Review: The Hurt Locker **Updated**
by Alexander Marlow
Epigraph: a quotation set at the beginning of a literary work or one of its divisions to suggest its theme.
Epigraphs crop up occasionally in literature and film, but more frequently on the SAT exam. In fact, I am using the definition of epigraph as the epigraph for this review. If you are to the right of Bill Clinton, all you need to know about “The Hurt Locker” is its epigraph: “War is a drug.”
Incredibly, the mainstream media is trying to position “The Hurt Locker” as politically neutral. The mainstream media are dense. “War is a drug.” Drugs are bad. Thus, war is bad. This is a left-wing film. End of story. Witness the first five seconds of the movie and read the epigraph; if you still have the audacity to trumpet its neutrality, you should be committed to an insane asylum or the newsroom at MSNBC.
From Director Katherine Bigelow (Point Break) and Screenwriter Mark Boal (whose previous credit is “In the Valley of Ellah”), “The Hurt Locker” is an artificially suspenseful and episodic film about an elite Army bomb squad led by Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). I say artificially suspenseful because all the tension is developed over the course of each scene with a manipulative soundtrack. Unfortunately, the tension isn’t sustained from one scene to the next. There is no plot. Just a series of unrelated missions. Much like my high school dates, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this thing wasn’t going anywhere.
The characters are color-by-number. James is the cowboy. He’s willing to be reckless, abandon protocol, and bone-headedly puts himself and his men in harms way time and time again. If war is a drug, this guy is Ozzy Osbourne. Sanborn is the dude who plays by the books, has a business mentality, and is always the one who says, “I don’t know, maybe this isn’t such a good idea…..”If you’ve seen “NYPD Blue Shield Law” and “Cold Case Order with Veronica Mars” you’ve seen these same characters again and again.
John Nolte was my man-date to the screening (our rapport is budding into an epic bromance; we are in line to co-star as “Dumb, Lazy, Over-Grown Kid 1” and “Dumb, Lazy Over-Grown Kid 2” in the next Judd Apatow movie), and we shared a lot of the same opinions on the politics of the film (see his take here). We agreed the filmmakers didn’t bother to answer several important questions, not the least of which:
1) Why are these men in Iraq? Especially in the particularly dangerous field of bomb diffusion? I am a young man, athletic, incredibly attractive, and spent three-and-a-half years fending off hippies in Berkeley. I have not ruled out a stint in the military. The question I ask myself frequently is why would I put my life on the line? Staff Sergeant James does it because he is a junkie for war looking to destroy bombs with all the self-awareness and rationality of Pac-man consuming exorbitant amounts of dots. His heroism comes from his addiction to the adrenaline rush, not from his character. In fact, none of the characters were motivated by anything upbeat or inspirational. Nothing about fighting for something bigger than oneself, quashing evil around the world, or saving innocent, oppressed people from tyranny.
I object to this as a conservative, but also as a movie-goer. Boal shot himself in the foot by writing dumb heroes instead of brave ones. It is much harder to root for reckless, arrogant pricks than it is heroes motivated by goodness. Maybe he has heard of Batman, Spider-man, Superman, etc. The audience becomes emotionally invested in these heroes because of who they are. Not so in “The Hurt Locker.”
2) Who are the Iraqis? Boal and Bigelow don’t seem to care. The Iraqis portrayed in “The Hurt Locker,” just like in every other Hollywood Iraq War blockbuster, are faceless, nameless, and utterly lame people who do nothing more than herd goats and sell bootlegged copies of “Pink Panther 2” to our troops. The way the Iraqis are portrayed in the film, I wouldn’t lend them my lunch money, much less lay my life on the line for them. These Iraqis weren’t even characters. They were extras. This was an Iraq War movie and it had nothing to do with Iraqis.
There are other moments in the film that are blatantly anti-war. David Morse makes a bizarre cameo as a Colonel who makes a decision to let a just-wounded Iraqi civilian/suspect die for no apparent reason—implying, of course, that the field commander is a hate-filled bigot air-raiding villages and killing civilians. This is 100% incidental to the plot and only serves to prop up the anti-war agenda.
And the film ain’t good neither. It’s boring. No scene is related to the next. It is almost tension free except when they play the “Jaws” music. The troops are caricatures rather than realistic American servicemen.
