War movies are an interesting beast. Having never been in these situations, I am sure the real life events of these movies can range the broadest spectrum of emotions from anger to fear to relative happiness. Rather than stick with these basic, primal emotions, recent films (especially those on the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) have attempted to interject politics and the hand-wringing of whether it is right or wrong, mostly to the detriment of the film (at least for what I have read on movies like Redacted). Just like zombie movies, some films are made with a social commentary and underlying thought interwoven in the story while some are just straightforward tales about the subject matter. I am truly happy that Hurt Locker took the latter approach to telling a story about three men in an army of thousands who are just trying to make it through each day.
The vast majority of the movie takes place with the company of three men, each a member of the Army’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit in Iraq early at the start of the war. We meet them towards the end of their 365 day rotation as Sergeant First Class James takes over as a team leader for Sergeant Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge. Together, the unit sets out on seemingly regular treks to locate and neutralize explosive threats in the country. When not in the kill zone, they blow off steam by watching porn, drinking alcohol, and horsing around. Normally, the previous two sentences would warrant the opening act of a similar movie before a mad bomber, kidnapping, or other plot twist is introduced. Here though, that is about all we get in the way of story.
This is not an average film by any stretch of the term as classic film staples such as an over-arcing story line or character development are nowhere to be found here. We meet these characters, see them do their jobs, see them goof around, and then they go home. While there are some minor notes of change in the characters themselves, these can be easily chalked up to the hellacious environment they are surrounded by and the tasks that they perform. Almost like the Joker in a little known movie called Dark Knight, these characters are absolute. You are given sparse clues about their origins, we first see them in their “groove” so to speak, and they leave in largely the same manner that they appeared. Normally, this type of story would have critics chomping at the bit to declare the movie flat and devoid of any semblance to real-life but here I fathom that was the intention.
With authentic locations, barely recognizable actors, and the ol’ favorite shaky cam style of production, this film comes off more as a documentary that a feature-length fictional tale from Hollywood. And just like a linear narrative of a documentary, things do not unfold in a nicely packaged three act story. By jettisoning things like a begrudged terrorist bomber and A-list actors, you can forget at times that this is a movie and not found footage from a war-torn video camera. All of the actors were great in their performances of selling this notion. The lead, Jeremy Renner as James, has the acting chops and is charismatic enough to carry the film, but his relative anonymity makes you think you have seen him before but cannot place him. In fact, it was only after I scrolled through his IMDb projects that I realized I had seen him before as a fairly prominent character in 28 Weeks Later. What pulled me out of this non-fictional account of war were the quite random appearances by Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, and … David Morse? These actors as well did remarkable in their brief roles but consider it jarring to see a group of unknowns being lauded by that guy from The Rock or the father from Contact. Weird.
While I may have decried other movies (cough … Diary of the Dead) for mostly contained components of the story loosely interconnected, it is fitting here as a slice of life for these soldiers in the battlefield. It helps that the major sequences are so terrific in their execution and so taut with anxiety and fear even as the scene ticks on for eons longer than you would find in a typical action movie. The opening scene alone is one of the shortest ten minutes of film ever as it is expertly crafted to the point that the notion of time becomes a luxury, especially for the characters. And politics is never brought into the mix as the characters never take time to ponder their actions and debate the merits of war. Whether their feelings of the topic were good, bad, or indifferent were not addressed. Nor should they be as this is not a movie with Romero-style commentary on life, war, and everything in between.
There are tons of things that I can talk about more but I will refrain as I enjoyed the hell out of this movie knowing little about it other than as a war movie that won Best Picture. As it stands of the nominees last year I have seen, The Hurt Locker is deservedly a victor at least as a prime example that a film does not have to follow standard movie conventions to be great.
Comments
Post a Comment