‘HURT LOCKER’ THUNDERDOME: Klavan vs. Nolte — Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves…
by Big HollywoodNow that we have your attention.
Andrew Klavan’s written a terrific piece for City Journal looking at Katherine Bigelow’s “Hurt Locker,” which tanked at the box office, is a frontrunner to win this year’s Best Picture Oscar and has generated debate among conservatives over whether the dynamic action-director’s visceral look at a U.S. Army Bomb Squad is just another Iraq War film or something a little more worthy.
It’s a good debate… Be sure to read the whole thing and then feel free to have at it in the comments…
[I]s The Hurt Locker yet another piece of idiot agit-prop that makes our soldiers’ jobs harder and our enemies’ lives easier? The filmmakers and the media are desperate to convince us otherwise. For weeks before Hurt Locker’s release, they loudly reassured the public that the movie was, in the words of Roger Ebert, “completely apolitical. It has no opinion on the war in Iraq, except that there is one.” Some conservative reviewers agreed. Mark Hemingway at National Review wrote that the film “is not a straight depiction of American heroism; but it is a revelatory examination of the experiences and motivations of U.S. soldiers.”
But John Nolte, the voice of reason who runs Andrew Breitbart’s indispensable Big Hollywood website, would have none of it. He condemned the film.
Nolte and I spent part of Christmas break in a friendly email argument over the matter. Nolte objected to the fact that the film’s protagonist, Staff Sergeant James, played by the excellent Jeremy Renner, is less a hero than an adrenaline junkie. He saw anti-military intent in the film’s two most ridiculous characters, a sadistic colonel played by David Morse and a ludicrous Army therapist who tells his patients that war “could be fun!” Hurt Locker, Nolte wrote to me, “says there are no heroes, no good men in the Military—only PTSD cases, lunatic Colonels, and those poor saps dragged along for the ride. A terrible depiction of who these men are.”
Nolte convinced me that there’s truth to some of this, but I still don’t think it’s the whole story. The Hurt Locker, unlike every other War on Terror film I’ve seen, exists in a moral universe that a sane man might recognize as our own. Insurgents murder without restraint, even enticing children into the blast area to kill as many as possible. U.S. soldiers are largely humane, trying their best to avoid violence and show mercy. That’s no more than an observation of the simple truth. Our culture is better than theirs and so, by and large, our people behave better.
Read the full article here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
58 Comments
I was unable to see the film in the theaters and just saw it last night on DvD. I personally liked the movie – admittedly I don't look into many of the "deeper meanings" as some reviewers have said; I think Klaven and Nolte both make good points.
It certainly wasn't an "anti-military" or "anti Iraq" film; showing soldiers doing everything they can to avoid shooting civilians. And it did show the terrible burdens placed on 19 year olds – whether to shott a civilian who could be ready to do him harm – or hold your fire.
And there are a few adrenaline junkies in wartime – that is all the main character was – Certainly there are some strange shrinks everywhere – look at Ft Hood – and the sniper scene was realistic IMO.
Sometimes I think movie reviewers can see more than what the director intended – a Benny Hill skit I remember is Benny, playing the part of the French Director, is being quizzed by the talk show host on his latest movie.
The host waxes, "I think it is brilliant how the film goes from color to black and white – is that symbolic of the hopelessness of Man?"
Tol which the Director replies in his French accent, "No, we ran out of color film".
Anyway I liked the movie.
Good points on both side.
As a veteran, I give "Hurt Locker" a thumbs-up.
Despite some negative stereotypes identified by Nolte, in general, the movie respects our troops.
And the last scene, of SSgt James walking into the distance to face down another terrorist bomb, was reminiscent of a John Wayne "into the sunset" ending.
I am completely with Klavan on this one. I'll even take it a step further and say this film was a close to downright patriotic as a pic can get without being a Chuck Norris flick.
No heroes? This film showed what our troops go through on a daily basis in that hell — and even shows instances of great courage and morality — like the scene with Williams and that dead boy.
Just because there was a couple questionable acts my a couple of characters doesn't make it an indictment of the entire military. This film is a masterpiece in its craftsmanship — and it didn't hesitate to show our enemies and ruthless and evil.
