"The Hurt Locker" represents a return to strong, exciting narrative. Here is a film about a bomb disposal expert that depends on character, dialogue and situation to develop almost unbearable suspense. It contains explosions, but only a few, and it is not about explosions, but about hoping that none will happen. That sense of hope is crucial. When we merely want to see stuff blowed up real good in a movie, that means the movie contains no one we give a damn about.
We care a lot about the people in "The Hurt Locker." It does what many good movies does, and gives us a feeling for the personalities and motivations of its characters. What happens to Staff Sgt. William James matters to us. He is a brave and complicated man, and we worry about him. It is a good thing he is doing. He is risking his life to defuse bombs intended to kill and maim not only military forces but random civilians.
But my purpose is not to praise "James," as everybody always calls him. It is to praise Kathryn Bigelow, who comes into full focus in this film as an artist in the classical Hollywood tradition. She is, I wrote in my review, "a master of stories about men and women who choose to be in physical danger. She cares first about the people, then about the danger." If we create a list of other directors who did that, even crusty old Howard Hawks and Sam Fuller, it is safe to say they would have admired, even envied, "The Hurt Locker."
Playing chess with death
The film's action involves James (Jeremy Renner), Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), the head of his support team, and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), an unseasoned rookie who is scared to death half the time. These three venture in their armored vehicle into the streets of an Iraqi city to a suspected bomb site, where James puts on a cumbersome protective suit designed to shield him from a possible blast. Then he walks up to a bomb and hopes to dismantle it. He hopes the suit does its job, but there's no guarantee.
There was an explosion near the beginning of the film that killed James's predecessor in the job, Thompson (Guy Pearce). This death was necessary to establish the high stakes, and illustrates a principle that Hitchcock used in a film he made in 1972, "Frenzy." It'ss about a man known as "the Necktie Killer," who operates out of Covent Garden (in its original form before it became a tourist trap). Early in the film, we see the killer lure a victim to his upstairs flat and brutally strangle her. Much later in the film, we get a single shot I described in my review:
"There is one elaborate sequence in which the killer goes upstairs with his victim. The camera precedes them up the stairs, turns, watches them go in his door, and then backs down the stairs, alone, and across the street to stop and simply regard the outside of the house. This shot is not for a moment a gimmick; the melancholy of the withdrawing camera movement is one of the most touching effects in the film, despite the fact that no people inhabit it."Hitchcock described this technique with his customary relish: "The audience finds out what the killer is capable of doing. With the second killing, it is much more satisfactory to allow it to imagine what he is doing upstairs."
The new man and the veteran: Brian Geraghtyand Guy Pearce
The imagination of the audience is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of any director of suspense. Bigelow is employing exactly the same technique as Hitchcock. We see what will happen when a bomb explodes. Then we spend the movie fearing it will happen again. Compared to this restraint, directors using unrestrained CGI effects are like children having a tantrum and throwing their toys around. It explains why a film like "The Hurt Locker" is objectively better than a gimcrack blockbuster.A word about that explosion. It is a real explosion, rigged for Bigelow by her special effects supervisor, a man with an admirable name for his job, Richard Stutsman. The explosion is loud, large and sudden, of course. It is also dusty, grey and ugly. That is a contrast from the gorgeous billowing reds and yellows we get in the usual movie explosion. This one is grim and mean, and Thompson can't out-run it.
"The Hurt Locker" is about characters, not effects, and so it requires skilled actors. Jeremy Renner's lead performance is worthy of a nomination--the whole film is. Renner keys off a quotation that opens the film: "War is a drug." Nobody uses that line in the film, but Renner's performance illustrates it. He is not merely good at his job, he depends on it for psychic sustenance. Every time he dismantles a bomb, he keeps a small element of it as a souvenir--a little piece to remind him of the intelligence of his opponent. He approaches a bomb like a chess master approaching a board. He lives to understand bombs. So does a bomb builder; either one could lose their life with a tiny mistake. He wants to annihilate his opponent, as a chess master does, but has respect for him, and rather admires a worthy opponent in an abstract way.
Jeremy Renner, in the suit as James
One of the key roles in the film is played by Evangeline Lilly. I'll say no more; just remember I said that much. The scenes involving her represent what any ordinary person would consider a blessed relief from the horror of war. That James does not is a demonstration of the opening quotation.The key dynamic in "The Hurt Locker" is between James and Sanborn. Both are experienced veterans. Sanborn saw Thompson die. He is angered by the unnecessary chances James takes. To be sure, James is cocky, striding up to a bomb almost casually, and sometimes working without gloves, so that the best he can hope for after an explosion is to lose only his hands. Sanborn believes in operating by the book. James doesn't see his job as a set of Army procedures, but a mano-a-mano with a bomb maker. In a sense, he has to approach a bomb the way he does, or he could not approach one at all.
This is a surprisingly thoughtful film, and one of the reasons for that is the single-minded focus by Bigelow and her writer, Mark Boal, on the phrase "war is a drug." Some critics have said that a subplot, involving an Iraqi kid who is befriended by James, is a distraction, especially when it leads to James trying to track down the boy's killer. I came across a perceptive response to this complaint posted by a reader named "wrongshore" on Matt Zoller Seitz's excellent blog "The House Next Door."
"The brief mystery plot," wrongshore writes, "suggests that any attempt to give us meaning with this war will end in confusion and failure. When Sgt. James believes he has found the corpse of the boy he befriended rigged as a body bomb, he takes it upon himself to find the boy's murderer and unravel a plot that may include the infiltration of the American base. His search is fruitless. He's no detective. Outside the base--outside his narrow assignment--he's useless."
Exactly. The film uses that subplot to demonstrate that any subplot would lead nowhere. This is the story of Staff Sgt. William James, and he is addicted to deconstructing drugs, and in the Iraq war that is a job that needs doing and he is the best man to do it. His reasons are almost beside the point.
One of my readers questioned a point of factual accuracy. "Tom" wrote of unrealistic scenes:
"I find it hard to believe that this EOD team consisting of three soldiers were going all over Baghdad by themselves, in one humvee. Is it not standard protocol to travel in much larger groups due to safety issues? In one sequence these three are out in the middle of an open desert detonating explosives. They would have been prime targets for insurgents. The most unrealistic sequence has the same three running all around the city at night, going on a hunt for a bomb maker."Tom has a point. But I suspect Bigelow had a reason for doing it her way. She and her associates financed the film themselves, and sold it to Summit after it won a grand prize at Venice 2008. Although this is a full-bore military thriller and not a quirky little indie, Bigelow has the conviction to back herself and make the film her way, with a small, mobile crew able to move quickly in the 120-degree desert heat. It would cost a lot of money to mount a larger-scale production with lots of uniformed extras, and my hunch is that if she had accepted that money she would have had to compromise her focus. Helpful producers and investors might have demanded a sexy female in a combat suit, a villain who killed the boy, an A-list star as James, and so on. There are still producers in Hollywood who know what a good movie is and how to make one, but the system seems hard-wired against them.
Kathryn Bigelow in the Jordanian desert near Iraq
"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.
It must have been a dream job, being the military adviser on that film. His advice must have boiled down to, "Go for it!" It did, however, achieve one aim of Army recruiters: It made the Army look like fun. For James, Sanborn and their comrades, the Army is a lot of things they would risk their lives for, but fun is not one of them.
¶My headline is from Brian Turner's poem, "The Hurt Locker"
¶
How "The Hurt Locker" opens:
¶
Kathyn Bigelow and Mark Boal do the red carpet at the AFI festival in Dallas:
¶
James Cameron discusses "The Hurt Locker" with David Poland
My review of Kathryn Bigelow's great 1995 sci-fi thriller: "Strange Days/"
¶
The opening scene of "Strange Days.". (NSFW; f-bombs)
¶
I'm happy to see that this film continues to get good reviews -- which only cements the fact that Bigelow is one of the finest action directors working within the system. I've always loved her films, and even though Point Break is rather silly, there's a hyper-kietic energy that runs through it...it's a refreshing action film because you can see the action clearly -- there's always a clear sense of place in her films. I still champion Strange Days as one of the most underrated films of the 90's to my friends, and when I can convince one of them to watch it with me they are never disappointed. Some of them claim they even like it more than The Matrix which is the popular choice as the definitive Science-Fiction film of the 90's (I think it's easily topped by Bigelow's film and the best Sci-Fi film of the 90's Dark City).
I'm not sure when The Hurt Locker will get to my small town, but I'm eagerly awaiting its arrival. Bigelow has always been one of the most criminally underrated of filmmakers, and I'm glad she's getting some much deserved accolades from this film. Time to go watch Near Dark...
As fun as your "Your Movie Sucks" reviews are (like the whole Transformers thing) it's these reviews that fill me with so much elation. Your passion and enthusiasm for this film is palpable and your review and this blog entry have been fantastic reads.
..."it is much more satisfactory to allow it to imagine what he is doing upstairs." The imagination of the audience is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of any director of suspense.
I was reminded about modern horror films in this regard as well (before reading your paragraphs on Hitchcock), and I can't help but feel that modern Hollywood lives off mindless sensationalism. I'm not a fan of horror film (given my inability to sit still and watch without screaming/hiding my face in a pillow), but from what I've seen in commercials most recent horror films are major shock factors.
Decapitation? Awesome. Bloody eyes? Keep 'em pouring! Rusty chain saw through someone? In no way is this inappropriate!
So many horror film makers rely on shock and not on their audience's imagination. A better horror film I've seen awhile back is "Spider" by David Cronenberg: it's completely psychological, with one small but significant scene of violence. The original Japanese "The Ring" accomplished this as well. Because the effects of Sadako are seen, we are constantly on the edge of our seats wondering when and how she will strike. And she does... Yeah. I'll leave it at that.
[Transformers] did, however, achieve one aim of Army recruiters: It made the Army look like fun.
Seems like everything does these days – if not for the army, then at least something that looks "badass awesome." Yeah, I'm pretty sure everything is badass awesome when you come back with PTSD, amputated limbs, and a crappy veterans-care program. Sounds awesome all right.
But maybe shooting insanely at aliens will make up for all that. Yay aliens!
Hello Roger,
You bring up a good point when you say that "When we merely want to see stuff blowed up real good in a movie, that means the movie contains no one we give a damn about."
I have a feeling the greater percentage of us agree with that. The movies with the most lasting impact give you time to absorb what is going on. In a movie where everything is being blown up over and over the audience becomes desensitized to it. As a director that is the worst possible thing you can have happen. Every blast needs to make an impact. I care more about characters that seem real and have real things happen to them. Call me old fashioned.
Everyone knows that a movie with a limited budget needs to be smart with their money. Why is it then that those movies are almost always rated better than their bigger budget counterparts? Imagination, pure and simple. Not just of the movie makers but also what is allowed to the audience themselves. I don't want to be taken on a ride with a map in my hand at the movies. Where's the escapism in that?
Just came back from seeing "The Hurt Locker." I feel like I did not breathe for two hours. The commitment of these actors and the absolute realism of the set pieces is a tribute to Kathryn Bigelow's vision. I am so glad you are taking the extra effort to promote this film, which should be seen by many more people than will see it. And although it is not political, I could not help but thinking while driving home, "What the hell are we doing over there?" I will not soon forget this film.
The hurt locker sounds fantastic and I can't wait to see it. On the whole issue of the transformer's being in any sense "accurate" I can only say it "accurately" portrays an American jingoist fantasy about the dominance of American military might.
I'd like to see "The Hurt locker". I really would, but there's a problem. Several years ago, I moved away from Chicago, just to get away from the big city. I went to Citrus County, Florida. Now, I want to go back to Chicago. Here's a small example of life in rural America: There isn't a single screen showing Hurtlocker in the whole county. There is, however, at least four screens showing Transformers. Money...that's what it all comes down to.
Ebert: I know two people who moved to Chicago to retire. When you're older and have time on your hands, that's the worst time to sit in the sun where nothing is happening.
As I mentioned in the Two Thumbs Up entry, I caught this film at a friend's house back in December because the DVD screener had leaked to the Internet around that time, and what I saw was one of the best films of 2008. I can't wait to see it again in theaters and name it one of the best of 2009.
This film is going to be one hell of a tough sell. It's an Iraq movie, and as we've heard from the media time and time again, Iraq movies thus far have been box office poison. But I like that you make the distinction between "pro-Army" and "pro-Iraq" because I don't doubt that many people will see the trailers for this film or posters in the lobby of theaters showing it and say "God, another one of these movies?" But those people will be missing out. This film contains characters as vividly realized as Daniel Plainview or Randy "The Ram" Robinson, and filmmaking that's certainly better than Michael Bay's explosions and car chases (and I liked Transformers 2)
Kudos should also go to Summit Entertainment. Despite quite a bit of garbage in their resume (Push, Never Back Down, the Twilight movies) they've put out Knowing, Next Day Air, and now this film, showing them as a distributor willing to take chances. Kathryn Bigelow, who has existed on the fringe for pretty much her entire career, has made some of the best films of the last couple of decades, and hopefully this one will push her into the mainstream. I want to see the film again before I comment further, but I'm just so glad that the film is finally getting released and people can see what, I assume, war is really like for the people that live it. If nothing else, the film is a masterpiece of action and suspense. Bruised forearms were the least this film did to me when I saw it.
Is there any compelling reason behind the title?
I saw "The Hurt Locker" in a list of upcoming movies about a year ago, and didn't bother to click on the link.
My reasoning was, the title of a film is the first indication of how good the people behind a movie are. If they get the title wrong, why bother?
Reply to: The key dynamic in "The Hurt Locker" is between James and Sanborn. Both are experienced veterans... James (sees) his job as a mano-a-mano with a bomb maker.
I don't mind working backwards, to figure out what "The Sixth Sense" is.
But the professionals, the ones who really know how to sell a movie.... understand why "JAWS" appears in huge, upper-case letters.
"The Hurt Locker" gave me the image.... of a nerd being picked on by bullies in high school and stuffed in a locker. And his revenge.
Ebert: The ads say: "You'll know when you're in it."
Bigelow is an amazing director (and very beautiful, too), so why has she been keeping us waiting for 15 years before directing another great film? That's just not fair.
Ebert: Why did the studios keep her waiting?
Hi Roger,
I'm the Tom that brought up the point about 'realism' in 'The Hurt Locker.' I did not realize that Katherine Bigelow and her staff financed this movie by themselves. I can certainly understand how financial restraints may have affected how they filmed the movie. I also totally agree with you that if they had accepted more funding from bigger studios, the studios would have corrupted their vision. Realism aside the movie itself is powerful and intense, with exceptional performances throughout.
Here is a link from some actual EOD soldiers that saw the movie, for the most part they seem to like the movie outside of the inaccuracies:
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2009/07/eod-soldiers-view-the-hurt-locker.html
Ebert: Interesting article. They basically liked the movie, but the Army guy says there were "inaccuracies in the depiction of Soldiers." Unlike "Transformers."
When that first nine minutes started, I was worried that the shaky-camera and fast editing might distract, but those fears quickly melted away. I'm typically against the fast ASL and queasy-cam styles of action cinema. I think what makes the difference is that Bigelow takes the time to show us where the bomb is in relation to the characters, the lines of action between them and the citizens, and, above all, build the tension (rather than thinking action = continuous climax). Bigelow is interested in the sequence of images, how it develops and builds on itself, whereas someone like Michael Bay is interested in his images as individual moments. And ironically, when she allows an individual moment (the slow-motion of the sand bubbling), it achieves far greater effect than anything in Bay's filmography.
Ebert: There's an excellent reason, as you know, for some of the shaky-cam: The picture is from a robot TV camera.
Every Halloween we host a movie marathon, and last year's lineup included Kathryn Bigelow's "Near Dark"--and the younger (under-30) viewers were given a thorough lesson in what a ferocious horror film is really like. I remember my DVD player got glitchy, and the disc started freezing, skipping. We hauled out the Mac and huddled around, while Lance Henricksen, Bill Paxton, and the other vampire-billies blew up real good.
Thanks for reminding us what a treasure Bigelow is.
p.s. I've provided above a link to last year's lineup, if anyone's interested.
I am dying to see The Hurt Locker.
How does it compare to Three Kings, another war movie I absolutely adore? I wish Three Kings got more attention, actually, as I'm sure I will feel about Hurt Locker.
Ebert: Two great movies, in two quite different ways.
Looking forward to seeing this. It reminds me of that cruel, terrifying scene in one of my favorite films, "Turtles Can Fly." In that film, a tender little boy without full eyesight, had run out into a field of Saddam's land mines, with a sweet smile on his face, and not a clue about his imminent danger. That short scene was painful to witness; I can't imagine two hours of a similar feeling.
"Strange Days" knocked me through the back of the theater when it first came out. This looks like it'll be even more impressive.
Putting the first ten minutes online for free is a terrific way to get people to buy tickets, especially for a flick like this.
"But my purpose is not to praise "James," as everybody always calls him. It is to praise Kathryn Bigelow, who comes into full focus in this film as an artist in the classical Hollywood tradition. She is, I wrote in my review, "a master of stories about men and women who choose to be in physical danger. She cares first about the people, then about the danger." If we create a list of other directors who did that, even crusty old Howard Hawks and Sam Fuller, it is safe to say they would have admired, even envied, "The Hurt Locker." - Roger
HURRAY! (Jumping up and down and chirping loudly!)
Not because she's a woman, half the planet can boast as much, but rather because she's a director who also happens to be a woman getting rightfully praised for her work. And for a topic which men have traditionally viewed with a jealous and proprietorial gaze; War seen as their domain.
And maybe that's the problem? That gaze, and what it so often fails to encompass? The people who actually do the fighting as opposed to simply showcasing the hardware they're using. Firepower can indeed be impressive but it doesn't make me care and as you've noted elsewhere, giving a damn about characters is vital to any film hoping to elevate you, eh?
I mention her a lot I know, and not just because she was born in Canada (smile) but I really do think Kathryn Bigelow has pulled a "Mary Harron" so to speak. American Psycho wasn't about knives just because the character in the movie uses them. It wasn't about constantly showing you blood and gore either; it was about Patrick Bateman and what made him tick. And now here's Bigelow's direction of another film with blood and violence which likewise doesn't focus on the surface of itself, but rather gets in underneath the character's "suit" to show us the man wearing it, eh?
I think it takes a certain sensibility to tell these stories well, and while women don't have a monopoly on it - case in point: All Quiet on the Western Front directed by Lewis Milestone, Das Boot by Wolfgang Peterson, A Soldier of Orange by Paul Verhoeven (who was never really the same after Hollywood seduced him) imo it does require the ability to resist thinking with a penis; ahem. Male ego is its own worst enemy for getting in the way of deeper truths.
I can find almost anything if I hunt enough for it: here's a snippet from Roger's review of "A Soldier of Orange" which he gave 3.5 Stars. Note: seems there's a girl in Russia who's a fan of actor Derek de Lint who appears in the movie, and she made an English website for him and that's where I found Roger's review from 1977. :)
http://www.derekdelint.com/soldaat_en.html
"Successful war movies almost always depend on tone. We've seen so many battle films, so many soldiers and so many tanks, so many landings and invasions and spies dropped behind the lines that the actual subject matter itself is no longer enough for us. Movies like A BRIDGE TOO FAR may cost untold millions and be years in the making, but for the most part we're just not moved. Good war movies don't necessarily need a message, but they need a feeling: We want to sense what the war experience was like for a specific group of people at a particular time..... Although the film contains a great deal of suspense and a fair amount of violence, it's not a garish adventure movie, it's a human chronicle. And it involves us." - Roger
I found that old review very interesting for how fresh it reads; it underscores everything you've been trying to say about Transformers and why it sucks, and conversely why The Hurt Locker does not. It's an argument in support of why it's not how much money you throw at the screen; it's whether or not you care what happens to the people up there.
All of which to simply to avoid being unfair to men who don't suck, as Directors, while I lavish praise on Bigelow; smile.
Note: I have to share this from the site as well, as it's adorable: please read it with a Russian accent (like Chekov on Star Trek) as that makes it even better...
"When our Russian TV has become to air "Poltergeist: the Legacy" at once I set eyes on Derek Rayne, the main character. It was charismatic leader, well-graced man with captivating smile. I liked not only this character also the actor and when I have seen more films with him, I have understood, that he is not only handsome man but he is the brilliant professional actor." - Helen the girl from Russia
Gosh, her English is WAY better than my Russian. And isn't that nice? To see how universal girls are? We see a guy, get a crush, make a website etc. I once got a crush on a CAFE in Venice and made a site for that! Ooo, show & tell! Note: I made it with Adobe Pagemill in 1980; it was my very first website ever, okay? So shut up - chuckle!
"The Grand Cafe Chioggia" There's an Italian version, too. :)
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/3499/chioggia.html
And come to think of it, that's the very sensibility all these films share in common - they have a Venetian sensibility to them! Roger knows what I mean, he owns a Bialetti!
Ie: all these Director's take the time to get it right. They don't "rush" the espresso. They don't rape the risotto for being in too much of a hurry to eat - come che bastardo Michael Bay! The care too much about the story and their characters to betray them. They're motivated by the same spirit of approach required to make a great meal or wine. Or espresso. :)
Here's the link for the Vanity Fair interview with Bigelow & Boal:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2009/07/qa-filming-a-war-of-bombs-in-the-hurt-locker.html
P.S. I'm glad I helped you find a title for your new journal entry.
Ebert: We have something else in common. We have both established ourselves in that cafe and sketched the musicians.
Your axiom about crowd-pleasing explosions happening amid a cast of disposable characters reminds me of "Broken Arrow," which I saw during a period when a local theater was the $1 venue and it seemed reasonable to give every movie they showed a chance. "BA" was the first time I detected a deliberate pattern of a guaranteed explosion every 10 minutes, often blowing up the shallow characters we had just been introduced to in each respective segment. I also found the pattern had a rapidly desensitizing effect on me as the film progressed (and I always loved the sensibilities of SCTV's "Farm Film Report" as much as the next guy).
By contrast, and while I admit I haven't seen the original "The Wages of Fear," I find myself much preferring the realism of the explosions in 1977's "Sorcerer," particularly in the tree-clearing scene, where the volatility of the nitroglycerine cargo was a very important plot element and greatly enhanced by the suspense and dramatic tension.
I've seen this movie in a sneak preview last week in Germany. My friends didn't like it but I thought it was fantastic. I think it was artistically impressive, engaging and illuminating. I knew that i've seen something authentic. The movie was dramatically strong (expect the last 15 min or so), I really felt the tension. The relentless cutting and handheld camera set the right tone for the film, too. But my favourite (anti-) war movie is still apocalypse now followed by patton and paths of glory. I have just minor complaints e.g. Why do the soldiers not change their sniping position when the guy that used the barrett was killed there? My friends thought that the explosion in the beginning was "over-stylized" (does that word exist in english? :)) because you can see how the rust on the car is affected by the compression of the bomb. Or later in the movie you can see how a single bullet drops down to the earth. I thought these scences existed to make the power of such an explosion or shot clearer.
PS: I don't like transformers 2, imo it is the most enormous destruction orgy put on film that leaves the most enormous scrapyard in the end :)
And i apologize for my bad english...i try to get better and better every day and i can't talk without point and semicolon about movies as I can in german ;D
Been looking forward to this film for a while.
Despite the seemingly small box office totals for the film thus far (just over $600,000 worldwide), it is only showing in 60 theaters in the U.S. and it's opening average box office per theater was higher than "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", by about 33% per theater. So I'm not certain at all that the film would suffer from any anti-Iraq-war-film sentiment among audiences.
I can't help wondering, if service men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan asked their families and friends to go see this film, and to further tell other people to see the film, would that plus the overwhelmingly positive critical reception and apparent high quality of the film not be enough -- in light of the box office per-theater numbers -- to make this a very successful film? Perhaps the filmmakers should consider expanding distribution of the film to more theaters and reaching out to people serving in the military to help garner more attention and a wider audience for the film. The goal not just being to promote a high-quality film in the midst of so much mindless entertainment at the multiplex, but also to get people thinking deeply about the points in the film regarding people and war.
Ebert: Actually, that's a strong start. It's only opening wider today (7/10). Theaters are more sold out than with "Transformers."
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, (1996).
"On Killing is destined to become a classic." --Journal of the Association of the United States Army
"This book concludes with an impassioned plea for regulating media violence through social censure and pressure." --Washington Post
Should I feel bad for downloading the film? It's playing in limited release and I doubt the producers are worried about making money.
Well I saw the film, in good quality, and I loved it. I wrote good things about in my blog, and I'm gonna tell everyone I know about it for months. I'm sure that will get a few dvd rentals in the future.
I think I did them a favor. Hate me if you want. The movie rocks, do what you can to see it.
Ebert: Limited release, but platformed to go wider. Since they used their own money, I think the filmakers are very much interested in getting it back.
this movie looks f@!*in' real.
i'd like to see it. i doubt that they're showing it in tulsa though.
and as i am unemployed i can't afford a ticket.
there is a lovely little indie cinema place here in the ghetto
part of town called the circle,
oh but wait. i see they are not currently showing it.
guess i'll have to wait for the dvd.
Hey Roger,
I was first made aware of Hurt Locker in Time, and if it's on par with In the Valley of Elah as you say (one of my favorite movies over the last few years), then it's on top of my must see list. With that said, you're better than your final two paragraphs of the review you wrote for the film.
