so hard so separate an incredible performance from a meh film?
Is it really so hard so separate an incredible performance from a meh film?
maybe we can ask the putrid corpse of Margaret Thatcher.
“Thanks for reading, if you did.”
I did, and I loved it, Chris. I agree with every word. It’s the cynic in me that makes me believe that this sort of skullduggery always connects with enough of the general audience that they can find some shred of redemption and make themselves feel better about something they supported that is so very wrong.
Elia Canetti wrote in Crowds and Power: ““It is always the enemy who started it, even if he was not the first to speak out, he was certainly planning it; and if he was not actually planning it, he was thinking of it; and, if he was not thinking of it, he would have thought of it.”
And this is the logic that will make AS a hit because it’s the only thing left to hold onto.
Correction: I could see *him* becoming etc.
“I know it’s subjective, but Cooper and Eastwood made me care about him. Not because I wanted to get between those thunder thighs. Perhaps a bit of the way I care about Blondie and Tuco in The Good The Bad and The Ugly. I don’t see them as perfect people – PLEASE. And one could argue that such films haven’t done much to pique my interest. But somehow…there’s a fascinating tension at work between who Kyle thinks he is and who he really is. His self-illusions could come crashing down any minute. They don’t, but he’s killed by a supposed ally, so they sorta do. I liked the wire-walk.”
Fair enough! Good point. You’re right, if you can get into the whole contradiction at work in Kyle’s character in the movie (and possibly life), I could see him becoming an interesting/fascinating character, and you might come to care about his situation/demise. I couldn’t do that the first time, but I guess after I see it again, knowing all I know now, I might find something in the guy worth my interest. It’s possible. I definitely plan on seeing it one more time, have been ever since I first saw it – not because I liked it at all, but just to see if maybe I’m not being a bit too harsh on it. Honestly, I expect I won’t reach that conclusion, but who knows?! It’s an Eastwood, and I normally love his movies, so it earns another go. 🙂
Fair enough about Lilly. Actually I don’t really think THL and AS are *that* comparable, but there are at least a few superficial similarities. Somehow, though, if AS had Taya as often as THL had Lilly, I’m not sure that would have gone unmentioned…
As for giving a shit about the character, I know how frustrating that can be. I did not care if Ryan Gosling in Drive lived, died, or walked offscreen to get a Pepsi. Nothing in the movie made me give a rat’s ass about him. I know it’s subjective, but Cooper and Eastwood made me care about him. Not because I wanted to get between those thunder thighs. Perhaps a bit of the way I care about Blondie and Tuco in The Good The Bad and The Ugly. I don’t see them as perfect people – PLEASE. And one could argue that such films haven’t done much to pique my interest. But somehow…there’s a fascinating tension at work between who Kyle thinks he is and who he really is. His self-illusions could come crashing down any minute. They don’t, but he’s killed by a supposed ally, so they sorta do. I liked the wire-walk.
I would compare him to Popeye Doyle (in the first one). You don’t like him. In fact, you hate him. Or you don’t give a rat’s ass about him. And what he’s doing is ridiculous. One difference is that you don’t know just how preposterous it is until the last 5 min – until he does. Now, he gets a comeuppance, yes. But didn’t Kyle?
Worked for me.
“It hardly glorifies Kyle the way that Argo glorifies Tony Mendez or The King’s Speech glorifies that king.”
True, but, I mean, there has to be SOME trace of humanity in there, and it has to be something we can cling to in order to at least GIVE A SHIT about this character… And no, NOT the inevitable cliche of marital problems or debates over whether to kill n or n+1 “savage” children. Sorkin & Fincher’s Zuckerberg was a deeply human character. Kyle is just a patriotic scumbag with no redeeming qualities other than that he’s good at killing people (is that even a quality) who may or may not be a threat to his country, which we never learn in the world of the movie (for some reason we’re just supposed to accept that it was a just war, just because some unidentified entity attacked America on 9/11 – even if this was fiction, this would still be poor writing), and which he never once questions.
“I think the ending is what throws off the liberals.”
The ending was, to me, the most “powerful” part of the movie, even though as I was watching it I was still aware this man probably didn’t warrant that kind of sentiment, and the movie up to that point had done pretty much nothing to convince me otherwise.
“My impression? The wife role was less important in The Hurt Locker, so the thinly written character wasn’t as noticeable.
