Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker effectively portrays the war in Iraq by refusing to acknowledge the political and moral quagmire in the country and places the audience firmly in the action. Bigelow’s and screenwriter Mark Boal’s confidence in the audiences’ awareness of the rhetoric surrounding Iraq pays off in an excellent character driven study of the tension in modern warfare.
The film follows the final thirty-eight days of a bomb squad’s tour of duty. Several unique bomb diffusion sequences punctuate the film building in tension and complexity broken up by a superb sniper standoff. Fear of the bomb exploding certainly adds to the tension but the film wisely avoids any clichéd which-wire-to-cut scenarios and focuses on the threat from outside. The confident performance by Jeremy Renner as the lead bomb technician makes the actual diffusion feel inevitable so long as the rest of his team handles the insurgent snipers, remote detonators and countless curious civilians demanding vigilant surveillance. Through this tension Bigelow subtly exposes the insanity of a war fought amongst a civilian population divided by the soldiers presence. The film allows the audience to fill in their own interpretation of the war making whatever conclusions drawn much more personal and powerful.
The internal conflict amongst the soldiers continues the tension after the bombs are disarmed. In particular, Renner’s Staff Sergeant James and Sergeant Sanborn, the also excellent Anthony Mackie, fight and insult each other with wonderfully written, pointed male bonding. That their conflicting approaches to combat and life are never resolved is a poignant reminder of the roles chance and luck play in the battlefield.
A few flaws hold the film back, however. Most notably the overuse of the seemingly obligatory shaky cam for every action scene that serves more to confuse the audience than indicate the inherent chaos of battle. Also, the Iraqi civilians seem bent on pushing the soldiers moral compasses in an obviously dramatic and message sending way as they insist on ignoring the soldier’s orders until guns are (literally) pressed against their heads. This might be the only indication of the political leanings of the filmmakers. It is a testament to the quality of the film that some will see these flaws as directorial choices emerging the audience deeper in the action and the tension filled decision-making soldiers face in this war.
Thematically the film explores war as a drug. The metaphor of drug addiction feels apt as some soldiers escape emotionally scared, some physically scared and some never escape whether through death or through addiction to the rush that only war provides. Renner’s semi-conscious portrayal of this idea adds an element of originality to an old idea.
A superb war film that tackles a large issue with subtlety and delivers the clearest most powerful message on the Iraq war of any film to date. That the film does not insist the audience constantly consider the morality behind the war shows a deft understanding of our times and a respect for the audience’s intelligence.
***1/2/****
Comments