And Dan Begins:
Ben, I offer up to you The Hurt Locker with minimal comment, other than to note that it's pretty effective as an exercise in suspense, like that terrorist flick Night Day Night Day, but like most American films tries to have it both way (every way, really) with its politics, which are unclear at best. So, it is worth viewing if you want to check out the Hitchcockian skill set, but be prepared to critique its muddy headed politics. Also be prepared for a set of celebrity cameos, which, much like those in Thin Red Line, distract us from the piece's attempt at verisimilitude.
Ben:
Watched The Hurt Locker. What you say is on the money. I respect the film for its muscular depiction of nerve-wracking tension. There is very little manipulative audio, lots of disorienting camera work and an unrelenting threat. Beyond this technical achievement, there is a portayal of a person who has gone over to what can only be psychologically categorized as a danger fetish.
What is challenging about this is that it does not play out in the character as the cliche "adrenaline junkie." Contrary to both the quotation intertitled at the outset of the film and the accusation of his comrade whom he accidentally shoots, the protagonist is not a thrill seeker, a death cheater, one of those risk takers who take risks for the erotic rush. As the best exchange of dialogue in the film explicitly addresses, the motivation of the man is a mystery. Yet, he is hardly some sort of two-dimensional, professional explosive dismantling machine. He displays deep compassion in a number of ways as well as irrational impulses. So, he is complex and the ambiguity of what makes him tick is not easily dismissed.
The Hurt Locker is not even a war movie, the gun battle scenes and military semiotics notwithstanding. It's about a bomb squad and the war setting is simply an ongoing situation for the squad to do its nail-bitting thing. I exaggerate but only slightly. The interpersonal dynamics within the three members of the squad do enter into their differences as individuals, but not as soldiers; i.e., as representations of different conceptions of military duty. The fundamental absence of the enemy's subjectivity in the film- already criticized on ideological grounds - further removes military duty from the interiority of the characters, rendering them yet another crew of swat team cops bogged down on the generically wrong side of town.
And Dan:
You hit the head of pretty much every nail I want to pound.
I liked this film and yet was disappointed by it. Much like the terrorist thriller Day Night Day Night, stylistically The Hurt Locker is damned fine, particularly as a textbook exercise in tension building. There's little doubt that Bigelow knows how to craft a riveting scene. And she follows in the footsteps of so many other directors who have set their films in contemporary "real life" war settings by employing a highly effective faux documentary style of filmmaking. The film's grittiness and attention to detail impressed. I really felt like I was there on the ground in Iraq.
And yet...I have to wonder, why set the film in Iraq when you could have achieved the same level of intensity by placing these characters in a decaying urban setting and giving them similar sorts of law enforcement type jobs? If you are going to use a controversial war like this, why not take advantage of the opportunity to stand up on your hind legs and say something about it? Would it have been too much to ask that the filmmakers use these soldier's jobs as bomb disposal experts as a metaphorical examination of the American presence in this land? I guess so, as instead of insight, critique or even (god forbid) patriotic clap trap, the filmmakers treat the war like a Hitchcockian McGuffin, important to get the action rolling, but ultimately insignificant. Much like the film itself, I'm afraid.
Then Ben:
As this is the second time you have compared The Hurt Locker to Day Night Day Night, I wish to agree with your main point about how they are similarly acontextual in an ultimately unacceptable way. But I also want to assert that the latter is a much more powerful film. DNDN is much more tightly focused, in every sense of the word. I'd have to go back and consult my review but I believe I categorized DNDN as a horror film. The technical manipulation if the audience is at an extremely high level and the experience is remarkably disturbing. THL is quite down-on-the-ground gripping but does not get under your skin like DNDN does.
And Dan:
No argument from me on that front. It's been over a year since I saw DYDN, and there are several scenes that spring immediately to mind when I think about it. It has been a few months since I saw THL, and it is already fading into mental obscurity.
For those who still care, here is the trailer.
53 comments:
You're kind of missing a lot of this movie it seems though I could be wrong. This film is trying to capture the different aspects of modern warfare from the POV of soldier.
Can't you do that while also saying something about the war? If you don't have anything to say about it, why set the story during the most controversial war of our time?
Do you really believe that this war is anymore controversial as Vietnam? You need to study your history.
