Is there a more achingly resonant movie title than "The Hurt Locker"? Fortunately, the movie lives up to it. To say that Kathryn Bigelow's film is the most accomplished white-knuckle action movie of this young century, or that it is the most fully realized Hawksian picture in recent memory, is not to say that it's a movie about chases or explosions (though it features both, and puts the last several years of big-budget summer "spectaculars" to shame) or that it is anything other than a Kathryn Bigelow movie. It's all those things.
On "My Life as a Blog," Reid Rosefelt recalls how he became friends with Bigelow in the late 1970s (that's him below, after the jump, between Hannah Schygulla and Bigelow!) and how he knew from the beginning that she was destined to make intelligent, gut-wrenching, boundary-bursting, medium-expanding movies:
She had a tremendous fascination with how violence could be portrayed in the cinema, particularly as seen through the filter of a French writer and philosopher I had never heard of named George Bataille. I got the sense that Bataille was some kind of mélange of surrealism and eroticism and de Sade-like cruelty, but the precise way he blended them and what he put in of his own was vague to me then, and even more vague to me now. But what I did understand was that Kathy wasn't just looking back to the styles and techniques of Hitchcock, Peckinpah, Romero, Argento, etc.--she was attempting to build on a highly aestheticized foundation. She didn't want to ape anybody else, she wanted to make a kind of movie that hadn't been made before. This I understood well, as it was a commonplace in European cinema for filmmakers like Godard and Resnais to use literary ideas as a means to "reinvent" cinema. The difference, and it was a huge one, is that Kathy was reading different books. What she wanted to create was more visceral and stomach-churning--more of a punch to the stomach and a battering of the subconscious than a detached and modish Brechtian challenge for the mind. [...]
Right: Reid Rosefelt in the '70s with Hanna Schygulla and Kathryn Bigelow.
Just for fun, I googled "Kathryn Bigelow" and "George Bataille," and I found a 1998 academic paper, "Georges Bataille and the Visceral Cinema of Kathryn Bigelow," written by Jeff Karnicky, then a grad student at Penn State. He wrote: "This essay finds similarities between George Bataille's philosophy of expenditure and Kathyrn Bigelow's films "Strange Days," "Near Dark," and "Point Break." More specifically, I argue that, among other things, Bigelow's films viscerally elicit, in the film spectator, many of the concepts Bataille discusses in his writings, so that the practice of 'joy before death' becomes more than words on a page. Philosophy becomes visceral sensation, leaves the world of abstract thought and enters the domain of bodily sensations."
It helps to remember that Bigelow came to cinema from a background in painting, theory and criticism. Her films are intelligent from frame to frame, shot to shot, and they don't need to explain themselves: "Philosophy becomes visceral sensation." Take the image, in "The Hurt Locker" of a man on a scorching, deserted Baghdad street, wearing a 100-pound protective "bomb suit" and walking steadily toward a rendezvous with an IED. He's a mythological hero, a sheriff in a Western facing down the bad guy... only the "bad guy" is anywhere and everywhere. The image is existential. In one scene James (Jeremy Renner) takes off the suit and we cringe at what we perceive as his nakedness, his vulnerability. But he knows, at this proximity, the suit doesn't matter. It won't protect him any more than his skin will. Nobody in the movie has to tell you any of this. You feel it. You understand it in your blood. That's what makes it a tremendous movie -- far and away the most impressive one I've seen this year (not that I've seen all that much).
I hope to write much more about "The Hurt Locker" -- and I'm eager to see it again -- because it hits some of the same nerves as "No Country for Old Men" does for me. Meanwhile, I'd also like to revisit some of Bigelow's other movies, particularly "The Loveless" (which I haven't seen since 1984), "Blue Steel" (a personal favorite), "Near Dark" (sharpest, most blood-curdling modern-day American vampire movie since George A. Romero's essential "Martin"), "Point Break" and "Strange Days"...
