American Sniper (2014)

Posted: January 17, 2015 in Chris Driscoll
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
american-sniper-poster-2

By Chris Driscoll |  Stranger in a Strange Land 

A Tale of Two Snipers

“Eastwood does not fit that mould; his specialty, at least in the area of military flicks, is to produce pseudo-serious melodramas that leave out as much of the truth as necessary to end up with a hagiographic image of the chosen heroes.”

Chris Kyle, the sniper upon whose life the new Clint Eastwood movie, “American Sniper” is based, worked for a while as Sarah Palin’s body guard. Enough said? Well, yes, probably for most of you, that one fact tells you all you need to know about this dubious American hero being glorified in Eastwood’s latest cinematic endeavor. But there’s more, much much more, to tell.

First though, allow me to introduce the other hero of this contrast and comparison in sniper films, the other famous sniper upon whose life a movie was based: Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev.

Vasily was a sharpshooter in the Battle of Stalingrad, the most horrendous conflagration during the entire Second World War. He was played by Jude Law in the 2001 movie “Enemy at the Gates.”

chrisKyle-R.I.P. Chris Kyle, “The Devil of Ramadi” NAVY SEAL (1974-2013)-Benjamin-flickr

These sniper movies make for a stark contrast between two wars, one a desperate defensive struggle against Nazi occupation and genocide, the other, an aggressive war of imperial plunder based on hypocrisy,  taking the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and turning to rubble a whole  ancient civilization. I guess we should not be surprised that the morals or lack of morals in the two men neatly reflect the morality or lack of morality in the two wars, the Soviets’ Great Patriotic War (World War II) and the U.S. War on the People of Iraq.

After the war, Zaitsev, unlike Kyle, did not go into politics–or reality TV shows–but rather, he settled in Kiev where he took correspondence courses to become an engineer, and worked his way up to become the director in a textile factory. During the war, after being wounded, he wrote two books on sniper tactics which militaries around the world, including the U.S. military, still use today in sniper training.

Kyle, who tragically lost his life in Dec. 2013 when a post-traumatically stressed Iraq War vet went berserk on him at a shooting range in West Texas, was a notorious and well-exposed public liar. So, little about Eastwood’s movie—based on Kyle’s book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History“—can be relied upon.

Gov. Jesse Ventura at the podium. (2008). Via Cory Barnes/flickr.

A couple of specific post-war events in Kyle’s life reveal his penchant for tall tales. At a fundraiser for Navy SEALs the former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura, like Kyle, a veteran of the elite Navy special forces group now called the SEALs, had a fainting spell due to some medications he was on. But in Kyle’s book, Ventura’s faint turned into a confrontation that never happened, and ended with Kyle decking the older man.

But at the end of the day such shams could be inconsequential when weighed against other aspects of his personality. For if true, the acts that Kyle lays claim to would cast him at least in the role of a monumental jerk,  or, at worst, a mass murdering criminal. Still, one wonders what kind of person actually would risk being identified with these deceptions? Ventura, to his credit, when the lie was brought to his attention sued Kyle and won a Minnesota court award of $1.8 million. Kyle claimed that Ventura had said he thought the SEALs should lose a few in Iraq because the war was wrong. To anyone who’s followed Ventura over the years, it’s hard to believe he would ever say anything like that; for one thing, he’s too damn intelligent to say something so dumb. It’s more likely that Ventura’s political opposition to the U.S. War on Iraq was behind Kyle’s lie aimed at discrediting Ventura to fellow SEALs. Kyle’s widow is appealing the $1.8 million award.

After the court ruling, on the Sarah Palin Channel, Palin came to Kyle’s defense and slammed Ventura: So you turn around and sue, expecting $2 million from a military widow and her fatherless children? Yeah, like that is going to help your reputation, jackass.”

“Chris Kyle was a true American patriot–the soldier who stood up for his country and saved so many lives by doing the job his Commander-in-chief gave him, taking out the bad guys. For his extraordinary work, Chris was known as “The American Sniper.” He was senselessly murdered on our own soil while helping a military brother. His widow and young children will forever feel a lot more “hurt” than you will, Jesse, after a sad verdict in your ridiculous lawsuit against Chris. . .”

In another adventure of dubious validity, a profile in the June 2013 issue of “The New Yorker” has Kyle claim he went to New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina and he and a friend stationed themselves on top of the Superdome where they proceeded to “take out” about 30 armed looters. A U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) spokesman told The New Yorker, “To the best of anyone’s knowledge at SOCOM, there were no West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina.” He said Kyle’s story, “defies the imagination.” And, of course, there were no reports at the time of 30-some extra dead bodies laying around New Orleans with sniper bullets in their bodies.

