By FDRDemocrat/ Daily Kos
The controversy over the movie American Sniper has predictably reopened the divide among many Americans over the Iraq War. What is more interesting is how the choice made by director Clint Eastwood to choose a sniper as a heroic archetype unravels classic notions of what is considered heroism.
The concept of heroism has been with humanity since the beginning. At it’s heart it contains a common thread where the hero (or heroine) risks themselves for the sake of others.
How then to adapt the heroic archetype to the profession of sniper? This is no easy task.
There is no question that sniping is a useful military skill. There is also no question that it can save friendly soldiers and civilians from death at the hands of an enemy. Several ancient battles such as Hastings in 1066 were more or less decided when a skilled archer put an arrow through a key leader. Every army in the world snipes. The trade goes back before gun powder.
Sniping has always had a bad odor about it though. And the distaste often comes from fellow soldiers, who feel snipers don’t really decide the battle or war, they just add to the misery and death toll. The submarine service received similar reactions from battleship officers during World War One. Shooting someone from stealth, or torpedoing them from beneath the waves, just wasn’t “sporting.”
In the 21st century, the advances of technology have raised uncomfortable questions about the nature of heroism. While warfare has always been about causing the greatest harm with the least risk, the advancing state of technology means that people are able to kill from farther and farther away. The person pulling the trigger may not even be on the same continent. That is why it is so unusual that Clint Eastwood chose a sniper to be his lead in a war movie. Useful trade or not, it is hard to place sniping within the classic hero mold.
So what? That is the response of many American conservatives. And to a degree they have a point if you believe, as William Tecumseh Sherman stated, “war is hell” and it is immoral to fight wars with anything less that utter ruthlessness. The concept of total war was not invented during World War Two, but its precepts led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If the conservative defense of Chris Kyle is that he saved American lives, then why don’t we have a monument on the Washington Mall to the crew of the Enola Gay? Military historians believe an allied invasion of Japan would have cost at least a million dead on all sides, among them 50,000 Americans. Did not the crew of a single B-29, by incinerating 200,000 Japanese men, women and children, come out 800,000 lives ahead? We are rightly very uncomfortable with this sort of calculus. We are taught (or should be) that all human life is sacred.
What of the conservative defense of sniping itself? Namely, that in war the purpose is to accomplish the mission, not put oneself or other “friendlies” at risk. Again, to a degree, they have a point. We would regard soldiers who needlessly expose themselves to enemy fire not as heroes, but as fools.
But if that is so, how would we react if, instead of featuring Chris Kyle, Eastwood made a movie called “American Drone Operator”? A taut thriller about the American technicians who, from a bunker in the US, manipulate the controls of the missile armed drones that globally take out key Al Qaeda “targets” (as well as, on occasion, un-involved men, women and children who had the bad luck to be nearby). What are Predator Drone operators if not snipers taken to the limits of available technology?
Well, we know that a heroic movie about the Enola Gay would not go down well, even with most Americans. That goes double for a movie about heroic Predator Drone operators.
To take things to yet another level, consider this: the next revolution in military technology – robotics – is well under way. A future Hollywood movie about an American military hero may feature robot soldiers. There is something very unsettling about the idea of America sending waves of robots to kill human enemies in the not too distant future, perhaps robots controlled by a generation of young Americans who grew up learning to kill like this on their Play Stations.
I don’t share his politics, but I like Clint Eastwood. He is a great actor and an amazing director. I wonder though if he is really making the point people think he is.
Not about heroism, but about its twilight. We can attempt to enshrine long-distance, high tech killing as a traditional form of heroism. But in their guts, most people know it doesn’t quite fit. It casts an unflattering light into the darkest parts of human nature. And it makes us all accomplices to actions we’d rather not think about.
I don’t think the movie American Sniper will ultimately settle into place in the classic war movie genre. Rather, it will be regarded like another Eastwood movie called “Unforgiven” – a western many believe was Eastwood’s apologia for his Dirty Harry days. Whether Clint intended this all along is an interesting question.
Originally posted at Daily Kos
Source
Latest posts by Source (see all)
- And Then They Came for the Vietnamese… - December 13, 2018
- Amazon’s Disturbing Plan to Add Face Surveillance to Your Front Door - December 13, 2018
- 140+ Arrested as Youth-Led Protests Demand Green New Deal on Capitol Hill - December 11, 2018
Isn’t there’s a tight link between modern, warfare and nasty video games? A short step from video thrill to kill-thrill? The sniper now uses sighting devices and firepower that places him far enough from the victim to prevent the nasty blood from splashing our hero’s eyes. For the sniper, the kill can even be called “clean,” word usage which, after all, fits the sniper’s needs and no one else’s. I’m glad to see this Daily Kos contribution from FDRDemocrat. It tells me I would have paid $12 for a film I’d walk out of.
Perhaps it would be better to read the book?
I’m talking about violence in America, not the book or the movie. Let me ask you to reread my comment so we can talk to each other.
Yes I gather that. My point is people vilify or make a hero out of him based on a movie that’s not a very accurate portrayal of his very own writing. That being said, would you walk out of the theater (or just not go in the first place) simply because he performed a violent act and felt no shame?
Probably what separates you and me is Eastwood’s celebration of gunslinging. Whether the superior slinger has regrets or not doesn’t mean anything to him. He just seems like a guy with a machismo problem. And yeah, I’d walk out of a movie if prowess with weaponry was the main attraction in the movie.
