Movie Review: The Hurt Locker (2009, Directed by Kathryn Bigelow)

Now, THIS is how a movie should be made!

Before I commence to express my unyielding and, perhaps, irrational enthusiasm for Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, let me ask a small favor of you. If you have not yet seen Michael Bay’s pornoviolent ode to “blowing things up real good,” Transformers 2 … DON’T! Please, please, please see this movie instead. The great movie critic and French New Wave auteur Francois Truffaut once observed that the most effective way to critique a film is to make another film. Case in point: Bigelow’s thoughtful and perfectly-constructed film demonstrates exactly why Bay’s movie is so … what’s the word I’m searching for … crappy. Both Transformers 2 and The Hurt Locker will inevitably end up on the “action” rack in Blockbusters in a few months. The difference, though, is that one film is a meticulous work of art and the other is … well … you know how I feel by now.

OK, now that I’ve got that “Bay dis” out of my system (it had to be done), I can begin to pour lavish praise on Bigelow’s movie, by far the best film ever made about the war in Iraq and the only perfect film I have seen so far this year.

The Hurt Locker does not depict the lives of “everyday” combat troops, but rather a group of elite soldiers responsible for disarming bombs in the heat of war. The narrative focuses on three specialists in particular, who work together on a bomb disposal team. Sgt. Sandborn (Anthony Mackie) is the team leader, a no-nonsense, by-the-book kind of guy who fully appreciates the gravity of his work. Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geragthy) is a neophyte who cracks easily under pressure. The real protagonist, though, is Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner), a chain-smoking, heavy metal-listening desperado-type, who faces his grim duties with a spirit of reckless abandonment. James’ psychological condition is summarized by a quote included at the film’s beginning: “For some, war is a drug.” He knows he has a job to do, that he is very good at it, and that nobody else can tell him how to do that job. The specialist’s arrogance leads to some interpersonal conflict on the team, particularly between the unorthodox James and the stern Sandborn, a stickler for military procedures.

Bigelow throws these three characters into a series of alarming incidents, mostly involving IEDs that must be disarmed or, in a worst-case scenario, safely detonated. We get a series of fascinating set-pieces that, in toto, provide us a riveting portrait of reality for these brave specialists. The director employs cinematic techniques right out of the playbook of the Master of Suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock. It is emotionally engaging for us to watch characters we care deeply about put into perilous situations in which time and caution is of the essence. The threat of a bomb going off at any second is five thousand times more suspenseful than five thousand bombs actually going off before our faces. Bigelow succeeds because she understands this rudimentary principle of effective filmmaking.

Bigelow’s film should be studied in film schools and closely analyzed for its deft handling of all elements of cinema (camera movement, editing, music, lighting, etc.). Yes, at times, she employs the currently-popular MTV-style quick cuts to convey the chaos of the characters’ situation. Most of the time, however, she uses a more classical approach, opting for longer takes to give the reader a clear sense of setting and character emotion. Therefore, we have a stake in what is happening on screen. We feel like we are there with the characters, not just being bombarded by a constant barrage of sound and vaguely impressionistic images. When this film comes out on DVD, I envision going through it carefully, a frame at a time, to see exactly how this film achieves its perfection. I am not a filmmaker, nor do I have a desire to be one, but I feel that this type of attention to detail makes me appreciate great films and filmmakers that much more (and makes me very intolerant of films which insult the viewer’s intelligence). The last film I was inspired to scrutinize in this manner was 2007’s No Country for Old Men. Having looked at the film more closely, I concluded that it was indeed the perfect masterpiece I believed it to be while watching it in the theatre. I suspect I will come to the same conclusions with The Hurt Locker.

Now, I’ve spent the last few paragraphs talking about the film’s amazing technique, how riveted I was by its overall effect, and how Bigelow has accomplished something absolutely incredible on a technical level. Let me also say that I found the film’s themes just as engaging as its technique.

The Hurt Locker is not a political film, but rather an existential film. I once knew of a philosophy professor who included on his list of objectives for a course: “prepare yourself to die.” He always had students question him about what this meant and he would reply that this would be one of the course’s mysteries. I must admit I always found this academic objective a bit odd, especially alongside more seemingly practical goals like “learn how to read a text more critically.” However, I think I now understand better what this professor meant. One of my favorite bands, Wilco, have a lyric in their profound song “War on War” that reads: “You have to learn how to die / If you want to stay alive.” Isn’t this true? Isn’t dealing with our own mortality one of the principle tasks of existence?

We all deal with this task in different ways. Personally, I spend a lot of time pouring over the works of great thinkers like Kierkegaard, Camus, and Jesus, trying to come to some understanding of the meaning of both life and death. I continually try to find ways of leading a meaningful existence, though I find it incredibly challenging at times. The Hurt Locker subtly points out that soldiers in combat are really our most profound 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. In The Hurt Locker, each main character deals with the prescience of death in a different way. Eldridge is terrified much of the time. Sanborn finds solace in the unyielding routine of military procedures and protocol. James, on the other hand, seems to face death with a kind of arrogance that makes Sanborn jealous. 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!”

In addition to the above thoughts the film inspired, I will also add that it made me feel a certain emotion that no recent movie has awakened in me. In a word, I came out of the movie feeling patriotic. Now, I must explain what I mean by this, since the word has been limited to such a narrow definition over the past eight years. I’m not talking about the flag-waving, Glenn Beck-crying-on-Fox News kind of patriotism. I’m not talking about the America-is-always-right-so-there kind of patriotism. I’m talking about a deep and profound respect for what our men and women in uniform go through for us every day. As I said before, this film does not have a political point of view. Previous filmic attempts at capturing the war in Iraq have yielded low audience turnout. Perhaps this is because most previous Iraq War movies have arguably alienated many people with their political viewpoints. No matter how you feel about the American presence in Iraq, though, I think you can appreciate the sacrifice our servicemen and women have made. Bigelow’s film is a worthy tribute to that sacrifice because it views them as complicated human beings, not as merely unthinking fighting machines.

I should note that not all viewers of the film are likely to find the existential themes I have discussed as prominent as I did. I’m not convinced that all my philosophical musings can be backed up by directorial intent. Rather, I found the film an apt vehicle for exploring and expanding upon thoughts I was already having when I entered the theatre. Nevertheless, whether you find the movie profound or not, I hope you at least find it entertaining. At the end of the day, it is, at the very least, one of the most brilliant action pictures of recent times.

If there is any justice in Hollywood (which there is arguably not), The Hurt Locker should be nominated for as many Academy Awards as possible. Now that the Academy has decided to nominate ten films for Best Picture, Bigelow’s great achievement must get recognized.

Note: Having recommended the masterpiece “No Country for Old Men” to countless friends and relatives a couple years ago, I was saddened by the reaction some had to the film (i.e. “How could you recommend a film so violent/profane?/etc.”). So, since my enthusiasm for Bigelow’s film is stronger than I have displayed for a movie in quite some time, let me just say that “The Hurt Locker” does contain a high dosage of strong language and combat violence. If you have a low toleration for that sort of thing, unfortunately, the film might not be for you. Personally, I found these elements to work in service of the story—men and women in desperate and extreme situations—not to simply shock or titillate the audience.