Poll: The Hurt Locker Depth

[GammaZord]

I've seen a lot of people (Movie Bob included) arguing that "The Hurt Locker" lacks any real depth or significant themes.


I disagree. First off, I want to clear up that the movie is not about the politics of the Iraq War-- or any war. I don't recall the movie ever alluding to the history of the war or why we're there or anything. Further, the movie isn't a condemnation of war.

Anyway, the movie's opening quote "War is a drug" comes from the book "War: the Force that Gives us Meaning." Bearing that book title in mind, the movie is saying that Jeremy Renner's character is addicted to the purpose he derives from his contributions in the war. For instance, when at home he mentions a bombing in a market that killed a bunch of kids and how he can't suffer being a civilian while things like that still happen. His life at home is plain and in his eyes, meaningless. This is what pushes him to return to the war-- and abandon his wife and kid.

The movie also views this objectively. It doesn't really take a side on whether or not Renner's character was justified in returning. It simply reports that for some, war is a source of meaning. And one that's not without consequences. It leaves it up to the viewer to judge Renner's character's actions.

So, I would argue that The Hurt Locker has plenty of depth in that it presents war as a source of meaning for certain people. I haven't yet seen a movie that presents war in such a way. And it isn't really about the Iraq War specifically. It's about the effects of war on various individuals-- one of which is a positive effect.

So, do agree? Do you see another theme in the movie? Or do you consider it relatively shallow?

 

[Pingieking]

I more or less agree, but I didn't particularly enjoy it.
I certainly didn't think that it was Best Picture worthy (I thought Up, District 9, and Avatar were all better). But since when were the Oscars awarded based on merit (looking at you, Saving Private Ryan)?
Even with all my criticisms, I didn't find the movie shallow.

 

[Hat of Controversy]

I myself haven't seen the film, but judging from your post, it seems pretty interesting. I definitely wouldn't consider something like that shallow, thats what Transformers 2 and Avatar are for.

But ah well... Tis but an opinion...

 

[maninahat]

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on it much. Going on what you said though, the movie still doesn't come across as deep. In fact, the concept of war becomes more shallow if it gets viewed only in terms of "how much of a kick am I getting from it"? By not questioning the value/importance/problem of war, the film sounds more like a drug movie - that is, a movie in which the sole question becomes "will they or won't they finish with the drug before it finishes with them?"

 

[Bretty]

I loved the Dynamic of the movie.

The 'I am doing my bit guys' who by the end of the movie not only wanting to get out but have kids (where in the begining all they wanted to do was avoid it).

To the guy the loves the rush and takes mementos to remember it.

Brilliantly shot and oh so low budget! I was worried that they would get into the politics of it but I was so happy to see that they just kept the focus on the effects of the guys pounding the dirt.

This movie was much in the same ilk as Valley of Elah (SP?) but that got a little political. So it is hardly on my favorite list.

Glad to see we are finally seeing more movies on the real effect on the people that fight for us.

 

[Matt_LRR]

Having seen the film, it had a few good ideas, but stated them, more that it explored them. The movie was "war is a drug". Not "why is war a drug" or "how is war a drug" or "what makes war a drug?" it was just "war is a drug".

It was good. It was a GREAT example of how to make a solid action movie with some semblance of a message while employing very little of the excess hollywood is becoming known for.

I think it's best picture award was not undeserved.

But it certainly didn't really dig into the thesis around which the film was built. It was just a statement, not an essay.

-m

 

[halonut117]

I thought it was a good movie. But if a story were a skeleton then Hurt Locker would have a severe case of Vroliks Syndrome.

 

[GammaZord]

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on it much. Going on what you said though, the movie still doesn't come across as deep. In fact, the concept of war becomes more shallow if it gets viewed only in terms of "how much of a kick am I getting from it"? By not questioning the value/importance/problem of war, the film sounds more like a drug movie - that is, a movie in which the sole question becomes "will they or won't they finish with the drug before it finishes with them?"

The movie doesn't present war merely on those terms. Renner's character is himself a challenge to the traditional "value/importance/problem of war." Generally, war is presented as uniformly psychotically ruining to the soldiers. The two other members of Renner's squad represent this perspective-- they can't wait to get out. But Renner's character, in truly living through the war, presents a divergent perspecive. And further, the movie presents challenges to Renner's character's perspective that in the consequences of his actions within the squad. The entire movie is a thought experiment on the exactly what you mentioned: "value/importance/problem of war."

The best I can say is go see it. I think you'll see its depth much better than I can explain it.

 

[GammaZord]

Having seen the film, it had a few good ideas, but stated them, more that it explored them. The movie was "war is a drug". Not "why is war a drug" or "how is war a drug" or "what makes war a drug?" it was just "war is a drug".

I really think it did answer those questions. War is a drug for Renner's character because of the flat, meaningless (as he saw it) life that waits back home. Watch when he's in the grocery store, surrounded by scores of all kinds cereal and snacks and what-not--he can't stand it. Meanwhile, back in Iraq, kids are blown apart in markets and civilians have time-bombs fastened to their body by steal cages. War is a drug because it allows Renner's caharcter to align himself towards 1) saving people 2) standing out, being a hero--not buying cereal.

That's what the movie says as to "why," "how" or "what makes" war a drug.