What makes me think so? The wife in The Hurt Locker is onscreen about 3 minutes; she’s not even part of the story. The wife in American Sniper is like always interrupting the war, she’s onscreen 45 minutes but all she really ever does is pout.”
Thank you, Ryan! That’s what I’d been thinking, but I decided to not get into that one as well, among all of the tons of other stuff I felt needed to be argued about American Sniper. 🙂
Besides, based in what we see in the movie, was Chris Kyle really that tormented? I mean, every time he’s back home he’s absent minded, zoned out or whatever you may call it, but nothing seems to indicate that he’s in remorse over anything, it’s more like he misses that blood-pumping adrenaline of war. Oh my, I hated this character.
Ryan thanks for your kind words! It’s awesome to know the fine folks who run this site truly do read the comments, even the ones down at the bottom.
I haven’t seen venting like this since the last Heating and Air Con convention.
I can’t believe I just read this whole thread. I feel like the customer at the restaurant in Meaning of Life. Where’s John Cleese to tell me “it’s wafer thin!”?
What a thread! Antoinette happy about something in the race! Daveinprogress voice of the people! Robert A, voice of reason! Stephen Holt back with expertise! Casey and Claudiu Dobre and Jesus Alonso hating it! Daniel Kenealy chiming in! Free! Simone! Anna! Reichdome and I mean a LOT of Reichdome…
I have nothing to add except…
Sasha *did* often make the case this year, re Gone Girl, that box office should matter. We’re not gonna go back and re-edit all those posts just cause of AS, are we?
Sasha and other bloggers have been on an interesting road of “let historical fiction be historical fiction, let dramatists dramatize,” when it comes to Selma, The Imitation Game, Foxcatcher, and others. And ZDT again. So we can’t go back on that with AS, can we?
And it’s true, I don’t really recall Sasha mentioning that the Evangeline Lilly role in Hurt Locker was wooden/under-written…
I don’t actually think anyone has been hypocritical YET, at this point it’s just a funny possibility opened up by the fact that AS will be to Winter 2015 what The Passion of the Christ was to Winter 2004…the $300 million-earning drama that becomes everyone’s favorite hobby-horse/punching-bag.
So many places to go, including what MIGHT be a volatile Best Actor race. Or is that just projection on our parts because the other 3 races are all but set in stone? I like Steve50’s “pull a Patton.” Sure, maybe. If there’s any doubt at all what name Cate Blanchett will say when she opens that envelope, we’re all winners – doubt is good.
I think I like Holden’s comment the most – AS is really a lot like Nightcrawler, and if none of AS had ever even sorta happened, I think a lot of people who loved Nightcrawler would be quicker to embrace it.
I thought it was a strong film. It hardly glorifies Kyle the way that Argo glorifies Tony Mendez or The King’s Speech glorifies that king. It’s closer to the way The Social Network treats Zuckerberg (perhaps not quite that harsh). When Kyle says “That letter killed Mark,” we’re meant to be like, “wow, does he really think that?” There are lots and lots of such moments. It’s a film worthy of the director of Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. It leaves you asking questions but also understanding sacrifice.
I think the ending is what throws off the liberals. I mean, should Clint not have ended with his star-spangled AT&T Stadium funeral? Well, maybe not, but what were his options? By then, for me, the movie has made its points. Kyle stands for how we saw ourselves during the war on terror: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Good lineup this year! I’d say my least favorite of the BP 8 is Theory of Everything, and even that was pretty good.
I’d like to take more time to respond to more of you, but I don’t have Richard Linklater-kind-of-time.
I don’t really recall Sasha mentioning that the Evangeline Lilly role in Hurt Locker was wooden/under-written…
My impression? The wife role was less important in The Hurt Locker, so the thinly written character wasn’t as noticeable.
What makes me think so? The wife in The Hurt Locker is onscreen about 3 minutes; she’s barely even part of the story. The wife in American Sniper is like always interrupting the war, she’s onscreen 45 minutes but all she really ever gets to do is fume and pout.
Thanks readers and staff alike for reading my rant on the film and continuing engaging conversation of film.
I remain a devoted reader and podcast listener.
You guys empassion me as an actor myself, and a film lover!
Casey I’m still absorbing all the richness of your essay. At some point, I’ll come back to flatter you some more.
“I am pretty sure I will put American Sniper at my number one position for the worst film of the year”
It’s very close to that position for me as well…
“* Little to no back story on our character and how and why he became a soldier
* Absolutely no information on the war itself – just that people must die (go america!)