As a New Republic headline proclaimed in the magazine’s obituary of the fallen sniper, “If Chris Kyle Had Been a Muslim, We’d Call him an Extremist.” After all, the New Republic opined, he had a “crusader’s cross” tattooed on his arm. In his book, Kyle wrote, “On the front of my arm, I had a crusader cross inked in. . . I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in red, for blood. I hated the damned savages I’d been fighting. I always will. They’ve taken so much from me.”

Kyle also liked to regale his friends with a story about being attacked at a gas station at gunpoint by two assailants, whom he claimed to have shot dead. But again, there were no witnesses, police say they found no bodies, and in general, the story sounds about as accurate as the New Orleans tale.

Reality show star

In 2012 Kyle co-starred in the reality TV show, Stars Earn Stripes, produced by Mark Burnett, in which celebrities supposedly competed in war games on behalf of charities.

(Continuued)

It was a twisted, repellent concept—half blatant chauvinism cum propaganda for imperial wars, and half insult to the peoples and nations used as mere backdrops for the stars’ ludicrous shenanigans— from the mind of one of Hollywood’s most reactionary power players (Burnett also producesSurvivor, and 10 other shows, including The Apprentice, Shark Tank, etc. A Christian “fundie” and proud of it, in 2013 Burnett produced The Bible series that brought in around 100 million viewers, and ended up being the most-watched cable miniseries of the year. In 2014 Burnett went on to produce the feature film Son of God).

Gen. Wesley Clarke, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, was roped in to host Stars Earn Stripes. Along with Kyle were the former “First Gentleman of Alaska,” Todd Palin; singer and actor Nick Lachey; retired professional boxer, Laila Ali, daughter of Mohammed Ali, who should have known better considering her father’s record of opposition to imperial wars; and TV Superman from “Lois and Clark,” Dean Cain. The show was mercifully cancelled after loud protests from many people and organizations, including many veterans.

As noted earlier, character questions had begun to pile up—even in mainstream outlets—by the time Kyle died. In a Guardian (UK) op-ed, Lindy West described Kyle as a “hate-filled killer” and asked, “Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?” She pointed out that Kyle, in his autobiography called killing “fun”, said he “loved” it, and was convinced that he was taking out the “bad guys”.  “I hate the damn savages,” Kyle said in his book. “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis.”

Kyle claimed 255 kills, with 160 confirmed by the Department of Defense, making him the most effective sniper in U.S. history.

All of the above would present difficult issues to a more socially responsible director when seeking to portray as tortured and contradictory an individual as Chris Kyle, but Eastwood does not fit that mould; his specialty, at least in the area of military flicks, is to produce pseudo-serious melodramas that leave out as much of the truth as necessary to end up with a hagiographic image of the chosen heroes. The upshot is highly effective emotional manipulation, and the public (and critics) eat it. I have no idea if Eastwood does this deliberately or not. Either way the effect is the same.

This is the propaganda imperial America wants people consuming, as America’s new generation of “wars of choice” requires unflagging supporters.  To maintain the necessary propaganda momentum the ruling elite, via the Pentagon, its ubiquitous corporate media, and other less visible tentacles, is not averse at funding and endorsing Hollywood projects that crudely or subtly  manufacture passionate support for foreign interventions and racist hatred of whichever “enemy du jour” falls in Washington’s crosshairs.

Despite its technical virtuosity, Eastwood’s Sniper is not exactly an original film. As mentioned earlier, it clearly invites comparison with Annaud’sEnemy at the Gates. Both movies, “American Sniper” and “Enemy at the Gates,” focus on a mano a mano contest between two snipers: one, the “enemy” and antagonist of the story; the other, our hero. American Sniper matches Kyle against the notorious Mustafa, a fictional insurgent who was an Olympic shooter before the war. Zaitsev, in Enemy at the Gates, is pitted against Major Erwin Konig, played by Ed Harris. Konig may also be fictional as we only have Zaitsev’s word that he retrieved the enemy sharpshooter’s dogtags after killing him and that the deceased was identified as Konig, head of the Berlin Sniper School. Researchers have subsequently been unable to find any trace of Konig in German records.

Most Americans know little-to-nothing about the Soviet part in World War II, that the better part of the war was fought on Soviet territory, for example, or that the Soviets lost 26 million people in the war (the equivalent of the entire population of California and Texas at the time). The United States, by comparison, lost a bit more than 400,000.

Until the recently released Russian film Stalingrad, (1) Jean Jacques Annaud’sEnemy at the Gates (2001), was probably the only major English-language film about the Battle of Stalingrad, the bloodiest engagement with the largest number of deaths and drawing the largest number of combatants of the entire war—and some historians claim, of any war in human history. Combat during that battle was often door-to-door urban fighting amid literally mountains of rubble, bringing the two sides into constant confrontation. More than 1.7 million died.