Wow, quoting "Benny Hill". That's gonna kick your 'reputation points' WAY UP, if I know this crowd ! ; )
Very good movie…….I felt proud of these guys for their dedication and bravery and also understood their doubts and fears. I've seen Hollywoods anti- military crap and really can't put this movie in that catergory.
The movie was excellent. The best war movie in a long time. Special effects were amazing. The director effectively builds tension, which you would think is essential for a movie about a bomb squad. At a Q & A, Renner said they would have explosions randomly go off to keep the actors on edge.
The only problems i have with it . . . the 'adrenaline junkie' speech as the wounded soldier is being air-lifted out. He might as well have looked right into the camera. Very overt which is poor film-making. And when Renner breaks into that guys house looking for the kid. Of course the guy is a professor who speaks 100 different languages and is so gracious to the barbaric American who doesn't deserve it. Then his wife beats up Renner for destroying her country or something. Politically correct pandering, another aspect of poor film-making.
An enjoyable movie but i have higher standards for the Academy Award. (but they let me down every year anyway)
"Best Iraq fjilm ever made" can be put along with "Most Eloquent Talking Dog", "Most intelligent thing Al Franken had said in the Senate" and "President Obama's most effective economic stategy"
Hal – I think Benny Hill was hilarious. In a "reunion" video I saw somewhere – after his death, one of cast said that "a prophet is never respected in his own country" – Hell was Blacklisted by Thames TV (or the BBC) ecause he wasn't "PC"
But so many of his skits – like the wishing well scene, are timeless. Sgt Scuttle, The Tudmarsh rescue brigade…
One of his best lines to me – being hurt in an accident – From Jackie Wright – You heart Bad?" To which Hill replies – rolling those eyes to the audience as only he could, "Ever hear of someone hurt good?"
I've not seen the film, but my husband who served six years as a Navy SEAL and was part of Desert Storm in the 90s said that this film is an excellent depiction of what it is like in war. He said that he saw guys who did become addicted to the adrenaline and could not return to the real world. He told me it was one of the reasons he left the teams. He wanted to have a family and not allow his excellence in fighting to become his whole world.
I dcouldn't figure out who the Fiennes character was eitehr. Was he SAS? I have never heard of the British using "civilian contractors" to hunt bad guys.
…" a prophet is never respected…"
Oh, man, I'm laughin' TOO hard !
And Thank You to your husband for his service.
Bought it yesterday on DVD and was gratefully surprised that it was harsher towards the Insurgents and more balanced with our troops. There were some minor details that threw me off, having served in Iraq 2005-2006 with II MEF(FWD). The uniforms worn did not appear in Iraq till late 2005 and 3 soldiers driving around by themselves would not have happened.
Overall though agree with HalJordan and give it a thumbs up.
I was able to " get " the Python's " Bureau of Silly Walks" and " There's a parrot on the telly ", but Benny Hill was more ' raw and visceral ' to use some high-brow jargon.
What it really means was the babes were luscious and the comedy slapstick and borscht belt !
And as a military guy, I thought his left-handed salute was hilarious but not at all demeaning.
I watched this movie on dvd and enjoyed it and thought that the criticism was a little harsh. Then I put in the documentary "Brothers at War" after watching it I re-watched the "Hurt Locker" and realized the Hollywood anti- american criticism was spot on. Now anytime anyone asks I let them know, don't waste your time on "The Hurt Locker" spend an evening with "Brothers at War" and "Taking Chance" either one would get my vote for best film about the Irag War.
I saw it with my Marine son (twice in Iraq with infantry) and he HATED it. Thought it looked great and the sound was amazing, but there were just too many things that didn't ring true to him. But it has been the best Hollywood effort so far. We're still waiting for a true Iraq war movie that honors the service of these guys….
Thank You for your Service, Yat.
And for your historical detail analysis. Keep Them Honest !
