criterionforum.org

warren oates wrote:So this is offered as proof of what besides the fact that a critic whose greatest strength/weakness is that he sees everything as always already inherently political also, surprise, sees The Hurt Locker as political? Rosenbaum can make of the lamest subplot in the film whatever he wants, but, political allegory for American myopia or not, that's not really what the whole of the film is about.

Regardless of whether or not he's imposed a misguided political interpretation elsewhere, he's on the mark here. It may not have been a conscious intention (as noted, Bigelow did say to Kent Jones: "I think that was important. There is that saying, 'There is no politics in the trenches,' and I think it was important to look at the heroism of these men.") but even if they tried to sidestep any overt political analysis, I don't believe they failed to show the ambiguities of the occupation - it's almost expected in any attempt to accurately show what's happening on the ground without pursuing any specific agenda because it's inherent in what you're showing.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think Rosenbaum's right and that any movie set in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else with American troops focused on Americans is going to be inherently a political work, and trying to be apolitical might simply mean trying not to piss anybody off (which is a fool's game, and dishonest besides.)

Yes, thank you.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think it's worth distinguishing between making a Political Film wherein the characters have extended monologues intended to make clear the viewpoint of the filmmakers and a film set in an environment where simply depicting a given narrative has inevitable political consequences- particularly in choosing who will be represented as fully human and who won't, but also in terms of how much people actually know, what motivates them, how honest they are in their dealings, which tactics work, etc. I think Rosenbaum's right and that any movie set in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else with American troops focused on Americans is going to be inherently a political work, and trying to be apolitical might simply mean trying not to piss anybody off (which is a fool's game, and dishonest besides.)

But this tends to ignore the way in which this is always more or less Rosenbaum's line of argument about any war film or most any film in general. He's like Chomsky of film criticism, wired to see/think everything through the lens of power politics. Anything less for him is almost certainly a sign of ignorance or worse. And he does tend to be blinded himself with regards to certain special favorites of his, like, say, Sam Fuller whose war films might be about a great many things but are definitely also about the apolitical heroism of average grunts just trying to do their jobs and survive. That's the same Sam Fuller who weirdly once decried Full Metal Jacket as "a goddam recruiting film!"

No wonder war films seem so overdetermined even to those of us who've never been to war or made a film.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I haven't seen The Hurt Locker or Zero Dark Thirty, but it's not my impression that Bigelow's attempt to avoid politics is in the 'don't make waves' vein. I do think that Warren Oates' analogy between a depiction of heroic soldiers or heroic CIA agents and the heroism of St. Francis doesn't entirely work, though- the way in which Francis's heroism is enacted is essentially a commentary on the materialism and acquisitiveness that developed around the the Medieval Church, and it critiques that style of religion by depicting a better and more decent way of living a religious life. The modern equivalent would be something more like Serpico, something that depicts non-conformist heroism, not someone keeping their head down and working within a bad system to accomplish goals of dubious value.

Wait, so how is survival and saving the lives of others a dubious goal again? Or how does non-conformist whistle-blowing make sense as a choice if you're stuck in a war where the real corruption worth exposing happened in the White House before you were ever deployed?

The dubious goal in question in The Hurt Locker is 'maintaining the American occupation of Iraq', and while I do not think any blame attaches to individual soldiers for doing so (broadly speaking) it is nonetheless a depiction of heroism towards a bad goal. The analogy that comes to mind here is Zulu, which is an exciting and very well made movie, and which is political in that there is hanging over the entirety of the enterprise depicted that the protagonists shouldn't fucking be there in the first place. You can take the movie as intending that irony, or you can take it as imperialist propaganda, but there's no way to divorce it from the exceedingly politicized context in which it exists.

The fact that an individual soldier is apolitical- which is more or less a truism- doesn't mean that a movie depicting those soldier's actions is also apolitical, any more than the broadly apolitical townsfolk in Amarcord mean that the movie doesn't have a specific and conscious political statement about Fascist Italy embedded in it.