* Inferior characterizations of everyone else in the film other than Cooper. Sienna Miller (a fine actress, see my favorite performance of hers as Edie Sedgewick in “Party Girl”) is given ABSOLUTELY nothing to do other than cry and be fiercely loyal no matter what. We get stereotypical “foreigners” as well as stereotypical “soldiers”. No one is given any depth outside of Cooper – who barely has anything to do but sit on a rooftop and shoot people.”
Thank you, sir, for putting into words most of the things I found so wrong with this movie!
“It demands respect for a man who led the way in a useless war – and instead of showing signs of a wounded man used and abused by his country (which ultimately I feel he was), his response was to glorify killing as fun and wish nothing more than to kill more more more.”
Yes! This movie’s defenders keep saying this is an anti-war movie and Cooper’s character is struggling with his experience and stuff – there may be more signs of this in the movie than I remember but, honestly, regardless, they’re just not enough, when compared to the many scenes of him being a brainless asshole. If this is the point the movie is trying to make, apart from it having been done already (and much, much, much better) in The Hurt Locker and other major pictures, going back to the 1950s (even earlier than that, come to think of it), it’s also just not convincing here at all. The movie just does not get its point across (for me and many others, although it does for some, and I have no idea how and why), but rather another, far less defendable point that it may not even be trying to make in the first place. That’s just not a good movie.
“Remember the film “Monster” starring Charlize Theron as the serial killer Eileen Wournos? Here was a biopic centered around our main character who’s name was also referred to in the title – she was a monster. However with a script that honored all aspects of the killer, gave us a background of who she was and why she committed these crimes (a mixture of unrequited loved, mental illness, and self defense), I was left feeling sympathy for the character. Yes, she was a monster, and what she did was heinous and unforgivable – but one could connect with the character and have a modicum of understanding for the character. “American Sniper” could have done the same thing, while still honoring Kyle for his service. It could have shown the harsh truth of war itself. It clogs the mind, it ruins lives. It could have provided us with a glimpse into Kyle’s life and show how dangerous war is, how it can consume and betray its soldiers.”
And then mr. Casey explains it even better in his next paragraph, that I hadn’t even read yet. 🙂 I’d give him mad props for easily one of the best posts this year on Awards Daily!…
“I didn’t get a glorifying war vibe from it. He wasn’t happy ever.”
But that’s just not convincingly portrayed. He wasn’t happy because his friends kept dying or because his wife wasn’t happy (and even she wasn’t happy because he was killing people, she wasn’t happy because he wasn’t around and because he was constantly in mortal danger, or whatever), never really because of what he had done. At least I never got that from the movie. Maaaaaybe in the scene with the guy he had saved, where he’s really uncomfortable, but that’s just not good enough, like I said before. Oh, and the completely unconvincing scene where he’s debating whether to shoot another kid or not…
Also, see Ryan’s post! 🙂
“War glorification always involves showing us guys who are asked put the horrors of war ahead of every other normal human concern (and they ‘rise to the challenge’). That’s what makes us supposedly obligated to ‘respect’ whatever mercenary travesty they get sucked into fighting.”
Exactly.
“The biggest problem with AS, is that it treats Kyle as a man on a righteous mission. He is not just a sniper, he is the real victim of the war, the way Eastwood tells it. Not the countless of Iraqis that he killed or the countless of Iraqis who died because of Bush’ war. Kyle is the victim. That’s a dangerously narrow-minded perspective, to say the least.”
Now I’m just quoting for the sake of quoting. 🙂 The wonderful readers (and moderators) at AD have done pretty much all of the work for me…
“I just want to remind people that the human beings that Kyle killed weren’t carry groceries, they posed a threat against the lives of other people and soldiers. In the movie, a woman used her own child to toss a destructive tool in the direction of the Seals; they were both gunned down. This sniper did his job”
Doesn’t mean he should be loving it and craving for more… But, again, Ryan makes a better counter-argument:
“Is it ok if I remind people that if Cheney had not invaded their neighborhoods based on greedy lies, then those Iraqis would most definitely NOT have ever been threatening any American soldier. Those Iraqis would very likely have been carrying groceries home to their children.”
“It’s not about […] how “we” got there or why “we” fought.”
