The Hurt Locker

the-hurt-locker-pic

Let’s get one thing straight: I have no idea what war is really like.  I’ve seen ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and ‘The Thin Red Line’, and I grew up in a place colonised by a long-running civil conflict, and I’ve been to Jerusalem and Bethlehem and all kinds of other places where people inhabit the false consciousness described by de Niro’s Al Capone in ‘The Untouchables’ as ‘you can get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word’.  But I have no idea what war is really like.  And I don’t think it’s too dogmatic to say that unless you’ve actually been in a war, that you are in the same position as I am.

That doesn’t mean you can’t form a substantial and meaningful opinion about war; just that the opinion needs to be tempered by humility.

With that in mind, some thoughts about ‘The Hurt Locker’, Kathryn Bigelow’s deep focus minimalist action film, in which Jeremy Renner’s bomb disposal technician wears a suit that makes him look like an alien, strides up to mortar shells, and hopes he’s cutting the right wire, in Baghdad, in 2004.

It’s easy to respond to the tension created by such scenes by saying that this is one of the most exciting films (in the sense of forcing you into your seat, afraid for what is going to happen to the characters), or one of the most expertly edited and shot (no matter what is happening, you know precisely where you are).  It’s true that ‘The Hurt Locker’ sets the bar for thoughtful action cinema very high.

What’s more valuable, however, is that it does three things that such movies rarely achieve.

It’s not an anti-war movie; nor is it jingoistic or flag-waving.  It might be true to say that ‘The Hurt Locker’ has no politics.  It just attempts to portray what young US American men have been doing, and how Iraqi people have been responding, for the past six years.  It doesn’t have to tell us that the decision to go to war was utterly wrong: glimpsing what truth is told about the men in this film makes it obvious.

It manages to almost completely avoid cliche – the young buck doesn’t have a moment of breakdown or redemption; the race-against-time to save someone ends as it probably often does in real life; the characters talk to each other the way real people talk.

And in its attempt at saying something about the war in Iraq (which it does better than any of the previously released similarly-themed movies), it also illuminates questions of masculinity, the responsibilities of adulthood, relationships between men, and the yearning that each of us has to lead a meaningful life.  It takes the audience seriously enough not to invite us to a show of cathartic violence; but a relentless portrayal of hell on earth where there is no release until somebody decides to STOP.  A hell of our own making; and I think many of us who opposed the war could benefit from seeing a film that aims to take the experience of being a soldier more seriously than some of our rhetoric has done.

The final image of the film, which implies that there are some people for whom combat is an addiction (let’s assume that includes the whole human race) evokes with the sharpest clarity two more challenges: to replace the myth that chaos can be turned into order through violence, someone needs to tell different stories about how change occurs; to offer a choice between brutality and cowardice, someone needs to offer a different vision of masculinity than the false choice between warrior or wimp.  Finally, ‘The Hurt Locker’ is an accusation: If all that ‘peaceful’ society offers is a vast choice of breakfast cereal, then it’s no wonder so many of us still want to fight each other just to feel alive.

Advertisements

4 responses to “The Hurt Locker

  1. Alas, you can’t stop a war, much less “war” by having -somebody- say STOP.

    You have to have -everybody- say STOP, and at the same time.

    Because war is a unilateral form of communication; you can refuse to bargain, refuse to negotiate, refuse to vote, refuse to speak…

    …but if someone comes at you with lethal intent, you can’t ignore them. You’re taking the violence talk with them -regardless of your reaction-.

    That’s why Max Weber defined it as the “ultimately decisive means of political action”.

  2. “It doesn’t have to tell us that the decision to go to war was utterly wrong: glimpsing what truth is told about the men in this film makes it obvious.”

    — actually, it does no such thing. I supported the decision, and still do, and thought the movie was wonderful.

    Mind you, I was never under any illusions as to what war was about, or like.

    I once saw a politician on TV describe an air attack as a “surgical strike”.

    One of my brothers (who was a fighter pilot) was there with me and started whooping with laughter.

    “Yeah,” he said. “Surgical. Surgery with a chain saw.”

    And as THE HURT LOCKER points out, some men just like combat. Most don’t; most soldiers don’t either, although the percentage who do is higher in a small volunteer army like ours. But some do.

  3. Thanks for this great review, Gareth! i saw Kathryn Bigelow on Bill Maher and was really interested in seeing this film.

  4. Pingback: Funny People and The Hurt Locker: Two Visions of Masculinity « god is not elsewhere / some conversation about movies, art, politics and spirituality with gareth higgins