American Sniper (2014) ****/5: This is a good film, from a historical point of view, about the war in Iraq but it is still a biased and sanitized portrayal that does not address the many issues of the war apart from the patriotism of the American war hero Chris Kyle. Great performance by Bradley Cooper.

American Sniper is a good war film beneath the sanitized portrayal of an individual who is clearly a war hero in the eyes of many Americans. Despite its biases it is one of the few films that have portrayed a historical account of the war in Iraq. There need to be more films on this subject and if one strips away the ideological basis of this film it does provide some insight, however limited, into the war that was waged in Iraq.

In this film  Bradley Cooper plays famed American sniper, Chris Kyle, who is considered the most successful sniper in American history with 160 kills. Kyle still has to grapple with being domesticated vs. life on the battle field where his true potential as a human being is realized. He also has to come to terms with letting go and accepting his losses.

Positives

The primary positive of this film was the historical portrayal of the war in Iraq through the eyes of this sniper. There are not many Hollywood based films that have  provided a historical account of the Iraq war which begun in 2003. The Hurt Locker was a fictional account and so one had to assess it primarily from the perspective of human nature. This film gives you truer account of the war and mentions some important personages on the side of Al Qaeda in Iraq such as  Zarqawi and his no. 2 enforcer known as ‘the butcher’. ‘The butcher’ appears as one of the primary antagonists in this film. Historical personas such as this give the film more heft than The Hurt Locker because the film attempts to give you some true insight into the history of it all from the perspective of the battlefield. Normally most US based films about tensions in the Middle East tend to focus on Bin Laden or Al Qaeda but individuals like Zarqawi were formidable opponents. This is clear today with the rise of ISIS  that emerged after the death of Zarqawi and after Al Qaeda in Iraq sought to rebrand itself.  The film makes it clear that Al Qaeda in Iraq was a formidable opponent and its successor, ISIS, has made it pretty clear in the present day why that was the case. They are well trained Islamic militants and this is ably demonstrated in this film because they also have an expert sniper.  So from an ideological point of view we can call them savages  or barbarians but their formidable capabilities in warfare cannot be denied. The Islamic militants throughout the world are the only set of individuals that are not afraid to challenge the might of the US-Euro bourgeois/capitalist empire without fear of repercussions. They are prepared to die for their beliefs no matter how regressive they may appear.

The battles in this film have a sense of urgency because you know that it’s a historical account no matter how biased. Clint Eastwood and his writers also acknowledge that people from both sides die even those individuals in supporting roles. The Hurt Locker never went so far because there was not much of a historical basis for the warfare. So whereas The Hurt Locker was suspenseful it can’t be as dramatic as a historical account of the war where individuals close to the main character do die. The character of the wife, Taya (Sienna Miller), does drive this point home albeit in a very dramatic fashion at times. These are historical characters and so the war in Iraq as presented here takes on a new direction as opposed to questioning whether or not war is a drug. This is why the production design is much more impressive than in The Hurt Locker and you get a good sense of the layout of the cities and the urban warfare that took place in those areas. The cinematography is also good and there are some lovely shots of the urban centres under the sweltering midday sun,  under the glare of the setting sun and shots of a sand storm which has a significant bearing on a important battle. You could not get such shots from The Hurt Locker which was more isolated.

The exceptional performance by Bradley Cooper as Chris does transmit a lot of emotions related to several moments and themes in the film. He is clearly the anchor in the film as he is portrayed from his youth as an individual who is willing to protect those he cares for. As he gets older other characters, particularly members in his navy seal outfit,  come to rely on him in times of need. It is a role Chris seemed born  to play and he does it admirably as he is acknowledged as a living legend and even Al Qaeda in Iraq acknowledges his worth by placing a bounty on his head. This role of protector does come to haunt Chris as he is forced to cope with the losses of war particularly the loss of those he felt responsible for on the battlefield. We see that when he retires; that fear of losing also comes to affect his approach towards his family.  Instead of just asking whether or not war is a drug this film addresses other issues related to character such as responsibility for others which is the mark of a great leader. Chris makes an important point after he returned from one of his tours that people are so focused on the commodity fetish while ignoring that a war is being fought for their protection. You get the feeling that Chris is not engaging in warfare just for the fun of it and this makes the film more relatable.

His attempts to move on by working with veterans is also admirable. 

Negatives

The primary negative in this film is its biased, sanitized approach. There still remains much to be said about the Iraq war particularly from a political point of view. In this film Chris is motivated primarily by a patriotic urge to serve his country. He sees a couple of videos that involve bombings by Islamic militants particularly the 9/11 incident. When he does witness the 9/11 incident on tv that more or less  cements his resolve regarding his patriotic duties. After that incident on TV however it jumps to the war in Iraq which was not as connected to 9/11 as the war in Afghanistan.  By emphasizing his patriotic urge to serve the film bypasses the many dilemmas associated with the Iraq war. The patriotic urge does well for a film such as this that wants to entertain the crowd by showcasing the heroic deeds of the US military but by doing so it ignores all the many political dimensions. Many of these political dimensions would put the US in an unfavorable light particularly as the film does not go into the reasons why the US invaded or why  a man like Zarqawi, despite his savagery, sought to challenge US forces in Iraq. So although the film mentions the videoed brutal execution of an American citizen by Zarqawi it does not mention that it was in response to the revelations of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The US military is therefore portrayed as a crusading force. There is no account of the Iraqi people or their perception of the war. It is clear that the screenplay is based on memoirs published by Chris but this bias clearly highlights that more needs to be said about the war before portraying the US military as world saviours. The Iraq war revealed so much about the brutal political environment in the Middle East that it will be difficult to accept this sanitized portrayal. It is true that Americans see him as a hero for his amount of kills but the wider context of the war itself shows that this was a war where there were no real winners or losers. One can just look at what has happened since the end of the US occupation. Did the US really win in the long run?

This is why a truly great historical film about the war in Iraq has not been made. It will also be difficult to make without asking some tough questions.  American Sniper obscures many issues by focusing on the perception of a navy seal.  His only major point of view is that the insurgents are savages and that he experiences  the loss that comes when his friends are killed but there is much more to be said from a political point of view. I admit it is his story but his point of view of the war, aside from his patriotism, is quite limited.

The film was clearly designed to be entertaining and a crowd pleaser as the US kills the bad guys but do we really need to have bullets flying in slow motion?

This is still a very good film from an American point of view but it clearly reveals that more needs to be said about the war in Iraq in film. Much more.