I did my time in a undergrad film studies, followed by a couple years in a humanities grad program, so believe me when I tell you: academics LUUUUV Katherine Bigelow, particularly BLUE STEEL and STRANGE DAYS. Aside from NEAR DARK, I've never been a huge fan; I always thought her movies were too cool and thought-out. I find it strange that you emphasize the visceral, almost chemical excitement of THL (which I haven't yet seen), as that was something I'd never experienced in her previous movies. Rosefelt's testimony makes a lot of sense to me - I think her career has pretty much been ALL "Brechtian challenge to the mind". BLUE STEEL and POINT BREAK and the others play (to me) like someone who was determined to fool the rubes by cramming their Master's thesis into some otherwise dopey genre movie. I guess that's what all those tenure-chasers are responding to, but I always felt like she got bored with the part where she has to make an interesting movie. Maybe someone should've given HER tenure!
p.s. - And I'm not suggesting that heady ideological or philosophical concerns CAN'T exist in (say) exciting action movies (or knee-slapping comedies or chin-stroking art movies or movies about CGI hamsters or...), just that I've never felt that Bigelow's been especially good at squaring this particular circle. Though this may say less about Bigelow and more about my vague, ill-considered, and possibly very stupid ideas about the ways in which genre movies ought to deliver on the promises inherent in whatever section of the video store they're stocked in (like, if I'm okay with genre deconstruction, then why should I expect no-strings-attached THRILLS or LAFFS or whatever? I don't know, but I feel that I should nonetheless. Katherine, dear, its not you, it's me...)
p.p.s. - I haven't watched any of her post-1990 output since their respective original theatrical releases, so I suppose I ought to revisit these films to see if my initial impressions are as full of crap as I worry they might be. I'm looking forward to THE HURT LOCKER.
p.p.p.s - And it's funny that you mention Hawks, since, for a time, it was her ex-husband, James Cameron, who was supposed to be Hawks's heir in the modern age. The first time I ever even heard of Hawks was in the wake (har) of THE ABYSS, when, in a frenzy brought on by my adolescent love for that movie, I read every article about Cameron that I could dig up at my local library (remember the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature?). From THE TERMINATOR on, but particularly after ALIENS, Cameron = Hawks for Our Times was the line. I'm not sure what to think of that now, but, at the time, it did lead me to track down THE THING and THE BIG SLEEP and RED RIVER and so forth, so thx, coked-up 80s journalists! (I still stand by my enthusiasm for THE ABYSS, fwiw; it's one of the few times 13-year-old me got it right!)
I love Point Break. It's a shame that many folks look at it as a guilty pleasure, thanks in no small part to Keanu Reeves' typically wooden performance and the send-up in Hot Fuzz. There's one, specific shot in that movie that I love: Bodhi the bankrobber, wearing the Ronald Reagan mask, wielding a flame-throwing gas pump nozzle. That brief shot, in context and composition, is a funnier and more resonant critique of American power than a lot of Michael Moore's stuff.
Now I really can't wait to see The Hurt Locker. Thanks, Jim!
I live to get radical. Having just recently revisited Point Break I found myself taken in by a vision of Los Angeles in the early '90's, a landscape that seemed to dominate films from the period. I was wondering what made Point Break stand out from the rest. The ridiculous line readings from Keaneau "I am an FBI agent" Reeves, the infectious shirtless charm of Swayze in his prime, the lithe tiger of Roadhouse (another oddly engaging action romp with undertones of philosophy or at least pop-philosophy) Was it Busey unleashed or the dizzying seductive world of surfer bank robbers? It couldn't have been one particular thing, Point Break provides the jolt action-ers look for when they drop done their ten bucks to see something exciting, fun, and not risk-averse. There are a million tiny ways you could poke at this film, calling it brainless action or over the top or just plain silly, but really I couldn't say any of those things could remotely apply. I'm endlessly entertained by this film, admire its audacity but probably couldn't make an argument in its defense that could sight philosophy, in this arena I admit a lack. If upon revisting the film you could enlighten us with your take, something more cogent than my "It's like so balls awesome" argument I would love to hear it.
I was hoping you'd come back to the Hawksian thing.
I confess some gratification on my part every time I read a new glowing review of HURT LOCKER and Kathryn Bigelow's directorial skills. Bigelow's work was a big help in initially developing my (admittedly still limited) critical skills. I took a course on visual communication and something in one of the lectures had reminded me of the brilliant opening sequence of STRANGE DAYS, where the viewer experiences an entire robbery from the POV of the robber. I ended up doing my final project on POV use in film, with a special emphasis on Bigelow's work. It was one of the first times I began to notice how effectively certain directors could use the tools of cinema to evoke certain emotions (specifically panic and urgency in Bigelow's case) and I've been following her work ever since.