Clearly, one of the aspects of Hurt Locker you admired was that the explanation as to why the protagonist "needs to defuse bombs" (and I assume the embedded themes of the movie) is not "said in so many words". Your review would have been a more powerful statement about America's movie culture (and the reviewed movie) by focusing your concluding text on praising a seemingly worthy film as opposed to wasting your energy--and reader's time--with redundant commentary on Transformers and Bay coupled with petty remarks against the viewing public. If you needed to say more on the topic, which it is clear you felt you did, then pen your thoughts in the appropriate space--your blog, or an addendum to your Transformers review. Of course, however, you did not do this. As a result, unfortunately, you detract from Bigelow and the other artists involved in Hurt Locker by continuing an all-too-personal and childish assault against a poorly realized and executed depiction of 20 year-old toys.
I hope that your next review focuses on the film attached to it, as opposed to being a continuation of a previous review.
Ebert: I know. You're right. But it made my blood boil that trash like "Transformers" grossed $300 mil when people like Bigelow are knocking themselves out to make a film like this.
Great comments on the film -- insightful as always, especially since I, too, was a bit thrown off by the subplot with the boy at first.
SPOILER AHEAD!
I think it's interesting to see James' reaction when the boy he thought was dead suddenly reappears. We hear his voice, first, off-screen; the camera quickly turns from James' frozen stance, revealing the child; and by the time we turn back to focus on James, he is already moving forward with purpose towards the vehicle, ignoring the boy. My own impression of this scene is that he doesn't want to accept the child's existence, because he realizes that it will undermine so many of his feelings and actions over the course of the previous day.
As far as Bigelow's directing -- one thing I have to comment upon is the way she builds tension, which I noticed even more during a second viewing of the film. Note the scene where James must dismantle the car bomb: particularly the way the windshield wipers scrape back and forth repetitively as he works under the hood of the vehicle. It's a small flourish, but it adds an unbearable amount of intensity to the scene -- just the constant motion and noise of these objects really heightens the suspense. Yet it doesn't seem gimmicky -- it rings true. I think many of the "action sequences" that involve disarming bombs are constructed in such a fashion: active elements are increasingly added to each scene to both build them and keep them alive.
The acting was great, the editing was brilliant; it's one of the few films whose rapid cutting and "shaky-cam" feel beneficial to the tone and substance of the movie. I also enjoyed how the movie tends to promptly kill off (or at least disassociate itself from) many of the "bigger" actors -- we expect that actors such as Guy Pearce, David Morse, Evangeline Lilly and Ralph Fiennes will be constants, if only because they are relatively popular. We feel comfort, I suppose, in the presence of recognizable actors. (Because, after all, who are usually the indestructible heroes in action films? The popular actors, of course; there's rarely ever doubt over who will live or die.) So when these actors' characters are either killed or abandoned by the movie, we're left reeling, entirely unsure where the film is headed. I also think the fact that the movie rids itself of them so quickly reflects how unpredictable the war itself is -- maybe I'm just reading into it too deeply, but if nothing else, the film is certainly more surprising than anything else I've seen this year.
"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'."
In general, it seems that war films have come a long way in terms of portraying warfare more realistically since the 40's and 50's. Not only with regards to the storylines and characters, but also with the physical nature of the battles. Personally, I would like to see more realism in films involving aliens and space battles. (I know, that probably sounds like an oxymoron.) But for one thing, it's a fact that any space battle in a movie that features loud explosions and flames is completely inaccurate, since the vacuum of space makes the spread of sound waves impossible. The more I think about it, the more I would like to see a space battle played out in complete silence. I imagine it would be pretty surreal.
**Major Spoilers**
First of all, this film impressed me greatly.
I think I was most surprised by the fact that there was not a three-act structure to the film. It joins the ranks of Bringing Out the Dead and The 25th Hour of being the most enthralling one act films ever made. Bringing Out the Dead fools you on first viewings by breaking it into three sections with the three drivers but Cage actually doesn't seem to change. Like James in the Hurt Locker, he feels he can't quit because people might die if he's not there. He's trapped into his job.
What the single-act structure does for the film is that it disorients you to exactly the right point. Because there are no plot points to identify you have no idea how far into the film you are or when it's going to end. It's one of the master strokes on the suspense. We know that in a typical film or story, the heroes survive their trials and we often don't get on the edges of our seats about their safety till the end of the film where we know that the time is nearly up and whatever feat the hero is on, it will be the last one we see them overcome or fail (unless there's a sequel). With the Hurt Locker, I couldn't tell when we were close to the end of the film. When they went out with the psychiatrist and when he sees the boy's body, I thought I was watching the last scene. I saw the boy's body and I thought, this is it, they're wrapping it up with the kid, this is the last scene. But it wasn't. In fact some of the best stuff was yet to come. (The only other recent film to throw me off track with an atypical act structure was The Dark Knight which seems to have some elaborate five to seven act structure).
In fact I was so thrown off guard by The Hurt Locker's structure that I laughed retroactively at a middle finger Bigelow gives us in that scene with the boy. Not a mean middle-finger... just her rubbing in that we're totally under her control. That moment of course was when they moved through the empty building to find the boy, the camera drifts as the walk towards a lone locker sitting alone in that room. At least ten people in different parts of the theater gasped when the camera showed the locker. Everybody connected it with the title. This must be the Hurt Locker. The biggest blast in the entire film will come from in there. When they bypassed the locker and the scene was over, I realized she did that as a trick. Sprinkles on a cupcake. Why not? You know that most people will associate the Hurt Locker either with what's under his bed or the war in general but you also know that if you show a locker, they're going to be gripping their seats because the guys never go open it. It's like that Hitchcock trick you mention (I think in the review) show a bomb under a desk, then have the scene on top of it and keep the audience in suspense. Well this wasn't even showing us the bomb. It was showing us a flimsy metal box and this non-explosive item kept us frozen through the scene.
Finally, while I agree with what the person said on The House Next Door's comments about the subplot with the boy, I think that it is meant to serve as a reminder to James not to get attached to anything. That emotions will obstruct the performance of his job. That his compassion is a weakness. He is his own Yoko. When he sees that the kid is still alive, he doesn't have the normal movie scene of hugging the kid and saying "I was so worried about you!". Instead he ignores the kid because he instantly filled with regret. If he knew the kid was alive, they would have blown up the body bomb and building as planned. If that had happened, the psychiatrist would still be alive. If he knew that the kid was alive, he wouldn't have risked his life on his own (in one of the best sequences of the film) to find the kid's parents. If he knew the the kid was alive, he wouldn't have led Sanborn and Eldridge into the town unprotected and ultimately Eldridge wouldn't have been grabbed or shot in the leg. Don't get attached to anything. Denying your emotions is the cross to bear in being successful. His solitude is the price he pays the reaper to keep Americans alive.
What a great film. I really hope other filmmakers take note. This is how it's done.
Scott
P.S.: Think of all the elaborate bombs you've seen. A pressure activated toilet-seat bomb. A bomb triggered by a speedometer with gold casing that makes it impossible to defuse. The Bouncing Betty or one of the other dozen contraptions in Blown Away. The Nuke in The Peacemaker.
The bombs in The Hurt Locker are terrifying... yet they each have only two wires. There are a couple elaborate bombs in the film, but they're all practical. You don't have any mercury switches or traps. Great, great film.
In response to Bill Hays, may I quote Sly Stallone in Demolition Man:
"I'm gonna find Phoenix, and I'm gonna put him in a hurt locker!"
All things go in cycles. I reckon we are living in a golden age of film, it's just that you have to dig through an awful lot of dross to get to the gold. Transformers mkII will be as forgotten as "Pearl Harbour" in a couple of years. Yep, it makes a ton of money, but Hollywood has a long standing habit of going to the well one time too many, so when they blow 400 million on something that grosses only 70, some genius with a spreadsheet is going to figure out "you know what? Why don't we finance lots of smaller films with small budgets that reap higher percentage profits per film instead of risking everything on a megahit?" It's a business after all! Digital distribution and projection means it will soon be practical and desirable to do this. Hang in there Roger. The cycle continues to turn.
Talk about coincidences. A great movie set in a desert. And now I'm currently working in Saudi Arabia.
It'll be hard for me to catch this. Unfortunately, I'll have to try and view through "other" means (sigh).
Ebert: I'm slowly learning that anybody on this blog could be anywhere. It humbles me that English is such a universal language, and that those who use it most incorrectly in these posts are Americans. You're now in Saudi Arabia? Always thought of you as being in the Philippines. This week I've heard from Finland, South Africa, Bolivia, Brazil, Scotland, Portugal, India as always...but no word for awhile from friends from Taiwan and Turkey.
Roger,
I saw this one last night, and I gotta say, out of all the summer movies, this one takes the cake. If I didn't have to drive so far, I would definitely go see it again just to try to gain a new perspective on the whole thing.
They had me starting off with the feeling that James in an unthinking risk-taker that is one stupid move away from being killed, and everybody hates him for it. Throughout the movie, it seems to become clear that James is the cool headed single minded and driven one, and that everybody else on the team are the ones just a second away from breaking because they are looking for something else outside of what they are doing. There are so many small scenes where James takes over and leads the team (the sniper shootout, after the doc gets killed)that only last thirty seconds but they show so many levels to the James. He gets them out of the snipers trap, and he comforts the specialist, he brings the team together and somehow gets the one person who should hate him to be a trusted teammate.
I want to slightly disagree with the subplots though. I think the subplots, such as the child, the family back home and hunting down the bombers is James searching for something to make him a bit more human like the rest of em, not so cold and calculating, and every time he went on one of these searches it seemed to end with disaster. Afterwards, the relationship with those involved seemed very cold and distant, including with the dvd selling kid who he should have been happy to see. The thing with his wife seemed to be the very dream the other sergeant wanted. Did he even say goodbye to them, or did he just pack up in the middle of the night and hop the next plane back to the desert? His speech to his toddler about the jack in the box was rather on point, maybe he was just looking for that one more thing to care for.
i don't think it's easy to make a war movie that's not about the war because most film makers have opinions, and war - especially this one - is probably second only to abortion when it comes to polarizing opinions. she deserves congrats for making a war movie about the people in the war and avoiding the people behind the war. bigelow didn't have to set this character as a soldier. she could have given herself a break and put him on a bomb squad in any u.s. city, but then the film could have morphed into something closer to speed. by setting it in iraq, we get to see someone unable to depart from the chaos around him. he can't just punch out at 5pm and go home.
i saw near dark about 20 years ago on HBO and bugged almost everyone i knew to watch it. i haven't seen it again, but i think i will. a similarity between that and the hurt locker is that both films are set within a genre and could easily fall into a genre routine, but instead they focus on a real person with real intricacies and how they behave within the situation. caleb (adrian pasdar) doesn't embrace being with vampires in near dark the way bella does in twilight.
it reminds me of nicole kidman's character in birth, which i thought was very underrated although you gave it 3 1/2 stars. that could have been just another switcheroo movie where someone jumps into someone else's body. instead, it shows what might happen in the real world. of course we loved the goofiness of tom hanks in big, but you're going out on a directorial and financial limb when you try to "keep it real."
Jeremy Renner seems like the male Naomi Watts. He's been working steadily the past ten or so years, and maybe now he'll start getting more of the roles he deserves. I haven't seen the Hurt Locker yet, but I would suggest 'Dahmer' to anyone interested in GOOD serial killer movies. Renner, in the title role, is better than Michael Rooker in 'Henry', a tough act to follow.
The title of the movie "The Hurt Locker" (to answer a question from commenter Bill Hays) presumably comes from a poem called "The Hurt Locker" by Brian Turner, a former U.S. infantry soldier in Iraq who is also a highly decorated poet. The poem appears in his multiple award-winning collection "Here, Bullet." (The title of the book is a two-word poem all by itself.) "The Hurt Locker," poem version, can be read -- and listened to -- online here: http://www.fishousepoems.org/archives/brian_turner/the_hurt_locker.shtml
Ebert: That's the answer. Thank you.
about 2 weeks ago i saw bigelow being interviewed on fox news. I immediateiy thought 'oh no; this movie is neocon propaganda' i found bigelow's wiki page, found out shes a legit director. your review made me certain i need to see this.
Two questions
will some people view this as a pro-iraq war film
could you see yourself giving a positive review for a overtly pro-iraq war film
Ebert: Certainly, if it were a good film.
I only heard about this film a couple of weeks ago, when it was released to great accolades in the US, Shockingly, later that day I went to my DVD store, and they already had an Italian import of it. I guess it took some time finding a distributor. I thought it was a great movie. A lot of reviewers are hesitant to use the term apolitical about it, seemingly because that would be too much of a cliche. I think one of the marvels of it is in how apolitical it is. It is not staunchly apolitical- it just takes on the subject on a level that where politics are almost entirely irrelevant. I think it's easily the best film dealing with the Iraq war. It's closest relative is HBO's superb Generation Kill, but is even more effective by being more contained. That being said- I loved the small nod to the disconnect between the generals and the soldiers, contained in the scene with David Morse.
Maybe this film will get me to spend the money on the dvd copy of Danger UXB!
The movie seems to make a statement that the reality worth exploring, via fictional means, is the intense psychological experience of life-and-death situations for a few select soliders in an occupying army. This is what is most real and interesting about war–that seems to be the ideological statement of this movie. And that raises the suspicion that it is narrow, untruthful and reactionary due to its attempt to focus on psychological reality rather than the more complex social reality of the occupation including what it meant to the Iraqis. Perhaps Bigelow thought that she could say something profound about the experience of war without being perceived as political. I take this to be a very unfortunate choice.
I am wondering whether Roger Ebert knows about the controversy over Ernst Junger who explored how war elevates the soldier’s life, isolated from normal humanity, into a mystical experience. He turned out to be a fascist, embracing militarism over the ‘talking houses’ [parliamentary democracy] of the Weimar Republic. One would guess that Bigelow is a bit more critical of such intense and primordial experience. Yet I wonder how Bigelow’s movie could be seen in relation to Junger’s embrace of war as a mystical adrenalin rush. But more importantly there is something inherently insidious about a Iraq movie that takes psychological experience of members of an occupying army as the sole focus when Iraqis are now struggling with one million premature deaths, the return of cholera, the hardening of sectarian conflict and the possible dissolution of their nation, and the loss of up to nine trillion dollars.
How can a movie marginalize such phenomena, and be truthful?
It’s not just about America. Our president is trying to teach us a more cosmopolitan philosopy. We have to grow up and learn to live in a world where we take other points of view seriously. Is this an immature movie?
Seems that way to me.
Ebert: Junger's politics may not be relevant to his opinion. War can create a bond between soldiers so strong they become willing to die for one another.
didnt you find the music-video ending a bit like an army enlistment ad?.. it irritates me that such a great film ended on such a sour note.
This movie sounds great. Anybody know when those of us not living in New York or LA might be able to see it? Also, "Moon," for that matter?
I saw this film last week on a visit to New York. It's one of the best thrillers I've seen in a long time, mainly because it genuinely taps into our fears rather than just blowing stuff up. One of the first things I said to my sister (whom I was visiting in the city, and who saw the film with me and loved it as much as I did) was the Hitchcock quote about the bomb beneath the table.
I can see why soldiers might have some reservations about it, but honestly, it's rare for a film about an occupation to please the actual people within that occupation with its accuracy. And, really, how many military films in history have been accurate in that sense? I don't mean that rhetorically; I'm genuinely curious. It's a film. It's not supposed to be a spot-on depiction of actual EODs. It is, however, a brilliant exercise in depicting the constant danger of that job, and the bravery of the soldiers.
Hello Mr. Ebert,
I am 19 years old and have become an avid reader of yours in the last six months. Though there have been times when I disagree with your reviews, I have always respected your opinion. Thanks to you, and my film teacher, I now have an appreciation of what a good film is, and I actively seek them out. Now, I would like to thank you for pointing out to your readers what makes "The Hurt Locker" better than "Transformers 2": Kathryn Bigelow understands dramatic buildup.
Directors like Michael Bay do not seem to get that an explosion's impact will be more powerful if you allow the audience to wait. If a director puts the action on hold,the audience will let their imaginations run wild with fear and concern for the character in danger. Frankly, this raises the stakes for an upcoming action scene and makes it that much better. It's like that old (and nearly forgotten) horror movie maxim: "The best part isn't when the killer strikes. The best part is waiting for the killer to strike." I will list a few examples to back this up:
Would "Taxi Driver" have the same visceral impact if Travis Bickle decided to go murder Sport and his cronies in the beginning of the film? Of course not. Scrader, Scorsese and De Niro all knew the agony and terror of the film lies in Travis Bikles mind slowly coming apart, and then his killing spree.
Would the sniper sequence in "Full Metal Jacket" have had the same nerve splitting tension if Kubrick rushed in all those Marines at once? No. By slowing that sequence down to a near crawl, Kubrick makes you feel every bullet. You are on the edge of your seat wondering who will get killed next: will it be Joker, Cowboy, Doc J or Animal Mother? (Mr. Ebert I know you gave the film a thumbs down, but maybe your view has changed over the years.)
Finally, the most intense scene (for me) in "Schindler's List" was when Commandant Goeth's gun did not fire.
Thank you Mr. Ebert, for pointing out that the great directors know how to make us wait. I hope you are feeling well--and keep up the good work big guy!
Ebert: Now it's up to you to spread the word.
I was pretty shocked by how apolitical the movie manages to remain. Either the writer/director are themselves apolitical, or they exercised a great deal of restraint.
I feel like Near Dark and Strange Days, along with some of Bigelow's other movies, had a few great scenes, but weren't great overall. Hurt Locker is great overall.
It will come as little surprise that there are tons of "realism errors" (large and small). If you want to read about them, check out the imdb discussion board on the movie. I had to suspend disbelief in the sniper scene, but honestly, these mistakes don't really detract from the film.
Thank you for introducing me to the name Kathryn Bigelow. I reviewed her list of movies and I notice that I've enjoyed every one that I've seen. I recently saw a preview of The Hurt Locker and it intrigued me too. After reading this, I'm encouraged to go see it.
From the way you describe the directors focus on this one soldier, I'm suddenly reminded of "Savior"(1998 Dennis Quaid). My army brother, who also served in Bosnia, tells me this is one of the most accurate depictions of what war does to people who have become 'addicted to the drug', to borrow your phrase. When, nothing can be regarded through any other lens, but that distorting prism of war.
Do you recall this movie Roger?
Greetings Roger and Fellow Readers!
It is fantastic to hear of Kathryn Bigelow's success for her latest creation. You may recall that she directed the taut 2002 film "K-19: The Widowmaker," set in the North Atlantic circa 1961 during the Cold War.
Some of the film was shot in nearby Halifax. A friend who worked on the project describes the director as 'calm and persistent amid the swirl of activity that enveloped the shoot.' I suspect it is those two qualities that permit her to rise above the studio clap-trap and film stories her way.
Time for us to hit the theaters and reward (1) ourselves, with a compelling story and; (2) an artist who doesn't sell out.
Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada
Last four films viewed: Around the World in 80 Days (1956), The Red Violin (1998), Born Free (1966), The Contender (2000).
Roger,
Thanks to your review-I'm definitely going to see this in the theater if I can.
As I get older, I realize the biggest tragedy of War is that it isn't fought by the old folks who decided fight. I see the ages of the soldiers who die: A majority of them are half my age. They could have been my children, if I had any.
Ebert, great post. I recently saw The Hurt Locker and loved it.
I just thought I would clue you in to two reviews that I have read of the film recently. Which are sickening, at least to me.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/amarlow/2009/06/27/review-the-hurt-locker/
-According to him the film is "almost tension free".
Lesser than but still: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/07/02/review-the-hurt-locker-2/
I had very similar conclusions to the "mystery subplot" and other aspects of the film. I started to write it but then figured it would be too long and I decided to write a post for my own movie site and link it.
My review of the film: http://www.wildclementines.com/?p=2661
Response to supposed problems with the film: http://www.wildclementines.com/?p=2859
Hope everything is well. Keep writing.
Tyler
Ebert wrote: We have something else in common. We have both established ourselves in that cafe and sketched the musicians.
REALLY?!
You can draw? What did you do with your sketches...? Do you still have them? Can you show & tell them? I'd show you mine, but I gave them all away to the band (Jazz muscians) and some of the cameriere too, occasionally resulting in small baskets of munchies appearing as if by magic on my table. :)
And speaking of freebies and Saudia Arabia....
It is indeed possible to acquire a perfect copy of the film right now, online. In fact and owing to how I personally go about such things, I can even see "where" other people are located; I see tiny icons of their national flags (I've learn over 30 now!)
Some people in England, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Greece, Saudia Arabia, Iran, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Russia, Australia and the United States, were all grabbing it last night; ahem.
Meanwhile, it's hitting theaters in Vancouver on July 17th. Since they funded the film themselves and still have credit cards to pay off, I plan to buy a ticket later on. That's how I'm making moral peace with myself. It's the Zen thing to do; besides, she used to paint - fellow brethren and all. :)
I'm going to watch it tonight and then pay for it later next week; I'll go see Harry Potter and buy a ticket to The hurt Locker at the same time. If I had Bigelow's address I'd just send her the money directly (note: this Blog thread is now featured on IMDB for Katheryn Bigelow's page in the NewsDesk.)
Here's Kathryn Bigelow on Charlie Rose - the entire interview:
http://blog.movieset.com/2009/06/29/hurt-locker-director-on-charlie-rose/
"Spectacle and Art can coalesce and substance can also entertain."
I've had to scroll past some of Roger's spoilers, chuckle, and fast-forward certain clips and interviews so as to avoid seeing "too much" and so far, I'm still 99% in the dark! And when I chat about it, I'll be sure to put "spoiler" notices up in any blog posts.
P.S. Dear Kathryn Bigelow, if you get the chance to read this, I swear on my immortal soul, you will get my $11.50 Can. :)
What is the purpose of limited release? I, for one, am NOT "hellbent on throwing [myself] at the horrible Transformers." I have not and will not see it. And, yes, I would LOVE to see "a great film, an intelligent film" such as The Hurt Locker is purported to be... Alas! We yokels and rednecks in small-town America don't really have a choice in the matter. Maybe movie industry execs think we're too ignorant to appreciate anything other than robot-explosion-extravaganzas?!
Ebert: It costs an obscene amount for a national ad campaign. You open slowly and build word of mouth.
It is great that there is finally a war film that is entertaining, and that does not preach. One feature i find disturbing among "political" films these days is their seeming immunity to criticism, particularly among the viewing public. They are judged more on their message than on their artistry. What is good about "The Hurt Locker" is that Kathryn Bigelow's work can be seen through an apolitical prism.
Another movie which also had this quality was "Three Kings", which has been sorely overlooked. I found most people seemed to praise "Saving Private Ryan" through its message, not its storytelling. Yes, the first 30 minutes were often mentioned in discussions about Spielberg's genius. But what of the rest of the film? Noone talked about the lack of character development, or the repetitive notion that war is hell, which was well already established in the first half-hour. Another example was "Welcome to Sarajevo".
Roger,
Thank you very much for exposing me to this film. I just finished "Encounters at the End of the World", which sat on my Netflix queue for half a year. By the time I got around to watching it I'd forgotten why I'd even added it in the first place. Then Herzog's dedication to you came up and I remembered that it was your review that first inspired me to look into it. The situation is the same for "The Hurt Locker", which I am now determined to see.
Thank you sincerely,
Ben R
My city in FL was not selected in the limited release. As Letterman says, I pray to God that it will get selected.
Unfortunately I could not find any web site (including official movie website), which gave details when a movie will open in a wider release ( or the entire schedule). Perhaps, I have to work on my googling skills !!!
Looks like the only way I can vent my frustration, is by talking about Transformers (which I did not see), even in this thread just so that I can annoy others....-:)
Roger,
I didn't like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen too much either, but I think this has gone way too far. I understand that it makes for a temporally relevant talking point, but this non-stop assault upon it is getting tired and, quite frankly, childish.
Look, we all know it's a bad movie. At this point you don't even have to see it to know it's a bad movie. And we certainly know you didn't like it. So, in writing about how good The Hurt Locker is, you are doing it absolutely no service by spewing out spastic, petty comparisons to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in the last few paragraphs. None. Nil. Zero. And you've done it twice now. A quick example from your review of The Hurt Locker: "Bigelow knows, unlike the pathetic Michael Bay, that you can’t build suspense with shots lasting one or two seconds." Couldn't you excise the cheap shot and still retain the main idea of that statement?
Your railing against this movie may be cathartic for you, or it may allow you to feel as though you are doing what's right by your standards, or whatever the case may be, but, I ask you, what greater good does it serve? You merely reinforce the opinions of the majority of us who saw it and did not like it, and fan the flames for the minority of us who did like it. Worse yet, you very well may lead some who haven't seen it to forget about The Hurt Locker and see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen out of morbid curiosity. If you really liked The Hurt Locker as much as you claim, shouldn't it be enough to talk about how good it is, allowing it to stand on its own merit? You know, as opposed to talking about how much better it is than a widely-disliked train-wreck? If someone were to tell you, for instance, in no uncertain terms that you were a better man than Bernie Madoff, would you honestly feel as though you were being complimented? No uncertain terms, sure, but suddenly the agenda's not so clear.