You might want to see the film before making the assumption that you've got it's goal figured out, Matrix

I'm saying that it's more or less impossible for the movie to have any kind of honesty at all and remain apolitical, not that I know what its politics are nor how it expresses them.

Well, The Hurt Locker opens with a quote from Chris Hedges(?) to the effect that war is an addiction. So whatever its politics are, they are obviously in some way critical of the idea of war in general. And, indeed, it's a movie in which heroism and an alarming, unhealthy recklessness are often indistinguishable, and in which the plot has increasingly negative effects on the characters caught up in it.

So, while making a movie set in Iraq or Afghanistan is most certainly political, it is important to note one thing: this does not mean the movie is endorsing a message, teaching a lesson, or only containing one set if ideas.

A political movie can be problematizing a issue, too.

Fuck that old attention-seeking queen. Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

mfunk9786 wrote:Fuck that old attention-seeking queen. Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

Waaaaaaay too many people. The middlebrow god of slightly edgy contrarian bon mots. Happily this overreach seems understandable even by his audience.

matrixschmatrix wrote:The dubious goal in question in The Hurt Locker is 'maintaining the American occupation of Iraq', and while I do not think any blame attaches to individual soldiers for doing so (broadly speaking) it is nonetheless a depiction of heroism towards a bad goal. The analogy that comes to mind here is Zulu, which is an exciting and very well made movie, and which is political in that there is hanging over the entirety of the enterprise depicted that the protagonists shouldn't fucking be there in the first place. You can take the movie as intending that irony, or you can take it as imperialist propaganda, but there's no way to divorce it from the exceedingly politicized context in which it exists.

The fact that an individual soldier is apolitical- which is more or less a truism- doesn't mean that a movie depicting those soldier's actions is also apolitical, any more than the broadly apolitical townsfolk in Amarcord mean that the movie doesn't have a specific and conscious political statement about Fascist Italy embedded in it.

Mr Sausage wrote:Well, The Hurt Locker opens with a quote from Chris Hedges(?) to the effect that war is an addiction. So whatever its politics are, they are obviously in some way critical of the idea of war in general. And, indeed, it's a movie in which heroism and an alarming, unhealthy recklessness are often indistinguishable, and in which the plot has increasingly negative effects on the characters caught up in it.

I think Jonathan Rosenbaum is right when he says that a film involving a war, especially relatively current topics can't be completely apolitical, as mostly everyone has their own point of view on a war and its politics. However, matrix, I don't think Bigelow's Hurt Locker was apolitical, I think as Sausage said she was being critical of the war and its the effects it has on people. For me, The Hurt Locker was a character piece and specifically a film about how different people and personalities react in the face of such imminent danger, some rise to it and become addicted (as is the "War is a Drug" message), while others like Sandborne just try to plug through it and do whatever they have to do to be safe (like when he wanted to blow up James for being too risky and threatening their lives) and others become terrified and can't handle facing the possibility of death everyday (like Eldridge). I found the film to lean more towards apolitical than overtly political like Green Zone or countless other war films, however, I found the film to be making a criticism on war and what it does to people, but that's just my interpretation.

That said, I'm expecting that her Bin Laden film will be a lot more politically charged, as its very recent and a very controversial topic; but I hope it isn't like that.

mfunk9786 wrote:Fuck that old attention-seeking queen. Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

I have no real reason to re-quote that other than I agree with it very much.

TheDudeAbides wrote:I think Jonathan Rosenbaum is right when he says that a film involving a war, especially relatively current topics can't be completely apolitical, as mostly everyone has their own point of view on a war and its politics. However, matrix, I don't think Bigelow's Hurt Locker was apolitical, I think as Sausage said she was being critical of the war and its the effects it has on people. For me, The Hurt Locker was a character piece and specifically a film about how different people and personalities react in the face of such imminent danger, some rise to it and become addicted (as is the "War is a Drug" message), while others like Sandborne just try to plug through it and do whatever they have to do to be safe (like when he wanted to blow up James for being too risky and threatening their lives) and others become terrified and can't handle facing the possibility of death everyday (like Eldridge). I found the film to lean more towards apolitical than overtly political like Green Zone or countless other war films, however, I found the film to be making a criticism on war and what it does to people, but that's just my interpretation.

