WaPo: ‘Hurt Locker’ Faces ‘Rising Backlash From People In Uniform’
by John Nolte“The Hurt Locker” lost me when the David Morse character, a Colonel in the field, ordered his men to stop treating a wounded prisoner — ordered that the prisoner be left to bleed to death. This monstrous moment wasn’t even necessary to the plot. It’s just thrown in as an awkward, spellbreaking aside to smear our troops. Then there’s Jeremy Renner’s protagonist who’s so PTSD-riddled and addicted to the adrenaline of war he constantly puts his own men in danger until his ongoing Iraq experience finally strips him of so much of his humanity that he can no longer love his own son.
That’s pro-troop? Well, a lot of people said so and argued with my review – even some conservatives. But one day before Oscar ballots are due, some Iraq veterans are speaking up:
But to those who were there, Iraq is real life. And they’re very sensitive — some would say overly so — when their war is portrayed via a central character who is a reckless rogue.
Hence a rising backlash from people in uniform, such as this response on Rieckhoff’s Facebook page from a self-identified Army Airborne Ranger:
“[I]f this movie was based on a war that never existed, I would have nothing to comment about. This movie is not based on a true story, but on a true war, a war in which I have seen my friends killed, a war in which I witnessed my ranger buddy get both his legs blown off. So for Hollywood to glorify this crap is a huge slap in the face to every soldier who’s been on the front line.”
In an interview, [Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America] said the anger about “Hurt Locker” stems not so much from such small inaccuracies — for example, the uniforms the soldiers wear in the film weren’t available until well after the time the story took place — but rather from the depiction of the main character, Sgt. 1st Class William James.
Portrayed by Jeremy Renner, who’s nominated for Best Actor, James is a daredevil who in one scene takes off his protective armor while disarming a bomb because, as he says, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to be comfortable.” He runs alone through the streets of Baghdad with his sweat shirt hood up like a gangster. Later, he takes two soldiers hunting for insurgents in Baghdad’s back alleys without any backup.
James’s fellow soldiers are, or try to be, by-the-book professionals. They call James “rowdy” and “reckless,” and one worries out loud that his leader’s crazy antics are “going to get me killed.” James is as much cowboy as soldier, and vets fear he could become an iconic figure in the American imagination should the movie win a bunch of statues.
“Films, almost more than anything, will be the way Americans understand our war,” Rieckhoff said. “So we feel that there is a responsibility for filmmakers to portray our war accurately. We see ourselves as watchdogs. . . . When he puts a hood on like Eminem and starts roving outside the wire, it’s ridiculous.”
Gallucci, a former sergeant who served in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, says he kept hoping James would get “blown up throughout the entire movie. I wanted to see his poor teammates get another team leader, who was actually concerned about their safety.”
Money quote:
“Films, almost more than anything, will be the way Americans understand our war[.]“
Rieckhoff gets it.
After all, how many millions of men went to Vietnam only to return and settle back into their normal lives? That’s not to say the war had no effect on them. But how many were able to re-integrate into our society and resume their roles as productive citizens and family men? How about almost all of them. But how do we see the Vietnam Vet today? We see him as alternately troubled, angry, bitter, disillusioned, homeless…
This is Leftist Hollywood at work, forever and intentionally stereotyping these brave men. And if you watch the latest slew of war films — including “Hurt Locker” – you’ll see a proactive campaign to stereotype today’s warriors as either victims, monsters or cowboys. Anything but the brave and selfless professionals they are.
To portray our service men and women with the nobility they deserve undercuts leftist Hollywood’s agenda to trash American foreign policy. Noble people only serve and believe in noble causes, and when it comes to George Bush’s war that simply can’t be allowed. So the victim-monster-cowboy playbook is opened and the arc of Renner’s “Hurt Locker” character moves quite obviously from cowboy to victim.
And what’s the best way to tell what a film is “about?”
The arc of the main character.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
144 Comments
we agree with Mr Nolte on this, with a single exception…
And that is artistic license. For the most part 'The Hurt Locker' is a taut, well acted thriller. From a military man's point of view it is, well- a movie. Better and more honest than the plethora of other Hollywood treacle on this subject, it is still a product of it's environs.
Like 'The Blind Side's gratuitous, post screening swipe at Bush, they just can't help themselves. That being said, and we do agree with Nolte's thesis, it isn't in and of itself reasons NOT to see a pretty entertaining film…
I am with you on this, John. Anything that unfairly paints the military just hits a sour note with me. DCase, it's odd, but after hearing the hype about the Bush poster, when viewing the movie, it really came across as no big deal. I suppose the argument is, if the events had taken place during the Obama administration, someone would have edited it out
I agree with you Mr. Nolte. I had no interest in this film for the very reasons you stated.
Artistic Licence doesn't include my permission to defame those who defend that right. My freedom is guaranteed by those brave soldiers that fight and die in this war no matter where it is fought. I will not be spending one penny to see this piece of crap that defames those who I hold in the highest esteem. It truely does not support our troops to pay money to see a smear. If hollywood produced movies that showed our soldier's heroism and bravery in fighting this most difficult and dangerous war then I will gladly pay to see the films. If not, then they get none of my money.
Having deployed to Iraq, not to mention working side by side with Explosive Ordnance Disposal PROFESSIONALS the entire time, this movie is an absolute load of CRAP. EOD guys are nothing like this idiot. If I had to work with someone like that, I would have notified his commander ASAP, just so he didn't get someone killed.
Hollywood at it's worst.
I walked out of the movie. Hollywood must realize that Americans want to see movies that celebrate and honor the troops and the various missions they perform to defend the good old USA.
There you go again John. Are you trying to mock the Melrose Blvd. metrosexuals again?
GOOD.
You really want to know what ices it for me? Read the whole article. When the real EOD non-com says that he's hoping the lead character gets blown up so his men might get a better leader –
well, that tells you the quality of the soldiers you are dealing with.