Dude, where did I say it was more controversial than Vietnam? I said it was the most controversial war of our time, meaning of THIS generation. Like or not, Vietnam ended over a generation ago (generations being defined as abotu 20-25 years).
You may not have anything to say about the war and still set the movie there; precisely because you are trying to convey the real experience of a soldier, you use a controversial conflict to show how little this controversy matters when it comes to a human who knows he is two seconds away from death.
I'm amazed at how dogmatic the reviewers can be in their conviction that this movie - or any movie treating a subject of supposed controversy - must wear some sort of dogma on its sleeve. Ideological cop-out? I think the review is an aesthetic cop-out. The movie should be judged for what it does do and attempt to do, not what we think it ought to have done.
By those standards, Leni Riefenstahl is one of the great filmmakers of all time.
Dan and others want the story to make a comment on the politics of the war. What if they didnt agree with the comment, would they then critisize the movie for not agreeing with them. The point of the movie would be lost if politics were injected. Kudos to
Bigelow for not injecting the usual Hollywood liberal crap into her excellent movie.
The pity is that so many people are willing to view the liberation of a nation and it's people with distain. Bush derrangement syndrome is a deep illness.
You two are the textbook definition of pseudo intellectuals.
You were hoping for (expecting) more heavy-handed, in-your-face and, of course, left-leaning political commentary (that we see in so many movies these days - all the rage) and you got something completely apolitical. Boo hoo.
Thus we get moronic comments like:
"but like most American films tries to have it both way (every way, really) with its politics, which are unclear at best. So, it is worth viewing if you want to check out the Hitchcockian skill set, but be prepared to critique its muddy headed politics."
How dare they not bash big, bad America!
Compte de la fere: The film is "trying to convey the real experience of a soldier."
Ben Livant: "The interpersonal dynamics within the three members of the squad do enter into their differences as individuals, but not as soldiers; i.e., as representations of different conceptions of military duty."
AndreiP: "Ideological cop-out? I think the review is an aesthetic cop-out. The movie should be judged for what it does do and attempt [sic] to do."
Ben Livant: "And it's not only an ideological cop-out. It's just as much vapid story-telling because the context really should be made to explain something about the motivation of the character."
Anonymous: "The point of the movie would be lost if politics were injected. Kudos to Bigelow for not injecting [any]... you got something completely apolitical"
Ben Livant: "Of course, far from being apolitical, it is inherently political to present the experiential perspective of the occupiers and not the occupied. But even the experiential perspective of the occupier is without substance in The Hurt Locker."
cashman7323: "The pity is that so many people are willing to view the liberation of a nation and it's people with distain."
Ben Livant: The pity is that so many people are willing to view the occupation of a nation as if it was liberation, when in fact it's people are being subjected to terrible distain. And so are the American people. Especially those who are serving in Irag, who are dying there and whose loved ones are left to grieve.
Anonymous, since you object to the bashing of big, beautiful America, see a better film than The Hurt Locker; see The Messenger, a film for true patriots.
Then - Ben
In an attempt to downplay the movie you repeatedly say the war is not addressed in the movie, but it does so to more realistically tell the story. Sure soldiers have views on the war, but in reality their day-to-day survival and endurance are probably a lot more of their focus. It would be too preachy for the soldiers to come on a talk about their ideologies like they do on CNN or FOX news. These guys are just doing their job and trying to make it out alive. A+ movie.
Neil, I do not believe that either Ben or I is attempting to "downplay the movie" as you say. We are merely pointing out its flaws as we perceive them.
As for the rest of your critique, I am not looking for a bunch of windy dialogues on the nature of this or any other war. I agree that this would not be realistic. It would most likely be tedious cinema as well.
However, what I am looking for is an identifiable context for these soldier's actions. Their choices, their behaviour, the way they are affected by these things, should be at least partially driven by the context within which they find themselves. However, Bigelow expends very little time/energy establishing these issues, preferring to portray the Iraqi's partisans as cartoon enemies, and the heroic protagonist American soldier as a decontextualized thrill seeker.
