American Sniper

Clint Eastwood's American Sniper is an odd blend of themes and genres that have been covered before, but this specific combination left me feeling unsettled.  There are elements of an action movie here which draw a stark contrast to the thoughtful character study.  In his earlier film Gran Torino, Eastwood found the right balance, keeping a tight focus on the protagonist's perspective.  With the current film, we the audience are outside observers, never quite understanding what is motivating the characters onscreen.  Bradley Cooper plays Chris Kyle, a Navy sniper who is credited as being the most deadly sniper in American history.  The film follows Kyle as he struggled through an aimless early adulthood, a period which was abruptly interrupted when an attack against America prompted him to join the military.  By the time September 11^th arrives and American troops are called upon to take the fight abroad, Kyle has become an expert Seal sniper.  These introductory chapters are rather simplistic in explaining Kyle's motivation.  A sense of patriotism is paired with the philosophy that there are three kinds of people; sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. 

Kyle's fellow Seals and Marines are portrayed without much depth, their behavior and dialogue is reminiscent of action movies – without the humorous banter of a 90s Schwarzenegger movie.  Kyle is portrayed by Cooper as focused and brooding; I specifically used the word brooding even though I believe that the intent was to convey introspection.  He snaps back at those who celebrate kills on the battlefield, and is uncomfortable with gratitude he receives for his service.  While the Kyle character claims that his motivation is saving American lives and fighting evil, it is never adequately explained how it was possible for him to take so many lives and keep his sanity.  Perhaps it was just me, but there seemed to be an elephant in the room with every return trip to Iraq; was Kyle's sense of duty the only reason he kept killing?  I am reminded of a film that was not hesitant to address this question; Patton acknowledged that war defined the man, not only would Patton have not fulfilled his purpose without war, he also loved it.  I left American Sniper unsettled because I didn't know the answer to that one question.  Perhaps Eastwood intended for me to feel this way, knowing that a successful film should be thought-provoking.

Beyond the unanswered question, Eastwood's direction, focus, and editing choices seemed to be lacking.  Scenes that should have been gut-wrenchingly powerful, specifically ones that included violence directed at women and children were poorly executed.  At a moment that should have established Kyle's righteous anger towards a brutal Iraqi leader, the focus instead is on his rivalry with an enemy sniper.  Other films such as the 2008 Rambo, and Tears of the Sun exposed audiences to horrific atrocities, scenes that were difficult to watch.  Those moments were meant to both provide motivation for characters in the respective films, but more importantly remind us of the evil in the real world that must be fought.  Clint Eastwood is unsuccessful at portraying violence in this film with that deeper purpose, even though that seems to be his intent.  This film is far from perfect in its execution, yet the discussions it will prompt and the depiction of a true American hero (flaws and all) make this an important film.

Life Itself

Life Itself was a disappointment for two reasons; it didn't focus on the best attributes of its subject, and it revealed a hopeless emptiness which was quite depressing.  This film is a documentary based on Roger Ebert's autobiography, filmed primarily in Ebert's hospital room as he neared death.  Having not read the autobiography, I can only assume that it is more insightful and optimistic than this film.  The shroud of death and Ebert's painful struggle with cancer overshadow other aspects of his life; instead of focusing on what made Ebert great, this film documents his final days.  That would be alright if the final chapter in Ebert's time on earth was inspirational or poignant.  As Ebert struggled to communicate verbally, and eventually lost his ability to speak, he poured all his energy into blogging.  Ebert kept on reviewing an extraordinary number of films up to the end of his life, viewing the films at home and posting reviews online.  His website, RogerEbert.com was updated during this time to contain all the reviews he had ever written (he began officially on 1967).  While his film reviews will be his lasting legacy, little attention was given to explaining what makes them so important.  Steve James, the director operates under premise that Ebert was a great film reviewer and focuses primarily on his daily routines and the impressions of his friends and associates.  Instead of being a documentary, Life Itself works more as an obituary.  In the end the emptiness of Ebert's life is clearly apparent; James tries his best to spin the final scenes as peaceful and beautiful, yet they deliver tragic hopelessness.  A summary of this film would simply be; well-known Chicago film critic dies after long struggle with cancer.

As someone who loves reading Roger Ebert's film criticism and grew up enjoying Siskel and Ebert's "At the Movies" television program, Life Itself was a letdown.  Unfortunately I realize that the man behind the curtain is bound to be a disappointment.  Perhaps I should praise Life Itself for being an honest representation of the man Roger Ebert.  Still it makes me sad.

Hoop Dreams

I've wanted to watch Hoop Dreams for about twenty years, and yesterday I finally did.  In those twenty years I have seen quite a few movies, including Speed 2 and a live-action version of Alvin and the Chipmunks.  Why do I waste my time with such garbage when films like Hoop Dreams remain unwatched?  There's no good answer to that question, so let me simply discuss a great film and pretend that those other ones never existed.

