(not my words, but critic Tara McKelvey's from the American Prospect, who believes the film is pro-U.S.Army propaganda)?
Well, I went because The Hurt Locker is hailed as 'A Near-Perfect Movie', among other accolades - in fact some call it not just the best movie of the year (that would be 2009) but of the decade, and the best movie about the Iraq war to date.
And, call me naive, but somehow I expected that the story would carry an anti-war message. I tell you, if you are prepared to put yourself through the pain of watching a war movie expecting it will confirm anti-war sentiments (like, you know, war is wrong), don't go to see the Hurt Locker. It is a brazen glorification of 'our boys are doing a great job' and 'they're heros for what they do' (the movie's tag-line is - you don't have to be a hero to do this job, but it helps) and 'if it wasn't for them doing what they do we'd be up the proverbial.' And, yes, the 'action is full-tilt'; it is 'ferociously suspenseful'; it's 'blazingly powerful' - so much so, that we had to walk out, we couldn't bear it anymore. Thus I missed the most un-ambiguous pro-war aspect of the story: The protagonist, who so far has survived the carnage, tells his infant son - when he is back home - there is only "one thing" that he knows he loves. He next is seen back in Iraq, ready to serve another year.
I am left with a question: Why do we watch movies? The great Richard Attenborough once said laughingly, when a reporter made the point that his movie Gandhi was very worthy, that indeed there were many uplifting and inspiring aspects to it: "Well, you know, at the end of the day it's just entertainment … after all we go to the movies to be entertained."
So we watch movies to be entertained. One can now add - and this is my line - "I want to learn something in a movie. I want to be transported to a different world, one I normally have no access to." And I am prepared to watch an 'anti-war' movie for this one reason: "If I have to deal with war, I rather do it in a movie than in real life." Well, no more, The Hurt Locker is the last war movie I'll ever subject myself to.
Let me ask that question again: Why do we watch movies? To be entertained. But why do we want to be entertained by the worst of what humankind has to offer: Killing one another - preferably in the most grotesque ways; is this sick or what?!
But what can I learn from the film? How horrible war is? I don't need to go to the movies to learn that, I just turn on the news. To get a sense of what war is really like? Well, no again. In fact the movie was criticised by some Iraq veterans - and embedded reporters - for lack of realism. Says Christian Lowe, correspondent for The Military Times (embedded with U.S. military for four years): "Some of the scenes are so disconnected with reality to be almost parody." (I can think of a few myself.) Troy Steward, a combat veteran: "I was amazed that a movie so bad could get any kind of accolades from anyone."
Another critic said, "the movie confronts the fact that men often take great pleasure in war. There is something original and distinctive about the film's willingness to admit that for some men (and many moviegoers) war carries an intrinsic dramatic charge. This unapologetic celebration of a testosterone-fuelled lust for war may gall …"
Oh, yes, it may. Sickeningly so … it's 'viscerally exciting', 'adrenaline soaked', 'testosterone fuelled' blatantly unashamed war porn.
From the director's statement comes this 'enlightened' (in inverted commas, I'm being sarcastic, very sarcastic) snippet: "Fear has a bad reputation, but I think that's ill-deserved. Fear is clarifying. It forces you to put important things first and discount the trivial …" Methinks we should all shoot ourselves in the knee … that'll help us put important things first and discount the trivial.
If you want good entertainment at the movies, there's plenty to be had right now: Nine - brilliant, nearly five stars (I deduct 1/2 star for Nicole's frock); Crazy Heart - you may not like country music (I don't), but you'll still like it in this movie, because the music is so good (if it actually is country music, I rather thought it was blues); The Road - is mindblowing, talk about visiting another world; same with Precious and Up in the Air.
And how many times have you seen Avatar? Never mind, go see it again - there's something new you'll find with every viewing.
Mind you, my criticism of the movie (the reason why I only give it four out of five) - the irritating fact that at the end it descends into
yet another war epic - remains pertinent (I also have a blog on the politics of Avatar). My son, who has now seen it five times, said, "I saw the ending with your eyes this time, Dad, and you're right, it is so annoying that once again in an American movie the military plays such a pivotal role" - where solutions to problems are sought by sending in the big guns. We agreed, however, that the way the army is dealt with here can be seen as positive - the military action is portrayed as wrong, the military leader is a vicious caricature, utterly repugnant and ultimately defeated by his own methods. But how many young men see it that way? How many kids instead see the ending as great 'viscerally exciting', 'adrenaline soaked', 'testosterone fuelled' action - indeed war porn?
Update: (and yes, it has won the Oscar for best picture)