Neil, I have already been compelled to quote from my original review and I'm not going to repeat myself yet again. The only new notion that occurs to me now is to offer a counter-example to The Hurt Locker. For reasons that are not relevant here, I am actually not a fan of the counter-example I have in mind. Nevertheless, in my view it does what The Hurt Locker does not do; namely, show individual soldiers as "representations of different conceptions of military duty." Damn! Had to quote myself yet again. But you see, I repeat this because as Dan too has stressed, nobody is insisting that the characters in The Hurt Locker give ideological speeches like the talking heads on CNN or FOX news. Anyway, the film I am thinking of is Oliver Stone's Platoon.
Then - Ben
I think this review is excellent. This movie is like watching a video game. The characters are not engaging. If I didn't have information from the media about the war, I would have no basis for understanding at all.
I live with a Vietnam vet with PTSD. He thinks the movie is monotonous. We just watched "We Were Soldiers" and both thought it was excellent in bringing out emotions of both the characters and the audience. It was far more realistic, tense and engaging.
We cannot view war through the void of not being there. It is our duty as citizens of the planet to understand the horrors of war -- not to view it as a video game in a distant land.
MontanaMuleGal, thank you so much for your insightful comments. I would invite you to share your thoughts at Rotten Tomatoes, where criticism of the film is being viewed as something akin to treason. Here's the link:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hurt_locker/comments.php?reviewid=1862244
Ah, what a refreshing review. Finally some people that understand that you can't call a film great just because it was very effective at building and maintaining tension. That that element was good - good enough to make it worth watching in my opinion - but seriously folks what was so great about that movie? No plot to speak of, a main character just slightly more interesting than Rambo, boring cliche super-soldier moments of action mixed in with boring cliche sensitive-soldier dialogue. I did like the sniper stand-off scene - an atypical portrayal of a more subtle aspect of war, but other than that...a scene like, "Hey, let's take turns punching each other in the gut!" should be enough to automatically disqualify a movie from Oscar contention.
I don't take the lack of an Iraqi perspective or the apparent pro-war slant quite as hard as the reviewers - for a lot of those guys over there all they have is their/the U.S. military's perspective (the average soldier ain't exactly known for his or her in-depth knowledge of history and geopolitics). This is very much their side of the story and it's as flawed as the movie's representation of it.
I'd give it a 3/5 - quite watchable but far from anything special.
I think the main point of this movie was missed: the reason there is no commentary in the movie about the politics is because to the soldier, it does not really matter. Sure they may not agree with it, but in the end they still have to fight. And that is more what it is about. I think that the main character has been changed by the war so much that whether the war is there or not, he is going to be disposing of bombs if its in the military, police, or just in Vietnam as a humanitarian work. Its a story about how he has changed and what affect the war the he has no choice at first to be in, has changed him.
He changes? How exactly?
Anyways, if you look closely at the comments here and at RT you'll see that we are not arguing that the soldiers should be debating the philosophical merits of the war. We are simply stating that the context that these soldiers find themselves in should be factord into the decisions/actions they take. This point is never grasped by Bigelow; hence, our complaint that the Iraqi setting is rendered unnecessary. She EXPLOITS the Iraqi setting, but she doesn't make use of it in any meaningful way.
i dont agree with these reviewers, this is a great movie. It's a unique and refreshing war movie that isn't about a war. It's not about left/right politics or generalizations or helping anyone understand why the US is at war or portraying foreigners correctly or projecting yet another batch of platitudes etc etc. These reviewers obviously wanted another movie more like We Were Soldiers or whatever.
I dont feel like going on so ill just say that before this movie i didnt really know or care what the phrase "war is a drug" ment. Needless to say i do now.
Anonymous, you say The Hurt Locker has taught you the meaning of the phrase, "war is a drug." MontanaMuleGal says that "the movie is like watching a video game," which means to me that The Hurt Locker is itself the drug. Sounds like you're hooked. No wonder, then, that you confuse military action virtually abstracted from the real world with violence as it actually happens in actual wars between actual people.
Meanwhile, even if we wish to say that war is a drug, what is a drug anyway? Is a drug of itself necessarily addictive, dangerous, bad? Of course not. It all depends, right? What does it depend on? The Hurt Locker stages itself as if this question does not need to be asked. It hides behind the protagonist being a guy who tries to stop bombs from exploding rather than being a guy who sets bombs to explode. Turns out your war junkie is addicted to peace, Anonymous, how humanitarian.