Well, it does show him looking at the live footage of 9/11, and has him repeating (I believe) a number of times that he wants to do his duty and defend his country. That he doesn’t question whether the war is being fought against the right people or not is maybe a comment on what’s wrong with the whole concept of a soldier’s duty being to follow orders blindly (even though they should maybe still have a mind of their own), and that’s the only decent bit of message I could find in the entire movie. But it’s just momentary, the rest of the movie isn’t really consistent with this point of view, at least in my opinion. Back to Ryan:
“If I need a sherpa to guide me through the moral/ethical morass of Iraq, showing what Iraq is all about through his eyes, then I don’t want one of the blindest guys in Iraq to be that guide.
I’m not all that interested in some dumb rodeo clown’s insight into Iraqi ‘savages’. And even less interested in his tragic wasted life.”
“We’re expected to genuflect to what this guy did without asking why he was there to begin with while simultaneously ignoring his own sentiments that he kind of got off on killing Iraqi citizens?”
Right?! WTF?!…
“All that other stuff you guys think is missing isn’t part of this movie.”
Yes, but, like Ryan said, we can’t ignore the historical context, simply because it’s a movie about and based on real events, which happened less than two decades ago, and which everybody knows about. And, by ignoring the most important aspects/lessons of those events, it becomes irrelevant (at best) or potentially harmful (at worst), all while still clearly pretending to be accurate and relevant.
“Funny, not much was said about Chris Kyle’s father being an evil savage.”
🙂
I don’t intend to see this movie’; i don;t feel i need to or want to, but i appreciate the interaction of impassioned ideas about it.
I love reading your perspectives on both this movie and the contexts surrounding it. I feel somewhat on the periphery of it for various reasons, but happily on that outer. I get the palpable disgust about America (and here in Australia too) joining coalition forces to invade Iraq. I also am seeing how movies don’t necessarily inform us; but use a truth to create a scenario to suit a piece of storytelling. For the 50% of the populus that agreed with the decision, movies such as these probably don’t pose any major questions (or do they?) and for the other half who abhor the decision to invade; and then see a movie such as this storm the box office and Academy; it rattles the cage. Politics in art is difficult to untangle.
You know what? If the movie was called AMERICAN HERO, I’d agree with you guys. It’s not though.
We’re expected to genuflect
Who’s expecting you to do that? I’m not. And I didn’t genuflect and wouldn’t. You guys are going based on articles you’re reading or new stories you’re seeing or arguments you’re having. This is the movie in a nutshell: (SPOILERS) Guy has no purpose. 9/11 happens. A sense of patriotism makes him enlist. This gives him purpose. He shoots people during his tours and is good at it. Wartime becomes real life and his time at home is like the between times of him getting back to his “real life”. (Same as THE HURT LOCKER.) Then he’s had enough and is ready to go home. He goes home. He’s killed. He fulfilled his purpose. The end.(SPOILERS END)
All that other stuff you guys think is missing isn’t part of this movie. You might be looking for another movie that involves the politics and the background about 9/11 and what did and didn’t happen before and after. This isn’t that movie. It’s very specific. Remember how LINCOLN should have been called THE 13TH AMENDMENT because it wasn’t a biopic? It was specifically about that time. It wasn’t about Lincoln’s whole life. Well AMERICAN SNIPER has the exact right title. That’s all it’s about. This one man during his time as a sniper.
You might be looking for another movie
probably. can somebody tell me where to find the movie about the beautiful young Iraqi mother whose home was being destroyed by the brutal force of foreign invaders, so she took desperate measures trying to fight a trillion-dollar army with a grenade? I’d be interested in seeing more of her story because I bet she had a sense of patriotism too.
but all the movie wants to tell us is how she’s “a savage” and “pure evil” and THAT is the message 20 million Americans got taught or had reinforced for them this weekend: “Look. See? Anyone who resists American aggression must be an evil savage. Look at that crazy savage bitch and her evil child. Best to kill the evil kid now before he’s a full-grown savage and harder to slaughter.”
so yes, no, this is not the movie I need or want to see.
I don’t have to “read an article” to know how I feel about movies like this. I have a conscience that tells me what constitutes thrilling entertainment and what constitutes attempted brainwashing.
But admittedly my conscience is the sort of conscience that most Texas shitkicker deerhunters would call the conscience of a pussy.
“But Ryan, that was a parent teaching her child to ‘finish’ anybody who tried to harm him”
Yes, that parent was Chris Kyle’s father who taught him to “finish anybody who tried to hurt you.” Quote unquote.
Funny, not much was said about Chris Kyle’s father being an evil savage.
