Patriot, Unrelenting: Thoughts on American Sniper

Last year, American Sniper did what no other movie about the Iraq war managed to do: it made money. With mostly positive reviews (72% on Metacritic) and enormous box office success ($350+ million in the US alone), the film was nevertheless a lightning rod of controversy. Some decried the story as hero worship, lauding Chris Kyle to near-messiah status; some felt the tone too jingoistic for such a complex situation. (There were other, more extreme opinions, but I'd rather spend time on the points that have at least some degree of merit.)

No matter the criticism - or perhaps even in spite of it - American Sniper became a rallying cry for conservative America. Pundits pointed to the film's financial success and lack of award status (ie, one minor-category Oscar with three major-category shutouts) as some sort of proof of Hollywood's "liberal agenda," or at the very least of being out of touch with the average moviegoer. (Um, duh - they're even out of touch with the artsy movie-goers.) For some reason, it became unacceptable to a huge number of people that a successful, popular, well-reviewed movie not be anointed "the best," even though box office darlings rarely take home Best Picture (or any Oscars, for that matter).

I did not see the movie when it came out. I had interest - I thought the trailer was strong - and I love a good film controversy, but there simply was not enough time/money/resources to see something that seemed most surely to be overrated, when there were so many other worthy films on my "to-watch" list.

So I waited until disc, and now I've finally seen it. And for what it's worth - now that the waters have calmed a bit from last winter - here's what I thought...


American Sniper (dir. Clint Eastwood) - 2/5

Chris Kyle was a super-soldier. With over 160 confirmed kills, two Silver Stars, five Bronze Stars, and numerous other medals and distinctions, he was an ideal product of the US military. He was efficient, deadly, dedicated, and (with four tours of duty) unrelenting.

One of the big problems in reviewing any biopic, especially of such a lauded figure, is separating the film from the figure. Biopics try to "peel back the curtain" and show us what the subject was actually like. Some succeed, most (in my opinion) do not and simply become checklists of major accomplishments and setbacks. To its credit, American Sniper avoids the typical biopic pitfall: aside from the occasional caption which denotes which tour he is currently on, there is almost no mention of his prowess as a soldier. I cannot recall a moment when the number of honors and distinctions is mentioned, even at the closing credits, when most movies love to extoll the accomplishments of the subjects which had not been covered in the bodies of the films themselves.

The failing of American Sniper, though, is that while it does not fall into hero-worship (though a case could be made for the closing montage), it unfortunately does not reveal much about Kyle as a human being either. Much of the film is simply a collection of Kyle doing various things: here he is in the rodeo, here he is in combat, here he is at home. This can be a winning tactic in the right kind of movie, but American Sniper is not abstract enough to pull off this kind of technique. The movie lacks a narrative drive - there's nothing connecting these scenes other than the fact that Kyle is in each and every one of them.

The film portrays Kyle as an almost idealistic conservative force. His dedication to his principles is unrelenting, such that any sort of cynical and/or dissenting view is met with profound disbelief, or even threats of violence. This single-minded focus serves him well in his military career, but essentially wrecks every other aspect of his life, though he never admits it and the film barely acknowledges it. Bradley Cooper does an excellent job typifying this behavior, and his eyes show the internal struggle he must be going through... but at the same time, this struggle is only shown in Cooper's gestures and facial expressions. Aside from a recurring, opposing sniper trying to cash in a bounty, Kyle faces virtually zero opposition from anyone else in the film. His wife offers some occasional limp protest or incredulity early on, but is largely reduced to a one-dimensional cluster of doe-eyed support. Even when it's revealed late in the film that Kyle has been out of duty for an unspecified amount of time and has not returned home - has not, indeed, even told his wife he was going to be home, what is her response? I think most wives would be pretty angry, offended, and hurt. This was a man who (at least in the film) was basically an absentee father of two and an essentially uncommunicative husband, and yet she simply tearfully wishes he come home. She never raises her voice, never gets angry, never really addresses the deeper issue - that Kyle clearly feels more at home in a war zone than with his family - and that is the end of the scene. I have to say that it plays pretty well, I just found it hard to believe that's how any real, flesh-and-blood woman would react.