This is closeted ideology and jive drama to boot. Take it from a guy who should know. Just so happens he knew a thing or two about drugs too. This is from Romeo & Juliet, Act Two, Scene Three:
O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies
In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities:
For nought so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give,
Nor aught so good but strain’d from that fair use
Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse:
Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied;
And vice sometimes by action dignified.
Within the infant rind of this small flower
Poison hath residence and medicine power...
Then - Ben
I thought it was pretty evident he was changed by the war. He feels at home and fells normal on the battle field, then towards the end when he goes home, he finds normal functioning difficult, as shown by shopping scene.
This film may "exploit" the Iraqi setting because in not many other places are there bomb disposal technicians, and that is who the movie is about. Besides have you seen anything about the war in Iraq, particularly early on where the people there were killed like they were dolls, its sad but it is also the reality of the war. Its as close to the war in a fictional film that I imagine they could get.
Rather than continue to talk in circles around each other, I recommend everyone watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8
The Hurt Locker "exploits" the Iraqi war the same way Titanic "exploits" the real Titanic sinking, the same way Saving Private Ryan "exploits" WW2, the same way Toy Story "exploits" a child's bedroom. It's a setting, people, not an excuse to make some tired old political statement we've probably heard a hundred times and are sick to death of hearing about. i applaud the hurt locker for refraining from standing on a soapbox. too many writers and directors try to push their views (which no one cares about) through their movies.
It was not I who said that The Hurt Locker "exploits" anything, so I side-step the meaning of this to 75% agree with jkille's examples. Also on behalf of escapist entertainment that disrespects the actually lived experience of authentic human beings, Titanic and Saving Private Ryan abstract from historical reality just as much as The Hurt Locker abstracts from current reality. Toy Story, on the other hand, is a neat little fantasy. To suggest that there is no difference between an entirely fictitious and imaginative setting and one that is to some extent factual and representative of reality is both aesthetically confused and morally misguided.
You announce that you are sick to death of hearing tired old political statements in the movies, jkille, but you equate these with soapbox speech when often these statements are made not by what is said but rather by what is not said at all. What is taken for granted. What is simply given. What is not honestly and openly examined. What is hidden and ignorantly called just a setting, same as any other dramatic setting. As if the American military occupation in Iraq today was the same thing as Woody and Buzz wrestling in the bedroom.
Then - Ben
If you want to hear anti war themes and posturing - go watch CSpan.
I was amazed to watch an Iraq movie that tells it like it is - coward insurgents don't identify themselves in uniform and hide behind the burkhas of their women.
How's that for a message you libtard?
Anonymous, how's that for a message? It's excellent. Thank you for proving our point. The Hurt Locker is inherently a political film. It just isn't so overtly, when the subject matter demands that it should be. And contrary to your notion, open and honest political speech is not posturing, it's a necessary part of democracy.
You are hostile to anti-war themes and highly critical of those you call "insurgents." This is your political opinion. But you and The Hurt Locker both deny that it is a political opinion when you claim that the film just "tells it like it is." You accuse others of hiding behind burkahs while you hide behind the veil of words.
I suppose this is to be expected from a person who calls other people names - "libtard" is quite funny, by the way - yet you are too cowardly to reveal your own identity. Or did your mother name you "Anonymous," Anonymous?
Then - Ben
I think the Iraq War is a Sham, but still thought this was a great movie. It appears to me the main character is neither an adrenaline junkie nor a PSD sufferer who knows of no other way to interact in environments other than a warzone. He is born to be a warrior. Its who he is and he's living who he was born to be. His comrads hate him for it because his warrior aims put them at extra risk. In the end I was left appreciating his warrior-ship, but wishing the leadership that determines how we use our warriors were more wise and just.
Alex, I find your take on The Hurt Locker refreshingly original. While I do not find it persuasive and continue to adhere to my own take, I have to admit that the logic of your interpretation is unassailable as long as your main working assumption is simply accepted at face value. This is the assumption that an individual person is simply "born to be" fill-in-the-blank; in this case, "a warrior."
Unfortunately for your thesis, I cannot subscribe to this sort of argumentative premise. I don't believe that an individual is simply born to be a doctor, a lawyer or an Indian chief. Hey, never mind such sociological roles. I don't believe personal psychology itself is simply innate. Of course, this is complex stuff that science and philosophy attempt to understand - whoa nelly.