That said, I'm expecting that her Bin Laden film will be a lot more politically charged, as its very recent and a very controversial topic; but I hope it isn't like that.

Sorry if I was unclear- as MFunk pointed out, I'm not in a position to have any specific opinion about how The Hurt Locker embodies any particular message. My point was just that, as far as I'm concerned, a movie about its subject matter is either going to be inherently political or cringingly apolitical in an appalling way (and from what I've heard, and the other Bigelow movies I have seen, I sincerely doubt that to be the case.)

Sounds like you just need to see it

Pff, you're not the boss of me

Sorry.

mfunk9786 wrote:Fuck that old attention-seeking queen. Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

How does your calling him a "queen" and saying "fuck him"... Differ from him saying that she is overated, and probably because of the fact that for whatever reason, there are not many female directors. Well, I guess the difference is, that your comment was actually quite hateful and ignorant, while his was just provocative, and somewhat ill advised. I think its terrible that
there are not more women filmakers, thats completely fucked up. Im not biased when it comes to female directors, I mean look at Triumph of the Will.. One of the greatest films ever made, made by a woman. But does that mean that every woman who picks up a camera is some kind of a hero, and immune from criticism?

There may be some truth in his suggestion that mediocre filmakers are being overly praised because of the gender gap in the industry, I mean... Look at Lena Dunham for example, where would SHE be if she was a man? Her show is called girls after all. I guess what I just said was pretty offensive... Well, I didn't call anyone a "queen". I disagree mightily with a lot of what Brett says, but that does not change the fact that he is a brilliant man, a brilliant writer... Anyways I agree that Bigelow is overated. A Serious Man was one of the most brilliant films I had ever seen. I think that it was robbed when The Hurt Locker won.
From what I have seen of this new film, I am very encouraged, it looks fantastic... But it does not look as good as "The Master" looked, ill say that.

If people are only praising Bigelow for her gender, why was she not getting all of this attention before she made The Hurt Locker?

She's always been a woman, but she hasn't always been widely praised. So there's a logical gap you have to jump to connect that praise to her gender.

It's not the first "ill-advised" comment he's made either. What he said was pretty typical of his Twitter feed (which I stopped following or caring about after awhile), it's just that this one is making headlines. So "attention-seeking" is likely apt, "queen" less so. I'll give you that.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:What other movies would you use as examples, barring her recent work. As for this film in particular (which I haven't seen yet), I'm failing to see how capturing and killing Bin Laden has these imperial ambitions you speak of.

As Matrix said, Argo would be one. Of course the blatant recruiting ad Act of Valor springs to mind. Not so recent, but Black Hawk Down is another. The blood lust and hero worship inherent in the whole Bin Laden caper (not to even mention his shady relationship with the CIA, and his tenuous link to 9/11) - the dancing in the streets upon his purported death - display these imperial ambitions. These ambitions are so ubiquitous, largely due to glamorous propaganda like The Hurt Locker, that most can't disengage long enough to notice it.

warren oates wrote:Huh. I thought that was Bigelow's approach? Certainly it is in The Hurt Locker, where the politics and lies of how the U.S. got into Iraq have about as much to do with the story as Martians. It's a small-picture view of war from the perspective of a foot solider attempting to do his very dangerous duty and survive. It ignores imperialism the same way that it ignores My Little Pony -- out of sheer irrelevance to the story it's chosen to tell.

That is precisely the point. My original quote was tongue in cheek. By ignoring the imperialist nature of the U.S. invasions, Bigelow condones them. We sympathize with these flawed but noble American heroes; it romanticizes them, it further fetishizes the machismo. Do me a favor, and picture for a moment a Japanese film depicting a heroic Japanese bomb squad going about their daily business in Nanking in late 1937. It purports to be "non-political", as it does not overtly villainize the enemy, but it does not even mention the context of their presence there. Would you then consider that propaganda?

warren oates wrote:In your formulation it would become almost impossible to make small-picture film about any institution anywhere in the past, present or future, being that most civic, political, corporate and religious bodies have at one point or another been a party to egregious injustices.

