The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

[MyNameCriterionForum]

We've had a large military presence the mideast since August 2 1990

[Galen Young]

Blackwater's involvement with Hurt Locker...

[foofighters7]

ok, I have been trying to stay out of this damn thread but I couldn't resist after seeing the Critics choice awards today...

HOW HOW HOW is this film being talked about as being one of the best films of the year?

How can you gloss over the glaring cliches, unrealistic scenes, bad dialogue?

This year, this film, has completely confused me as to why people LOVE it so.

I thought it was fair. Certainly not in my top 10 but not bad either.

I truly believe people are just getting on the train and since this film is easy to want to roof for- (small film, woman director, Iraq movie that doesn't exactly pick sides), I think people are just ignoring the bad in this film.

[tavernier]

Bigelow has always been a critics' darling, and 2009 was a horrible year for movies. Add those together and you've got an award winner.

[karmajuice]

It's a thoroughly flawed film. Several sequences seem entirely unnecessary and only detract from the momentum of the story (namely the child subplot). But it explores certain thematic dimensions of war which are seldom touched upon in war-related art, which is often staunchly anti-war without engaging in any meaningful way with the realities of war: our fascination with war and our universal inability to stay out of it, how it affects and changes people, the impression it leaves on the people who witness or participate in it. Most war films are simply content to condemn war -- a perfectly valid stance, sure, but not one which affords much worthwhile insight into why it happens or what it does.
The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, deals with the act of being a soldier, and in very compelling ways. It's essentially a character study fused with the action-oriented war film (the rush we derive from the action necessarily being a part of the thematic structure of the film, given its content), which is a rare thing in war films: they are almost invariably ensemble pieces. We have other characters who approach their war experience in ways we're more familiar with, but they're the control in the experiment. The focus is on one character and his addiction, a character who cannot live in the world for which he fights so hard.
On that note, I'll recall a comparison to another film. Svevan and I talked about the film and he mentioned some critic (he thought Amy Taubin, but wasn't certain) comparing it with The Searchers. It's a remarkable observation, and seemed remarkably obvious once someone had made it for me. Another film I would compare it with is The Steel Helmet, which also follows a professional soldier (one who is more reluctant to stay in the war, but who thrives on it and who wouldn't seem to fit outside of the context of war). It also deals with a child character, although it handles it much more effectively. Primarily, though, they both are concerned with characters who are largely indifferent to the suffering caused by war. Instead, the war seems to define their existence.

Again, the film has flaws, but it excels in many ways. The action scenes are suspenseful, involving, and sometimes strikingly beautiful; it builds a fascinating and complex portrait without detracting from its action momentum (and again, the action benefits the portrait); and it approaches the fact of war with more sympathy and understanding than most war films are ever willing to. I don't think I'd hesitate to award the film something, and I don't even think it was a particularly bad year for movies.

[foofighters7]

clearly, films can be flawed yet still be a decent-good film.

My problem with this film is that a few scenes I felt were very cheap and cliched, detracted from an otherwise pretty good premise with some great scenes.

The bad:
The WHOLE setup and scene with the Psychiatrist going out into the field. Who else thought this was just Terrible and Cliched?
The scenes where he goes into town at night by himself. To me, it was unrealistic and went over the line.

The scene that had Fiennes in it- I liked Fiennes in it as a small character, but within that scene, where the guy who was nervous and unskilled kills the bad guy coming from behind. I thought it was truly terrible.

The very early scene where Renner's Character walks down the middle of the hostel street with snipers/gunman presumably all about, with his cover yelling at him.

They tried to make a typical antihero almost over-the-top John Wayneish.

It didn't work. It just came across as unbelievable and goofy. I was embarrassed for several scenes that were just so freakin goofy.


The Good:

Some of these scenes were truly nerve rendering.
Some of these scenes felt real and touching. ( the scene where he is telling the guy who is wired that he cannot save him). Great scene.

I just hate hearing people drone on and on about how GREAT this film is. I think a large portion are just jumping on the wagon. I keep hearing people say they love her work. What the hell have they been watching?

I thought 'The Weight of Water' was fair, but I don't think she has made on Solidly good-great film, including this one.

I LOVE women, I love when women do great jobs in a field dominated by men... BUT, I don't give undue praise to someone based simply on the fact she is a woman/minority/whatever.

I really think people have been hoping to throw a best picture/best director GG/AA at a woman, and figure this is the best time, so they laud it as magnificent, overlooking the flaws that should keep it from receiving either.

Shoot, I don't think the majority of Hollywood voters even watch the majority of films up for awards. Critics have basically went nuts on the whole. Are there any film fans in Hollywood anymore?