There are certainly ways for Hollywood to make an apolitical Iraq War movie, but "The Hurt Locker" isn't it. They still rely on tired tropes in depicting the troops. It's like a writer who relies on cliches all the time. The story might not be horrible, but it's not "good" either. It's merely a way for writers to look like they understand the troops when in actuality, they don't. The characters end up flat, not real. "The Hurt Locker" wasn't the most offensive of the recent movies about Iraq, but it certainly isn't *good*. I'm not saying that troops need to be depicted as purely heroic. They're flawed like everyone else, make bad decisions, etc. But until Hollywood is willing to look beyond the boring PTSD, adrenaline-junkie, sadistic-colonel straw men, it's never going to say anything new or profound about the work of modern soldiers. "The Hurt Locker" came off more as a comic book than anything real.
Thanks for your Service, YatYas.
And for the historical detail expertise. Keep 'em Honest !
By my reckoning the movie business is about 100 years old . This is the 21st century,precisely 2010 and no female director has ever won an Academy award for best director,so Bigelow's chances for the award are pretty good. The Hollywood establishment will look ,"progressive" to the public,truth and reality aside regarding women directors and the past. Also ,and this is supposition,THL is a middle east war film with an attitude about the military in combat and AMPAS would like to make a political point with an Oscar win,and so they could kill two birds with one stone.Politics and image vs. talent and accomplishment.
Call me shallow but I thought the flic did nothing more than expose the tragedy of conflict and one man who, after being home for a while, thought he could still make a difference.
I found myself conciously moving aside some of the implausible scenes, because I wanted to like it. Wrong, what really happened is that each ridiculous scene actually built resentment. The entire sniper scene was a joke. I tried to explain that scene to a civilian friend: Why would the terrorist sniper shoot the Ralph Fiennes character and not one of the 3 Soldiers wearing American Camo Uniforms??? Fiennes and his team were dressed as insurgents for "crissakes", so if the Soldiers couldn't tell up close that Fiennes wasn't an insurgent, then how on earth did the jihadist sniper know from his far distance, and start shooting at the guys dressed as arabs rather than the Soldiers???
I stopped making hopeful excuses for the story line and just sat there watching it swirl down the drain.
Too many other annoying scenes to list here. It all just seems like a hollywood excercise to prop up a female director, just look at the box office numbers (and the fact that the Army officially refused to endorse the film). Just my two cents. (sorry if it offends).
It's true. I kept getting shaken by falsehoods and ugly stereotypes. A chore to watch.
Yes but the Fiennes charachter had captured 2 or the "bad guys" from the deck of cards. Who knows if the snipers weren't waiting for the Fiennes' team? I thought the 850 yard shot one of the bomb disposal guys made stretched credulity but then he was using a .50 rifle…A trained sniper could have done that with a .30 caliber…
Thank you for reprinting the article. These are some very valid points. I liked The Hurt Locker and most of what bothered me about the film are the points you mention. For instance though I like David Morse's acting ability in this movie his character is nothing more than a "bully" in a pointless scene. The doctor is the most absurd army character I have ever seen on film. You see what happens to him coming from the beginning of the scene and so you just wait for this unrealistic portraiture – and scene – to end. I also did not like the fact that when our protagonists are off duty all they do is wrestle, drink and try to hurt each other. Perhaps this is real – I have never been in the armed forces – but it always struck me as at least somewhat unrealistic. Then again, I felt The Hurt Locker for all it's soft potentially apolitical stance, is a far cry better than something overtly ridiculous like Three Kings (which annulled from reality even before the marriage). I think the article touches on one very interesting point about Katheryn Bigelow. She really seems stuck on portraying adrenaline junkies and crazies (Point Break, K-19 Widowmaker, Blue Steel).
I have not seen the movie since the summer. To answer your question, I believe we are expected to understand that Ralph Fiennes and his team are soldiers of fortune of some unknown sort (I guess the movie wanted to introduce some sort of "Blackwater" character types into the story).
It will be nice when someday in the future, movies can be made about Iraq and Afghanistan that are more positive about not only the troops but also their mission. Maybe someone in Hollywood will look at movies about WWII, such as "12 O'Clock High", "Halls of Montezuma" and "Band of Brothers" to see that they can make a movie showing that wars are awful, but sometimes necessary.
