‘The Hurt Locker’: Hollywood’s Idea of ‘Not Political’
by John NolteI jumped at the opportunity to join “The Hurt Locker” press junket. The film’s director, Kathryn Bigelow (”Point Break,” “Strange Days,” “Blue Steel”), has been a favorite of mine since catching a 3 a.m. Cinemax screening of “Near Dark” some twenty-five years ago. No director — not the Scott brothers, not Michael Bay or even Clint Eastwood understand or are able to get inside the skin of driven men of action like Bigelow. This makes even her rare misstep like “K:19 The Widowmaker” much more watchable than it deserves to be (actually, I watch it all the time).
The junkets are simple. You sit in a hotel room with other writers and one by one the film’s participants stop by for a few minutes. So, in no particular order, as a group we had the chance to interview Bigelow, screenwriter Mark Boal (”In the Valley of Elah”), who researched the film in Iraq, and actors Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty.
All were charming and personable to be sure, but whenever politics or previous Iraq War films came up, things would get a little tense and surreal as each responded by assuring us they weren’t worried because “Hurt Locker” wasn’t at all political. Again and again, the film was described as a straight-forward war picture that just happened to be set in Iraq.
Obviously with these anti-Iraq films flopping at a resounding 100% rate, you can understand why the subject was uncomfortable, but the disconnect between the film I saw just a few days earlier and what the participants seemed to sincerely believe was an apolitical action film, was striking.
Here are some of the story beats. [minor spoiler warning]
The film opens declaring its theme in writing: War is a Drug.
Renner [pictured above] plays Staff Sergeant William James, a soldier unable to function in the real world or sustain a normal relationship with his family, including a young child. War’s turned him into a reckless adrenaline addict who constantly puts himself and the men he’s in charge of in danger when defusing IEDs.
Actor David Morse has a cameo as a field commander, Colonel Reed, who’s portrayed as sadistic and slightly unstable. After an Iraqi civilian/suspect is shot, Reed’s informed the man’s life can be saved if medics are called in immediately. Reed refuses to even consider it, and as the dying man bleeds out, exhibits an unsettling admiration for James’s cowboy ways.
After an Iraqi cab driver (who inexplicably plowed through a road block) is roughly subdued, James says to the troopers handcuffing him, “If he wasn’t an insurgent, he sure the hell is now.”
As the armored vehicle carrying our protagonists passes by, a group of Iraqi children angrily hurl rocks at them.
Naturally, there’s the “They all look alike” remark directed at the Iraqi people by one of the leads.
And the Iraqi people get the worst of it. Something all these anti-war films share in common is a refusal to put a real human face on the people our military are fighting and dying for (this is the case in many anti-Vietnam war films, as well). To do so, to give the Iraqis humanity, works against the abandon-them-to-embarrass-George Bush goal. So instead of portraying them as people — as real, relatable human beings worthy of support and liberty — they’re stripped of humanity and turned into story-props: Villains, victims, foul-mouthed hustlers, or strange alien beings who keep an awkward distance and mourn the dead by yelling savagely at the sky.
Director Kathryn Bigelow
During the interviews, I didn’t press these specifics. They were emphatic the film was apolitical, so the question could only come off as argumentative. Besides, the plot points speak for themselves. How I interpret them is my opinion. Others may feel different. But I did ask everyone the actors what they thought drove the men who volunteered for the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) squad, which, though obviously dangerous, is difficult to get accepted into because of the skill level and personality requirements.
Only Renner (who memorably portrayed a heroic soldier in “28 Weeks Later“) had an answer. He remarked that the EOD personnel he spent time with while preparing for the role enjoyed the work and the bump in pay. It also offered unique career opportunities after military life was over. That’s a perfectly good answer and no doubt true.
However, the rest looked as though no one had ever asked that question before, which is interesting. You would think that this very “motivation” would be the prime characteristic in creating the foundation of the characters. This and the film’s actual portrayal of these characters makes clear that a sense of duty or a selfless desire to help others and serve a cause bigger than one’s self wasn’t a motivation remotely near the universe of anyone’s consideration.
To their credit, when it came to the military, all the participants spoke with respect, but there was certainly a disconnect, and it shows in the film.
“The Hurt Locker” starts it theatrical roll-out June 26th.
My review will post next week.
UPDATE: June 15th 7:37 a.m.: While preparing a follow-up interview, I reviewed the recordings of the junket and have updated the post to correct a misintepretation of my notes.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
81 Comments
Well John, I really enjoyed K-19 Widowmaker so it's interesting to see that you saw it as a rare mistake (albeit a minor one.) It is amazing that these people have such a different view of things, they probably don't think of many of these films as being anti-war. I'll be interested in seeing your review, but so far, I have not seen one movie about Iraq.
I liked K-19 Widowmaker as well, although there were definitely some holes in it, pardon the pun.