[foofighters7]

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.

why would his statement have offended you, I would like to know that?

[Grand Illusion]

I'll stand up as a defender for this film.

The entirety of The Hurt Locker rests on its opening caption describing war as a drug. Until we understand why soldiers keep going to war, we will never understand why we keep going to war. Renner's character is hooked on it.

The action/suspense genre was made for this thesis of war as an addiction because watching action/suspense films definitely gives the viewer a biological reaction. It gets the blood pumping, the testosterone flowing. There's more than gender philosophy for why men like action movies; there's biology at work here. It's a high.

As a microcosm of the entire film, the sniper scene is expertly crafted. Bigelow presents the camaraderie of the soldiers, the teamwork, the concentration to every tiny detail, and even the small victories (presented as a single successful bullet falling to the ground). In adrenaline-pumping scenes that ebb and flow with wins and losses, Bigelow realizes that the positives of war are not simply felt on a political stage, but also on the ground. It may seem unnecessary to say, but victories make people feel good.

The Hurt Locker stretches our suspension of disbelief, sure, particularly in scenes where Renner goes rogue. Still, the film never betrays its character focus. The film shows even these moments as scenes of extreme danger and extreme highs. The film entitles us to our own opinion of the action, even if we know where Renner's character firmly stands.

Bigelow is operating on a psychological level. Why does the soldier return to war? This is an examination of the human desire to go to battle, exemplified perfectly by the Iraq War, since it's a war we've actually returned to for a second time. The vignette-style framing of the film also plays to this theme as the days slowly count down. Sanford, the black soldier, cannot wait to leave, and he is a stand-in for the rest of the audience, who should be hoping by the end of the film that the soldiers can simply beat the arbitrary clock of their deployment and escape.

Spoiler

And then the end undercuts our expectations, when Renner's character strolls right back into war of his own will and volition. Take the scene after Renner's character returns home. He is cleaning out a gutter in the rain. Bigelow trains the viewer to look for danger around every corner, and I was worried Renner's character might slip and fall off the ladder or some other contrivance. But he doesn't. Cleaning the gutter is just that, another monotony of life.

But then the rock music blares, presumably inside his head, and the character strolls through the desert land once again, returning to his one true love. 365 days is the new countdown, and we are encouraged, not to agree with his decision, but to understand it.

I don't have a clue how to define what makes a "good year" for film. There's no way to see everything, and I assume between Hollywood, foreign, independent, and past films on DVD, there's enough good out there to satisfy even the most hardcore cinephiles. The Hurt Locker, though, was my second favorite American film of the year, and if you're trying to draw up a false dichotomy between "film fans" and fans of this movie, you're really picking a wrong target.

[L'amiDeVS]

Nice review.

I'm not really a big fan of pure action movies but this one had me on the edge of my seat for over 2 hours. It's pure adrenaline. Yes it's easy to find flaws in it or a general lack of "depth" yet I don't know what it was but it just worked for me. The scene in the supermarket really was priceless as a contrast with the rest of the film. Certainly one of the better films of 2009 I've seen.

[manicsounds]

So I watched it today, and still don't understand what the title means...

Also, what's up with this film grossing only $16 million worldwide?
In the states, it seems Summit put all their marketing money into "Twilight" and did pretty much nothing for this film. It's pretty appauling considering the critics acclaim...
And for other countries as well. I'm not an expert on marketing, but it just seemed like a big wasted opportunity...

[reno dakota]

So I watched it today, and still don't understand what the title means...

It's military slang, apparently, for a time or state of severe emotional or physical pain/suffering.

[jesus the mexican boi]

Re: the title

I just presumed it to mean the white coffin-like containers of dead soldiers' effects in the early part of the film, or perhaps the protective bodysuit he wears to go defuse the bomb. It felt like a play on whether the "hurt" was being locked out or locked away.

[Lemmy Caution]

And then there's the awkward moment where the unit stumbles across a real locker suspected of being loaded with explosives.

[jbaart]

re: title

As far as I understand (NOT being a native English speaker) reno dakota is right about it's meaning. I think there are two physical things in the movie that can also be referred to as hurt lockers. One are the coffin-like containers like Jesus said. The other would be the box with the bomb parts he stores under his bed.

re: gross

I can only speak for Germany but I think there are two reasons over here. One would be the obvious lack of good advertising. The German distributor decided to go with a different main title. That's quite understandable seeing as not even native speakers seem to get the title. But, instead of something decent they decided to name it "Tödliches Kommando" which literally translates to Deadly Commando. Sounds like a bad Steven Seagal action flick. Needless to say that doesn't really help.

