The Hurt Locker

PASSING THOUGHTS
Ironically enough, I’ve found that when you put the word “super” in front of the word “hero”, it actually drains the character of all its power and impact.

When I see movies like “Iron Man”, “Spiderman” or “Superman”, I am entertained and dazzled by the spectacle. I’ve always enjoyed comic books and cartoons that revolve around superheroes, and the recent outpouring of comic-based films has been (for the most part) a welcome trend. However, after watching “Hurt Locker”, I realize just how empty those heroes now seem to me.

The essence of a hero boils down to courage, selflessness, and sacrifice. Superheroes have those qualities, but they are lost behind the glamour, wealth, gadgets or powers that make them “super”. As a child I was inspired by superheroes because of the fantastical elements involved, but now that I see the world through the eyes of experience and disillusionment, I crave heroes I can relate to. Aside from the occasional daydreams of having superpowers to punish the jerk who cuts me off on the freeway, or to dazzle the gal that just isn’t impressed with DVD reviews, I don’t want to emulate a superhero anymore. Superheroes exist to excite the mind and trigger the imagination. They perform truly heroic acts, but when placed in the context of reality, those acts ring hollow and create a cynicism about the existence of real heroes.

“Hurt Locker” restored my faith in true heroism.

The film is not a documentary, but it was shot in a style that replicates the authentic feel of raw genuine footage. The effect is an illusion that you are watching real people do real things in real danger, and so acts of courage and selflessness have the ability to strike a chord. The characters aren’t flawless, they aren’t saints, but they are people putting their lives on the line to save the lives of others. I felt admiration for the work they did, for their toughness and ability to cope with fear. They weren’t without fear—they just didn’t let it stop them from doing what needed to be done. They were very human, very relatable, and the fact that there are actually men and women doing exactly what the characters were doing made their actions resonate in a powerful way.

The film shows the soldier’s vulnerabilities and mistakes, and it does nothing to glorify their jobs or their fight. But in doing nothing more than trying to capture reality, the film is able to reveal the heart of heroism that exists in the real world as we know it, and there are no superpowers, special effects, or motley costumes to obscure the view.

BASICS

Your Cup O’ Tea:
If you’re a fan of more documentary-type filmmaking, you enjoy character-driven plots, you’re looking for realistic portrayals of war or you’d rather be immersed than entertained.

Steer Clear:
If you want a fast-paced thrill-ride or a typical war film. There is violence but it’s few and far between, no shoot-out scenes or even palpable villains. This isn’t good versus evil with an underlying plot and resolution at the end. It’s episodic, and there is a lot of downtime.

Nothing New Under the Sun:
This is going to fit in more with a war documentary than with any other Hollywood-type film out there. It’s rather unique, since it has the feel of realism without having any footage of authentic scenarios or battles. It has the pacing of a sniper film, like “Enemy at the Gates” without the love triangle and definitive villain, but it’s hard to find another flick out there that has done what this film has done.

Buy or Rent:
Rent. You can get through the special features in less than forty minutes, and this is definitely an experiential piece. You watch it, you appreciate it, but most likely there won’t be anything to draw you back. It’s worth a viewing, but you most likely won’t find it entertaining in a way that would make you want to see it again.

FEATURES

-Scene Selection

-Language Selection

-Feature Commentary with director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal

-The Hurt Locker: Behind the Scenes
Approx 12 minutes. A very typical behind-the-scenes feature that does little more than tell you what you’ve seen in the film. Almost a third of the running time is occupied by clips from the movie with very little “behind-the-scenes” footage mixed in. If you want a summary of the movie without watching it, this section is useful. But if you’ve seen the film, this is going to be little more than redundant.
DUH! Factor (On a scale of 1 to 10—10 being “very obvious” and 1 being “interesting”): 10

-Image Gallery (with or without Q&A Recorded at the Institute of Contemporary Art, London)
Approx 23 minutes. This is a collection of feature and production stills from the film. They are pretty small and low-res, so they don’t really garner that much interest. You can view them as a slideshow with a director/writer Q&A session providing the soundtrack, which redeems this feature to a degree. Bigelow and Boal talk about everything from the musical score to casting, to distribution, and elaborate on their movie-making philosophy and strategy. Again, it’s a lot of telling you what you’ve already seen, but there are some nuggets of interest if you care about the filmmaking process. Content is discussed, but not to any great depth.
DUH! Factor: 7

Woulda Been Nice: To have a day-in-the-life-of-an-actor-on-set segment. There’s a wee bit of footage and some stills showing the actors on set that piqued my interest as to what it was like to film in Jordan. And it would have been fascinating to see interviews with the native extras to see what they thought of the filming and their take on the experience of working with American filmmakers.