No disrespect to the Vietnam-era troops, but the men and women in the service these days CARE, regardless of the unpopularity of the war, and their troops always come first.
If these pot-smoking, service-dodging, clueless buttf**ks in Hellywood had a damn clue, they'd realize that these men and women are truly professional warriors.
F**k Hollywood, in toto, face down on the parade ground.
I didn't like Hurt Locker. Rieckhoff used the only word necessary to describe the film: "ridiculous".
(Of the nominated films this year I'd vote for either The Blind Side or District 9—two sincere, honest and really great films.)
Nolte, you're conveniently leaving out opinions from solders who actually say it's a fairly accurate portrayal of an EOD unit. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that you fail to give the "other side", since it doesn't jibe with your ridiculous and paranoid assessment that Hollywood is out to smear and demean the troops. Screenwriter Mark Boal spent time in Baghdad with EOD units. How much time have *you* spent over there? That's what I thought.
Also, defense secretary Robert Gates came out *IN SUPPORT* of this film. Where was your article on that?
Given the drought of pro-military movies, even brakish water taste good. Hence my support, albeit highly qualifiued, for this movie in spite of its numerous lapses.
For every cring-indusing instance, such as the aforementioned scene with David Morse, there are scenes that left me devasted by its humanity and pathos.
Jeremy Renner’s character is a junkie, but when I saw him step off that C-17 at the end of the movie, I felt that we are all safer for having men who step up, and I was left in awe of their courage and committment no mater where they find it.
I concur as well. I didn't feel that the film asked me to generalize who William James was — or had become — to our troops at large.
agreed- and that's why attendance is declining. Don't let the dollar figures foo you; at $10 a pop moviegoing is an expensive experience.
And, for the most part, not worth it. So because Hollywood hates it, we say Go Netflix!
One thing that puzzles me: I know we have ZERO actors stepping up to serve in the military as their duty to their country, or even in gratitude for their freedoms–much like the actors and directors of the 30s and 40s. But we've had 7 years of war veterans coming out of the service. Why aren't any of them breaking into acting, directing, or screenwriting?
Or are they generally blacklisted?
Does anybody want to see what real EOD folks can do? Google Private Channing Moss and see how the surgeaons and EOD guys reacted to a Soldier in my unit in Afghanistan who had an RPG lodged in his abdomen. That story would make a great, and true, movie but does not fit the nerrative.
Outside of the non-com hinting of blowing up his fellow serviceman, I found the movie riveting. It also depicted the U.S. as having high regard for human life and the enemy as not having any regard for any human life.
So I have no background in the military. This is the take of a pro-military conservative reader/poster.
I don't understand the art/science of making movies. I did watch this with some of my mates while in Afghan '09, most of the guys in the hooch had multiple tours. What gets me is that this movie almost had it. During the last few minutes of the movie, we all were silent. When he was with his wife and child, walking through the supermarket, we were glued. Those scenes were all too familiar to us (detached, boring, regular civilian life). War is our job, and being the best, the victor, the survivor counts. Like a movie director who works long hours to make the best movie possible, we too work tirelessly to perfect our craft so that we can beat any and all adversaries. We are not crazy war junkies who put our mates in jeopardy for a thrill, we are professionals who take our jobs and our missions seriously. We are regular guys/gals who like any other dedicated professional, want to be the best at our job, and be in the thick of it when its all on the line. "But people die?" Yep.
I already posted this as a reply, but to make it more visible:
Does anybody want to see what real EOD folks can do? Google Private Channing Moss and see how the surgeons and EOD guys reacted to a Soldier in my unit in Afghanistan who had an RPG lodged in his abdomen. That story would make a great, and true, movie but does not fit the nerrative. Check out http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3603057&a...
When I hear EOD people are laughing at it I know all I need to know.
I think people are being too unfair in regards to the Hurt Locker, and should see this as an Iraq War movie that is taking a much needed step in the right direction. The main qualm people have with the movie is that the main character is crazy and reckless, while soldiers like that are very few far and between. But if you watch the movie, you will notice that pretty much all his companions think that he is an utter idiot and feel *the same way* that the people decrying this movie feel.
I know Veterans that have seen this movie, and while they think that a bunch of it is over-the-top (especially the running in the hoodie scene) they think that the end of the movie is spot on, when the guy is in the grocery store. It doesn't paint soldiers as victims, but instead shows that what they do over there has meaning, while civilian life is frivolous and purposeless.
Bottom line is this. When you compare this movie to the slew of awful Iraq War Movies that Hollywood has released, not only is it not anti-war, but it has performed better. I think Hollywood might notice this, and start releasing movies that aren't total anti-war propaganda. We should support the Hurt Locker, and not demonize it.
Sixty five percent of the people who served in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees. Just sayin.
I think it might be a symptom of our nations shift from a citizen-soldier army to a professional standing army.
All military movies don't have to be "pro-military". It's not 1943.
The Hurt Locker is a great movie. Any movie has unrealistic scenes.
10th Mountain…Hooah!
This is a great story and exemplifies, better than any movie can or ever will, who are guys really are.
I did not like this film, as both a Veteran and a filmgoer. There were too many odd choices in this film, too many to list here quite frankly. When I learned that the U.S. Army dropped out of supporting this film, it was a huge red flag, when measured against the "love-letters" by the mainstream film critics.
It's too bad that this director will probably win the Oscar, and hollywood will congratulate itself for supporting the troops. The applause will drown out the legitimate criticism of this film…and there is much to criticize.
While I understand how hollywod continues to do his type of bait & switch, it is most distressing that certain organizations that should have the Troops best interest in mind, have chosen to support this film…it's disappointing. This is the best hollywood has to offer? No thanks!
It started with "War is a drug." remember that…. and made him out to be addicted to it. So it most certainly has a blatant black and white message.