There's a different problem though and that's the topic of the movie. As you know Germany has only recently started to engage in modern warfare. We hadn't been in any real wars or even skirmishes for about 40 years til the 90s. And we're still not really engaged in any campaigns. So, an Iraq bomb defusion squad really isn't what the majority over here might be interested in. After all, it's still worth a spot in the most important news of the day (which only go for 15 minutes) if one of our soldiers dies over there.

[Grand Illusion]

"Deadly Commando" for this film is hilarious.

There's also the scene where Bigelow shoves James Cameron into a locker and steals his lunch money.

[RobertB]

If you want to make a film bout the iraq war that matters to people outside USA I think you have to ask how the war is affecting the people who live in Iraq. For me this was a film that doesn't ask questions. It a film about disarming bombs that never asks why people arm the bombs to begin with. Never in the film does anybody say "why did they do it?". So I end up having a hard time believing the presentation of war in this film. Not one of the best directed of the year for me, but maybe a film a lot of Amercians felt they needed right now.

[karmajuice]

Lots of bad movies have already been made on that subject, and no film about war is required by some unspoken rule to do that. The film should not be expected to deal with subject matter it doesn't set out to handle. It's a character study and it only touches on these other aspects peripherally, as they relate to the protagonist.

I will say, however, that the scene with the man chained to the bomb seems to me like an unnerving and bleak representation of the political situation in Iraq.

[RobertB]

True. I expected it to be a film about Iraq, but found it to be more like a western. I am trying to say that this probably makes more sense if you live in a country that is sending people out to a war far away. I'm reacting less against the film, and more against the idea that this makes Bigelow one of the best directors in the world according to some. No offence ment though.

[knives]

You're dead on about the western aspect. She has always been trying to make westerns. The only reason Near Dark has vampires is they couldn't get funding otherwise. Look at this one less for any any political or contemporary meaning and more like something in the vein of a The Searchers like character study and you may get more enjoyment out of the movie the next time you see it.

[Nothing]

The chained Iraqi in the finale is perhaps the most troublesome moment in the film. If we break this analogy down, what does it say, exactly? That the Iraqi people embraced Al Qaeda and now they regret it, but it's too late for the well-meaning Americans to do anything about it? Combined with the total lack of interest/investigation/empathy for the enemy forces in the film, one must conclude that The Hurt Locker is not 'apolitical' at all but, rather, right wing.

This having been said, Bigelow does capture the character of the modern US army, and, in particular, the character of the men serving in special operations, better than any other film in recent memory - and the Hurt Locker has some degree of worth on this alone.

[King Prendergast]

In a post-Bright Star bout of Abbie Cornish infatuation I decided to catch up with Stop-Loss. Big mistake; the ineptly executed Iraq sequences in that film make you appreciate all the more what Bigelow accomplished in Hurt.

[foofighters7]

In a post-Bright Star bout of Abbie Cornish infatuation I decided to catch up with Stop-Loss. Big mistake; the ineptly executed Iraq sequences in that film make you appreciate all the more what Bigelow accomplished in Hurt.

thats like saying "the set design in Flash Gordon is better than the ones in Plan 9 From Outer Space".

Yeah may be, but is comparing something terrible with some mediocre really the way to go?

[King Prendergast]

In a post-Bright Star bout of Abbie Cornish infatuation I decided to catch up with Stop-Loss. Big mistake; the ineptly executed Iraq sequences in that film make you appreciate all the more what Bigelow accomplished in Hurt.

thats like saying "the set design in Flash Gordon is better than the ones in Plan 9 From Outer Space".

Yeah may be, but is comparing something terrible with some mediocre really the way to go?

It's useful as a clear demonstration of competence in staging action scenes versus blatant, Michael Bayian incompetence in a similar milieu. For anyone interested in the evolution of what Bordwell calls "intensified continuity" then, yes, I think the comparison is trenchant.

[Adam]

I think a good way to understand the title is via this segment from the Oscar-nominated Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience, which overall presents a good pairing with The Hurt Locker. And I don't say that just because I co-produced it.

Here's a site with the "Men in Black" segment, bootlegged, poor sound:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Men-in-B ... -Buzzell-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The You Tube clip is better quality but loses the end, which summarizes the point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwG004jgCZg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It woudl be better if you rented the feature (81 minute) version and watched the whole thing, as it is about the experience of American troops in Iraq as based on their own writings.

Think of it as a common way to be a soldier, the way you stifle the fears and anguish that you face in combat or in war zones - lock them away in a box and deal with them later...
That's how I've understood the title.

[flyonthewall2983]

Anyone watch the segment on 60 Minutes about the film and Kathryn last night?