All I can say is no one did their "homework" on this. No one except Renner bothered to research the military, especially not the writers. This sounds like the Iraq war version of Apocolypse Now (from what I recall of the film) with the heartless decision rendered by the commander (David Morse) to allow the wounded Iraqi to bleed out. The movie sounds like a caracature of everyone, including the Iraqi people. I think I shall give this a pass.
As the case with most "war" films, this one appears to subsist on stereotype. I worked with a few of the EOD guys and found them to be like most SMs, PROFESSIONAL TO THE CORE. Unfortunately, for me perhaps, Hollywood's approach to portraying us has left me not regretting the decision to not see their product.
The writer, Mark Boal, spent time with these guy in Iraq. But Boal also co-wrote "In the Valley of Elah," which might be the most vicious portrayal of our troops … ever. "Elah" makes "Locker" look it was produced by John Wayne.
Of course, the bravery of the EOD personnel can't even be compared to the raw guts of film makers who dare to make a film that tells the truth about the warmongers of the Bush administration. I mean these people aren't done when the movie the last meal on set is catered. They have to do post production and then go to those cocktail parties where people might say, "I didn't think your film was harsh enough about Dick Cheney." Wow…These filmmakers are hecka brave.
(Too bad, I loved "Near Dark" as well.)
The people who you interviewed who claimed this film is apolitical were being sincere. So was Dan Rather when he described himself, and The New York Times, as "middle of the road, politically."
That's the problem.
I had never encountered Renner as a performer until the Unusuals, which I love (and, which is canceled). I'm glad he seems to be a rare decent part of this film (at least, offscreen). I won't see the movie, though.
—
They have to do post production and then go to those cocktail parties where people might say, "I didn't think your film was harsh enough about Dick Cheney." Wow…These filmmakers are hecka brave.
—
Heh. This reminds me of when Clooney said, "I have it much tougher than old Hollywood stars like Clark Gable. I have to travel all over the world promoting my films." Yes. That's much tougher than–oh, I don't know–*flying combat missions over Nazi Germany*. Ignorance and arrogance. A deadly combination.
And that's not even to mention the war bond junkets the stars of the '40s used to go on. Gable knew a little about those as well, especially when his wife was killed on the way home from a war bond rally.
Poor George. He has it so tough. Sometimes, there are brown M&Ms in the bowl and the caviar isn't the right temperature.
You're surprised that left-wingers and idiot Hollywood types think portraying soldiers as bloodthirsty, kill-crazy morons inflicting pain on innocent third-world people is 'apolitical'?
We live in a world where any book, TV show, or movie that dares to be even slightly pro-American is called 'jingoistic' (look at the reviews for recent books celebrated on BH, such as 'One Second After' – the reviewer always has to call out 'jingoism').
If you want the tide to turn, you have to keep voting with your wallet and not going to see these films. The Valley of Elah guy deserves a short career of flops.
Once again Hollywood drops a big poo on what could have been a really cool movie. Thanks guys and gals. When it craters at the box office I hope you choke on it….
I've been trying to warn readers of this site for months now. I saw this movie when I was in Iraq with a bunch of other airmen, and we were completely stunned by how anti-American and anti-military it is. I don't care what the actors or filmmakers may have "thought" they were doing, but if they think this film treats the military with respect, then they're just idiots living in denial. But beyond the simple hit job this is, it's not an entertaining movie at all. It's completely ridiculous and choppy, with no overall plot, and the things that do happen seem completely random and artificial. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.
How can a woman like Bigelow EVER understand what it's like to be a soldier on the EOD detail? I mean, really. Much less a sheltered Hollywood guy like Boal.
But I have a real problem with a female director, who just can't understand WHY men will do brave things (brotherhood, duty, rewards) and would come at it with a female sensibility. Which is like putting Sam Peckinpah on a Jane Austen movie. Or Quentin Tarantino (with say Michael Madsen as Mr. Darcy and Christopher Walken as Mr. Bennet) directing Pride and Prejudice?
It might be interesting in a train-wreck kind of way. But not a very good film.
The reason this movie has such glaring plot holes is because neither the writer (sheltered Hollywood guy) nor Director (sheltered Hollywood female director known for "women's pictures" like Twilight) can understand WHY Joe Average would want to be a soldier, much less one of the riskiest assignments in the Iraq Theater.
The person to blame for this fiasco is the producer. Neither writer nor producer should have been on this flick, I'd have put Milius or whoever wrote Band of Brothers screenplay.
Lola, are we really surprised? With the exception of the bloggers here and I feel safe to say the closeted conservatives in Hollywood, it really seems to be genetic that Hollywood must always trash those that are the most responsible for their priviledge to turn out the trash they do.
As an aside, it's nice to see you and the rest of the folks here. Physical therapy has not be pleasant.