Again, I wasn't hot on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I'm not, repeat NOT, defending it. What I am defending is intelligent and measured discourse. What you are doing is just plain lazy analysis whined through a cry-baby's pacifier, and I'm sick of it. For a movie you claim that, "Two years from now, no one will quite be able to remember its name," you are giving it a considerable amount of coverage and free press. If we are to forget, as you're so sure we will, wouldn't it behoove you to expedite the process and NEVER MENTION IT AGAIN?! I'd certainly appreciate it.
Ebert: You make an excellent point, and my review ends with its focus on the wrong film. I have revised the review online.
Leonard Maltin faulted the film for it's overlength, but otherwise found it a "very special" movie, like you. What do you have to say about that, Roger?
Ebert: Overlength? It's 127 minutes--seven minutes above the unofficial "ceiling" of two hours. Didn't bother me, although I can see some possible trims at the end.
It seems like many of the EOD guys seem to appreciate this movie:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24547.html
Outside of the EOD community, I've read some very unfavorable reviews of the movie from soldiers in other occupational specialties (like the Special Forces Green Berets).
Mr. Ebert;
Warms my heart to see you give "The Hurt Locker" special treatment. It's a powerful film with a star making performance by Jeremy Renner. I do not think I have seen one TV ad for it. Nor have I seen anyone on the talk shows. Hopefully word of mouth will get the job done.
I laughed at all the flack you took over "Transformers".
Far from being a movie critic I always thought of you as a movie champion.
Your earlier juxtaposition of the "inaccuracies in the depiction of Soldiers." with "Transformers" is spot on. The article on the "Army's" reaction is a PAO exercise and of course the Public Affairs Officer says it's not accurate. The Army wouldn't want anyone to think that all soldiers drink in violation of GO#1 and assault each other for sport; unfortunately many Soldiers get NJP all the time for such behavior downrange. This film is as real as a film can get, more real than an AFN commercial or a PAO pronouncement. War is not a tidy exercise. It is not in the Army's interest to agree with this proposition. In fact a large amount of effort over here in Afghanistan is dedicated to imposing order on chaos. Reflective belts on FOB's, saluting in a combat zone, prohibiting the wear of sunglasses between 0500 and 0730 (it requires a lengthy explanation)-absurd attempts to apply rules worthy of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil"
To be fair, if James' reckless behavior were on the CDR's RADAR, he would be prosecuted. But that doesn't make this film's depiction of Soldiers any less accurate or "real".
Ebert: The drinking was specifically mentioned as one of the reasons for the Army's objections in an Army News story. I'm thinking, what? U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't drink?
From your post above:
>>>"In what way was the military exposure in "Transformers" more beneficial than cooperating with "The Hurt Locker?"… It did achieve one aim of Army recruiters: It made the Army look like fun."
In essence, Roger, this is the U.S. Military's entire philosophy when it comes to aiding the film industry. The U.S. Military knows that most movie-goers these days are teenage kids, many of whom have the potential to become military recruits. So they would rather have those kids think that the Army is a fun place to be, rather than a place where they might get killed. In other words, they would rather promote the Fantasy of Military Service, than acknowledge the Reality of Military Service.
The U.S. Military knows that more teenage kids will go to see "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" than will go to see "Hurt Locker." The Military therefore prefers to put its support behind a film with the Fantasy message: "JOIN THE ARMY AND YOU MIGHT GET TO FIGHT GIANT TRANSFORMING ALIEN ROBOTS."
The Military does NOT want to back a film with the Reality message: "JOIN THE ARMY, AND YOU MAY GET SENT TO IRAQ, WHERE YOU MAY GET KILLED OR MAIMED BY AN I.E.D."
(This attitude is nothing new, by the way. In 1986, while filming his classic "Platoon," Oliver Stone requested help from the local U.S. Military bases in the Philippines. He needed helicopters for crucial scenes in the movie. The U.S. Military refused his request after reading the script, saying that the film "presented an unrealistic portrayal of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam." Stone had to make do using Philippine Army helicopters with American flags painted on the sides.)
Now, on a lighter note, I have a suggestion, Roger, for handling the Fanboys who keep sending you messages about your negative reviews of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (and I know I'm a little late in joining this discussion).
My suggestion is, you should follow the attitude of the great Don Rickles. When asked by an interviewer if he ever worried that his insult comedy might become too offensive to the audience, Rickles replied, "You know, every night when I go out on stage to do my comedy routines, there's always one nagging fear in the back of my mind. I'm always afraid that somewhere out there, there is one person in the audience that I'm NOT going to offend!"
I suggest, Roger, that you should gleefully follow the same attitude with those "hockey pucks" who keep telling you that "Transformers" is a great movie, that Michael Bey is a great director, and that you have no right to criticize. (It's not, he's not, and you DO!) Most of these Fanboy kids who see the movie have the cultural mentality of Cheez Whiz!
I suggest that you should take PRIDE, a gleeful JOY even, in continuing to criticize and insult the "Transformers" movie (and all others like it), and in offending the Fanboys! Let them know you have no compunction in pointing out to them that their favorite movie sucks dirt! Be BRUTAL with them and let them know that it's not that you don't "get" the Transformers -- it's that they don't have the intelligence to recognize that the movie is nothing more than CGI smoke and mirrors. The more you insult their choice of cinema, the more you will offend them.
After all, Roger, you can take satisfaction in the fact that the Fanboys found your review of "Transformers" as annoying, as nerve-grinding, and as offensive as you found the movie itself to be.
Ebert: To my reader in Prague, Czech Republic:
I mistakenly lost my response to your post, and then deleted the post itself as per your request, so now I can't find it.
Can you please repost?
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie,
To anybody who is more interested in a somewhat "objective" look at the war in Iraq and what is actually going over there the HBO series "Generation Kill" by David Simon creator of "The Wire".
It's based on the true story of a Rolling Stone reporter, embedded with The 1st Recon Marines chronicles his experiences during the first wave of the American-led assault on Baghdad in 2003.
Simply amazing television.
Ebert: Reminds me the author of "The Hurt Locker" was embedded with a bomb disposal unit.
I loved this movie. I've tried to remember the last modern action film that was about real people, not cartoonish stand-ins. Black Hawk Down comes to mind, another film about men in combat. I liked this one better though.
I think it's certainly fair for you to make the Transformers comparison in your review. It's not your fault the state the film industry is in. Transformers is as bad as Hurt Locker is good, and it is indeed infuriating that it's what executives seem to want films to be - shameful junk.
The incredible rise in sophistication and usage of IEDs, in all their deadly incantations, are no less than a 21st Century plague. At least 40% of the deaths in Iraqi War are attributable to these horrors,as well as over half of our mostly grievously wounded soldiers from Iraq and now Afghanistan. When I went to see the movie today,I thought of that. During the Charlie Rose interview a few days ago, the first question asked was about the title. Ms. Bigelow said that Mark Boal heard it from the military when he was embedded with a bomb squad in 2004...A PLACE OF ULTIMATE PAIN,IF THESE BOMBS EXPLODED WE'RE ALL IN THE HURT LOCKER. That stuck with me too as I entered The glorious old Mayan theater. And finally I kept thinking about Mr. Rose's final question about how these brave men were chosen-the ones asked to perform the most dangerous job in the world. Ms. Bigelow pointed out that they were the creme de la creme of the military-those with extraordinarily high I.Q.s,deep sense of inner strength,prone to hubris-maybe, an adrenaline driven cowboy style bravado-sure, but always married with a profound skills set- if they were to stand a chance of surviving the ordeal that is.
This extraordinary film struck shocked me most by demonstrating so graphically just how monstrous these weapons truly must be, and how damn lucky we are to have military professionals like James, Sanborn, Eldridge, et al.
Ebert: I've added to the bottom of the entry a link to the poem "The Hurt Locker."
Best movie I've seen all year, and that includes "Up." Best war/action drama I've seen in years.
My brother is an army captain soon to be in Afghanistan. He joined the army mostly because he was bored with his job and wanted an adventure. Others seem to join for the egotism or to escape unemployment. Many Americans believe the war in Iraq is a noble struggle, but do any recruits actually enlist for that reason? Isn't it suggestive that the army recruitment commercials highlight the admittedly cool technology used in Iraq and the career benefits of enlisting, but only briefly mention "serving your country"?
I have not yet seen The Hurt Locker, but am anticipating it with excitement.
Regarding the Transformers movie, I found one line in the trailer to be very disturbing, which is "fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing." In this context, it could be paraphrased as, "war rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."
It's that familiar sentiment, NOBODY WANTS WAR- IT'S JUST NECESSARY.
Maybe I just want to be killed, while I'm doing something more enjoyable...
It occurs to me as I read these words that Roger is aptly describing the job of a movie critic:
"(1) Bombs need to be defused; (2) nobody does it better; (3) he knows exactly how good he is, and (4) when he’s at work, an intensity of focus and exhilaration consumes him, and he’s in that heedless zone when an artist loses track of self and time."
When I eventually see "The Hurt Locker" my subconscious shall be expecting rabid zombies to be chasing Renner, since it looks like he's playing the same guy from "28 Weeks Later"... Maybe I'll put them on a DVD double-bill.
Ebert: Funny you should mention it. Coming this week: My review of "Dead Snow," a Norwegian film about a bloodthirsty Nazi zombie ski patrol.
Haven't seen this movie yet... but I like how it sounds, how the art is in the suspense, how the suspense is built from the successful collaboration of acting, sound, editing and score; how an audience can be successfully captivated by using only a few well-timed and well-simulated explosions. Would it matter if good suspense in a movie was complimented by a "message" or "moral", if only we leave the theater with a good adrenaline boost? "Jaws" seems to be message-less.
I understand why you revised your review of 'the Hurt Locker', even though I enjoyed the harsh dig at Mr. Bay, but shouldn't the review be noted as altered?
Ebert: Have done so.
Transformers wasn't a complete waste, I found your blog through it so that's something. Will definitely check this film out when the opportunity arises.
Ebert:... This week I've heard from Finland, South Africa, Bolivia, Brazil, Scotland, Portugal, India as always...but no word for awhile from friends from Taiwan and Turkey.
Add Australia to your online audience.
Ebert: Lots of friends in Australia, and your neighbor to the south. I was just referring to this week, to which I can now add also Norway and South Korea. My tracking software counts the nations readers come from, and I am fascinated by my reader in the Vatican City...
WARNING! My posts contains SPOILERS!
There are moments in "The Hurt Locker" when I was so sure a bomb was about to explode that when it didn't, I found myself wishing one would so as to end the almost unbearable suspense of waiting for it to happen.
When you watch a lot of movies, over time you become familiar with the common "tells" so to speak; like how the camera will invariably look to where the action is about to unfold and ergo telegraph the script in advance. Kathryn Bigelow uses that to her advantage and with great effect to trick you into thinking OMG, here it comes! - only to fill the screen with even more tension than before when the contents of said frame fails to produce anything! It's just a ground shot of some stupid dirt. Or just a window, or a doorway, or minaret. The neighbors are watching. There's a cat. Someone's boots are dusty.
Talk about stirring the risotto slowly!
And it's akin to nails scratching a chalk board called your nerves! I always could feel a sense of paranoia building as I watched, everything suddenly looked suspect! The film is thankfully devoid of a blaring soundtrack so there's nothing to get in the way of the feeling it strives to invoke, assuming your heart doesn't give out in the first 15 minutes; ie: that it's you in his boots, your breathing you hear, you walking inside a heavy suit and in weather hot enough to fry an egg in the shade.
Note: Vancouver's experiencing a bit of a heat wave at the moment. This added to film's realism for me as I was literally sweating along with the actors.
Do the men who diffuse bombs all approach their jobs with that much bravado and hubris? Or do they acquire it like a protective veneer in order to do their jobs? I found myself asking that question as I watched James attack his work like a young Greek testing the patience of his Gods, and it wasn't until I saw the "rough-housing scene" between him and Sanborn back at camp, that the penny dropped.
James does one thing exceedingly well; diffuse bombs. He's the best there is - and knows it. But it seems to be the only area in his life where he has any real control. And what starts out playfully enough between mates, albeit still a stupid display of testosterone as they're basically punching each other without a purpose, soon turns into something else when he essentially pins Sanborn onto his back and "mounts" him - riding him like a bull in a rodeo (to that effect.)
Why?
Top dog status, that's why. Yes, but WHY? Was it in doubt? Not if you're talking about diffusing bombs. But when it comes to a physical fight, James clearly needed to been seen as the winner there, too. He needed to assert his superior position. He likes how it makes him feel. Theory - in truth and deep down, he can't feel much of anything else anymore. He's reached the point where only one things matters - and it's not his small son back home.
It's a high off a drug only violence and fear give him.
However it came to pass, the price of his courage has cost him the loss of something else. He's brave and heroic but also a little damaged too, eh? But then war tends to do that to people.
And I think that's what the film is about. Not why wars are fought but what wars do to the people who fight them.
I learned important things along the way moreover - namely, first you cut the green wire, then the yellow one. I have no idea if that's actually correct, but I see no reason not to squirrel that bit of info away in case it proves useful one day. I was also reminded that every war seems to have this guy:
"That's just hot sh*t, you know that? You're a wild man..." Colonel Reed admiring James's hubris. Reed, as played by David Morse, makes the most of limited screen time, I thought, and brought to mind another happy psychotic: Robert Duvall infamous "Kilgore" in Apocalypse Now - who didn't care if men had to die so another could go surfing. That unspoken bit of instruction to one of his men via "he won't make it" when informed an Iraqi man needed medical attention. It was followed by a gun shot heard but not seen.
It's stuff like that which makes me glad I'm a born dissident. I’d never follow that unspoken order.
Meanwhile, their frightened comrade in glasses, Specialist Owen Eldridge, struck me as the one, true sane person there. As who wouldn't be on edge and freaked out most of the time, eh?! I'd be puking my guts out, myself. It was interesting to see the mix of cruelty and compassion, in James's treatment of Eldridge. Making him wash the blood off the bullets helping him to calm down and cope while traumatizing him at the "same" time.
It's a tribute to Bigelow's direction and Boal's screenplay that they were able, with the actors doing their parts too, to walk such a breathtaking line through so much moral ambiguity at times. I love this sort of stuff, truth be told, I love a muddy protagonist! I love characters when they're on the fence and you can't know for sure "what" you know - ya know? :)
And if ever such a character were given an ideal setting in which to shine, I think it's "The Hurt Locker". As the entire film works the same way... you can't trust anything for sure. It just might blow up. Or not. And therein lies the thrill of it, the ride, the rush. And perhaps the greatest achievement of the film?
A taste of the drug of war but in a dose too small to do any damage.
At least, I get why James likes his job - but also why it's likely going to kill him one day. Oh, and I was ENTERTAINED too. :)
Ebert: Where did you see it? I'm trying to get a feel for its distribution. It's still to open in most of the U.S.
I have just finished writing my personal reviews for "Il Divo" and "The Hurt Lockers". Both movies have gained word of mouth through local film festival and some illegal ways. I got them immediately through my sources, and watched them yesterday. I liked both movies a lot. Two very different well-made movies. Two very different main characters. But both of them are very, very good at their professions. They stimulated my interest in different ways, respectively.
"The Hurt Locker" is included in "We Urge You Release Them" list of 10 movies by well-known movie magazine. If they release this movie in theaters, I will see it again, and I will take any people I know with me. The movie do not have to say much, because we understand what's going on inside and outside of characters. You mentioned some crucial part in the movie implicitly. At some scene, the movie shows him alone in that large area. Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal has made points clear, and I immediately knew what would happen next, which were few minutes late than I thought.
The movie has some tremendous sequences, one of which is enhanced by quiet but exhausting suspense at vast area. There are explosions and these are real, as you said. Real things are better than CG. For exmaple, I watched "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three"(1974) on last Friday, several weeks after watching remake version. The movie looked old due to cheap DVD treatment, but it was realistic and absorbing. Police cars looked real, and subway looked real. Tension was accumulated in more quiet way than remake version, but it was certainly more exiting. And the movie achieved what remake version could not do. It evoked my memory of New York subways five years ago(Well, tunnels are still dark and tacky, isn't it?).
"The Hurt Locker" is one of best films I have seen this year. I hope it will come to audience in my country as soon as possible. Considering its limited release in US, it will take some time, but I even want to see it again now. "Transformer: Revenge of the Fallen" earns so much money in US. It is now watched by more than 5 millions now in South Korea. And They have not released "The Hurt Locker" yet, not even "Milk and "Julia"(These good movies were supposed to be released in this spring, but are not yet released). It is just like "Crime and Misdemeanor". The shallow win, and the sincere lose. Well, we have hope, at least. Roots are not severed yet. Spring and summer, fall and winter, and then spring and summer again. I know this is pretty shallow, but it is sometimes right.
P.S.
1. I'm going to find "Strange Days", one of movies I have heard many times but never watched.
2. By the way, "The Hurt Rocker" is one of few exceptions to one of my personal movie rules. "If American or British movie is released somewhere before US, be very careful. Or you will waste your money" Latest example is "Outlander".
Ebert: You reminded me of the title of that great Korean film, "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring." Is that a Korean saying?
The Hurt Locker is not overtly political, but it is subtly so in several respects.
First and most obviously, Bigelow is very clear that Iraq has not been liberated but conquered and occupied. Every Iraqi is a potential enemy -- if not a killer, then a collector or transmitter of information, and the troops know that they are in an enemy country. That makes The Hurt Locker like watching a movie about the French Resistance made from the point of view of the Wehrmacht.
Second, it shows the Americans as sympathetically restrained in the use of force. Young Eldridge, in particular, is slow to shoot. He is probably responsible for Thompson's death because he didn't shoot the shopkeeper with the cell phone as soon as he saw it. Even in the firefight in the desert, he doesn't shoot at the Iraqi slipping around their flank until he asks James's permission. It isn't clear how much of this is discipline and the rules of engagement, and how much is Eldridge's civilian conscience and inexperience. But the older and wiser Sanborn is equally restrained. In the scene where they are being filmed by a young Iraqi with a video camera, the man is obviously hostile. At the least, as Sanborn says, he hopes to show their deaths on YouTube. At the worst, he is recording the Americans' tactics and techniques so that the insurgents can study them for weak points at leisure. But it never occurs to Sanborn to just kill the man. Since he's both an experienced nco and a by the book soldier, that tells us that the rules of engagement won't let him.
The one quick triggered character is an obvious ass. David Morse does brilliant work in a perfectly written and directed 2 minute cameo as Colonel Reed, a full colonel out in the field away from his desk. Full of strut and bluster, he orders the summary execution of a wounded insurgent prisoner, and he is as star struck towards James the "wild man" as a middle aged middle manager would be towards an NFL quarterback or a NASCAR driver. To put it charitably, you can see that Reed is in love with a theatrical idea of war as a release from all restraints -- he'd like to be Colonel Kilgore. He's also the only representative of higher military authority we are shown, and we can see in him the same phony toughness that was found at the highest levels of civilian authority.
On the other hand, the one representative of liberal humanism -- the Army psychiatrist -- has absolutely no understanding of reality in Iraq. He suffers accordingly when Eldridge shames him into leaving the relative safety of base camp and visiting the war. It is painfully embarrassing to watch him try to move along an inconvenient group of Iraqi civilians by telling them earnestly and politely that they should move away from the Humvee because "Iraq is a dangerous place" instead of screaming and threatening as the troops do. It is no accident that his name is Lt. Col. Cambridge. If Reed is a stand in for Cheney, et al., Cambridge will do nicely for Thomas Friedman and the other liberal globalizers who thought the US could and should uplift and civilize Iraq into a sort of Arab West Germany.
In sum, the political perspective of the Hurt Locker is that the troops were decent folk who had to deal with the consequences of being the unwelcome foreign occupiers in a conquered country while their superiors lived in a world of illusions.
Ebert: Your close reading of the film is valuable and helps dramatize that it is pro-soldier.
Ebert: You reminded me of the title of that great Korean film, "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring." Is that a Korean saying?
Oh, No, it is not a Korean saying. I borrowed it from "Being There".
By the way, "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring." is another movie I have heard many times but never watched. So much to learn. So much to watch.
Hurt Locker sounds really good. I've already arranged plans to see Bruno and Harry Potter this week before I head off to Yale for camp next week but if I can fit in a third trip to the theater I'll try to fit it in. Either that or hope/expect for it to still be playing in a month and see it when I get back, along with Ponyo, Inglorious Basterds, Funny People, District 9, the new Evangelion movie; damn, it's looking like the second half of the summer will more than up for the lackluster first half!
Perhaps the final word on Transformers should be this: the people who went to see it and liked it are simply hypnotized. Why? Peter Cullen, the voice actor of Optimus Prime. That guy has to be some sort of hypnotist with his voice. Check out some of his commercials he did for Cartoon Network at toonamiarsenal.com. Some of the shows he promoted were great. A lot of them were horrible. He managed to make all of them sound awesome. Even Wulin Warriors, a freaking puppet show with a supposedly "serious" storyline and a bad rap theme song! Part of the reason the second Transformers has received more of a beating while the first one got pretty good reviews, along with the issues of the new one being an excess of the bad stuff about the first one, was that there's less Peter Cullen in this new one. Any potential hypnosis the critics went under broke quickly. The movie's fans simply have weaker minds.
I read your review yesterday, Roger, and immediately decided I wanted to see The Hurt Locker. Unfortunately, I find it is not showing in my area. I will probably have to wait for DVD.
When I found this blog entry, my first thought was "I bet Roger is going to contrast this film with Transformers 2." I am gratified to see I was correct. I suppose I can understand some find your continuing Transformers comments tiresome, but please continue to point out why some movies suck and others manage not to.
*****
andrewv commented:"The more I think about it, the more I would like to see a space battle played out in complete silence. I imagine it would be pretty surreal." I would recommend andrewv check out the Battlestar Galactica mini-series. The space battles are indeed silent and rather surreal.
Since you mention that bomb-builders play a key (but unseen) role in this film, would you have any films about bombmaker/s to recommend? Perhaps even as a companion piece to "THL"?
Ebert: Not any with the bomb maker as the protagonist.
I have followed Jeremy Renner's career trajectory for years now, and often wondered when he would get 'that one role' that would show him as an actor of serious contention. This may finally be that role. I believe that when all is said and done, Renner will be on the list of his generation's great actors.
And to those who haven't seen "Dahmer," check it out as soon as you can--Renner's performance is stunning.
Ebert: Why didn't I review that? I'm getting the DVD.
I'm glad Ebert brought this movie to my attention. Looks great and we're excited to see it.
Bad news is, It's not playing in Pittsburgh.
Also, I'm traveling to Tokyo for 4 weeks where the new releases this month are, well..Transformers and Terminator.
I thought about downloading it. Not out of being cheap but just because I actually really want to see this film.
Looks like I'll just wait for the DVD.
I hope someone up there takes note that people actually WANT and LIKE and are WILLING TO PAY to see GOOD movies where they belong. Projected on a screen in a theater.
So much respect to Bigelow and cast and crew for making this and here's hoping for a wide release.
But Hey...F**k it, Transformers for president 2012.
Ebert: It will come to Pittsburgh. It's rolling out steadily.
I love this blog. This is an international gathering place. And a force for good.
I hope Joaquin Navarro-Valls is taking note of that.
I love reading Seongyong Cho's comments. "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring" came not from Korea, but from "Being There"?? Hah! I laughed aloud.
Ebert: There is something Zen about Chance the Gardener.
A little off-topic, but perhaps not too far: I've searched every variation of English and Russian spelling for Fyodor Bondarchuk's "Ninth Company (9 rota)" (2005) and I'm not finding evidence that you got to see and review it. It deserves a few comparisons to Oliver Stone's "Platoon," telling a story of young Soviet conscripts thrust into abusive and often brutal training and then sent into Afghanistan against an enemy motivated more by martyrdom than victory, even as the USSR itself was on the brink of collapse. It's another example of a film that remains pro-soldier despite all the wrongs that created the adventure, far beyond any enlisted man's influence. I gave a copy to an Afghanistan veteran friend of mine and he was very appreciative.
Sorry, but I've gotta disagree with some of this hyperbole critical of mentioning "Transformers 2". Depicting the inclusion of those criticisms as "childish" and "cheap shots" etc is far from accurate.
Moreover, I think in fact that in assessing "The Hurt Locker" it is quite relevant and helpful to discuss how the military refused assistance and participation for this film while supplying it enthusiastically for the tripe that is "Transformers 2". Right now, Bay's film is closing in on $650 million dollar box office, on its THIRD WEEKEND. That doesn't signify that the majority of audiences are rejecting it or consider it garbage -- that signals the embrace of the film by a huge segment of the public who embrace it as readily as did the military.
A film critic absolutely should comment on such situations and the conditions of modern filmmaking and viewership. It is directly relevant to "The Hurt Locker" and to promoting the film, as one important aspect of the film is that it stands in such sharp contrast to the obscene garbage thus far overwhelmingly endorsed by studios with $200 million budgets and audiences who award that crap a $650+ million box office.
In the event, the strongly negative mention of "Transformers 2" was not only fitting here, but I feel highly relevant and an important aspect of the discussion. I think that every chance anyone gets to remind people of how bad "Transformers" is, how good another far less popular film is, and that the disparity is grossly unfair and shameful, the better.
Roger, your words are always full of appropriate wisdom. I'm reading you from the United Kingdom (London to be precise). I haven't seen this yet, but I'll definitely go watch in regard to your review. Rarely do you go wrong. A lot of people see the "personal opinion" that you etch into your reviews as some form of blasphemy. I disagree. It's refreshing, and far more interesting to read (even out of context, if that makes sense) than the generic movie reviews. Keep it up.