Is it ok if I remind people that if Cheney had not invaded their neighborhoods based on greedy lies, then those Iraqis would most definitely NOT have ever been threatening any American soldier. Those Iraqis would very likely have been carrying groceries home to their children.
Don’t forget we’re on the same side, politically speaking Ryan. But specifically, regardless of Darth Vader Cheney’s evil shenanigans that opened the doors to an illegal war, I still support an American soldier sniper defending his team against civilians throwing grenades at them, driving a car bomb towards them, or shooting from a rocket launcher – all with an intent to kill those soldiers.
Don’t forget we’re on the same side, politically speaking Ryan.
Simone and Antoinette,
the side we’re on that’s most important to me is our friendship. We each have have different feelings about the war and that causes us to have different feelings about this movie. That’s alright with me.
I’m not trying negate your feelings with mine. I’m only setting my feelings alongside yours on this page, ok?
Antoinette,
That’s sort of a dicey thing you are arguing that AS should be about Kyle’s life and duty during four tours while leaving any and all context of the war out of the story. Hell, even DAS BOAT had context while telling their (fictional) story.
We’re expected to genuflect to what this guy did without asking why he was there to begin with while simultaneously ignoring his own sentiments that he kind of got off on killing Iraqi citizens?
Is it ok if I remind people that if Cheney had not invaded their neighborhoods based on greedy lies
This movie has nothing to do with Cheney. It’s not about the war or how “we” got there or why “we” fought.
I just look at American Sniper for what it is, one guy’s life and duty during his four tours.
I agree 100%.
It’s not about the war
it would be a fairly silly movie if you cut all the war parts out.
I have a crazy sort of brain that knows things that are not onscreen, and the things I know influence the way I feel about what I see onscreen.
I just look at American Sniper for what it is, one guy’s life and duty during his four tours.
If I need a sherpa to guide me through the moral/ethical morass of Iraq, showing what Iraq is all about through his eyes, then I don’t want one of the blindest guys in Iraq to be that guide.
I’m not all that interested in some dumb rodeo clown’s insight into Iraqi ‘savages’. And even less interested in his tragic wasted life.
but that’s just me. I never think anyone is ‘wrong’ for disagreeing with me about this.
Not the countless of Iraqis that he killed or the countless of Iraqis who died because of Bush’ war.
I just want to remind people that the human beings that Kyle killed weren’t carry groceries, they posed a threat against the lives of other people and soldiers. In the movie, a woman used her own child to toss a destructive tool in the direction of the Seals; they were both gunned down. This sniper did his job. It’s all too easy to say he murdered people – sure, maybe he did kill completely innocent people, like how innocent people die all the time in war. But I would think that 90% of the people he did kill where straight up enemies. It’s so easy for all of us to be armchair military mission analysts, but none of us, including me (well, I was a Navy reservist), would volunteer to put our life on the line to do 1/3rd of what Kyle and others like him do. I’m anti-war and voted Green the last two elections, and I just look at American Sniper for what it is, one guy’s life and duty during his four tours.
I just want to remind people that the human beings that Kyle killed weren’t carrying groceries, they posed a threat against the lives of other people and soldiers.
Is it ok if I remind people that if Cheney had not invaded their neighborhoods based on greedy lies, then those Iraqis would most definitely NOT have ever been threatening any American soldier. Those Iraqis would very likely have been carrying groceries home to their children.
The biggest problem with AS, is that it treats Kyle as a man on a righteous mission. He is not just a sniper, he is the real victim of the war, the way Eastwood tells it. Not the countless of Iraqis that he killed or the countless of Iraqis who died because of Bush’ war. Kyle is the victim. That’s a dangerously narrow-minded perspective, to say the least.
@Casey I understand where you’re coming from. It seems that you feel about AMERICAN SNIPER the way I felt about SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I thought that that film would give people the wrong message about war “heroes” and that it might influence young people to sign up for war someday. 9/11 was far into the future at the time. I don’t agree with your views on AMERICAN SNIPER however. I didn’t get a glorifying war vibe from it. He wasn’t happy ever. He definitely did not get a happy ending. He was detached from his family and the world around him. I didn’t think this gave a favorable view of the war at all. And I don’t think it made Kyle seem like a great guy either. I mean that’s why I can just look at it as a well made film but I don’t expect you to. I think what the movie is actually depends on the viewer this time. For every person it’s going to be a different experience.
I didn’t get a glorifying war vibe from it. He wasn’t happy ever. He definitely did not get a happy ending.