So you're saying the movie's being political by trying not to be? Thats a no-win argument. I think its pretty clear why the iraqis are portrayed in the manner described, because its a movie from the soldier's POV. Maybe the guy in the beginning of the film who asked Eldridge 'Where are you from?" was just counting coup. Maybe he was a terrorist. Maybe he was just the distraction. We don't know because the soldiers don't know.
Unfortunately, Bigelow is exactly the wrong kind of director to expect any kind of "humanization" story (K-19?) and any such attempt would be a jarring distraction from the film.
But I do get your point about the iraqis. They're just as much of a nonentity to the left when it comes to politics.
K-19~ ahh.. what tripe that movie truly was. Worst being having Mr. Harrison as the lead, what a miscast. Smarmy and overcooked (pardon the pun) thruout. The only thing I found amazing was the conversation in the bar in regards to the cosmonauts that got blown up. The nervous looks all around sealed the scene for me since I read not but a few months before, a book of essay compilations of the famous Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein that had a dairy of his travels with his wife in USSR.
They came across two soldiers who thought that since he and his wife where typical tourists, obvious since they wore clothes that didn't come off Pravda approved linen ware. They had no problem talking about the deaths of those few cosmonauts that occured well before the first one came back to glory. Damn shame for them since Mrs. Heinlein was a linguist in French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch, Chinese, Thai, Japanese and so forth and could speak them all perfectly.. oh. She also knew Russian.
To this day, I've never seen any information about that dark past of mother russian who seems so damn willing to bury it to this day. Truth be told, I am too darn lazy to pursue it either. But if Mrs. Heinlein interpreted as so, I'll always trust her on this one as well.
So, it's yet another hit piece on the military from Hollywood? That's a shame. They should at least have the guts to admit that's the purpose of their movie. Cowards.
Thank you for the spoilers. I actually feel like I made $10 not seeing the film. You'd think that somebody would have finally learned not to do negative Iraq films. But to give Mark Boal a SECOND shot at it proves they are dense beyond hope.
So in the Age of Obama he has moderated his views from vicious anti-military to moderate contempt?
John, thanks for your insights. It looks like hollywierd missed another great opportunity to tell an action adventure story with an emphasis on the human element. The characters you describe are nothing like the many servicemembers, officer and enlisted, I worked with during my military career–some of whom were colorful. Writing stereotypes and 'extreme' characters is lazy. Although I try not to see the world through politically colored glasses, from what you wrote, it seems the writers of this film are totally deluded at best. I doubt if Mark Boal had a conversion experience on the road to Damascus.
DH, I'm curious: did they know who you are, the filmmakers? Are they even aware of this site's existence—or is it totally off their radar?
Wonderful writing as always. Looking forward to your review.
I think Hollywood realized nobody was going to see their overtly anti-war movies about Iraq so they started to go out of their way to try and make the message more "nuanced" all the while proclaiming the movie was something other than what it actually was.
As a career military veteran, I'll never forget the jaw-dropping response I got from a fairly prominent Hollywood screenwriter back in the 1990s when, during the course of discussion about a planned "Captain America" comic book arc unveiled at a comic book convention, I voiced my ire because the writer-artist planned to have the U.S. military implausably and mindlessly take over the United States to set up a fascist dictatorship. Basically, I complained, the comic book writer is making the U.S. military out to be like Nazi stormtroopers. The screenwriter's response about the other writer's plan was simply, "What's the big stretch?"
It was pretty obvious to me at that point that the gulf of understanding between us regarding the U.S. military could only be measured in light years, rather than feet or inches. Still, after I got over being royally pissed off, I did my best to explain why the concept was, in fact, totally asinine.
Did he ever really understand? I don't know. But the fact that someone as smart, well-respected and influential as he had such a fundamentally flawed understanding of his own country's military was very disheartening.
ENOUGH! I'm disgusted and pissed at what Liberal hollywood has done to our US military. I'm the daughter of a Ret. AF Col who served in Vietnam..sister of two brothers who fought in Desert Storm, one in AF and one in Army…my family and their families never suffered from so called "war is like a drug" psychosis…instead..I'd say that 60's hippie liberalism is the drug that today's liberal hollywood writers and actors use to see our country and military through. They are the ones who have tried to destroy our military, and with them their families. Have they no shame?? I wish I had been at these interviews. I would've point blank asked them "so, do you really believe this sht or is it the pay check that gets you through the night? Do you think about how you effect the children of the men and women of our military??" Cowards..I lived half of my life on US AF bases in Germany, in direct striking distance from the USSR during the cold war…we went through practice "alerts" every month, always keeping a suitcase under our beds in case we had to evacuate. Without US military and their families, liberal hollywood would not exist.