If this is Big Hollywood’s idea of an apolitical, well-made war film, I am in the right job. There’s a lot of work left to be done.
**Update (5/29/09 1:00PM PST)** For you Fark folks: “War is bad” is a left-wing position. Left-wingers put “War is Not the Answer” bumper stickers on their cars. By contrast, conservatives think, on occasion, war is the answer. Some examples:
Revolutionary War
Civil War
World War II
Korean War
Persian Gulf War
War of the Worlds
War isn’t bad when you are defeating the Nazis, saving the Union, or freeing helpless countries from murderous, totalitarian dictators. In those cases, it is good.
Good people can differ on the Iraq War, but “war is bad” is an unsophisticated and morally bankrupt position. War is never the ideal, but in its history, America has used it as an alternative to combat evils much, much worse.
Big reward to the person who can find my reference to “splosions” or any mention of war’s awesomeness.
Oh, and my headshot is satirical. It’s called “mugging.” **End Update**
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
16 Comments
[...] Alex Marlow Doesn’t Like “The Hurt Locker” June 28, 2009 Posted by Jehuda in Uncategorized. Tags: Entertainment, Film, News, Politics trackback “Incredibly, the mainstream media is trying to position “The Hurt Locker” as politically neutral. The mainstream media are dense…This is a left-wing film.” [...]
"Nothing about fighting for something bigger than oneself, quashing evil around the world, or saving innocent, oppressed people from tyranny."
We have to be careful about promoting an ethic of self-sacrifice. I am not trying to be "one of those" Randian bring-downs, but we should instead emphasize that soldiers are defending themselves and their country from threats. 'Sacrificing for a higher cause' indicates that human beings are expendable, an ethos that the Left adores.
Ultimately, war is neither good, nor bad. Sometimes they are necessary though.
I was a Cold Warrior, post Nam. Because of that, I have personal experience, and I generally don't watch military movies, because they are mostly bad, and certainly when shot for the political pay off, they are un-necessary.
This is the best war movie in a long, long time. The reviewer is so blinded by ideology it's insane.
A lock for a best picture nomination.
"I have not ruled out a stint in the military. The question I ask myself frequently is why would I put my life on the line?"
LMAO. Typical chickenshit stuff from a guy who thinks war is great… as long as someone (usually a poor minority) is doing all the fighting.
Recently saw The Hurt Locker. It is a masterpiece. Brilliantly directed and edited. The characters seem like cliches but actually have an entire third dimension to them. It's "artificially suspenseful" as opposed to what? This is one of, if not the most suspenseful movie I've ever seen. It is certainly the best action movie of summer.
The characters: You don't have to like them in order to root for for them. All you have to do is empathize with them which is absolutely what this movie allows you to do. You don't have to sympathize with them, which is what it seems like you're saying.
And as far as the epigraph goes. "War is a drug". Christopher Hedges meant that metaphorically. If you turn the premise/conclusion model around: War is Bad, Drugs are Bad, therefore War is Drug. It makes no sense. You can't apply that type of logic to a metaphorical premise. Therefore I stand beside the belief that this movie for all intents and purposes it apolitical. Or maybe it was made that way and failed to be able to completely depoliticize itself, which in the end is impossible anyways; because you can always rationalize some amount of political statement from anything.
"And the film ain’t good neither. It’s boring. No scene is related to the next. It is almost tension free except when they play the “Jaws” music. The troops are caricatures rather than realistic American servicemen."
The film is in no way boring. Saying it is tension free should be a crime. If you haven't seen this movie, search on the internet for "the first 9 minutes of the Hurt Locker", watch them, and then come back and say if it's tensionless. No scene is related to the next? Please. The reason you are saying that is because it seems as though there is no closed-narrative bad guy. But that isn't what EOD does, they don't have a big vendetta with the master terrorist. Having James, Sanborn, and Eldridge chase after a whole terrorist ring that they eventually destroy or one master bomber would be false and over the top.
"Just a series of unrelated missions". A. Maybe that is what EOD is like, maybe everything isn't completely connected. And, B. Each mission is connected by the fact that each set piece uncovers an entire new layer to each character. Each set piece examines the psychological and moral complications of being in a war and being an American Soldier. And, C. Each mission is connected by the changing dynamic in the team. Sanborn and Eldridge and how they get along with their new team leader James.