Critics accolades misguided

In their almost unanimous acclaim for Eastwood’s film, American critics —aping the producers’  assurances that the film is not really political and not really about Iraq (!) —have only shown the poverty of their intellect or simply their abject careerist conformity.  As Peter Maass put it so well on his comments on the film for The Intercept,

Kyle’s memoir has been turned into a film starring Bradley Cooper and it’s an Oscar contender even before its national release on January 16. The Los Angeles Times hails its action scenes as “impeccably crafted,” while The New Yorker salutes Clint Eastwood for making other directors “look like beginners.” Unfortunately, Hollywood’s producing class, taking a break from exchanging catty emails about A-list stars, has created another war film that ignores history, and reviewers who spend too much time in screening rooms are falling over themselves in praise of it.

They should know better. In 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty,” about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, was lavishly praised by most reviewers, and it wasn’t until criticism emerged from political reporters like Jane Mayer and others (I wrote about it too) that the tide turned against the pro-torture fantasy at its core. The backlash, coming after the film made “best of the year” lists, was probably responsible for it (fortunately) being all but shut out of the Academy Awards. Hopefully the praise-and-reconsider scenario will recur with “American Sniper.” (How Clint Eastwood Ignores History in ‘American Sniper‘)

Maass is absolutely spot on. The moral context of a story with grave implications for our society is not something to kick aside as so much extraneous baggage. Zaitsev was shooting at the invaders, Germans—many Nazis—who were in his homeland plundering, murdering, raping and in general doing whatever they could to utterly destroy Stalingrad and kill all its people, not to mention deal a hard morale blow to the Soviet people and smash the Soviet Union itself. Not to mention that Germany had started the war after mounting some pretty cynical false flag events in Poland and elsewhere.

Kyle, on the other hand, was the invader in a war of choice that easily qualifies as an international War Crime as per Nuremberg Tribunal laws, while so-called “enemy combatants” like Mustafa were defending their country from imperialist domination and occupation. How many Americans, you may ask, would not resist a brutal invader under exactly similar circumstances? Apparently this elementary question never entered Eastwood’s skull.

And there are other points of congruency. Both films have subplots that feature strong women in supporting roles. In American Sniper, Kyle’s wife, Taya, played by Sienna Miller, portrays the hardships of the wife of a SEAL holding down the home front, and, after Kyle’s return, the difficulty of dealing with a man who’s spent months in a combat zone killing people and being tormented by the inevitable demons. In Enemy Tania, played by Rachel Weisz, is a Stalingrad resident in the local militia who becomes Zaitsev’s love interest during the Battle of Stalingrad.

But what about Clint Eastwood? What motivated him to choose Kyle as the subject for his most recent movie? We might fairly ask why Eastwood, a man who claims to be a libertarian and has publicly opposed every major U.S. war since Vietnam, consistently makes movies that feed the war machine (or at one time glorified a type of vigilante police with his infamous Dirty Harrycharacter?). Could procuring the funding his projects require have something to do with it? Could it be that this “artist” is willing to sell his soul and his principles, and that movies that sell Washington’s wars are a ready route to funding, acclaim,  and profits? It’s a fairly defensible assumption.

We know that movies like Ben Affleck’s ARGO, falsifying the events surrounding the US embassy takeover in Teheran, and the much acclaimed (but more controversial) Zero Dark Thirty, done by a not so innocent liberal, Kathy Bigelow (who also gave us another film of similar texture, supposedly only looking at the lives of soldiers in difficult combat situations, The Hurt Locker), which also ignored the role played by the US military in the Middle East, and who happens to be the former Mrs. James Cameron, had ample government support.

clintEastwood-HeartbreakRidgemovieposter86With Sniper Eastwood apparently yields again to a troubling penchant to sentimentalize bullies or war in general. InHeartbreak Ridge (1986) Eastwood constructed a script that whitewashed the enormous—in fact shameful—disparity between the forces of puny Grenada and the greatest superpower on earth. In his flick, it was the Marines who covered themselves in glory, although even some Marines found the deed a bit short of genuine heroism, considering their own record of combat in practically all latitudes against far more formidable opponents.
.
With Flags of Our Fathers (2006), focusing on Iwo Jima, Eastwood again chose war as the main canvas, and although he tried to “balance” the books by also including the Japanese side of the story, noble he, there’s enough luster and praise for the military to satisfy any man (or woman) in uniform these days.

War can be profitable. Heartbreak, for example, went boffo at the box office, chalking up almost a 1000% return on investment.