Sadly, the populace is still being subjected to these Anti-American films – they're playing regularly on HBO, CineMax, Showtime, TMC, etc. I have to admit I like movies – not those, but I'm paying for the premium movie channels as are so many others and I have to endure that as I flip through trying to find at least one decent movie to watch through a dozen or so movie channels. One thing, though – no HBO. They showed their true colors long ago and I refuse to even have to flip through that hate-monger of the left, Bill Maher.
I agree..yet I hate it when they (HBO) put great, fun trashy romps like "True Blood" or noble heartwarming series like "The First Ladies Dect. Agency" on so I hate to dump it…plus they also aired "Taking Chance"
I HOPE THIS MOVIES DIES AT THE BOX OFFICE IN 2 WEEKS WITH LESS THAN $1,000,000 IN GROSS RECEIPTS.
In that picture, Bigelow is wearing a Kaffiyeh? Well, as long as she isn't being political
I haven't watched the trailer in a while, but here's guessing that the Trailer deceitfully portrays the film as sympathetic to our military, then baits and switches in the theatre. Astonishing that the Hollywood folks can make all these anti-American vanity projects. The ironic thing is that when Hollywood witnesses the destruction of capitalist America, they will likely go out the door very rapidly in the totalitarian regime that follows.
Is it me or is Kathryn Bigelow wearing a "Palestinian" scarf? (Just noticing… not judging.)
As for the film, it is sad if the actors didn't do such basic research. You really have to blame the writer, the director and the producer for not casting actors who would do such research or be able to explain the characters, story arc or scenes.
What was the pitch that sold this film in the first place?
I noticed that too…disgusting
In fact this movie may very well not be "political" in the sense that it has an AGENDA, but it nonetheless remains deeply LEFTIST in the worldview it (perhaps unintentionally) portrays. And I say perhaps unintentionally because these L-tards are so deep in their paradigm they aren't even consciously aware of it (it's normative to them). Which means they may actually believe in their heart of hearts it's not "political" even though, well, it is political, or at least Leftist. So I will boycott this crap movie because it furthers a LEFTIST worldview, not because it's "political."
Here's a movie idea for Bigelow…make one about the hanging deaths of gays in Iran, or the stoning to death in Somalia of a young girl who, while walking to her grandfather's house was raped. When she reported it, she was charged with adultry and stoned to death in a stadium. Let's see how brave you are Ms. Bigelow..you and every other liberal coward director in Hollywood. You want to make a statement about what truly is horrible? Make those movies.
How can a Hollywood film about Iraq be without politics?
Do you think anyone in Hollywood (besides a couple) ever heard of U.N. Resolution 1441? Or about the Iraq Survey Group reports? Or the fact that Bush's speech to congress was all about "programs" and NOT "stockpiles" of WMD. Or the TONS of weapons-grade yellowcake that was brought back from Saddam's facilities last summer?
Probably not.
The obscenely underwatched FX show "Over There" remains the only politics-free dramatization of the war in Iraq. DO yourselves a favor and rent or buy it — you won't be disappointed.
I'm an EOD tech and a soldier. This movie is of course not really representative of some of the things we do, but I'm sure there are plenty of fighter pilots who can't watch Top Gun because of inaccuracies. I will say that there WERE guys who ran that way back when Boal embedded with an EOD unit back in 04. It was still kind of Wild West back then. In some ways I long for those days when there weren't so many rules. Kind of looking forward to the next war to get some of that again.
Brings me to my next point. "War is a drug," Mr. Nolte, is not a political statement. Or if it is, then only because it's so true. I absolutely love my job. If I didn't care about my marriage, I'd never have come home. I don't necessarily love everything about it; there are some times that truly suck. But–and maybe I wouldn't go so far as to call it a drug–but there's something about it that's so much more immediate and comfortable than our artificial, plastic, instant-gratification, text-message "reality" of back home. Stupid civilians look around and think what they see out there is the horizon; but it's actually a wall, with soldiers standing atop it keeping the real world from getting in. It's ugly, sometimes, but it's never fake. That's what I like about being out there.
I agree, it is distractingly episodic. I almost couldn't keep watching it for that reason alone.
Also hate how they didn't humanize the hajis. They're people with desires and feelings and dreams, just like us. There are some cultural differences but they're mostly just like us, and to not go out of your way to illustrate that is a political statement in and of itself.
Didn't like the scene with the contractors. Plays right in with the "evil cowboy mercenary Blackwater killer" stereotype. Contractors are good guys. Also, an EOD tech would never get into a sniper duel. Jeez.
On a personal note, I don't know Sgt. Sarver, the subject of the Playboy article on which the movie was based; but I do know that SOMEBODY involved with the movie thought he might object to their portrayal of him, because not only did they change the name of his character, but he also got several official-looking legal documents (completely out of the blue, unasked and unexpected) in the mail stating that the movie was not based on him and so nobody involved would be legally actionable. I also am friends with the commander of the company that Renner went and did some familiarization with; they said he's a nice guy, for an actor.