Check out my review at: http://www.wildclementines.com/?p=2661
QUOTE
“War is a drug.” Drugs are bad. Thus, war is bad. This is a left-wing film. End of story.
Wow, what an evaluation! This analysis is most impressive.
Of course, the term “drug” is clearly meant to be taken literally. Also of course, the opening epigraph clearly exists for no purpose other than to make a general statement. Naturally, those silly left-wing hippies would only compare war to something they truly hate, like drugs! I mean, it’s not like Sergeant James is addicted to the danger of war (namely, the danger of defusing bombs that is provided by war) as one might be addicted to a drug, and there’s no chance that the statement actually implies anything beneath the surface of the literal meaning of the words.
QUOTE
The Iraqis portrayed in “The Hurt Locker,” just like in every other Hollywood Iraq War blockbuster, are faceless, nameless, and utterly lame people who do nothing more than herd goats and sell bootlegged copies of “Pink Panther 2” to our troops. The way the Iraqis are portrayed in the film, I wouldn’t lend them my lunch money, much less lay my life on the line for them. These Iraqis weren’t even characters. They were extras. This was an Iraq War movie and it had nothing to do with Iraqis.
So true! Those god-awful war movies of the past were all the same way. Just look at that horridly unrealistic “Platoon”, which never thoroughly characterized any of the Vietnamese! And even worse: “Saving Private Ryan”. The European civilians had barely any screen time in that piece of trash. Just look at how many veterans loathe that movie! Of course, it’s just absurdly egregious for “The Hurt Locker” to focus only on American soldiers. There’s just something so very, very wrong with that. I am positively enthralled by the sharp criticisms of this review.
QUOTE
For you Fark folks: “War is bad” is a left-wing position. Left-wingers put “War is Not the Answer” bumper stickers on their cars. By contrast, conservatives think, on occasion, war is the answer. Some examples:
Revolutionary War
Civil War
World War II
Korean War
Persian Gulf War
War of the Worlds
I know! Just about every left-winger I’ve had the misfortune of knowing is one of those pacifists who hates every war and thinks war to never be the answer. I mean, just ask Obama, Clinton, or anyone, and they’ll tell you about how much they wish the US had never fought the Civil War or joined World War II or tried to help the people of Somalia.
Furthermore, those left-wingers saying “war is bad” or “war is not the answer” are obviously implying that war is never, ever acceptable. Nobody simply characterizes war as “bad” because they simply consider war to be a necessary evil needed only on occasion as a last resort.
QUOTE
War isn’t bad when you are defeating the Nazis, saving the Union, or freeing helpless countries from murderous, totalitarian dictators. In those cases, it is good.
It’s good to fight Nazis and murderous dictators? This is so profound! Don’t tell anyone, but I completely agree. Too bad about the liberal media.
SERIOUSLY, is this review a joke? If so I apologize for my comments. John Nolte’s review was fair, balanced, and meaningful. It effectively defended a thesis that I’m sure plenty of people will disagree with. This review is simply embarrassing.
"I have not ruled out a stint in the military."
Then do it or shut up.
I spent two tours in Iraq, this movie hit home for me.
Pity it didn't for a chicken-hawk film reviewer.
Third, the soldiers interaction with each other and the Iraqi populace was accurate and right on. The Report above said the soldiers were cold to the thought of seeing a boy dead and discarding him instantly, calling him a "base rat". These men have to live like that to a certain extent to keep mentally stable. They can't cry over every upsetting event that happens there, like the sheltered viewer probably wants to see, or he'd go crazy. The Colonel letting an insurgent soldier bleed might not be as far in left field as Marlow, the above writer, says.
There are some negatives though, including The lead character leaving the base for a suicide mission to confirm a boy’s death or A Commanding officer encouraging crazed behavior on the battlefield. The last 10 minutes of in country film were sketchy at best. The positives outweigh the negatives though. The soldiers get caught in places they would never be, as far as I (a Civilian without a clue) would know, patrolling a street with three men and then splitting up again! Inaccuracies probably riddle this film, but it illustrates the awful hell that is out there that someone else is facing to protect me. I respect that more than they will ever know.
