Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker is a polarizing film, with soldiers criticizing its accuracy and authenticity while film folks laud its cinematic achievements. But it is actually these achievements, specifically the meaning of the film, what it is saying and what it is about, that not only allow the film to stretch reality, but often require it to. The Hurt Locker isn’t meant to be an accurate depiction of Iraq because it is about something else entirely: it is about what was behind the Iraq War, why it happened, and why it turned out the way it did.
Movies Under The Surface is a series of video essays that explores what makes great films great. The videos are about understanding movies at a deeper level, beneath plot and story, at their heart.
For educational purposes only.
Footage from:
The Hurt Locker (2008), Dir. Kathryn Bigelow
American Sniper (2014), Dir. Clint Eastwood
Lone Survivor (2013), Dir. Peter Berg
Zero Dark Thirty (2012), Dir. Kathryn Bigelow
Music from:
The Hurt Locker Soundtrack - Marco Beltrami & Buck Sanders
Khyber Pass - Ministry
You can also follow us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/moviesunderthesurface
Full Transcript:
US SOLDIER: Stop the car! Take cover!
Hi, my name is Gabe and in this video I’ll be looking into The Hurt Locker. Did you know that, adjusting for inflation, The Hurt Locker is the lowest grossing best picture winner of all time? That’s unfortunate, because I think it is not just one of the best war films, but one of the best films of any genre, ever made.
SERGEANT MATT THOMPSON: I’m craving a burger, is that strange?
SERGEANT JT SANBORN: Not for you, no.
Before I begin: spoilers ahead. Alright, lets get into it.
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: IED!
The first thing I’d like to address is the number one complaint about this film: that it, Staff Sergeant James in particular, is an inaccurate depiction of how US soldiers operate. I have no doubt this is true; even if the writer, who was imbedded as a journalist in Iraq, claims every event in the film actually happened. For every event to happen to the same person, or rather, for the same person do all the things James does,
IRAQI POLICE CAPTAIN: You want me to go close to it?
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: Yeah.
IRAQI POLICE CAPTAIN: [Arabic]
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: No, I’m kidding, I’m kidding.
really does seem unreal.
But this doesn’t bother me. I used to simply say that the film is a narrative, not a documentary, but that is a cop out explanation. The real reason this doesn’t bother me is it isn’t what the film is about.
Other than at the plot level, The Hurt Locker isn’t about US soldiers, or operations in Iraq, or anything like that. Instead, the film is about something else entirely, and it’s not a secret either; they tell us right up front. This film is about war being an addiction.
There’s no question that James loves bomb diffusion too much; he practically tells us so here.
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: The older you get, the fewer things your really love. By the time you get to my age, maybe its only one or two things. With me I think it’s one.
But no one else in the film even likes Iraq.
SERGEANT JT SANBORN: I fucking hate this place.
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: Alright, let’s get out of this fucking desert!
Because of this, the film clearly is not about soldiers being addicted to war. I’ve actually heard few criticisms on the accuracy of Sanborn and Eldridge, leading me to believe that they, not James, are meant to represent the actual soldiers in Iraq.
So who does James represent? A common plot point in this film is how James’s behavior puts not only himself in danger,
SERGEANT JT SANBORN: Get down now!
but Sanborn and Eldridge as well.
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: We can go!
And if Sanborn and Eldridge represent the soldiers fighting in Iraq, that means James represents those putting them in danger.
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: Now turn of your goddamn torch, because we’re going.
Despite this, James clearly does not represent insurgents, or terrorists, or anything like that. I mean, he’s fighting them, he tries to save the people they sacrifice, and he loves the US and hates its enemies;
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: You know there are guys watching us right now. They’re laughing at this!
this last fact alone makes it clear that James is not meant to represent them.
So other than the enemy, who else put US soldiers at risk? One group is the people who sent them to war in the first place. And that is who James represents: the American people, specifically Bush’s America, specifically specifically the people and politicians in Bush’s America who supported the war and sent soldiers to Iraq.
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: You want to go out there?
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: Yes I do.
This may be an esoteric claim, but there is evidence in the film to support it. James bills himself as a proud redneck,
SERGEANT JT SANBORN: I’m pretty sure I can figure out a redneck piece of trailer trash like you.
