The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

[flyonthewall2983]

Writer-Director scene commentary.

[exte]

Phenomenal film. Best war movie experience since Private Ryan. Finally the Iraq war has been cracked, and by a woman director. Props to Bigelow, what a talent...

[rs98762001]

Best war movie experience since Private Ryan.

Talk about damning something with faint praise.

[Oedipax]

Jonathan Rosenbaum has a short post on the (faulty, in his estimation) claim that The Hurt Locker is apolitical.

I agree with Rosenbaum when he says that any American film on Iraq at this point is inherently political. I disagree with his reading of one key event in the narrative that I'll spoiler tag below.

Spoiler

Rosenbaum seems to suggest that when Jeremy Renner's character encounters the boy he thought was murdered later in the film that he literally doesn't recognize him - so convinced is he of the treachery of the insurgents.

In fact, I think he knows exactly who the kid is, and is so disoriented by his earlier mistake that he doesn't know how to respond when the kid appears alive and well in front of him. Further, I think he partially had blamed himself for being too friendly towards the kid in view of the older man selling DVDs - that this man may have suspected that the kid was informing to the Americans, and therefore had him killed. By turning a cold shoulder to the kid at the end, he's acknowledging (in his mind, at least) that he can't allow himself that kind of friendship with an Iraqi youth - it can easily prove fatal if someone is seen as too friendly towards the occupying army. He has to keep his distance.

[exte]

I took it as:

Spoiler

That was the kid who was dead and he's just haunted by him.

[flyonthewall2983]

When is this going to play to more than a few "select cities"?

[brendanjc]

I took it as:

Spoiler

That was the kid who was dead and he's just haunted by him.

That's a really strange interpretation since the film seems intended to be realistic all the way through. I think Oedipax's reading is right on, though I also thought it was also bleakly funny in the sense that Renner probably had trouble telling the kids apart, even one he had talked to so many times. That sort of basic misunderstanding works to completely undermine any sort of cliched relationship-across-cultural-boundaries message that you might have gotten out of their interactions throughout the film.

[knives]

I also found a sad irony in it. Oedipax is probably spot on and that's how I felt when watching it. The film is very much in the 'real world' and any unreal thing would undermine the documentary style that carries everything else in the film. The ending is probably the most bittersweet downer in a Hollywood picture since AI. Everything about it was miles away from expectations, but I doubt it will beat Near Dark for me.

[exte]

I took it as:

Spoiler

That was the kid who was dead and he's just haunted by him.

That's a really strange interpretation since the film seems intended to be realistic all the way through.

Again, if war is hell and there is indeed post traumatic stress disorder, why not that, or the beginning of that? And how is that not real?

[Aki]

Finally the Iraq war has been cracked

Have you seen Generation Kill? It's great.

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this tonight and I will definitely add to the praise. What a goddamned heart attack of a film. For all of Bigelow's fantastic work behind the camera, this is one decidedly unsexy war film. It's grim, surreal, and unrelenting while capturing the absolute hell these soliders are going through. I had the same reading as Oedipax regarding the events that are spoiler tagged. As for the film's politics, while I don't think it wears the "we-shouldn't-be-in-Iraq" flag on its sleeve, I think Bigelow makes more very subtle indications in several key scenes that the troops are overworked, underfunded and in general, way over their heads in a way that people calling the shots from the White House can't begin to comprehend.

[Svevan]

Agreed that this is far from an apolitical film (heard many people tout it as that, don't know what movie they saw) but it also isn't mindlessly anti-war in the style of Stoploss (which I enjoyed reviewing in my head as I was watching Hurt Locker). There were also some, if not jabs, pointed observations about the machismo, homoeroticism, and brutality of the military, exemplified in the drinking/punching scene and David Morse's cruel murder of a wounded insurgent.

Any takes on the title?

[brendanjc]

Agreed that this is far from an apolitical film (heard many people tout it as that, don't know what movie they saw) but it also isn't mindlessly anti-war in the style of Stoploss (which I enjoyed reviewing in my head as I was watching Hurt Locker). There were also some, if not jabs, pointed observations about the machismo, homoeroticism, and brutality of the military, exemplified in the drinking/punching scene and David Morse's cruel murder of a wounded insurgent.