THANK YOU. And don't forget to include the Army medics who take care of the Iraqi guy who was @$$-raped by his brothers (Any takers? I can get you in touch with one of the guys who was there. No? Really? Hunh).
I'm currently taking a screenwriting course at UCLA. As part of the course, each student had to pitch a premise to the instructor and the rest of the class. Out of my 16 fellow students, about half came up with a premise that was blatantly anti-military. Most of them began with a Post Traumatic Stress disorder case. The PTS case takes hostages at a hospital. The PTS case kidnaps a woman. The PTS case robs a bank. There were some run-of-the-mill "the enemy is us" ideas as well. Hollywood types HAVE NO CLUE that they are anti-military. As they see themselves, they are people with compassion and humanity and ANY person with compassion and humanity must do whatever they can to oppose war – by any means necessary. Telling them otherwise is about as fruitful as talking to a Moonie or a Hare Krishna.
Damn. I thought this could be a good movie since the EDO guys are really cool. We've got a bunch of them out here at Fort Irwin and they've got the coolest toys and attitudes. (I bump into them during my UXO training.) Figures it'd be another liberal F*tard movie.
I hope these movie explains why people make and plant IEDs. They are cowards. All bombers are cowards, whether it is Al-qeda or the unibomber.
BTW, get the british series "Danger, UXB" (Unexploded bomb) to understand what defusing bombs involve, instead of this movie.
"I hope these movie explains why people make and plant IEDs."
Hollywood won't make that movie because, to them, the answer is too obvious: people plant IEDs because of evil American foreign policies and corporations.
Reminds me of the movie "W".
I am a fan of the Dallas Cowboys and was listening to an interview with Brad Sham (the "Voice of the Dallas Cowboys"). Sham had a small role as a reporter in "W". Since Sham had met President Bush while he was governor of Texas, Josh Brolin (who played Bush in the movie) asked Sham for some insight. Sham told Brolin that no matter what your politics were, when you meet George Bush, he is just a real decent, humble, regular guy who can drink a beer and talk sports with you. Brolin's response was "Wow, I never considered that."
That was some serious research they must have done for that film. :/
“'The Hurt Locker' starts it theatrical roll-out June 26th.”
Pass… but let me know when someone makes a faithful movie adaptation of Bellavia's "House to House" book and I'll be first in line to see it.
I had high hopes for this movie. I promote Near Dark whenever someone mentions vampire films (amazing how many people have never heard of it) and I loved Strange Days (which got an undeserved bad rap).
The fact that Mr. Nolte was invited to the junket indicates to me that the filmmakers may have actually tried to make an apolitical film, and just plain didn't know how to do it. It also means there's a good chance that some involved will be perusing this comments section. So let me throw my two cents in:
What you should have done is found a skilled writer who supported and continues to support the war (there are several at this site alone). Then you should have found a combat vet or two. Then you should have given them (or maybe just him, as there are certainly skilled writers who support the war and are combat vets) the script to read, and listened carefully to what they had to say. And then you would have found out what is political and what is not from a perspective not your own.
I am probably going to see this movie. Kathryn Bigelow has earned my goodwill, and I appreciate that an effort appears to have been made even if that effort failed. I have a tolerant and open-minded liberal friend who has seen the film already and would like to know what I think of it. Should make for an interesting discussion, if nothing else.
And, who knows? I might enjoy the movie anyway.
Bigelow is a fine director and I really wanted to like this. I´ll wait for some more reviews, but it doesn´t look good.
What is most disappointing is the predictability of it all. At this point nothing could be edgier and more provocative than a movie portraying the military simply as good men doing a hard job and the Iraq war as an essentially noble enterprise. It may also be good business, who knows? It´s never been tried before.
And no, that doesn´t mean everything has to be one-dimensional. In fact a balanced view is exactly what we are missing today. Not that Hollywood is scared of being one-dimensional when it comes to their world view.
Seems like it would be hard to make a "fair" movie about Iraq, as so many people think it was a flawed war to get involved with in the first place. If the filmmaker doesn't acknowledge that, then it's skewed; but if he/she does acknowledge that, then other people will find it not to their liking.
"Patton" was the only war movie I can think of as fair as a war movie could be–the only war movie where a liberal and conservative could watch it together, and like it. (If maybe for different reasons.) Patton–as portrayed in the movie at least–comes off as a flawed guy, with an ego and a bit of a loose tongue, but with a philosophy that is hard to dispute–war may be bad, but if you are going to do it, you should do it to win. Even if you're totally anti-war, you can respect the logic behind that, even if you still don't agree with it.
Though, just for enjoyment, my favorite military movie is probably "The Last Detail," though it's not a war picture. I'm curious, is that one that people on this site like?–it is a bit irreverent.
Yep! That's the anti-decapitation device. Sympathize with them and they'll leave you alone. Yep… works every time.