Until I saw Benny Hill, I thought the British sense of humor was as dry as can be. Never could figure out Monty Python's Circus…
Also I had to reedit my first reply to you – these little cordless keyboards can be the pits – have to check my spelling better before hitting "submit".
Well you have one of the best-trained bodyguards with you Susan! What those guys go through in training is unreal…
both the film and the director won the critic's circle award last night. if it grabs a golden globe tomorrow, it's headed for an oscar or two.
And what movies out this year would you consider more worthy of this year's directing/best pic awards? Just curious.
As a peson with no military knowledge, I don't know enough about actual military protocol to tell if the film was accurate or not, but I felt it did an excellent job of conveying the stress and dangers or war, the courage of our troops, and the treachery of the insurgents. I thought it was an excellent film, and I wish her well on the awards circuit. It's going to be between her, Lee Daniels (Precious) and maybe Tarantino all the way. While I enjoyed Avatar's tech, I can't see it seriously winning any directorial awards. She may get chick sympathy votes, but I kinda feel she's made the best film of the likely nominees. And I really cringe to see what the 10-way best picture field is going to look like.
After reading all current comments,
I will watch this film with my son who is 4 tours in and HE will tell me if this pic rings true or not.
Fair enough?
For many years the movie of 12 O'Clock High was used by the Air Force to study leadership techniques.
Well, I'm sure that if you could get 10 Iraq vets together with their opinions you wouldn't get unanimity but I think we can all agree the movie doesn't disparage the war or the military the way Hollywood had regretfully done on a regular basis.
ITV (Britain) made an excellent tv series called 'Danger UXB' starring Anthony Andrews in 1979 about a bomb disposal squad in England during WW II. 'Hurt Locker', also excellent, could have been an updated film version, minus, of course, the terribly British "stiff upper lip".
Conservatives are overreacting to Hollywood's dramatically trite, ideologically tendentious and morally inverted portrayal of the US military. They demand that the American soldier be shown as an exemplary warrior – pure of heart, noble of mind, humane of spirit, great of soul, avuncular to children, chivalrous to women, gentle to puppy dogs, yet unremitting in courage, tactically infallible, philosophically serene, superbly coordinated physically and psychologically, and fierce in battle even unto death, and all at the same time! Anything which falls short of this in 'Hurt Locker' is condemned not so much as a stab in the back but rather a sly knife between the ribs.
Take the "adrenaline junkie". This is perfectly realistic, though the pop-culture phrase demeans the reality. Some men come alive in war. It is their apotheosis. They find they were born to it. They're better at it than anything else they'll ever do – and they feel alive in combat at a level of intensity and meaning that they can never achieve anywhere else. And, in this case, they're doing it in a good cause.
In the Old Irish sagas – we're going back 1300 years now – the hero, Cú Chulainn [koo khull-inn], is frequently seized by "confadh catha" [kun-fuh kohuh] or battle frenzy where he becomes nothing but a pure warrior, his whole being, body and mind, centred upon the act of combat and the destruction of his enemy, a place where there is only death to be given and to be received. This is a place which most men pray they will never visit. The so-called "adrenaline junkie" calls it home. In the end the heroism is all his own; it is the justice of the cause for which he fights that makes that heroism glorious.
both the film and the director won the critic's circle award last night. if it grabs a golden globe tomorrow, it's headed for an oscar or two.
Bill, that's the irony of the this film. Because it doesn't overtly disparage the military, we're supposed to just accept is as its been promoted through the overly-hyped film critics. I've seen the film, am a Veteran, but didn't enjoy it because of certain things in the plot (and to me there seemed to be more than a few things presented that were off). I think with the awards being heaped on this film, it'll be hollywood's way of saying "See, we got one right"…but having a technically impressive and visually stunning film only goes so far if the storyline falls flat with the community it's meant to portray.
Why won't I watch 'Hurt Locker'? Because, as Nolte rightly pointed out, this film has no moral center. And that is a terrifying thing. Why should it scare me? Well, I've give one lousy example.
