Press Release:

Plaintiff, Master Sgt. Jeffrey S. Sarver, is, in fact, the film’s main character “Will James” or “Blaster One” [which was Master Sgt. Sarver's "call signal" during his tours of duty in Iraq]. 

Screenwriter Mark Boal with Director Katherine Bigelow

The suit alleges that the screenwriter of “The Hurt Locker,” Mark Boal, was allowed, as part of an armed services press program, to be embedded in Master Sgt. Sarver’s unit. Virtually all of the situations portrayed in the film were, in fact, occurrences involving Master Sgt. Sarver that were observed and documented by Screenwriter Boal.  Master Sgt. Sarver also coined the phrase, “The Hurt Locker” for Boal.

Ultimately, a magazine article about Master Sgt. Sarver, written by Screenwriter Boal, appeared in Playboy Magazine. That story was later adapted by Boal for the screenplay of “The Hurt Locker.” The suit alleges that the film’s makers falsely claim that the characters portrayed in the film are fictional when, in fact, the film’s main character “Will James,” IS Master Sgt. Sarver. (more…)

At the bottom of this L.A. Times piece there’s a fascinating story explaining why “The Hurt Locker” lost their support from the Defense Department at the last minute. It appears as though the government was perfectly willing to support the production until a couple of last minute scenes were added that included detainee abuse (possibly the David Morse scene I describe here)[emphasis mine]:

The Los Angeles Times:

At one point, “The Hurt Locker” might have been made with government cooperation. But just 12 hours before Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale was to fly to Jordan to serve as the Army’s technical advisor to “The Hurt Locker,” he said in an interview that he heard there might be problems. A Jordanian official told him that scenes were being shot that were not in the script that the Army had approved. Breasseale accused the producer of shooting a scene in which soldiers act violently toward detainees. (The military does not provide help to films depicting violations of the laws of war, unless their consequences are shown.) He also charged that the production had driven a Humvee into a Palestinian refugee camp in order to film angry crowd scenes.

This might refer to a scene where what are supposed to be Iraqi kids are seen angrily throwing rocks at an American Humvee. A scene that seems to say we don’t want you here. (more…)

Last time I ragged on our pal James was to take the Malibu mansion-dwelling millionaire to task for his ridiculous “I believe in eco-terrorism” comment.

Today, I’m here to talk about the latest idiocy to come out of his mouth. As our very own John Nolte pointed out, Cameron explained in an interview why he just might lose out on Best Director to Katherine Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker, in the upcoming 2010 Ego Fest 2010 Academy Awards:

“I would say that it’s an irresistible opportunity for the Academy to anoint a female director for the first time. I would say that that’s, you know, a very strong probability and I will be cheering when that happens.”

Oy vey. Where to start?

A caveat: I didn’t see either Avatar or Hurt Locker. So, I can’t debate either of these movies on their merits. But the very idea that Cameron is already cushioning the blow if he doesn’t win with the “irresistible opportunity for the Academy to anoint a female director for the first time” argument is nearly enough for me to blow chunks.

First of all, Bigelow is not the first woman ever to have been nominated for Best Director. Lina Wertmüller (1975), Jane Campion (1993) and Sofia Coppola (2003) all received nominations for their work. So if the Academy was itching to “anoint” someone as its first female Best Director, they’ve blown three chances already. Besides, aren’t we always being told that the nominees are judged on their merits, not insider politics? (more…)

“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:

Sunday’s Washington Post:

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.”

(more…)

“The protected class that “benefits” from this nonsense always has an invisible asterisk after their name that questions the true merit of their accomplishments.” — John Nolte, James Cameron On Why He Might Lose the Oscar to Katherine Bigelow: She’s a Girl

Whenever we hear the word asterisk, we think of New York Yankees slugger Roger Maris who during the 1961 season, broke Babe Ruth’s 1927 single-season 60 home run record. Maris’ accomplishment caused some to cry foul, complaining that unless the record was broken in 154 games (the same number Ruth played in 1927), the new record would go into the record books with an asterisk beside it, because baseball’s season was now 162 games long, giving Maris an unfair advantage. (more…)

Katherine Bigelow’s direction of “The Hurt Locker” is masterful and might very well place her back where she belongs, at the top of anyone’s list looking for a top-shelf action director. But that’s not enough to save the film from episodic plotting, jarring and unnecessary political statements, a troubling depiction of our troops and an even worse portrayal of the Iraqi people. This is a movie you want to like, but an unsettling after-taste lingers long after the thrill of the set-pieces fades.

Produced and scripted by Mark Boal (who embedded with a U.S. Army bomb squad operating in Baghdad), the year is 2004 and Iraq is a country under siege, thanks mainly to determined insurgents and roadside IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) that seem to be everywhere and frequently come with nearby triggermen lying in wait for the opportunity to do the most amount of damage, preferably to American servicemen and women.  Charged with the dangerous and technically complicated job of defusing these bombs is a three-man EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) team led by Staff Sergeant James (an excellent Jeremy Renner) and his squad mates Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). (more…)