criterionforum.org

Cocus wrote:You don't have to see the movie to talk about its value as propaganda for American military policy and adventures in exotic places.

If you're going to talk about actual rather than potential value, yes, yes you do.

Cocus wrote:Doesn't engaging in discussion entail telling people which side you are on?

Yup. But if that's the major purpose of your talk, then you are going to be the victim of a lot of bias.

Shrew wrote:

And the real question then to Cocus and Sonmi and others remains: Is this enough? To indict war in general by focusing on the personal/psychological/existential toll on individual foot soldiers? And if it's not, then you'd kind of have to be against other films that have taken similar approaches with politically incorrect sides of older wars, like Cross of Iron and Letters From Iwo Jima.

At the risk of putting words into mouths, I think their answer would be no. The difference between Hurt Locker and the Catholic church/Cross of Iron/Iwo Jima is that these things are over (really, only the most militant atheists are gonna look at the Catholic church and think, "Fuck you for the inquisition, you totally unchanged institution"), so to consider the problems of the individual soldier or believer is merely to universalize the terrible experience of war. Making individual Nazis sympathetic or even heroic isn't a threat because the institution is dead, and only an expressly pro-Nazi slant would make the film (nostalgically) imperialist.

With the Hurt Locker, America is still around and could possibly start more wars, and thus the threat of the institution is still present. I think Somini's argument was that it's not enough to just say "war is bad" without interrogating the culprits that started the war when they still exist. He seems to think that the film has no criticism of any American policy, and thus implicitly agrees that yes, these soldiers are fucked up but still fighting for "America" so it's worth it. My counterargument is that the film does question whether the soldiers are actually fighting for "America/Democracy around the world". At the film's end its clear that given a choice between war and America, Renner's character will always choose war, and that mindset is why we got into that mess.

If you want my opinion, a far guiltier example of American imperialism (at the time) would be Written on the Wind, or Daddy Long Legs, where the characters are perfectly free to just get up and say they're going to start an oil business in Iran, or join a mining company in South America. I still love the movies though.

Actually I have no problem with a film indicting war on a personal/psychological basis (I think Full Metal Jacket does this quite well), though Shrew is correct that it is certainly more difficult to objectively judge the Iraq context because it is still going on. We just have a fundemental difference of opinion that The Hurt Locker is an indictment of war, at its core. As I mentioned before, yes Renner's character is portrayed as extremely flawed - much in the way Batman is flawed in Nolan's incarnation. But as in any "super-hero" film, all that matters is the audience's empathy with its heroes. The Iraqi - the enemy, the "other" - is still dehumanized, and does not warrant our empathy. There is nothing, no scene - like the devastating finale in Full Metal Jacket - that humanizes the "enemy" (and perhaps "dehumanizes" the protagonists). The Hurt Locker serves that mythology, while a true indictment of war dismantles it.

The reason the commentators are entering into this pronouncement without having seen the film is that they and/or the media outlet they work for want to the first on the block to condemn it. The subject of American torture tactics could be addressed at any point over the past decade, but discussing those tactics in the context of ZERO DARK THIRTY could not be done before now. Given that, I would have appreciated it if the commentators had seen the film first before addressing these concerns.

I attended the anniversary of Human Rights Day over the weekend as part of Amnesty International and was asked by fellow members if I was outraged by the subject matter of Bigelow's film. I politely replied I would wait to see the film before commenting.

sonmi wrote:There is nothing, no scene - like the devastating finale in Full Metal Jacket - that humanizes the "enemy" (and perhaps "dehumanizes" the protagonists). The Hurt Locker serves that mythology, while a true indictment of war dismantles it.

I liked the fact that in The Hurt Locker, 'the enemy' was hidden. At any given moment, the random people watching on the street or in windows could be enemies or people to be protected. There was no way to know. They were literally faceless; not an opposing force or army with a command structure, but the will of a people. It's what gave so many of the scenes their gut-wrenching suspense, but it also made it impossible for the soldiers to fight their war on clear terms. When the soldier in the prologue couldn't shoot down the man with the cell phone and save his colleague, we knew it was because he couldn't be sure if the man was a terrorist or just a civilian with a cell phone. All is indeterminate, even danger.