Budget $15 million[1]
Box office $121,700,000[2]
Eastwood’s political contradictions

I guess the solution to Eastwood’s riddle is that we should simply note what he does instead of what he says. It is clear that Eastwood is ignorant or indifferent to the distinction between subjective and objective when it comes to evaluating an artist’s social impact.  Whatever he may think subjectively, it’s undeniable that, objectively, where it counts, Eastwood has been more often than not a supporter of conservative approaches to social and foreign policy, and that his cumulative oeuvre has consistently defended a rightwing or establishmentarian position.

Eastwood with Lou Gossett, Jr. and President Ronald Reagan in July 1987. (Credit: Wikipedia/CC)

In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and suggested that they would make for a worthwhile presidential ticket.[329] In 1999, Eastwood stated, “I guess I was a social liberal and fiscal conservative before it became fashionable.”[330] Ten years later, in 2009, Eastwood said that he was now a registered Libertarian.[331]

Despite being heavily associated with firearms in his Westerns and cop movies, Eastwood has publicly endorsed gun control since at least 1973. In the April 24, 1973, edition of the Washington Post, the star stated that “I’m for gun legislation myself. I don’t hunt.”[332] Two years later, in 1975, Eastwood told People magazine that he favors “gun control to some degree”.[333] About a year later, Eastwood remarked that “All guns should be registered. I don’t think legitimate gun owners would mind that kind of legislation. Right now the furor against a gun law is by gun owners who are overreacting. They’re worried that all guns are going to be recalled. It’s impossible to take guns out of circulation, and that’s why firearms should be registered and mail-order delivery of guns halted.”[334] In 1993, he noted that he “… was always a backer” of the Brady Bill, with its federally mandated waiting period.[335] In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the famous television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that “My interview with Eastwood will air on ‘Larry King Weekend’ … I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. ‘Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?’ he said.”[336]

But regardless of Eastwood’s motives, there is no doubt that the US establishment welcomes movies like “American Sniper” because they promote support for its wars of plunder, wars that would be difficult to get people behind if not for mountains of propaganda.

The war in Iraq, of course, was founded on lies—nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and the suggestion that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks—something the media could have easily disproven, had American journalists discharged their duty instead of simply acted as “stenographers to power” safeguarding their careers. In fact it has been massive and nonstop unchallenged lies since 9/11 that have also permitted the inauguration of a new era of “permanent terror psychosis”, with terrible consequences for real democracy and freedom in America and the world.

This is not the place to offer a detailed analysis of the betrayals of the American press, which has now fully integrated itself into the system’s propaganda machine, but it should be said that Hollywood —an engine of mass communications that now comprises both cinema and television—is certainly not an innocent bystander.

Just to enumerate some of the more recent outrages, it is precisely this highly polluted and confused public consciousness that has allowed Washington to assault and destroy Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, a strategy that has now given rise to our own Frankenstein in ISIL, al Qaeda, etc., but which —fortunately for the military-industrial-security complex—provide further fuel for our endless “anti-terror wars”.  The same massive ignorance and disinformation has enabled the West to pull a fascist coup in Ukraine; ignore the genocidal Israeli attack on Gaza and Kiev’s war on Novorussia, while also defusing the “Arab Spring” from Cairo to Bahrain, etc, etc. Ironically, such appalling criminality pales in comparison to the even more catastrophic  policies being rolled out by NATO under US hegemony, including the effort to isolate and destabilize China for the crime of being a competing power, and the vicious and hypocritical demonization of Russia and her leader, Putin—all of it pushing the world that much closer to a final nuclear conflagration.

Needless to say, I do not recommend American Sniper. In fact, the movie would be a great target for a boycott and pickets by the anti-war movement.  Enemy at the Gates on the other hand is a rare chance for Enlish-speakers to get a realistic look at World War II from the Soviet perspective,(1) a perspective that sheds a lot of light on the way Russians think, even today. That’s something Americans desperately need to get a lot more of, especially as Obama and his European allies continue to beat the war drums for WW III.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
chrisDriscoll-2-BWChris Driscoll is a retired science and technology journalist who has worked for the Arizona Republic, Sedona Red Rock News, Phillips Publishing International, Government Computer News and the American Trucking Associations. He was the media director for Ralph Nader’s 2008 campaign for president. He is also a lifelong socialist, labor and anti-war activist.

NOTES

(1) A new Russian film, Stalingrad (2013), also presents a realistic vision of this conflict, and, naturally, the Russian perspective. Worth checking out.

Comments
  1. doctom2010 says:

    Reblogged this on PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS VOICE and commented:
    Article by my colleague, Chris Driscoll, of the Election Boycott Advocates.

Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s