I usually like to write my reviews of new-ish movies without spoiling anything.  For this, I’ll save all my spoiler-ish content for the end and try to warn you as much as possible.  Because when I think of this movie, there is so much to talk about and is worthy of discussion, but it is hard to do so in speaking with generalities.  After all, this is a movie that is all about the tense, on the edge of your seat, moments.  Bomb defusers working in areas anything can and will go wrong.

The Hurt Locker is another movie that has been following the trend of managing to break out of it’s independent shell to catch the eye of of a more mainstream cinematic audience.  And as the case tends to be, when the buzz gets to you about such a movie, it’s worth investigating.  Hurt Locker is entirely worth investigating, and hopefully by now is playing in a theatre near you.  The narrative is great, the characters are fleshed out and interesting, the tension is thick, and somehow through it all, it manages to do all of these things without making too much direct commentary on the Iraq war itself.

One comment to start with, is something I didn’t realize until the end.  Who directed this film.   This is going to sound incredibly ignorant, but I can’t help but speak the truth on the subject.  I had subconsciously presumed that this epic war movie filled with testosterone and only a handful of women who even had lines was directed by a man.  Little did I know, or my co-worker, have any idea that a woman had taken this challenge on.  It struck us as interesting that such thoughts still pervade our minds, for certainly gender constructs have come a long way in the cinematic world.  Yet our preconceived notions got in the way, and as the credits rolled, we were caught off guard and very intrigued.  And it isn’t just me, it is also simply a fact that  many of the movies you see today are still shot by men. The article actually interviews Bigelow herself, in which she adds a bit of first-person insight.

Bigelow says that, despite what some might assume, being a woman filming a nearly all-male movie in the Middle Eastern country of Jordan was simply not a big deal. She says you don’t think about being a lady while you work.

“You’ve got a four-story-high explosion taking place along an avenue, on which on any given day there are 250,000 cars, so … ” she pauses, “that begins to take precedence.”

To continue to harp on this point thought would be hypocritical.  I don’t really care what gender the director is, I want to know how good the product is.  And her work here was excellent.  The different elements of this film come together brilliantly.  She has a few big name actors, but they are not always in the biggest on-screen rolls.  She films in the Middle-East, which as far as we’ve come in film making, adds a genuine feel of heat and sand that I have a hard time imagining being recreated.  Even the small budget they shot this film with doesn’t seem to detract from the settings or special effects.  I almost slipped a long “bang for your buck” pun in here, but fortunately for you I resisted.

With modern war movies, we need gray area.  We can still have our John Wayne’s (is the similarity in name and heroic act to John McClane an accident?) in some films, but in depicting events based on reality we as a society have transcended the purely good and bad motifs.  Bigelow gives us this with incredibly complex characters.  In a sense, you can make this characters out to be very surface level.  You’ve got two veterans, one who is by the book and another who is a loose cannon.  And then you’ve got the younger, green guy who’s too scared to be incredibly useful.  They could have simply had these cookie cutter types play their roles.  Sanborn, who is by the book, even thinks that he has James, the wild one, pegged from day one, but instead when these men are given personality.  Probably even  more important than this, the story is taken a step further, and the Iraqis are personified as well.  From children hocking DVDs to suicide bombers, we get a range of characters that seemingly never manages to be judgemental.  Everyone plays their role, literally as characters and as people of this world, and they simply go about their roles without much opinion being expressed.

The same could be said for the movie as a whole, and its depiction of the Iraq war.  While I’m sure one could read into the movie anything they want, the movie has such a narrowed focus, that you don’t get any sense of political vibes from the movie.  If I had to attempt to guess anyone on the creative team’s personal thoughts on the war, it would be a 50/50 shot.  The thoughts they convey on war are simply about the people in them.  What drives them, what they are scared of, their good moments and bad moments.  And because this movie is about the people, the tension surrounding the actual focal point of the base plot for this movie, defusing bombs, everything is heightened.  We learn early on in the movie that things go wrong.  And when things go wrong defusing bombs, they go very wrong.

However, it is important to note that just as much as we learn about the characters and their world via the missions they are sent on, we also see them in their downtime and learn a great deal about what is going on.  Without spoiling anything, suffice to say that these characters are very human, and we come to quickly appreciate the qualities of what makes them human.

Even when not in downtime, the gang certainly gets itself into some very intense situations.  While many of the bomb scenes are certainly unforgettable, I think the images that are still freshest and most stuck in my are from a scene involving a sniper.  You’ll know it when you see it…I’ll talk about it more later.

To me, while I haven’t really seen t many others talking about this, Hurt Locker really capture Hitchcock levels of paranoia. The soldiers, as if disarming a bomb were not enough to get the sweat running, anyone non-American in the area became a threat.  Anyone becomes a threat.  Young kid with a cellphone, old man with a camera…anyone could have the trigger, or anyone could get in your way.  So why not be paranoid?  And it doesn’t help that everyone watches, somewhat hiding but unable to take their eyes off the bomb team.

