After watching "American Sniper" this morning, Judith asked me what I thought. That was a difficult question partly because I know from experience she wouldn't agree with my views, but partly because I had a variety of reactions to the film. In what follows, I'm not going to deal with the errors and deceptions at the very top that took the US and a few of its allies into Iraq, nor with the blunders, political and strategic, made while the campaign was being conducted, but focus more narrowly on the portrayal of Chris Kyle and the implications of the way Clint Eastwood chose to represent him, both in Iraq and back in the US, in his film.
First, I felt it was poorly made. It didn't tell a particularly coherent story, nor was the character development convincing. Too much time was devoted Kyle's work in Iraq, and too little to the disconnect he and other veterans feel when getting back to the US. One scene that did work was was late in the film, after his last tour; he is seen sitting in a bar shortly after a fierce battle, and behind him the television news is reporting on basket ball. Another were the scenes, all too brief, of his interaction with wounded veterans.
The scene in which Kyle kills the Iraqi sniper stuck me a almost comically fanciful; there was nothing for him to shoot at, yet miraculously, he hits this unseen target over a mile away. There are two things wrong here - either Kyle had a better view of his target than the film showed so while he was an exceptional at his job he wasn't supernatural; or he took a shot in the dark, and while lucky, put all his fellow marines and SEALs in danger.
This was not the only point in the film where artistic license may have painted an unfortunate picture of US activities in Iraq. The decision to go door to door routing out Kyle's nemesis seemed to be based more on emption than strategy. I was left with the sense that dedication and commitment of a lot of brave men and women was being squandered through poor decision making, tactical and organizational miss-steps, and a lack of a clear strategy. I was left wondering whether the film was accurate, which reflects poorly on the running of the campaign, or whether the story was embellished and hammed-up for dramatic effect, which reflects poorly on its iconic director. Of course it may be a bit of both, but I hope that while the top level political decision making was deeply flawed, the mid-level tactical decision making was, in reality, better than was portrayed in the film.
Another powerful scene was the footage at the very end, I assume real, of the crowds who turned out to watch Kyle's funeral procession. No question that he was exceptionally effective at what he did; but would there have been this kind of turnout for the battlefield medic who had saved the most lives? I doubt it. And that speaks to a disturbing trait, the celebration of violence against "the other", a manifestation of intolerance and a lack of empathy and understanding. This has broader implications than the demonetization of Arabs or Muslims; it is also manifest in hate crimes at home against gays or blacks or Latinos. Ironically, despite the heroic portrayal of a patriotic cowboy turned military super-star, what fuels the hatred and violence is usually fear. It also underscores the sentiment that problems can be resolved by the use of force, which we have seen recently see in the militarized police response to numerous situations of unrest and protest.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of people who hate what America stands for (not, incidentally, a simple construct) and who are hell bent on killing Americans and destroying what they consider evil. But we seem unable or unwilling even to see the conflict through the eyes of impartial bystanders, let alone our adversaries.
While watching film I was struck by recollections of WWII movies I'd seen growing up that recounted, indeed glorified, the heroism of resistance fighters in Norway ("633 Squadron") and France. Those portrayed in American Sniper, a little clumsily, as the villains of the piece could easily be seen in the same light as the WWII heroes of the resistance by those who consider themselves under occupation. And if the argument is made that the US is not an occupying force in Iraq because Iraq has its own government, think of the Vichy government. Some Americans feel contempt for the French for collaborating with the Germans; but do they think the same way about the Iraqi government and those willing to support it?
Is this widespread xenophobia, fear, hostility, aggression and an infatuation with projection of power through force a universal human trait or is it something country specific? Ultimately, I am left only with questions, not answers, and the sense that the world is complex and often rather depressing.
No comments:
Post a Comment