This was my other major issue with American Sniper: I never really "bought" any of it. Did it seem based on true events? Yes. Was it a faithful adaptation of Kyle's life and autobiography? Probably. But it just never quite worked. Clint Eastwood's spare, economic direction vacillates with elements of realism, stylism, formalism, and hyper-realism, but never quite finds the appropriate balance, nor does it commit to any one style wholeheartedly. The battle scenes are somewhat convincing, except when they're not - there's an effective, sadistic standoff involving locals, terrorists, and a powerdrill done in a hyper-realistic style, but then there are stylistic flourishes of unconvincing slow-motion bullets and poorly rendered, video game-quality CGI that only pull you out of the experience. I can understand filming certain scenes in a certain style and other scenes in other styles, but the lack of any unifying vision or tone simply highlights Eastwood's mishandling and misdirection of the material.

There are things to like about the movie, however. Bradley Cooper nails the performance as a fierce, terse Chris Kyle, bringing nuance and shading beyond what is present on the page, or even in the rest of the film for that matter. In a Best Actor field that was cluttered with biographical portrayals, Cooper's version of Chris Kyle was the only performance that went beyond mere imitation and provided a glimpse (frustratingly, only a glimpse) into what it was that defined and drove the man. (As a sidenote: Keaton's fearless, soul-baring performance in Birdman was the best of all the nominees, but Cooper's was a more heartfelt and, ultimately, "real" performance than Redmayne's.) The cinematography, while spare and unimaginative, is nevertheless effective. What sinks American Sniper is, in my opinion, the failure to focus on Chris Kyle's mentality and humanity, instead focusing on his actions; and a severe lack of vision and direction of the material by Eastwood.

There's the potential for a good movie here, even a great one, but the only one who rose to the occasion was Bradley Cooper.

Nothing is Secret

Nothing is Secret: Or, Why You Won't See Many Pictures of My Family Online

It's been some time, dear friends... Other than an obligatory "best of," it's been over a year since last we spoke! So I hope you'll forgive me if my prose is a bit rusty and, well, prosaic...

In the interim, a number of big doings:

(1) I graduated PA school. Proud owner of a shiny, new Master of Science in Physician Assistant Practice.

(2) I passed the Physician Assistant National Certification Exam (PANCE). Quite a relief. My scores didn't earn me any bragging rights, but frankly - I passed, and that's all that matters.

(3) Still searching for a place to call home, so to speak... I'm being considered for a few positions: one in the Chicago area and one in the Seattle area. Major pros and cons to each area, and to each position; the wife and I have some big decisions to make in the near-future.

(4) Biggest news of all... WE HAD A BABY. It's been a while, actually, but I've been so wrapped up in school and other issues that it didn't seem important to blog about it.


That actually brings me to the topic of this entry: privacy.

Obviously, this is a blog, so there's a certain lack of privacy that simply goes with the territory, but it's important to me to keep things kosher at home as well as online.

We hear all the time about how millennials and the younger generations are increasingly interconnected on the Web and yet personally disconnected from the flesh-and-blood creatures around them. My wife and I are deliberately trying to buck this trend.

That's not to say we don't have an online presence - such thinking is simply unrealistic this day and age, unless your Luddite fear and paranoia have sent you to the hills to live in a shack as a hermit. There are facebook accounts, twitter accounts, intagram, this very blog, etc etc ad nauseum. But if you know us at all, you'll see a few common traits among all those entities: the vast majority of entries reveal very little about our personal lives. You'll get opinions, thoughts, quips, (occasional) complaints, and comments, but very little about friends, family, and even each other. And I don't want to speak for her, but for me that's by design.