I'd say… "War is a duty." And most return, painfully missing their families, because of Duty, Honor, and the knowledge that if they don't go, who will?
THE HURT LOCKER is a fantastic movie that takes some artistic license. Big deal. Cry about it. If you want something that portrays war in a saccharine syrupy way, I suggest you go watch THE GREEN BERETS again.
I have a problem with watchdog groups that bitch about the way the people they claim to represent are portrayed. This movie isn't anti-military, it isn't anti-troops, just because Jeremy Renner's character is an adrenaline junkie doesn't mean the filmmakers think all soldiers think that way. There are other characters in the movie too, more well-adjusted than he. This isn't REDACTED, stop pretending it is so you'll have something pop-culture related to get pissed about. If this movie is "anti" anything, it's probably (surprise!) anti-war. Heaven forbid.
I hope Kathryn Bigalow wins best director. I'd love the first woman to win the Oscar for that to be a woman who makes muscular movies about masculinity.
just remember, they chose this phrase to start the movie "War is a drug." and most certainly made him out to be an addict. whereas I prefer, War is a Duty, and that duty is the honor & pride of our military, still not totally hindered by political correct mult-diverse submission.
and the aisle full of cereal… that was portrayed as bad, frivolous and purposeless? really???? so all the cereal, all those choices, the joy and fulfillment of family, a home, chores… children… are bad? is that really how we should view life? the best life in the history of mankind!? ….scuse me while i go raid the fridge.
Considering the usual abject products of hollywood on the subject, "Hurt Locker" is not so bad (with an exception for the sequence with the contractors, which look totally insane). But, for sure, that's not something one can compare to "Taking Chance" or "Brothers at War".
It's depressing when the Oscars boil down to anti-military movie 1 or anti-military movie 2…in wartime.
[...] the original post: WaPo: ‘Hurt Locker’ Faces ‘Rising Backlash From People In Uniform’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Now tell us how you really feel…
I actually liked "The Hurt Locker." Compared to other Iraq war films, it was pretty balanced. For the most part, it showed Soldiers as decent, honorable guys. And I certainly would not say the "Rieckhoff gets it." Paul Rieckhoff is the founder of a partisan veterans organization, and he just happens to have role in MATT DAMONS!! movie "The Green Zone." So, if films are how Americans view our wars, why is a supposed pro-military guy helping a guy like MATT DAMON in an anti-military movie? Paul is an attention whore who has wanted to be in politics his entire life, and in my opinion, that is the only reason he ever served in the Army.
What made me avert this film was the hour-long program on XM (Sirius)'s station, Cinemagic, "Reel Time." Because Kathryn Bigelow directed the film, I gave the "Reel Time – The Hurt Locker" a listen….and pretty much turned it off halfway through.
The film's writer made me so angry with his liberal views (not to mention, some of the lamest, out-of-touch-with-the American military questions from the host!) made me realize that "The Hurt Locker" is nothing but another contrived, making-a-statement story.
There was absolute intent in making our brave men and women in uniform look uneducated and racist.
Positive broad generalizations are just as stupid as negative ones. Not everyone who signs up to be in the military is doing it because they "care" (some of them just want to get through college and reap other benefits, nothing wrong with that), not everyone who does is a professional warrior (some act very unprofessionally). I'm not saying we should disrespect troops or anything, but getting pissed off over a harmless (and incredibly good) movie like THE HURT LOCKER is baffling to me.
Have you even seen the movie? Probably not, since you're getting worked up over a line in the movie that the author of the article has taken completely out of context in order to manipulate you.
there are adrenaline junkies in this line of work no doubt…
We have seen them- and worked with them. Once this type of thing gets in your blood it can do this to a man. That is not to say you necessarily find that in EOD, but why not? It was not a huge leap.
That said, even with the Hollywood-isms of the flick it is by far the best of the Iraq themed films.
That's not saying a whole lot, though…
Or you could watch it for yourself, and, you know, form your own opinion. I'm a staunch conservative and I thought it was pretty damn good.
Those of you defending the Hurt Locker, please tell us what you thought of David Morse's Colonel ordering his men to stop giving an Iraqi prisoner medical treatment — ordering that the detainee bleed to death.
The films defenders never address that.
It's almost like we're forced to grade on a curve now. Hollywood has so dulled our sense as to how the troops should be portrayed that we're willing to gloss over an American field commander ordering the murder of a detainee.
Don't forget, someone tells Morse's Colonel that the detainee can be saved, making the American Colone's act cold-blooded murder.
Who cares what Robert Gates thinks?
Exactly. That Rieckhoff guy, we should totally listen to him. "Don't watch THE HURT LOCKER, go see GREEN ZONE instead!"
I know John will undoubtably cry blasphemy for even suggesting this but I thought Renner's character had a sort of Ethan Edwards quality about him. I saw a very similar scorched earth approach in how he dealt with the stresses of war and those around him.
Disappointing as it was… that bit with the colonel barely registered a blip with me as it's become almost cliche nowadays to insert some sort of Lt. Kilgore nutbag into every war-themed flick. Chalk another one up to intellectual laziness.
I would never attempt to call this a pro-troop film but neither was Apocalypse Now and yet it's still remains one of my all time favorites.
You've never professionally reviewed films, so who are YOU to criticize Nolte's reviews?
RED flag… Robert Gates supports the film… What exactly does that mean? Gates is not doing so great carrying the water for Barry. I personally could give a crap what Gates approves of. I'm an Army vet of 28 years ago and even I knew instinctively that this movie was crap. Soldiers don't act that way and aren't uncaring crazies.
It's all about Hollywood and their contempt for the service, our country and our honorable soldiers. Hollywood just can't make a straight movie without catering to the left and the anti-military within their own community. To them, the military is a tool. Anyone who joins is a tool. And they'll milk any veteran with a bone to pick with the mission or the service to the inth degree because that's what they do….. and then they'll defend it with…. yeah, but this veteran of _______ say's… ______. Same story from years gone past… always the same…. but they're always anti- military and cynical.