This all leads to the harrowing scene when Renner takes the Iraqi family hostage, wherein the indeterminacy of who is being fought (and why) comes right out in Renner's psychology. He's delusional: he can't tell if the kid he found dead is his friend from earlier or not, and he can't even decide if a normal Iraqi family are responsible for heinous things or not (tho' to the audience, they plainly aren't, and indeed we can't even tell why Renner chose them).

The final heroic moment of the film, as I say, involves the death of an innocent caught up in this typically crazy 'war-is-hell' scenario. And it's notable that, just like the moment in the prologue, our heroes are helpless to prevent disaster. Indeterminacy, impotence, and mental breakdown are some of the core themes of the movie.

And yet despite all of this damning evidence, Renner still can't wait to get away from his family and all that he's sworn to protect and dive right back into the war that's destroying him, mentally. This is not a movie about healthy people making healthy choices and earning healthy results.

Cocus wrote:You don't have to see the movie to talk about its value as propaganda for American military policy and adventures in exotic places.

Yes, you absolutely do. How do you know if the film is actually propagandistic unless you've assessed it for yourself? This is a completely asinine argument.

EDIT: Aw snap, Sausage.

Is there an awards category for worst thread?

I find Hollywood attempts to try to humanize the Other in the midst of the current political situation for more confusing and harmful than Hurt Locker (see: Green Zone, and the even more abysmal The Kingdom). Iraq has to speak for themselves, and any Hollywood movie that would try I think WOULD end up being imperialist doggerel. Because Hurt Locker is so focused on the point of view of a few soldiers, the depiction of Iraq as Other is the only logical viewpoint, because that's how they, with no little to no training in Arabic or this culture, see Iraq--where everyone is a possible attacker because the soldiers don't have enough information to sort out who's who in the midst of their fear.

But again, where I think I differ with Somni here, is that generalizing of Iraqis as Others works on two levels: one is the apolitical point of view which aims to accurately depict the experience of soldiers in Iraq. The other is that this can easily stand in for the Bush administration's (and unfortunately many Americans') own approach to the War on Terror, in which a wide swath of humanity is painted as a Freedom-hating Other and then acted against, the result being an inability to determine who is actually trying to attack America.

Second, I don't think Renner's character is comparable to say, "Batman", because while superhero movies may bring up these questions about whether their heroes are right in the head, the questions are always tossed aside or elided in some easy way. For example, you might ask if Bruce Wayne cares more about saving people or punishing crime, but then his girlfriend will get killed and the question is moot: he's gotta punish crime because he has nothing else that matters to him. Thus, we can still emphasize with Batman. On the other hand, Renner actually chooses to leave what could well be an actual, comfortable life to return to this insanity, and I don't think that ending leaves any doubt as to whether Renner is right in the head..

I actually like that analysis regarding the so-called "War on Terror" Shrew, and it certainly makes sense, I just think it is a lot to ask for the vast majority of the film going public to infer such meaning. I feel like if that is what Bigelow was trying to say, in what is otherwise a fairly straight-forward Hollywood thriller, she might have been better served to make it a little less opaque, so it wasn't lost on most of the audience. Again, I begrudge no one their right to make whatever film they desire, but I think for a film to truly be critical of war, then a general audience member must be able to decipher, or at least feel that criticism, if not necessarily be able to articulate it.