I've always wondered. What's your favourite novel?
Ebert: Huckleberry Finn, the first one I ever read. And then the list grows very long.
Hey Roger,
I reread your review for The Hurt Locker after seeing your comments in this blog about it being revised. Thank you for doing so. Not only does the review do more justice for the film and the artists who worked so long and hard to create it, but it also heightens your credibility as a reviewer, as you graciously made necessary changes without changing your opinion (e.g., you indirectly trounce Transformers by commenting on a directing style, as opposed to the movie itself).
I've enjoyed and appreciated your movie perspective for much of my adult life, beginning with my days in college, and the action you took toward your own writing underscores why. Thank you.
I enjoy watching many of Kathryn Bigelow's movies (including the underrated submerine flick "K-19: The Widowmaker", with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson), and judging from your review, I'll bet "The Hurt Locker" is going to be excellent. But when you say that the film doesn't have an opinion on the war in Iraq, that makes me worry. Have you noticed that a lot of filmmakers these days shy away from expressing what they really feel about politics? Here's a fantastic quote by Brian De Palma:
"I'm astounded there aren't more American political films. I'm amazed, when you can make movies for nothing, there are not people out there making these incredibly angry anti-war movies. How come?"
Agreed. After all, some of the greatest anti-war films are the most passionate. Renoir's "Grand Illusion", Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" and Cimino's "The Deer Hunter" are just a few highly invaluable films of this type.
To be sure, I do love some of the films that take a neutral stance on war (such as Lean's "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan")- but when the United States is stuck in a country like Iraq for two more years and maybe longer, this is hardly the time for neutrality. One must take a side. Is Bigelow worried about how the military is going to respond? Why won't she speak her mind on the issue?
Ebert: This story almost specifically does not call for an opinion about the war. One would have to be dragged in. This is a film about men doing their jobs. The men themselves I assume support the war. It is the movie that focuses on them and not their opinions--rightly so, I think.
Ebert: Why didn't I review that? I'm getting the DVD.
I wish I had seen it when I had the chance on television. I was probably too snobby, but also that it was going to be a gross-out fest. I'll watch it too when I see it. Horror is probably my favorite genre, and Halloween is definitely my favorite holiday; costume parties and parents legally allowed to scare the bejesus out of everyone.
And the movie was great. I like how it took its time. I don't like how a lot of movies feel the need to rush things. Let it play out how it needs to play out. And, by the way, a lot of times I'm watching a movie, I feel really disappointed when it cuts. I'm thinking, "just hold that shot a little more, we're in no hurry here." And like you said, the stakes are high. This wasn't a movie with a lot of long takes or anything, but I felt that it understood that doing a lot of rapid cuts does not equal suspense or, as in a lot of fighting movies, excitement and things like that. Like in the movie "Madame Sousatzka", which you gave four stars about an infamous piano teacher, when she would say, "let it play...just let it play"--a lot of times in the editing room, film makers don't let it play.
Jack Cerf's comment confuses me. He says that the movie is from a perspective akin to that of Wehrmacht's against the French Resistance. Then why laud the movie for being pro-soldier? And how can the troops then be depicted as restrained in the use of force? Is that an accurate description of what did in fact transpire? How restrained were the troops? Or is this propaganda? Still nagging at me is the the suspicion that Bigelow is not interested in the politics of war or the critique of war but in the depiction of the limit or exceptional experiences--that is, in the idea that war allows participants, especially those in a bomb defusion unit, to achieve a more intensely lived or primordial kind of experience. If so, then this is one step away from defending war as a mystical experience. Well I'll have to see the movie, but we'll need babysitting as we just had the first birthday party for our second child.
Jack Cerf's comment confuses me. He says that the movie is from a perspective akin to that of Wehrmacht's against the French Resistance. Then why laud the movie for being pro-soldier? And how can the troops then be depicted as restrained in the use of force? Is that an accurate description of what did in fact transpire? How restrained were the troops? Or is this propaganda? Still nagging at me is the the suspicion that Bigelow is not interested in the politics of war or the critique of war but in the depiction of the limit or exceptional experiences--that is, in the idea that war allows participants, especially those in a bomb defusion unit, to achieve a more intensely lived or primordial kind of experience. If so, then this is one step away from defending war as a mystical experience. Well I'll have to see the movie, but we'll need babysitting as we just had the first birthday party for our second child.
Ebert: I think he intended to contrast their behavior with the Wehrmacht, not compare it.
Ebert wrote: Where did you see it? I'm trying to get a feel for its distribution. It's still to open in most of the U.S.
Bless me Father, for I have sinned. :)
Curiosity got the better of me! But I swear to God, I'm going to pay Bigelow back next week when the film opens in Vancouver. I plan to buy a ticket for having enjoyed the film last night from the comfort of my sofa. I am weak, I know. :)
But it was perfect quality; all the credits were there at the end too. Not that I needed to check to confirm that James's house is actually located in Vancouver, Canada.
Yup; they shot up here. Oh the irony. You know the grocery store scene with the endless array of cereal boxes? There were Maple Leaf product on display and other known Canadian brands - that gave it away.
The film's Canadian distributor is "Maple Pictures" and I've since learned there's an advance screening in Vancouver at the Fifth Avenue Cinemas on July 16th, then it goes into wide release on July 17th.
As for American theaters, I gather it hits 50 selected cities this week and then goes into wide release on July 24th. http://www.cinematical.com/tag/the+hurt+locker/
A word about Anthony Mackie (Sergeant JT Sanborn) as I meant to praise him too.
I first saw this actor on an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent. It was years ago, but I remember his scenes. There's something special there, you know? The presence of skill and craft. And so I was delighted to see him cast in this - it's a perfect fit. He reminds me of how Sean Penn can say a thing with a look. He's got that quality, too. They all did, for that matter.
Christian Camargo (Colonel John Cambridge) is a familiar face to me thanks to HBO's Dexter. He played "Rudy" the ice truck killer who leaves horrific clues behind for Dexter! I'm happy to report he's just as good in this.
One of things I found so refreshing about this film, was it's austerity. True, a small budget accounts for it but only to a certain extent. For I gather it was always Bigelow's intention to focus on her characters and tell their stories; not showcase military hardware.
And so if in reality, three guys wouldn't be working on their own but rather accompanied by a larger unit - I don't care and people who do are missing the point for being nit-picky. The absence of said unit isn't a distraction, in fact if anything it achieves the exact opposite! So little is there distracting you, you end-up seeing everything now; the sight of a ragged cat limping across a street while trying not to get hit, able to send empathy shooting through your whole body. Poor kitty!
And such a perfect metaphor. There go all our characters on some level, eh?
Side note: one of my favorite scenes is when James sticks a straw in a fruit drink and holds it for Sanborn so he can get some liquids into him without having to take his eye off that sniper building. Here's a guy with so much hubris, he'll ride you, literally. But then he can turn around and put you first, drinking only after you have. And despite him having called you a redneck shortly after you'd met.
That's why I love this movie. The truest heroes are flawed on some level; that's what makes them human. Anything else is a recruitment poster, imo.
Ebert: Jim Emerson saw it today in Seattle. Packed house at the 4 p.m, screening. Only four empty seats. The per-screen average is through the roof.
Wait a week for the stories about how it's a "sleeper hit." You heard it here first.
I feel like I can always tell by checking out the hit counts on my website. For the last seven days, among all movies, Bruno is first, Hurt Locker second, Public Enemies third, Transformers fourth. This shows deep and widespread interest in a film still in limited distribution.
And no, these aren't all Chicago hits, where the movie opened Friday. Chicago is third--after New York and L.A.
I love to play with this hit-counting software. I got a little carried away after asking it to count the hits by city. There is a enormous tie for cities with one hit each. I only got down to 4,000. Here were the last five on that page:
3996. Fallbrook (California, United States) 1
3997. Riverview (New Brunswick, Canada) 1
3998. Hempstead (New York, United States) 1
3999. Dordrecht (Zuid-Holland, Netherlands) 1
4000. Kabul (Afghanistan, Afghanistan)
The funny thing is, I suspect I know who that reader in Afghanistan is. A U. S. Navy commander, although I will not use his name here. It's a wide web but a small world.
Talking of Alfred Hitchcock and explosions, I seem to remember reading something Hitchcock once said about creating tension and suspense in a film. I think what he said was that if you had a scene with two people at a table in a restaurant, and there's a suitcase with a time-bomb in it under the table, under no circumstances should that bomb go off. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Ebert: That's close to what he said.
The criminally underseen/underrated Strange Days is one of my favorite movies and I' really happy to see Kathryn Bigelow's talents being out to such good use again. This is the first excellent war film about the (second) Iraq war.
I saw Kathryn Bigelow's masterpiece "The Hurt Locker" in Chicago today and was completely blown away. I find this discussion of Bigelow's film particularly interesting considering the discussions regarding existentialism that have occured recently on this blog. While watching Bigelow's film, I came to the realization that soldiers are really the ultimte existentialists. Death, which we all know is waiting for us somewhere down the line, is incredibly immanent for men and women who face machine-gun fire and unexploded bombs on a daily basis. Each character in Bigelow's movie deals with death in a different way. James, of course, seems to rise above the knowledge of death with reckless abandonment in his obssessive commitment to his work. When Sanborn asks James how he deals with the knowledge that he could be blown up at any moment, the specialist simply replies “I try not to think about it.” Could there be a more concise summary of how some deal with the dilemma of human existence? I think James might sympathize with a character from Woody Allen’s "Hannah and Her Sisters" who at one point throws his hands in the air and says, “how the hell do I know why there were Nazis? … I can’t even get the can opener to work right!" My further thoughts about the film can be found here--http://framingcinema.blogspot.com/2009/07/movie-review-hurt-locker-2009-directed.html--if anyone's interested.
Thank you for recommending this film so highly: On the strength of your review I went and saw it last night. I can't remember a war movie I've appreciated as much as this one.
His souvenir collection really resonates with me: I have an idea that beyond the thrill of kill-or-be killed, there's real sense of validation when a soldier survives someone's best efforts to kill him. Defusing a bomb takes the narrative away from, "it was him or me, and I'm glad it was him" He still gets to enjoy the satisfaction of having survived, even though the guy who tried to kill him is still out there, ready to try again.
It's the same reason I liked Danger:UXB so much. These characters get to go out and risk their lives and be heroes, without the moral ambiguity of trying to kill people.
I've got one minor quibble with your review: I wish it had fewer spoilers. I would rather have found out for myself that his investigation of the kid's murder goes nowhere, or for that matter, I'd rather have learned in the theater that Guy Pierce's character doesn't make it. It was distracting when I was watching the film unfold, and in my head I was going, "Ah, here's the part that Ebert was talking about". In the usenet and BBSes and blogs that I've hung out in, it's a pretty standard practice to flag spoilers so that people who want to, can see a movie without knowing more than they want to about its content.
I hope more films like this one can get made, and we can have a more nuanced conversation about this whole problem of war.
Ebert: I think more spoilers are permitted, even expected, in a blog entry than a review proper, but you make a valid point. I can't make my point without discussing the death.
Just saw it here in Austin, TX - the Southern city that is lucky enough to get nearly all the films released in NY/LA. It was a packed auditorium for a Sunday afternoon. As I stood up and walked to the exit, I heard a man say out loud (presumably to another person, possibly to himself), "Well, f*ck, that was great."
My thoughts exactly.
I haven't read all the posts above mine, so pardon me if I am repeating previously mentioned comments, but I was floored by the level by which the characters "affected" me. It's a movie filled with familiar war movie situations, but my concern and understanding of the people in this movie amplified each of those moments to levels I rarely experience. Watching Eldridge pick up the helmet of Cambridge, the doctor, may go down as the most devastating movie moment of 2009 for me. Or maybe it'll be the time-bomb scene. Or the realization that Beckham was alive. (etc etc) They were characters so efficiently, yet deeply, written. I knew everything I wanted to know about them. And, like you mentioned, understood every action they took. It's great to see so many people praising this movie. I'm glad that it's finding success and hope that it is seen by all the pairs of eyes that have been fixated on Transformers 2 for the past few weeks. They deserve better.
And I'm glad you mentioned the EOD "inaccuracies" mentioned by those in the know. You offered the best explanation possible.
Ebert: Bigelow is reducing the film to only the necessary characters. I just viewed Howard Hawks' great "Rio Bravo" yesterday. All takes place in a Western town that is fully populated. Not one single line of dialogue by a non-major character.
As I see more and more press about this film, I am more and more elated about it, and I haven't even viewed it yet! This is largely because Bigelow is from San Carlos and eventually moved to San Francisco. I have lived in San Carlos from the 2nd grade onward (minus college), now being 24, and am a filmmaker since childhood.
It already was inspiring to see Brad Lewis, former Mayor of San Carlos, take part as producer in the Oscar-winning "Ratatouille." Now Bigelow's film, which I've even read could be worthy of another female directing Oscar nomination, is another great sign for my city and my career. Yay for Kathryn Bigelow!
I really must see this film.
Dear Mr. Ebert
Thank you very much for giving me your review. I decide what I have postponed for more than a year. I am just obtaining several works of Ki-duk Kim and will spend some time with them during this summer. Only movie I watched in his filmography is "Dream", his latest movie. There is no fish hook in that movie, but there is disturbing self-abuse for not falling into sleep. That made me cringe.
P.S.
to Marie Haws
In case of surveillance operation in "The Lives of Others", Some said one-man operation was impossible in reality. But who cares? The movie still works and resonates, just like "The Hurt Locker"
Ebert: Has there ever been a scene like the one with the fish hooks?
Dear Roger,
Having read one of the comments on the blog about the last two paragraphs in the review of The Hurt Locker I went back to refresh my memory and found that the paragraphs have been edited out (here I would use the term stricken). I agree that the paragraphs in question had struck me as uncharacteristically snarky and vitriol-dabbed (I'm trying out a new metaphor). I understand too that you consider it to be a mistake and a disservice to the movie but if I may remind you of a few words that you previously wrote: (paraphrased here) "I'd rather let the old reviews stand"
Those words were in response to how certain three and three and a half star movies (and Blade Runner) made it into your Great Movies archive. I think it is important to acknowledge our mistakes, but I'd rather see the two paragraphs in place with an afterword than them stricken. I think it would be better to that acknowledge the words were a mistake and let them stand than cut them.
Ebert: I have a footnote noting the revision. I do generally let reviews stand in their original form, but in this case I feel my off-topic rant was a disservice to the film itself.
Why do you feel like you are the lone voice of reason in the critic landscape. Maybe you should take out some ads in variety praising the film. All those opiates have affected your restraint. Just say its a darn good movie and move on. Feels like your turning this into another Citizen Kane.
Ebert: Your not correct about me being the "lone voice of reason." The current Tomatometer reading for "The Hurt Locker" is 88 fresh, 3 rotten.
Roger, as I have written on here before my son was injured in Iraq by an IED which hit his Humvee, the way the soldiers tell it there is never just one IED. In his case they were heading to the Iraqi Plice where they were training the police ( in fact they were in sight of the police station when their convoy hit the first. While waiting for a squad like this one to come out they tried to get the civilians out of the way, that's when the second one hit aimed right at the turret of the HUMvee where my son's 20 year old gunner was instantly killed. The vehicle was totally demolished and my son was wrenched around and hit by schrapnel in the head (he had personally purchased out of his own money $300 super hard metal goggles (not given out by the Army but they purchased them on their own) which is what saved his life. After he was pulled out of the wreckage they were hit by fire and he had to fire fight his way out and into another vehicle which rushed him to the nearest FOB (forward operating base)and helicoptered to 3 hospitals in Baghdad and the to Balad AFB and finally Landstuhl Germany AMC and then to a three month stay at Walter Reed. The gist of this is the first thing he said when he became coherent after many days was that he wanted to go back to his unit (he is a SGT) and finish the job....so the person who says war makes people so close that they would die for each other is so true....and I have to say I am so proud of his service and all of our troops who have done more for our country in their short lifetimes then most grown men do in the whole lifetimes. He still has a piece of shrapnel in his head but last Wednesday (July 8) threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the Red Sox Oakland game at FENWAY PARK!
Ebert: I am so relieved his story has a happy ending. If you see the film, I hope that like me you will be moved and impressed by the job these men do.
By Jonathan on July 12, 2009 10:34 PM: Talking of Alfred Hitchcock and explosions, I seem to remember reading something Hitchcock once said about creating tension and suspense in a film. I think what he said was that if you had a scene with two people at a table in a restaurant, and there's a suitcase with a time-bomb in it under the table, under no circumstances should that bomb go off. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Ebert: That's close to what he said.
That's strange; I always thought Hitchcock said the opposite: that you had to let the bomb go off. It looks like I'm wrong, but I think Hitchcock is, too (gasp). After all that buildup, if the bomb doesn't go off, the audience is relieved--pleased--but you run the risk of losing their trust. It's a gag you can pull only once: Next time, the audience won't expect the bomb to go off. If it does, all you get is surprise, not suspense. And they'll stop paying attention to the suspense scenes, since the film can't be trusted to reward the audience's attention. All you get are surprises--which in the end are boring.
Hitchcock killed the child holding the bomb in Sabotage--and I've read he regretted it. I hope it's simply because everyone was outraged that he kills a child because, while the scene is dismaying, it reaches the only logical conclusion, and so the moment is more tragic than simply shocking.
I could be wrong.
Ebert: Whet he said was, if the bomb explodes, that's action. If it doesn't explode, that's suspense.
Ebert: Not any with the bomb maker as the protagonist.
You forgot about Iron Man.
Here's the funny thing I always have thought of Bigelow as director who's fascinated with water (just counted that 3 out her 8 films has water as major part of them). She might be the best directors along with Petersen to tack water subjects so well, but her she is directing a film in desert.
PS The tension Petersen created just with the sound of the beeping fathometer (just leard a new word) is so chilling that it gives me chills even when I'm writing right now.
To Seongyong Cho:
I've heard that Kim Ki-duk isn't that popular Korea. Is it true? For me Kim Ki-duk is the first name that comes in mind when speaking about Korean cinema.
I had the good fortune to interview Bigelow in Chicago when I reviewed movies for my college newspaper. I attended a college press junket for her film Blue Steel. I was flown to Chicago, shown the film in a screening room, and then got to meet Bigelow and the movie's star, Jamie Lee Curtis. Bigelow was erudite and spoke eloquently about the psychology of the film. Curtis was hilarious and incredibly foul-mouthed.
I gave Blue Steel a positive review, which I am now convinced was more a result of being so excited about the plane trip and the access to a "real" filmmaker and bona fide movie star. It was a lot to throw on a 19-year-old movie buff.
Do they still do those kinds of junkets? Do you recall a time in your career, Roger, when access to the "stars" of a film nudged you to write a favorable review?
"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."
I'm sure that's the case. With no draft, and capacity stretched to the limit in two wars, why wouldn't the military aid in trying to make war-like-things look fun?
Ebert: You're now in Saudi Arabia? Always thought of you as being in the Philippines.
Though I am a Philippine citizen, I have been living the last four years in Malaysia with my family (coming home often for the bigger family). I just recently became a global financial crisis "stat."
Luckily in my line of work (Consultancy), I was able to find a great job in Al Jubail (Saudi Arabia's largest industrial city), but of course at the expense of being away from my wife, my child, and from my movies.
Saudi Arabia isn't as bad as they say it is. Wait. Yes it is. But there isn't a better place in the world to do hard work and save up (inexpensive food, even cheaper utility costs, no taxes, and no vices). I will have to settle daily for Skype video chats, video games, and tamer fair sold on cable/DVD shops or "other" means.
But at the least I can thank God your word isn't banned here. You're still my guide and my giggles. If they sell THE HURT LOCKER as an action film, they're sure to show it next door in Bahrain.
I think Full Metal Jacket is less about Vietnam per se than about the culture of killing, and what the indoctrination into killing does to people.( Similarly, Apocalypse Now is part Heart Of Darkness and part "We have met the enemy and he is us", and The Deer Hunter is about how the world takes away the culture of your youth and the different ways you can't get it back.) The soldiers' irreverent comments in the interview and over their dead buddies sound like whistling past the graveyard to me. Joker's feelings at the climax in the ruined building are ambiguous, to say the least. And at the end, "I am in a world of shit, yes, but I am alive, and I am not afraid" is a cry from hell, and the visual supports that.
As far as the sexual subtext goes, in view of the identity of the sniper, the way the sniper's point of view is used gives the scene even more emotional freight in retrospect than it has while watching for the first time.
As I recall, Gene Siskel liked the movie.
Your reference to the film "Frenzy" and its scene in which the camera pulls slowly down the stairs and out of the house is timely. I recently saw Adrian Caetano's "Chronicle of an Escape" for the first time, which uses the exact same technique.
After initially showing the start of a torture sequence, when a scene arrives leading up to the next political prisoner's turn to be brutalized, the camera backs away and down the stairs, through the front room of the house. It's a great film, and this is just one example of how it uses build up and suspense perfectly.
There are actually no other graphic scenes of torture at all, simply the aftermath of weak, broken men crumpled on the floor of their room afterward, or the way in which initially defiant characters come to desperately display obedience (one stomach-turning moment involves the group of prisoners at Christmas, given a cup of whine by the head guard, frantically expressing choruses of "thank you" and even toasting with the guard). Meanwhile, their physical conditions deteriorate until the film sometimes makes it (intentionally) hard to distinguish between them as they argue and discuss escape versus obedience (in the sad, desperate hope of being released if only they can please their captives enough).
I wouldn't even have thought of the comparison to "Frenzy" if I hadn't read it here so recently, despite how overt the reference is.
Ebert: Your not correct about me being the "lone voice of reason." The current Tomatometer reading for "The Hurt Locker" is 88 fresh, 3 rotten.
Your? YOUR??? Didn't you correct somebody on this a week ago? And how long have you been in the newspaper business?
Ebert: I think you will find that the reader post used "your" in that way. Do you think perhaps I was getting in a little dig?
Your welcome.
Roger- I appreciate this thread very much. Hurt Locker is thus far the best movie I've seen in 2009. And it's terrific that people are talking energetically about it.
However, I also appreciate that you linked to your 1995 review of Strange Days, which is an under appreciated masterpiece.
After re-reading your review I'm stunned I never saw the parallels between Strange Days and Michael Powell's Peeping Tom. Another layer.
I wish Kathryn Bigelow made movies more often!
PS- I also appreciate the revised version of your Hurt Locker review. Like the movie, much stronger for sticking so intently on its topic!
Shane
Roger - I have been in the theatrical exhibition business since 1964, I turned 60 last Friday the 10th. I've seen many changes in movies over that period of time. At this point in my career, I'm bored, disgusted and flat out angry over the putrid crap being foisted on the movie going public.
I started out in this business when ALL movies had a story to tell - like Ralph Nelson's "Lilies of the Field" to David Lean's "Dr. Zhivago" Small budget to large - they told stories, with developed characters and plot lines. And they didn't rely on a computer to do it, nor did many have TV assist so they could see what they filmed immediately. The creators of that era relied on their talent and GUT instinct.
Now, forget it. We get comic books disguised as movies. Computer imagery instead of filmed, I repeat, FILMED vistas and settings. Gibberish for dialogue, smeary digital "photography", bombastic music scores that mean nothing to the action being presented. And Editing? Editors are there to put the pieces together to tell the story, not give us snippets of a scene and bam we're on to the next few precious frames.
And finally we get to those elite few who call themselves "Directors". If anyone phrase will send me running for the hills its: A MICHAEL BAY FILM. Is this person delusional? A hack by any other name is still MICHAEL BAY, or any of the cretins who "directed" the SAW franchise.
Thank you for letting me rant.
Ebert: The situation has grown desperate for those in areas at the mercy of mass distribution.
Inaccuracies in the depiction of soldiers? Only God can imagine what kind of "accuracy" we'll see in the G.I. Joe film...
I'm glad to see something new from Kathryn Bigelow. I've never been disappointed. I went back and rented Blue Steel after Buzz and Tony called it out in their review of Point Break. Someone recommended Near Dark to me for over 15 years before I finally remembered and found it. She directed three of my favorite Homicide episodes. If The Hurt Locker indeed does not wrap itself up with the politics of the war itself, I will be neither surprised nor disappointed. The pattern I've seen in her work is to tell this story about these characters, and stay away from what's not relevant to the story. It doesn't sound like politics is relevant.
How fortunate am I? AMC's La Jolla Village Square has a showing in 45 minutes, ten minutes from my office.
I would more properly give credit to Evan Wright, the Rolling Stone writer you later mention whose book can be found here. I mentioned the book to a film/interactive-theater producer with whom I graduated college in a conversation about possible cinematic material I'd read recently (this was back in mid-to-late '06). Needless to say, at the time, I was unaware that it was already in development at HBO. Bummer.
I can appreciate the U.S. military's reluctance to get involved with 'The Hurt Locker' (which sounds like a great movie, by the way) given that the previous 47 films about the Iraq war are almost uniformly anti-American.
The good news, of course, is that they had a combined cumulative gross of $37.52.
ps- I am exaggerating slightly.
Dear Roger, I went downtown today to see The Hurt Locker which is so far playing at only one Toronto theatre. I feel proud to now be a part of the movie distribution solution.