Doesn't the fact the he worked on THE GREEN ZONE give him credibility? You call him a partisan in one breath and then mention he's working with Matt Damon in another.
And the Green Zone might not be anti-military, just the Bush-Bash its being advertised as.
UGLY: Look at the difference in Renner's arc as compared to Ethan Edwards.
Edwards finds his humanity.
Renner loses his.
Night
and
Day.
You know what? Why not 1943? We're at a greater danger than in '43. We have an entire population that is completely ignorant of the military or it's traditions and it's purpose. We have citizens who have no knowledge of history or any formed impression of the threats that are against us from outside and from within.
I'd say, this is the time for patriotic movies. The movies of the 40's and late 30's served a purpose. They gave context to the struggle and helped uninformed citizens decide they wanted the US to fight and to win. How do you think the farmer in the middle of Kansas cared about what happened in Europe? To the Jews or Poland or even England? Why would he sign up and fight for a free Europe?
Most were enraged by Pearl Harbor and wanted to kill the Japs…. because they attacked us.. but only after they attacked us. Even then, the movies had to seed the citizenry with images and story-lines from the Pacific to make it seem a worthy cause…. because neither theater directly effected the mainland US and a good isolationist argument was being made and was widely held that we had no business fighting these wars.
This is the history of Hollywood of WWII. It WAS needed then, to provide context and information and justification. We kid ourselves that we're so modern we don't need any of that now. BS. We need it and to the extent that Hollywood has been anit-war since the 50's is reflected in puplic ignorance. Yeah, they like war movies, but for the wrong reasons.
Who cares what YOU think? Plenty of people care about what Robert Gates thinks, probably because he's, um, the secretary of defense. Who the Hell are you? This guy made a pretty clear point, and your rebuttal basically says "Well John Nolte's a critic and you're not, therefore your comments don't have merit." Really it should say "Well, I disagree with this comment, so I'm going to try in the most weak-minded way possible to discredit it." Nolte's criticisms don't comment on the quality of the film itself, they all come from what he thinks the movie should be, and he cherry picks comments from sources he deems credible that agree with him, ignoring comments from other credible sources (other troops that aren't in GREEN ZONE) that disagree with him. Of course, Nolte is trying to support his argument, and that's fine. But that's why we have this comments section, to challenge it and poke holes in it, and voice agreement when he's right, which he sometimes is, but not this time.
Flag waving propaganda is just as stupid as anti-military propaganda. This movie is mercifully neither.
SAVING MY MONEY…………
I'LL PASS ON THIS HOLLWIERD MOVIE.
I recall a comparable scene in Band of Brothers that shows Lt. Colonel Speirs executing a group of German prisoners.
I resented the producers for inserting it but it was verified in Captain Winters' memoirs.
Still, it didn't stop me from watching the rest of the series.
The appearance of David Morse's character was a disspaointment, for a few reasons. I really like David Morse as an actor and wish he had not accepted the role. It is a rather pointless scene.
Your comparing history with a declarative moment in a piece of fiction, and one that I'm assuming no one can defend as anything but gratuitous.
I can understand the sentiment that Bigelow should be considered because she's "a woman who makes muscular movies about masculinity."
That's a fair position.
I did not like this film because there were several problems with the storyline. I went into the theater wanting to enjoy it, but there were too many mounting problems with the story, and it was simply disappointing.
Was it meant to be exciting, Yes, was it exciting, Yes, those two objectives were meant. In my humble opinion it was not a great film, so the discussion about Oscar worthiness are appropriate here on BigHollywood.
If Bigelow wins for the main point your present, because she's a woman, then doesn't simply become yet another Politically Correct award among so many others. Just my two cents.
People who rebut a poor review with "how much time have YOU spent in (Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan/ etc.) deserve ridicule. And this isn't SecDef Gates' review- if he wants to write one, let him. Til then, NO ONE CARES what he thinks about MOVIES.
Nolte HAS asked defenders of the film to explain the Col's decision to let a prisoner die from exsangination when the prisoner could have been saved, making it murder. Go defend that part of the film to Mr Nolte if you care to.
And what is this "right or wrong" business? It's a movie review. It's his OPINION. Some people agree, some don't. Go puzzle out the bit regarding the prisoner who is murdered by being made to bleed to death and tell us all how this makes soldiers look good.
Aye. I'm getting pretty sick of the sterotype that eveyrone in the military is:
1) a simple-minded hick from the South
2) lives in a dwelling which is little more than a shack
3) is pyschologically tormented by their experiences
4) has a dysfunctional family back home
5) enjoys killing people
6) doesn't support the war they're involved in and
7) was a high school drop out with no other options in life…
John, has MATT DAMON ever done anything pro-military since 'Saving Private Ryan?' Look, I dissagree with Paul Rieckhoff on lots of issues, so perhaps I am a bit biased. Paul worked on 'The Green Zone' because he is the go to veteran for liberals in Hollywood and New York. Seriously, check out Paul's IMDB profile. Then ask yourself if he is an honest source.
I come from a long line of military veterans and grew up around military families here in the Washington D.C. Metro area. We're more or less just like everybody else. We come from ALL parts of the country.
And we lived in some pretty nice and respectable neighborhoods thank you very much…
We also come from ALL income levels.I know quite a few military veterans who came from very wealthy families. My own grandfather is a self-made millionaire yet my father still served and I plan to as well. Some people just feel a need to serve their country in the armed forces deep down in their core. It's part of their genetic makeup and is a family tradition going back generations.