In truth, I think that is probably what Sam Fuller meant when he criticized Full Metal Jacket for being a "goddamn recruiting film". When I first saw the film when I was probably 10 years old (don't ask me what my parents were thinking), and up through high-school, I perceived it to be a gung-ho, pro-military affair. I even proudly memorized the "This is my rifle.." prayer. Like Nietzsche said, people often don't want to hear the truth, because they don't want their illusions destroyed. It wasn't until much later, when my illusions had already been shattered that I realized what Full Metal Jacket was. Truffaut said there's no such thing as an anti-war film, probably for that reason. I don't agree, but the greater the ambiguity the more difficult it is to decipher.

zedz wrote:

Cocus wrote:You don't have to see the movie to talk about its value as propaganda for American military policy and adventures in exotic places.

Yes, you absolutely do. How do you know if the film is actually propagandistic unless you've assessed it for yourself? This is a completely asinine argument.

domino harvey wrote:Is there an awards category for worst thread?

Might we consider locking the thread until, you know, the film opens next week?

Sonmi451 wrote:I feel like if that is what Bigelow was trying to say, in what is otherwise a fairly straight-forward Hollywood thriller, she might have been better served to make it a little less opaque, so it wasn't lost on most of the audience. Again, I begrudge no one their right to make whatever film they desire, but I think for a film to truly be critical of war, then a general audience member must be able to decipher, or at least feel that criticism, if not necessarily be able to articulate it.

So, again, you are interested in propaganda for your own side. Never mind that the film is saying what you want it to say; for it to be successful in your eyes, it must be as direct and pointed as possible so that the majority of the general public (ie. not you) receives its message.

You want propaganda. You don't want even the possibility of ambiguity, or difficulties, or problems. And you seem to be somewhat scornful of the ability of the average movie-goer to comprehend things that aren't presented in really simple, direct terms.

Your criticisms of the movie are not really aesthetic. They come down to its virtues as an educational tool.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Sonmi451 wrote:I feel like if that is what Bigelow was trying to say, in what is otherwise a fairly straight-forward Hollywood thriller, she might have been better served to make it a little less opaque, so it wasn't lost on most of the audience. Again, I begrudge no one their right to make whatever film they desire, but I think for a film to truly be critical of war, then a general audience member must be able to decipher, or at least feel that criticism, if not necessarily be able to articulate it.

So, again, you are interested in propaganda for your own side. Never mind that the film is saying what you want it to say; for it to be successful in your eyes, it must be as direct and pointed as possible so that the majority of the general public (ie. not you) receives its message.

You want propaganda. You don't want even the possibility of ambiguity, or difficulties, or problems. And you seem to be somewhat scornful of the ability of the average movie-goer to comprehend things that aren't presented in really simple, direct terms.

Your criticisms of the movie are not really aesthetic. They come down to its virtues as an educational tool.

Again, you have no idea what I'm interested in. I'm simply saying The Hurt Locker is not an anti-war film. I never said it was not successful; on the contrary, I called it a good film. You are the one assigning value.

And I was not aware that aesthetic criticisms are the only ones of merit.

Sonmi451 wrote:Again, you have no idea what I'm interested in.

Your post gives a pretty good idea of it, actually.

Sonmi451 wrote: I'm simply saying The Hurt Locker is not an anti-war film.

You said it wasn't an anti-war film, not because it doesn't contain the meaning you want (you admit that it does), but because it doesn't go out of its way to convince the general audience, unequivocally, that this is what it means. Your problem is not with the content, but the force of its persuasion. Hence: you want propaganda.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Sonmi451 wrote:Again, you have no idea what I'm interested in.

Your post gives a pretty good idea of it, actually.

Sonmi451 wrote: I'm simply saying The Hurt Locker is not an anti-war film.

You said it wasn't an anti-war film, not because it doesn't contain the meaning you want (you admit that it does), but because it doesn't go out of its way to convince the general audience, unequivocally, that this is what it means. Your problem is not with the content, but the force of its persuasion. Hence: you want propaganda.

I certainly did not admit that, perhaps reread my statement. I said I appreciated Shrew's analysis, and said that IF that was Bigelow's intention, then it was lost on most of the audience, because his is the first such argument I have seen. I do not agree that it was indeed Bigelow's intention. It's called respectfully disagreeing.