Film can be a powerful medium, whether the images have been manipulated to illicit a specific reaction, or as in the case of Hoop Dreams is used as a window into an otherwise unseen world.  High school basketball is the backdrop of this film, but it is really about choices, attitudes, family, and consequences… life.  There was a point early in the film that prompted my suspicion; "are the filmmakers only showing one side of the story?"   As the film unfolds naturally, chronologically, my doubts were dispelled.  The film doesn't show contrasting points of view as one might expect in a political debate, instead it becomes clear that life isn't always that clear cut.  The film follows two boys from Chicago, William and Arthur, each playing on a competing high school basketball teams.  William's coach seems more interested in winning basketball games than in building the character of his players.  I got this impression from the things William said about him and from his own words during onscreen interviews.  Yet he is a basketball coach, tasked with generating revenue for the school.  Also, he does instill strong values and has high expectations of his players.  While I ended up not liking him, I believe that I came to that conclusion myself.  A great documentary has something you need to see – it shouldn't tell you what to think, if it shows you something true then it doesn't have to.

I finally got around to watching Hoop Dreams because it was considered to be "the great American documentary" by Roger Ebert.  Another film I have been looking forward to is Life Itself, a documentary about Ebert by the filmmaker of Hoop Dreams.  It just seemed natural to watch the one before the other.  I will let you know what I think about the more recent film soon (hopefully it'll take less than twenty years).

The Hobbit Part 3

My experience watching The Hobbit Part 3 was reminiscent of cross country races I formerly participated in.  Having been to one, I knew what to expect – an arduous journey that is only truly satisfying when it is finally over.  Cross country was character building and established friendships during an important chapter in my life.  The Hobbit trilogy has given my family a shared annual event, something to look forward to and enjoy together.  Yet neither the cross country or the Hobbit movies provide anything but agony and despair – merely they were the conduits which linked me to something good.

Alright, I recognize that "agony and despair" is a slight overstatement.  I remember good things about cross county; running through the woods, passing a few people, (those are the only two I can think of right now).  Similarly, the Hobbit trilogy provided a few bright moments; Bilbo and Gollum in the cave was pretty cool, Bilbo and Smaug in the cave was pretty cool, and hearing a familiar exchange between Bilbo and Gandalf from a different point of view in the third film was also pretty cool.  But really, 8 ½ + hours of video for 10 minutes of enjoyment, that seems unreasonable to me.

It's not Peter Jackson's fault that the Hobbit trilogy is so bad, it's our fault.  The Lord of the Rings was written, filmed, and edited with a sense of desperation that had previously made Star Wars great.  With a limited budget, limited resources, writers and actors who are passionate about the material, and one's own money and reputation on the line, films like The Fellowship of the Ring and A New Hope are possible.  Unfortunately, in both George Lucas' and Peter Jackson's cases, without the previously mentioned limitations, when left to their own devices, the results are disastrous.  Our consumption of the Lord of the Rings trilogy emboldened Jackson to morph into someone who would feel comfortable releasing the Hobbit movies.  Had we only known what we know now, perhaps things would be different.  Think of the artists who toil an entire lifetime, never achieving fame or fortune, yet their works are "discovered" years later to much acclaim.  Wouldn't it have been better to pretend that we didn't like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, forcing Jackson to struggle against all odds to get The Hobbit made?  Then perhaps, just maybe, it would be a much better film.

Before I close, I realize that this may be one of the worst movie reviews ever written; I haven't even discussed the movie itself.  The movie begins at a moment that assumes a recent viewing of the previous Hobbit entry.  In a better series that assumption might be appropriate (i.e. The Two Towers), but here it's simply confusing.  The characters in this film are so bland and indistinguishable (other than Bilbo) that they could be compared to extras in Schwarzenegger films from the 80s…  The AK-47 wielding enemies in Commando were never meant to evoke our sympathy; they existed only as M60-fodder.  Unfortunately everyone in the Hobbit movies feels like that.  Even the central characters Gandalf and Bilbo, who are protected by chronology, all too often get lost in the mess.  And the movie is a mess, not as bad as the last one, but that isn't saying much.  Battles within battles, so much fighting and enemies coming from every direction, without any substantive narrative.  Maybe it's just me, but good guys fighting bad guys does not make for a good storyline.  At least in Commando Schwarzenegger is on a mission to rescue his daughter.  The Hobbit movies offer no such motivation.  Unless I am mistaken, everyone is fighting over a really big pile of gold -- is no one concerned about inflation in Middle Earth?  That much coin injected into their economy will devalue everything.

Like a grueling cross country race, I am glad that the Hobbit trilogy is over.