I could keep rambling, but I feel I’m beating around what I really want to talk about, which is all the spoilerish stuff.  So if you haven’t seen it yet, run off now, and figure out where this is playing by you.

********

Anyway, Staff Sergeant James is one of the most fascinating characters I’ve ever seen in a war movie.  Specialist Sanborn accuses him of being a simpleton…a redneck adrenaline junkie who gets his thrills from being so recklessly close to death.  James kind of snickers a little bit at the fact that Sanborn has him so type-casted…and we learn to snicker a bit too.  The movie starts off with the quote “War is a drug,” by Chris Hedges, and to that effect we see the truth in James.  Even he is not immune to the paranoia, despite seemingly doing the best at blocking it out.  When on the mission, he gets tunnel vision.  He respects the bomb maker, and even seems to have an appreciation for a well done job.  While there may be someone around the corner, ready to detonate a bomb that’s going to blow him up…he is in the zone.  But he is not immune, as we see with Beckham, who seemingly has a more emotional impact on him than his own family does.  While some claim this is a bit out of character, I think it fits James perfectly when he goes after the guys who strapped a bomb inside Beckham.  He has internalized this to mean someone was gunning for him, and used a kid to do so.  This sets James off into a reckless pilgrimage that shows the futility of it all.  In particular the moment where he has been called a guest by the professor, and it looks like they are about to sit down and have a positive, meaningful moment, he is chased out by presumably the profs wife.  A moment that could have had a tender moment of peace between opposing forces ends abruptly due to fear of the unknown.  I’m stretching it a little, I confess, but I still think there is a valid thought here that summarizes the plight of war.  All sound and fury signifying nothing, and so on.  All James gets for his efforts is a few cuts and bruises, and seeing Beckham later on.  When he cuts Beckham off, you get the sense he’s back in tunnel vision mode, not allowing anything to break him off from his focus.  But then, he goes back home.  And in the quiet serenity of the grocery store, we are sobered to his reality…and this isn’t it.

What I like about this scene is the quietness James has.  In talking with Sanmore, and talking to his kid…we start to get James, even if James doesn’t get it himself.  There are things in life that we can’t explain, but that we must do.  For James, like he says, there are very few important things left in his life.  And he has to keep on doing it, even if it does mean he’s a little crazier for it.  The box of stuff that almost killed him in a symbol to his depth.  He is aware that he is putting his life on the line.  But that’s all he’s got.  And to use a little Jack Nicholson classic, we need him on that wall.

In the end, I think back to his first scene.  He lets in the sunlight at the risk of mortar attack…simply because a piece of plywood up against a window won’t stop the roof from caving in.  That’s James.

Sanmore perfectly contrasts him.  The veteran who has also been there and done that, but takes refuge in the routine and sensibilities of his training.  There is a reason that procedure dictates this and that, and if Sanmore and his fellow soldiers follow these procedures they just might make it.  And we certainly sympathize.  This makes this as predictable as possible in an unpredictable scary world where Sanmore has already lost friends.  In fact, to the average viewer, I imagine Sanmore is far more relatable.  We wonder with Sanmore what the bigger danger around him is, the bombs or the man in the bomb suit.  Sanmore clearly feels threatened by both.  Yet James seems to be ok with Sanmore.  Even if they have completely different styles and approaches, the sniper scene in which James seems to be in control but lets Sanmore make the call is beautiful.  James fully shows his control in this scene by how he also interacts with Eldridge.  I don’t recall the exact quote, but Eldridge basically points out to James that there is a sniper on his 6, and wonders what he should do about it.  James could have scolded him, freaked out, taken maters into his own hands, or any number of things.  But he empowers Eldridge, who is in dire need of some empowering, and only mutters to himself about the matter.  It’s a gross scene, covered in dust and flies and the death of a few seemingly good soldiers.  This was the scene that really sold me on the movie actually, I knew at this point that what I was watching was a fabulous film.

I guess its not so much spoiler…but I really had to dig around to find out the meaning of “The Hurt Locker” as a title.  It seemingly a very “in” military term that is almost beyond description…for something that’s just that bad.  There is also a poem by Brian Turner called Hurt Locker from a few years back which doesn’t seem to have any specific relation other than the fact that they both try to put into an art form unknown suffering.

Another great scene to me that just shows all the characters in their elements is where Sanmore and Eldridge consider the idea of blowing up James.  James foolishly goes down to a detonation site to get some gloves he forgot.  Sanmore seems ready to go through with it to protect himself and others.  Eldridge is intrigued, but just can’t bring himself to go along with it.  Not that I blame him for chickening out, but its a great brief scene that really lets you get the characters.