Your experiences in the military and how you felt about it aftwards varies from person to person. My dad killed several people in combat and he said it doesn't bother him at all. He never breaks nown and cries while chugging a bottle of jack daniels and popping pain pills. However I DO know a lot of hollywood LIBERALS who do that who never went through a single hardship in their life! Projection much?
My family and other military families has arguments like everyone else. The image of a crying wife back home raising a baby by herself only to be abused by her asshole soldier husband when he returns home is the exception not the rule. Most military families I know have better lives than people who work in the private sector. No joke. The income you make in the military and all the benefits that come with it is very competitive if not superior to the private sector. Most military families live pretty comfy lives believe it or not.
Most of our soldiers aren't psychotic killers who only joined the military to bash in the brains of mentally handicapped Vietnamese kids with their M-16 rifle butts… Most of our soldiers keep serving to HELP the people of the country they're being deployed to. And they genuinely believe that.
And most of our soldiers believe in the cause they're fighting for believe it not or they wouldn't have kept reenlisting again and again again and volunteered to go back into theatre again and again and again. The leftist media always does their best to protray our soldiers as demoralized, the war as unpopular and the cause we're fighting for unjust. Recruitment figures were solid all throughout the Iraq War. The morale was high for the majority of our soldiers. And liberating people from the barbaric Saddam and Taliban regime was VERY justified.
It's a complete and utter myth that everyone in the military flunked out of school. You're required to have atleast a high school diploma in order to join our military. Every branch of the military has strict limits on how many GED candidates are allowed in. It's somewhere around 2% on average since people who don't finish high school are usually too dumb or lazy to become a good solider. And roughly 25% of our military has a 4 year degree or above which is HIGHER than the national average. Also many of our military academies are considered boderline Ivy League. I think Forbes just ranked West Point as the best university in the country and the Air Force Academy ranked about 7th.
My own father who served 25 years in the U.S. Army earned his Ph. D at Rensealaer Polytechnic Institute. How many military bashing liberal Hollywood actors can say the same? My neighbor is former PSYOPS and a Yale grad who served in the White House under several administrations. And many of our former Presidents and other powerful political leaders were military veterans as are many of the most successful people in the private sector. So don't be surprised if your boss is a military veteran…
I didn't say GZ was PRO-military, I said it might not be anti-military. and you have a leftie criticizing HL?
How does tham make him not credible?
I am not crying and bitching about this film. You say, "…just because Jeremy Renner's character is an adrenaline junkie doesn't mean the filmmakers think all soldiers think that way." If that were so, then the script development would have a strong protagonist to his character that would offset and exemplify his adrealine junkie. I was much more interested in the black guy. His character was not explored enough. His character was the true protagonist of the film and did exemplify the expert professional in soldering, ordinance, and even as a sniper. Put a few more scenes about him in the plot rather than show the main character, who was the true antagonist, running around the streets in a hood. For continuity of character, in the vigilante scene, the black guy says 'No!' and hits him again. PS I am not pissed off either. I just know good script development when I see it. Thank you.
I liked the Hurt Locker. I also know that it is not representative of our military.
When I want to feel real good about our military, I throw in Band of Brothers.
We need the Iraq/Iran version of Band of Brothers…NOW!
I don't think it really matters. Hardly anyone saw the thing and the movies have grown increasingly unrealistic or just plain disdainful of the common American. They think they are big intellectuals who think the Jihadists are just misquided and the middle class man is a secret Nazi. In the American movie maker's mind this is just Vietnam again and Richard Nixon was just in office, that's their mentality.I really don't know why people care about an industry that claims the biggest money of all time despite the fact that the tickets cost almost twice as much as any other ticket and the budget was way to much. I guarentee more people went to see Star Wars back in the 1977 and maybe it was more realistic that this film.
For what it is worth the soldier upon whom boals original playboy article was based is suing him and bigelow…and it looks like he is going to win or at least get a settlement
Oh don't get me wrong, dude, I'm definitely a cereal guy myself. And there is no doubt that living in the USA is probably one of the greatest lifestyles a person can have. The movie is simply making the point that for him, the battlefield is where he belongs. A world where the most important choice he has to make that day is whether he should check the trunk or backseat of a car for explosives rather than Cheerios or Corn Pops (the correct answer is corn pops btw). Check out Monk's post above mine.
I totally agree. War is a duty. However this movie is about Renner's character, and a major motivation for his actions is the rush that comes from it. If you look at the other soldiers in the movie, they aren't like this, only Renner is the exception.
Hurt Locker puts our Troops in a positive light, and I think that we are so use to Hollywood shafting us so often, that we aren't realizing the boon it is to us.
I really didn't see the sequence as that big of a deal. Certainly it didn't portray the U.S. in a great light, but to me it shows the potential damaging consequences of leftist policies in this country.
The insurgent in question was injured after firing on American soldiers. I don't even think under Geneva convention laws the soldier required to aid him — especially since the terrorist isn't a combatant affiliated with a nation.
The story takes place before the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed, so it seems to be a very tough call for soldiers in war. If the Left in this country has its way and closes Gitmo, more soldiers would be forced to make this horrible decision depicted in the film. The alternative is for them to collect shell casings and evidence that would be presented in a U.S. court. That insurgent would probably be back to shooting at Americans in no time. Our soldiers are under enough pressure — they don't have to build cases on the battle field.
Islamists present a hideous threat. Their unconventional approach to war is forcing us to test the boundaries of our morality in the interest of our self-preservation.
No one is going to argue with you, John … the scene isn't flattering, but it was probably a truthful situation facing the best men and women America has to offer. I certainly didn't judge him for letting the combatant die.
Had this taken place after 2006, it would seem more cold-blooded because the military had a legitimate option. I think the scene should be used as a teachable moment, not to shout leftist propaganda.