I saw a film a while ago. It was beautiful, haunting, a masterpiece. I must have played that tragic end scene where the 'hero' died a martyr's death a hundred times. God, it was a beautiful scene. But that all came to a screeching halt when a reviewer pointed out the obvious; the director of 'Hero' – Jet Li – was China's Leni Riefenstahl. You know why that scared me? It wasn't because Jet Li had glorified the brutality of Red China – it was because I didn't realize it until someone else told me. It was right there in front of my face yet I didn't see it. I don't want that to happen again. Films are like sermons – you must take care that the values they preach are the ones that your soul should share. Yes, it's just a film. But then sermons are just words.
Boy, I remember when Andrews became the British "It" boy du jour when UXB and then Brideshead came out! The swooning of the teenage girls approached Twilight levels for the day! Great post!
Zhang Yimou directed "Hero," not Jet Li, who starred in it.
I am thinking that one of the reasons we are having such polite (after all we are conservatives) disagreement is that fact that so much of the dialogue is not so overt as to be a bell ringer (list the recent discussions of Law and Order which is overtly political) but rather, it is shaded enough that one takes their past experiences, world view to add to the dialogue for one's own conclusion.
Take the shrink, for example. Someone said that his line was "war is fun". I don't remember that – (but would have to rewatch the movie). He said something to the effect that this is one your life's most important experience.
Like I said, I don't remember the exact line but I think it was close to this. I have been known to be wrong on occasion though
I never had to be in combat so one can take my view for whatever you wish but in reading about so many who have been in combat many would say that while they would obviously not volunteer to go through their experiences again, it was one of the most intense experiences they had. It is what forges the bond to a "Band of Brothers".
It is why they have reunions 50 years later.
It is certainly not to glorify war but the experience is such a crucible that it is a bonding experience.
That's what I took from the shrink's comment.
Others, hearing the same words, can form a completely different conclusion and it doesn't make them any more "right" or "wrong" than my own…
My own thoughts, watching the adrenaline junkie's needlessly risk taking, is thinking "If I were in that kind of work I'd be as conservative as I could be". The scene towards the end with the suicide bomber – I'd have beat feet outta there! But then James was an adrenaline junkie.
The scene where he is suspecting the guy with a cell phone was the trigger man, and deciding whether to shoot or not – told of the soldier's humanity. He let a man who to me at least was the enemy – go.
I remember readig the autobiography of Gregory "Pappy" Boyington. What a sad life he had after the War – when he was a Marine ace. He was a shoe salesman and wrestling referee. Eventually turned to the bottle.
Bill,
There's a new documentary film about Pappy Boyington, got a link sent from a friend on Facebook, check it out if you find Boyington a compelling character, its called Pappy Boyington Field.
Don't know if will be in any theaters, looks like documentaries don't always bring in big bucks, (unless it's Micheal Moore's tripe).
Dang, you're right. I had to put on my reading glasses to discover that on the DVD box. It said 'Quentin Tarantino' really big – as if he was the director, than finally I could squint out Yimou. Thanks for catching that. My bad.
No worries…I also remember watching and about halfway through realizing there were a lot of very "chinese" philosophical/social themes that weren't quite computing and then…ooo…pretty petals!
Watched "Hurt Locker" last night and thought it was a fairly well-made movie, but do somewhat agree that it focuses a little too much on the adrenaline-junkie/PTSD thing. It sure held my interest.
It did serve to make me feel even more grateful for/in awe of our military folks… and I didn't think that was possible. What a job they do.
When I caught ' Danger UXB ' on PBS in the early '80's, it made me realize how second-rate most American dramas were in comparison. Great series.
P.S. Thanks for the Irish myth info. Erin Go Bragh !
Joe – I used to see him regularly at the Reno Air Races. He'd sell prints and books. He was a smaller guy – maybe 5'6"-5'7"?
I have a signed poster of his in my hallway – of him in his F4U Corsair shooting down a Zero. He went from Marine ace to POW in Japan to shoe salesman.
He's buried at Arlington now.
