The Hurt Locker: Review/Diatribe

The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Ralph Fiennes (a little bit), Guy Pearce (a little bit less) and a bunch of Americans

That’s right; I’m taking a shot at The Hurt Locker, the critics’ darling, and the odds-on favourite to win a heap of Oscars. Why am I taking on The Hurt Locker? Because it’s the most over-rated film that was nominated this year.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I thought Hurt was a decent film. It’s well directed and well acted, and since we’re now nominating 10 (ten!) films for Best Picture, then, yeah, I might have thrown it in there amongst the clusterfuck that is this year’s best picture nominees. I’m not taking on The Hurt Locker because it’s a lousy film; I’m taking it on because it is being so highly rated by critics and sweeping most of the major awards—I think, undeservedly.

Friends, my friends, this film is seriously one-noted. Its opening is one of the best openings in film this year, and then it goes nowhere. The gist of the film, its essence is well played out, but it is then repeated for the rest of the film. I feel like this could have been a kick-ass short film, say 20 to 30 minutes long, or perhaps the best episode of 24 ever, running at 44 minutes. I don’t feel like the characters or the story went anywhere. This could well be the whole point of the film, that war and soldiers continue on this terrible journey without stop, as it has always been, not just for Iraq or Afghanistan, but for all wars. If that’s the director’s point, then it’s a good one, and since it’s a well crafted film, she gets her message across. However, the message is set on repeat, therefore creating an excellent short film versus a merely decent full length film.

So why is it so highly regarded? I believe it’s nothing but critics’ snobbery. And I believe the producer of Hurt Locker who sent out the derogatory email sniffing that members should vote for his film, rather than a $500 million dollar film (obviously Avatar) epitomises that attitude completely. That’s right; of course, expensive films can never be truly good. If it’s expensive then it must be some over-wrought Hollywood piece of crap, that might make lots of money with the “masses” but real film people know that small, indie films are always better no matter what.

Well, not always.

Let’s look at the Best Picture nominees. I would rank them thusly: District 9, Avatar, Up in the Air, An Education, Precious, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, and The Blind Side. There’s more than a few movies I would have put on this list ahead of the last three here, but that’s a whole other argument. Suffice it to say, The Hurt Locker isn’t even in my top five of the nominated films and wouldn’t be in my top ten of films I would’ve nominated.

I also think that Hurt is getting a lot of recognition as an anti-Cameron statement. I don’t think a lot of people like Cameron all that much especially because he keeps proving them wrong. Remember all the disastrous press that was being written about Titanic before it was released? It was going to be the biggest flop ever! It’s way over budget and it’s going to bomb! The Titanic sinks! …except it didn’t, and it made more money than any other film (until some other film came along, directed by someone, I can’t remember who) and won an avalanche of Oscars, including best picture. The exact same scenario happened with Avatar. It’s going to cost $500 million! It’s going to be a disaster! James Cameron is an egomaniac who’s out of control! Avatar will be his Waterloo! …except it wasn’t.

James Cameron doesn’t play by the Hollywood rules, and what better way to “stick it” to Cameron than by giving all the recognition to The Hurt Locker, directed by his ex-wife. Why Hurt Locker? Up in the Air, was the odds-on favourite heading into the Globes, everyone thought Avatar wouldn’t get very much attention from the foreign press, but it did, so the anti-Cameron’s out there put their energy into The Hurt Locker. They couldn’t put it into Up in the Air; it’s directed by a (Canadian!) and it doesn’t have the perceived poetic justice of an indie movie made on a shoe-string budget directed by Cameron’s ex, which The Hurt Locker has. And let’s not forget, James Cameron is also Canadian, and the very American Academy doesn’t like having someone beat them at their own game … again.

Point of Interest: Watching two different interviews, one with the star of The Hurt Locker and one with the director, revealed a wondrous thing. Jeremy Renner, who plays SSG William James, said that The Hurt Locker was a good film because it doesn’t take any sides; it is neither an anti-war film nor a pro-war film. The Director, Kathryn Bigelow, clearly stated in her interview, that The Hurt Locker was definitely an anti-war film. Isn’t art great? It can mean many things to many different people. Even people this heavily involved in the making of the movie, see the film in very different ways. I see both points of view. It is anti-war because it shows the horror of war; however, I can see why Renner says it’s neither anti-war, nor pro-war, because it doesn’t really take sides. This could be seen as a good thing, it could also be seen as a complete cop-out by the creative team behind the film afraid to take any risks, or to take a stand.
Another Point of Interest: Much has been made (and rightfully so) that this film is significant because it’s potentially the first Oscar win for a female director. What’s been completely overlooked is that there isn’t a significant female character in the entire film. This is especially ironic since there are rarely women posted to combat roles, but there are plenty of women posted to bomb disposal crews. One of the more likely places you’ll see a female soldier in Iraq is in the bomb disposal area, and here we have a film directed by a woman, with a very seldom seen opportunity to show how women contribute to their respective armies. That opportunity was not taken.