Catherine Bigelow has made a classic war movie. The deadlines provided by bomb diffusion give Hurt Locker a highly unified feeling. It’s clear what the characters are doing and that means there’s room in the story to deliver the unexpected and admire how the characters process new information in the combat situations. The movie contained not one single recapitulation scene, nor did it require one. To me that’s a dazzling accomplishment and it made me think, at first, that Hurt Locker might be suitably compared to Lawrence of Arabia, another war movie with an excellent screenplay. Staff Sergeant James is like Lawrence in being a strong stubborn leader but the comparison won’t go much further. Lawrence used maps, moved around, moved people around, and he loved Arabia. William has a map but playing commander is none of his business and he hates Iraq. The Bekham subplot will encourage comparison with Lawrence of Arabia anyways, which is fine.
With his broken marriage and addiction to war missions James’s cinematic ancestor is, alas, Capt. Ben Willard from Apocalypse Now. The species has evolved since 1979. Willard spends days tracking down his enemy, James seems to be able to draw his out of their hiding places. Hurt Locker doesn’t approach Apocalypse Now in bravado but no matter, America in 2009 doesn’t need loud reminding that it has been at war. Apocalypse Now was a cinematic branding iron, a searing illustration about what war is. Hurt Locker has moved past that, on to the question of who our soldiers are.
We see the soldiers park their humvees, they explore the intersection and wait around by sitting on a porch, the way urbanites do. They can also evacuate an area, shoot out a rooftop, and arrest their enemies. They know just what they’re doing. Nobody expects an answer to the “why” question to materialize and that doesn’t distract them much. James is clearly an expert at his job. According to research it takes ten years to achieve expertise but less time if one is under pressure. After eight years at war there’s probably a lot of real Sgt. James’s out there in America. The movie is pure business; it seemed to me even like sergeant J.T. was giving hints about when things were straying from verisimilitude. It all begs the question if smart soldiers have all the work they can handle in the field then who’s left playing with the maps?
The movie’s ending is devised to make us wonder what’s next for our military professionals. When Sgt. James went back home I was ready for the show to be over, but then he gives that gut wrenching speech to his son and goes back to war. It was like the movie had two different endings. Also we don’t see the protagonist go through a catastrophic downfall (although his mental experience is just such as it would have been if he had) and that maintains our sympathies. Americans are stressed out about the War, I think this movie can help them relax and decide what’s next.
It would be cool if you devoted a whole column sometime on the issues of financing and particularly distribution. Maybe I'm wrong,but I seem to sense one building. Remembered Tarrantino's response when asked something similar about how he chose to release his films at Cannes. "I make movies for Planet Earth not Planet Hollywood." Now that's appropriate to this blog-truly a planet earth forum. Particularly curious how this film is viewed in other parts of the world. None of us are totally immune to the horror at this film's core. 9/11/2001 could be described as my country's ultimate hurt locker.
Anyway I do recall a similar buzz when No Country for Old Men was released. Like The Hurt Locker, saw it the day it opened-in "limited release." Even though the old 'word of mouth' routine was almost uniformly excellent, I was surprised by the weekly box results, how slowly it seemed to grow an audience.. kept waiting for it to go through the roof, but it never really did. Ultimately it finished with a somewhat lackluster $75 million domestic,which based on the quality of the product, and the fact it garnered Best Picture, among many other awards, the final totals seemed lacking. True $75 mil ain't chump change,as I remember someone pointed out when citing NCFOM as an example of successful independent distribution. True, the great Syriana and Pan's Labyrinth did gross a lot less, at least domestically.
But I still say that this is a bunch of horse twaddle ,since NCFOM still finished only 36th on the yearly money list, $23 million behind the year's worst movie, the bucket list. Maybe The Hurt Locker will go ballistic, I surely hope so. Still it didn't crack the top 12 in earnings last week. Will keep my fingers crossed.
Finally Ms. Bigelow noted in the Charlie Rose interview that she demanded and got total creative freedom. Final cut. No interference. "It was what she wanted to do from beginning to end." Thank god. This trait she shares with both the Coen brothers and, of course, Tarrantino. Can't help but think that this my way or the highway attitude does not affect how such projects are financed and ultimately distributed, if funded at all. Surely there are myriad elements at play on financing and distributing any film, which is why so few do get made annually. I am just happy that, particularly those I mentioned, somehow get away with it.Would sure welcome your perspective on all this sometime, Roger,if you think it an appropriate topic. Anyone else feel the same?
Ebert: I dunno. It seems to me Hollywood has broken faith with the grown-up audience and focused on guaranteed marketing vehicles. Everyone is afraid for their jobs. The solution seems to be, use money to pound moviegoers into submission to the product you dictate for them.
In my favorite scene William throws a smoke grenade generating a metaphorical Fog Of War.
"What's that for?" asks Sanborn.
"It's a diversion." says James
"From what?" the puzzled Sanborn replies.
"Public Enemies third,"
Aha! You mentioned Public Enemies here! This gives me the feeble excuse to post here the email I instead sent to the Answer Man, even though it really wasn't a question. (Have you considered the possibility of having occasional Open Threads here at your blog, for readers to bring up topics you haven't initiated? Or would that be the way to madness, and yet thousands more comments you couldn't find time to read?)
Anyway, this, about your interview with Michael Mann on Public Enemies: Roger, in your piece, here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090626/PEOPLE/906269998/1023
You write this: "The FBI was totally cooperative with us; they had no sensitivity about Hoover at all, zero. And in Washington they said, “is there anything else you’d like?” And I said, yeah, pull out the Melvin Purvis file. They said sure, and they went to get the file. There’s one sheet of paper in it. One sheet of paper. His employment application. That was it. And they were stunned. And it was like Stalin erasing all these pictures of the politburo with Trotsky before Stalin and Trotsky been erased? So, same thing. Hoover erased Melvin Purvis."
Well, something is extremely wrong here, whether at the FBI, or with Mann's vaunted research. See the two PDFs here of the FBI's FOIA files on Purvis: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/purvis.htm
Mann was just wrong. And apparently needs to hire me as an internet researcher. :-)
-----
On Kathryn Bigelow, I'd like to also point out that she directed three episodes of the extremely excellent tv show, "Homicide: Life on the Street," which was based on the nonfiction book by David Simon, the brilliant creator of The Wire, and where he got his tv start. I do hope you've managed to make time to watch The Wire, or you've missed one of the best cinematic experiences ever created in America!
Ebert: There does seem to be a contradiction to Mann's statement.
That settles it, I'm a-going. It'll be here in a week or so. I've jiggle-scrolled past the spoilers for that, thanks for the warnings.
Roger? Marie? Do you mean you've both been to a cafe Gran Chiogga in Venice and sketched the musicians? Do you know that my wife sketches and she's on her way to Venice? And that she misses my mighty coffee, which only Tamil or Venice might match? I'll e-mail her now and have her look out for that, if I've understood correctly. Does the rate of coincidences go up when it's a good movie under discussion?
Well, them furriners will learn to abuse English properly in due time. I'm teaching one to do that now... as soon as he finishes learning to abuse British English. They all need to know that "blowed up real good" isn't a mistake, but don't use it in a terrorist attack report.
Aw, don't be all humble just to shut those sanctimonious high noses up for getting on your case about spending precious time bitching about a crummy movie. The righteous are always justly outnumbered by the amused. Funiculi, funicula.
Ebert: Have your wife look in on Lino's for a reasonably-priced traditional meal. I describe it here, along with a photo:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/01/theres_a_small_cafe.html
"When we merely want to see stuff blowed up real good in a movie..." Nice to see a great bit from SCTV (John Candy and Joe Flaherty as pyrotechnic-crazed hillbillies) remaining relevant 30 years later.
I'm really curious to see this film now. The way that Sgt. James is described reminds me somewhat of the cool, detached professionalism of the American sniper from "Saving Private Ryan," quoting Bible verse as he takes aim with his weapon. I remember being fascinated with that character, and wishing the movie could have delved deeper into what made this person click. This feature sounds like it might provide me with some answers.
I watched "The Hurt Locker" again, and the experience was just as rich albeit in a different way. For starters, I was able to breathe where I had struggled to before - the suspense no longer on the verge of out-right killing me, and consequently I was free to explore different avenues of thought this time around.
I must say, I'm really liking Boal's script! It's so streamlined and devoid of waste for having been written by a journalist who'd actually been to Iraq etc.
Mention was made of the politics of war, some asking why it doesn't seem to be taking a position? Having seen it twice now, I actually think it makes a huge anti-war statement - it just goes about it differently by allowing the truth of war speak for itself.
"Inside The Hurt Locker" Mark Boal interview, New Yorker Magazine:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/07/inside-the-hurt-locker.html
"Journalistically, it was a good story, about guys who had the most dangerous job in the world who spent their previous rotations sitting on a base in Kosovo and drinking beer. And now they were getting shot at and there was a $25,000 price on their heads. They were the M.V.P.s of war all of a sudden. So I wrote that piece, and I felt like there could be a movie in it.
Also, when I was over there in Baghdad in 2004, I was struck by how little of the war I had been able to grasp from America. I had read whatever there was to read, and I followed it religiously on TV and on the Internet, and yet I realized when I got to Baghdad that I didn’t have a good sense of what the war was like. For someone who was an avid consumer of media, it was still pretty abstract, in a way that the Vietnam War — which I didn’t live through — was not, because I had seen movies like “Apocalypse Now” and “Platoon” and “The Deer Hunter” that put the viewer in these combat situations. I realized if there was some way to replicate the environment of the war, even on a really basic level, just the sights and the sounds, that would be revelatory to people.
As time went on, I thought the bomb squad would become more of a story, and it never did. It didn’t seem unrealistic to think of the movie as a piece of journalism as well as a piece of cinema; it would be showing people an aspect of the war that they weren’t seeing on the news.
Politically, I didn’t want anyone in “The Hurt Locker” standing up and giving speeches; I find that really pierces tension and reality. Whatever your political point of view, if you’re on the bomb squad, you’re probably not thinking about the geopolitics of oil when you’re standing over a bomb. You might have a detailed policy discussion four hours later, and I had plenty of those conversations — the guys from the bomb squad have a sort of insider’s view of geopolitics — but my job was to show what it was like, not necessarily to convey my personal attitude about the war. And that was a different approach than *Paul’s, even though we might have similar aims." - Mark Boal
(NOTE: *refers to Paul Haggis who wrote “In the Valley of Elah”.)
So there ya go! That's the story they wanted to tell. And in striving to convey it as honestly as possible, imo it both honors the courage it takes to be with an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (E.O.D.) while showing the human cost of war - but without making a statement about it at the expense of that courage.
Ie: a war can be wrong, but you no "less brave" while fighting in it.
And conversely, no more perfect a person for having shown that courage. In this way, the film doesn't belittle its heroes, but nor does it turn them into cartoons the U.S. Military can appropriate; they're too flawed aka human for that.
I think that's why the film is going to do really well; it tells the truth and entertains you with it but in a way that doesn't insult anyone; here or over there.
chance the gardener! ha! another wonderful film from my childhood and underrated. another from that time is my favorite year.
as for your displeasure with the stars of a rating system, try using my take. i have a two-star system with explanations instead of just 1, 2, and 3.
0 stars - not worth seeing
1 star - worth seeing once
2 stars - worth buying to see again
Saw it last night. Watching it, I felt as if I was being asked to give something (whatever it was) from my side, and because the filmmakers made such a good case for themselves I was able to take a risk with the characters, knowing that I would get something much better in return. I guess that’s one of the thing we can learn from great storytelling, the importante of asking the audience to also take a risk. =)
BTW: Thank you, Mr Ebert, for taking such a passionate stand this kind of filmmaking.
i just watched the first 9 minutes.
i have to say that it deeply unsettled me.
kind of like David Lynch's inland empire did.
but in a completely separate way.
i don't know if i'll be able to handle a film like this.
Funny thing about this film is I actually have a cousin of mine of the same age as me (25) and was also a bomb diffuser guy in Iraq. The big similarity for me was that they both love the job. My cousin describes the experience of working on these bombs as "a worthy challenge." And he also loves that every day there was always something new to do that required one to really use all their mental capacities to diffuse these bombs especially under pressure from enemy combatants.
I found that a little shocking because I just assumed he wouldn't like it so much, do to being in a war with the high possibility of dying and all of that. Maybe its that he's Irish and as you know, all Irish people are nuts, lol, except me who wouldn't even want to hold a gun let alone diffuse a bomb in the middle of a war.
Well I haven't seen the movie yet, but after reading this review and hearing a lot of praise, I'm going to have to get out there and watch it--maybe this weekend. I'm going to look and see how much this James guy is similar to my cousin.
"Ebert: I think you will find that the reader post used "your" in that way. Do you think perhaps I was getting in a little dig?
Your welcome."
It wasn't "You're movie sucks," you'll recall,
A news guy knows his way around words, after all.
Roger was in on the joke,
for those dim-witted folk,
Find a grammar hotline--make a call.
Sorry I usually "sign" my comments and forgot to (the one that mentions the SCTV bit and the sniper from "Saving Private Ryan"). Also, real quick, what an excellent choice for a first novel to read ("Huck Finn"). Had to read that in junior high for a class assignment and loved it anyway. The king and the duke have to be one of the most colorful characters ever realized in fiction. The comments you leave by some of your readers' posts are like a generous second helping of dessert. Thank you for the welcome respite from my porn-surfing (half-kidding, of course).
To RB
Unfortunately, it is true. Probably that is why I had not been exposed to his works for years. His movies were released in art house theaters in Seoul except few cases. Last year, his latest work "Dream" was released in many theaters due to well-known actors. It was admired by critics and me, but not so much by audience. Some self-abuse sequence elicited laughter from audience. I don't know whether this was unintentional laughter or laughter hiding uneasiness. I think the movie does not have to explain that much, but I like its weirdness and beauty.
"Nothing is more barbarous than war.Nothing is more cruel.And yet the war dragged on.
Nothing is more pitiful than a nation swept along by fools"...Daisaku Ikeda
Opening sentences of the novel "The Human Revolution"
yes there's spoilers in here...
Two aspects in The Hurt Locker that I really liked were the editing and the casting. While I was watching it I kept thinking that this would be the kind of movie to show in classes/lectures/etc. to give people an idea of how effective the process is.
Look at the scene where James has to disarm the car bomb at the UN building. There's plenty of things going on all at once (the initial attack on the car, James and Sanborn's arguing, James going through the car to disarm, etc.) while showing the situation around them getting worse. I never realized how urgent the situations were until I noticed how as time went on there were more spectators showing up from their apartment balconies. It was really amazing to see how all these different events going on were able to be put together in a really fluid way while ramping up the tension at the same time. Another good example is towards the end when, after the final bomb disarming sequence, there's that sudden cut to the grocery store aisles. It's a really jarring shift, but an excellent way to get across just how hard it is to make the transition between 'over here' and 'over there.'
The casting doesn't necessarily stand up to the editing but I thought that it was a very clever touch. Putting actors like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, David Morse and Evangeline Lily in these small roles has its own subtle way of making the disarming sequences become more intense to watch. Killing off some of these people minutes after they introduce themselves helped create that atmosphere of all bets being off when it came to who lives or dies. Putting lesser known actors in the main roles also helped increase that effect, if the movie is willing to kill off friggin' Voldemort then why not them?
When it comes to the realism aspect being criticized, I can understand it. The movie's style gives off a realistic/docu feeling but I didn't really mind those issues for two reasons. The first was that, for the most part, in the movie's own world everything came off as plausible. James' crazy actions would probably get him kicked out of the EOD immediately in the real world, but in THL the whole chain of command aspect with Sanborn/Eldridge along with their superiors congratulating James' work made me believe that he was able to get away with it. Might not work for other people but it worked for me.
To me the movie was trying to get across the feeling of dread and tension that comes with being in the EOD or just generally being a soldier. That feeling of non-stop tension and thinking that death could happen at any second was throughout this movie. There's a few lighter moments but almost all the time it's intensity piled on as much as possible. I think that The Hurt Locker did an excellent job pulling off that feeling which is something I'd find a lot more important with filmmaking than making sure the characters follow the proper protocol down to the letter.
I saw "The Hurt Locker" this past weekend. (Here in L.A. it's playing at a handful of theaters, though not the local multiplex yet.) I found it fascinating, well made, and I wish more films were half as good.
The focus of the story is on the human experience of war in our times. It doesn't cover the politics of why the U.S. is in Iraq, but I wouldn't call it an apolitical film. Instead, it may be a film that people of different political stripes may like for very different reasons. The soldiers are no doubt brave and noble (also, altogether human), sacrificing more than anyone should ever ask for a heroic purpose. Yet war is hell, a truth more terrible than the cliche. There's a pointlessness to the fighting and the heroics. Whether you think the war is just and necessary, or you think we never should have gone, you may find plenty in the movie to support your belief.
Just now, I'm reminded of Fitzgerald's line: "Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." That might not be the most apt description for this particular film, but it gets close. The hero who is so hooked on playing the hero while something irretrievable is lost. William James (there's a name for you) is an American prototype, and I can't help but think that his fate is our fate too. This country just can't quit war, no matter the cost.
It's great to have this discussion about "The Hurt Locker." For another opinion, you may want to check out this post at a non-movie site from a photojournalist named Chris Hondros, who has spent a lot of time in Iraq. In his words: "It might be the best Iraq movie out so far, but that’s not saying much." Hondros is troubled by some elements of the story that he says defy logic, and he may be right about the details, though the question of whether those details are crucial or not is another matter. As I said in response, it's a fictional drama, not a documentary, and I believe there's a different standard involved, and war movies that Hondros finds superior to "The Hurt Locker" are not better because they are more accurate -- they take liberties too -- but earlier wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) were not his experience, so it's easier not to notice.
This is my first comment at this site, but I've been an avid reader for some time. I find the writing and commentary among your best work anywhere, Roger, and the posts from your readers especially thoughtful.
Ebert: If a movie finds an underlying truth, I'm permissive about the means it takes to get there. Perfect factual accuracy is elusive and even distracting. As I'm fond of saying: Don't seek out a professional archeologist for a review of Indiana Jones.
I saw "The Hurt Locker" this past weekend. (Here in L.A. it's playing at a handful of theaters, though not the local multiplex yet.) I found it fascinating, well made, and I wish more films were half as good.
The focus of the story is on the human experience of war in our times. It doesn't cover the politics of why the U.S. is in Iraq, but I wouldn't call it an apolitical film. Instead, it may be a film that people of different political stripes may like for very different reasons. The soldiers are no doubt brave and noble (also, altogether human), sacrificing more than anyone should ever ask for a heroic purpose. Yet war is hell, a truth more terrible than the cliche. There's a pointlessness to the fighting and the heroics. Whether you think the war is just and necessary, or you think we never should have gone, you may find plenty in the movie to support your belief.
Just now, I'm reminded of Fitzgerald's line: "Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy." That might not be the most apt description for this particular film, but it gets close. The hero who is so hooked on playing the hero while something irretrievable is lost. William James (there's a name for you) is an American prototype, and I can't help but think that his fate is our fate too. This country just can't quit war, no matter the cost.
It's great to have this discussion about "The Hurt Locker." For another opinion, you may want to check out this post at a non-movie site from a photojournalist named Chris Hondros, who has spent a lot of time in Iraq. In his words: "It might be the best Iraq movie out so far, but that’s not saying much." Hondros is troubled by some elements of the story that he says defy logic, and he may be right about the details, though the question of whether those details are crucial or not is another matter. As I said in response, it's a fictional drama, not a documentary, and I believe there's a different standard involved, and war movies that Hondros finds superior to "The Hurt Locker" are not better because they are more accurate -- they take liberties too -- but they were about earlier wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) of which he has no firsthand experience, thus easier to accept their stories for what they are.
This is my first comment at this site, but I've been an avid reader for some time. I find the writing and commentary among your best work anywhere, Roger, and the posts from your readers especially thoughtful.
Reminds me of Mick Jones' early job; the Clash guitarist worked briefly as a demolitions man for the police dept. He left the gig for a safer avocation--punk rock.
("I hate the army and I hate the RAF
I don’t wanna go fighting in the tropical heat
I hate the civil service rules
And I won’t open letter bombs for you"
--"Career Opportunities")
Ebert: Has there ever been a scene like the one with the fish hooks?
Well I think there is, a fish tank scene from Kim Ki-duk's "Coastguard". I even feel that it could be homage to Hitchcock's shower scene.
Tom Dark wrote on July 13, 2009 9:49 PM - "Roger? Marie? Do you mean you've both been to a cafe Gran Chiogga in Venice and sketched the musicians? Do you know that my wife sketches and she's on her way to Venice? And that she misses my mighty coffee, which only Tamil or Venice might match? I'll e-mail her now and have her look out for that, if I've understood correctly. Does the rate of coincidences go up when it's a good movie under discussion?"
Yes, yes it does go up, Tom. :)
FYI: tell you wife to pronounce "Chioggia" - key-oja. In Italian, the letters "ch" make a hard "k" sound. That's in case she gets temporarily lost (Venice is a delightful labyrinth after all) and needs to ask for directions.
Left = sinistra
Right - destra
Also, under absolutely no circumstances should she leave the city without eating some Venetian gelato. I'm afraid I have to insist upon that, Tom. For it's considered really bad luck if you don't. Yeah, that's it, scary bad luck, so, um, she HAS to eat it. :)
And not just any gelato, but THIS one:
"La Boutique del Gelato" - best gelato ever! They give you HUGE scoops and it's not expensive compared to others; it's where Venetians go. It's right next to Hotel Da Bruno on the corner of Salizada San Lio and Calle Paradiso, near Campo Santa Maria di Formosa. Here's the hotel website, which has a really good location map in PDF!
http://www.hoteldabruno.com/
What has this to do with "The Hurt Locker" some may be asking? And wondering how on earth I'd ever be able to connect the two..?
Well, the shop is located in Venice Italy, and Venetian merchants used to do a lot of business in the Middle East back in the day, and The Hurt Locker takes place in Iraq, and that's the Middle East.
Ta-da! It's still all connected.
P.S. where are your sketches, Roger? Come on, show and tell! :)
"Coming this week: My review of Dead Snow, a Norwegian film about a bloodthirsty Nazi zombie ski patrol."
I'll have to wait to read your reivew to answer this question (I years ago read every single review you've ever put online, as Jim Emerson or whomever got them online, because I've always been a fan of your writing, over the many years I followed them in newspapers, and having started with an awareness of your brief history in sf fandom; a check of via Google shows written on my blog over 37 entries on your writings over the past 8 years I've been blogging; I continue to read each piece of writing you have Jim put on your website, no matter than I never end up seeing but about one out of fifteen of every film reviewed), but: "bloodthirsty" and "zombies"?
I thought zombies wanted brraaaaaiiiinns, whereas it was vampires who wanted blood. What, are these guys two-fers?
Isn't that being a little greedy? I do hope Abbott and Costello don't also show up. Or at least that they don't also stumble across some mummies and werewolves, but only mummies and daddies.)
(I can accept that they're Nazis, too, because why shouldn't either zombies or vampires be entitled to some politics, and if they have any, why shouldn't they be as repellent as imaginable? That seems only reasonable.)
The thought also crosses my mind that "bloodthirsty Nazi zombies" could be an allegory for contemporary big-studio development executives, who simultaneously want to deprive us of our money (blood) and our brains, while lacking souls, and having an ideology that supports violence and lebensraum for their blockbusters above all else, while attempting to conquer the small independent studios to their east and west.
Though probably not. Often I get ahead of myself, and overthink; just a thought.
But I'll wait for your review, and hopes it clarifies.
Someone named "Roy" writes: "Didn't you correct somebody on this a week ago? And how long have you been in the newspaper business?"
I'd also like to point out, regardless of my believing Roger that he was being intentionally snarky, that after several decades of working on and off (more off than on, but never mind) in professional book and magazine publishing, that I can testify, as anyone and everyone who has ever worked in professional publishing and journalism can, that there isn't a professional writer, no matter how much of a genius, who has never made a typo, or an occasional solecism. Tempting as it obviously is to pick on a Famous Professional Writer, it's really rather a cheap shot, unless it's a funny typo to pick out, in which case it's fair game!
This is why editors exist, and particularly copy editors, and even they have been known to make errors, from time to time. It goes with being human.
Neither, lastly, is Roger obligated to respond to anyone here: avoiding taking cheap shots at him would be one of the more thoughtful gifts to return to him for his extreme generosity in being so responsive.
Ebert: To be fair, these are Nazis who become zombies, not zombies who become Nazis. I always try to be fair, especially to zombies.
Paul J. Marasa writes: "That's strange; I always thought Hitchcock said the opposite: that you had to let the bomb go off."
Perhaps Mr. Marasa is thinking instead of Anton Chekhov's famous dicta that "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there"?
Roger, you also write above: "This is a film about men doing their jobs. The men themselves I assume support the war."
I have not yet seen The Hurt Locker (but most certainly eventually will), but unless each and every soldier shown is shown making such a statement, I doubt that's a safe assumption; my (limited) experience with soldiers who have fought in Iraq -- including a good friend who died there, sniped -- was that their opinions of the wisdom of the war in fact varied considerably, and particularly over time. Soldiers fight to support the soldier to the left of them, and the soldier to the right of them, first, and their squad second, and their platoon third, and at a higher level, because of a general sense of duty and honor, and so on; fighting for specific political reasons, with some exceptions, tends to be way down their personal hierarchy of reasons, or necessarily among their beliefs at all.
