The second film, however, is dark, gritty and somewhat violent. It contains many anti-heroes, but no obvious heroes. Like its competitor, the film is long, yet so gripping and suspenseful that the time spent in the cinema passes in a flash. You leave with the feeling that you have witnessed something quite special, but you are not quite sure what that is. It is only much later when you have had time to digest it all that you truly grasp the brilliance of the movie and the genius of the director.
Naturally, given it's a bunch of unadventurous Americans who award the Oscar, the first film wins hands down.
You could easily think I am predicting the outcome of this Sunday's Academy Awards, when James Cameron's 10 foot purple aliens go up against Katherine Bigelow's malediction on the Iraq War. Instead, however, I am recollecting what happened at the 1994 awards, where "Forrest Gump" swept all before it and Quentin Tarantino's brilliant "Pulp Fiction" went largely ignored. History has since proven the Academy's decision to be flawed, as "Pulp Fiction's" influence continues to reverberate around the film industry today, while "Forrest Gump" has proven to be just another forgettable "feel good" movie.
Will history repeat itself? It's entirely possible, as "Avatar" is indeed an impressive visual spectacle - but then so it should be, given the phenomenal budget. However, if the true measure of the worth of a film is the extent to which it leaves an indelible effect on its audience, then "Avatar" plainly should not win. In terms of its plot, characterisation and themes, it constitutes fairy floss next to "Hurt Locker's" meat and potatoes. One hopes that the Academy will recognise this, ignore the James Cameron cheer squad (aka the mainstream press) and award the Oscar to his ex-wife's film.
What was so good about "The Hurt Locker"? War movies are a dime a dozen - let's face it, the way the USA executes foreign policy ensures there is plenty of material to exploit - and most of them are complete rubbish. Some of them are no more than "splatter" movies set against the backdrop of a war, with multiple explosions and one-dimensional villains being the order of the day. Others make the mistake of trying to depict war as a glorious battle of the righteous USA against whoever their current arch enemy is, be that the Vietcong, the Japanese or Saddam Hussein, when any moviegoer with half a brain knows the reality of war is far more complex. (NB- In this vein, I hope the idiots who made "Pearl Harbour" are reading this; then again, I doubt they can actually read. They certainly can't read history books accurately).
The ones that work don't fall into these obvious traps and ensure that the human element of war is squarely in focus and that the main characters are properly developed. This is not to say that the films don't involve plenty of carnage - it is just that the carnage is there to complement the storyline, rather than be the storyline itself.
"The Hurt Locker" certainly fits this category. The film, while not a documentary, is filmed in a documentary-style and centres around the travails of a 3-man US Army bomb disposal team working in Iraq. When the leader of the team is killed by a remotely detonated bomb, he is replaced by a battle-hardened maverick, Sergeant Will James, whose cavalier but highly competent methods immediately create a conflict with the other two members of the team. The action flows thick and fast as the team are confronted with a succession of nerve-jangling situations including expertly concealed bombs, getting caught in a sniper fight in the middle of the Iraqi desert and finding an Iraqi child who had been befriended by James earlier in the film killed and stuffed with explosives during a raid on a warehouse. With each new scene, a caption runs across the bottom of the screen identifying how long the team has to go in its tour of duty and leaves the viewer begging the question: are all of the team going to make it through? As this is clearly not a movie destined for a happy ending, this is far from a certain thing. The team gradually come to appreciate James's considerable skill, but remain wary of his often reckless behaviour and as a result, the built up tension between them simmers beneath the surface before erupting in a drunken barrack room fight one evening.
The climax of the film involves James attempting but failing to save an Iraqi civilian who had been strapped with bombs by his captors. After this incident, the team's tour of duty finishes and we see James trying unsuccessfully to re-adapt to civilian life back in America with his wife and child. The movie ends with James rejoining the war effort for another year long tour, leaving the viewer with the distinct impression that given the events of the last 30 days, James would be very unlikely to survive.
What distinguishes this film from one such as "Avatar" is that the characters are very real and therefore behave in a realistic fashion when confronted with a variety of ghastly situations. As such you find yourself getting under their skin and empathising with them, something that is impossible in "Avatar". Also the main messages of the film, such as the value of maverick operators in otherwise regimented armies, the futility of fighting a campaign such as Iraq using conventional warfare and the issues faced by war veterans trying to reintegrate into normal society, while clearly evident, are not rammed down your throat like they are in "Avatar". Instead of feeding you mind candy, the "The Hurt Locker" aims like all good cinema to provoke, shock and most importantly, get you to think about its subject matter and themes.
I was impressed enough to rank it second behind "Das Boot" in my list of favourite war movies. Other worthy films, in no particular order, include "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon", "Apocalypse Now", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Gallipoli", "Memphis Belle" and "The Deer Hunter".
Let's hope the Academy agrees. Filmmakers ought to be encouraged to make original, thought-provoking films like "Pulp Fiction" and "The Hurt Locker", and apart from a killing at the box office, what better encouragement is there than an Oscar? While it's a big ask to knock off a contender with a $230 million budget to spend on the production, hopefully the judges see past the whizz-bang special effects and look to the underlying quality of the movie. At that level, it really is no contest. "The Hurt Locker" by a mile. Check it out if you haven't already.
No comments:
Post a Comment