'American Sniper' was a long bore!

No, no, I don't mean the rifle, I mean the film!  In fact, I left early, the first time I have walked out of a film for decades.  It was eye-stabbingly tedious throughout, and that included the action scenes, and in places it produced snorts of derision from me.  (Well, I mean, chatting to the wife on the 'phone whilst on duty as a covert sniper on a rooftop in the middle of a hostile town?)  I blame 'Clint-baby'!  But where to start ... ?

Films and plays are an art form.  In other words, a writer/director stretches reality, sometimes to the level of unreality, in order not just to show a literal 'truth' but to uncover a greater hidden 'truth'.  From what I saw, 'Clint-baby' failed even to attempt such artifice.  Well, he's been around films long enough and so I can only assume that the decision was deliberate.  It's interesting, and perhaps indicative, that he has made his acting reputation playing silent, moody he-men of the 'a man has to do what a man has to do' type.  They worked extremely well but, of course, these films being fiction were laced with artifice which made their potentially boring heroes more interesting.  I regret to say that 'Sniper' Kyle in this film could have saved his ammo and simply bored his enemies to death!

As portrayed, and confirmed by people who knew him, Chris Kyle was a man of very few words.  Such words as he did utter were only a level or two above the sort of grunts and clicks you would expect to hear from a Kalahari bushman.  Now it is possible that the late Mr.Kyle had some interesting thoughts but was simply unable to express them and the script-writers remained true to the man's memory.  However, fairly soon into the film, I began to suspect that he had nothing much to say because he didn't actually think much about anything.  In fact, I rapidly came to the conclusion that he was as thick as a plank!  At this point, another suspicion wormed its way into my head which indicated that perhaps 'Clint-baby' was far more perceptive and subversive than I had given him credit for.  I will explain that later.

At this point I must risk upsetting my American friends by owning up to the fact that much as I admire and like most aspects of 'Americana' there are certain types of behaviour that graunch against my old-fashioned (antediluvian?) Englishness.  All that 'rar-ra-ra', macho, muscle-pumping patriotism as demonstrated by the American military in this film turned me right off. Shut up and THINK!, was what I kept muttering under my breath.  But no-one in this film was thinking, they were all just 'doing what a man has to do' and all that crap!  There was one exception (in the first half that I saw) and that was slipped in and could easily have been missed. By accident, Kyle bumps into his young brother who has served a tour and is on his way out. He obviously has been thinking and has come to the correct conclusion that the whole shit-circus is a waste of blood and treasure, although, true to the Kyle family's inability to match words with thoughts, he can't express it very clearly.

This brings me back to 'Clint-baby's sly subversiveness, if that is what it was.  The action scenes in and around some wreck of a town in Iraq looked very realistic.  There was an enormous amount of death and destruction going on and even after twenty minutes I was thinking to myself what a complete waste of time and effort and blood this all is because it obvious that nothing  - zero, zilch, nada - is being achieved.  That was exactly the same feeling that crept up on me some years back when Ross Kemp went in with a TV film crew to record 3 Para defending some crappy, horrible village in Helmand.  Yes, they fought bravely - as did the Taleban - but at the end of it all nothing was achieved.

So my question is, was 'Clint-baby' being deliberately subversive?  Was the message of this film that thick, muscle-bound but unbelievably courageous men like Chris Kyle were too precious to be thrown away on the scrap heap of a useless war by politicians and generals not fit to clean their boots?  I don't know the answer to that because I didn't see the whole film. Perhaps someone else who did will put me right.

 

Comments

[jimmy glesga]

David I will buy the DVD wben the price comes down. The soldier did his duty and killed the enemy just like the air force and the RA ten mile snipers.

[David Duff]

Jimmy, I have nothing against his trade as a sniper and I would certainly not question his courage but none of that makes him worth 90 minutes of my time watching the tedious story of his life. And you are in danger of entering that area covered by the notorious phrase, "We were just obeying orders"! There is no excuse for not thinking!

[Lord T]

I won't even watch the download from Pirate Bay. I tend to find that anything based on real life is tedious and not worth watching. The only parts that stray from RL is those where they want to make a political point.

All in all another film I won't be watching.

[David Duff]

A touch sweeping, my Lord, because you have just tossed away all of Shakespeare's 'histories'. True, he also made some "political points" but they did not detract from their excellence. And anyway, you can't make a film or play or write a book about a soldier's life without implying some political viewpoint no matter how factual you make it.

[Lord T]

It is a tad but let me qualify then.

Many history films, etc. can be made easily and still have something worth watching. It is when it starts with the words 'Based on a real life story' or something similar. The book for this film which I cam across had that in large print on the front. In my experience a film that starts that way has me asleep half way through.

So it isn't facts I'm interested in. I'm looking for fantasy, even in films based on historic events.

RL is boring to watch on the screen. I'm after entertainment.

Maybe it is just me. :)

[David Duff]

I take your point, my Lord, and anything that starts with "based on real life" I treat as fiction and then it is up to the writer/director to enchant me - or not! I think, on the basis of having watched half of Eastwood's film, that he deliberately put the weight on the 'real life' side which was a brave decision given that his hero (and he was an extremely heroic soldier) was as dull as ditch water! The fact that he was, like *most* members of the public both 'over here' and 'over there', an unthinking 'grunt' pursuing pointless aims (no pun intended) at the behest of people who should have been thinking for him, may have been Eastwood's subversive point. Or, of course, the whole thing might have been 'Eastwoodian' hero-worship. I'm not sure. Why don't you go and see it and come back and tell me what you think.

[backofanenvelope]

Perhaps the target audience for this film, didn't include you Mr Duff. It was probably aimed at Sullen Whites, a large minority. The SWs are fed up with the cost and incompetence of their government and its incessant meddling on behalf of another minority.

[David Duff]

Definitely not aimed at me, BOE, but why don't you pop along and take a look at it? Cinemas are wonderful in the afternoon, hardly anyone in them and the only irritation are the snores of the pensioners, er, like you and me!

[Backofanevelope]

I will wait for iTunes. I might not bother at all; esp after yr review!

[David Duff]

Someone paying the slightest attention to one of my reviews, well, I suppose there had to be a first time!

[jimmy glesga]

David the Nazis were obeying orders and seemingly enjoyed doing it more so when they killed more civilians than soldiers. This sniper was just killing the enemy as ordered. He was not putting civilians on trucks, trains and sending them to holiday camps.

[David Duff]

Jimmy you are nearly as out of date as me! The idea of soldiers and civilians being different entities is as dead as the first people Sniper Kyle shot dead - a woman and boy both carrying a bomb! This is asymmetric warfare, Jimmy, it's a different world from WWII.