I have been trying to make sense of our War on Terror since 9/11. I have read extensively, talked to those veterans who are willing to discuss their experiences. The preceding Iraq War movies have been political theater crap.I have been trying to see this movie for months.It was in the local theaters (Detroit area) for what seemed like less than a week. It was gone before I could get to see it. It has been described as bombing in theaters – It was marketed by an independent company – who seemed to not give it wide distribution — Is that the movie's fault? Small release – short dwell time – equals fiancial failure.
I felt the movie is even handed – based on the writing of a man who was embedded in Iraq with an Army unit it has apparent authenticity. It rolled almost like a documentary. Were there stupid bits? Hell yes. Look at the unneccessary junk Oliver Stone threw into Platoon. Renner's performance was understated. Compare to Steve McQueen's B-17 pilot in The War Lover. That is a portrait of an adrenaline junkie. I think Renner was showing a man who had a unique skill (and a whole pile of luck) and knew few had this unique combination.I will be loaning my copy to a friend who was in Mosul at the time portrayed. I will let him be the judge of how well the story is told.
I am watching this movie right now. I had to stop and look up some comments about it. I stopped liking it as soon as the dr said war is fun. That is just irresponsible as a director to even put that in the movie., No one should think war is fun. The drinking got to me too. No one was allowed to drink although, I'm sure some was snuck in, I doubt it was blatenly obvious like they protrayed it.
Overall, I wouldn't waste you time!
great picture
I watched it a couple of nights ago, and was impressed. It was a different take. A man becomes addicted to war, danger, and excitement. He loves it more than he loves his family, even though it's sure to end his life. It's rare, but I'm sure it happens. I think the movie took great care to show that this was an unusual condition. The opening of the movie showed us the safe way to do the bomb disposal job, so we would realize how reckless the lead was. We were given examples of other characters on his team showing what we would consider the correct emotional response. The soldiers showed compassion for the local populace and even risked their lives to save a man in one scene. I thought it was more than fair to the military in general, while presenting the story of a flawed man.
I just got done watching it and as an ex-Army guy, I didn't think it was that bad. I also didn't see much in the way of any particular political message in it.
I find it respectful overall, but with a dash of eccentricity, I guess for that surrealism that every "great" war movie of the postmodern age feels compelled to indulge. My problem is simply that it is too rambling, episodic and slow to be all that enjoyable. It didn't give me any adrenaline rush. It's worth a look, but I doubt I'll add this one to my collection.
Carolyn, it's tough for me to agree or disagree with you on "Hero" because I kind of thought that film, though beautiful, was boring regardless of the message. In fact, I feel all his "wu xia" films are pretty but a little bit dull plot-wise.
However, in defense of Zhang Yimou, I'm not entirely sure he can be compared to Leni Riefenstahl. In fact, I honestly don't know what's up with that guy. I don't know why he makes blatantly pro-communist films like "Red Sorghum" and then does a 180 and makes films like "To Live", "Raise the Red Lantern" and "Ju Dou", all three of which were banned in China for being anti-communist. I can't speak for the quality of the last two because I haven't seen them yet, but "To Live" is a great film, one of my favorites. So, don't write him off. If you like Zhang Yimou's style, give "To Live" a shot.
By the way, in case you didn't know, none of the films I just mentioned are martial arts films. His earlier films are mostly dramas.
As I stated a few weeks ago… best scene is the last 'bomb' scene with the guy who has a bomb locked to him.
I didn't like the film. Why? Well, I've been in 21 yrs and am currently deployed to Afghanistan.
Many parts are so implausible as to be laughable. What are the three of them doing driving around the desert by themselves? No reason was given. It isn't done. How is a guy who isn't trained going to pick up a .50 cal sniper rifle and take out bad guys with very little difficulty? And, make no mistake, they were portrayed as knowing what to do (the main character picks up the spotter scope and calls shots). Soldiers (I'm in the AF) are trained and by and large follow the rules. To quote the great Jack Nicholson "we follow rules or people die." Where were his superiors? When did he report to them? They just don't stay in their hootches, getting drunk and punching each other, waiting on calls…
People get addicted to activities that raise their adrenaline. Wow… thanks for the info.
You must be logged in to post a comment.