I love to write. I love to share my thoughts and opinions on myriad topics. But I don't kid myself: over the Internet is no way to know a person. So even if I were to go back to the glory days of this blog and post an entry every day, or even multiple entries a day, you'll get few details about my life. Or my wife's. Or - especially - our child's. All this (sometimes) to the chagrin of extended family, who sometimes (lovingly?) request, in none-too-subtle tones, that we post more pictures online so they can watch the child grow up. Sorry, but no thank you!

It's great to share photos with friends and family. But the idea of sharing photos with an entire online community - for potentially hundreds, thousands, or even millions to see - doesn't work for us.

We keep to ourselves. Except for when we don't. If you do see a baby picture online, enjoy it - they're few and far between. And that's because we'd rather live our lives and enjoy them in reality, not gather more "hits" or "views" (or whatever) online.

Thanks for respecting that. And, of course, for reading!

Best of / the New Year

As per the last couple years, I'm going to give a quick rundown of my favorite movies, books, and general finds from the past year... A little different from the last couple years: I'm trying to keep things brief. Fewer "honorable mentions" or "runners-up," shorter explanations/justifications - let's stick with the best, and then go from there.

BEST BOOK - House of Leaves (Mark Z Danielewski)
At the start of the year, my literary goal was to give Stephen King a chance and venture through his Dark Tower series... I'm about a hundred pages from completing that goal; and while it's been fun, there were a few detours along the way. I started writing a short story, and the further along I went, the more bizarre and experimental it became... To keep up my inspiration, I sought out experimental literature. Enter House of Leaves.

Let me say up front: House of Leaves is not an easy book to read. Never mind the main storyline (which is fairly straightforward), or the footnotes/extracts/appendices so extensive they could be their own novel... I mean the book itself is hard to read. Danielewski puts you square in the minds of his characters, so much so that the text reflects their experiences. Best example: the titular "house" has a mysterious room which shouldn't be there - a room so vast and infinite a team of explorers and videographers get lost inside it... and it just may be haunted.

To convey the confusion, paranoia, and labyrinthine nature of the room, a whole section of the book is written as a maze. Think about that: you'll read a paragraph, which sends you to a paragraph a few pages ahead, which sends you to another paragraph a few pages back, which sends you to a paragraph on the same page but printed sideways... Or there's another page where a character falls and twists through the air, so the letters and words twist upside-down and rightside-up... This goes on for some time, and I'll admit it can be infuriating, but the payoff is so rewarding. You become invested in the story, and it's really a beautifully devastating book. It's trickery in the name of artistry, and by the end your heart will be cracked.

The whole book isn't like this, but this is the most extreme example

Stephen King is the winner this year for quantity, but his Dark Tower can't compete with House of Leaves - it's one of the best books I've ever read.



BEST TV SHOW - Breaking Bad (specifically, "Ozymandias")
I pretty much got on board with Breaking Bad during the third season; and I've loved everything ever since. They ratcheted things into overdrive, though, with "Ozymandias" - which is probably the single greatest episode of television I've ever seen. Fast-paced, dramatic, shocking, well written, well acted, well directed, subtle, exciting... any positive description you can think of, just apply it to this episode and it still won't be enough. The first time I've actually rewatched an episode just for the joy of it.

BEST MOVIE (DISC) - Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger)
A "classic" I'd never seen, Anatomy of a Murder deserves its status as one of the great courtroom thrillers. A very smart, frank film about sex, rape, murder, and the justifications and excuses for all of those things - it's also got great music and cinematography to go along with it. We loved it!



BEST BAND - Lamb of God
I've gotten more and more into metal music as I've gotten older (while simultaneously refining a long-standing love of jazz and Chick Corea), and this year I started to really love Lamb of God.

Normally, this would be too heavy and intense, but I don't know... something about it has been sticking with me. A lot of it goes back to my love of drumming - and the percussion of Lamb of God is pretty obvious, even without musical training. Not just the work of double-bass virtuoso Chris Adler, but the music itself. The bass, the guitars, even the growling screams of Randy Blythe - all of it in the service of hitting you hard and leaving you breathless. They're not writing songs, these are sonic assaults. I love it.

