The Hurt Locker is the latest by Director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break). It was written by Mark Boal (In the Valley of Elah), and is based on his experiences while following a bomb squad around Baghdad circa 2004. The squad is composed of the bomb disarmer Staff Sergeant James (played by Jeremy Brenner), Sergeant Sanborn (played by Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Eldridge (played by Brian Geraghty). In supporting are a couple of Indie heavyweights like Guy Pearce, as the doomed Staff Sergeant whom James replaces, and Ralph Fiennes, as a British mercenary. Rounding out the cast are known character actors David Morse, as a hotshot Colonel, and Evangeline Lily, as James’ estranged wife. Sometimes in great comedies you will find big name comedians jump in for short roles just because they want to be apart of something special. That seems to have happened here with these dramatic actors.
The Iraq war so far has been a box office and critical dud. I talked for some length as to why I think this has happened in my review of Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies last fall. Having said that, I believe that Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker may have cracked the code, at least in terms of critical response. This is the best non-documentary film to come out of the Iraq War and there are a couple good reasons for it.
First of all, it is nonpartisan. Now, I’m not saying that a war film should not judge the merits of a war. Cinematic history just goes to show that the best judgmental war films were made years sometimes decades after the war had already ended. (Oliver Stone’s films Platoon (1986) and Born on the 4th of July (1989) are good examples.) This is because judging a war requires some perspective. Since we are still in the midst of the Iraq War it is hard to look upon it from a distance. So it helps that this movie is unconcerned with whether we should have gone to war in Iraq. In fact there is not a single mention of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hussein, or WMDs. The soldiers in this story are primarily concerned with doing their job and staying alive, which makes more sense then having them philosophize over American politics. One of the big turnoffs of the earlier films (Boal’s own In the Valley of Elah in particular) was that they weren’t really about soldiers in combat. They were about politics, parents of soldiers, CIA operatives, or soldiers returning home. They may have been “about” the Iraq War but all the information was abstract. Mix that with heavy-handed moral messages and the outcome was two hours of muddled theoretical outrage. The Hurt Locker is the opposite. This film shows the nuts and bolts operation of a bomb squad in Iraq presently and since the bomb squad doesn’t care about politics, the movie doesn’t either.
Second, the movie doesn’t draw too heavily on the cliche’ of the crying vet. What I mean by ‘the crying vet’ is that increasingly prevalent scene in a serious war films that either has a soldier start crying uncontrollably or, on the other hand, flying off the handle in a psychotic rage. Do these episodes happen, sure. Is PTSD a serious issue, of course. But this certainly doesn’t happen to every veteran that sees combat. In fact, what is remarkable about trained soldiers (and far more interesting) is how they can keep control in dire situations, not lose it. In this movie, Sergeant James may be described as a wild man, but he is also blessed with an extraordinary gift of concentration under fire. Sergeant Sanborn may be intensely in touch with his own mortality, but he is always disciplined, capable, and follows orders readily. Eldridge may be a rookie, but his outlook is mature. There is real danger in this movie. The bomb makers, who look just like civilians, sometimes hang out on balconies overlooking the bomb squad’s progress. Because the soldiers aren’t about to fire on people who may be civilians, serious suspense is built in these scenes. But even though there are some very intense situations, the soldiers don’t panic or make stupid mistakes. They deal with the problems in concerned but controlled ways, as if they were (gasp) trained soldiers. It makes sense to involve a crying vet in a WWII or Vietnam movie because there were plenty of enlisted men completely out of their element in those wars. But in Iraq the army is ‘all volunteer’ and it is suspected that every soldier has seen the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan and has accepted the fact that they just might die in a not so noble way. Soldiers in an Iraq War movie shouldn’t be taken completely off guard by the horrors of war. Frankly, I would suspect that they would act like they do in this movie: Courageous, not cowardly.
Third, the actions scenes are played as action scenes, not melodrama. There are no slow motion melees with violins soaring in the background. We are not subject to speeches about how people don’t understand the true nature of war. On the other hand, there isn’t any John Wayne bullshit either. The bombs explode like real bombs. One person even gets killed by a shockwave. (Say What? I thought the only way you could die from an explosion was to be engulfed in the flames, and even then you could always outrun it.) The special thing about this movie is that its action scenes are realistic, but they are played for excitement, which is a combination rarely seen in blockbusters or serious war movies. In fact, at times, the Sergeant James seems to be enjoying himself, as if defusing bombs was like some sort of death defying crossword puzzle. Unlike the vast majority of serious war movies, this one admits that war can be fun. That it can be exciting. Sergeant James has defused 873 bombs. He has volunteered to do so. He is not fighting for God and country (at least not completely). He’s there for the adrenaline rush. Is this realistic? For some people, you bet. Does firing a gun make one feel powerful? Damn right. Is wearing a full body armored suit kinda cool? Fuck yeah. Can saving trophies from bombs that almost killed you make a person feel like he is a master over life and death? Hoo-rah! Can war be a drug? Unfortunately yes. The inclusion of a character like Sergeant James makes The Hurt Locker a more complete psychological study than recent anti-war movies, which omit characters like him precisely because they are trying to make a political point. Stephen Brenner’s performance in this movie is capable of snagging a Best Actor Nomination. The film itself should easily get a Best Picture Nomination now that the category has been expanded to ten films. This is one of the best films I have seen so far this year.
Some may find it odd that this seemingly pro-war film about a gung ho bomb disarmer was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who is obviously a woman. I don’t think so. Perhaps it takes a woman to point out that some men will perform death-defying feats compulsively for no particular reason (whereas in regular blockbusters men will usually perform these feats to ‘save the world’ or ‘save the girl’ etc. etc.) Frankly, women have made some of the best movies that deal with this profoundly male trait. American Psycho was adapted for the screen by Guinevere Turner and directed by Mary Harron. Protagonist, a magnificent documentary, was made by Jessica Yu. And you can’t get much more of a testosterone fueled adventure than Bigelow’s own Pointe Break. Surely women can become obsessed and perform death-defying feats themselves, but I’ve never heard of one that would do it just for the hell of it. As Billy Crystal joked once, “Women need a reason, men just need a place.” Or maybe some of them do. Perhaps that should be the subject of Bigelow’s next movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment