This past month an extremely controversial movie came out, and while before that “the Interview” held the crown of controversy, it was quickly stolen by “American Sniper.” People have many different opinions on this film, and the man that it’s focused around. Some praise him as a hero while others condemn him as a murderer, and it’s this head to head conflict that’s created so much important discussion. I find myself divided when it comes to my opinion, because I think that this movie is really important for the ideas that it’s promoted, but I also think it did a reasonable job of expressing Chris Kyle’s character, and bringing his issues to the world stage.

Most notable is the way that Clint Eastwood chose to show PTSD. I’ve seen a lot of war movies, and so rarely do any of them take the time to show the psychological effects that combat can have on a person. You name it, “Saving Private Ryan,” “Full Metal Jacket,” etc., none of them show exactly what can happen to a person’s brain as a result of the things they do and see. In American Sniper we see Chris Kyle on both sides of war, the side where he fights an enemy he can see, and the side where he fights the faceless enemy that has killed more veterans than actual combat in the past 10 years. There are several scenes in the film that focus not on who Chris Kyle was, but the demons he fought, and that are still being fought by countless veterans. A scene shows Kyle staring at a blank TV, but hearing constant sounds of gunfire and screams, and a later one shows how certain sounds, mainly a drill, can instantly take him mentally back to his time in Iraq. This idea is so essentially important to show because many people are unaware of what it can actually be like to have PTSD, and it’s become so relevant in society because of how many lives it effects.

Now for the issues I have with American Sniper. The biggest problem with the movie is that it’s based off the autobiography of a man who did a lot of very secret things and who is, unfortunately, not around to tell us about any of them. I haven’t personally read his autobiography, but I’ve done my research and there are two things I want to highlight. First, Kyle claims to have shot thirty looters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Just to clarify, he said that he went to New Orleans, set up on a roof, and proceeded to murder thirty people with government approval, which is nuts. None of that information has any substance, because if thirty people turned up with precision gunshot wounds it would not go unnoticed. Second, Kyle claims that he shot two potential car-jackers in 2009, but was never arrested or even questioned about the incident. Kyle maintains that the officers who detained him were somehow alerted about who he was and let him go free of charge, but again, not one person has been able to confirm this, despite the presence of security cameras at the gas station where the shooting allegedly took place.

That leads to the obvious question of whether or not Kyle was a good person, which is tricky. Can anyone kill that many people and walk away innocent? No matter how justifiable or not an action may be, killing during war is still killing. So in that regard, no I don’t think he’s a good person. I think war really changed him deep down inside and made him into something darker. But he also did a lot of things to defend his brothers and sisters in arms. While killing is hard to justify, he faced a lot of situations where every single solution was a bad one, and he chose the answers that would get as many Americans out alive as possible. Did he hate the people he was fighting? Yes, but that’s not so different from soldiers from any American war. Hatred is used to justify things we are unsure of, and Kyle was no exception. In order to stay sane I believe he had to hate the enemy he fought, and that’s what changed him so deeply.

In terms of his humbleness for his actions, who knows? It’s always been my opinion that true heroes don’t seek recognition, but these days hundreds of combat biographies are coming out, especially among Navy SEALS. In practice Kyle chose to reach out and help other veterans, something that receives little recognition by critics of his character. He died trying to help people facing the same issues as him, and thus ultimately gave his life not for his country, but for the cause of fighting PTSD. He never asked for public recognition, and retired from the Navy fairly quietly, in order to spend more time with his family.

I think those actions speak loads to his character, and in the end drive one key point home: that heroes may have flaws that run deep. Was Kyle a racist? I think undoubtedly so. Was he a murderer? I think so. Was he a hero? I also think so. It’s this dilemma that causes so many charged feelings in the debate over American Sniper, because we are rarely confronted with a hero who isn’t a perfect postage stamp American icon.

In the end, what all this really means is that American Sniper is an important movie, blazing trails for depictions of veteran PTSD not seen anywhere else in film, and even if the source material is questionable, the actual movie makes efforts to portray Kyle the way he was, issues and all. The discussion of whether or not Chris Kyle was a good person or not is a separate entity from whether or not ‘American Sniper’ is a good movie; good or bad his character effectively demonstrated the horror of PTSD and war in general, and should be praised for promoting a huge issue in our community that for the most part goes unnoticed. I would also praise it for being the catalyst for all these debates on Islamaphobia and criticism of military action, because without this movie we would have none of this crucial thinking and questioning. Agree or disagree, American Sniper has left its mark on history.