BEST MOVIE (THEATRICAL) - Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)
For a long time, it seemed nothing would beat Rob Zombie's masterpiece, The Lords of Salem; I saw that in April 2013, and it took a DVD rental in January 2014 to finally knock it from the top spot.

Carruth's shoestring epic Upstream Color had me from the first moment, and it is without question my favorite film of the year. It's a bit like mixing David Lynch with Terrence Malick - that bizarre dream logic carried by soft, lyrical storytelling... it's more a tone poem than a movie, but that's what makes it so captivating. I suppose you could relay the story and try to pin down the narrative (an exercise in futility, if ever there was one), but why bother? It's a film about ideas, emotions, thoughts, gods, demons, life, death, birth, rebirth. If you like great cinematography and visual storytelling, it's a must-see. If you like ham-fisted writing with lengthy diversions and plot-point discussions, it's not the film for you.

This was actually a really good year for movies. The last two years, I could only come up with three movies I felt strongly about... this year I have nine strong recommendations, and a couple others I thought were really good. Below you'll find a list of challenging, interesting, sometimes outright strange movies that break with the norm... and what's really nice? Finally - some VISUAL storytellers! Some are obvious, but you could turn off the sound for most of these and still know exactly what's going on.

(1) Upstream Color
(2) The Lords of Salem
(3) The Act of Killing
(4) Blue Jasmine
(5) Before Midnight
(6) Inside Llewyn Davis
(7) Gravity
(8) Her
(9) Spring Breakers
...other fun ones: American Hustle, The Evil Dead (remake), Mud, About Time, and Warm Bodies.

Latest Obsession: Krav Maga

Faithful readers may recall a similar story about this time last year, when I was just starting Wing Tsun... My apologies - this entry is going to be a little redundant.

My latest phase now is Krav Maga. A few reasons: (1) Wing Tsun was simply too difficult to maintain. I started it last summer, but in the fall I was still taking night classes and working two jobs. My two-day-a-week habit dropped to one, and then maybe once a month, and then about November nothing at all. (2) While I really enjoyed getting back into martial arts, and especially the formality/technique of Wing Tsun, it was not practical by any stretch. Not that I'm looking for a fight or anything, but if anything ever does happen, I want something reliable I can count on. (3) Cost. The Wing Tsun program meets three times a week, Krav Maga offers something every day. This gives much more flexibility, and with the "student special," I wound up paying a fraction of what I would have paid to stick with the more rigid Wing Tsun schedule. Cost isn't exactly the best thing to base martial arts enrollment on, but it's definitely a factor - most schools charge between $100-$200/month, depending on how big it is. Krav Maga is costing me less than $50/month. Perfect! The stars are aligned!

But that's all background - why Krav Maga in the first place?

Krav Maga caught my attention, as it does for most people, with its utter ferocity. It doesn't have the most aesthetic look, but if you want a fighting system that can get you home safely and realistically put someone down in a hurry, it's hard to think of anything better. Krav Maga doesn't have a rich, lush history behind it, and the system is less an "art" than a hodgepodge of effective methods and techniques - a pet criticism of more traditional schools - but the results are proven. And after just a few months, I think it will be hard to go back to anything else.

The whole reason for doing any sort of martial art (at least for me) is to promote practical fitness. I can jog a couple miles, or go lift at a gym, but self-defense adds a whole new dimension... It's not just about how strong and fast you are, but how strong and fast you can be in a dangerous situation; it's just as much about strategy and willpower as it is about technique.

And it's the most intense workout I've ever had! Most days, left to my own homegrown workouts, I break a healthy sweat, but I come home from Krav Maga drenched and parched.

A typical class is effectively split into two parts: about a half-hour on drills and aerobics (lots of burpees, sit-ups, and push-ups, offset with various "combatives" - punches, knees, elbows), followed by a half-hour of actual techniques (disarming, specific defenses, etc). The whole philosophy is to break you down so you can keep fighting even while exhausted. And it works. After a couple months, I can survive the classes better, but I also maintain better stamina outside, like during a jog or normal workout routine.

