Talking Point: American Sniper & That Slow Motion Bullet (Spoilers)
Natalie Stendall
Posted on January 22, 2015
In American Sniper’s final mission, US Navy SEAL sniper, Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), spots his target in the distance. The target is an Olympic shooter who’s been tracking Kyle for the bounty placed on his head. From his current position Kyle’s target is picking off US military one by one. Kyle faces a dilemma. There are two problems with the shot he needs to make: it’s a vast distance that he will likely miss; and the shot will give away his unit’s location. Kyle chooses to take the shot and hits his target.
American Sniper’s director, Clint Eastwood, chooses to depict the gunshot in slow motion, emphasising the time it takes for the bullet to reach the target, and the bullet’s moment of impact. But what’s the effect of depicting the shot in this way? And did Eastwood make the right choice?
“Does the slow motion bullet glorify killing?”
In my review, I cited the decision to use slow motion as one of the ways Eastwood glorifies killing in the film (note I don’t argue the entire film glamorises killing, instead suggesting the attitude to killing is confused throughout). On the surface, this holds true. We see the culmination of the film in this one last shot – one of the film’s longstanding and significant antagonists has been eliminated. It can be read as a resolution, as a ‘win’. As audiences have seen so many times in Hollywood before, slow motion is frequently used to make action look ‘cool’ (just watch any Michael Bay movie). By using slow motion here, Eastwood risks fusing the ‘cool’ – the thrilling, and the exciting – with the killing of enemies in war.
But could Eastwood’s decision also signify something else? Perhaps his slowing down of time is intended to reflect the nervous anticipation in those brief moments after pulling the trigger: the visual representation of the volume of thoughts and feelings Kyle processes so rapidly? In other words, does Eastwood use slow-motion to represent the reality of taking that shot? Even this seems unlikely. While slow motion gives audiences the space to think, it is visually at odds with realism and, more likely, reminiscent of fantasy.
A more probable explanation for Eastwood’s use of slow-motion is that this final sniper shot is also Kyle’s last sniper kill. We see him break down on the phone to his wife shortly afterwards, while enemy fire is raining hard upon the unit: ‘I’m ready to come home now,’ he says, ‘I’m ready to come home’. That final gunshot signifies something deeper in Kyle’s story. His military journey has come to an end and he realises it, for the first time, in that moment. With this in mind there’s little question why Eastwood wants to emphasise it.
Even so, the method of emphasis remains questionable and confused. Why did a director of Eastwood’s experience and proven calibre (Flags Of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima) reduce his technique to cliché? And a cliché that comes with so many connotations?
What do you think? What does the use of slow motion in American Sniper mean? And is it a mistake? Let me know in the comments…
Images: © 2014 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., WV Films IV LLC and Ratpac-Dune Entertainment LLC-U.S., Canada, Bahamas & Bermuda
Like what you read? Why not use these links to follow me on Facebook, Twitter, or Bloglovin?
Really interesting analysis of that moment. I thought that the slow motion was cliche but also reducing this moment into a purely action movie-esque win for the movie’s hero. People in my theaters cheered, which made it feel more like it was for entertainment value than contemplation. I couldn’t muster up any excitement because Kyle’s ignoring of orders for what felt like a more personal than tactical kill, which ended up in more soldiers being killed as a direct result of his action just felt wrong to me. I couldn’t celebrate the moment because it seemed like a bad, irresponsible, probably even selfish choice. Contrasting that with the slow-mo glorified presentation just rubbed me wrong.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jess. Interesting that people cheered at that moment. Aside from finding it an irritating cliche in a film that should have been so much better, it made me feel uncomfortable about the killing itself. I felt it blurred the complexity of war in favour of cheap action that devalues the film’s messages as a whole.
I’m very much in agreement with Jess’ comment. It did seem out of place, especially for a “serious” war film. I seem to recall this particular visual technique of following the bullet projectile to its target (in super slow-motion manner) came from the 1993 action film “Sniper”, with Tom Berenger and Billy Zane. Used throughout that film, though. The special effect drew the audience’s eye and was the “cool” affectation of the movie. One that’s been copied time and time again in various action-fare since. The Matrix’s “bullet-time” a later growth from it.