Can I just gently suggest that lots of movies that glorify war end badly for the protagonist? That’s actually part of the way war glorification works, psychologically: thrust a good man into a nightmare and watch him endure the nightmare at all costs. That feeds right into the mindset of guys who admire guys who sacrifice ‘everything’ (even the guys who slaughter hundreds of faceless enemy ducks in a shooting gallery as part of their ‘sacrifice’)
War glorification doesn’t ever show that war is a happy golden funtime for soldiers. No. War glorification always involves showing us guys who are asked put the horrors of war ahead of every other normal human concern (and they ‘rise to the challenge’). That’s what makes us supposedly obligated to ‘respect’ whatever mercenary travesty they get sucked into fighting.
Movies that teach boys that they can only earn their manhood by being the brave “sheep dog” who must protect the dumb sheep — a ‘duty’ that’s EXPLICITLY outlined in the first 10 minutes of American Sniper — that’s the way war movies have always recruited thousands of gullible uneducated kids to join up to fight whatever war the billionaires decide to perpetrate.
(I’m not saying all soldiers are gullible or uneducated. of course not. But boy oh boy, lots of them sure are, and Chris Kyle looks like one of the gullible ones to me. I am saying that international war-profiteers would not exist if they could not prey on the gullible to be their expendable pawns.)
Okay, I am about to rant.
I am an avid Awards Daily reader, for at least 10 years. I comment every now and then, but am not a huge presence on these boards even though I read them incessantly. I have such strong feelings on this film, I just feel the need to discuss them. I know not everyone will read this or care, but I feel my thoughts need to get across somewhere – and where better than on a site filled with such smart film lovers.
Also I imagine I will be including spoilers for the film too, if that’s a concern.
I am pretty sure I will put American Sniper at my number one position for the worst film of the year once I have finished my list of films to see. This is not to say the film doesn’t have redeeming qualities, it certainly does. The horrifically bad genre film “Oculus” is rivaling it for the top spot as it is one of the worst things to come accross genre film in a while (all the while being somewhat praised by critics). However I do not feel that that film does any harm. “American Sniper” I think is a dangerous film for all of the wrong reasons.
First, to not deny its merits: the war scenes are well crafted. They are horrific and I imagine as true to life as they could be. In that aspect, Eastwood has nailed it. Bradley Cooper’s performance is very good, although I would not have nominated him for an Oscar over the superior Jake Gylenhaal, David Oyelowo, Oscar Isaac, Bill Hader, Ralph Fiennes, Joaquin Pheonix, or Miles Teller (all of whom I think deserve the nomination over Cooper). He is however very good. The sound editing and design are fantastic. The cinematography is good. It looks good.
Here are my complaints, and I do believe Sasha and I agree on these. To me, this movie is very scary and the making of the final product I think is very careless. As we now know, the war in Iraq was a pointless war where our country attacked another country who had not been involved with the terrorist attacks that primed the war. Regardless of your personal politics, be you democrat or republican, there is no denying the fact that this war was started under false pretenses and did not need to happen. The fact that the movie doesn’t address this issue at all is a primary concern of mine. It’s also a primary concern that Clint Eastwood is the director of this piece that ignores the simple fact that this war was uncalled for. Ever since the “chair incident” at the republican national convention, I have lost a little respect for Eastwood. Not that actors/directors/hollywood cannot talk about politics – that is not what I am saying. But I feel they should provide thoughtful and intelligent insights into their public opinions, this is not what he gave us that night. And I feel this film is somewhat tied to his political feelings. But I am left to wonder what they are?
There are two routes this film could have gone in my eyes. (1) It could be the story of an american soldier who was celebrated and awarded for his mass murders in the name of the country. He returns home to his wife and family, and spends the rest of the movie struggling with PTSD and the awful truths of what he has done (because agree or disagree with the war, killing women and children be they innocent or guilty should be considered an awful truth). The film could have gone the route of – what does war do to our soldiers, how are they cared for after the fact, how are their family cared for. There is a direct reason tied to this narrative, as our leading character was murdered by another solider suffering from PTSD. It could have been an opportunity to truly show the horrors of war. However the movie spent little time dealing with ANY of these issues. It also relegated his death to a small footnote at the end of the film – an afterthought. (2) The film could have dived into the fact that this war was uncalled for, and this man who served his country and did what he was told to do was undermined and caused so many lives to end under false pretenses. However this could have been quite a stretch to the real man himself, I do understand.