Please forgive me for posting a link to the final letter my friend, Major Andrew Olmsted, wrote to be published if he were killed; I still can't read it without crying, as has been the reaction of many, although it's been a year and a half now. (He quotes from some favorite movies and tv shows, incidentally.) He writes, among other things, of why he went to Iraq, and a primary reason he went, regardless of his evolving opinions of the wisdom of the war, was that if he didn't go, someone else would have had to go in his place, and in his view, that simply would have been wrong, and not something he could have lived with. (I know how much reading you have to do, but I hope you might find time to read his letter.)
And that's just one reason soldiers fight, and why we should honor them, regardless of the wisdom or terribleness of the reasons for their war. This is why we can say that we support our soldiers, even if we should happen to hate the particular war.
Ebert: I agree with everything you write.
There's some evidence that many soldiers supported the war because a majority of them voted Republican on their absentee ballots.
to all the blog comment leavers.
i would just like to draw attention to the fact
that guy pearce is one of the most talented actors working today.
he kicks ass whatever he's in
memento - badass
l.a confidential = super badass
the proposition = super ultra mega badass
he's in the upcoming adaptation of cormac mccarthy's "the road"
too.
the 9 minutes that he's in the hurt locker makes you actually
like the guy.
it takes one hell of an actor to do that if you ask me.
Ok, I'm kinda tired of all the Transformers 2 is not a good movie comments. Honestly no one should ever, ever, ever think it's a good movie. Is it a fun one? I thought so. I'm not gonna claim it should win awards cause if it did we'd be dead as a society. I also was deeply angered that immature trash like No Country for Old Men beat out The Diving Bell and The Butterfly at the oscars just to establish myself as anything but a mouth breathing high school boy.
Besides, how on Earth do you compare, what is the best movie of the year and oh yes I've already declared it so, The Hurt Locker to Transformers 2. It's like comparing Dan Brown to Vladimir Nabokov or William F. Buckley Jr. and Ian Fleming spy novels to John Le Carre and Graham Greene. Nabokov, Greene, and Le Carre do not unfortunately appeal to everyone and trust me I've tried to change that but it's not gonna happen.
So, we're left with two choices as adults. Either we have some fun with what is idiocy like Mr. Ebert, I wanted to call him Roger cause I've watched his show since I was 7 but it felt so disrespectful, did with the first Transformers or we sit back and feel smug and self satisfied in our own intelligence. Personally, I think we should just have some fun or at least however little fun we can gleen from it. Personally for me, it was Isabel Lucas' decepticon girl who came off like H.R. Geiger for kids and that's hilarious.
Ms. Lucas must be an absolute great sport. Maybe there should be a movie about Michael Bay trying to find a girl to play that part and how he broached the subject with each one leading up to an eventual slap. It could've been a Russ Meyer classic or one of those movies they show little girls in suburbs about how show business is bad. The kind that everyone finds so funny when they grow up and find that everything is bad and that not one industry is the onus of all evil in the world. Or at least, you think that till you spend some time around politicians. The people who decided their job is to force their will on others cause they might have been elected but they'll die before they listen to people that put them there.
Although, I had no idea that during the middle of two wars, a horrifically porous border situation (which geez were a socialist country that can't afford our own people how are we gonna pay for a million illegal immigrants who don't even pay taxes back into the system), and a depression, which is only getting worse due to all of our fixing it, that all of our branches of the military got together to say lets make Transformers 2. Now that is something to be mad about. It's also something fire people over. The movie on the other hand is just harmless and if someone joins the army over Transformers 2 then they would've just as likely joined it over Mars Attacks. They are destined for the presidency.
Do try and keep up, Roy. Roger's a pathological grammatical ball-buster...as am I.
:p
Ok. Off topic again. I just got a macbook and am wondering what text editor you use. It can't be your blog software (sixapart) and please don't say Word for Mac (clunky; not fluid).
I've heard that the freeware Scribe is good, but mostly for transcribing. Any recommendations?
Ebert: I use plain vanilla TextEdit. Freeware. Word for Mac has WAY too many features. Anyone who can figure out how to set and apply a style with it is a genius.
"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."
Well, Monsieur Ebert,
Way to give away the plot! Here I had been stowing away what few morsels I could from my repugnantly meager paycheck each week so I could bound my way to the closest theater and witness Mr. Bay's opus: "Transformers: ROTF." With each film Mr. Bay has truly evolved into a cinema laureate whose films speak to a certain veritas hidden deep within the human psyche. If "Bad Boys" was his 'L'Orfeo' than one can only presume that "T:ROTF" would resemble that of Verdi's 'Requiem' or Beethoven's 'Fidelio.' Alas, now I am bereft the arc of Mr. Bay's full genius and am left only to embrace the poetry of Ms. Fox's firm breasts and Mr. Lebouf's inspiring gaze; to bask in the beauty of computer generated melody and militant propagandist grace. Yet, without a clear conscious -void of initiation to inner workings of Mr. Bay's glorious narrative- I feel hollow. You have deprived me, good sir, of the glory and triumph of Michael Bay's finest hour, this apotheosis of film; the soul of his masterwork! For this I can never forgive you,
Good Day!
William Fry
Ebert: I am plumb abject.
In the immortal words of Otto, "Dove il Vaticano?"
Has Il Papa ever commented?
Not in Vegas yet...
Ebert: Right here in Chicago.
I have to admit, I'm surprised neither Roger or any of the other readers have yet commented on the harshest truth about The Hurt Locker (and Stop-Loss and The War Tapes, the trio being the cream of the crop for Iraq War films to date): the number of veterans who will be returning home after having experienced exactly what James, Eldridge, Sanborn and all of the other unnamed characters experienced.
The reality of the EOD protocol aside, one of the most frightening aspects of The Hurt Locker is the sheer sense of paranoia and fear we experience alongside the soldiers while simply standing on the street in broad daylight - even after the bombs are defused. The scene outside the U.N. building and the scene in the desert stand out in particular as what I've always imagined to be one of the most horrifying aspects of war: the inability to see what or who you need to see, and subsequently the ability to trust what or who you're actually able to see.
I can only imagine what life must be like for the real-life EOD soldiers who come back and live in our relatively serene neighborhoods. War may indeed be a drug (see: U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan), but what happens when that drug is no longer available (see: U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq), and withdrawal sets in at home?
That was one of the most frightening questions I left with after seeing this film.
Thanks Marie, Rodge! I've transmitted all the info to her.
Speaking of coincidences, my wife's name is Catt.
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
I noticed on the DVD bonus features of the first Transformers movie there is a featurette that has interviews with the filmmakers where they mention that anything done by the U.S. military that can not be used for a training excercise had to be paid for by the film company. They also mention how they were told they could only film some of the technology from certain camera angles, presumably so the Chinese couldn't reverse engineer our stealth bombers by watching Transformers.
Sounds like when I met her at a book signing she did in Chicago. A fan gave her a couple small framed drawings -- pretty good, actually -- he'd done of Norman Bates (think of her dad, Tony Curtis) and Michael Myers from Halloween. She accepted them graciously, but after all the people were gone, she went off talking about what a sick fuck the guy must be. It was hilarious and foul-mouthed.
Roger, I'm happy to see this film is being promoted on a large scale by its studio. Even my local community newspaper landed an interview with Mr. Renner, who even commented briefly about Transformers 2. (The writer posts his work here: http://pickupflix.blogspot.com/) I've since seen Hurt Locker and loved it. I'm having a hard time explain to people why they should see it, though. Any ideas?
Ebert: It will enthrall them?
to reality writer:
when guy pearce can do more than just be a badass, then he'll be a talented actor.
until then, he's just a badass.
Um, Julie, coming from the sister of a guy I met when he was touring with the SPECTAULAR The Stone Monkey, I don't think any Deavers should be messin' with the common, unlettered (and humor-impaired) folk.
:p
WOW, that's how i felt after I saw this movie, this is the movie (at least till now) of the year! I hope they (distributors or studio execs) open this movie widely instead of the limited release. I am not going to say much about Transformers, I didn't expect much from Michael Bay to begin with and I guess he didn't disappoint me in that aspect.
The Hurt Locker on the other hand, by far is a brilliant movie, the raw intensity, the palpable suspense and the outstanding performances by all actors particularly Renner and Mackie (both should be nominated for Oscars imo), its a treat to watch. Heck I have already decided to see this one again, the only complaint if any I have is this movie might be a tad bit longer than was needed but still a brilliant movie nonetheless.
In your article, you asked:
"In what way was the military exposure in "Transformers" more beneficial than cooperating with "The Hurt Locker?"
You have to remember, that the Iraq war is highly unpopular. The difference between Transformers and The Hurt Locker, is that the Hurt Locker shows what horrid things can come out of this war, like that bomber-remover dying in the beginning of this movie, while Transformers merely shows badguys losing.
You said that this movie has "no opinion" on the war in Iraq; but that wont stop people from thinking how unfair it is that people have to go through all this tension for a war that no one thinks is legitimate.
Its not the director's fault, but from the U.S. military's standpoint, "The Hurt Locker" would give the opposite kind of publicity for this war that they'd want. Unfortunately, Transformers gives that feel-good publicity of badguys blowing up real good, and that's who'll the military will side with.
Politics part of what drives military opperations, in any country. Apreciation of good film is not.
roger,
this is unrelated but necessary - in my world.
do you have a twitter account, or is someone making rather funny film quips, with a hint of stephen wright, while posing as you? i've yet to figure out the relevance of twitter other than for celebrity/athletes who believe the whole world hinges upon what they had for breakfast or who they saw at a club last night.
also, i'm writing an article about how social networks are really anti-social. i would like to use a quote you made a long time ago in which you said that the internet was just a high-tech way for college kids to tell each other they suck. can you word it more accurately for me? do you mind if i use it? can you recall when and where you said it?
Ebert: I do not have a Twitter account and that is not me.
What's "(r)ight here in Chicago?" I'm sooooooo confused.
Ebert: Where I saw "The Hurt Locker."
Ebert: The drinking was specifically mentioned as one of the reasons for the Army's objections in an Army News story. I'm thinking, what? U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't drink?
Well, I do not know for American troops, but I know for a fact that Canadians are forbidden to drink during the mission in Afghanistan. As Muslims beliefs forbid them from drinking alcool, the collaboration between Canadians (and other troops) could be jeopardized if they drunk. This is the official line.
I did see this movie last weekend and boy was it good. Not to the extent of Roger's appreciation though. I still think that Bigelow's best film yet is still "Strange Days".
I didn't find the narrative that strong, we don't learn anything from the main character except is "addiction" and the two other main characters were underdeveloped. Which is a shame because Sanborn was a lot more interesting than James.
I have grown sick and tired of shoulder or hand held shots and although this one was filmed so that you feel embedded with the team it was still too shaky to be effective. "Shaky" steadicam would've been a lot better (think of the intro in Strange Days which is shaky steadicam) and wouldn't have hampered on the small team she had to work with.
Complete sequence can be watched at this URL:
http://www.steadishots.org/shots_detail.cfm?shotID=53
***
Even though this is an anti-war movie I wholeheartedly believe it is political and takes side.
Subtle flag shots are aplenty and we don't get any point of view from the Iraqi's, not to mention the fact the we dont even really know if they are Iraqi's since it is barely mentionned that the film is set in Iraq.
Once the film is over I was left with the feelings the Iraqi's are capable of the worst atrocities, plant bombs in civilian areas, kidnap their own and strap bombs on them against their will, kill innocents children in order to turn them into bombs etc...
Did you notice that the location where they find the boy was a hideout for a terrorist cell, very similar to ones they use to videotape prisoners and sometimes decapitate them.
Also notice the shots were onlookers are watching the crew when they are trying to disarm the bombs. The way it is edited don't they all look guilty of being involved somehow...
So all in all it is still business as usual, americans are good guys, they save peoples lives and Iraqis or Arabs as a whole are bad.
This is not my interpretation but one could easily end up to that conclusion.
Philippe
Well, I figured that; I was just responding to your implicit solicitation of The Hurt Locker's national distribution info. I hope I'll get to see it this weekend in the cultural (and literal) desert that is Vegas...
I am amazed at the number of people that have admitted to seeing a copy of this movie downloaded from the internet - or purchased over-seas.
Hurt Locker has been available for download for quite some time. I recall looking into the movie after I watched the Independent Spirit Awards and it was nominated for so many awards. I thought - how have I never heard of this movie? So I check the newsgroup sites and a PAL version was posted. Now for the readers that do not know what I am talking about - this is a movie posted in a very public space (Newsgroups) and it is a DVD quality movie - not some idiot in the theater recording the movie and posting a copy of his video recording online.
Since then NTSC copies have been posted - and obviously I am not the only one that has seen it available online based on the readers commenting on this blog.
I am a big supporter of movies - I go to theaters to watch them, I buy PPV at times, I definitely buy DVD's to watch, and rent them on Netflix.
But the movie industry needs to continue to adapt. They are trying - some movies get released on PPV the same time in theaters, along with some movies in theaters as well as DVD. I will pay for content is my point. So why did I download Hurt Locker? Because there was major buzz for the movie and no way to watch it! Now it does get released and no one can find it. We can find it in Seattle now - but I believe you get my point.
Here is my next complaint - I have 2 very small children, and my wife loves seeing movies with me, so we may not get to the theater for the first or second week of the release because we need to get a babysitter or life has other plans. When we do go out, I am amazed at how quickly a movie can get pulled from screens! A recent movie I wanted to go see and 3 weeks after release I would have to drive 45 minutes to get to the theater showing it! Or I get to the theater and it is showing on the smallest screen in the complex - and I feel ripped off! I paid $22 for my wife and I to see it and the screen is not that big. I have a 62" LCD with a Bose surround sound system - I expect for my money that the theater will have a big screen.
The good news is that the industry is trying to get new ways to see movies; additionally the studios are releasing movies onto DVD in 3 to 4 months (sometimes less). I am not advocating stealing content, but I do know that the movie studios could make great movies easier to see. Entertainment weekly had a short article recently about why are we not going out to see good movies anymore? They cited numerous box office flops that were all well reviewed and had well known casts.
I am not trying to justify downloading movies for free – however; if any movie can benefit from people seeing it - it would be Hurt Locker - it gets us talking and we tell our friends about it.
I will finish with this - I am constantly amazed at how many great films come out each year that I never hear about. Then some day when I can’t sleep in a hotel in Salt Lake City and I flip on HBO and at 4 AM they are showing a great movie made 2 years ago, with a good cast and I absolutely love those instances! I am a person that reads many reviews, and people call me a complete movie buff - and small movies are made and seen by few. Meanwhile 6 or 10 Romantic Comedies are green lighted that are complete drivel, that we have seen over and over, and these little gems go unnoticed.
Roger - thanks for pointing out a great movie like Hurt Locker to your readers - I enjoyed it months ago when I watched it, and I will watch it again tonight since you reminded me of it.
Again I come to your blog for a quick read - and I have spent 2 hours here!
Lisa wrote on July 15, 2009 9:47 AM - "Well, I do not know for American troops, but I know for a fact that Canadians are forbidden to drink during the mission in Afghanistan. As Muslims beliefs forbid them from drinking alcohol, the collaboration between Canadians (and other troops) could be jeopardized if they drunk. This is the official line."
That's true. It's also true that Germans forces serving in Afghanistan consumed about 90,000 bottles of wine and 1.7 million pints of beer last year (at least according to the London Times.) So I'm thinking there's your work-around:
"Dear Hans, I'd like to trade you some of my Mom's homemade maple cookies for a pint of..." Chuckle! As for Iraq, while alcohol is forbidden, in reality many Muslims keep liquor - they're just sneaky about it. Ever see the animated film "Persepolis"? I rest my case. Basically, I don't believe for a minute soldiers can't find a drink in Baghdad. :)
Philippe wrote on July 15, 2009 12:26 PM - "Even though this is an anti-war movie I wholeheartedly believe it is political and takes side.... So all in all it is still business as usual, Americans are good guys, they save peoples lives and Iraqis or Arabs as a whole are bad. This is not my interpretation but one could easily end up to that conclusion."
I see what you're saying but counter with this...
You wrote:
1. Subtle flag shots are aplenty and we don't get any point of view from the Iraqi's, not to mention the fact the we don't even really know if they are Iraqi's since it is barely mentioned that the film is set in Iraq.
Well, armies do tend to stick their flags on stuff. And I think we can safely assume that after the word "BAGDAD" appears on the screen near start, that that's where we are - in Iraq. :)
2. Once the film is over I was left with the feelings the Iraqi's are capable of the worst atrocities, plant bombs in civilian areas, kidnap their own and strap bombs on them against their will, kill innocents children in order to turn them into bombs etc.
Really? Gee, I dunno... I must have a lower opinion of the former Bush Administration than you do, I guess, for sending their soldiers there in the first place.
2. Did you notice that the location where they find the boy was a hideout for a terrorist cell, very similar to ones they use to videotape prisoners and sometimes decapitate them.
I did, yes. I think it helped to underscore how easily such places can hide in plain sight and ergo, accounts for why they're all so paranoid; they've got reason to be, eh? Although at the time, I thought it was in service of "Beckham" - oh no! They're sending a message! Don't be nice to the American soldiers and sell them DVD's or this will happen to you, too! Etc.
3. Also notice the shots where onlookers are watching the crew when they are trying to disarm the bombs. The way it is edited don't they all look guilty of being involved somehow...
UH, DUH. That's the point, dude. It's how Bigelow builds the tension and suspense! You can't tell! You seem to be taking issue with why the film works as well as it does. :)
P.S. Dear Roger; the Toronto International Film Festival has announced that "Creation" - director Jon Amiel's film about Charles Darwin - will make its world premiere as the opening night gala at this year's festival...
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Darwin+film+open+2009+Toronto+Film+Festival/1790465/story.html
Ebert: This year's festival is evolving nicely.
To add further to Marie Hawes comments to Phillipe - Not that Marie did not do an excellent job.
Phillipe stated
"Once the film is over I was left with the feelings the Iraqi's are capable of the worst atrocities, plant bombs in civilian areas, kidnap their own and strap bombs on them against their will, kill innocents’ children in order to turn them into bombs etc."
I do not believe the film depicts Iraqi's people is capable of the worst atrocities - however if your job is to defuse bombs - your going to tend to see the worst that people have to offer. You are going out and dealing with people that want to kill you, your buddies, and random civilians. Many more Iraqi civilians have lost their life since we invaded Iraq than troops have died. Some civilian deaths occur when they are near military targets; others are killed because of the internal Iraqi battle between Shiite and Sunni (sorry if I spelled them wrong). The troops are dealing with bad people and that is what the film is about.
Phillipe stated
"Did you notice that the location where they find the boy was a hideout for a terrorist cell, very similar to ones they use to videotape prisoners and sometimes decapitate them."
One of the biggest fears that we have in these types of combat roles - what we feared before we invaded the country. Rebels hiding among civilians and having difficulty determining whom is non-threatening and who could kill you. Add to that remote detonated IED's and suicide bombers - it makes almost any soldiers job very tense.
It seems to have improved dramatically in Iraq in the last year, you mostly get that opinion from Iraqi civilians who now say that they finally feel safe to return to certain towns and resume more of a normal life.
Regarding the military saying that it does not accurately represent what goes on in Iraq - here is a thought - why dont you lend technical assistance to a small film? I know the answer - it has been discussed by others. The military would prefer a movie like Top Gun or any other movie that makes war look like fun.
As for the troops drinking - and the military stating that it does not represent their values - or something like that. Total BS - it is OK for troops to drink in other bases - but we know it is because we are in a Muslim country; we are trying to maintain their values. I believe the troops should be able to drink in there own complexes (we do not have bases right?) or in the Green zone as long is it does not interfere with their ability to perform their jobs. I believe th troops should be able to unwind on their tour of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wonder if some troops drink too much when they come home because they have to abstain for so long? Or does it make the troops realize that they do not need alcohol? Is their another substance that is being abused in Iraq and Afghanistan - something that is OK to use but is being abused?
Thanks for the good insight from all of the blog readers - Like Robert M G says - I plan on a quick visit to the blog and I stay around for hours.
Should I feel bad for downloading the film? It's playing in limited release and I doubt the producers are worried about making money.
Buy the DVD when it's released, and I'd guess things will be peachy. Or go watch it again on the big screen. (If that seems too much of a bother, why not come over to my house for some yardwork and I'll praise you on my blog.)
Kathryn Bigelow has done some solid work over the years, she's probably my favorite action director after James Cameron. Happy to see her at it again.
Ebert wrote: "This year's festival is evolving nicely."
Chuckle; I'm looking forward to your review of certain films, not the least of which will be "Creation" - which I'm sure no one else will read or comment upon, so I'll be sure to let you know what I think so you don't feel like your review was a wasted effort. :)
And as was the case with "The Hurt Locker" I hope equally as deserving films get picked up for distribution here in North America! I've been looking through the list of selected films and watching trailers where I can find them, and I'm happy to report that unlike the rape & dismemberment of Cannes, my fellow Canadians have actually picked stuff people will want to go see - while still being artistic, daring and bold.
Or just plain charming. :)
"My Year Without Sex" - an Australian film by Sarah Watt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tWWFtAl0I8
That aside...
Only three women have ever been nominated for a best director Oscar.
The first was Lina Wertmuller in 1976 for "Seven Beauties." Then in 1993 it was Jane Campion for "The Piano." Followed 10 years later by Sofia Coppola - also the first American - when she was nominated for "Lost in Translation."
I'm not a member of the Academy and I hold no influence whatsoever over anyone who is. A fact which doesn't make me any less of a squeaky wheel, though! Recently, it was announced that The 82nd Academy Awards will have 10 feature films vying in the Best Picture category - more than enough room to include Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" - for her's is a rare accomplishment in my opinion.
When it comes to war movies, how many director's ever really manage to put you a soldier's boots, eh? Let alone finance the production without the "helpful interference" of a large studio. How many get this close to the truth when it involves the Military? How many would willingly chose to film overseas in Jordan in 125F temps? Or spend the bulk of their budget on a Cinematographer and 4 Camera Units? How many directors have done that AND made a great film in the process?
For the true success of The Hurt Locker (for me) is that above and beyond all the accolades one can toss at it - including the fact the director is a woman, is that it's also a genuinely entertaining movie.
I'm going to be seriously displeased if it doesn't get an Oscar nod.
Regarding dispute in this thread about the Hitchcock quote on 'what is suspense and what is action'. Most of the comments and response by Roger are not entirely correct.
In this quote Hitchcock never compared to 'action' to 'suspense'. He actually compared action 'surprise' with 'suspense'. According to him in his own words
surprise : "We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let us suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, 'Boom!' There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence"
and
suspense : "Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table, and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the décor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions this same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene.
The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: 'You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There's a bomb underneath you and it's about to explode!' "
And his reasoning why suspense is superior
"In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second case we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story."
Just to emphasize in the 'suspense' scenario of Hitchcock the bomb may or may not go off . Whether the bomb eventually explodes is besides the point. The whole objective is to make the audience aware there is a bomb , after that the bomb may or may not explode or even may be discovered ( that will lead to one more suspense (or action ?) scene of defusing the bomb).
I got all the Hitchcock quotes from the following link. According to this article Hitchcock was explaining all this to Truffaut.
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/6/modernity.html
Ebert: You are exactly right.
Just an FYI. Bigelow explains the name Hurt Locker
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/23172674/the-hurt-locker.htm
Ebert: Valuable.
Michael and Marie:
I understand both your points and generally this is exactly how I interpreted it, I am not stupid ;)
The point I was trying to make is that looking at the final cut I felt that Bigelow is threading on a very fine line and one could easily fall on the wrong side.
The onlookers shots brings great tension but since the film narrative is so broad I feel that it is very easy to put all Arabs in the same basket, thus making them all guilty somehow.
I do not agree with director's who try to stay neutral, in any case as soon as there are people involved in any picture a side will be taken more than another, if you want to stay neutral make a picture about landscape and even then...
That is why I enjoy Stone's movies so much, even if I don't agree with him I know exactly where he stands. Alex Proyas's Knowing is a recent example of how a director has achieve neutrality. I puzzled for weeks over all the questions raised in the movie and every time I thought of a good argument I found a counter argument that refuted my initial one.
Back to Hurt Locker. I enjoyed it, I do believe she made a great picture but I think she completely failed at her attempt at staying neutral.
Right after the viewing I was still musing over this and a scene quickly came to mind. The one in Full Metal Jacket where Joker explains to his superior the reason why he wears a peace pin and the marking Born to Kill on his helmet. Now THAT is a great way to achieve neutrality.
The character gives us a philosophical dilemma that is beyond borders and doesn't even decide which way he is, well he kind does at the end, but we are still left puzzling over this dilemma throughout the entire film and we have to choose for ourselves whether we agree or not.
Philippe
For me, there is one common quality that my favorite war movies like Hurt Locker, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and Paths of Glory share. It is that feeling of seeming madness when you wonder how the characters in the movie can possibly maintain their sanity or how divergent their reality is from ours to the point of abstraction or beyond comprehension.
There are lots of great moments in this film, one of them is James running through Baghdad trying to keep a low profile with his hoodie pulled over his head, he might as well have been naked. Then there are all the times they are in the streets of Baghdad knowing there are people they can see in plain daylight who mean to do them harm. Under such extremes of mortal threat imagine the intense pressure and the restraint required to not shoot everyone around them. Nuts.