Sonmi wrote:I certainly did not admit that, perhaps reread my statement. I said I appreciated Shrew's analysis, and said that IF that was Bigelow's intention, then it was lost on most of the audience, because his is the first such argument I have seen. I do not agree that it was indeed Bigelow's intention. It's called respectfully disagreeing.

It makes no practical difference. If you did decide that, yes, what Shrew says is exactly the meaning it contains, then you're still going to offer exactly the criticisms I listed above. Again, your problem is not with the content, but the force of its persuasion, as your criticism that it's not anti-war film does not rest on whether the movie has the meaning Shrew (rightly) sees there. If it doesn't have that meaning, then it's not an anti-war film. If it does, then it's not an anti-war film.

Doesn't matter what side it's on.

That's kind of a modernist argument, isn't it? That the film is a palimpsest that admits of one correct and true interpretation, and that said interpretation is all the meaning the film can or will ever bear? I mean, if Bigelow made an anti-war movie that is read by the majority of its audience as an Oorah ad campaign, that seems like something worth critiquing in terms of the film and not just as some kind of signal flag for one's own predilections.

It also seems to me somewhat reasonable to discuss what effect putting a fictional and particularly politicized and problematic element in a consciously docu-style work is without discussing the work itself, as Greenwald seems to be doing. Need one have seen 24 to discuss what it may mean when soldiers in the field start using 'interrogation techniques' derived from the show?

matrixschmatrix wrote:That's kind of a modernist argument, isn't it? That the film is a palimpsest that admits of one correct and true interpretation, and that said interpretation is all the meaning the film can or will ever bear? I mean, if Bigelow made an anti-war movie that is read by the majority of its audience as an Oorah ad campaign, that seems like something worth critiquing in terms of the film and not just as some kind of signal flag for one's own predilections.

A. I do think some readings are more correct then others because they better account for what is actually playing out onscreen. This is not modernist or post-modernist or whatever.

If accepting or not accepting someone's argument for the film's fundamental meaning has no impact on the criticisms you're making about that film's fundamental meaning, something is wrong with your criticisms.

B. How many people come out of the movie thinking it meant this or that thing does not make one's argument about the film's meaning more or less persuasive, correct, ect. It has no bearing on it. Nor does it imply that the audience in general would reject your reading if it were presented to them.

I have no idea what the general audience thinks The Hurt Locker means. It starts out with a fairly anti-war seeming quote, so its intentions seems more upfront to me than some others.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Sonmi wrote:I certainly did not admit that, perhaps reread my statement. I said I appreciated Shrew's analysis, and said that IF that was Bigelow's intention, then it was lost on most of the audience, because his is the first such argument I have seen. I do not agree that it was indeed Bigelow's intention. It's called respectfully disagreeing.

It makes no practical difference. If you did decide that, yes, what Shrew says is exactly the meaning it contains, then you're still going to offer exactly the criticisms I listed above. Again, your problem is not with the content, but the force of its persuasion, as your criticism that it's not anti-war film does not rest on whether the movie has the meaning Shrew (rightly) sees there. If it doesn't have that meaning, then it's not an anti-war film. If it does, then it's not an anti-war film.

Doesn't matter what side it's on.

Um, say what? You're presuming to know the criticisms I would make of an argument I disagree with, had I agreed with it? And again, if you don't know the problems I have with the content of this film, then you haven't been paying attention.

And what matrix said.

Oh come on.

Sonmi451 wrote:I feel like if that is what Bigelow was trying to say, in what is otherwise a fairly straight-forward Hollywood thriller, she might have been better served to make it a little less opaque, so it wasn't lost on most of the audience. Again, I begrudge no one their right to make whatever film they desire, but I think for a film to truly be critical of war, then a general audience member must be able to decipher, or at least feel that criticism, if not necessarily be able to articulate it.

You're making an IF statement and then concluding that your reading is the same IF it's true or not. IF Bigelow was doing what Shrew says, she still doesn't meet your criteria for an anti-war film.