Instead we get neither of these issues. What we get is:
* Scene after scene of high intense gun shoot-outs – in comparison to popular video games
* Little to no back story on our character and how and why he became a soldier
* Absolutely no information on the war itself – just that people must die (go america!)
* Inferior characterizations of everyone else in the film other than Cooper. Sienna Miller (a fine actress, see my favorite performance of hers as Edie Sedgewick in “Party Girl”) is given ABSOLUTELY nothing to do other than cry and be fiercely loyal no matter what. We get stereotypical “foreigners” as well as stereotypical “soldiers”. No one is given any depth outside of Cooper – who barely has anything to do but sit on a rooftop and shoot people.
It teeters on moments where it could go somewhere, and the backtracks. The final scene in the house with his family, before meeting the soldier who would kill him – it seemed to almost be poised to make it’s point. Be that an anti-gun statement, an anti-war statement, a “care for our soldiers” statement, etc. Instead it ends with nothing happening. I was on the edge of my seat. I worried the gun may go off in his wife or childrens direction, I worried we would see the actions of the confused, murderous, and suffering soldier reaching out for help. Again, nothing. It ends with people mourning the loss of our leading character.
Now the most troubling factor for me. Our leading character, our protagonist, our hero: Chris Kyle. For me the movie lives or dies on its central character when it is billed as a biopic or a study of one person – as is hinted to by the title “American Sniper”. Cooper’s performance of Clint Eastwood’s version of Chris Kyle surely deserves some praise and respect. However it is so widely different from the reality of the man himself – or should I say whitewashed a bit. I do not claim to know Chris Kyle or his family. However I can google someone and find out various things they have said and done, and here are a few that I find troubling.
1) First is the simple fact that the man is celebrated for killing the most people ever during war time. Including women and children. Sure this may be his job. But lets compare it like this. Say your job is to remove families from their houses and evict them due to late payments. At the end of the year you have evicted the most families from their homes making them homeless. Now – you did your job as its set out, but is it really deserving of praise? It’s a sad truth of the job. The fact that he killed the most people in history during a war doesn’t make me want to run up and hug him -it makes me sad for him. Doubly sad when you take into account none of those people had to die.
2) His comments about his killings and his war experience are downright disgusting. He mentioned in his memoirs that killing over 200 people was “fun” and that he “loved it”. He said “I hate the damn savages. I couldn’t give a flying f*ck about the Iraqis.” When asked in an interview if he had any regrets about him time in the war, killing over 250 people including women and children, he answered “My only regret is that I cannot go back and kill more.”
3) He was a violent man on and off of the war zone. You can google the accounts of him punching Governor Ventura at a bar and then lying about it. There are accounts that he shot Hurricane Katrina victims and looters, which he also bragged about.
Some articles have compared Kyle to an “American Pyscho” as well as an “American Sniper” – which considering the above I must agree with. Again this is not to say that he doesn’t deserve some respect for being a soldier and believing he was protecting our country. But any soldier who describes killing people as fun, loving it, and only wishing to do more – hints to the same type of soldier that ended up killing Kyle himself. He was a disturbed and troubled man who made many controversial, hurtful, and disrespectful statements.
In Clint’s movie we get none of this. So let’s imagine going into this movie clean and clear – without knowing any of this. Let’s also say we are a young and impressionable kid who isn’t up on politics and doesn’t know that Iraq was not behind out September 11th terrorist attacks. What we are delivered is a film that glorifies war. What high octane suspense! What a hero! This is just like all of the warfare game we play on the computer! This is where I hint to the film being dangerous. It demands respect for a man who led the way in a useless war – and instead of showing signs of a wounded man used and abused by his country (which ultimately I feel he was), his response was to glorify killing as fun and wish nothing more than to kill more more more.
I couldn’t draw the line between reality and movie-making fantasy here.
Remember the film “Monster” starring Charlize Theron as the serial killer Eileen Wournos? Here was a biopic centered around our main character who’s name was also referred to in the title – she was a monster. However with a script that honored all aspects of the killer, gave us a background of who she was and why she committed these crimes (a mixture of unrequited loved, mental illness, and self defense), I was left feeling sympathy for the character. Yes, she was a monster, and what she did was heinous and unforgivable – but one could connect with the character and have a modicum of understanding for the character. “American Sniper” could have done the same thing, while still honoring Kyle for his service. It could have shown the harsh truth of war itself. It clogs the mind, it ruins lives. It could have provided us with a glimpse into Kyle’s life and show how dangerous war is, how it can consume and betray its soldiers.