Veterans are treated like outcast here in Hollywood at the A level films. The won't pick up pro troop films. Hollywood is about selling a leftist progressive agenda and that is it. Forget what Hollywood did before 1970. You want to break in Hollywood you have to act, and think like Matt Damon to get work. This is an industry that HATES Ameica, conservatives, veterans, they will blacklist anyone that won't walk the line and that is a FACT of LIFE here in Hollywood.
Al check out FORGOTTEN HEROES the film Hollywood refuse to pick up.
http://www.forgottenheroesthemovie.com/
“ Forgotten Heroes” reverberates with the spirit of courage, camaraderie and conviction that, until now, only those who endured the horrors of Vietnam firsthand could fully comprehend. Unique among the predominantly guilt-ridden Vietnam films to which audiences have become accustomed, “Forgotten Heroes” is not a political diatribe, but a heartfelt anthem to the brave men who gave their lives for their country.”
-Wade Major Associate Editor- Entertainment Today
Interesting point, and I suspect that HBO would ask you to consider their
"Generation Kill" as a type of modern day "Band of Brothers". The point is certainly open to debate.
By the way, "The Pacific" is coming out in a couple of weeks on HBO.
MarcD check out FORGOTTEN HEROES http://www.forgottenheroesthemovie.com/
“ Forgotten Heroes” reverberates with the spirit of courage, camaraderie and conviction that, until now, only those who endured the horrors of Vietnam firsthand could fully comprehend. Unique among the predominantly guilt-ridden Vietnam films to which audiences have become accustomed, “Forgotten Heroes” is not a political diatribe, but a heartfelt anthem to the brave men who gave their lives for their country.”
-Wade Major Associate Editor- Entertainment Today
Interesting. Do you have a public source you can post a link to support this issue?
I'd like to read more about it.
http://www.forgottenheroesthemovie.com/ they stop this film 21 year ago from getting out there. You can buy of off this site
Yeah, I know. I left that reference to Vietnam vets incomplete. The simple fact is that the politics and crap surrounding that war led to various levels of breakdown in the field ranks of the military caused by demoralization and too much CYA instead of caring more for your buddies and mission than yourself.
Those guys did the best they could at the time under sh!tty circumstances. It's not a dog on them.
"Using corpses and clerics for bombs." My husband served 2 tours over in Iraq and yes, the terrorists used dead animal bodies and even bodies of dead human beings as cover for bombs. Why? Well, especially the dead human bodies – because they know we are kind-hearted and that we would stop to render aid and once the soldiers were gathered around trying to help out – BOOM!
My husband thought this film was generaly accurate, except for the uniforms as already mentioned and some of the behavior. I think seeing the corpse bombs is powerful enough for any American, pro or anti-war, to understand the enemy we are dealing with – they don't value life in the least – not those that are alive, not women, not children, not the disabled, and they have no respect for the dead either. They are sick, sick human beings, much in the same way Hitler and Stalin and others like them were and are sick.
And they need to be taken out. Hopefully those kinds of scenes resonated with Americans and made them think more seriously about the Global War on Terror.
"Then there’s Jeremy Renner’s protagonist who’s so PTSD-riddled and addicted to the adrenaline of war he constantly puts his own men in danger until his ongoing Iraq experience finally strips him of so much of his humanity that he can no longer love his own son."
That's certainly one take. If Renner's character had PTSD, his job would've been much more of a challenge. You shouldn't throw that condition around to support your theories of the film. That's no different than the Left, which takes a tangible condition and uses it and uses it to paint our troops as functional retards.
I appreciate your take, but I saw Renner's character as someone who was aware of his unique skills, and struggled with his obligations to use it to help the effort. If you didn't see Renner's character as someone who utilized his skills to protect property and dignity (illustrated in the sequence with the dead boy) of the Iraqi people, then you have a low opinion of our military.
Was he an adrenaline junkie …? Yes, but how does that change the incredible sacrifices he made? He loves his son and embraces his humanity — that's why he does what he does.
The scene in the grocery store was possibly the most patriotic scene in recent memory. I believe at that moment, he thought that the fact that picking cereal was a tough decision for him shows how out of whack the world is, and that he can help provide justice and a possible future like that for the Iraqis.
Have you ever served in the military? I've heard shots fired in anger, and college education means f**k-all to someone getting shot AT. At that point, why you're there is very simple. You want to get out alive, but you usually want your buddies out alive even more, and you want to finish the mission because you have put your @ss on the line for a purpose.
Dumbass. And read my comments better. I didn't comment about a line in the movie. I commented about what a real EOD soldier said about how f**ked up the movie happened to be for missing a really important military concept – LEADERSHIP.
Dolt.
I'll give a flying @#$% what Gates thinks when the people making the ROE start going out on patrol with the troops.
I haven't seen Hurt Locker, but saying "go watch Green Berets again" illustrates the problem. We have to go back to 1968 to find a pro-military movie? A guy a little ways above said, "All military movies don't have to be 'pro-military'." Fine. But, can we at least have one?
Like I said, I can't comment on this particular movie and I am actually interested in seeing it. If for nothing else, I liked Renner in "The Unusuals" and still mourn its cancellation. But, there are two known positive Vietnam movies–The Green Berets and We Were Soldiers–and no positive Iraq movies unless your view is the correct one on Hurt Locker.
I know that the problem is — it's an opinion piece.
and I also mention that in MY OPINION PIECE that my HL was a minority opinion, conservatives disagree with me, and that SOME veterans are speaking up. Some, not all.
I don't trust Gates on films any more than I trust him as Secretary of Defense. Anyone who 'transitions' as easily as he does makes me cringe. (I DID like him as the lead singer of "Bread', however.)
As far as the review goes, Mr. Nolte wrote a credible review that used troops' reactions as a staring pont, but en fleshed out his own reason for agreement based upon the film itself. To retort that 'that's not everyone's reaction' misses the entirety of the review.
PTSD isn't my term regarding this film, go argue with Capt. Robert Busseau…
http://armylive.dodlive.mil/index.php/tag/the-hur...