Philippe wrote on July 17, 2009 9:59 AM -
"I understand both your points and generally this is exactly how I interpreted it, I am not stupid ;)
The point I was trying to make is that looking at the final cut I felt that Bigelow is threading on a very fine line and one could easily fall on the wrong side.
The onlookers shots brings great tension but since the film narrative is so broad I feel that it is very easy to put all Arabs in the same basket, thus making them all guilty somehow."
I didn't mean to imply that I thought you (as a person) were actually stupid! Rather, I was teasing you for failing to see (albeit from my point of view) that you were ironically arguing a case and continue to, for why the film works as intended by Bigelow and Boal. :)
At least based on every article and interview I've read.
What's it like to be a soldier in Iraq? Here - put these boots on. Now walk around. Sucks, eh? Why? Because you have to walk a really fine line and it's very easy to think everyone's out to get you when some actually are. How do you avoid killing innocent civilians? How do you avoid getting killed yourself, by someone "just pretending" to be harmless? How do you carry a load of bricks up a hill with one hand tied behind your back?
There are many ways to protest a war, but few ever attempt to go at it via empathy.
In getting viewers to momentarily feel just a fraction of what the soldiers do over in Iraq, it creates a bond of sympathy with them. They become more than just "people you don't know" on the News when they die and get shipped back home. Maybe if more Americans could relate, just a tiny bit, they'd be more inclined to do more about the war, than collectively agree "war sucks" and essentially leave it at that.
This is not the Vietnam War. College students are not sticking daisies into guns and smoking pot while listening to the Doors. It's the iPod and Twitter generation; if you want THEM to give a sh*t, you have to engage them in a different way. A negative thing has to be presented in a positive way and on a personal level. The way Obama's presidential campaign worked. He told the truth about how bad things were but then said "together, we can.." etc.
And in their own way imo, on a certain level that's what Bigelow & Boal are doing too, by asking viewers to walk around in someone else's boots. Maybe after seeing the film, more Americans will be inclined to participate in a meaningful way to supporting the end of the war for it feeling a little more real to them now, and less of an abstract thing happening "over there".
While not forgetting those who fought and made sacrifices, right or wrong.
Roger,
I don't know if I could sit through the whole movie that I just watched the first minutes of. Certainly not on the big screen and probably not on the small one either.
I am one of those who volunteered for the Army EOD in January of 1967 when entering basic training in Ft Knox, KY. About 3000 of us were taken to a hall and shown a film about EOD and out of that 3000 odd, mostly draftees, there were two of us who held up our hands. And what is really amazing is that it is now over 40 years ago and I still remember the name of the second person. James Paulin. I have forgotten more names in my lifetime than most people would even believe possible but that one has stuck with me and will always be with me until I am turned to ashes by my loved ones.
Jim and I graduated at the same time from basic training but my entry into the EOD school was held up by security clearance issues so I entered months after he did. We were not friends but we were part of a very elite group and although he went on to graduate I was a washout a little more than half way through my training. I was very young at the time and I probably had no business spending the Army's money.
From the beginning of my training I knew that failure would mean Infantry training and Vietnam but I still didn't put in enough effort.
Even today I am not sure if it was a blessing in disguise or not.
When I was assigned to a combat unit in Vietnam someone passed on information from my personnel file that I was a washout from EOD school. That wasn't a stigma, it was an invitation to allow me to blow up unexploded ordnance or booby traps. Luckily for me that happened only a few times before I was shot and sent home.
By the way we didn't, as a matter of course, have C4 or C3 plastic explosives or det. cord and blasting caps on hand that would have allowed me to detonate safely from a distance. So a few times I just pulled the pin on a grenade, dropped it next to the item that needed disposal and ran like hell. Once I used a claymore mine to set off a large device from a distance.
I have never been sure just what would have happened if I had succeeded in passing through the rigorous training that was EOD then. Today it is probably a lot worse. Would I have ended up loosing my life while bent over trying to defuse something. My guess would be probably.
I am not sure where the schools is located today but then it was at a Naval facility at Indian Head, MD. It was as close to being in a college environment as you could find in the services. All services went through training there and all classes had members of every branch and usually some allied soldiers as well. It really was an amazing place.
The job of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician is one of the toughest jobs on earth and if it was tough in my day it must be pure hell today. I never fully qualified to wear that Badge you so boldly show at the beginning of this column but there are times like this that I can remember what a truly unforgiving job it is.
You will never feel the one that kills you.
That is the only thought that allows one to go there.
Good night,
John
Ebert: Perhaps this film might strike too close to home. What an affecting memory. I am compelled to ask: Did you receive news about James Paulin?
Thanks for the insightful essay about THE HURT LOCKER. I have yet to see it but seems to strike an nitrous balance with the Powell & Pressburger classic THE SMALL BACK ROOM. Wondering if there is any artistic influence?
Hi Roger,
Unfortunately once you wash out of EOD training you loose all touch with the members.
One of the most important parts of EOD is that once you are qualified to wear the badge you become part of a very small, very elite group of men, and maybe now women, and news of even the smallest thing happening to one of the members is transmitted to all of the others. Even then it was amazing how quickly news spread but today it must be like lightning.
Out of my three years of Army life it was the one time that I didn't feel like I was being ruled by a-holes. Not counting Vietnam because that was something entirely unique.
Each class in EOD school consisted of 12 to 16 men of all ranks. My class had a Major as the Officer In Charge and although we reported to him for some of the "military" stuff, during training he and everyone else of whatever rank were all considered to be equals. A bomb knows no rank and the only thing we were interested in were the lessons taught by our instructors. I, unfortunately, was not interested enough. During training when the buzzer sounds while you are on an exercise it means you are dead. I died more times than I care to remember.
In that school you really need to study HARD but the truth has always been this.
You learn all you can while in training but the first time you go to work in the real world is when you realize how really little you know.
I did a little research on the web concerning EOD but there is really a serious lack of information. Even the memorial site fails to list the names of those who (whom?) they are memorializing. At least I could not find them.
Anyway thanks for the column and for helping me to resurrect some memories. Even though I never qualified to wear the badge I have always been proud that I qualified to attend in the first place.
Take care,
John
Phillipe,
"Once the film is over I was left with the feelings the Iraqi's are capable of the worst atrocities, plant bombs in civilian areas, kidnap their own and strap bombs on them against their will, kill innocents children in order to turn them into bombs etc..."
Actually, most of the terrorists are the result of Saudi Arabians. Iraqi terrorist are a small percentage, probably around 10%, and many of those may have been trained with Saudi funding. But they are also killing Shiites mainly, who are usually Iranians, who is in second place as to who are killing our soldiers, but on a much smaller scale. I think the movie made a pretty wise move not to specifically brand which particular kind of terrorist it is, because it could be a few different kinds and really the soldiers don't know (and James clearly doesn't care). And as Roger mentioned, the human imagination is the best tool for a filmmaker (I paraphrased that). But in that one scene where James was wearing that hooded jacket looking for the boy, it did give the Iraqis a human face, along with the little boy himself before that.
I just saw The Hurt Locker on the basis of one of your letter responses, in which you stated that it was a movie that would be worth a thirty-mile trip to see.
Accurate.
I began the movie feeling contempt for James, and ended it feeling a respect and sadness. I think this means that the movie worked.
Ebert: The drinking was specifically mentioned as one of the reasons for the Army's objections in an Army News story. I'm thinking, what? U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't drink?
As a veteran of Iraq and Bosnia, couldn't consume alcohol in either one, except Sarajevo, and that was only because it was not in the American sector. Most of us were in Tuzla. In Iraq, forget it! Now did some soldiers sneak it Roger, absolutely. But the sanctions if caught were quite severe.
Hey Roger,
I was looking on Rotten Tomatoes for a negative review of The Hurt Locker to try and get an idea about what might have been unlikable about this film (that I've seen twice now in theaters!) and, after scrolling through at least three pages of glowing reviews, I came across Kyle Smith's review for the New York Post. He gave it two and a half stars. As quickly as he starting dismissing the film as a superficial adrenaline rush, I quickly began to dismiss his review. But then I got further into his review and found myself truly insulted by what he had to say about the sniper sequence.
"After three long, tense bomb-defusing scenes that don't vary much (twice, a soldier lights a cigarette afterward, but the comparison to having sex seems forced -- all he's scored is the right to keep living), Bigelow finds herself starting over, with a long sniper sequence that, while intensely realized, says little."
I saw the movie for the second time yesterday, and while I was already versed on the events that unfold in that sequence, I still found myself moved nearly to tears when James helps Eldridge clean the blood off the bullets and then give the juice box to Sanborn. "Says little?" This is one of the most authentic scenes I've ever seen in film, and the fact that it takes place in one of the most intense scenarios imaginable makes it all the more moving. We learn SO MUCH about who James is and what kind of a man and leader he is (despite his addiction) by his actions in that scene. Then, Bigelow brings it all home with an ironic contrast of imagery, as we watch the dehydrated James give his juice to Sanborn and then cut to Eldridge greedily slurping down his own.
I know not everyone will have the same experience watching it, but I would expect a critic of all people to at least acknowledge that there is a semblance of depth to that scene. I mean, I know you do.. I guess that's why I'm, always reading YOUR reviews and blogs and not anyone else's!
Cheers!
-Mike
Ebert: Those NYPost critics can be hard on a guy.
(Spoiler alert.) This film was well-made, but I honestly did not think it was all that suspenseful. Never once did I believe James was in any real danger or that one of the bombs he was diffusing would actually explode while he was anywhere near it, simply because he was the main character. No James equals no movie. Yes, in a couple of scenes there may have been snipers around, and the shootout in the desert was genuinely suspenseful (because supporting--and therefore killable--characters were actually in danger without James also having to die, which, again, wasn't going to happen). And the body bomb was an interesting twist. But from the relentless hype, I was expecting white knuckles for the entire running time.
Compare The Hurt Locker to, for example, Saving Private Ryan, where all of the supporting characters are constantly under threat. That was a truly suspenseful film.
I just saw the film in Philadelphia, PA, while on vacation. I think it comes to Cincinnati in two weeks, after the Oxford International Film Festival. Hopefully I can convince some others to see it. I know I'll be seeing it again - it's a toss-up between this and "Goodbye Solo" for best of the year, thus far.
I'm extremely thankful that this movie had no politics, that Bigelow et al. decided to take the road less traveled and focus on the human drama of warfare as opposed to pointing fingers and assigning blame. Just stunning work.
I had the privilege of seeing this film at TIFF last year, at Ryerson theater at 9am in the morning. Bigelow joked before the start of the film that this is not something that particularly whet most people's appetite at 9 in the morning, but quite the opposite, I found that in my wary, freshly caffeinated brain, the Hurt Locker just burned into it with a clear ferocity that left me forever inked. I loved that movie. It probably stands shoulder to shoulder besides Slumdog Millionaire as my two favorites of the festival. Funny if you think about it though - one is about as idealistic and hopeful as a drama can be, and the other is so so real, and realistic, and melancholy. Both however, carry a sort of sweetness that can only be tasted in the aftermath, with a touch of bitterness that enhance the flavor...most tenderly.
Ebert: I routinely go to the first TIFF morning press screenings, and find that while a great film is a great film at any hour, it can be especially great at the start of a new day after the first cup of coffee. At the Varsity and Cumberland they also sell splendid pastries. Outside the Thompson, there is a stand right at that corner that sells world-class grilled hot dogs on buns made of real bread which is even a little chewy. Damn, I love your town. Queen Street West and its bookstores. Yes.
Ebert: I routinely go to the first TIFF morning press screenings, and find that while a great film is a great film at any hour, it can be especially great at the start of a new day after the first cup of coffee. At the Varsity and Cumberland they also sell splendid pastries. Outside the Thompson, there is a stand right at that corner that sells world-class grilled hot dogs on buns made of real bread which is even a little chewy. Damn, I love your town. Queen Street West and its bookstores. Yes.
Damn, your comment is making ME love my town even more...if that's possible. I know about the pastries. But streetmeat with real bread? On the street? Really?? I'll have to investigate that further.
What is it about Toronto though you think? I admittedly have wanderlust but always come back to TO and have not been able to find a satisfactory replacement (though the dramatic melancholy side of me wants to, oh that'd be such a great screenplay). It's the way it does mellow unpretentiously, lazily, with the coffeeshops and used bookstore combo...yes, I think so. I'm going to go with that.
Ebert: It has four daily newspapers. It has long lazy streets for ambling along, with little shops wall to wall. It has Kensington Market and Spadina Street. It has street cars. It has an underground that anybody can figure out. It has bran muffins.
Toronto has so much. I didn't discover the underground until the day I left. I only got half an hour in Steven Temple Books. I wasn't there for a film festival. Alexander Keith's IPA doesn't exist in America. There's a Tim Horton's on every corner, an appreciation for brunch, and hostels that are within walking distance of everything.
I need to go back.
Ebert: It has four daily newspapers. It has long lazy streets for ambling along, with little shops wall to wall. It has Kensington Market and Spadina Street. It has street cars. It has an underground that anybody can figure out. It has bran muffins.
Agreed.
Not that you need one more, but here is another reason why we are so awesome:
http://www.toronto.ca/alacart/
You should try it out this TIFF (will you be attending?). Hopefully they'll all be up and running by then.
Ebert: Now that's just plain neat.
BBC News - 9 minutes ago
A British bomb disposal expert has been killed while trying to defuse a homemade bomb in southern Afghanistan.
I finally got to see The Hurt Locker last night. I came straight home and immediately wanted to respond here but found I couldn't. I needed more time to digest it. Even now, after thinking about it last night and this morning, I'm sure it all hasn't sunk in yet but I feel compelled to post. I've just glossed over the reader comments so my apologies if any of this has already been discussed. I think you nailed the review so I'll just mention a few things I haven't seen discussed yet.
First, the use of sound. I'm not just talking about the music in the film (or lack thereof) but the actual sound mixing. I thought it was nothing short of excellent. I point this out because I feel this is an area of filmmaking that has been somewhat forgotten these days. One of the things I love about films from the 1940s was the conscious use of sound from filmmakers who had cut their teeth in radio, where there was no visual and they had to paint a picture using nothing but sound effects. The way Bigelow used sound, especially in the bomb dismantling scenes, really made the viewer feel like they were right there with James, laying down in the dusty road, the explosive devise just a foot or so away from their face. When the shell gets gently moved while he looks for wires we can hear the metal outer casing scrape against the roadside rocks. We can hear his pliers cut through each wire. It isn't so much that we hear them as it is we feel them. We are there with him, sweating profusely and choking down the dust and dirt. Those sounds force us to be active participants instead of passive viewers from a distance. Those sounds have been amplified but not gratuitously; just enough to make us feel like our lives are on the line as well. I thought it was a brilliant move and got a certain amount of personal satisfaction seeing someone put to use all the tools afforded them in this particular medium.
I saw that someone had mentioned David O. Russell's "Three Kings" in an above response. I'll admit it was one of the first movies that popped into my head after watching The Hurt Locker because of the way both films used and depicted the on-screen violence. These two movies probably contain less on-screen violence than any other war films and when they do show violence it is done carefully and respectfully by the filmmaker. Each bullet fired in Three Kings has a singular purpose and Russell takes the time to show us the exact damage that each gunshot does. Bigelow treated her explosions in the same fashion, taking the time to show us the affect they have both on the surrounding environment and the people unfortunate enough to be in the blast zone. I can only imagine that there had to be more than one impassioned conversation between Bigelow and her special effects supervisor about how close the actors and crew members were to the explosions taking place.
She handles the limited gunfire just as eloquently. The sniper scene plays out like a chess match, with each side carefully sizing up their shots, knowing that every missed attempt brings the characters that much closer to being shot themselves. Sanborn fires and misses, James spots him and he tries to adjust. Each rifle shot carries a weight with it, not just because of the damage it will inflict but because we know it may be the last one they get a chance to fire. The scene ends, not with a dramatically placed gunshot but with the characters waiting, for hours, unsure if all of the enemies are dead, until James says "Sanborn, I think we're done." This is war. There are no out-of-bounds or time limits. No one is there to tell you when it is safe and when there is danger. It goes on, always, and in some cases, never ends. I think of how a scene like that would have been handled by a lesser filmmaker.
One other scene I'd like to talk about is the one where the three men return to base after a successful mission and get drunk together. They wrestle and fight the way boys do on the schoolyard, taking turns striking each other to see which one can withstand the most. It's a boyish attempt to prove manhood, as if what they were doing in their day-to-day lives didn't cover that. It's played perfectly by Jeremy Renner. When he pins Sanborn to the ground he plays it with a playfullness that he would (or should) have with his young son. These characters are escaping from their current reality and when the scene ends and the men return to their bunks, alone, left with nothing but their thoughts, the reality creeps back in and James is forced to put his blast helmet back on as he lies in bed. Inside that helmet is the one place he feels safe and secure. I was disappointed to hear a few audience members giggle and laugh at that gesture. I thought it was a powerful and touching moment.
I've been a fan of Kathryn Bigelow since the first time I saw Near Dark. I can only hope that this film affords her the ability to make more films under her own thumb and, hopefully, women like Bronwen Hughes can gain a little ground in that uphill struggle, as well.
On a side note, I'd like to personally thank you Roger. If it weren't for your review on this site I never would have seen the film in a theater and this is definitely -- DEFINITELY -- a film worth the price of admission to see on the big screen.
Ebert: Sometimes--you hope, anyway--those are chuckles of recognition rather than negative ones.
My husband and I are having a debate about the scene where Col. Reed congratulates James and calls him a "wild man."
My husband believes Colonel Reed is sarcastic in this scene and his comments are intended as some kind of reprimand to James and he cites James' apparent discomfort in response to the Colonel's praise as proof.
I think the Colonel is sincere in his congratulations, that he is in awe of James. The scene where Reed allows a civilian to bleed to death somehow convinced me that he would be impressed by James' recklessness.
Can someone help us interpret this scene?
I just found this blog and it's great!
Hi Roger,
I would just like to say I agree with your review of 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen'. I saw this film on opening night, and I have to say it was by far one of the worst films I have seen in recent years. What also made this event especially excruciating was that right in the middle of the film I had to use the restroom. However I happened to be sitting in the middle of a row of seats, in the middle of the theater. Roger, there was NO escape. I had to endure the remainder of this horror, only wishing the film would end which felt like it never would.
Another note, I happen to live in a city with only one movie theater which to some people's disappointment only screens mainstream Hollywood films, like the garbage noted above. 'The Hurt Locker' most certainly will not be shown here, and will have to wait until it arrives on DVD. We did have a smaller theater that screened films for lower prices and also hosted the local film festival each year. This festival would be a weekend event that showcased independent films that would not have made it to the major theater. However, this little gem has closed down, and the fate of the local film festival circuit is in jeopardy. Had the theater not been closed down (for office space), perhaps we would have had the opportunity to see 'The Hurt Locker'. It truly is a shame that films like 'The Hurt Locker' have no chance of competing against the latest explosion-fest from Michael Bay.
Pathologically curious, I went looking for James Paulin.
I first checked the Vietnam War Memorial; not listed. Then I looked up the Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facility at Indian Head, Maryland. Which led me to the EOD Memorial Foundation's website and a link for the Vets but no luck there, either.
I did eventually find mention of someone named "James H. Paulin" who served in Vietnam with the 9th INF in 66-67, 334 AHC in 68 - (but he was a helicopter pilot and died in 2006 at the age of 63.)
Then I stumbled upon a "James W. Paulin" who graduated from High School in Manasquan, Monmouth County, NJ in 1959 - here's his year book photo:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~njmh/mhs1950s/mhs1959/page21_1959.htm
And that James would have been 17 yrs old in 1959. Ergo, 25 years old in 1967 when DigicamLife aka "John" met someone named James Paulin while attending EOD training in Maryland.
Could it be the same guy?
DigicamLife (John) didn't say how old "he" was in 1967. Or if he'd been drafted - and ergo how he wound-up at basic training in Fort Knox. When was the draft, for that matter? Hang on, ah; up until 1972 the draft applied to men within the 18-26 age range.
So the dude in the photo "could" have won the lottery so to speak, and wound-up having to serve when he was 25 yrs.
And for what it's worth, a James W. Paulin reviewed a CD on Amazon back in 2007 (so he's still alive.) Assuming of course, that's the same guy in the yearbook photo and he's "THE" James Paulin that John was talking about.
Meanwhile, I also stumbled upon this and found it interesting in an ironic sort of way, as I am looking for work...
Careers & Jobs: Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Specialist
http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=147
I clicked on their "virtual guide" and was greeted by Sgt. Star - who dropped into view from a helicopter complete with sound effects to introduce himself. I was then invited to take a tour and ask questions and stuff and so I did...
SGT STAR: "Welcome Marie. If you would like to save and review this chat, click 'Log In' or 'Create an Account' in the lower window. How can I help you today?"
Marie: "Is it dangerous?" (I thought I'd start with an easy one.)
SGT STAR: "There are risks to any job, not just the Army. The Army takes training and safety during training very seriously. Precautionary measures are always taken to ensure the safety of all Army recruits. The Army prides itself in training of all Soldiers to ensure they are prepared for any situation."
Marie: "Would I serve in Iraq?"
SGT STAR: "In times of war, deployment is likely. The possibility of deployment depends on your MOS and unit of assignment. All Soldiers must be strong, trained and ready upon assignment to a unit and prior to any deployment, including training exercises, humanitarian missions or combat operations. In general, deployments last a maximum of one year. If you join the Army at the age of 17, you will not be eligible to deploy until you are 18 years of age."
Marie: Have you seen "The Hurt Locker"?
SGT STAR: "I am and always have been a fan of the film "Patton."
Marie: "Do you like your job?"
SGT STAR: "I've been in the army for as long as I can remember, and I've loved every minute of it." (This was said with great verve, reader.)
Marie: "do women receive the same pay?"
SGT STAR: "Please click on the links provided to find the information you are looking for."
Marie: "Is alcohol allowed on the base?"
SGT STAR: "Alcohol use is permitted on post, provided you are 21 or older. However, during training, alcohol is not allowed. While the Army does allow use of alcohol, it does not tolerate abuse and Soldiers are held accountable for their actions."
Marie: "Are you married?"
SGT STAR: "I am married, Mrs. STAR is my boss."
Marie: "Can I smoke pot in the army?"
SGT STAR: "Illegal drugs and paraphernalia are not tolerated in the Army. Soldiers are subject to mandatory drug tests and those who test positive are subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and can be discharged from the Army. Drug use can affect morale and the mission, and is a liability to the Soldier and his team."
Note: when I asked if it was possible to change your mind and quit the military, things got a bit fuzzy. So I wanted to see if it was possible to get intentionally booted-out. YES, it is. :)
Marie: "Do you have any jobs for Artists?"
SGT STAR: "The Army has many interesting jobs in different areas, provided you qualify and a vacancy exists. I can search for jobs if you tell me what you're interested in, or you can browse through the job categories to the right."
Marie: I'm Canadian, can I still join and blow stuff up?"
SGT STAR: "You cannot join the U.S. Army unless you are a U.S. citizen, U.S. National, or have a green card. You can only get a green card if you live in the United States for 5 years or marry a U.S. citizen. In order to move to the United States you have to get a resident card. You can obtain a resident card by first getting a job in the U.S."
I'm not making any of that up, Roger! That's exactly what I asked, and those were his virtual answers. Ah, the internet. :)
Ebert: Wouldn't it be just as easy to stay right there in Canada and dispose of bombs?
Ebert wrote: "Wouldn't it be just as easy to stay right there in Canada and dispose of bombs?"
Oh but I want to be "ALL THAT I CAN BE" while seeing the world!
Although I suppose I could just get some vinegar and baking soda and makeshift a kitchen bomb and pretend I blew something up overseas. That would be cool too. :)
And speaking of overseas...
I watched "Paris, je t'aime" on DVD last night, in part to make up for having to postpone Harry Potter (Cheryl's got a cold) and OMG - what a wonderful film! My favorite vignettes:
Steve Buscemi - The Tourist "Tuileries"
Rufus Sewell & Emily Mortimer - "Pere Lachaise"
Natalie Portman & Melchior Beslon - "Faubourg Saint-Denis"
Margo Martindale - 14ème Arrondissement
That last one was especially poignant. And funny; her French was really, really BAD. And with that, I'll leave you with this, 'cause it also made me laugh...
SGT STAR: "There are risks to any job, not just the Army."
Yeah, good point, that's right! ALL jobs can get you killed. Film Critics for example, routinely have to dodge bullets and incoming mortar fire while responding to posts. :)
My husband and I are having a debate about the scene where Col. Reed congratulates James and calls him a "wild man."
My husband believes Colonel Reed is sarcastic in this scene and his comments are intended as some kind of reprimand to James and he cites James' apparent discomfort in response to the Colonel's praise as proof.
I think the Colonel is sincere in his congratulations, that he is in awe of James. The scene where Reed allows a civilian to bleed to death somehow convinced me that he would be impressed by James' recklessness.