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: Well, it looks like you’re on the right track.
the people Bush most appealed to and who, more than anyone, claim to be “true Americans.” James also views his work as a game,
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: Game-face buddy, let’s go.
while in the US war dominates the video game industry and we even put Iraqi’s most wanted on playing cards.
CONTRACTOR TEAM LEADER: Nine-of-hearts, that’s one. And the other, Al Rouie(?), jack-of-clubs.
James also prefers boots on the ground as a first response and in general has a cocky, cowboy attitude, something many said was characteristic of the US when Bush was in charge.
So if James is addicted to war, and James represents Bush’s America, that means that, according to the filmmakers, Bush’s America was addicted to war too. The natural follow up is: what does the film have to say about this? I mean, addiction isn’t necessarily bad, not if it can be channeled into something positive. Like what I’m guessing Kathryn Bigelow does with filmmaking; from what I can see, her feelings about filmmaking are how she connected with James and put herself into this movie.
The Hurt Locker actually has multiple instances where it gives its thoughts on this issue. First, there’s the fact that James loves bomb diffusion, an inherently non-destructive act, very different than if he were a mercenary, sniper, demolition expert, or anything like that. And you can add to this that he is really good at his job. There’s also the fact that deep down, James is a good person, one who is caring, is guided by honorable principles, and knows the difference between right and wrong. And at the end of the day, he’s there for his team and he does try to do the right thing, no matter how much it doesn’t seem so sometimes.
Everything I just mentioned is positive, and these are the reasons that at first glance, The Hurt Locker may seem more neutral than anti-Iraq war.
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: You’re alright buddy, you’re alright.
But anti-Iraq war it is, as is shown in several other moments. Like this one. Despite all of James’s talent and bravado, despite everything he’s accomplished, this is the first time he has the opportunity save someone who needs saving, and he fails. Sure, it’s not his fault and he did all he could, but still.
There’s also this scene, where James literally breaks into an Iraqi’s home, then refuses to connect with the homeowners when they treat him as their guest.
PROFESSOR NABIL: You are a guest. Please, sit down.
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: I’m a guest…
Or here, where James was making friends with an Iraqi, before events occurred that made the friendship not worth it.
"BECKHAM": Hey man? What’s up?
And there’s also this line:
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: Well, if he wasn’t an insurgent he sure the hell is now.
sure, it’s said jokingly but also in an ironic and funny-because-it’s-true style.
Additional evidence that The Hurt Locker does not support Bush’s America’s war mentality can be seen through other characters. Like Eldridge, who ridicules the quality of items built by the US Army
SERGEANT MATT THOMPSON: Did you build that?
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: No, the US Army did.
and also complains about how much of the war is a waste.
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: Aren’t you glad the Army has all these tanks parked here? Just in case the Russians come, we have to have a big tank battle.
Or Sanborn, and how he believes the people back home feel about him.
SERGEANT JT SANBORN: Shrapnel zings by, slices my throat, I bleed out like a pig in the sand. Nobody’ll give a shit.
And how about this guy, who clearly represents out of touch Americans, the ones who keep soldiers fighting while they sit on the sidelines.
COLONEL JOHN CAMBRIDGE: You know, this doesn’t have to be a bad time in your life. Going to war is a… is a once-in-a-lifetime experience! It could be fun.
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: And you know this from your extensive work in the field?
COLONEL JOHN CAMBRIDGE: I’ve done my field duty.
SPECIALIST OWEN ELDRIDGE: Where was that? Yale?
In the end, he is shown to be an idiot.
But more damning than everything I just mentioned is this scene.
SERGEANT JT SANBORN: I mean, how do you do it, you know, take the risk?
STAFF SERGEANT WILLIAM JAMES: I don’t know, I just uh, I guess I don’t think about it.
James could have said he does what he does because he knows he’s doing the right thing, or that he is doing his part to make the world a better place. But he doesn’t.
It turns out that once you understand what The Hurt Locker is doing, you find that it is strongly against the Iraq war. And even moreso, it is against the mentality of the politicians and citizens who supported it. But judging by the popularity of films more supportive of Bush’s wars, including Bigelow’s very own Zero Dark Thirty, this clearly wasn’t a message many people wanted to hear. But regardless of whether you wanted to hear it or not, it is hard to argue that this isn’t exceptional filmmaking, because it is.
Comments