Suffice to say, then, that presenting a character as just naturally meant to be a warrior is automatically a presentation of war in general as just naturally meant to be. From here it's just one short ideological jump to justifying any particular war, including the current one you want instead to categorize as a sham.
Then - Ben
Nothing would be more boring than another movie pandering to the political fantasies and bigotries of the left.
As opposed to the bigotries and fantasies of the right, which have dominated war movies since The Birth of a Nation?
I'm a swing voter and a registered
Democrat. Having said that, Dan, I think you are an idiot. Now you can't automatically assume I'm saying this because I'm a Republican.
This movie is awesome and that is obviously the consensus amongst reviewers and I do notice from time to time while I frequent this site to get a good idea what movie I might want to see that there is allways one "rouge reviewer" who wants to write a negative reivew just to make himself stand out.
Your lack of real reasons to dislike the movie make it apparent this is the case with you. Now I can possibly see disliking a movie when the politics are the stark opposite of your own but even then I think a good reviewer be apolitical for a lot of reasons.
It's no secret the contentious politics of America and the effects it has on those who are in the extremes of either side of the aisle. They become so invested in their ideology they lose the ability to objectively view anything. They become so idiotically pridefull they stumble over minor details and miss the big picture.
I think the most asinine thing is you gave this a rotten tomato when pretty much everything about it was near perfect. I wish Raine would stop by and disarm your review.
You are an increiblly stupid kool-aid abusing douchebag. Imagine a Christian who dislikes an amazing movie that is an achievement in nearly every way conceivable simply because it would have been a perfect time to talk about Jesus. In a big way this is you.
This is why the left is losing the support of people like me...
Colin: I cannot speak for Dan and never try to. So just on behelf of myself, both here at Cinemania and at Rotten Tomatoes, I have tried to support my review of The Hurt Locker by encountering the opinions of others and reconsidering the film in the light of their understanding of it. For this, I have consistently been personally insulted by strangers who do not know the difference between intellectual debate and ad hominem abuse. What you miss entirely is that I participate in these kinds of discussions not because I want to change other people's minds but rather because I am open-minded and hope to better make up my own mind about things by listening to others. Well, as of Comment 34, I may not have made up my mind about The Hurt Locker, but I have certainly made up my mind about no longer listening to the likes of you, Colin. I leave the field to your soiling of it.
Then - Ben
What Ben said.
The recurrent degeneration of critics of these critics (Ben and I) to enter into nasty ad hominem attacks speaks to a terrible poverty of debate skills at their most fundamental level. Let's talk issues, and leave personal attacks at the door.
But more importantly the vitriol we have unleased with the review seems to me evidence that we have touched a nerve. And maybe that is a good thing, big picture-wise, as it may actually get people talking about the war in ways that this movie steadfastly refuses to do.
However, that said, I am now officially finished with this discussion. I have said all I can say about the film, have defended/explained my reasons for its weaknesses, lauded its strengths, and tried to avoid insult slinging along the way (tried). But there are only so many ways to say these things before the repetition becomes mind numbing. If you wanna know why I wrote what I wrote (or what Ben said what he said) just read the review and all of our comment in the comment section. Hopefully, you get the answers you are looking for.
Adios, amigos.
Let me summarize his criticism of the film...not Anti-American enough. In a nutshell. After being force fed(brainwashed by the BBC for years and years)a steady diet of 'The-US-is-evil-especially-US-soldiers' his entire life, anything less than a two hour screed of antiAmerican bile will result in a negative review. You're so predictable.
So lets get this straight...because a movie doesnt address certain political issues, that means you cannot recommend it?
Seriously? So you hate Jaws because they dont take on overfishing in the Atlantic? You dislike Psycho because they dont mention the serious issues of clean sheets in hotels?
Try this next time guys...instead of reviewing a movie based strictly on what you think should have been in it....you should review it based solely on what IS in it.
Until then, this was a really poorly thought out review. You guys honestly dont get what reviewing a movie means.
Ahhh, the Divide is clear-cut between those who have caved into the abyss which is "patriotism" as fashioned by the corporate media and those who can still analyze and think for themselves.