It’s hard to view as a hero someone who brags about killing defenseless people. I once viewed a talk on Book TV about the hardest part of military training. It was convincing the trainees that it was alright to kill. Speaker suggested that 98% needed the training, while the other 2% were simply psychopathic killers in uniform. No sniper in history has ever been part of the 98%. Necessary evil? No, that’s what T. Jefferson et al said about slavery. I wonder how many snipers have actually died in the service of their country & if it made any difference?
“No sniper in history has ever been part of the 98%.”
And you know this how?
Honestly, people say some pretty stupid drivel. First off the big controversy in this movie is the character portrayal discrepancy between Chris Kyle’s autobiography and the movie’s portrayal of him. Perhaps people should take the time to read his book before seeing the movie. They will notice quite a difference. Truth be told, the book will give them a pretty dark opinion of the man himself. He was ruthless, enjoyed what he was doing, didn’t give two shits what his fellow Americans thought of him and all reality why should he? The real negative about him is his fabricated stories about what he did after leaving the Navy.
In and of itself, being a sniper simply a job that needs to be done. Whether it’s morally right or wrong is a non issue.
I just love how people think being a sniper is in and of itself a cowardly act. These are mostly people who have never served in the military but that doesn’t stop them from shooting their mouths off and giving their opinions about what kind of individuals get into this line of work. “Oh gee, are they any better that drone pilots?” “What kind of person becomes a drone operator?” “What would make someone want to be a sniper?” Good God I get annoyed.
I condemn the sin, not the sinner. You do the opposite, so we’re square, right? Other readers can decide for themselves whether it’s morally right or wrong, but it’s hardly a non issue. As for the 98%, it was a flight of rhetoric calling for a retort. Got one?
For one — and I stress, ONE — answer to this question, see the film “Enemy at the Gates.”
Also, as Mr. Skull mentions, the character development in this movie, as in most of Eastwood’s films, is complex and fairly subtle. It’s a good turn by Bradley Cooper, especially compared to his other recent roles. Mr. Dorn does Clint a dis-service by assuming from just this article that he’d walk out of the movie.
Reducing morality to one movie reference after another is Hollywood, not Holywood. Clint’s politics are fair game, but I’ll leave his movies to the critics. BTW, I would be curious to know if a sniper has ever been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. A single one?
I don’t know how many but here’s one.
Here’s another link
Small thing, Mr. Skull, but this soldier was an automatic weapons gunner. Others in the team were snipers.
“Element snipers thwarted the enemy’s initial attempt by eliminating two insurgents. … As enemy activity increased, Petty Officer Monsoor took position with his machine gun…”
Fair enough.
Goatskull, thx for taking the time & trouble. I stand humbled by their heroism. I think the bad rap started centuries ago with history’s best known sniper. We all know how unprincely Paris of Troy shot an arrow into Heroic Achilles’ heel. Homer gave us the greatest hero in literature, along with an indelible attitude towards snipers.
No worries. I think we need to remember that snipers are just like any other service member. And unlike what a lot of people think, IT IS a dangerous job. Also from other articles I’ve read, its not a job for wide eyed macho blowhards. Chris Kyle being the exception. Even with that, how he was after leaving the service and how he was when he actually was a sniper may be very different.
“I’d walk out of a movie if prowess with weaponry was the main attraction in the movie.” I’m quoting myself, M-L., and it’s not what you think you read.
The main point of the movie was to put a human side to an individal who made a living doing something most people woild look down on. It was not intended to be a “shoot em up” movie for its own sake.
You’re quoting your second statement; I only saw your first statement which didn’t contain the qualification. Perhaps think before you post to have fewer misunderstandings that hafta be explained later. Just a thought.
And if you still think Eastwood just celebrates gunslinging, you haven’t seen anything he’s made since “Unforgiven.” Even in his earlier days, he made films with ambiguity; lately they’ve only become more so.
You guys are wasting your time.
Mr. Dorn, YOU opened this discussion. It’s about a movie. We’re discussing movies. How is that a waste of time? Whose time? Yours? Then don’t. Waste it, that is :-)
I figure there’s always that chance you might learn something from others, and relax your revolutionary self, M-L
I always learn new things. And if I were any more relaxed I’d melt.
Thx anyway ;-))
Well one thing’s interesting. The Navy is trying to change it’s image into a more badass reputation to attract recruits. I’m not sure how I feel about this but I guess we’ll see what happens. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jan/25/Navy-commercial-pinmap-theshield-recruiting/
Thanks for the link; bad-ass does seem to be in the air, all around us.
What the recruiting add won’t tell potential bad asses is that the overwhelming majority of rates in the Navy are behind the scenes in support roles and are no more bad ass than looking at a computer screen to keep inventory of supplies or cooking eggs to order.
USN always did more than we knew. My Dad’s weekly letters from sea to my Mom were a warehouse of knowledge on multiple every day tasks, as well, it seemed, an endless obituary of pilots lost at sea, sailors blown overboard, deckhands sucked into jet engines, fatal equipment encounters of every sort, & it just went on & on.
There’s always danger. There were some fatal accidents in my time also. I wasn’t implying the jobs are not important. Just that this add isn’t what most sailors will be. Hell, I was a PN. Still doing ths same job now as a DoD employee.