Eastwood is as direct as a rifle barrel, and Cooper is as cold as a model soldier. This is good for real war, but cinema requires warmth and soul, which “American Sniper” lacks compared to its main competitors.
A young Texan named Chris, skilled only at riding bulls in rodeos and shooting deer on friendly hunts, decides to go to Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. At the training ground, Chris shows remarkable sniper abilities, and upon arrival in the combat zone, he transforms from Chris Kyle into a deadly marksman, nicknamed “The Devil” by the enemy. Once involved in the war, Kyle can’t stop, repeatedly choosing combat deployments over peaceful family life.
The Making of a Sniper
To transform into Chris Kyle, Bradley Cooper gained over ten kilograms, spent several weeks in a real combat camp, and had a personal consultant from the US Army snipers.
Fate has it that Clint Eastwood’s “American Sniper” is inevitably compared to Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker.” It’s not that Hollywood lacks patriotic films or that there are too few movies about the recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these two films are so similar and yet subtly different. Now that the American Film Academy has handed out its awards for the past year, it’s time to draw parallels and try to understand why Eastwood’s film, despite significant box office support, was far from the Oscars.
Initially, Cooper, who acquired the rights to film Kyle’s biography, only wanted to produce the film and invite Chris Pratt for the lead role.
“The Hurt Locker” and “American Sniper” were released almost simultaneously. Both films, in theory, should raise the question of the fate of a person whose thoughts are devoted to war, a soldier who has lost the ability to exist peacefully, a family man who is lost to his loved ones even after returning from the battlefield. However, the films took different paths to the final goal, and now it’s clear that Eastwood’s road led to swamps and quagmires. Surprisingly, the more modest “The Hurt Locker” turned out to be much denser, more thoughtful, soulful, and even alive. It gives the viewer’s subconscious many hints, while “American Sniper” is straightforward and either hits the mark or misses shamelessly.
Moral Dilemmas and Simplifications
Let’s start with the fact that the military specialization of the two heroes differs significantly. While the sapper hero of Jeremy Renner saves the lives of his soldiers and civilians in the captured territory, the character of Bradley Cooper takes lives. This seemingly insignificant detail radically changes the attitude towards the heroes. It is much more difficult to empathize with Kyle, no matter what is said about the high mission; he is, by and large, just a lucky and skilled killer. Yes, he sometimes faces moral dilemmas, but they are resolved simply: if they have a weapon, they are the enemy, shoot, whether it’s a child or a woman.
The simplified world, narrowed by the sniper scope, does not allow the already not-so-outstanding dramatic Bradley Cooper to spread his wings. He generally lacks emotionality in the film. The only lively and truly captivating manifestation of the main character’s feelings is the reaction to the broadcast of the fall of the Twin Towers. Further, the entire range of experiences boils down to шаблонные anger, jealousy, bravado, but they all remain superficial, as if the actor is not even trying to be convincing. Cooper’s “chemistry” with his partners in the frame also failed. Chris Kyle looks equally bad as a comrade and husband. None of the scenes of friendly communication with colleagues or domestic chores of peaceful life are worthy of being part of a story that really moves the action forward, rather than just increasing the running time.
Eastwood’s Direct Approach
It’s sad to realize, but the problem here lies in Eastwood’s extremely simplified direction. As we have already said, “American Sniper” is extremely straightforward. It does not consist of small internal or external conflicts of the heroes. Its plot does not lead to any tangible goal (the dotted line of the confrontation between the two snipers is not worth mentioning separately). Finally, there is not even the usual transformation of character for such films. Together with Cooper and Eastwood, the viewers also miss their catharsis, especially those who are cold or even disdainful of the American flag. Well, yes, a person went to war, shot there to his heart’s content, returned slightly crazy – our third-rate NTV series are full of such heroes. From Eastwood, one still wants something more serious.
However, there are not many fewer reasons to watch the film than reasons to ignore it. Eastwood still understands battle shooting well (although “American Sniper” is far from “Letters from Iwo Jima”), again beautifully presents militarized pathos and the social problems of adapting lone heroes, and finally, some scenes are presented simply “deliciously.” But if the viewer is looking for real soldierly experiences, a little deeper than “will my bullet reach the right place,” then sappers will be more interesting than snipers. The Oscar only confirmed this.