Just watched The Hurt Locker.

[MarkGrace]

So I have another thought on this movie. I've heard a lot of people say that the film is mostly apolitical. That it is a matter-of-fact look at this unit working within Iraq, and that it pushed no real agenda.

At the end of the movie, I started wondering if this wasn't necessarily the case. The idea occurred to me that the Renner character on an individual level may have been a representation of Bush administration-inspired Cowboy diplomacy. He's a brash, reckless, and go-it-alone type dude, who often reacts before he thinks. This mentality needlessly puts others around him in peril. One of the final scenes is the guy from the bomb squad being airlifted out of there and screaming at Renner because Renner's need to chase a thrill got him shot.

Wouldn't these be similar to accusations leveled against the W presidency? Are the ideas reflected through the Renner character a comment on what got us into Iraq in the first place? And further, is Renner's addiction to the drug of war an observation that America in general is addicted to war? When Renner goes home, he can't solve his issues there in a satisfactory manner (nor does he even attempt to), so he again turns to war. Is this a metaphor of our country's relationship with war? Do we turn to war too soon because we have an inability to work out our issues in another manner?

I couldn't decide if this angle actually existed, or if I'm just so used to Hollywood pushing an agenda that I created it myself because I expected it to be there.

Thoughts?

[RobinFinderson]

Another thought... for all of you folks who think it was only a good movie, I have to assume that most of you didn't see it in the movie theater. Hurt Locker, like Avatar, is a movie experience. Now all of you should move to Los Angeles where movies like Hurt Locker can be fully experienced.

P.S.: It was mid-70's all day in LA, not a cloud in the sky. Perfect.

[MarkGrace]

Another thought... for all of you folks who think it was only a good movie, I have to assume that most of you didn't see it in the movie theater. Hurt Locker, like Avatar, is a movie experience. Now all of you should move to Los Angeles where movies like Hurt Locker can be fully experienced.

P.S.: It was mid-70's all day in LA, not a cloud in the sky. Perfect.

I thought it was great, but I am disappointed I didn't see it in the theaters. I bet that sniper scene was so cool.

I tried, but for whatever reason just never pulled it off. Actually, it is still playing at a theater in the U District -- at this point I just couldn't pay $10 to see a movie that was now free via Netflix. I had to save that $10 to see Valentine's Day!

[Green Lantern]

So I have another thought on this movie. I've heard a lot of people say that the film is mostly apolitical. That it is a matter-of-fact look at this unit working within Iraq, and that it pushed no real agenda.

At the end of the movie, I started wondering if this wasn't necessarily the case. The idea occurred to me that the Renner character on an individual level may have been a representation of Bush administration-inspired Cowboy diplomacy. He's a brash, reckless, and go-it-alone type dude, who often reacts before he thinks. This mentality needlessly puts others around him in peril. One of the final scenes is the guy from the bomb squad being airlifted out of there and screaming at Renner because Renner's need to chase a thrill got him shot.

Wouldn't these be similar to accusations leveled against the W presidency? Are the ideas reflected through the Renner character a comment on what got us into Iraq in the first place? And further, is Renner's addiction to the drug of war an observation that America in general is addicted to war? When Renner goes home, he can't solve his issues there in a satisfactory manner (nor does he even attempt to), so he again turns to war. Is this a metaphor of our country's relationship with war? Do we turn to war too soon because we have an inability to work out our issues in another manner?

I couldn't decide if this angle actually existed, or if I'm just so used to Hollywood pushing an agenda that I created it myself because I expected it to be there.

Thoughts?

Those are good interpretations but I think the simple fact that you can make the interpretations speaks volumes about how well the movie told its story. Instead of beating you over the head with a message and adding plot and characters as an afterthought (CRASH anyone?) HURT LOCKER just tells a story, tells it damn well and then allows the audiences to decide on meaning. My personal take on Renner's character is that, while we may not like to admit it and we may be uncomfortable with it, guys like him are an absolute necessity for us to wage war. We may consider it tragic that he can't enjoy his home life, but in the end maybe the existence he's chosen, and for which he's most suited is one that benefits us in the larger scheme of things.

[Green Lantern]

Another thought... for all of you folks who think it was only a good movie, I have to assume that most of you didn't see it in the movie theater. Hurt Locker, like Avatar, is a movie experience. Now all of you should move to Los Angeles where movies like Hurt Locker can be fully experienced.

P.S.: It was mid-70's all day in LA, not a cloud in the sky. Perfect.

Why would I have to move to L.A.? That movie has played in Salt Lake for about 4 months now.

[Green Lantern]

Good thoughts, MG. Thanks.



Not disagreeing with you at all, but I would like to comment on the bolded part. One movie/series where this happened (IMO) was Band of Brothers. I read the book recently after watching the series for the second time. Not only are all of the historical facts dead on, but I was surprised to learn that much of the dialogue from the movie was pulled straight from the book. Which, of course, was based on interviews with the surviving soldiers.