"He loves his son and embraces his humanity — that's why he does what he does." ??? What movie were you watching. James looks into his sons eyes, tells him he can only love one thing, and leaves him to go back for his fix.
Now, you're just making stuff up? It's the EXACT opposite.
As far as your interpretaion of the grocery scene, that's laughable. The scene didn't bother me, but it was filmed with a fish eye lens to show that the poor guy just couldn't handle the mundane dit-dit of everyday life. Some one told me that the movie would've improved a lot just ending there. I couldn;t agree more.
Then there's the Colonel ordering that a detainee not be saved — that he bleed to death.
Or are you going to make something up and say he dramtically gave the prisoner CPR and saved his life?
Sure thing. There's no doubt that that scene doesn't put the US in the best light. When I saw that scene, it reminded me of the autobiography from the book "Shooter" by Sgt. Jack Coughlin, where a field medic misinterprets Coughlins intentions, and thinking that he wants the wounded Iraqi to die, removes him from the treatment list, almost killing him.
Now granted the scene your referencing was pretty cringe worthy, and I can see why people would have a problem with it. The question is, do we condemn this movie based on one questionable scene, and one unrealistic character? If I recall, in the movie the insurgents are murdering civilians, tieing people to bombs, and harvesting children for bomb camouflage.
I agree with your notion that Hollywood has been so bad recently that we have to grade on a curve, but wouldn't you agree with me that if you looked at all other Iraq War movies, that Hurt Locker is at least a step in the right direction? Or at least that the success from this movie might put an end to the stream of terrible anti-war movies that Hollywood is churning out?
We probably have similar politics, but I think you might be looking at this movie from a lens that is too pessimistic.
Have you seen, Generation Kill? It isn't exactly like Band of Brothers, but its the best we've got right now, and it was also put out on NBO.
Here's the quote, John — get it right right: "You love playing with that. You love playing with all your stuffed animals. You love your Mommy, your Daddy. You love your pajamas. You love everything, don't ya? Yea. But you know what, buddy? As you get older… some of the things you love might not seem so special anymore. Like your Jack-in-a-Box. Maybe you'll realize it's just a piece of tin and a stuffed animal. And then you forget the few things you really love. And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one."
What movie did you watch? His love for his son is understood — it's not quantifiable. So what if he loves the action of war? He could get that as a private contractor and make more money — but he chooses to SERVE his country. That's ALL that matters.
The scene with his son was poignant. Golda Meir once said "There will never be peace until they love their children as much as they hate us."
I thought of that when I saw the scene. He may get off on the action, but he's human, and he feels everyone should enjoy the same freedom as his son will experience.
No matter what you think of the film, how can you argue that Renner's character has protected property and the dignity of that young boy. It's amazing to me that you never said that when assessing this film. That tells me that you CAN'T see that.
What's with you? It almost seems Freudian with you. Everything in question with the military is ALWAYS decided to be negative. I appreciate your efforts to fight the leftist lies in the media, but there are times to illustrate the positive things troops do.
Well said. Nolte looks at everything with pessimism … except "Che", a propaganda piece celebrating a murderer, which he loved.
"War is a drug." He can only love war. There is nothingianywhere in the narrative that backs up any part of your intentionally misleading thesis that James go back out of love for his son.
Talk about willful ignorance.
We spend a whole sequence with James not being able to fit in with his family, feeling out of place, after he loses his friggin' mind in Iraq.
He can only LOVE ONE thing and it's not his son. Sorry, kid, Deranged Daddy's going back for his fix.
War is a drug. It's the film's theme. the film opens with those words. Not Golda Meir's words, which you pulled out of the air. I'm using words from the actual movie, you're pulling quotes from ANYWHERE that will back up your absurd interpretation.
The film opens on those words so…. you'll know WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT…. and it's not patriotism.
Good grief!
I did buy this DVD for three reasons: walmart had it cheap, I was bored, and I heard mixed reviews from other vets. I agree with John Nolte's insight: the ones that liked it are grading on a curve.
It's notable that Rieckhoff of a partisan vets' organization, who usually bends all efforts to depict vets as needy ickle victims, is down on this film. If even he doesn't like it, there's something wrong.
I am not a film expert, but I am a writer, and I think the problem was in the script. The writer was clearly aiming at re-poppping Apocalypse Now or the Deer Hunter — a surreal pastiche of disconnected scenes, meant to highlight the dehumanization of the protagonist and too many of the supporting characters.
Some of the acting was very good. Renner chewed the scenery, but the black guy who played his #2 was believable — up until he suggested fragging the Renner character. That's one of the many Vietnam-movie clichés that were force-fit into The Hurt Locker.
Others included the depraved colonel (a depraved FAT colonel!) that Nolte mentioned, the depiction of contractors as disorganized brutes, and the depiction of EOD specialists as engaging in random infantry combat. It was also interesting that the central unit operated completely without direction, command, or support. It was about as realistic as a Rambo flick. (During the heyday of those films, the biggest insult in Special Forces was "Rambo." A candidate so identified by his peers or instructors was not going to complete selection and assessment).
As Rieckhoff notes, CWCID, films will be what the 99% of Americans who never darkened the door of a recruiting station know of this war. We veterans of the recent mideast wars can count on being viewed for the rest of our lives as emotional and moral cripples, like the Renner character and the podgy colonel in this film, or worse. That's what the Vietnam guys got.
One good thing will come of this film: the totally unrealistic actions of Sergeant James and his merry men will be recycled by a generation of wannabees (just like the horrible Vietnam films inspired that generation of poseurs). That will make it easy for actual vets to bust 'em.
I'm sorry I bought the DVD. It was money wasted, and worse, money contributed to people who disrespect me and mine.