/sarc off
You are absolutely right, EOD are true proffesionals — but damn, do they love their job. When I was stationed in Iraq at Camp Slayer, which housed a crap load of US government civilians, EOD would get regularly called to inspect any suspicious debris found on the camp (in addition to disposing of unexploded ordinance,) usually called in by a jumpy civilian. Often my squad would provide a cordon for EOD. Now, I completely understand getting nervous about IEDs, but I have to laugh at the CD player and empty cardboard box EOD was called out to inspect. And they blew them in place anyway. "Looks like a box, Sergeant." "Yup. It's definitely an empty cardboard box." "We gonna blow it up?" "Yup." Man, I loved those guys.
As an ex-sailor, I *love* The Last Detail. After all, any true, balanced account of the military should include the fact that (a) there is a lot of chickensh!t to deal with, and (b) young men on the beach are going to go looking for a good time, come what may. (See also, The Sand Pebbles).
Servicemen are not cardboard heroes. They're normal young men- which is what makes them extraordinary when the balloon goes up.
I was at Victory. I remember times like that well. Welcome home, troop.
SUA SPONTE
"No director — not the Scott brothers, not Michael Bay or even Clint Eastwood understand or are able to get inside the skin of driven men of action like Bigelow."
It's bizarre, WTF comments like this that keep me coming back to Big Hollywood.
Was the assignment to come up with a military-themed story or was it just dumb luck that half your class came up with anti-military stories? If it was just dumb luck, then I'd call that a big problem that needs to be remedied ASAP.
I graduated from film school myself five years ago. One of the classes we had to take was screenwriting but we pitched ideas to the teacher only, not the class. Of the movies that were made, we had a workplace comedy, a bittersweet romantic comedy, a WW2 movie about ghost soldiers, a black comedy about two sisters who avenge the death of their parents at the hands of one grouchy Nazi, a post-apocalyptic tale set in the future, a teen comedy/caper (I co-wrote this one), and another one I can't describe that well, only because the movie was awful and I haven't seen it in years.
Of course, the school I went to was in Orlando, not LA, and many of my classmates were more conservative leaning. (The two brothers from Kansas and the evangelical who did work for Campus Crusade were the most down to earth, hardest-working guys in the room.)
Personally, I'm waiting for Matthew Bogdanos' Thieves of Baghdad to be made into a movie. It's about a Marine Corps Reserve Colonel (Bogdanos) who's recalled after 9/11. Eventually he takes it upon himself to find the antiquities that had been stolen from the Iraq National Museum during the invasion. It's part Indiana Jones, part CSI, and all true. It'd make a great movie. Truth be told, I'm not even the most gung-ho, rah-rah person in the world but, speaking as a capitalist, there's a gap in the marketplace that needs to be filled.
I'd also like to see Spytechs by Robert Wallace and H. Keith Melton be made into a miniseries. It's a history of the Office of Technical Services at the CIA – the guys who make all the cool gadgets, recording devices, poisons, etc. It doesn't gloss over the problems and controversies (coming up with ways to kill Castro, for example) but it's very, very interesting. It would just take more than two hours to tell the whole story.
maybe it's because I actually watched "lions for lambs" and "redacted" and my basis for comparison is skewed, but this movie is very pro-military, and so far it's the only good iraq war movie
This'll be another one this former film buff will skip. Thanks , John, for giving us a heads up.
"I don't care what the actors or filmmakers may have "thought" they were doing, but if they think this film treats the military with respect, then they're just idiots living in denial.'
I suspect it's a combination of things. Actors aren't usually rocket scientists, but they are smart enough to know that if people don't go to their movies, the movie doesn't make money and if the movie tanks badly enough they might not get another and without another, they might not get a pay check and that might mean they have to find work that not so glamorous. So with the tanking of all the anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-military films in the past five years, they're out their exercising their acting chops by declaring "this one is different", "we love the military". Then again, the film probably was made when Bush was president and not the Glorious One. We'll get some movies soon about how wonderful America is now that it has The Glorious One (maybe he's the "Mahdi" that little Iranian nutbag, Ahmadinejad, has been waiting for) is our glorious leader (peace be upon him).
Time for some conservative scriptwriter to pen a comedy along the lines of "Private Benjamin" about a beautiful Hollywood starlet on the rise (an Amy Adams character) who becomes so enthralled with the Muslim world that she goes to Tehran or Saudi to live. A little on the ditzy side, she loses her American passport, and the rest of the film showcases just what it's really like for women living under the Muslim thumb.
"Without US military and their families, liberal hollywood would not exist. "
Hummm, another interesting script. Terrorists take over Los Angeles, American military refuses to respond, lets terrorists know that so long as they don't leave the LA city limits, they're safe. Cut to ending. LA is now the Islamic City State of LA, we fade out with Susan Sarandan's big eyes peering through a slit in her burqa.