That is a false equivolency, as the incident in question is a specific circumstance wherein a specific group has been a party to egregious injustices, which the filmmaker chooses to ignore.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The very last thing I thought about when I saw the former was whether we had any right to be there

That is exactly the point. To make a film about the Iraq war and have the question of whether we have any right to be there be the last thought on the audience's mind is an injustice in itself.

Sonmi451 wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The very last thing I thought about when I saw the former was whether we had any right to be there

That is exactly the point. To make a film about the Iraq war and have the question of whether we have any right to be there be the last thought on the audience's mind is an injustice in itself.

Why? Why can't a filmmaker assume her part of her audience is thinking about it subconciously (like I did) without having to resort to asking why onscreen?

The flip side to that quote is, the main thing I thought about while watching it was "Wow. War sucks". Can't that be enough?

Sonmi451 wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:What other movies would you use as examples, barring her recent work. As for this film in particular (which I haven't seen yet), I'm failing to see how capturing and killing Bin Laden has these imperial ambitions you speak of.

As Matrix said, Argo would be one. Of course the blatant recruiting ad Act of Valor springs to mind. Not so recent, but Black Hawk Down is another. The blood lust and hero worship inherent in the whole Bin Laden caper (not to even mention his shady relationship with the CIA, and his tenuous link to 9/11) - the dancing in the streets upon his purported death - display these imperial ambitions.

Conspiracy theorize much? If you believe 9/11 was some kind of "inside job," as the gist of your assertion above seems to imply, how can we come to any consensus on reality? Just because the Bushies used 9/11 as a pretext to beat the war drums for Iraq doesn't mean Bin Laden wasn't responsible for it. I almost can't believe this discussion is even being broached on a board like this. Really? You're entitled to your own set of political opinions but not your own set of facts.

Sonmi451 wrote:

warren oates wrote:Huh. I thought that was Bigelow's approach? Certainly it is in The Hurt Locker, where the politics and lies of how the U.S. got into Iraq have about as much to do with the story as Martians. It's a small-picture view of war from the perspective of a foot solider attempting to do his very dangerous duty and survive. It ignores imperialism the same way that it ignores My Little Pony -- out of sheer irrelevance to the story it's chosen to tell.

That is precisely the point. My original quote was tongue in cheek. By ignoring the imperialist nature of the U.S. invasions, Bigelow condones them. We sympathize with these flawed but noble American heroes; it romanticizes them, it further fetishizes the machismo. Do me a favor, and picture for a moment a Japanese film depicting a heroic Japanese bomb squad going about their daily business in Nanking in late 1937. It purports to be "non-political", as it does not overtly villainize the enemy, but it does not even mention the context of their presence there. Would you then consider that propaganda?

Did the Japanese even have a bomb squad in Nanking? Then again, the historical facts don't seem to matter that much to you. But, no, I wouldn't consider it propaganda per se. Still it's kind of uselessly hypothetical. A better example of what you're groping toward might be Peckinpah's Cross of Iron, which Orson Welles apparently considered the best war film he had seen about the ordinary enlisted man since All Quiet on the Western Front. If I recall correctly, the protagonist is disenchanted with the war and his country's role in it but there's no big mea cupla for Nazism, because that's not the point of the film's small-picture story.

So much action on the ground in Iraq came to be centered on IEDs. The war crimes of Americans in Iraq had a different center of gravity. The Hurt Locker isn't about, say, Abu Ghraib guards just "following orders" to use the Nazi formulation I'm sure you'd have chosen.

I'm also not clear on how empathizing with a character automatically romanticizes them. In fact, like Sausage has already said more succinctly, the program of The Hurt Locker from the very first title card is just the opposite. It's about demythologizing the machismo of men who are driven to such dangerous work.

Sonmi451 wrote:

warren oates wrote:In your formulation it would become almost impossible to make small-picture film about any institution anywhere in the past, present or future, being that most civic, political, corporate and religious bodies have at one point or another been a party to egregious injustices.