Watched "Hurt Locker"on DVD and thought it was a good action flick that happened to be set in Iraq. Overall, it was kinder to the American Military while showing the Insurgents for the animals they truly are. Frankly, I don't pay much attention to what Paul Rieckhoff says since he is a political hack and is in the upcoming "Green Zone." From the trailers on TV, "Green Zone' doesn't look very pro-American Government or Military.
I used the Meir quote to illustrate why I saw the scene the way I did. I never argued the adrenaline rush isn't a driving factor in his life.
You saw a man that couldn't fit in with his family. I saw a man struggling with his sense of duty. The film also established that being a bomb-tech is a unique skill. When he said that to his wife, did you think he was lying? Didn't you remember THAT scene?
Just because "War is a drug" appears doesn't mean that's the defining thematic element of the picture. The filmmakers obviously wanted to call attention to it, but just because it DRIVES this soldier (didn't you once say Katherine Bigelow explores driven men better than most filmmakers?), it doesn't take away from the good he does.
You threw the phrase "willful ignorance at me." But choosing not to see the good the troops do in the film — no matter what "War is a drug" sentiment drives them — is simply ignorant.
I'm the one who used a direct quote from the film. You paraphrased it to support YOUR absurd need to see PTSD in every war film. I don't remember hearing that term in the film regarding Renner's character, John. YOU choose to see that.
Because of your weird need to throw PTSD in there (and don't throw me a broken lik to someone else's words), you could never see the grocery store scene as an illustration of he sees how great our lifestyle is.
It's possible to accept the "war is a drug" theme without having to assume PTSD — which is what you do. I accept the "war is a drug" element as what drives the character on a personal level, but not as an indictment of him.
Again and again, I use the example of Renner's character pulling the dead boy's body from the building. He didn't do THAT for an adrenaline rush. He liked him, and thought he deserved more dignity. Why is it so hard to believe that the "one thing" he said he loves if his way of life — even if he is addicted to the action?
Nolte seems to think every single movie is anti-military. I'm sure he could find an anti-military slant in It's A Wonderful Life if we asked him to. Was Saving Private Ryan anti-American because it showed two US troops killing unarmed Germans at the end of the Omaha Beach sequence?
The bottom line with Hurt Locker is that our troops are CLEARLY the good guys and the people they're fighting are CLEARLY monsters (see what they did to the one kid towards the end). Every military person I know loved it.
Golda Meir? You were thinking of Golda Meir at that very moment in the film?
dude, just admit it that the filmmaker lost you, why on earth would you be day dreaming about Golda Meir of all people.
I'll admit the film lost me, it was a disappointing film, and yes I began checking my watch after it nose-dived with that ridiculous sniper scene with the british guys dressed as jihadists.
Yes, I didn't like the scene with Morse, but it wasn't the overall theme of the movie towards the military. On the other hand, I understand how Morse's character feels, having been shot at before. Showing one bad apple is not a slap to all the military, since you always have some that don't follow the ROE or rules of war. Key thing is this is mostly an action movie that takes place in a war zone.
I said there's more to the film than just the opening quotes. If you read the post, I agreed with you on the importance of the quote, but I explained that I saw the film is more multi-layered than that.
Just because adrenaline drives part of him, doesn't mean that he's riddled with PTSD, which is how you see troops — not me.
He may channel his adrenaline like a drug, but that doesn't change the fact that the result is he goes through AMAZING lengths to protect life, property, and human dignity.
That the film shows the good things our troops do is not up for debate. You just choose not to see it. I never even said that what the film was about, I just said I see it as a strong element in it. Others agree with me.
I said the scene with the son reminded me of the Golda Meir quote. You keep using it like it's the pillar of my discussion. You use it in ridicule like Saul Alinsky would do.
Who debates like the liberal? I think it's you.
The science has been settled………….I won't be seeing "the hurt locker".
You really do debate like a liberal!
Did you forget your opener accusing me of this… "You shouldn't throw that condition around to support your theories of the film. That's no different than the Left."
Hypocrisy will not stop you from making your lame point and ignoring the last 1/3rd of the film when James stops going to amazing lenghts, nearly gets his own men killed and can no longer love his son.
Oh, wait, Golda Meir said he didn't.
Wait, wait … you just said "Iraq costs him his humanity" but said he showed "great humanity." What?
You make fine points, and I never really disputed that "war is a drug" isn't what the film was about. I actually conceded that the filmmakers obviously thought a great deal about this.
I just believe that it portrays our troops in hard situations, and largely as good guys facing villainous enemies.
The war situation is presented with a great deal of intellectual honesty. We are there to preserve life, and the insurgents are there to kill life. How can you argue that?
Golda Meir is a woman, John.
I never strayed from the fact that "war is a drug" isn't what the film is about.
Where I disagree with you, John, is that I don't attach PTSD to it. You have done that.
Renner's character may think "war is a drug", but that doesn't mean he has PTSD. That's been pretty clear. Again … I don't recall PTSD being mentioned in the picture.
I said you make SOME fine points. But your belief that Renner's character is afflicted with PTSD also an interpretation. I believe he has a sense of the mission, and the will to protect life, property and dignity — you agreed with that.
Please tell your husband thank you for his service and sacrifice to our country. I am thankful for men like him. I hear what you are saying about their lack of respect for life and know they are sick men. I just say that those scenes are troubling. I do not know how those scenes resonate with Americans. They were sickening to me and I do not know if I needed to see them to know how evil the enemy is. I hope with you that those kinds of images resonate, creating an awareness among Americans as to how serious the the war against terror is. Thank you very much for saying these things.
I actually liked the movie. I don't recall the one scene you mention involving David Morse's character. I must have been multitasking at the time. That would have have changed my option. But the bits I remember I enjoyed. Of course, I'm a son of a soldier so I know good and well nothing about this movie would have happened in the way they portrayed it, so I can see how many other civilians could mistake it as fact.
You must be logged in to post a comment.