Surprise. "The best war movie in recent years" not realistic.

Last night on 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl interviewed Kathryn Bigelow. The claim that The Hurt Locker is the best war movie in recent years was made by Ms. Stahl. Ms. Bigelow gave a screening of the movie to EOD techs, some of whom were veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. There were some positive comments, but the question and answer session was heavily edited, and reactions from only 2 EOD techs (out of a room of 10 or so) were aired. What did the others think of the movie?

Something from today: Some Iraq, Afghanistan war veterans criticize movie 'Hurt Locker' as inaccurate (via Drudge).

I wrote a review last year of the movie. Sarge didn't like the movie for the same reasons voiced by other vets. Realism was discarded in favor of artistic creativity and the demands of drama. I still think The Hurt Locker is better than most American movies from last year, and much better than Avatar.

Sarge and his older brother watched The Hurt Locker last night, and they hated the movie for its lack of realism and accuracy. For example: (1) the widespread use of ACUs during the movie (which takes place in 2004), when they were not introduced until several years later. (2) The fight between James and Sanborn. In real life an E-5 would not hit an E-7, without consequences (court-martial). (3) The sniper duel involving two members of the EOD team. (4) The CAG sequence when James goes off on his own. (5) The team doing a sweep of a building by themselves. (And presumably when they go beyond the perimeter of a secured site where a tanker exploded, in order to look for the culprits) (6) Some of the equipment was not authentic -- especially the switch for the radio used by team members.

Sarge questioned the identity of the Brits going after the wanted Iraqis. He thought they were mercenaries.

The movie may satisfy civilians, but not professional soldiers... even though it wasn't produced by a major studio, it's still "Hollywood" and good for only the "sheep" of our society.

Interview with Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal - Beyond the Multiplex
ROTTEN TOMATOES: Inside The Hurt Locker with Writer Mark Boal
"The Hurt Locker" New York Screening And Q&A With Mark Boal
Interview: The Hurt Locker's Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow

The Hurt Locker

source: Yahoo

HCK is back in the area, so on Wednesday I went to see The Hurt Locker with him at CineArts (Santana Row). (We first hand lunch at Counter. Have they always offered 1lb pattie? I didn't go to that extreme today... I'll bring Sarge to Counter next time he's in town.)

I think the movie's high rating at Rotten Tomatoes is deserved. It is better Summer movie than the Summer movies that have been released. It's unfortunate that it is playing on such a small number of screens.

The team leader of the EOD unit, Sgt. William James, might seem to be a danger junkie, someone who lives off the high of adrenaline. Sgt. Sanborn, one of the members of his team, calls him reckless early on in the movie. James is later accused by the other team member, Spc. Eldridge of only caring about getting an adrenaline rush -- I don't get that impression. His defenders might claim that if he puts anyone at risk, it's just himself, and not the rest of the team. But in so far as the team are then moved to try to rescue him (somehow), they too are in put in further danger. Instead, he seems to me to be very focused on the job, dealing with potential obstacles in his own way so that he can get the job done efficiently. His is not a careless bravado, as he recognizes the real danger that is present. But he also acknowledges that there is little that he can do to mitigate it, except to do his job as best as he can before the bomb explodes.

Later in the movie, he is guilty of being rash, not because he wants to get a thrill, but because he wants to retaliate against those who use IEDs and hide behind the scenes to watch their weapons bring death and devastation to others. *spoiler alert* There is also a personal reason for him to seek some sort of revenge, as he believes that a boy he has befriended on the base has been killed by insurgents, and turned into a body bomb.

For obvious reasons it reminded me of the BBC series Danger UXB, except that it wasn't as 'civilized.'

Is it an alpha male movie? The actors portraying the soldiers certainly seem like the real thing and exemplars of modern American masculinity. (In contrast, Ryan Phillippe in Stop Loss has no credibility as a soldier or as a man.) Their friendship is built up by facing a common danger, and cemented by wrestling/fighting, drinking during their downtime.

According to one blogger doing an analysis of TV shows: "Hero + Goal + Action toward that goal = male oriented" and "A specific goal for the male lead, and action taken towards that goal, define a male show." The dichotomy is between doing and becoming/being, and it is. Do the males have a goal and a plan to reach that goal, and do they carrying it out? Do they exercise masculine qualities and authority? Or are they too busy emoting and talking about their feelings? (An example under this analysis of a female show is, surprisingly, The Sopranos.)

I suppose it isn't really saying much more than this: a male show is one that has male characters who act like men, not women, and this is taken to be the norm, even if it is somewhat idealized. It respects (or values) male psychology for what it is. Men don't want to watch shows with men acting like women--they want to watch shows with men acting like men.

Can the same sort of analysis be applied to movies? Would a movie about male friendship be appealing to males? Does every story have a conflict/problem and a resolution? What about "journeys of self-discovery"? Some "chick flicks" do not seem to have a real problem, unless a problem is so broad as to encompass the difficulties of ordinary life. This will have to be dealt with in a subsequent post.

The Hurt Locker is definitely a guy movie, but women may actually enjoy it as well--would they be more attracted to the characters of this movie than to the beta males of other movies?

There are some weird diversions, which seem rather forced, as if the scriptwriter wanted a change of scenery because doing an entire movie about defusing bombs might be too boring. In the middle of the movie the team meats up with a SAS team whose vehicle suffered a flat tire. This leads to an interesting sniper duel. Later, there's a little bit of James Bond when James sneaks off base to find out what happened to the Iraqi boy that he befriended.

Perhaps the ending was the weakest part of the movie. Some were distracted by the actress doing the cameo as James's wife. That didn't bother me as much as the fact that it seemed tacked on--it didn't flow well, even if it was a necessary part of explaining James's character.

I agree with Roger Ebert's assessment of the character: There's a need for guys like him, with a special skillset. James is a bomb tech--he hints to his wife of his desire to go back to Iraq: "You know there's a need for bomb techs." He's good at his job and he's lost without it (in the civilian world). For once the tired trope that "it's all about the guy next to you" wasn't uttered at all during the movie, even though the particular brotherhood of men at arms is shown.




Yahoo has some promo stills for Jeremy Renner.


official website
imdb
Yahoo! Movies
Rotten Tomatoes

'The Hurt Locker' and Its Secret Weapon: The Return of John Wayne