That is a false equivolency, as the incident in question is a specific circumstance wherein a specific group has been a party to egregious injustices, which the filmmaker chooses to ignore.

Wait, did you just agree with me by way of convincing yourself you were disagreeing?

Sonmi451 wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:The very last thing I thought about when I saw the former was whether we had any right to be there

That is exactly the point. To make a film about the Iraq war and have the question of whether we have any right to be there be the last thought on the audience's mind is an injustice in itself.

Just like all those dang films featuring Catholics that refuse to apologize for Galileo! How can they leave that question dangling so irresponsibly?!

Conspiracy theorize much? If you believe 9/11 was some kind of "inside job," as the gist of your assertion above seems to imply, how can we come to any consensus on reality? Just because the Bushies used 9/11 as a pretext to beat the war drums for Iraq doesn't mean Bin Laden wasn't responsible for it. I almost can't believe this discussion is even being broached on a board like this. Really? You're entitled to your own set of political opinions but not your own set of facts.

Who is conspiracy theorizing? I simply do not presume to know, absent any evidence. Bin Laden was indeed on the CIA payroll, and the FBI said themselves that they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. I never asserted it was an "inside job", though I wouldn't put it past the state to do so, if history is any indicator. Do you believe everything your government/media tell you?

And the subject is being broached (and expounded upon by yourself) because someone asked a direct question about what the Bin Laden assassination had to do with U.S. imperialism, so I answered. You chose to pick out the portion I put in parentheses, instead of addressing the actual point I was making.

Did the Japanese even have a bomb squad in Nanking? Then again, the historical facts don't seem to matter that much to you. But, no, I wouldn't consider it propaganda per se. Still it's kind of uselessly hypothetical.

In what way is it uselessly hypothetical? So it is uselessly hypothetical to compare two imperial invasions of sovereign nations which resulted in massive crimes against humanity, but it is somehow appropriate to keep ridiculously comparing what I'm saying to films about Catholics?

If you really don't think that a film about the Rape of Nanking, from the Japanese perspective - that treated the Japanese as heroes, and mentioned nothing of the atrocities committed against the Chinese - would not qualify as propaganda, then there is not much more to say. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm also not clear on how empathizing with a character automatically romanticizes them. In fact, like Sausage has already said more succinctly, the program of The Hurt Locker from the very first title card is just the opposite. It's about demythologizing the machismo of men who are driven to such dangerous work.

Empathizing with a character does not automatically romanticize them, Bigelow's film does that on it's own. I'm not sure we saw the same film if you think The Hurt Locker "demythologizes the machismo of men who are driven to such dangerous work" (as if carrying out an illegal and unjust invasion of a foreign populace can rightly be called "work"). The film I saw drips with testosterone and machismo. Our heroes are portrayed as flawed, yes, but they are also put on an altar to be fetishized.

Wait, did you just agree with me by way of convincing yourself you were disagreeing?

No, not at all. Perhaps read it again.

Sonmi wrote:The film I saw drips with testosterone and machismo.

It would be a totally inaccurate portrayal of the army if it didn't.

You're not interested in historical or political reality. You're interested in propaganda for your own side. Indeed, your criticisms here are not really about the movie. They are social signaling. You're using this opportunity to let everyone know what side you're on. That is the real meaning behind your posts, and it's too bad you feel like using this movie to do so.

Sonmi451 wrote:Our heroes are portrayed as flawed, yes, but they are also put on an altar to be fetishized.

The longer the movie goes on the more you're meant to worry about 'our heroes' mental health. I don't see how you could've been reading the movie properly and not feel that this is so. This is a movie in which heroism and recklessness become indistinguishable, and in which the main character's actions become more and more worrisome. This is not a movie in which the lead's risk-taking behaviour is glorified. The opposite: we start to worry about him. And, indeed, his attempt at vengeance in the third act is troubling and turns out to've been delusional, and his final 'heroic act' in the narrative is a failure, leaving him with a feeling of impotence and inability. Yet despite all of this, despite his increasingly loss of control, his loss of stability, he just can't wait to get back in there and do it all over again, wife and child be damned.

Hence: war is a drug.