.New Twists in ‘Hurt Locker’ Brouhaha
Another day closer to the final Oscar ballot, another series of divisive – and divided – articles about the authenticity of “The Hurt Locker.”
Mark Boal, the screenwriter and a producer of the film, points the Bagger to this article at ABC News, wherein various military personnel testify to the fact that it was honest in its depiction of bomb-disposal units.
“It took me back to Iraq almost immediately,” Tim Colomer, a Marine explosive ordnance disposal (E.O.D.) technician who was in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, told the ABC reporters, who write that “the movie’s bomb-disposal scenes come as close as possible to portraying the incredible danger, tension and, yes, the fear that came with the job.” Watching it, Mr. Colomer said, “was tantamount to being there.”
Meanwhile, Michael Kamber, a veteran war photographer who has been embedded in Iraq for The New York Times and others, and took shots of E.O.D. units, writes on the paper’s Lens blog: “The film is a collection of scenes that are completely implausible — wrong in almost every respect. This time, it’s not just minor details that are wrong.”
The continuing brouhaha over the accuracy of “The Hurt Locker” would bum out the Bagger if it didn’t allow us to use our favorite word (brouhaha!) so much. Lost in the lively discussions about uniform insignia and tactical maneuvering is the larger, and to the Bagger’s eyes, perhaps more interesting question about cinema verité and authorial (or directorial) intent. In her forward to the published script for “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow, the director, writes that she and Mr. Boal shared a “vision for the film” as “an intense, naturalistic soldier’s-eye view of the conflict,”
“It was both a probing character study,” she writes, and “a nerve-shredding combat thriller, with an innovative structure built out of authentic detail.”
There’s no question that the film is a stylized depiction of an unorthodox soldier, but part of its power comes from the suggestion that it is grounded in truth – an idea supported by its boots-one-the-ground style of filmmaking. Does that, plus the fact that it covers an ongoing conflict, mean it has a responsibility to be education first, entertainment second? Or can it take an Oliver Stone view of history and still be a good and important movie?
And why have so few people noticed that, as a savvy filmmaking pal of the Bagger’s (and fan of Ms. Bigelow’s) points out, “The Hurt Locker” is essentially “Point Break” in Baghdad? There’s the rogue adrenaline junkie hooked on an action sport, better at moving than, you know, talking; the orphan as emotional bait; the homoerotic band of brothers subtext; the logic-testing action sequences and the last-act test of allegiances. No kidding, dude: Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar.
CarpetBagger
Mark Boal, the screenwriter and a producer of the film, points the Bagger to this article at ABC News, wherein various military personnel testify to the fact that it was honest in its depiction of bomb-disposal units.
“It took me back to Iraq almost immediately,” Tim Colomer, a Marine explosive ordnance disposal (E.O.D.) technician who was in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, told the ABC reporters, who write that “the movie’s bomb-disposal scenes come as close as possible to portraying the incredible danger, tension and, yes, the fear that came with the job.” Watching it, Mr. Colomer said, “was tantamount to being there.”
Meanwhile, Michael Kamber, a veteran war photographer who has been embedded in Iraq for The New York Times and others, and took shots of E.O.D. units, writes on the paper’s Lens blog: “The film is a collection of scenes that are completely implausible — wrong in almost every respect. This time, it’s not just minor details that are wrong.”
The continuing brouhaha over the accuracy of “The Hurt Locker” would bum out the Bagger if it didn’t allow us to use our favorite word (brouhaha!) so much. Lost in the lively discussions about uniform insignia and tactical maneuvering is the larger, and to the Bagger’s eyes, perhaps more interesting question about cinema verité and authorial (or directorial) intent. In her forward to the published script for “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow, the director, writes that she and Mr. Boal shared a “vision for the film” as “an intense, naturalistic soldier’s-eye view of the conflict,”
“It was both a probing character study,” she writes, and “a nerve-shredding combat thriller, with an innovative structure built out of authentic detail.”
There’s no question that the film is a stylized depiction of an unorthodox soldier, but part of its power comes from the suggestion that it is grounded in truth – an idea supported by its boots-one-the-ground style of filmmaking. Does that, plus the fact that it covers an ongoing conflict, mean it has a responsibility to be education first, entertainment second? Or can it take an Oliver Stone view of history and still be a good and important movie?
And why have so few people noticed that, as a savvy filmmaking pal of the Bagger’s (and fan of Ms. Bigelow’s) points out, “The Hurt Locker” is essentially “Point Break” in Baghdad? There’s the rogue adrenaline junkie hooked on an action sport, better at moving than, you know, talking; the orphan as emotional bait; the homoerotic band of brothers subtext; the logic-testing action sequences and the last-act test of allegiances. No kidding, dude: Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar.
CarpetBagger
posted by madtom at 5:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home