It's interesting to learn that she's a favorite of film scholars. Makes me feel like I was actually on to something as a know-nothing college Junior. I certainly hope HURT LOCKER helps her reputation climb even further. It just opened this week here in Utah and I can't wait to see it.
I watched the opening scene of "The Hurt Locker" posted on Ebert's site and I was impressed by how well it creates suspense and tension. I didn't know the characters, I had a vague sense of where they were (based on the economy of current-generation war movies) but I was completely absorbed by the situation. Based on my observations, the elements of isolation and ambiguity are used by Bigelow to create palpable suspense during the opening shot. For example:
- The soldiers are isolated geographically and socially. They are in a foreign country and appear to be without immediate backup from other soldiers. The chaos of their surroundings is based on language and cultural barriers. Despite their mandate and authority for being present, the soldiers are clearly outnumbered by local residents who may or may not understand why the soldiers are in the neighbourhood. These soldiers are alone and virtually defenceless.
- The isolation of the soldiers forces them to question their surroundings – they are unable to retreat to safety should anything bad happen. This ambiguity is demonstrated in a number of shots like the following: the bomb is located in a pile that is covered with a tarp; the nature of the bomb is never clearly defined; local residents peering casually from the rooftops; the man who questions the soldiers; the man with the cell phone.
A particularly effective sequence was the idle questioning of the passing man. Since we are empathetic to the situation of the soldiers, the otherwise innocuous questions of the man carry a sinister tone. From the perspective of the soldiers, this man should not be talking to them, let alone trying to initiate idle conversation. The apparent naiveté of the man is being interpreted as a threat. Of course, at this point in the film, he very well could be a bomb-maker toying with his potential victims. Similarly, it is not clear that the man with the cell phone is in fact detonating the bomb although the movie seems to suggest otherwise. The ambiguous nature of the situation and the isolation of the protagonists create an environment where the threat of an attack is extended from the bomb to the entire community surrounding the soldiers.
BTW, Jim mentioned No Country For Old Men – I re-watched it recently on our local movie network and it’s even better than I remember (I enjoyed it thoroughly the first time). It’s always neat to come across a movie where the phrase “instant classic” clearly applies.
I forgot to mention my brief academic affiliation with the work of Kathryn Bigelow. A professor presented an argument that male artists (particular male writers) tend to objectify and dehumanize female chartacters. I referenced several scenes from Strange Days to partially argue that female artists (Katheryn Bigelow being one example) can be just as effective in depicting female characters who are objectified and dehumanized. Of course, Strange Days has a very strong, confident and admirable lead character played by Angela Bassett. And the pathetic obsessions of the character played by Ralph Fiennes suggests that Bigeolow can effectively debase her male characters, too.
At some point, I'm going to have to learn to stop worrying and love the shaky-cam. I found myself so distracted by the hyper-kinetic camerawork and editing in the opening sequence that I barely even followed the action. I was just thinking "Swish pan, rack focus, quick zoom, cut, cut, cut, swish pan, blur, cut cut cut" and feeling pretty bored by it all. I realize this is increasingly becoming the Hollywood default style, and my fervent hope is that once it does, the better filmmakers will begin to indulge their rebellious artsy side by moving away from it. The slow-motion/freeze frame explosion in the film put it dangerously close to "300"/"Watchmen" territory for me and I was able to understand why my friend walked out on the film in Toronto after 15 minutes.
However, I'm glad that I stayed. I can't say I loved the film, but it had some remarkable moments. An extended set piece in the middle of the film is white-knuckle tension at its finest, the Sam Fuller of "The Steel Helmt" would have been proud. IMHO, part of this section's strength is the stillness of the scene, with less of the hyper intensified continuity, as well as the sound design which plays the contrast between silence (long-distance shooting) and loud explosions (the immediacy of death.)
I share your fondness for "Blue Steel" (but I'm one of those academics) and "Near Dark" and I remember liking "The Loveless" but I saw it too long ago to remember. I haven't warmed to any of her subsequent work ("The Weight of Water" and "Strange Days" were unwatchable) but "The Hurt Locker" is definitely a compelling work. Most accomplished action movie of the decade? I can't go there but I'll say that the aforementioned scene is likely to be the best action sequence of the year.
