The Hurt Locker: A New Kind of Movie About Iraq
Hollywood isn’t finished with the Iraq war quite yet.
The entertainment industry has spent the last six or so years spinning yarns from the deeply divisive conflict, with most efforts falling into a predictable pattern. The war was a grave mistake (Fahrenheit 9/11). The battle will rage on indefinitely (No End in Sight). Never waste an opportunity like a war to slime the troops (Redacted).
Now along comes The Hurt Locker, arguably the first Iraq war film not to wear its Code Pink colors on its sleeve. And wouldn’t you know it isn’t a colossal bust so far, at least in its very limited initial release.
But Hurt, for all its visceral impact, isn’t a great war movie as some critics suggest, nor is it as politically neutral as its boosters would have you believe.
The movie stars Jeremy Renner (28 Weeks Later) as Staff Sgt. William James, a man without fear when it comes to defusing insurgent traps.
The opening sequence, set before James enters the picture, details just how dangerous working in the bomb disposal unit can be. Defusers wear a puffy bomb suit for a modicum of protection — think one of those silly faux sumo wrestler costumes but made from much sturdier stuff. Ultimately, no suit can save a soldier if a bomb goes off prematurely.
James teams up with Sgt. J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), a by-the-book soldier, and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), the kind of grunt who looks like he belongs behind the counter at Walgreens, not behind enemy lines.
It’s hardly an original lot, and their preferred method for bonding — aggressive wrestling and boozing — also falls squarely in the been there, seen that category.
James brings a stoic approach to the task at hand, alienating Sanborn with his willingness to risk his life — even when it’s not necessary. Yet James gets rattled when he learns a local boy who sold him some knockoff DVDs only a few days ago may have gone missing.
While this movie is bereft of Hollywood typical Marxist-Leftist propaganda – which permeates most of the movie industry of today – yet it is lacking a subtle, artistic message that goes beyond its documentary value. There is no coherent, captivating and convincing story (plot) that might shake our soul, rather an interesting documentary on the sappers dangerous daily task. This not a Save Ryan quality movie.
I’m glad you acknowledged the anti-war theme of the movie. It’s amazing to me that so many people view this as a positive or even neutral portrayal of our soldiers when the main character is merely reckless and borderline psychotic, as opposed to completely evil (or a dupe for the Bush administration). It isn’t neutral at all. This is an anti-war film.
That said, most of it felt pretty authentic to me. Do I believe that people get left to bleed out in the street for the sake of convenience? No, I do not. Do I think people generally re-enlist because they love the war so much? No, I’m sorry, I do not. She gets the trappings right, but motives are sketchy. Unfortunately understanding motives is critical to character arcs, which is why you see none in this film.
anti-war movie? I haven’t seen the movie yet and was looking for some insight before I put up my money. There are many ways to classify a movie and “anti-war”. I think all war movies which are accurate with the brutal reality of war will inherently be anti-war. War is ugly and is mankind displayed at his worst, even when the reason for fighting may be noble. No rational person would be pro-war. Although you may find a war to be a necessary evil depending on the cause.
a ssgt would be like a career soldier, so why would he be counting the days he has in. most troops count the days they got left in country before they go home. where there any vietcong in this movie?
“their preferred method for bonding — aggressive wrestling and boozing — also falls squarely in the been there, seen that category”
Drinking – check
Wrestling – check
If they’d also spent their time watching action movies from the 80′s it would have been just like my old platoon. Some cliches become cliches for a reason.
Paul, let’s not forget recounting stories of our conquests – real and imagined. When I hang out with my friends, we don’t go to art galleries, the opera, or the symphony. Despite that, we are not a bunch of morons as is sometimes portrayed. I know people that can quote every line from every action movie around, name all of David Bowie’s Albums, and still talk about the intricacies of insurgency theory, finance, or Roman history.
I’m longing for the iconic Iraq war movie, too. Adrenaline junkies and callous murderers are not representative of our soldiers. Only in Hollywood could they think this was a “neutral” film.
You mean this movie isn’t out yet? I downloaded Hurt Locker off the net like 3+ months ago.
Oh boy, another production by the America haters of hollywood
wonder why the liberals never give up losing money on the antiwar crap movies
Typically, it takes a generation or so before any movie about any war is made that is worth seeing. For WW2, “12 O’clock High” was the exception (1949) but that was because the real actors were the airplanes and they were getting long in the tooth. “A Walk in the Sun” (1945) is another good WW2 movie done while the people it portrayed were still alive. After that you go to SPR (1998), which was prolly the best, next to “Enemy at the Gates” (2001). There are a few good Korean War movies, “Bridge at Toko-Ri” (1954) was made during the war. Korea was the first war America ever lost, thanks to Truman, so it’s not a popular subject.
Nothing yet about Vietnam worth watching, maybe in another 20 years or so.
“We Were Soldiers” tries, but it didn’t give that air of claustrophobia that clung to Vietnam. Elephant grass is murder on LOS.
I think technology helps. Most civilians just don’t understand modern weapons. Those Machine Guns firing into the LCI’s would spit out 10 chunks of steel per second. Inside 150 meters or so, they would go thru a human body and kill the man behind him. Hollywood chamges the effects of modern weapons to suit their pre-conceptions. Course, I really don’t think Hollywood wants to show people what it looks like after a 30Lb schel charge goes off inside a concrete bunker. Or the inside of a M-48 after a RPG hits it.
We didn’t lose the Korean War. It was a tie in the sense that we got back what we started for, and the treaty has not yet been signed. Have you noticed when we have gas rationing, meatless Tue. and Bond Drives, with the draft, we win. Otherwise its just the army at a war.
—Skillful for sure -BUT —-way toooo GQ & routine.
ALSO -with all the actual footage available from the
scene -isn’t making a conventional Hollywood picture
like this one rather pointless?
‘Battle of Algiers’ remains the standard for this sort
of subject. —About 50 years old —yet STILL the standard.
HOLLYWOOD remains soldout and clueless from decades of
Boomer enabling and shameless franchise slumming.
Come on. Every war movie is “anti-war”. Just because we think a war is just does not mean that we, as well, are anti-war. We would much rather have a world where people did not think that it was a good idea to blow up innocents and non-combatants. We all hate war and terror – and we recognize that it is no picnic for any of our brave soldiers to face the constant atrocities committed by those whose only goal is to destabilize Iraq and the world by cowardly killing innocents. But does that mean that we sit down and give up when faced with these fanatics? No.
Hurt Locker does not portray the US involvement as being wrong – it portrays war as terrible. War being just and terrible are not incompatible notions. Soldiers not wanting to be blown up are real emotions – who actually WANTS to fight a war – no one. Obligations are heavy, it doesn’t mean that they are incorrect.