Why The Hurt Locker shouldn’t have won

Discussion in 'Films, Music and All Things Artsy' started by jumpinjarhead, Mar 11, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. While I have my own concerns about this movie in terms of misleading an otherwise ignorant audience as to the realities of war, and especially as fought by US forces, Mr. Streithorst is way off the mark in his obviously biased view of US military. While there are of course instances (as in any military in any combat setting)where individual soldiers commit criminal acts, to suggest that it is commonplace and “routine’ is simply not supported by the FACTS. It is ironic and characteristically hypocritical that he has fallen victim to the very thing he purports to critique–the genre of military movies that cloaks virulent anti-military agendas (depicting one war crime after another) with superficial technical (jargon, uniforms, equipment, special effects etc.) accuracy such as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Casualties of War, Generation Kill, Jarhead ad nauseam.

  2. I quite liked it
  3. Its only a movie
  4. So did I.
  5. Thing is, the septics dont want reality, they want to see their all American boys making the world a better place while risking their lives defending the good and the innocent.
    Im going to watch it on dodgy DVD later.
  6. 1 - It's a film
    2 - It's an American film
    3 - It's a film aimed at an American audience
    4 - What were the other nominated films
    5 - Who cares :)
  7. going to see it tomorrow. i'll take a pinch of salt with me
  8. Perhaps to those who know better. To the majority of the audiences, however, it is much more than that in that the "reality" those viewers receive is quite distorted, largely due to the political agendas of the uber-liberal producers (Oliver Stone for example) camouflaged by the superficial accuracy imparted by advisors like Dale Dye who turned lackluster military careers (he retired as a captain whose specialty was public affairs) into million dollar gigs. I saw this phenomenon for real in trying to disabuse young Marines who grew up on such fare as Platoon, Apocalypse Now and FMJ that it was not ok to use drugs, kill one's superiors, rape and abuse civilians etc.
  9. To be fair, half of the US don't even know where Iraq is!
  10. Yeah, it was'nt so bad. For a piss-poor budget, the individual performances were pretty good and she/they managed to reproduce some of the tension and goat-fck decisions that are made on Ops.

    What grips my spine is that the overwhelmingly radical/liberal 'elite' of Follywood queue up to fondle The Blessed Obama, save rainforests, whales, tuna, shrimp, krill, etc but really could not give a flying fck about the men and women on the ground and yet spend an inordinate amount of time hugging themselves in glee at the 'bravery' in bringing such gritty realism to the screen.

    At least Kathryn Bigelow had the honesty to acknowledge the troops.
  11. Oh I would think after 7 years of war we KNOW where Iraq is. :roll: As for "Hurt Locker", it makes an interesting movie , but is not to be relied upon to tell the real story. :p
  12. TBH, Smudge, half of the US doesn't know where the other half is.
  13. I stand by my position that in spite of the "gritty realism" the nuances of this genre of films in terms of the plot and characters do as much damage to the military in general as it does good in terms of the perceptions of the vast majority of viewers who have no real basis for comparison as civilians. They are the ones that the producers are trying to influence to their often anti-war, anti-military, anti-authority perspectives.

    The upcoming and much bally-hooed (due to the Hanks/Spielburg/Goetzman involvement that brought us Band of Brothers) HBO series, "The Pacific" is no different. I attended a special advance premiere several weeks ago and was disappointed (though not really surprised) to see that in the very first battle sequence, there was a gratuitous scene of a captain cowering in his foxhole while his gallant men carried on the battle. While I realize such things happen in every combat, this was obviously added in by the producers since it does not appear anywhere in the books that the producers say were used as the basis for the screenplay. Indeed, if the producers were really driven by their professed quest for accuracy, they would know that for the officer to have been a captain in the Marines on Guadalcanal in 1942, this necessarily meant due to time in grade requirements he was of the "Old Breed"--those professionals who were in the Marines before Pearl Harbor and who generally performed heroically and competently, especially in the early stages of WWII when experience was at a premium.

    My point is that given the limited screen time for any film, the producers make carefully chosen decisions for each and every scene included in the final cut. Accordingly, and especially when a scene is clearly fictional in that the source material does not support it, one has to ask why it was deemed worthy of inclusion. It does not take a rocket scientist to see why this scene was included (just as the many similar scenes in the other movies of this genre of cowardly and incompetent leaders, rebellious yet lovable and infinitely wise squaddies, routine criminal conduct etc.) as it plays into the well-documented biases of "Hollywood" against authority in general and the military culture specifically (notwithstanding the somewhat hollow protestations of some that they merely hate war but "love" the soldier when at the same time so often demeaning the soldier as someone who cannot do anything else in life).
  14. Perhaps but consider for just a moment if the US really didn't know (or care) where anyplace other than the good old US of A is. How would the UK like to be relied upon and often expected to be first into every hot spot, whether man-made or natural disaster? I realize many take issue with our intrusion into places like Iraq, but that usually is a function of 20/20 hindsight as is plain if you bother to go back and look at the news from 1991-2003 in both the US and UK when so many were wringing their hands over the evil Saddam and his continual thumbing his nose at the UN, WMDs or no WMDs.

    Not surprisingly, many in the US find it a bit disingenuous when we are slagged at nearly every turn when the reality is that most western nations ultimately rely on the US in one way or the other for at least a part of their national security assurance or to go to the rescue of some god-forsaken place that is ravaged by earthquake, tsunami, famine, pestilence or terror.
  15. Really? I was talking to an American couple in Oxford 2 weeks ago, they were after directions to the castle, they asked what I did, I told them I was in the Army and was having a good chat about working with the USMC in Camp Bastion - Helmand province. They looked confused; so I said: "Afghanistan!" His reply; "Oh just outside Baghdad!"

    I finally get them to Oxford Castle where the woman says, with a rather disapointed look on her face; "So this is where the Queen lives then?" I took them to the Castle Tavern and told them they could get info on Queens there. :)