WORLD  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 7

Iraq Movie, 'The Hurt Locker' Is Generating Oscar Buzz: But Does It Deserve It?

Critics have praised the film as a realistic, Academy Award-worthy piece of filmmaking. But is there really anything realistic about it?
November 4, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

As the year winds down and Hollywood gets busy creating Oscar buzz, one unlikely contender is The Hurt Locker, the widely praised Iraq movie that premiered at the Venice Film Festival last year and was released in the U.S. in June 2009.

"Just when I thought I'd seen enough of Iraq war movies, along comes (Hurt Locker)," an Access Hollywood film critic told USA Today in September. "If any movie about Iraq is going to break through to the academy, this is it."

Indeed, the "megabuzz-spawning film" (to quote the Modesto Bee) was nominated for its first official honor last month, by the prestigious (if relatively obscure) New York-based Independent Filmmaker Project, which tapped it for Best Feature. According to the Los Angeles Times, which has started tracking Oscar favorites, The Hurt Locker has been tapped by no fewer than 16 leading film pundits as a serious Academy Award contender.

Even if it skipped your radar, you've probably heard some beaming reviews about The Hurt Locker by now.

The almost unanimous acclaim it attracted from mainstream reviewers focused mainly on director Kathryn Bigelow's suspenseful action scenes, which make up the majority of the film's run time, and prominent reviewers agree that it's a masterfully crafted American combat epic about three deceptively simple-looking and courageous American men making sacrifices for their country while in unfamiliar, hostile territory.

At least partially thanks to clever marketing, the film produced over $12 million in box office revenue, making it the most successful movie made about the U.S. war on Iraq and its so-called war on terror to date. (Compare to films like Redacted, which earned $25,628, or Rendition's $9.6 million.)

But there are some curious contradictions in the praise Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have received for their work.

Reviewers cite Boal's brief stint as an embedded journalist following a bomb-disposal unit in Iraq as supporting evidence for the film's alleged accuracy. But they fail to consider the inevitable bias of such a narrow perspective.

Would reviewers have lauded the accuracy of a story based on the experiences of a journalist who had been embedded with the "other" side -- particularly if the portrayal of American soldiers had not been positive?

Some reviewers have praised Bigelow for allegedly not incorporating a political stance into the film. This is simply ridiculous: It's being endorsed by military-recruitment sites as we speak. A link to military.com, the largest military organization in the United States, appears on the front page of the film's official Web site.

A Realistic Portrayal of Iraq?

Filmed in Jordan, The Hurt Locker is supposed to have taken place in Iraq in 2004, where an American bomb-dismantling team visits various danger spots in unfriendly neighborhoods.

The first scene, ironically, opens with a quote from award-winning anti-war journalist and author Chris Hedges: "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction for war is a drug." Cue screen fade.

The display re-emerges from within the lens of a remote-controlled robot making its way across a rocky road toward a suspicious-looking pile of sacks laid out on the ground near an old railway track. The audience catches brief glimpses of destruction from this unsteady viewpoint, as well as a shaky camera (through which most of the film is viewed) that narrows in and out on people and objects, as though they are all targets.

From these two perspectives, we see old blown-up cars and destroyed buildings juxtaposed beside the U.S. presence, shown here through the existence of a crushed Pepsi can and U.S. military men. A man's voice sounds in the background while Iraqi civilians are told to evacuate. Cars continue to drive down a road very nearby. The civilians are either frantic or annoyed that they are being asked to exit the area.

Other Iraqis are also portrayed as disaffected, their blank, suspicious faces watching from balconies, windows, stores. Shots of expressionless or menacing Iraqis staring at American soldiers appear throughout, especially during action scenes that make up the majority of this film.


submit to reddit
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
 
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

The man with the midas touch
Posted by: LCaution on Nov 4, 2009 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would surpose that the movie is a favourite for an oscar. But then there is an ever increasing number of categories than candidates year on year. That is, for a golden statuet that so many aspire to. So yes, in one of the technical categories. The storyline is otherwise thematically too repetetive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Maybe better dig up...
Posted by: Swatopluk on Nov 4, 2009 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe better dig up Ten Seconds to Hell (Robert Aldrich 1959) dealing with bomb disposal in the ruins of Berlin after WW2 (filmed on location). The filming was done so meticulously that the movie gained the nickname "Around the Bomb in 80 Ways".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

War movies made during the war they depict are generally propaganda.
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 4, 2009 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Such movies that win wide praise from mainstream sources are always propaganda. It would be remarkable if this movie were any exception. It obviously is not. The video game is certainly in the works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Please
Posted by: ilene on Nov 4, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, it's a movie for god's sake. It wasn't a scholarly analysis of our presence in Irai.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Great movie. I think you missed the point.
Posted by: PeaceLove on Nov 4, 2009 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, but I think this reviewer is way off base. In no way does this movie glorify war or killing. Rather, the point of the film is the way the constant stress dehumanizes the men and robs them of the ability to function normally. Sgt. James goes back to Iraq because he is incapable of having a normal relationship with his wife and child.

Sgt. Sanborn (the black soldier) a racist? What film did you see? Sanborn is the educated former intelligence officer who dislikes Sgt. James because he's a reckless douchebag.

The movie does an amazing job of showing the situation through American eyes, specifically the total inability of our troops to understand the Iraqis. Yes, the Iraqi's are unreadable. They are regularly yelled at and cursed at in an unfamiliar language, regularly threatened by soldiers with automatic weapons. The film keeps a distance from the Iraqis not because it's racist or indifferent, but to represent viscerally the detachment between our troops and the very civilians we're supposed to be helping.

Are the Iraqis thrilled we're there to protect them from IEDs? Or do they recognize that the IEDs wouldn't be there if we weren't either?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

In 1776 British redcoats marched down the center of the
Posted by: abusedbypenguins on Nov 4, 2009 6:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
road and Americans (George Washington et.al. were declared terrorists in 1777 by the British) behind rock walls and trees picked them off one by one. The British had an expensive 3000 mile supply line. Hummers drive down the center of the road in Iraq and are blown up by "Terrorists" one by one. The American supply line is 8000 miles and very expensive. The invader (usually for no reason but wealth and power)is always on the wrong side and unless all out war is declared, with total destruction of the invadee, will lose. That bunch of losers in the pentagon haven't won anything worthwhile since 1945.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One man's insurgent... Posted by: adp3d
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS