The Hurt Locker review

In its opening moments, The Hurt Locker immediately ingratiated itself to me with two key elements. The first was the opening epigraph, one of the key quotes from Chris Hedges's fantastic book War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, which states, bluntly,"War is a drug." The second is the immediate cut to a scene featuring the criminally underused Guy Pearce, who does typically great work in a part that (mild spoiler) amounts to little more than a cameo. From that point onward, The Hurt Locker had me pretty much riveted.

I'd like to call The Hurt Locker the best movie yet made about the second Iraq war, but the fact of the matter is that it's pretty much the only one I've actually seen (except for the Samuel L. Jackson/Jessica Biel/50 Cent PTSD drama Home of the Brave, which I don't think really counts). What I can say is that it's the only one that I've felt compelled to watch. I don't think that the well-documented popular indifference to films set in or dealing with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is difficult to understand in the slightest; not only is the war extremely politicized, it's been such a well-discussed staple of American civic life that the thought of spending entertainment dollars to receive the fictionalized two cents of various filmmakers seems like an invitation to exhaustion. I personally expect to be avoiding Iraq/Global War on Terror themed films such as Lions for Lambs for years to come. (By contrast, aficionados of the political opinions of John Cusack are presently in the throes of a veritable Golden Age).

However, The Hurt Locker distinguishes itself by steadfastly and nigh-miraculously avoiding any mention of politics, diplomacy, or strategy. Rather than attempt to encapsulate the Iraq war at every Byzantine level, the film homes in on the experiences of three soldiers who compose an Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit in Baghdad; SSgt. William James, Sgt. J.T. Sanborn, and Spc. Owen Eldridge. One of the main keys to The Hurt Locker's effectiveness is that these men are essentially the only characters in the movie. It's an order of magnitude more focused than any American movie I've seen recently, and is hyper-minimalist in comparison to the standards of the bombastic war genre.

The plot of The Hurt Locker follows the unit through their last six weeks in rotation, and deals primarily with the conflicts that arise when James joins Sanborn and Eldridge's unit as their new team leader. James is a swaggering adrenaline junkie who disdains established safety protocols and teamwork, and his risky approach to defusing IEDs particularly sets Sanborn on edge. One of the most inspired elements of the first act of the movie is that James's character traits are a close approximation of those often lionized in the main characters of war movies; however, using Sanborn as a proxy for the audience, The Hurt Locker conveys how dangerous and stupid his behavior is to his team. There's a great sequence immediately following a tense defusing scene in which James essentially cuts Sanborn and Eldridge out of the loop as they're trying to provide him with cover in which a colonel approaches James enthusiastically to praise him for being a "wild man." Over the course of the movie, the three men's relationships to one another evolve substantially, and all three are deep, well-realized characters - particularly James, who is far more complex than the action movie stereotype he initially appears to be.

I'd again be overstepping the limits of my knowledge in asserting that The Hurt Locker is "realistic" (I've never been in combat, so for all I know, Predator may well be the most accurate war movie ever made), although it compares well with the depiction offered by The War Tapes, a first person documentary shot by three soldiers during their Iraq tours. However, it feels realistic - the unit goes out to defuse IEDs again and again, like you'd expect, and in between, engages in conversations about their experiences and their lives. A list of what isn't in the plot of The Hurt Locker is probably more informative than a description of what is, so without further ado, here's what you won't be getting from the film:

• Canned exposition about what the unit does and the lingo the men use
• Neat, encapsulated summaries of the main characters' backgrounds and personalities presented by superior officers who are never again seen
• A circumscribed villain to provide a consistent external source of conflict (e.g. the "find the bomber" plot in The Kingdom
  
• Any sort of shoehorned attempt to explain or rationalize the motives of the insurgents setting the bombs
• Drawn-out battlefield death monologues
• Showy action-movie set pieces and cinematography of the type that I just praised yesterday
• A dialogue exchange in which the words "hurt locker" are spoken aloud and explained (the meaning of the phrase is instead subtly alluded to in a scene that features prominently in the theatrical trailer)
  

The subtle and naturalistic approach taken by The Hurt Locker fits the subject matter like a glove. I honestly never thought I'd see a modern movie set in a real military conflict avoid preachiness so completely (Inglourious Basterds doesn't count), and the performances are exceptional, especially Jeremy Renner as SSgt. James. This is one of the best films of the year and well worth catching up with on DVD if you can't see it in the theaters.

Next weekend: I'll attempt to see a mediocre or bad movie, so as to prevent this blog from becoming a perpetual rim-job to current theatrical releases. The Time Traveler's Wife is still playing around here...