I've been trying not to read too many articles about this film until I've seen it (hopefully, it'll open Friday in Vancouver). It's too bad it won't get a proper wide release in multiplexes, because I honestly believe it's the sort of film that could turn a buck. I've seen quite a few ads for it on television, so it must have a reasonable marketing budget. Regardless, based on what I've seen and read about it, it strikes me as more of a "suspense" film, as opposed to a pure action flick, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
At the time I saw it (a few months after its theatrical release), Bigelow's Strange Days struck quite a chord with me, though I'm not sure if that was more due to its (seemingly) aggressively exploitative nature, or its visual technique. I need to revisit it.
As for Point Break, with Reeves and Swayze in the mix, it's going to be difficult for it to ever escape its "good trash" label; as it stands, it's mostly linked in my mind with Reeves' follow-up, Speed, in that both are equally over-the-top, though the first one's probably more willfully ridiculous, with its surfing, skydiving former presidents motif.
Anyways, I'm very much looking forward to The Hurt Locker. I'll probably see it in an arthouse double-bill with Moon later this week.
JE: Do try to avoid reading or seeing more about the movie before you see it. I wish I hadn't seen the poster, because it reduces the impact of a shot in which information is slowly revealed. You are probably right about the distinction between a "suspense" movie and an "action" movie, but the techniques used are the same. Think of an IED-disabling sequence as a car chase where the car with the bomb in it is stationary. Bigelow knows how to shoot it to keep you on the edge of your seat -- and not just because of the threat of the bomb exploding, but because of her staging of the action going on all around the edges.
Slightly off-topic, but can I just say how much I love seeing the words "George A. Romero's essential 'Martin'" strung together like that? Easily one of the most under-seen and underrated of American horror films, despite my best efforts to convert everyone I know. So thanks for that!
JE: Most welcome! I would love to show a double-bill of "Martin" and "Let the Right One In": Moral dilemmas vampirism poses for modern teens and near-teens.
"The Hurt Locker's" battleground is Iraq, but this brand of existential war could play out anywhere. The fatal allure of living on the edge makes men like James unfit for peacetime, for mundane experience. Can he test his mettle in a supermarket? Can wife and child provide the live-wire connection that sustains him? Keeping company with Howard Hawks' and Ernest Hemingway's danger-junkies, Bigelow's antihero is nobody and nowhere without access to self-defining risk. You'll find him cruising the badlands -- where outlaws on speed court death.
Can't wait to see this. I've only seen "Strange Days" among Bigelow's work, and while I wouldn't even say I'd give it a thumbs-up if we're boiling things down to a "did you like it?" question, it's a film I watch every time it's on television, simply because it's the work of a real filmmaker, and thus endlessly rich (even if the plot falls apart a little near the end of the film).
Eh, I seem to have missed the boat on this one. It's a good, admirable, often effective film, but it's a pain to watch. Scene after scene of sniping, bomb defusing and shooting becomes tiresome and redundant; you just don't want any more. While this is a way for Bigelow to place us directly in the shoes of the soldiers, portraying their draining cycles of duty day in and day out, it becomes an exhaustive one for the audience. The shaky-camera only adds to the fatigue - you feel physically sick.
I respect the power that went into this film, the drive, the clear craft, the brilliant building of suspense and character, but it left me worn out. And not in a good way.
I'm dying to see this film since I first read about it -- which was some time ago! It's being bounced the release schedule here (Holland) like crazy, so I have no idea when I'll actually be able to finally see it.
I'm a huge fan of Bigelow's work, Point Break in particular. I'm expecting great things... and articles like this only help to stoke that fire!
There's a point of disagreement between a friend of mine and myself regarding a detail or two of The Hurt Locker. Since I don't have the emotional endurance (or the money) to watch the film again so soon, I figured I would ask you.
SPOILER WARNING:
In the warehouse, Sgt. James identifies the dead boy as Beckham, the kid who sells DVDs to soldiers at Camp Victory. Later a kid tries to solicit him to buy DVDs and play soccer.
I interpreted this as indicating that Beckham was alive all along, but James' paranoia got the better of him, causing him to misidentify the body. Wallie drew a different conclusion, that the boy who appears later is a different kid who replaced Beckham at the DVD stand.
