How Kathryn Bigelow's non-political movie has gotten politicized.

IFC.com > Blogs > Indie Eye > How Kathryn Bigelow's non-political movie has gotten politicized.

This blog is no longer being updated. You can find all of our latest, shiniest content at ifc.com/news/movies.

By Vadim Rizov on 02/25/2010

Filed under: Awards

"The Hurt Locker"'s biggest achievement has been to get people to talk honestly about how we depict war on screen in a way that hasn't happened in a long time, with everyone's cards and biases on the table.

That effect is helped by the vicious feedback loop of Oscar season, where the need to generate daily content about the same material leads to all kinds of weird, non-critical voices being unleashed -- which may be the only good thing about awards season.

In the case of "The Hurt Locker," every laudatory review reminded us that the movie was "apolitical," presumably in the hope of sucking in those who didn't want another "Lions for Lambs"-type harangue. And it worked. So why did Kathryn Bigelow feel the need to let it drop last week that this apolitical film does, in fact, take a stand against the war and can hopefully "bring closure to this conflict"?

A few days later, she told The Wrap's Steve Pond she feels war is "hell, and a real tragedy, and completely dehumanizing... We made a real effort to portray the brutality and the futility of this conflict." You'd think she could've dropped this little nugget a while ago -- but then again, that wouldn't have helped the film commercially, while it might very well curry favor with the Hollywood establishment, who like lectures.

Melena Ryzik -- the new Carpetbagger at The New York Times and by far the least hysterically inclined of the Oscar bloggers -- believes that this Newsweek essay from combat veteran Paul Rieckhoff complaining of rampant accuracy could derail Oscar chances. Rieckhoff doesn't just find the film inaccurate, he thinks it shows a lack of "respect for the American military." This isn't a new complaint, dating back at least to last July, sprinkled largely over veterans' sites and the inevitable right-wing grumbling. But no one really cared til it was awards season; the discussion about How We Portray War Now was deferred. Now that it's February, suddenly everyone's listening.

For others, if the film isn't explicitly criticizing the soldiers, then it's a failure, end of story. And so Salon readers were treated to a splenetic essay by Cineaste associate editor Martha P. Nochimson, who notes that "Our field of vision is so completely limited to [Will's] expertise in defusing bombs and dealing with invisible enemies that our capacity to think about the larger context of the American presence in Iraq is replaced by nuance-free instincts more characteristic of the tea party movement." Again please? A lack of visual depth means you're endorsing Ron Paul?

Nochimson also puzzlingly calls Bigelow the "Transvestite of Directors" because she traffics in "filmmaking soaked in a reduced notion of masculinity" -- a criticism that, at the very least, traffics in a reduced notion of femininity. (She goes on to suggest we admire Nora Ephron instead. Nothing reductive about that.)

Some of the most dazzling insights on film I've heard have come from unexpected angles or sources. But there's something toxic about the combination of politics and Oscars that seems to bring out the worst in people. The veterans' complaint are their own and just -- but to bring them into awards season is the worst kind of parity. (As for Nochimson, I guess she must be an "Avatar" fan. There's nothing less restricted in field of vision than 3D.) There are real moral issues at stake here, but they're unresolvable in any kind of objective fashion. To suggest the film is better or worse because it's "anti-war" or "apolitical" or whatever cheapens both the off-screen issues and lend the awards chase an undue importance.

[Photos: "The Hurt Locker," Summit Entertainment, 2009]

Tags: Avatar, Kathryn Bigelow, Lions for Lambs, Martha P. Nochimson, Nora Ephron, Oscars 2010, Ron Paul, The Hurt Locker

Chuck

Nochimson says that Bigelow's films are "filmmaking soaked in a reduced notion of masculinity." Does she fail to realize that Bigelow is invariably deconstructing those notions of masculinity?

ajith

Hurt Locker is a good movie but it is way overrated....
check this article http://reelguru.blogspot.com/2010/02/hurt-locker-war-classic-you-are-kidding.html

Kuttu

We cant consider hurt locker as a war classic

DC Lee

Watched “The Hurt Locker” and was not very impressed. It did not crap on the US Military like most of today's Hollywood flicks, but it was not very interesting. Of course, Hollywood style, the hero goes AWOL à la Robin Williams in “Good Morning Vietnam” for the war’s victims.

There did not seem to be any plot, just different scenes of tension induced bomb disposal and one gun battle. The only surprise was finding a radar blip of Evangeline Lilly as the wife Jeremy Renner’s character.

Was very disappointed but will get better by watching a DVD of old Hollywood's true war films such as “Battleground” or “Band of Brothers” where the American GI is not the evil monster or a simpleton addicted to war adrenaline high.

christian

I don't agree at all in considering Hurt Locker apolitical...
And even worse, i think is a pro war film.
This film is the Rambo of the 21st century. They show us a souless man, who never gets hurt, never stops, and all he want in life is to be in the war zone. The message is very subtle, but is telling you "war ruins his life, he can't live his married life anymore, but there's one thing he is good at: war"
The final shot, entering at the war zone again, walking like a Robocop alike makes me puke.

Davey

It seems pretty obvious to me that the film is saying "war is hell, and a real tragedy, and completely dehumanizing." That certainly doesn't seem like any sort of new revelation for anyone who saw it, and it seems odd to me that this article treats it as such. I think when people suggest that it's an apolitical film, what they mean is that it doesn't get into and isn't interested in whether or not the reasons for the Iraq war were enough to constitute military conflict. That's not what the film is about, nor is it now, nor is Bigelow saying it is (it comes as no surprise that she'd like to see an end to the current conflict--but then again, who wouldn't?). The film still depicts war as hellish--just like it always did.

Pedrioa

Great Piece.

DougP

Great article!
'To suggest the film is better or worse because it's "anti-war" or "apolitical" or whatever cheapens both the off-screen issues and lend the awards chase an undue importance.'
Amen!

Andre

I haven't watched "The Hurt Locker," but NO film is truly apolitical. Just like no person is. However, both films and people can be wishy-washy about issues. I've seen quite a few movies -- "Avatar" comes to mind -- in which war is decried and glorified at the same time. After all, you gotta have your Profound Message and your simple-minded videogame fun, too.

Anon

"Was very disappointed but will get better by watching a DVD of old Hollywood's true war films such as “Battleground” or “Band of Brothers” where the American GI is not the evil monster or a simpleton addicted to war adrenaline high."

Strangely enough, not all soldiers are shining Knight Templars motivated purely by good intentions. They are flawed human beings. To suggest that Band of Brother's "America Saves The Day!" cast is superior to the realistic characters of The Hurt Locker is just downright silly. There is only one character who seems to meet your criticism - apparantly, you cannot tolerate any film which does not completely eulogise and glorify the US military.