Good literature, and therefore cinema, is based on true drama -- the characters' reactions and decisions guide the course of the plot, and the characters themselves change as a result of those reactions and decisions. This is opposed to melodrama, where outside dynamics push the characters into "situations," even those where the characters should change, but, in the end, where those characters remain the same.
The Hurt Locker follows the melodramatic format.
As to a "political agenda": good art, therefore literature and cinema, should impart the conscience and consciousness of its creator; because the artist, as creator, has an insight into the human or natural world they feel should be imparted to the sphere of human experience.
We, as humans and as those of the USA culture, should shudder at the thought that the Hurt Locker is either patriotic or humane. The psychological damage to these soldiers, these citizens of our country, will be felt for their entire lives.
Have we become so mindless and numb that we deflect their pain, and cannot empathize?
The original review stands, in my opinion, as excellent.
Dan and Ben, you guys are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale, world atmosphere. Thankyou for speaking your truth when so many others choose to ignore or sell out there own. As to the movie my thoughts are that if it was fictional it would sort of be ok, however by placing it in Iraq, it fails on every level. I have also read many reviews from people who have served or are serving in Iraq, and they actually felt insulted by the inaccuracy of the movie. For me personally it felt like a very pro war film, done in that cool style, I almost wanted to sign up, before I remembered my soul, and that I like it too much to sell it. Anyway thanks guys for not just being free thinking men, but also brave enough to speak your minds in a world of aggression and judgement against free thinking individuals.
Good work!
I left the field to the soiling of it by the likes of Colin, but I have to return to thank MontanaMuleGal and Mathew for their support here. I am sincerely grateful for your insights and your compliments. Honestly, it's all I can do to write these lines without being overcome by emotion. Thank you so much.
Although I am no longer willing to be critically engaged by what I consider to be little more than smear tactics, I continue to be concerned about the intensity of the hostility behind them. The Hurt Locker is nominated for nine Academy Awards. Clearly, the film is deeply "needed" by the society right now according to the most powerful commercial forces in the culture industry. Simply put, I think that The Hurt Locker should be grasped as insidious propaganda. Based on the degree of vitriol that has been dumped on our review both here at Cinemania and over at Rotten Tomatoes, I reckon the propagandistic aspect of the film is working all too well.
Then - Ben
I very much appreciated this review and agree on a lot of the points made, but not all (of course :).
It's funny, but a lot of what was said that the film didn't do, I thought it did while watching. For example, Ben Said:
"As if the US presence in Iraq today is nothing more than one man's circumstance for losing touch with whatever it was that used to make him whole as a person"
and then Dan said:
"Would it have been too much to ask that the filmmakers use these soldier's jobs as bomb disposal experts as a metaphorical examination of the American presence in this land?"
I actually viewed the film and Renner's character disarming bombs as a very loose, oversimplified metaphor for the US and it's involvement in Iraq. Heavy handed, but not without skill or completely devoid of compassion, dealing with a very sensitive & volatile situation.
I prefer that a film skimp on 'standing on it's hind legs' in order to deliver a very satisfying hithcockian tension filled film over a film ruining itself by being too preachy, whether it be of the left or right viewpoint. Could THL have found a better balance? Sure, but so could every movie before it. To me, it was refreshing to see a movie not completely ruined by a gawkish, hulkish in your face agenda.
I'm not even sure that it leans toward a pro Iraqi vibe. The appearance of David Morse's character says a lot to the film's opinion of those in charge. Renner's character's escape into the city shows just how clueless we are about the Iraqi culture, and how afraid of the unfamiliar we are. I don't think that just because it shows the occupiers and not the occupied, that it is rendered political. A film could've easily done the same and made the US and it's soldiers out to be the bad guys without once showing anything from the perspective of the Iraqis.
I completely see where you guys are coming from, but it does reek a bit of close-mindedness going into the film.
So by your very reasoning, you both disrespect Full Metal Jacket too, right? Because it didn't make a political stand? Otherwise, you're just blowing air for the sake of blowing air. I think you've missed the point completely.
Dude, if you don't think FMJ takes a political stand, I'm afraid it is you who have missed the point.