James is the only one to ID the body (he's the only one who knows Beckham well enough to do so), so it has the same questionable legitimacy of any anecdote, which his teammates mention specifically. When the boy appears after the warehouse sequence, he singles out James from a group of soldiers and asks if he wants to buy DVDs or play soccer. Since Beckham is the only one to associate him with soccer (and has a financial incentive to do so), I don't see how it could've been another kid.
I'm curious to get your take on this brief scene, because if I'm misinterpreting it, it completely changes the entire dynamic of that subplot. Does it illustrate James' further detaching from his humanity or the horrors of war inflicted upon innocents? Obviously, it does both either way, but one will trump depending on what exactly happens in that scene.
JE: Hi Matt -- You are correct. The dead kid is not Beckham. He's smeared with blood and hard to recognize. James realizes too late that his emotional attachment to the kid has left him vulnerable -- and that's led him to make some very bad, reckless, dangerous decisions. So, when Beckham reappears, he doesn't look at him. An "Only Angels Have Wings" moment -- he's not going to get burned in the same place twice. It's best for his own survival, and for Beckham's. That's the way I read it.
I'm so happy to see Bigelow receive more acclaim. I have not yet seen "The Hurt Locker" (it's not in a wider release yet) but the moment I have the opportunity, I will do so.
"Visceral" is exactly how I would desribe much of her work. "Point Break" is one of my favorite action films. In all honesty, the plot is a bit silly: FBI-turned-surfer chases adrenaline-junky bank robbers. But Bigelow does the best with the material that could be done, and the whole theme of "riding the wave of life" is perfectly captured in the film, exemplified in a few sublime sequences of living life at the extremes. And golly, is she an action director. The foot chase between the two main characters in the movie is probably the best staged foot chase I have seen in any film.
I know it's off topic, but you've convinced me to add Martin to my Netflix queue. Near Dark might just be my favorite vampire movie ever. Let The Right One In could usurp it once I give it a second viewing with the proper subtitles, but it might take a while to get that version. Again, thanks for the unintentional recommendation!An interesting tidbit, apparently a Near Dark remake is or was in the works, but it was halted by the success of Twilight for some reason. I think it was probably because they knew they couldn't compete with such a pop culture phenomenon, inexplicable though it may be. Also, with the Let The Right One In remake hitting theaters in about a year, there would be a serious over saturation of teen vampire flicks.
Frank:
I kinda liked TWILIGHT, but that movie justifies its existence many thousand times over if it actually prevented a crummy remake of NEAR DARK form occurring. But check out the cover art for the most recent DVD release of Bigelow's classic: http://www.amazon.com/Near-Dark-Adrian-Pasdar/dp/B0026JI1RW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247730270&sr=8-4
Funny stuff.
Nice if she could do Bataille's most infamous classic The story of the Eye.
Saw the film yesterday. I think it's a well-crafted production, and generates an effective sense of the tense, paranoid atmosphere during any bomb defusing procedure. That said, the main characters felt pretty stock (cocky but tortured rebel, frustrated superior, cowardly sidekick, etc.) to me, so they only generated a moderate amount of interest for the majority of the film. The situations were more compelling than the people.
[SPOILER WARNING.] I actually hadn't given much thought to the Beckham bit at the end, just assuming that the DVD selling kids all had the same sort of shtick with the soldiers. But Matt and Jim are in all likelihood correct about the dead child not being Beckham, and it certainly give the film more psychological resonance, and purpose, as Renner engages in his personal crusades.
Anyways, I realized back in 1995 (with Michael Bay's "The Rock") that I'd sort of reached a saturation point with extended machine gun battles in film. So, as with the big forest shootout in Public Enemies, the central scenes with Ralph Fiennes bored me somewhat, at least until they focused in on the sniper elements, which are less about impersonal production details and more about character and psychology. Interesting how they introduced two relatively well-known actors (in Guy Pearce and Fiennes) only to have them both killed. It's almost as if the filmmakers were saying "Gotcha!", before continuing on with the lesser known character actors that are the true stars of the film.
It's also rather interesting how, despite showing some of the true horrors of modern warfare, the main character's ultimate embrace of "the one thing (he) truly loves" almost ends up playing like an armed forces recruitment video.