Eastwood’s use of something I’d expect from that genre odd. Not what I’d come to expect from this filmmaker. So, I’m inclined to believe it’s a button-pushing moment in his film (also signaled in the cliche dialogue used in the same sequence). Something to stir the audience — it certainly did in the screening I attended with the cheers heard. But it certainly has not been used in more serious war films. Even “Fury”, a flawed film but serious nonetheless, didn’t sink to something a little showy like this. Nor “Saving Private Ryan” years back.
Certainly, it’s one of the aspects I find most troubling with Eastwood’s film. And I’m a longtime fan of the actor and his that he directed. I don’t expect a history lesson in a biopic. He and screenwriter smoothed off Kyle’s rough edges to make his journey more heroic. I get that. I’m troubled that American Sniper plays more like a propaganda war film from the 40s, now souped with modern FX that stir, but don’t cause the viewer to think, which is sad.
You’re right, we don’t expect a dry history lesson but I also agree with you that the approach taken by Eastwood here is troubling too. There are plenty of moments when I felt I needed the space to reflect on the film’s messages but this space wasn’t built into the movie, instead I felt it rushed passed the bigger issues in favour of entertainment. A missed opportunity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one – I haven’t seen Sniper but it sounds like it might be worth a look to put some of these techniques in context.
The final ‘kill’ and the subsequent breakdown by Kyle was made much harder to swallow when I found out that the Iraqi sniper was never in the source material; he was a fictional enemy… the “final boss” of Kyle’s Call of Duty story that he had to beat.
So with knowledge of that, the prolonged slow-mo shot proved to be just a cliched action movie device to rouse the audience into a cheer.
Thanks for sharing that information Mark – I wasn’t aware it was a fictional segment and character. That certainly adds weight to the glorification argument in my view.
I didn’t know this either. Yet another deviance from the actual book, written by a true psychopath. The film really is borderline-propaganda
I was really uncomfortable with how this movie treated the whole subject, including Kyle.
It seems that quite a few people feel the same about this one Jay. I felt it was very confused in terms of its portrayal of killing and the action movie cliches are a large part of that. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
If Eastwood was following the book, then it was most certainly used to glorify the act.
Chris Kyle was a rampant rascist who bragged about his kill total. He saw Iraqis as sub-human. The movie most definetely does not show his ‘shoot first’ attitude.
I am very surprised Eastwood chose such a character to focus on. Wait, I do know why: Killing baddies makes you a legend in the US. This movie is almost the easiest way to farm US pockets with ease. If this was a fictional movie then it would be a totally different ball-game.
But Chris Kyle was a psychopath. This movie simply mangles the truth into an easily digestible action movie for the masses.
Hi Jordan. Not being well versed in Kyle’s life and his book, I feel unable to comment on the real Chris Kyle here. It is a shame though that this film seems to fit easily into the conventional action movie category. I felt there were moments when Eastwood could have changed direction and really delved into the psychology of the sniper role. There are better movies out there on post traumatic stress too – for me it felt like Eastwood was trying to do too much and, in the end, this caused him to actually say very little in American Sniper. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You’re spot on. Especially about diving into the psychology of a sniper – that is what I was hoping for. But… yeah, it doesn’t really say much at all
Interesting review. One thing is for certain, as noted in other comments, the “Olympic shooter from Syria” element was completely fiction. I researched all of the Syria Olympic Team members from 1980s to early 2000s, and though there was only one rifle shooter for their team, he placed last in Sydney 2000 Olympics but he was too old to go to war after that. More details here: http://bit.ly/17Y6AiI
Thanks for sharing this information Nicholas. It’s interesting that they chose to create a fictional bad guy here, it makes American Sniper feel like a more conventional action movie instead of a more original, contemplative one.