Good question.

One of the things I loved about The Wire was that I honestly had no idea where things were going to go next. In that case, the unpredictability was great.

Just wanted to pop in and say I've really enjoyed this discussion between you and MarkGrace. It's raised a lot of the issues I love in film criticism. Plot vs. character. Accuracy vs. Truth, etc.

I tend to agree with MG that accuracy in presenting some kind of profession isn't necessarily vital to making the movie you want to make. In my mind, HURT LOCKER is about Renner's character. If the movie sacrifices some details about military procedure and tactics to state larger truths about that character, then, to me, the movie still tells the truth. The fact is, I know guys like that, so while military pros may dicker about what kind of troop formation was used, it doesn't affect the impact or essential truth of the movie. To me, the critics who dismiss the movie out of hand on the basis of accuracy are missing the forest for the trees. (Not that anyone in this discussion was doing that, mind you.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Another thought... for all of you folks who think it was only a good movie, I have to assume that most of you didn't see it in the movie theater. Hurt Locker, like Avatar, is a movie experience. Now all of you should move to Los Angeles where movies like Hurt Locker can be fully experienced.

P.S.: It was mid-70's all day in LA, not a cloud in the sky. Perfect.

My home theater is pretty swank.

[LA Ute]

I saw it in a theater and walked away drained and depressed, but not feeling like I had experienced the kind of art that is transformative - or even really good entertainment. It was just a movie. I wished I had done something else with the two hours I gave to it.

[MarkGrace]

I tend to agree with MG that accuracy in presenting some kind of profession isn't necessarily vital to making the movie you want to make. In my mind, HURT LOCKER is about Renner's character. If the movie sacrifices some details about military procedure and tactics to state larger truths about that character, then, to me, the movie still tells the truth. The fact is, I know guys like that, so while military pros may dicker about what kind of troop formation was used, it doesn't affect the impact or essential truth of the movie. To me, the critics who dismiss the movie out of hand on the basis of accuracy are missing the forest for the trees. (Not that anyone in this discussion was doing that, mind you.)

This is a much better way of approaching what I was trying to say. I went into The Hurt Locker expecting a war film, and came out of it thinking it was as much a character sketch as anything.

[MarkGrace]

Why would I have to move to L.A.? That movie has played in Salt Lake for about 4 months now.

But is it ever mid-70s with no clouds in the sky? I bet not!

[BoylenOver]

Saw it. Really liked it. I was too drawn into each situation to consider predictability. And there were no "Bear Jews" or Islamic caricatures as hand puppets, so it was real to me.

As far as the Oscar nominees, I have no intention of seeing Precious or Avatar, but I do have District 9, A Serious Man, and An Education (when it's eventually released) queued up. I'd have IB 1, UITA 2, and Up 3 at this point.

[PaloAltoCougar]

For those interested in the issue of realism and accuracy in The Hurt Locker, USA Today had a interesting story on the topic.

Interviews with combat veterans show them falling largely into two camps of critics.

There are those who forgive what they see as excesses and embellishments, because they recognize themes and images that authentically portray their combat experiences to an American public untouched by these wars.

"I think everybody should watch it and see how things really are," says Marine Lance Cpl. Nate Knowles, 23, who lost his left leg in Afghanistan to an IED (improvised explosive device) in June and declares The Hurt Locker "amazing."

And there are those who cannot forgive, who say the movie is ruined by inaccuracies, ranging from the wrong shade of uniform to a scene in which three soldiers run through Baghdad alleyways alone looking for insurgents.

[RobinFinderson]

Saw it. Really liked it. I was too drawn into each situation to consider predictability. And there were no "Bear Jews" or Islamic caricatures as hand puppets, so it was real to me.

As far as the Oscar nominees, I have no intention of seeing Precious or Avatar, but I do have District 9, A Serious Man, and An Education (when it's eventually released) queued up. I'd have IB 1, UITA 2, and Up 3 at this point.

A Serious Man doesn't stand a chance in this crowd, but Faith and I really enjoyed it. Very warped humor.

With the Oscars now selecting so many nominees in the Best Picture category, I wonder how this will skew the trend of winning films -- toward blockbusters or toward indies?

[Green Lantern]

A Serious Man doesn't stand a chance in this crowd, but Faith and I really enjoyed it. Very warped humor.

With the Oscars now selecting so many nominees in the Best Picture category, I wonder how this will skew the trend of winning films -- toward blockbusters or toward indies?

What's cool is that the two front-runners represent opposite ends of the spectrum. If AVATAR wins it will be the highest-grossing Best Picture winner of all time and if HURT LOCKER wins, I believe it will be the lowest (adjusted for inflation of course.)

[MarkGrace]

What's cool is that the two front-runners represent opposite ends of the spectrum. If AVATAR wins it will be the highest-grossing Best Picture winner of all time and if HURT LOCKER wins, I believe it will be the lowest (adjusted for inflation of course.)

It's made more than Titanic? I had no idea. Wow.