It's been a lot of fun. I'm actually a little bummed that I won't be able to do it (doubtful anyway, considering the school schedule) next year.

That's about it. Forgive my propagandist ranting. As penance, another video!

Isn't this guy just ridiculous?

Look, Up in the Sky! It's... it's... Mediocrity!

Man of Steel - 1.5/5
(dir. Zack Snyder)

If this were a comic book world, there would be an alternate timeline in which the original Superman movies (ie, the Christopher Reeve ones) had never existed. I'm sure director Zack Snyder would prefer that - that way viewers didn't have anything to compare his "epic" slugfest to.

But we do, and this latest installment of the superhero "reboot" is a failure.

Snyder is known for his stylistic flourishes, to say the least... Left to his own devices, his movies invariably boil down to strutting machismo and "tough" yet over-sexualized femme fatales. He's obsessed with special effects and extreme slow-motion. He wants things to look cool - everything else is secondary... Not exactly my kind of director. But still, I have to admit: I enjoyed his Dawn of the Dead remake quite a bit, and I guess if anybody was going to make Superman cinematically relevant in this new "grim" era, he's as good a choice as any.

Therein is a piece of the problem... how do we make Superman cinematically relevant? Watch the original Superman series, and while they may have been ahead of their time and are arguably some of the best superhero movies ever made, they seem quaint and even hokey by today's standards. Everything now is so much bigger and faster, but most of all brooding. Superman has never been about brooding; he's the ideal moral agent - doing right for the sake of right, protecting those in need, helping those in harm... If it seems naive or quaint, those are traits inherent to the character.

And that, really, is the problem - Snyder is fighting a losing battle. He's all about darkness and brooding and atmosphere: the sun scarcely shines in Zack Snyder's world.

So, even before the movie begins, we're kind of set up for trouble. We've got a horrible mismatch of director and material, an outdated superhero, and the legacy of a once-great film series (albeit one that peaked with Superman II in 1980) that's fallen on hard times.

All that aside, I wanted to like this movie. I love the first two films, and I was genuinely excited for this latest installment. I was admittedly nervous about Snyder as director, and a little more nervous when the trailers seemed to imply that Man of Steel was essentially Superman: The Movie and Superman II rolled into one (with updated effects and a darker tone, naturally)... but I remained undaunted.

And then I saw the movie... and I was let down...

There's very little Man of Steel does right. It does essentially "retell" and combine the stories of Superman: The Movie and Superman II (without Lex Luthor), but fails to capture the fun, innocence, and excitement of the hero. Even with its outdated effects, I'd sooner rewatch both the earlier films than suffer through this one again.

Let's divide the movie into its constituent movies... First, the Superman: The Movie material - ie, the "origin story." This is handled pretty well, I have to say. We get a good sense of Superman's isolation and alienation, his struggle to find his identity and maintain a sense of moral goodness when it would be so easy to hurt anyone who would cross him... and I liked his "lost" years - ie, the time spent "wandering the desert" to come to terms with himself and his place in the world. This is all pretty good. I especially liked Kevin Costner's turn as Jonathan Kent. Costner has become a bit of a punchline after the debacle of Waterworld, but he brings a sincerity and believability sorely lacking from the rest of the movie. You've got to give credit where credit's due.

Quite a bit more time in this film is spent on Krypton than in the previous installments, which is kind of interesting... but nothing interesting happens there. Jor-el chides leadership for ignoring his research, Zod is a power-hungry madman, there are even a few ridiculous action scenes with some sort of-dinosaurs. I don't know. I guess I appreciate the attempt - trying to flesh out Krypton - but for all the money and effects and ugly photography, it just never held my interest. The costumes reminded me of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

The Superman II material (ie, the "identity/Zod" portion) is where the film takes a turn for the worst. Specifically, when Lois Lane shows up. Previously portrayed by Margot Kidder (in performances that bordered on grating, admittedly), here she has been completely stripped of any sort of femininity in favor of making her "tough" and "believable." She's a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist - she'll do things her way! She's not intimidated by the military! She acts more like a tabloid journalist on the level of Gale Weathers (ie, the Scream series) than any sort of serious reporter. We're supposed to take these things at face value - because any attempt to make her seem like a real journalist just doesn't work, and she quickly falls into the role of "damsel in distress," constantly being rescued.