No, there was no military requirement. There is a powerful anti-military, anti-religion undercurrent running through the class. The instructor is an old-school lefty producer who's been around for 35 years. Now here's the odd part. My idea, a VERY politically incorrect dark comedy, he seems to like more than any other idea. Last week he read out-loud our first couple of pages – mine got positive feedback, including "this is well written." I'm slowly and carefully introducing the idea that there is a huge untapped market in middle America. The instructor also said to me, "If you're saying there should me more films outside of the typical Hollywood point of view, I agree with you."
I don't think it's quite as bad as some people make out. It's a failure of imagination as much as anything else. Most of the students seem to believe anti-military, anti-capitalism = hard-hitting drama.
Hey there, TJ,
From John's description, Hurt Locker doesn't seem "nuanced" at all. I found this passage from John interesting:
"All were charming and personable to be sure, but whenever politics or previous Iraq War films came up, things would get a little tense and surreal as each responded by assuring us they weren’t worried because “Hurt Locker” wasn’t at all political. Again and again, the film was described as a straight-forward war picture that just happened to be set in Iraq."
My take: the tenseness indicates that these questions were anticipated and the answers were coached, obviously wishing to downplay that this film is no different than Elah or any other antiwar film. The cast just did not want to play this aspect up, but it's there as John vividly outlined.
Cheers,
Frank
I think the problem with calling it a "drug" is the negative connotations associated with it. I'm glad theri are soldiers who love being soldiers. They do their jobs well, with honor and duty to this great country and for their fellow soldiers. But there's no doubt in my mind that when I see hollywood comparing combat to a drug, they have an agenda.
It is an anti-war movie because it is a reflexively anti-soldier movie. They don't even think about what they are doing making these movies about millitary personel. It is hardwired into their brains that to be a soldier you have to be the way you described the characters in this film. That is their starting point. It is a post vietnam era stereotype that has never been accurate. It is much like the idea of the crooked politician, but the crooked politician has been proven as being more accurate because of the countless scandals they are always involved in. The crooked politician is the starting point, the Mr. Smith is the exception. The reflexive anti-soldier attitude can also be seen in the movie made by the Dwayne Johnson about Mars. He said he wanted to honor the soldiers by making a really realistic, technique wise, movie. They had an S.A.S. instructor who trained them. The character he played, however, followed orders to kill all the civillian witnesses on Mars. He had no diconnect in his reasoning. Hollywood is broken.
I am always amazed that so many people like the clint eastwood movie about the marines. He obviously did not research recon marines. They were morons until his character came along and actually tried to assault him. I do not know any recon marines but I know their training and the attitude you need to have to reach their level of professionalism. Forget any millitary movies after vietnam, except for blackhawk down.
Well and HBO also produced 'Band of Brothers' but I guess no one remembers that one. True colors and all that.
Why don't you show how brave YOU are and make them yourself?
Wow, you saw the film at 3 am on Cinemax. What was the Cinemax "After Dark" film that played right before it?
To Hollywood: Why did I join the millitary? Because of you. When I was in grade school I went to see the movie Star Wars. The very first scenes showed a bunch of men running toward something really bad. They set up in front of that door, looking scared, and they stood their ground. When the bad guys came through that door they fought and died. They were the line. I wanted to be a part of that line. I wanted to protect other people, people like me, a young kid, from the bad guys. That is what hollywood does not understand. Look at some of the millitary mottos, Special forces, De Opresso Liber, to free the oppressed. The coast guard motto, (I think) that others may live. When I had finished the recruiting process and was waiting in the final office, I saw a poster on the wall. It was world war 2, Europe, a scruffy looking american soldier marching in the snow. The line at the bottom said something to the effect, They got this far, but they aren't going one foot more! That sentiment is why I joined the millitary, I knew there were bad guys out there and someone had to stop them. I wanted to be one of those guys.
First, I suggest you not even review this film…big waste of time. Secondly, George Clooney should try doing some USO work…ya know, er like Bob Hope…or even today like Gary Sinise…and on your own dime. Thirdly, I plan to again stay home…never watch premium channels…and never watch a movie made after 1965. And lastly, I will continue to live like the happy, well adjusted, red-blooded American vet I happen to be.
I know Paul Haggis, who made "Elah". He's a $cientologist, which is why we don't talk any more. He comes across as soft-spoken, but when it comes to liberal jihadisms, he's as vicious as Nancy Pelosi.
So Bigelow's working hard to sell a big old lie, since she hired the writer of Elah. How do I know?
In the picture in the article, she's wearing a keffiyeh, the favorite scarf of Yasser Arafat. She was wearing that on purpose, probably the whole picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh#Kinds
With the exception of the actors and others who've supported the USO, Hollywood can go hang. I've given the entertajinment industry as much thought and consideration as they've given me or any other Soldier.
