My initial reaction was it was an average film, but I've since changed my mind on reflection. I think the story of Chris Kyle is a great one and the movie certainly tells it.
Before seeing it, I was aware that many were taking issue with the films portrayal of the Chris Kyle, I didn't bother to read too much into his personal flaws if there were any but I was aware people took issue with things he said versus how he was portrayed in the film. So, I assumed a lot of artistic liberty was taken to make the movie more marketable, and not portray him in a way that people found contrary to how he really was.
I assumed they made him way too stoic, but at the time it didn't bug me as much since I assumed it was artistic liberty. After watching it though I've seen interviews of him when he was touring the TV promoting his book. That stoic and overly modest demeanor is very much how he actually was, and Clint Eastwood and Bradly Cooper nailed it.
Looking into some controversy afterwards I see he got flack for saying he was killing "savages". I think people take what he said out of context and I think in ways the film addresses how he felt about it. Chris Kyle was actually questioned about this in interviews and he explained that it was the people he was killing, not the Iraqi people. And in that too I feel the movie addresses this, abstractly. His character was very much moved by the brutality of the one guy who terrorized and murdered Iraqi civilians with the power drill, and killing anybody that talked to American soldiers. It's those inflicting brutality on the Iraqi people that Chris Kyle found to be savages. It's an important aspect of the movie itself because it builds on his two main motivations throughout the war that kept him focused.
This high up the food chain terrorist (I forget, "The Driller"?) was Chris Kyle / Bradley Coopers goal for the entire film on the war end. If (TC) sees this as a Zero Dark Thirty clone hook, I disagree. I think his motivation for going after this man tour after tour is what kept his head in the game. That, and the Syrian Olympic gold medalist sniper that was picking off American soldiers, those were his two main goals in the war, taking them out. Once he accomplished those tasks he was ready to go home.
I think those two things were important, because I think also a big part of the film was addressing PTSD. In many ways it effected him less, maybe, though he was still effected. I remember when his brother and him ran into each other on the airfield on his brother's first tour his brother was broken. This scene came after his time at home where he in many ways it showed him suppressing his own PTSD symptoms. Still, I think as far as being a soldier, and having purpose wanting to go back after the power drill terrorist leader and the Syrian sniper, those kept him focused as a soldier enough to complete multiple tours, because after he took that last shot at the end, that was it, he was done, he wanted to go home, it's like the purpose to stay was gone and he wanted out.
Still, he went home a broken person, to an extent. The PTSD symptoms he'd been suppressing were still there. He had to integrate back into life. They showed how his helping vets out at the VA gave him purpose, made him a functional person again, someone with a purpose, allowed him to be a good husband to his wife again. Of course, that was the thing that did him in, that one fateful outing with that severely damaged vet with PTSD, which I guess we all saw coming. In terms of the story though, seeing this coming and the way it was done was kind of a flat note, just fades to black, exposition, the heroes funeral ending with real footage, it was kind of a flat delivery, then again they didn't sully the story by making the ending gratuitous so there's good with the bad. But, overall I still thought it was a great story.
Like I said my initial reaction was that it was an average film, but after looking into who Chris Kyle was, what kind of person he was, shutting out the political divide controversy over the film, I rather liked it. It's a okay film with a great story. I think Clint Eastwood was more centered on telling Chris Kyle's story rather than making an entertainment piece. Clint Eastwood is certainly conservative, and with that he's a strong military supporter, but I hardly feel he's exploited or his film exploits pushing a military agenda of any sorts.
I know to some extent people see military films as propaganda of sorts, I don't really feel that's the case here at all. I think many war films are made more for entertainment than to honor those who fought, or maybe they're a mix of both but entertainment takes lead. I don't see such films as propaganda but I think they do have effects on the psychology of Americans. They paint a picture of American military and moral superiority which has been criticized. Also things like war films glorify war and such. And to a degree I do think war films have consequences of shaping peoples views on the military, maybe it does make people want to join, especially for young people who may sign up to go to war. I've feeling though that when it comes to making money that's least of a film producer's concern. Same with video games.
When it comes to this film though, and Chris Kyle and his book, and I think there was an agenda and it's hardly a sinister one. In interviews he's stated that he wanted to bring awareness largely to the sacrifices that families at home endure when troops deploy. He wanted to promote the view that vets need help at home as well and ask for people to help them out. And he wanted the profits from his book to go toward the families of his fallen fellow soldiers, and to assist in helping vets. I think that's a noble thing.
Log in to comment