Anonymous, after attempting to abstain from further involvement here, my being unable to refrain from replying to you now is itself proof of my respect for your contribution. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
You provide a reading of what you take to be the metaphor at work in the film. I have two responses to this. In the first and I believe most important place - and since you were responding to Dan, this applies just as much to his original request of the film - the war in the film is not metaphorical. It's real. All sorts of interpretations of the film are possible because it is a work of fiction. But for me the point is to pursue an interpretation that begins with the fact that the fiction is about something that is really happening in the world right now. I know Dan agrees with this and I get the impression that you do too. Still, I am vigilant about never losing sight of it.
In the second place - to enter into the metaphorical discussion now - I cannot speak as you do about the US "involvement" in Iraq, as if this was some sort of neutral presence. You speak of the sensitive and volatle situation in which the US is embroiled as if this situation was not fundamentally of the US's own making. And so does The Hurt Locker. The main metaphorical message in the film is grounded on the sheer fact of it focusing on the tiny minority of the US military "involved" in defusing bombs, rather than the great majority of the US military "involved" in setting them off. In short, the central signal sent is of peace-making rather than war-making.
I have been called a "lib-tard" here for my criticism of The Hurt Locker. I would like to counter that I may be mentally challenged but those who want the film to win some Oscars are the true liberals. Because The Hurt Locker allows you to have your imperialist cake and eat your humanitarianism too. You get to have your occupation of Iraq, but you don't have to feel like an occupier while doing so.
All the defense of the film I have heard rests on it's supposed apolitical realism. The claim is that The Hurt Locker is essentially a portrayal of a guy doing a job to the best of his ability. But this argument is grounded on the notion given by the film that the job itself is fundamentally about life-saving rather than life-taking. In short, we are asked to identify with soldiers as if they were fire-fighters or doctors. Throw in the personal psychological damage sustained by the protagonist just to ensure sympathy for the sacrifice born by the occupier and the ideological perspective is clearly, "It's a Dirty Job But Somebody's Got to Do It." This is a replay of "The White Man's Burden" through a glass darkley.
I have called The Hurt Locker insidious propaganda. Rather than being pro-war, the film is no-war. But such obsfucation is implicitly ideological. I thank you Anonymous for examining the metaphor at work in the film because as far as I can see, it is getting away with murder.
Anyone who insists that the movie should have included political commentary on the conflict not only misses the point completely, but betrays the fact that not only has he never served in combat, but he has never actually READ anything about combat. To the individual soldiers involved, the politics of any conflict are usually as remote as the moon. Che Guerra and other vicious, murdering socialists aside, the primary concerns of most Western soldiers is for their lives and those of their comrades, and to accomplish the tasks at hand. Whether throngs of angry leftists are marching at home or crowds of filthy barbarians are burning Danish embassies in some Third World cesspool is irrelevant. Put down your Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn for a few minutes so you can get a proper education; then feel free to comment.
The 'parrot my political views or have no validity' - is getting tired. My guess is that you're disappointed that a GOOD movie about the Iraq war (not to be confused with "about a good war") was a wasted opportunity for your political viewpoint not to be advanced. Especially after all of the awful preachy ones that I'm sure you loved - but nobody else did.
It's political to anybody smart enough to remember the sales job done on the public:
1) WMD - lie - there were none;
2) "don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud" - another huge lie
3) yellowcake uranium - lie
4) everything Colin Powell told the UN was a lie; he now calls that day 'the low point of his life'; he was supposed to be the trustworthy member of that gang
5) we'll be greeted as liberators; the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction, etc, etc, etc, etc,
The neo-cons used fear, lies, exaggerations, and distortions to force this expensive, bloody and completely unnecessary war on a US public that was in post 9/11 fear.
I'm a political independent and this is obvious to everybody.....
Interesting posts on this one. I found the movie uncomfortable on a number of levels. It seemed to me to be based on the old westerns, where the gunslinger is fearless and invincible and the enemy is either out there lurking or an evil menace needing killing. When the main character stops the car with his hand gun, my thought was oh, spare me! Women are virtually absent and only Iraqi we are allowed to meet is a child who is horrifically mutilated by the "insurgents". Just like in countless cowboys and indians movies.I also noted in the credits that the US Army assisted in the making of the movie. This is does not happen without the Army approving the story and politics of a movie. I agree that a movie making a crass or obvious political message would bore most people, but as other posts have pointed out, we didn't need to be in Iraq to make the points that this movie makes - and some of said points do smack of pro-war propaganda.
