“War is a drug” ... is how The Hurt Locker opens. We’re in Bagdad, the War in Iraq, a bomb threat, U.S. military occupation. I hate the documentary-style camera dangling. We follow a team of soldiers responsible for disarming IEDs (improvised explosive devices, i.e., bombs). It’s ten minutes of awkward tension and panic ... and then ... BOOM! Someone dies. Repeat: tension, panic, boom, death. After about half an hour, the story starts to explore the relations between the members of the team and of the soldiers with locals. The new team leader Sgt. James is all brazenly cool. He’s a cowboy in a bombsuit. He’s a wild one. He’s also the only one attempting to befriend locals. Sgt. Sanborn is the intelligence guy, a control freak who wants to do everything by the book. He despises James’ recklessness – even though he learns to admire what he believes is James’ courage. Then there’s Specialist Eldridge, who blames himself for causing the death of his previous team leader and later of the field psychiatrist. He’s scared of dying and questions the purpose of their mission.
It surprises me that this movie has won so much praise and so many awards. Not that it’s outright bad, but I just feel that it’s not that much of a good film. I guess that Americans still need to see war movies to wrap their heads around the realities of war... the atrocities ... the horror ... the death dealing desperation... Hurt Locker is touted as the first movie about the Iraq War, and is praised for its realism. I can’t vouch for its accurate depiction of the situation in Iraq (veterans have complained sufficiently to make me question its realism), but there are also people who actually came out of this movie feeling that it glorifies warfare! Apocalypse Now was also meant to criticize war, the Vietnam War in particular, but still most people watch that movie for its awesome effects and memorize its cool dialogue. (“I Love the smell of napalm in the morning!” “The horror, the horror.” “Charlie don’t surf.”) The military occupation of Iraq commenced seven years ago, now. Do Americans still need to be reminded how many unnecessary deaths their occupation causes on both sides? And do we need the Academy Awards to remind us to watch Hurt Locker?
It surprises me that this movie has won so much praise and so many awards. Not that it’s outright bad, but I just feel that it’s not that much of a good film. I guess that Americans still need to see war movies to wrap their heads around the realities of war... the atrocities ... the horror ... the death dealing desperation... Hurt Locker is touted as the first movie about the Iraq War, and is praised for its realism. I can’t vouch for its accurate depiction of the situation in Iraq (veterans have complained sufficiently to make me question its realism), but there are also people who actually came out of this movie feeling that it glorifies warfare! Apocalypse Now was also meant to criticize war, the Vietnam War in particular, but still most people watch that movie for its awesome effects and memorize its cool dialogue. (“I Love the smell of napalm in the morning!” “The horror, the horror.” “Charlie don’t surf.”) The military occupation of Iraq commenced seven years ago, now. Do Americans still need to be reminded how many unnecessary deaths their occupation causes on both sides? And do we need the Academy Awards to remind us to watch Hurt Locker?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.