Now I’ve pretty much left out all the peripheral characters…such as the oblivious (I can only imagine) out of ROTC officer who plays doctor to Eldridge (though on a side note, loved him playing Gears of War 2…just a sweet touch).  This wasn’t because their performances and substance was un-noteworthy.  Heck, I loved the Col. who is obsessed with James the wild-man.  So over the top, that you know he’s gotta be based on someone very real.  While they all were grand and, in reality, quite noteworthy, they didn’t capture me the way the main three do…which I suppose is supposed to happen.  Those are the three I care about.

A final thought of my own…I think alot of movies like this tend to lend a helping hand.  I can only imagine the average movie goer, like myself, is ignorant to the terminology and methodology to disarm a bomb.  Some movies might have cut to flashback of James being trained, used it as character development but more importantly give us a brief tutorial on what to look for.  No such luck here.  And to a certain extent, we never figure it out.  Only upon further searching around the internet did I find this clip which has Bigelow talking about how insurgents would often have two initiating devices.  One that is for deception, one that is the actual one, as to hopefully fool a bomb diffuser.  A great and interesting tidbit, but something you can’t pick up on simply from watching these experts comb over wires.  Which also makes me incredibly excited to see this movie come out on DVD and listen to the commentary.

With that, one of my favorite articles/review I read comes from a Roger Ebert post.  I will simply quote in full, as he quotes someone else, and goodness knows that I’m far enough removed from my college days to recall any sort of proper citation or due course. The full post is far better than mine, and one of the better ones I read on the movie.  I  highly recommend you check it out if you like the following section from it.

“The Hurt Locker” is completely apolitical. It has no opinion on the war in Iraq, except that there is one, and brave men like James and Sanborn are necessary, and rookies like Eldridge of course are sometimes terrified, and will get no quicker sympathy than from veterans like Sanborn and James. In that sense, “The Hurt Locker” is arguably the most pro-Army feature to emerge from the war. Pro-Army, not pro-war. But the U.S. military declined to assist in its production or allow the film on a U.S. base, and the Bigelow team shot with its own resources in Jordan, sometimes within three miles of the Iraqi border. It was not an easy shoot. Renner speaks of boards with nails in them being dropped on them from rooftops, and he was shot at more than once.

In contrast, another current film received lavish aid from the military. That would be “Transformers.” According to a well-researched article in Variety by Peter Debruge, it was the first film ever to receive sooperation from the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. This taxpayer-supported assistance included use of uniformed and armed troops as extras, and a hardware display including, he writes, “Marine hovercrafts, Navy subs and nearly every kind of Army helicopter and Air Force plane in service (from the Frisbee-topped E-3 Sentry to a retired SR-71 Blackbird that transforms into the Decepticon character Jetfire), all coordinated through special arrangement with the Department of Defense.” Some scenes were bankrolled as “training exercises,” including, he writes, “a day at White Sands when a formation of six F-16s popped flares over the set, simulating a low-level, air-to-ground attack.”

In what way was the military exposure in “Transformers” more beneficial than cooperating with “The Hurt Locker?” I am grateful to my reader Marie Haws for steering me to an interview with Bigelow’s screenwriter, Mark Boal, in Vanity Fair. He says:

“A lot of people in the military have seen the movie because there are pirated copies all over Iraq. People saw it almost six months ago. A few people have seen it here in film festivals. So far the response has been good. Although I’m sure people will say we got this or that detail wrong…Unless you are going to make ‘Transformers.’ I literally had a conversation with a guy who was telling me how realistically that movie is in its depiction of the military. I said to this senior military guy, ‘What part of fighting aliens is realistic?’ He replied, with a straight face, ‘If we were going to fight aliens that’s how we would do it’.”

Yes, that’s how the Army would fight aliens, by playing a supporting role to a college kid, his girlfriend, his best buddy and his parents, who turn up in Egypt and save the day. And depending on the Egyptian military not noticing U.S. Army fighting with robots who are ripping apart the Great Pyramid. And depending on a pass from the Israeli army as the Americans and the robots cross their nation on the way to Jordan.

So yes, I liked this movie.  It was fabulous.  Unnerving, tense, raw, documentary like, brilliant.  The person I went to watch this with and I talked about it the entire way home…and decided that wasn’t even enough and headed out to Chili’s to talk for another hour.  And I’m still talking about it.  And I’m still wanting to talk about it.  So do yourself a favor.  If you like war movies, action movies, stories with good plot, stories with good characters, stories with ambiguity, stories that make you laugh and cringe, or you just like damn good movies period, check it out.  I want to write and talk about it even more, but if you’ve read this far, I feel I should cut you some slack.  So if you’ve seen it, feel free to chime in, there is alot of ground to cover here.