I think there's a crucial difference between anti-war and apolitical. I don't think the film makes any specific point about the political situation in Iraq or in the US that created this specific conflict - there's no real mention or even allusions to the unpopularity of the war, the reasons for the war, etc, the war just exists. The film is more interested in using it as a backdrop for broader investigation of the psychology of soldiers and the realities of war in general. I agree that the film struck me as leaning anti-war, it certainly doesn't gloss over the flaws in any of the protagonists' characters and is tough on the military culture, especially in the scenes Svevan mentions, but it's hard for me to try and determine how much of that is my own views bleeding into my perception of the picture. I can easily imagine someone coming out of it impressed by how brave and, frankly, badass the troops can be as portrayed in the film to the point of seeing it lean more towards a recruitment commercial, especially if you were a supporter of the conflict the soldiers are caught up in. The thing that makes me hesitate to call it one way or the other is that there isn't any sympathy generated for the opposing force whatsoever - even for a leftie like myself there's no real question about whose side you're cheering on in the sniper scene, for example.

[Murdoch]

Saw the film in Toronto. It had a handful of really good scenes, but it fell apart toward the end when Bigelow and her screenwriter decided that Jeremy Renner's character and his internal anguish was the emotional core of the film. Removing the dynamics between him and the men around him made the whole thing feel vacuous. Not to mention that this "look at me, I'm in mental anguish" bit was built up through a series of cliched devices including a good, old-fashioned, fully-clothed curl-up-and-cry-in-the-shower.

It had the potential to be absolutely fantastic, but blew it.

I just saw this and would agree with this assessment. There were a few good scenes at the end and I think the last scene of

Spoiler

Jeremy Renner walking to another bomb with the text on the screen of 365 days left

was a great way to end it. But it just felt like another action movie trying to address the current state of warfare and, from what I've read by servicemen responding to the film, it had a lot of gross inaccuracies. I'd say my favorite parts were seeing Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly pop up in (very) small roles, plus I enjoyed Guy Pearce's brief appearance in the beginning.

Overall it was a decent flick, even if overlong and amounting to about the same thing in the end as Jarhead in terms of how warfare is an alienating experience, but - I know I'm alone here - I thought Jarhead was a much better film.

[jbeall]

I just saw this yesterday and liked it very, very much. However, I also felt it dragged into cliche a little toward the end--the aforementioned shower scene being the most obvious example--but also

Spoiler

the nighttime pursuit of the bombers, which struck me as a little CSI-meets-Miami-Vice. There's simply no reason for them to do that, no reason for the bombers to still be anywhere around the scene by that point, and no reason why Sanborn and Eldridge would listen to James, esp. near the end of their rotation.

Also, the storyline was a little episodic, which is why the mental-anguish feels tacked-on.

That said, this movie was very tense during each of the bomb-defusing scenes; what makes it especially gripping is the way it turns into a chess match, with their opponents (likely) watching from nearby rooftops, minarets, or windows. I think THL accomplishes what it sets out to do, which is portray the intensity that Will James thrives on, and the intensity they bring to what they do, for example their ability to remain focused during the sniper scene. Also, Bigelow does a great job of establishing the space in each of the action sequences (she's better at this than most of the hack directors making action movies nowadays).

This opened in Central Jersey last week, and by this weekend it's down to three showtimes. I'm sure it'll be gone next weekend, while G.I. Joe and other summer movies continue to hoard money, and that's just depressing. For all its flaws, The Hurt Locker is much more realistic and intense than the shitty blockbusters that came out this summer.

[Finch]

I haven't really much to add to what's been said already except that while the much-criticised shower scene is the only moment in the film that rang a little false to me, it didn't bother me as much as I expected it to - it is quite a brief sequence and handled well within its context by Renner and Bigelow. I completely understand that it takes away from the film for some but it could have also been a lot worse in lesser hands. The domestic scenes in the US played well for me and avoided spelling Renner's dilemma out too much; in fact, the moment in the supermarket when he seems literally lost among those endless rows of cornflakes and candy was one of my favourites in the entire film, and I appreciated that Bigelow didn't resort to obvious and cheap emotional cues, kept it simple and made it all the more powerful for it.