In Conclusion, this still a must see movie. Love it or hate it, it will raise questions and show a new perspective on modern warfare and the modern soldier. It brings to light a view to war that has never been shown before with bomb defusal in the EOD. (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) Some new horrifying techniques of war like body bombs, which was new to me, and the mechanical robots used for defusal was new and interesting. All the scenes make sense if you view the movie from the perspective of "you are the soldier and this is what happens when you are at war". This is the reason there is no viewpoint from the Iraqi perspective. It is a soldier’s movie, not an Iraqi sympathizer movie. The change of pace during the movie was great. It wasn't formulaic, where every bomb defusing situation starts and ends the same way. What our soldiers do and what they experience is shown here powerfully. This is a must see for anyone who is old enough to handle the subject content.
P.S. Alexander Marlow is a Left wing hippy if he really believes what he wrote. His agenda was so slanted he missed the heart of the movie and really highlighted the few subpar plotlines. This is not an accurate review of this movie.
HOORAY… i am a civilian with his head up his ass, but i agree with you. i liked this film, through the inaccurasies and made me respect the profession more. a real and refrshing look at what soldiers endure was interseting to see. thanks for your service
Reading your review, and knowing something about this movie, being in some circles with people close to the production, and having followed it closely in anticipation of seeing it, and knowing a lot of people who've actually been, and done, hard, rough, vile things in war and elsewhere that people usually see as heroic, I'm struck by an idea. The idea that, what you truly object to is that this film doesn't present your hero's in the fictitious, idealized, light to which you are accustomed to seeing them. It doesn't present them as Supermen, or even as Batmen (tortured, but ultimately idealistic and good intentioned). It presents them as realistic, human, men.
You say, quote: "His heroism comes from his addiction to the adrenaline rush, not from his character. In fact, none of the characters were motivated by anything upbeat or inspirational. Nothing about fighting for something bigger than oneself, quashing evil around the world, or saving innocent, oppressed people from tyranny.
I object to this as a conservative, but also as a movie-goer. Boal shot himself in the foot by writing dumb heroes instead of brave ones. It is much harder to root for reckless, arrogant pricks than it is heroes motivated by goodness. Maybe he has heard of Batman, Spider-man, Superman, etc. The audience becomes emotionally invested in these heroes because of who they are. Not so in “The Hurt Locker.”" End Quote.
Did it ever occur to you that your hero's, many of history's military hero's, were in fact no more high minded than these men? That same people fight because it's what they know, they like and they choose?
I've been an EMT, am a FireFighter, and will be a Soldier (No, I'm not making up my mind, I'm not deciding if its worth it to me to risk my ass… Already decided, scooter.) – I have my reasons for these professions, and running toward the sound of guns. If I were to detail those reasons, you'd probably call me a monster, not a patriot.
Has it ever occurred to you, or any of those who agree with you, that perhaps your hero's, as you know them, are actually fictions? That, in the bright light of day, they are actually monsters too? That they fought, warred, struggled and killed, less out of patriotism, less out of belief in something greater, than out of a simple skill and enjoyment? Or even, without enjoyment, no greater drive than a pragmatic assessment of their abilities, opportunities and situations, or even just sheer futility and "fuck it" attitudes? Not everyone who does these jobs does them for upbeat or inspirational reasons – Some do them for the blackest reasons possible. Society has simply come to depend on the existence of these people – And maybe these people depend on society, and really, in some deep biological/anthropological sense, that is why they do it. But some functional symbiosis between the flock, and the wolves who've evolved so that they'd rather bloody their fangs on other wolves than on the sheep, is still not really that pretty of an image is it?
You are, like everyone else, entitled to your fictions and idealisms. It makes many things easier to bear, prettier to imagine – Including heros. But don't tell us that something is wrong, or bad, because it sullies up your preferred idolatries.
[...] read are largely without merit. From Breitbart’s Big Hollywood, dueling bozos of bromance Alexander Marlow and John Nolte both decry the characterization of Iraqis in the movie. This is a part of the [...]
[...] Breitbart's Alexander Marlow, who describes his credentials for reviewing the film [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.