I agree with Jon. The film is not trying to talk about the "whole war". It is a movie following 3 different men who try to survive the last month and a half of their rotation. I thought this movie wis great simply because they left politics out of it.
What I like about this movie is the details that it shows. It's message that is rendered impotent by the reality it shows. Many people will walk away from this movie seeing our soldiers as heroes despite this movie's flaws. And that's awesome. I think Kathryn Bigelow has great things to say about soldiers in real life. But this movie? Pro Iraq-war? This movie is anti Iraq/Afghanistan-war. Ok. Down the line.The 1st "leading" character in this Iraq war film, boom! killed like a sacrificial lamb, no honor after, or word on him. Of course not. He's not worth it, ...right? Then, the new lead, the director tells us immediately that this guy is not a "hero", more like an "anti-hero" -a guy for inexplicable reasons(to the director, although the first scene makes it clear, -she thinks he's a war junkie-she said it, "war is a drug"-got it.) How does she tell us the new lead is not a hero? He ignores his fellow brothers. He ignores discipline.(yea, sure a soldier in Iraq with no discipline-FAIL). Any dipshit that has never served and thinks that soldiers serving together aren't brothers, from the first day on, doesn't have any idea what soldiers are really like in that way. Also, he doesn't seem to CARE about HIS LIFE or HIS BROTHERS life. Got it, he's not a REAL hero. He's just what we've got in Iraq, right? Then we meet his cohort, Sanborn, who is portrayed as angry and ineffectual, like a whine baby, doing nothing except for punches that don't faze the anti-hero and does nothing else except to cowardly plot the lead's death when his back is turned, only to shrink from the task, again, like a coward. He does nothing except to witness in disapproval and horror the anti-hero's actions until breaking down and befriending the anti-hero and crying at the end of his tour, saying "I can't take it". Anybody missing the point, yet? Then we see the Major(the establishment) who congratulates the anti-hero lead, and is portrayed as a pumped up blind idiot who ignores that this soldier unnecessarily risked lives, -no compelling reason, no kid trapped nearby, any reason, -but instead is in love with numbers. Numbers about bombs. Delighted with Victory, never mind the details, -except the number of bombs. Duh. Then we meet the other member of the "team", the young crybaby blond haired blue-eyed American poster child, who really hates the "lead" and at the end shouts "Fuck-you" to him(because that's what "real" America feels towars any soldier that beieves we are doing the right thing. The mercenaries? Not even gonna go into it, except to say cardboard and ridiculous. The wife at home, Kate from Lost, which this movie's reality level is akin to in and out. This movie gets so many things right, showing the danger, the crazy juxtaposition between a combat zone and a supermarket, the craziness of a war fought in neighbourhoods, around civilian families, and it shows a lot of the correct details about soldiering in Iraq, -the weapons, the uniforms, the surroundings, basecamps, neighbourhoods. What's sad is that so many will see this and lump in the realistic cosmetic details with the BS idea that soldiers reasons for being brave are inexplicable or because its a drug. Anybody forget this director was married to a total hippie James Cameron for years? Or that she's a total Hollywood leftie? Oh yea, that doesn't matter..sure.
wow. you missed the movie. entirely. it was about america/iraq/black/white, the difference between being afraid and pretending not to be, mortality, sacrifice, the value of life, and was done with an air of unpredictability and mystery. it had nothing to do with iraq war, other than to show it in detail for what it was and not two cents more. you must be one of those "political junkies" who watches CNN all day, constantly addicted to politicizing everything. politics are shallow and pointless. which is why they were left out of the movie.
The movie was interesting and vivid. I thought the "flow" was not that good. But, I enjoyed it enough to watch once.
Great review
Just a guess but I would bet you were never in the military. Not the greatest movie I have ever seen but it was a hell of a lot better than most. Why does every movie have to have some kind of hidden agenda or something. How about a movie looking at things from a smaller viewpoint. Sure it could have been made in an urban setting or something but it wasn't. Seems to me it was about mainly one person who struggles with life and goes for the high. Unless you have been there, how would you know the rush.
Post a Comment