I love the idea that was brought forward in this thread that the bomb diffusions carried out by James while Iraqis look on from the distance play out like a game of chess; I thought the opening with Guy Pearce and then the three setpieces involving Renner was riveting stuff: Bigelow, unlike almost all her male colleagues, has a proper sense of spatial awareness and pacing and sustaining a scene. To that end, she is aided in no small part by Barry Ackroyd's excellent camera work (thankfully the handheld shots aren't too jerky and the takes are long enough to allow you to take it all in), and the superb cast, especially Renner and his two costars. The dynamic between the three of them is quite interesting and it holds the episodic narrative together: Eldridge and Sanborn are troubled by James' often devil-may-care attitude and abandon with which he throws himself into the job and yet they recognise that he is a true leader and that he ultimately fights for the same interests. I also liked the late night scene in the barracks where they get drunk and begin sparring with each other: there is a powerful moment of tension that begins harmlessly enough but then it builds and almost comes to a tipping point; here, the film seems to be playing with notions of male power play, hierarchy and even a hint of homosexuality. Lastly, I liked that James

Spoiler

was shown to be not infallible when he can't diffuse the bombs before the timer runs out

; this was in nice contrast to his cocksure, almost arrogant behaviour in earlier episodes. Also appreciated the complete lack of sermonising and political pointscoring which deflates other Iraq war films and that the film would let the events speak for themselves. I was enthralled from start to finish - I find this film nothing short of sensational and it's made me want to revisit Strange Days (after having recently seen Point Break and Near Dark also).

[thirtyframesasecond]

I saw this yesterday - only to have a writer at the Observer ask if I'd share my thoughts after the film; to which I agreed, but was he there after? No!

Anyway, I thought this was a breathtaking, audacious film. The Iraq films that Hollywood has made to date have been weighed down by their political baggage, asking the same "why are we here?" questions. Hey, we're singing from the same hymn sheet, I know, but the over-earnest liberal agendas that the likes of Lions for Lambs have trip these films up before they even start rolling. The Hurt Locker doesn't go in for political discussion. It's more of a film about the war on the ground; the chaos, confusion and futility of it, not the decisions made thousands of miles away in Washington and wherever. There's a constant awareness of mortality; "if you're in Iraq, you're dead" as Sanborn says. These men probably expect to die. Living is purely a matter of chance. Bigelow balances these men's heroism with their recklessness. James might be an arrogant, talented sonofabitch but he's also a danger to his colleagues. This is high octane, high pressure stuff; war is a drug, an adrenaline rush to these men and I like how nicely Bigelow juxtaposes this with James's unsettled domestic circumstances, but never glorifying what he does in Iraq. The same plot twists that people had issues with, I share, especially

Spoiler

Cambridge being berated by Eldridge for not seeing action, and of course when he rides along with the team, he gets killed

, but otherwise I thought this was first rate stuff. Not just the best Hollywood film of 2009 but possibly the best, period.

[Lemmy Caution]

That said, this movie was very tense during each of the bomb-defusing scenes; what makes it especially gripping is the way it turns into a chess match, with their opponents (likely) watching from nearby rooftops, minarets, or windows.

Minarets?
I guess it's possible, just as it's possible that you've been brainwashed.
I'll presume that your intentions were pure, though personally I found this comment offensive.

[jbeall]

That said, this movie was very tense during each of the bomb-defusing scenes; what makes it especially gripping is the way it turns into a chess match, with their opponents (likely) watching from nearby rooftops, minarets, or windows.

Minarets?
I guess it's possible, just as it's possible that you've been brainwashed.
I'll presume that your intentions were pure, though personally I found this comment offensive.

In one particular scene, there are several spectators standing on the balcony of a slender tower, looking at Bravo Company down on the ground, and gesturing to a man on a nearby rooftop. I don't know whether the tower was in fact attached to a mosque (IIRC, the camera-angle shows only the tower, not the base structure), but Sanborn explicitly refers to it as a minaret, which is why I used the term.

My earlier post was poorly worded, for which I apologize. I should have written likely opponents, because the point is that the soldiers don't know if the spectators are insurgents, although their behavior is certainly suspicious. And there's only one minaret(?), but it's important for the scene.

