I have avoided joining the partisan and polarized fray in reacting to the Clint Eastwood film that has generated so much interest in the film itself, and passion in the reactions to it. My avoidance up to now was based in part on my own responses to the film, and the other reading I've done on the life of Chris Kyle. I guess it has taken me a while sort out what I really think about this matter- and I'm still not sure I'm done with that process. This essay is about the two Chris Kyle's- one from the film, and the other I encountered in the research; and the other part is about my observations of the public reactions. But what follows are my different thoughts about this phenomenon. In sorting through my own thoughts I kept coming back to the phrase you find on the Facebook page where it asks us to describe your "relationship" status and it gives the option: It's Complicated. Well, this one is complicated.
What really spurred my thinking about this essay was a radio talk-show I was listening to on the way home from work this week. I tuned in well after the show started to hear this local commentator discussing the reactions to the comments made about Chris Kyle. Being a "right-wing" commentator this guy was all over some of the unfortunate comments made by Michael Moore and others who made very negative comments about the movie and the man. So the radio host posed the question to his conservative audience: Is Chris Kyle a hero or a coward?( knowing full well what the responses would be.) Hearing that, I'm immediately yelling to myself about what a horrible question that is -and it occurred to me that this is the very reason we don't seem to have civil discussions anymore about our politics or our culture. Christ, does Chris Kyle have be only one or the other? Can't Chris Kyle (or anyone who has done that horrible job) be a little of both? or neither one? or any combination thereof on any given day? To my way of thinking all of the above possibilities would be far more likely than identifying the American Sniper as just a hero -or just a coward. But nearly all forms of public discourse now is phased in "either/or" terms that are polarizing by their nature. When I left the movie- and it was a powerful movie- I didn't feel one way or the other. For me, it's complicated.
Delving into my own thoughts a little more, I came to several touch-points in how I view what has now become such a huge controversy. The first point is: It's a movie! I would remind my friends that this a theatrical release of a feature film. It is not a documentary. Clint Eastwood is not a journalist documenting the unvarnished facts of a man's life. He made a film, which is an art form. As such Eastwood is free to portray his art from his own perspective and tell this story as he wishes. Of course there is a good deal of truth about Chris Kyle in the film- and some fiction too I suspect. But we have to remember what this piece is, and see it for what it is. There is no conceivable way that any filmmaker could capture all the nuance of a complicated life in a two-hour movie, so the storyteller is editing the story by the very nature of the vehicle he uses to express it. What I found so interesting is the reactions to the movie follow the predispositions of the viewers. In other words, reactions are largely based the way you expected to feel, even before you see it. For those who wanted a gung-ho war flick, that's what they saw. For those who expected to see the human damage of war, that's what they saw. I can't decide if that is a strength or a failing of the film- but I'm convinced from the reactions its working that way.
Another touch point for me is the way this movie has become a metaphor for patriotism. I suppose that reactions to war or impending war as it relates to patriotism is common in this country. I grew up and into adulthood during the Vietnam era. Back then the response to those who did not support the war in Vietnam (in its early stages) got the phrase: America- Love it or leave it; which is another way to say that if you can't back the government position on the war you are not a real American so just get out, again eliminating the possibility of a middle ground. Of course the eventual outcome in the Vietnam era was that the protests began to resonate with many Americans and the war lost favor. Remember that the war was being fought by draftees- not volunteers like today. In Nixon's '68 campaign he argued that he would end the war. He didn't of course, and he actually expanded the war. By the time '72 rolled around and reelection was at stake,they had a "sudden breakthrough in negotiations with the North" and the pull back began. He was reelected. It looks like war and the representations of war (like this movie) tends to divide us today as it always has. If you favored the war in Iraq American Sniper represented righteous American patriotism. If you're against it -disliking the movie was somehow cowardly and un-American. President Bush got a lot of Democrats to support the war in Iraq precisely for that reason. Many regretted it in 2008 when they wanted to be the next President. We don't even like it when other countries question our war stance; Freedom Fries, anyone? Perhaps it is in our unique American nature to support war and denigrate those who don't - when it may be that real patriotism could be represented by means other than war and violence. At least we should make room for that possibility. We need to learn that in spite of what the politicians will tell us- not every war we fight is for our freedom- but we buy that line every time. Turns out war is complicated.
The last point is that American Sniper is very different from a number of other war movies in that it hardly even references the war itself. We see a brief scene where Kyle and his wife are watching the 9-11 attack on TV- then it's full out warrior stuff, as if the only reasonable response to 9-11 is war with nothing in between. And all during the numerous war scenes in the movie the purpose or greater mission of the war is never addressed. His purpose is clear. He is there to protect fellow warriors by killing anyone who is perceived as threat to his comrades. Perhaps that is the real legacy of this war- and possibly Kyle himself. We were lied into it- so there is no great purpose. This group of men and women can never be "the greatest generation" as Brokaw called the GIs of WWII- because the cause can never match the deeds. That raises the question of whether we can judge the warriors by the war. We made a terrible mistake in the Vietnam era by disrespecting and disregarding the warriors returning from Vietnam because the war was so unpopular by its end. The pendulum may have swung to the other extreme of the spectrum in the Middle East wars based on our enthusiasm to "support our troops" and not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. That is, we are being ask to support the war as a sign of gratitude and respect for those who fought it. Neither position is feels very satisfying.
None of the "Hero or Coward" talk seems fair to the movie or the real Chris Kyle. Clearly (real life)Chris Kyle had some serious flaws and he had moments of real valor. His life appeared to be full of conflict and irony in spite of the portrayal of his "straight ahead" approach in the movie. He seemed motivated by his love of country but could not bring himself to be in the country he loved when the lure of action or dedication to fellow warriors called him away from his home and family. Was it sacrifice or compulsion? He mastered the use of firearms beyond the imaginable- but was killed by the errant use of a gun by a damaged Vet back home. He is the quintessential example of Jesus' warning to Simon Peter at Gethsemane that those who live by the sword will perish by the sword- and I don't think Jesus meant that as a good thing. But war is a reality and the damage to those who fight in them is a real thing too. No movie can do justice to that reality. We know that there was far more to Chris Kyle than was told in American Sniper. Eastwood hints at it, but never tells us of some of the more documented bizarre claims Kyle made about killing people in his civilian life. One thing Eastwood does in the movie, is portray every returned Vet as damaged in some way (physically or emotionally)- even Kyle's own brother who appeared before "The Legend" as dazed, shell-shocked and traumatized.
I'm happy to see that this movie and Chris Kyle's life has started this conversation. And, isn't that what art is supposed to do? So, for that reason American Sniper has performed a service. How we see wars and how we view and care for those who fight in them is an important discussion. It should be an on-going discussion. Being a warrior is not the only qualification for participating in that discussion- it should be a discussion for all of us in this democracy. So even though I'm glad to see the discussion happening, I'm disappointed at how quickly it devolves into good guys vs. bad guys; heroes vs. cowards; patriots vs. America-haters and so on. Life is more nuanced and complicated than that. Everything about the movie and the man were more complicated than that. My best wish is that it will encourage smarter and more in-depth discussions- honest discussions- and better outcomes for the country and those who serve it. Even though these matters can seem simple (and politicians want us to think they are simple)- they aren't. They always turn out to be gut-wrenchingly difficult and complex. In other words- It's complicated.
Thanks for looking in.
