HOME I ABOUT EWR I PREVIOUS ARTICLES I PHILOSOPHY BOARD I LUMINOUS LINKS I EMAIL EWROSS I BOOK A SPEECH | ||||||||||||
|
THE HURT LOCKER Good War Movies are About Warriors not Politics March 8, 2010 The Hurt Locker, a somewhat controversial movie about an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team in Iraq directed by Kathryn Bigelow, tied with her ex-husband James Cameron’s blockbuster Avatar for nine Academy Award nominations. Last night it won six, including best picture and best director. This low-budget war movie that only earned $12.7 million domestically certainly will benefit from the publicity this recognition will bring it. Despite the controversy and its poor showing at the box office it's an excellent film, reminiscent of when good war movies were about warriors and not about politics. The premise of The Hurt Locker is contained in the opening quote that appears on the screen from War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, a best-selling 2002 book by war correspondent Chris Hedges; “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” It’s the story of SSG William James, an EOD team leader addicted to the adrenalin rush he gets disarming improvised explosive devices and from the danger of war. It’s this characterization of SSG James, however, that makes the film controversial. A real-life former EOD expert, MSG Jeffrey Sarver, is suing the movie’s producers. He says The Hurt Locker is based on him and his experiences in Iraq without his permission. Many Iraq War veterans say that SSG James’ “reckless” behavior in the film gives people the wrong impression about them. The courts will decide if MSG Sarver’s case has merit. And combat veterans, especially when it comes to their war are a tough group to please. They are acutely aware that the image the public forms about them is influenced by how they see soldiers portrayed in movies and on TV, and they want that portrayal to be accurate. It took me 36 years before I found a Vietnam War movie--We Were Soldiers (2002)--I thought did that. What the controversy threatens to obscure, however, and what I believe is most significant about The Hurt Locker, is its absence of politics. As Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune puts it, “Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal. . . have made the first fictional feature about American soldiers in Iraq that doesn't fall apart, or preach to a choir, or turn into a position paper.” I suspect the reason most people, myself included, ignored The Hurt Locker when it was shown in theaters is because word-of-mouth on the film was lacking, and they assumed it was just another Iraq War movie with a political message. Regardless of Americans’ opinions about the war, the overwhelming majority of us hold the US military in high regard--it’s the most respected institution in America. We don’t go to the movies to see it demeaned, and we get enough politics on cable television and the Internet. We go to the movies to be entertained--something liberal movie makers often ignore or forget, but Kathryn Bigelow, fortunately, did not. As for the characterization of SSG James, he’s not your model soldier, but model soldiers don’t always make good war-movie heroes. MSG Sarver, if the story was based on his experiences, wasn’t necessarily anything like SSG James. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who are. Iraq War veterans who criticize The Hurt Locker may not have known anyone like James, but I have. I was never a member of an EOD unit, but I recall one mechanized infantry platoon leader in Vietnam in particular whose approach to danger was uncannily similar to James. He was a courageous and effective platoon leader that always put his armored personnel carrier in the lead when moving down a road he suspected was booby trapped with land mines. He wanted to protect his troops, but he also loved the thrill it gave him. Other directors might have crossed the line with James’ character, made him an abusive husband or a crazed wacko likely to become a serial killer in civilian life (consistent themes of many Vietnam War movies). But I don’t believe Bigelow went too far. Had she done that, I’d be protesting with legions of other veterans. But Bigelow’s interpretation of James character is compelling, nuanced, complex, and yes, realistic. Bigelow didn’t make a documentary about EOD units. She isn't saying that everyone who served in an EOD unit in Iraq was addicted to danger. She made a movie that's a character study of one man's courage and attraction in the face of death. The American war movie is a difficult art form. If the director paints too idealistic and positive a picture of the military and its mission it’s pro-government propaganda. At the other extreme it’s anti-government/anti-American propaganda. Somewhere in the middle are movies like The Hurt Locker, honest attempts to explore the psychology of war and warriors. There were dozens of good ones made after World War II and the Korean War that I’m sure Bigelow strove to emulate. Like all art, war-movies can only reflect reality, not duplicate it. They are, after all, fiction. But The Hurt Locker is a step in the right direction for Hollywood, back toward art and away from propaganda. It’s worth watching. I respect the opinions of Iraq War combat veterans. We should all honor and support them. I can only hope that with the passage of time they come to appreciate The Hurt Locker and its attempt to understand them and their war, however flawed, through an apolitical lens.
|
The Bomb Squad vs. the Blue Blockbuster Hurt Locker Breaks Iraq War Move Curse A Lawsuit for 'Hurt Locker' in Time for Oscars Some Iraq, Afghanistan war veterans criticize movie 'Hurt Locker' as inaccurate
| ||||||||||
Copyright © Edward W. Ross 2006-2010 All Rights Reserved I HOME I ABOUT EWR I PREVIOUS ARTICLES I PHILOSOPHY BOARD I LUMINOUS LINKS I EMAIL EWROSS I BOOK A SPEECH | ||||||||||||