And now that it is making a haul at the box office it becomes even more dangerous to me. I think its not a stretch to say the republican party is praising the hell out of it. It takes their useless war, makes it glossy and exciting, and gives us a hero to root for – even though his actions were against innocent citizens not involved in the attack against us that the war was founded on. It erases all that. It makes the war seem alright now, because we have war heroes like Kyle who triumphantly killed hundreds of people. What a hero!
And I don’t see it that way. I refuse to celebrate Kyle’s murders, even if they were committed under the orders of our country. And the fact that post-war he had no regrets, continued to cherish his murders, want to do more, and violently react numerous times to others around him, I don’t see him as an American hero – but an American casualty.
Thanks for reading, if you did. I wish I could say I feel better after getting that out – yet I am still as disturbed as I was before.
“Thanks for reading, if you did.”
Read it twice, Casey. Thanks for taking to time to get your feelings down and share them.
Now I need to read this a third time because that’s how many times I somehow got roped into seeing American Sniper and I need your great essay to help me regain my balance.
$107.3 million. Holy shit.
“Cooper’s portrayal is incredibly sympathetic”
See, I couldn’t find any sympathy for him at all, and, believe me, I tried… He rarely behaved like anything more than a remorseless killing machine (working under the excuse of patriotism) in the movie, if you ask me, and, when he did, he just wasn’t convincing at all, those parts just felt forced in there for the sake of nuance.
“I don’t really buy the comparison between Scott and Cooper because George C. Scott didn’t have much competition back in 1970. Cooper does. And George C. Scott won every prize they had back then leading up to the Oscars–NYFCC, National Board of Review, National Society of Film Critics, the Globe Drama. No one else was even close. Cooper, on the other hand, has pretty much won nothing unless you want to count the BFCA Action Star award.”
This is what some people don’t seem to get. If there’s a chance somebody will win, there will inevitably be SOME sign of it in the precursors. It’s basically impossible to be considered the BEST in a whole year by a very large group like the Academy (which means you got tons of votes, irrespective of how close the race was) and not get SOME kind of love from any of the countless other, smaller groups. More often than not, you need A LOT of love from those to even be close. But definitely some… I mean, to not even get enough votes to be nominated anywhere (or almost anywhere) and then somehow get the most votes with one of the largest groups… it’s statistically highly improbable, to say the least, no matter the context.
“Giving it to Cooper is the only way they can acknowledge Sniper – BP is out, as are any other major awards. And they will acknowledge it.”
Yeah, like they acknowledged American Hustle last year…
I’m not totally sure that AS is going to “please both sides of the aisle”. Leaving apart the reality that Kyle’s book was factually problematic (and didn’t that sort of thing hobble Selma?), the idea that this is a secret anti-war film is negated by the almost orgiastic response far-right wing pundits are having towards the film. Look at the AS boosters’ twitter feeds, look at the ferocity at which the AS boosters are going after even LEGITIMATE criticisms of the film or the near-deification of Kyle. Their takeaway was that they got off on Kyle killing all them Ay-rabs without a moment’s hesitation or introspection (less so if you take his book at face value). No longer do we have to even ask why on earth we were in Iraq to begin with because Kyle killed all them Ay-rabs and kept our freedoms safe from people who in fact posed no threat to them. Does the Academy really want to validate those people with a Best Picture based on nothing more than box office? Watching the sheepish backtracking by Moore and Rogen from their legitimate criticisms of the film makes me suspect that the Academy isn’t being persuaded by American Sniper but more bullied by it.
This retroactive justification of the Iraq War via St. Chris Kyle is softening people up to sheepishly go along with whatever war is going to be launched in the event of a GOP win in 2016.
“Steve, you mean Eddie Redmayne is no longer “unbeatable.””
Ha! – ya got me!
He’s still the frontrunner, imo, but, no, he’s no longer unbeatable. Depends on where this AS conversation goes.
Keaton is not shy about letting everyone know how much he wants this thing, so begging may work in his favour, but the only reason that we’re saying Redmayne will have more chances and Keaton, not, is because Keaton’s filmography/track record is abysmal. I would hardly call Batman and Beetlejuice I.O.Us.
Giving it to Cooper is the only way they can acknowledge Sniper – BP is out, as are any other major awards. And they will acknowledge it.