When I first saw the film, I thought it was an interesting indie production. I turned to my husband and said, "Well, I guess that went straight to video." When he told me, no, it was up for Best Picture, I don't think I could articulate a full sentence for several minutes.
Here's what I saw in The Hurt Locker: A new view of the Iraq war, with exceptional tension and wonderful performances by the actors. Despite the inaccuracies that have since been pointed out by several members of the military (wrong uniforms, too few Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit members, etc.), there were a number of realistic scenes. A notable example is the sniper shootout in the desert that doesn’t end neatly after the last shot, but carries on for a few minutes (probably hours in the world of the film) as the soldiers wait out any forthcoming danger.
This was a movie about one man’s addiction to war. The film opens with former New York Times Iraq expert Christopher Hedges’s quote, “War is a drug.” What doesn’t seem to be pointed out in any film criticisms, articles, or press surrounding the release of the film is the detriment this addiction can have. In fact, journalist for The American Prospect Tara McKelvey calls The Hurt Locker, albeit wryly, “...one of the most effective recruiting vehicles for the U.S. Army that I have seen.”
In the film, Sergeant First Class William James displays no apparent character arc. He is the same war-addicted thrill-seeker from beginning to end. He does not appear to have anything but a bulldog attitude toward his work, barring a brief emotional meltdown in the shower and a visible disdain for civilian life during his stint at home. It is during this pit stop to “normal life” that he confesses to his infant son that even he—his own flesh and blood—is not as important to James as his life in the EOD unit:
...You love everything, don't ya? Yeah. But you know what, buddy? As you get older... some of the things you love might not seem so special anymore.... And by the time you get to my age, maybe it's only one or two things. With me, I think it's one.
Look, I’m an open-minded film viewer. I can watch—and even appreciate—a film where the character does not fundamentally change. And it would be fine in this film, too, if James’s addiction weren’t glorified in the end. As I watched SFC William James welcomed back to Delta company for another year-long tour—swaggering into the kicked-up dust and heat with triumphant music booming in the background—I did not feel exultant that our hero was returning to the task he loves. Nor was I filled with pride that a guy like that is on “our side.” Rather, I felt ill. Why was that?
The founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paul Rieckhoff, feels The Hurt Locker is "... not based on a true story, but on a true war...in which I have seen my friends killed....” He further lamented, “For Hollywood to glorify this crap is a huge slap in the face to every soldier who's been on the front line." [from The Washington Post]
While I fundamentally agree with Rieckhoff’s sentiment, I have to ask: Is it war that is being glorified in The Hurt Locker? Or is it the men and women (in this case, the one man) fighting it who are glorified? I believe it’s the latter, which helps explain the intestinal ennui I felt at the end of the film.
When rescue teams rushed to the scene of the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, I was grateful to all of them for coming to the aid of my fellow New Yorkers. I considered those men and women heroes and heroines—regardless of how or why that tragedy occurred. So, why can I not choke down the feel-goodiness of SFC James’s brave actions in The Hurt Locker—regardless of how I feel about the Iraq war?
It is because The Hurt Locker presents to us the harsh reality of war and its devastating effects on those who fight it, while championing their heroism, not pointing out how mislead that forced heroism is. At the end of the film, I felt manipulated into thinking James is supposed to be some heroic badass, rather than the emotionally damaged person he is, presumably due to the war itself. Indeed, the film’s title refers to military slang for being in “a mental state...that’s full of pain and hurt.” Yet we are supposed to admire his bravery because he’s fighting for our freedom. (Remind me again who’s threatening it?) At least this is what we’re told over and over again by the media, and what is propagated by the multitude of SUVs emblazoned with “Support Our Troops” ribbon-shaped magnets.
Do we need heroes so badly that we’re willing to overlook whether the actions they perform are for a just cause overall? Or, most importantly, to overlook the toll those actions exact on their physical and psychological well-being?
If our hearts are expected to swell with pride as Sergeant First Class William James returns to a fresh tour of duty in Iraq while he stuffs down his pain, continues to act with delusional bravado, and his ability to engage in healthy human relationships withers and dies, perhaps it is this expectation that makes The Hurt Locker hurt most of all.