[Lemmy Caution]

Sorry about that.
I thought I might be overreacting, and appreciate your measured response.
I (now) remember that scene and the implication is definitely that they are on a minaret (even if the close-up doesn't show a mosque).
So your earlier post is right on the money.
And besides much of the Iraqi street is shown through the perspective of the American soldiers, who would (most likely) be suspicious of the mosque as a possible source of fanatics, as well as the strategic perspective afforded by minarets.

[HarryLong]

The domestic scenes in the US played well for me and avoided spelling Renner's dilemma out too much; in fact, the moment in the supermarket when he seems literally lost among those endless rows of cornflakes and candy was one of my favourites in the entire film, and I appreciated that Bigelow didn't resort to obvious and cheap emotional cues, kept it simple and made it all the more powerful for it.

Oh, yes; the man of decisive action reduced to being unable to make a decision from all the choices in the cereal aisle. Lovely moment. Actually the whole leave sequence, which shows him struggling with civilian life is wonderfully realized. He can't think of conversation topic with his wife that aren't related to his combat experiences. The final bit of it where he talks with his son is either showing him slowly reacclimating or demonstrates he's only able to talk to someone unable to respond ... I haven't quite puzzled that one out yet.

I (now) remember that scene and the implication is definitely that they are on a minaret (even if the close-up doesn't show a mosque).

I'm pretty sure the dialogue states the men are atop a temple.

[Finch]

Strange that this hasn't gotten a DVD release in the US yet but the UK disc is scheduled for 28 December (specs to be confirmed):

http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/10674623 ... FAdventure#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mfunk9786]

I've seen a lot of films over the last few weeks that've cracked my unbelievably overflowing top ten list (The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call: New Orleans, Broken Embraces, even my #1 film of the year Fantastic Mr. Fox [it speaks for itself when you see it, folks]) and haven't posted about them, but I feel compelled to mention how much The Hurt Locker meant to me.

As someone of prime military draft age, I can't express how much this film made me feel for the men who are over in Iraq fighting a war that no one had any business singing them up for, and how much this film wrung feelings of guilt out of me like sweat in a sauna. Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie turn in such great performances that it's hard to put in words what exactly moved me about them. There's just such a vulnerability in both of their characters that is impossible to find in the annals of war film history.

Typically, the war film is my least favorite genre. Even more than, say, the romantic comedy; the war film shoves characters into stereotypical categories and gives them such predictable dialogue to speak that the whole film, regardless of the gravity of the action, feels like a huge waste of time. In The Hurt Locker, one feels they can place themselves in the position of Renner or Mackie's character with ease. Renner is so overwhelmed by the adrenaline that accompanies his job that he is probably a lost cause, a man lost to war who will never fully adjust to the concept of

Spoiler

cleaning the gutters, and Mackie's character is so frightened of war that you feel his regret in your bones. When you're approaching a sign-up sheet, you never consider the fact that every time you make yourself vulnerable in the middle of a street or the middle of a desert [and my goodness, the locations and depth of focus are absolutely perfect in this film] you stand a great chance of being killed, and not only that - but of being an afterthought forevermore. Because, let's be honest - a lot of men die in the line of duty, and they're quickly replaced (as represented fantastically by an early scene introducing Renner) without much of a second thought.

I could ramble on for a while about this one (I'm feeling colinr-level verbose this evening) but I'll leave it at this - if war films aren't normally your bag - watch this film through a early second act scene involving a very dangerous car with a bomb in the trunk and see if you aren't absolutely hooked. If war films are your bag and you haven't seen The Hurt Locker yet, what the fuck are you waiting for?

Kathryn Bigelow stands the best chance to win Best Director and this films stands the best chance to win Best Picture of any film out there, and I couldn't be any happier about that. I can only hope that some of the acting in this film, and the pitch perfect cinematography, are honored as well. Bravo.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

As someone of prime military draft age, I can't express how much this film made me feel for the men who are over in Iraq fighting a war that no one had any business singing them up for

I may be misunderstanding you, but every American over there asked for it, and they got it. They have no one to blame but themselves the last time I checked.

[mfunk9786]

I don't know that someone who joined the army before the Iraq war was suddenly announced was prepared for the corrupt and endless war that followed. I'm not downplaying their assumed responsibility and their need to realize it, but I can't help but feel sympathy for each and every one of them.