I remember feeling incredulous when I first watched that scene...like I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh at the terrifying sheer joy that the Colonel takes from watching a man who just went to the brink of death and back, or cry at his oblivious ignorance of the reason for James' "wildness", so to speak. He is not wild. He just doesn't know how to be anything else. His whole life has succumbed to the ticking of time and the bid and tide of adrenaline and tension that winds it. Those are the rules that James lives by, the hills he run, the waves that he rides. I don't think he thinks of himself as "wild". Wild to me denotes a certain feeling of true freedom, and I think that is a notion as foreign to James as the winter is to the dessert. If anything, it's a freedom that can only be translated in the lonesomeness of his self and his profession, which no one seems to be able to touch, even after all the armor has been stripped away.
Rambling aside, sorry. So yes, I agree with you and not your husband. The Colonel was sincere. Sadly.
I agree with the other two women. :)
Sgt. Reed is definitely impressed with James and for being a "cowboy" too, like himself - ie: untamed by the rules under which they both serve and work. That's why Reed calls him a wild man.
I still have the film, so I can double-check stuff.
James was walking towards a suspicious looking car parked outside U.N. headquarters, when an enemy sniper hiding on the top floor of the building next it, fired off a shot. The round pierced the engine and some of the oil & gas caught fire but the car itself, did not explode.
Everyone immediately reacted, firing-off shots as others gave chase and after the sniper. Meanwhile, James got hold of a fire extinguisher and quickly put out the blaze etc.
Now here's the important bit, the one which qualifies his remarks for establishing Sgt. Reed's character in advance; just who those compliments were coming from:
They've caught the sniper. He's on the ground, wounded with a straight-through shot but otherwise stable, according to Specialist Owen Eldridge, who specifically tells Sgt. Reed the man is going to live.
"No, he's not." retorts Sgt. Reed, who glances then at one of his men before walking off with a grin. Suddenly, you hear a gun shot off-screen. We then see Sanborn hearing the echo of it and looking around anxious and puzzled.
Sgt. Reed loves the intoxication of war. The fact James had managed to diffuse over 800 bombs, giving him a vicarious thrill. So too, his laid-back Steve McQueen demeanor upon hearing himself praised for a job well done. James is like a highly-skilled surfer who caught a HUGE wave, and Sgt. Reed a fellow stoner who'd watched it from the shore.
Chris Hedges wrote a piece for Amnesty International in 2002. You see a brief quote from it at the start of the movie. Here's a somewhat longer one...
"I learned early on that war forms its own culture. The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug, one I ingested for many years. It is peddled by myth makers -historians, war correspondents, filmmakers novelists and the state-all of whom endow it with qualities it often does possess: excitement, exoticism, power, chances to rise above our small stations in life, and a bizarre and fantastic universe that has a grotesque and dark beauty. It dominates culture, distorts memory, corrupts language and infects everything around it, even humor, which becomes preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death. Fundamental questions about the meaning, or meaninglessness, of our place on the planet are laid bare when we watch those around us sink to the lowest depths. War exposes the capacity for evil that lurks just below the surface within all of us.
And so it takes little in wartime to turn ordinary men into killers. Most give themselves willingly to the seduction of unlimited power to destroy, and all feel the peer pressure. Few, once in battle, can find the strength to resist."
That's who and what Sgt. Reed is and represents.
For with his full knowledge and consent and by way of silent command, he instructed one of his men to intentionally kill the sniper when it wasn't necessary, making it murder. And if you're no better than the enemy you fight, what does that say about YOU, eh?
I think that's why James seemed a little uncomfortable with the praise; I suspect he saw something darker underneath it. Maybe even a mirror of it growing within himself - catching sight of it for the first time before quickly turning away from the thought.
More of Hedges' quote and for thinking now of Walter Cronkite..
"The notion that the press was used in the war is incorrect. The press wanted to be used. It saw itself as part of the war effort. Most reporters sent to cover a war don't really want to go near the fighting. They do not tell this to their editors and indeed will moan and complain about restrictions. The handful who actually head out into the field have a bitter enmity with the hotel room warriors. But even those who do go out are guilty of distortion-maybe more so. For they not only believe the myth, feed off of the drug, but also embrace the cause. They may do it with more skepticism. They certainly expose more lies and misconceptions. But they believe. We all believe. When you stop believing you stop going to war."
I dare say when all is said and done, in the final analysis, "The Hurt Locker" will prove to be the essence of a truth told back in 2002 - as filmed, so it might be heard...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/War_Gives_Meaning.html
In my wanderings I come across a great deal, the internet akin to the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul where virtually anything can be found. And today, I found Roger over at You Tube - the interview he gave for The Archive of American Television:
"Films are important because they're the Art form of the 20th century. They are the most serious of the mass arts, because even Theatre is not a mass Art; they effect the way people think and feel and behave. And they can be both a good influence on society and a negative influence. To the extent they glorify mindlessness and short attention spans, I think they're bad. To the extent they encourage empathy with people not like ourselves and encourage us to think about life and issues, they can be good. They can also of course be purely entertaining and there's nothing wrong with that." - Roger Ebert
I'm sure I'm not the first to find that interview and quote you from it, but it doesn't make it any less worth repeating in here. :)
For it's my hope that you're right. I want the medium of film to have the power of good - not just evil alla Michael Bay, so to speak. And I want "The Hurt Locker" to achieve more than just having entertained people.
I want it to be the little pebble that sent a ripple across a pond called America, and for that ripple to turn into a larger one. And instead of being sucked down by that seductive under tow, to see Americans now riding a better and higher wave.
Peace and love, neighours. :)
Imagine nothing to kill or die for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw&feature=related
Hi Roger,
This is my first post here, first of many I hope. I follow your reviews, agree or disagree, I always admire your "personal" take. The "hurt locker" is a masterpiece of cinema and some may smirk about that comment but in time I believe it will be recognized as one. It is one of the few war films lke Apocalypse now or Full metal jacket, which does not indulge in any propoganda or agenda other than the characters and their worlds. But where this movie succeeded in my opinion, is that, the documentary style of camer movements gives the audience the feel of being in the movie. After this movie, I could literally smell the napalm.
Whats it with Oscars? I am amazed for someone who has such a deep understanding of world and American cinema, that Academy don't mean s@#$ when it comes to sheer quality of filmmaking. I dont think this movie needs its approval.
I don't have the chops to critique "Hurt Locker." I am a father of a soldier now in Afghanistan, so my response to "Hurt" is visceral. All I can really say is that I like it. Maybe I'm too drained of emotion to say more. Matt, my son, is a camera man -- combat camera. He calls himself the moment taker. "Hurt" is real to me. My son's dispatches are real to me. See one of Matt's photos and a piece he wrote here: http://mattfreire.blogspot.com/2009/07/from-afghanistan-22-july-2009.html. Matt is real. "Hurt" is real.
Ebert: A wonderful photograph, and even more remarkable are the words beneath it.
Readers, use that URL.
I saw this great movie with a nearly packed house at a matinee showing here in Sacramento, California, where the awful-looking "The Ugly Truth" apparently takes place. I can only hope "The Hurt Locker" will sell more tickets here between the two of them.
This film reminded me, in a way, of Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men." Both are nominally genre films which use gritty realism, lower-than-average budgets, and a minimum of special effects to tell brilliant stories, which are driven by well-written characters and not explosions.
Ebert: It's encouraging to me that the movie seems to be playing to so many full houses. Word of mouth?
Roger,
I agree with a good portion of what you've said about this film, both here and in your review, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think it makes war look unappealing. Perhaps it does to a 60-year-old film critic living only for the next box of Cheez-Its. Or pencilneck lefty cienastes. But for a 19-year-old who wants to go to war, wants adventure, wants to be a hero, this thing has got to be about as appealing as Top Gun. In doing so, it's not jingoistic. Just exciting and kinda sexy. I mean, how spiritually deadening does that trip through the supermarket look in comparison to what comes before? Hell, it made me want to sign up.
Ebert: That would give you the chance to defend the humanitarian values imbued in your message.
You pointed us readers to the soldier's URL, his blog. He's in Afghanistan and his father wrote a comment just a few comments above this one.
Anyway, thank you for getting me in front of solider Freire's photo and poem. It'd be great if more people could read an honest account from the perspective of one of our men in the service. I went to his site and left a comment, which I'd like to share here.
"So much confliction.
"America wonders how to support her soldiers without sounding pro war.
"It's like, hey, you're a great athlete though the Celtics suck and you play for the Celtics, ergo you suck, too. Huh?
"Or, I'm a Christian and I love sports and you are an excellent athlete, however, when you play your game and work on sacred Sabbath Sunday you are evil. What?
"I love you, you are an American military person, however, you are just a pawn in geo-political machinations, another example of old men sending young men to war and death, so I must consider you evil. Are you kidding me?
"We are so out of alignment.
"I will say this, then, suspending my schizophrenia in an effort to harmonize my message to you:
"I hate war and weep. You, Matt Freire and your fellow military men and women, did not start this war. Causes and proximate causes, inceptions and origins are too complicated and prone to limiting perspectives and ever arguing opinions, yet the truth is men clothed in terror killed Americans on American soil and continue to plot the death of Americans.
"I therefore applaud and thank you for serving America under an oath to follow America's commander-in-chief in the protection of our freedom and land and interests. You have honored that oath of fealty and vigor under two different presidents now and I thank you for your service.
"Thank you for your courage and for your willingness to express with your words and your photographs what it is you are seeing and thinking. Experiencing.
"Your poem was not sentimental. It was not sensational. It was not ostentatious. No machismo in it. Your poem was an honest, straight forward account, artfully and uniquely expressed, of one man's -- and every man's -- transition from apprentice to journeyman.
"But my double mindedness returns:
"If I damn the war, am I damning you?
"If I praise you, am I praising the war?
"If I condone the war, am I.... enough!
"You are in Afghanistan. Your cause - our cause - is just. May the innocent see protection and mercy and may the enemy meet justice.
"And may you continue to expand your talent and art."
Ebert: That soldier may have a book in him.
As much as I agree that The Hurt Locker is a technical triumph, I think the characters all lack any sort of real depth. They all eventually become one-dimensional clichés, with each only capable of expressing a single given emotion at a time. Any emotion that does come across seems like an exploitation of these straw men. All of Eldridge's crying gets tiresome after so long, and when finally it gives way, all that exists is superficial rage. Almost like an old Looney Tune, these characters respond to any given situation with so little complexity, at times they barely even seem human. Example: James angers Sanborn, Sanborn considers killing James, grows to appreciate him, then, out of the blue, talks of his wish to have children. There's so little linking of emotion, and virtually no recognizably chain of cause and effect. Eventually James becomes this haughty prophet who suddenly is put into fantastical situations, which when presented in direct sequence, begin to destroy any realism that this once film aimed to synthesize.
You can read my full review at:
cFILMc.com
Who the hell wants to bomb Canadians? Those damn socialists don't have the gift for pissing off the rest of the world that we lucky and free Americans do.
Having gone to the theater last night with a preview pass for (500) Days of Summer, I wasn't too disappointed when it was filled up before I got in; the same multiplex was playing The Hurt Locker. While standing in line, I was talking with my line buddies, a couple of whom have been involved in some extra work here in Vegas (like me in Chicago and Vegas), and I mentioned if I couldn't get in, I'd be seeing Hurt Locker instead. At first, the guy responded a little quizzically, but then I mentioned your glowing review -- a comment which elicited incredulity from the woman: "He doesn't like anything!" -- and it rang a bell for him, so ultimately, they saw Hurt Locker, also. Jes' doin' my part...
Actually, Roger's 67, and he can't eat Cheez-Its...or anything else. And I disagree that its appeal is similar to Top Gun. Sgt. James is not an enviable character; to me, he's more pitiable tahn enviable, and he rationalizes away his adrenaline addiction to justify leaving his wife (or ex-wife) and son.
And if you don't like what pencilneck lefty cineastes have to say, go back to Free Republic and hang around with those more your type, the basement chickenhawks.
Marie (and others)! It's defuse, not diffuse!
And on Chris Hedges, his book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning expands on his 2002 essay.
I griped above that I probably wouldn't be able to see The Hurt Locker until it came out on DVD. I am pleased to report I was wrong. It is now playing in Pensacola, FL. Other readers in small markets may want to recheck your listings.
I saw it today. Not much I can say that hasn't already been said. I enjoyed it.
Ebert: t's opening more widely and building up a wave of word of mouth, as hoped.
Thanks for quoting my blog comment in your entry! I'm very honored.
Drama and literature sometimes reveal more truth and pathos than documentary film or non-fiction writings. The Hurt Locker is a prime example. Deborah Scranton's "Bad Voodoo's War" and "The War Tapes" are two examples of documentary film that illuminates a subject, in these cases soldiers' experiences in the war in Iraq.
I did, by the way, check out that soldier's blog -- you said above to go to his URL -- http://mattfreire.blogspot.com/2009/07/from-afghanistan-22-july-2009.html or just http://mattfreire.blogspot.com -- and while his photos are amazing and his written expressions intriguing, I was most captivated by the guy's candor, his honesty. He enjoys his job. He wants to do it. Even though a buddie who does the same thing he does in the same Afghanistan got a bad injury, he says he wants to continue to do his job of a photographer.
He even said in "don't want to limp away from this one" that he's rather die than leave with a sever injury (my interpretation of what he wrote). And his very next post is about his friend who got his leg blown off.
Thanks for the recommendation.
This movie asked an important question, and offered an answer. I've often thought of how people answer the questions "Why are we at war?"/"Why did we invade Iraq?" You can answer this question a lot of ways; because the President ordered it, because Congress authorized it, because of 9-11, because we want to protect freedom, etc.
On the level of the individual, that answer is solely personal. Some people serve in the military out of a sense of duty, or to provide for their families, or because they love their jobs, etc. But each answer is different, each equally valid, each equally insightful into the psyche of that person.
For the main character in "The Hurt Locker", I was struck with how visceral, intensely personal the reason was. If athletes live for the times when they are 'in the zone', or artists live for the times they lose the sense of self and truly immerse themselves in their art, or their performance, or their writing, than James is at war because that's where he can experience that state of flow, that state of ego-suppression.
That James experiences this at war, disarming deadly explosives, is almost inconsequential to him. If he experienced it playing croquet or painting abstract paintings or raising his children, that's where he'd be. Is he heroic? Brave? Honorable? I'm sure people looking at him would say that. But if James were to answer why he does what he does, I'm not sure he'd use those words. He is there because that is where he experiences a sense of purpose, a sense of, perhaps, perfection.
Simply magnificent....A great film beyond simple words. Congratulations to all of those involved in the making of this classic.
Michael Sweig
Chicago IL
I was enthused by the notion of the topic "War is a drug" and had hoped to see a more in depth look at that, but it was wasn't there. I didn't see it.
I'll wager that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn't see it either.
A drug is defined as "a substance to use in the treatment/prevention of a disease or to otherwise enhance mental or physical well-being." I can draw parallels to every part of that statement except for the disease that Staff Sgt. James is treating. What is his disease that forces him into his task? Or for that matter what is his well-being prior to its enhancement via this drug?
Robert D. Siegel's script for "The Wrestler" uses a better illustration. It's a shame nobody ever said "Wrestling is a drug" to tag onto that film. But it didn't need such a quote because everything was carefully illustrated. The sport itself becomes the war. In "The Hurt Locker," James delivers a line to his infant child saying how there's only a couple things you like when you get older, for him it's just one. "The Wrestler" did not need such a line... by the end it was an unspoken understanding. Randy "The Ram" was risking his life to do the one thing he knew how to do. "The Hurt Locker" does not go to that depth.
Ebert: I don't see the value of discussing this film in terms of the technical definitions of drugs or addiction.
The quote was used to strike an opening note, as all such quote are.
I just saw The Hurt Locker last night. Oh my . . . what can one say that hasn't already been said in this blog? I guess I just have to say that I thought I knew what to expect (I was very excited to finally see this movie!), but I was just . . not . . . prepared.
I absolutely believe this will be my best movie of the year. Not one wasted word, not one unnecessary character, not one false emotion. This movie just seemed incredibly . . . fascinatingly . . . real to me.
Roger, thank you once again for letting me know about an incredible movie.
To anyone who has not seen The Hurt Locker yet . . . GO. If your town is not showing it, try to find the nearest location and go on the weekend. I'm serious. And this from someone who always waits for the DVD--I much prefer to wait and watch in my own home. But I could not wait for this movie, and I'm so glad I didn't.
Hi Roger,
Finally saw it a couple hours ago.
As is commonly the case with such movies, I enter the film holding my breath, out of concern for the depictions and politics of the movie. You see, the genre here for me is "my-people-vs-my-people." American soldiers of assorted packaging [sometimes including Muslims] on one side versus Muslims of assorted packaging [sometimes including Americans] on the other.
For some reason, I keep seeing movies of this omer's-people-vs-omer's-people genre at the onset of Ramadan. Last year, it was "Traitor." The year before that, it was "The Kingdom." Go figure. Sometimes such films are so peppered with blatant polemic and/or apology that it distracts from the film itself. I don't mind a film driven by an agenda of any sort, so long as it doesn't take me away from the film itself.
There were a few threads in this film that caught my attention.
1- The James character was the classic American Anti-Hero, like Han Solo, perhaps more like Shane. On the outside, he's a cowboy; inside he has a genuine, perhaps delicate, perhaps tormented heart. A similar character is the Sawyer character from the wonderful TV Show "Lost." Incidentally, that character is actually named "James," is an absentee father, and has a tenuous romantic relationship on the show with Evangeline Lilly.
2- I also loved the fact that James was essentially a surgeon, and then at one point is *literally* a surgeon trying to extract a bomb from the boy's body, whose sutures even looked like bomb cables. Maybe I don't follow the press enough, but I didn't understand the logic or utility of a "body bomb." But, as a point in the story, I thought it was wonderful. And, aside from the metaphors, it was a very powerful scene.
3- The contrast between Sanford and James was also classic buddy movie contrast. Danny Glover is waiting to finally reach retirement, but in that home stretch is paired with the wild Mel Gibson. It is the classic orthodox religious servant vs. the ecstatic mystic (i.e. the Sufi). The orthodox servant follows the book to the letter, seeking his paradise in another world. The mystic is the moth to the flame, who knows that if he gets too close, he will get burned, but his paradise -- his ecstasy -- is the flame. Meaning, it's dedicated duty vs. passionate love.
4- I also loved the third character, Eldridge, who is the master at the virtual, yet drowning when thrown into the real. I loved the moment when he was playing that First Person Shooter video game. I didn't notice at the time, but I wonder if he was an expert killing machine in the game, who -- when faced with the reality -- was terrified.
5- Also loved the contrast between the David Morse caricature and the Dr. Cambridge caricature. I'd venture to say that one is the neo-conservative bloodthirsty hawk and the other is the neo-liberal inept bleeding heart academic dove. If those two were in conversation, perhaps it would have recalled the Gene Hackman vs. Denzel Washington conflicts in "Crimson Tide."
6- And I think you mentioned above or in the review that the three lead characters were very distinct. Yes, in their characterizations, but I wonder if Eldridge and James were intentionally made to look similar. There were a few moments early on that I thought I was watching Eldridge, but it turned out to be James. I wonder if it was my mistake or by design, because a plot point involved the identity of the kid (Beckham).
And, I loved the fact that within the first few moments I stopped holding my breath worrying about the depictions, because I was too busy holding my breath in suspense. It was such a classic movie (as described above), and even lured me again and again into expecting it to take a common genre turn, yet again and again it didn't.
Omer M
Ebert: Part of the confusion, which I also felt at the start, was because of the helmets they were wearing.
I've just recently seen The Hurt Locker. Though I thought it was a good movie, I think it fell short on a few points.
For one, budget. Now I know that throwing millions of dollars onto the screen does not in any way guarantee a good movie (Transformers) and I've seen plenty of great films with modest budgets (Momento). However, I got the impression that the director was expecting to work with a bigger budget then she eventually received. For me, steady cam shots are most often a cheat. That shaky snap-pan action does not say 'shot-design', it says CNN. Maybe that is what she was going for with the hurky jerky camera moves in the first half of the movie. Perhaps she wanted to present the image in a newsy sort of context. After all, that is how we've witnessed war since Desert Storm. But I don't know, something nags at me that she had bigger ideas in mind with her camera work but couldn't pull it off because of budget or location restraints. Filming in Jordan can't be easy and I think it showed up in the work a little bit. There was an excessive reliance on the movement of the camera to create drama in the scene during the first half of the movie. Roger has often mentioned the enormous amount of cuts in Armageddon. Well, I took to counting the first bomb disposal in The Hurt Locker. Sure enough, one cut every second for extended periods of time. For me, the camera should never drive the action.
Now the second half of the movie seemed to do away with this and it presented a more interesting shot design. For example, the entire sequence that includes the independent contractors as they deal with the sniper. The movie turned itself around at that point and I began to get into it at a much deeper level. These were important scenes in terms of the story and the difference between these sequences and the previous ones was patience. The director had patience in her presentation, the pacing was perfect and she hit the right notes at the right time. She would not lose this rhythm for the rest of the film.
In terms of the story itself, I thought it was a great insight into soldiers. "War is a drug" was a good theme to introduce with the opening quote. Why did one become addicted and the other not. Drugs choose their victims indiscriminately and this war narcotic is no different. You would have thought that the family man in the trio would have had the greatest defence but it was his second in command who seemed to resist it best. Sergeant James had a wife and baby, he had everything to live for. Sergeant Sanborn wondered who would miss him if he died? "My parents, sure. But they don't count". Yet his vision was the most clear-eyed, and therefore the most hopeful.
I also like the fact that she portrayed the fraternity of soldiers with it's mixture of heartfelt conversation and drunken violence. That Band of Brothers outlook that brings them together with temporary common purpose but still leaves each and every one of them alone in a way. Alone to face the reality of war with all it's horror and senselessness. She purposely breaks apart this brotherhood and probes each individual, no one is anonymous, no one gets to hid in the background. Each individual had real strength and real weakness. There was no Superman, no GI Joe. Bigelow does a great service to soldiers by showing them this way in The Hurt Locker.
Well it is August 31 and "The Hurt Locker" just opened here in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada two days ago (I saw it yesterday). So, like you said, Roger, it is rolling out slowly. The portrait of the Renner character is amazing. The fact that he loves his job and this spills over to him trying to take matters into his own hands, when he tries to find out about the little boy and the hunt for the people responsible for an explosion late in the film, really displays the intensity running in him. He is always trying to do more, wise or not, and the shots of him near the end, in a completely different environment are also made very intense by what we know about the Renner character, such that we can see him feeling uncomfortable until...
A lot of different things make a movie great in the perception of a viewer. Sometimes it's the craft behind the film, the meaning, the ability to take us to a place we've never been, or elicit a particular feeling of empathy towards the characters; in other words many things make a particular movie great.
In my limited and subjective opinion this movie solved a mystery for me about a relative of mine. By all outward appearances the man was one of those bad luck kind of guys who never found his place in the world before or after his time in Viet Nam. He was a paratrooper and re-enlisted five seperate times. Always on point it seems, and the first to volunteer for the ugliest of duties, he only found meaning to his life during Nam.
He never talked about his service, and when he came home he was, "the screw-up" that he had always been according to the other relatives in my family. They said he was a little "weirder" than they remembered, but essentially the same.
I could never figure out why someone would re-enlist that many times voluntarily for an unpopular and dubious conflict. Over the years bits and pieces of his military career would come out, he would talk about the fighting, the ambushes, Tet and some of the occurances that only happen during a war. It all sounded hellish. He wouldn't talk about it much and only in bits and pieces, but when he would it was chilling.
At one point my father visited him in his studio apartment on his 50th birthday. On a file cabinet were two mannila folders both overfilled with documents. One of the documents sticking out of the folder was from the Army, a commendation. My father looked some of the other documents and they were all commendations for acts of heroism. Even a purple heart received while trying to save some other soldiers. When my cousin saw my dad looking at these documents he grabbed them and told my father he was nosy and to stay out of his things.
I've never asked him why he re-enlisted. After seeing "The Hurt Locker" I think I have a pretty good idea.
Dear Roger,
I need some advice, and I don't know where else to turn. I just came from a screening of "The Hurt Locker" (which is why I am posting on this thread), and it was everything you said it would be. Or at least, it should have been. Due to what I assume was a projectionist's error, the picture was out of focus on the sides (the middle was okay). During the more intense sequences I was so caught up in the experience of the film that I didn't notice, but as soon as there was a wide shot, or something of interest was placed near the edges of the frame (text and faces especially), the blurriness was so noticeable that it took me right out of the story; suddenly I was just sitting in a movie theater, watching poor projection.
I don't know what is the proper thing to do in this situation. I guess I would have been within my rights to complain, but I didn't want to be a troublemaker. It was a very small audience (myself, a few friends, and one other couple), and I did not want to call attention to myself or seem... what's the word... sticklerish. And also, I didn't know to whom I would complain, or what I would say. I don't know anything about movie projectors; for all I know, this wasn't even the projectionist's fault. All I know is that the picture was blurry on the sides, and I don't think Kathryn Bigelow wanted it to look that way.
I know I will see this movie again; I bet it will look spectacular in Blu-ray. But what should I do if I find myself in a similar situation in the future?
Thanks,
Peter
Ebert: If a projectionist can't see that or doesn't care to look, write the theater chain explaining why you won't be attending that theater any more.
Roger: FYI
Saw Hurt Locker last night at the Capri Theatre in Montgomery AL. Did not make the regular theaters here, but after the reviews, our local indie/art/foreign film house picked it up. Same situation as "Sugar"--didn't get to it but I have it coming on Netflix.
Enjoy your reviews. Thank you.