At least 40 years ago, the guys writing the scripts and making the movies MIGHT have been in uniform once and understood the good and bad of military service. Now, it's as though the filmmakers are trying to make a movie with the minimal amount of information, no frame of reference, and no human connection to uniformed service. Srcew 'em all, until they make something as good as "Band of Brothers" again.
65 years ago, there were lots of actors in uniform. My hero, Jimmy Stewart, flew many bomber missions over Europe. They parked their careers in those days to fight a worldwide threat to freedom.
These days, the bums can't even see it, and make movies like it's a bad idea to fight it.
Also From the Earth to the Moon but it's been so long since I've seen any of it.
I would proudly display the three disc, director's cut DVD on my bookshelf. You know, it's the one which shows the uncensored scene where Tim Robbins is beheaded live on comedy channel from the Al Jazeera feed.
Modern Hollywood liberals will never understand soidiers or policemen because they believe the world revolves around them. The ideal that someone would give their life for somthing bigger than themselves is compleley foreign to liberals. Liberal Hollywood thinks that since soldiers are willing to die for the USA there must be something wrong with them, the soldier has to crazy and unstable.
The only Irag film I have been willing to watch has been "Generation Kill" because I read that it is realistic portayal of marines, however I stopped watching after the third episode. I am sure that marines are profane, however, I am also sure that they can be profound or religous. The series choose only to show the profane and not the noble side of soldiers. I especially hated the scene were the soldiers were making sexual comments about a young girl who sent them a thank you card. Hollywood chooses to show only the negative side of military life and not the positive.
Thanks Billy and others. I thought I was going to be the only one who noticed that.
Like you said Wileygrl3,….disgusting!
This doesn't give me much confidence that "The Lone Survivor" will be any good either, if they decide to make it.
Hollywood hates anything military or Conservative now a days.
This is why they get very little of my money now.
Kathyrn Bigelow didn't direct Twilight.
You expect the writer to do his homework on Iraq when you can't even go to IMDB to look up a director's filmmography. Brilliant.
Awesome! Yet another liberal, anti-American, Hollywood creation I can have the satisfaction of not enriching!
The last Hollywood war movie I can think of that I liked was Three Kings. Yeah, in real life, Clooney comes off as smarmy, over inflated egotistical idiot. But he can act.
I knew it, for some reason I had a feeling in my gut that this was going to be anything but another slam on the military in a more subtle way. I keep asking for opinions on sites like FSR and all I get are glowing reports about how good it is and pro american.
Did you see the same film that I saw? Wow. You say all the Iraqis are portrayed as jerks and all the military are portrayed as jerks too. How can it be both? Are you forgetting about the Iraqi kid who sells trinkets who is befriended by Renner's character? Are you forgetting about the Iraqi professor who invites Renner's character to join him for tea after Renner has broken into his house and is pointing a gun in his face? Are those Iraqi cliches of "terrorists"? Hardly! Are all the military portrayed as reckless idiots? NO. Half the guys are by-the-books normal guys. Half the characters express conservative points of view. Others express more democratic points of view. It's a job for these guys. A terribly difficult and unfortunate, but worthwhile job, that regardlesS of political stance, ALL AMERICANS appreciate. Sounds like it's not an "apolitical" film, rather politically "neutral", which means that it leaves the interpretation to the audience by not shoving speeches and theories and politicizing down our throats.
Don't forget Generation Kill, a movie about 1st Recon Marines in the initial invasion. That series was pretty much politically neutral when it came to the guys. These were real men who were professional military operators, and most of them (the real people, not the actors), went back to serve additional tours in Iraq.
I saw this movie because I am a fan of (most of) Jeremy Renners work. Many of the characters he has portrayed have been pretty dark, sometimes disgusting people. Grist for the mill, so to speak, he is a good actor. I personally hope the exposure will help him find more and better avenues for artistic expression.
I did have to override my personal bias that war is not entertainment in order to view The Hurt Locker. It is that fascination with war that feeds its very existence. I wish peace was so exciting and stimulating to human beings, and men in particular.
I was glad to read this review, as I have seen so many others extolling its "intensity", and "realism", and its apolitical stance on war.
Ever been in the desert? They come in handy, which would be why she's wearing it? Occam's razor?
Actually Ryan I am Jeff Sarver and I am now a Master Sergeant still in EOD and in the 52nd. I do not know who you get your info from but you are dead wrong and som is our source about the "papers out of the blue" comment. I never signed one paper IN Bahgdad nor did I sign anything or recieve anything in the mail SINCE I have been back from Iraq. Wouldn't that kind of mail come to me needing a signature showing I received it? So please get your facts straight. If you have any more comments would you mind fact checking them through me first so there isn't anymore false quotes or BS flying around? kabang27@yahoo.com. I would actually like to talk. Email me sometime…………
You must be logged in to post a comment.