So, Jim, as I imagine you'll write about the film again in the near future, please elaborate on why it reminded you so much of No Country For Old Men. Outside of the dry landscape, I didn't feel that at all. NCFOM has a stillness about it, even during some of its most violent moments, whereas The Hurt Locker is of a much more frenetic nature.
JE: Maybe I'll be able to see "Hurt Locker" again this week. I think the characters are, in a Hawksian sense, "types" on the surface, who become more complex and reveal more layers as the film goes along. It's the archetypal nature of the characterizations and the harsh desert setting that reminds me most of "NCFOM" (Chigurh is diffused into the Iraqi landscape; Death could be anyone, anywhere) -- and the paranoid intensity of the experience. One man (Llewelyn) flirts with death by going after a deadly satchel of money; another (James) pursues an equally dangerous, and literally explosive, MacGuffin: bombs, IEDs. I see similarities, not equivalencies. The filmmaking styles are obviously quite different...
JE says, "James realizes too late that his emotional attachment to the kid [Beckham] has left him vulnerable -- and that's led him to make some very bad, reckless, dangerous decisions."
I agree, and would add that James also realizes that there is no advantage to acknowledging the individuality and humanity of Iraqis. Hurt Locker is very strict in staying with the soldiers' POV, and while the film is certainly not required to tell us why the Iraqi characters are mostly rendered as shadowy figures, I was very moved by the subplot with Beckham, the way it suggests the necessity of a limited POV. This is a sad message, maybe the most painful in the movie.
JE: Very nicely put. This is a war where nobody can tell who is friend, foe, or indifferent bystander. The man who wears a bomb is, a translator says, a "good man." Nevertheless, he's got a bomb strapped to his body. Did he change his mind about a suicide mission, or is this a deception that's part of the plan? This is guerilla warfare, as Saddam Hussein promised -- although the insurgents aren't fighting for him or his Iraq, they're simply fighting against those they view as invaders and occupiers. War is nihilism, pure negation, and that's at the heart of "The Hurt Locker." Chris Hedges, author of the quotation at the beginning of the movie that describes war as a drug, has argued that nothing in human history suggests our species is capable of moral progress. Iraq is but one of the more recent examples.
I saw this a few days ago with a girl and we were both left breathless by the experience. It was thrilling, complex, fascinating, and there are a few shots in the film that can almost be classified as visual poetry. If that description sounds like blurbmeistering (not a word, but I'm sure you get my meaning) it's because the film elicited an incredibly strong response from me and the only way I can think to describe it is using very strong adjectives. Unfortunately a lot of hacks and "quote whores", as Erik Childress calls them, use this kind of language to mask a total lack of critical thought. But I feel I can justify their usage, so I hope you'll cut me some slack. For example, can the scene near the very end of the film where James makes a futile attempt to disarm the bomb attached to a reluctant man be described as anything but fascinating? As you've pointed out, it helps to illustrate the point that in this war "the enemy" could be just about anyone, and James took an incredible leap of faith when he decided to attempt disarming the bomb. The scene where James enters the shower after accidentally shooting Eldrige is incredibly powerful: his bravado and cocky front is being washed away along with all that blood and dirt that coated him like a membrane designed to keep him detached from the immediacy of the world around him and he is left clean and emotionally naked. I hope that analysis makes sense
I'll try to avoid spoilers but I just wanted to comment on the film's ending. I saw the movie with some friends there were a couple who didn't like the conclusion. I however thought that final scenes of the movie were possibly its best. In fact they almost stand on their own as a film within a film. The shots in the grocery store were perfectly executed and the fleeting moment James spends with his son was as good a scene as any I have seen so far this year. I particularly liked the choice of the jack-in-the-box and how James, after dismantling hundreds of IEDs, can no longer see a child's toy but only a device broken down to its most elemental components. Finally, it was a masterpiece in that the final scenes are so muted in their presentation that even in their dreariness they are a somewhat welcome relief from the "visceral" and perpetually frightening experiences that preceeded them. Though we can sense James' frustration there is nevertheless some sense of comfort. So when James makes his decision at the end we are impressed even more by the power of the "addictive" properties of war. I feel like there is so much more to be said but again I want to avoid spoiling too much. Hopefully Jim will have the opportunity to continue the discussion about this movie.