So anyway, as she must, Lois slowly discovers Clark Kent's true identity, and they sort of fall in love... I say "sort of" because although their courtship was quite extensive in the earlier films, this time they just seem to like each other instantly. That's pretty much the extent of Lois Lane's involvement in the film. She discovers Kent's identity, and then spends the rest of the time standing around admiring him or being saved by him.

The second half of the film is essentially one long action scene, which sounds promising at first glance, but there's very little we get to actually see. Zod and his cronies descend on Earth, demanding Superman turn himself over lest the whole planet face annihilation. Despite his reservations, Superman does indeed give himself up - and indeed, it turns out Zod can't be trusted. Then the fighting starts... and it never really stops until the end.

This is the film's other fatal flaw. The action scenes are nearly incomprehensible and - worse than that - they're boring. There's very little choreography/photography to speak of, most everything accomplished with special effects and an overbearing sound mix. Example: Superman takes on two fellow Kryptonians in the non-descript streets of an empty town (I forget their names - they're taking place of Ursa and Non of Superman II), and it's almost unwatchable. First, the military rains down bullets, missiles, tanks, etc etc, all apparently without noticing that these creatures are essentially indestructible. Then Superman flies in to "save the day," and the scene is reduced to a constant flurry of punches, kicks, and "woosh" sounds until they've all had enough and go back to their respective bases.

This would have been fine, I guess, but only in the hands of a more competent action director. I know the "style" now is for action scenes to have lots and lots of cuts and sounds and flashes of action, but imagine how much more satisfying it would have been to actually see the fight and the choreography. I would have even preferred the slow-fast-slow CG-nonsense of Snyder's own 300 (a movie I hated) because it would have been vastly more interesting. As it stands now, the action of Man of Steel is mostly reduced to sound effects and flashes of movement (usually a body flying through some sort of building or rubble) in place of intelligible action.

(As Orson Welles once said: "A long-playing full shot separates the men from the boys." That in mind, if you want to watch an amazing action movie from the last couple years, see Takashi Miike's 13 Assassins. The second half of that movie, likewise, is essentially one long action sequence, but is so much more satisfying because you can actually tell what's happening.)

Such action continues ad nauseum, with countless hundreds (thousands?) of nameless/faceless extras being killed in the wake, until finally Superman and Zod square off. This is a cut above the other action sequences - perhaps because of Zod's indomitable spirit, perhaps because Michael Shannon is such a better actor than the others... For whatever reason, it was actually fairly interesting to watch, and I really commend Snyder and his writing team for the way the sequence ends... Don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but Superman has to make some pretty tough decisions here at the end, and I respect the way they forced this all-good character to again face the conundrum of choosing good or evil. (Though I will say, the sequence borrows heavily from a similar showdown in The Matrix: Revolutions, which again is more thrilling because of how much more you can physically see, but that's neither here nor there.)

Couldn't find the regular scene - but still... just WATCH it!

So that's about it... This turned out much, much longer than I'd intended, but a few closing words about Superman himself... Actor Henry Cavill does a nice job with the role, but he (like Brandon Routh in Superman Returns) does almost nothing to distinguish Clark Kent from Superman besides put on a pair of glasses. Christopher Reeve looked the part (tall, clean cut, square chin), but more importantly he actually acted differently as Clark Kent. You could believe people would overlook him and never give two thoughts about him - he actually changed his body language, even his voice. Cavill looks the part of Superman - beefing up and getting toned - but is less believable as Clark Kent.

Hoping for something a little better later this summer.