And now I'm going to do what I should have done many posts earlier and stop posting in this thread.

Mr Sausage wrote:Oh come on.

Sonmi451 wrote:I feel like if that is what Bigelow was trying to say, in what is otherwise a fairly straight-forward Hollywood thriller, she might have been better served to make it a little less opaque, so it wasn't lost on most of the audience. Again, I begrudge no one their right to make whatever film they desire, but I think for a film to truly be critical of war, then a general audience member must be able to decipher, or at least feel that criticism, if not necessarily be able to articulate it.

You're making an IF statement and then concluding that your reading is the same IF it's true or not. IF Bigelow was doing what Shrew says, she still doesn't meet your criteria for an anti-war film.

And now I'm going to do what I should have done many posts earlier and stop posting in this thread.

Ah ok, I see what you are saying. Well in that case, obviously audience reaction plays a major part, and the majority of the film's audience did not perceive it as anti-war. I was using the IF statement as more of a rhetorical device, since I do not agree that was Bigelow's intention.

Sonmi451 wrote: Well in that case, obviously audience reaction plays a major part, and the majority of the film's audience did not perceive it as anti-war.

Wait, what? Now you're Gallup 451? How do you know what the majority of the film's audience thought? Based on box office alone The Hurt Locker was a clear flop in the U.S., barely making its production budget back, hardly covering its P&A campaign. It's historically one of the worst performing Oscar winners. If anything, that's a sign that audiences stayed away because they perceived it to be exactly the sort of unpleasant critique of war that Sausage and Shrew have described to you many times over.

Wait, what? How can you call out Sonmi for rhetorical shortcuts and then walk them yourself?

Anyhow, what Shrew and Sausage are describing as the film's content strikes me as being psychological or existential, and decidedly not political. One soldier having a self destructive drive to fight has nothing to do with why there was a war in Iraq.

FerdinandGriffon wrote:Wait, what? How can you call out Sonmi for rhetorical shortcuts and then walk them yourself?

You mean that bad box office doesn't necessarily mean bad word of mouth? Though there's usually a very strong correlation? Especially when a film gets largely positive reviews like The Hurt Locker did? Or that there's some other sound explanation for the fact that, say, the poor unwashed masses who thought they saw a rousing rah rah picture of the war they never bothered to question and loved it unthinkingly couldn't be bothered to see it again or recommend it to their friends -- even after it had won multiple Oscars?

No marquee names, a slow start to distribution, not a feel good movie (this does not preclude it being "rah-rah", I'm just acknowledging the difference in tone between this and, say, The King's Speech or The Artist), an unfashionable genre, the stiff competition it faced in the BO (Avatar).

Was Act of Valor a big hit? No matter that it didn't win an Oscar, since its target audience doesn't give a damn about awards/reviews.

FerdinandGriffon wrote: Was Act of Valor a big hit, no matter that its target audience doesn't give a damn about awards/reviews?

Now who's pulling rhetorical taffy? But, I digress. Here, let me Google that for you. Ah, yes, it was. Which means exactly what to you? It's just the kind of terrible rah rah picture in nearly every dimension -- with nothing to say about war and astonishingly little to show for the unprecedented access it got in terms of procedural interest/accuracy -- that some folks here are trying to turn Bigelow's film(s) into. And the single shadiest thing about it politically is how it bends over backwards to steer its sub-The Unit narrative away from anything that remotely suggests that present-day SEALs might spend the majority of their time on raids in the Middle East. And the relative financial success of a bald-faced recruitment film like Act of Valor versus the relative failure of The Hurt Locker surely says something other than one of them was up against Avatar for part of its run.

Yeah, shoulda wiki'd that! But obviously box office earnings are not a science. If they were, there would be no such thing as a studio flop. A film's financial success can not have any ultimate bearing on our judgement of its content.

I should say that I don't think The Hurt Locker is propaganda, just that its criticism of war is on a psychological, existential basis, if at all, and not a political one.