The 2008 film “The Hurt Locker,” directed by Kathryn Bigelow, does a beautiful job of highlighting America’s error in our involvement in the Middle East. Bigelow frames her film with a quote by American Journalist Chris Hedges:
“The rush of war is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”
This film was produced and released five years into the eight-year-long war in Iraq. In it, Bigelow portrays the soldier’s experience, confronting trauma in a unique way to post-Vietnam war media. She also critiques the behaviors and mindset— good intentions or not— that put other people in danger. “The Hurt Locker,” known for being nonpartisan, very subtly opposes this unwinnable war on terror, which took an estimated 300,000 lives, about 5,000 of which were American soldiers. It was a war that was fought to prove American strength– to terrorize the terrorists. America is addicted to war because it is the means by which it asserts power. This, I would argue, is Bigelow’s intended meaning when framing her film with this quote.
“The Hurt Locker” remembers the early years of the war in Iraq while the bullets were still flying. It is set in 2004, the beginning of American occupation, and it follows an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit stationed in Iraq for 38 days. The main character, Staff Sergeant
William James, is not your average soldier. He’s a genius, but he is reckless and explosive. So much so that if a soldier were to behave in the manner that Staff Sgt. James does in the film, that soldier would not even last a week at war. Staff Sgt. James routinely makes rash decisions that ultimately put not only himself but also his unit in danger.
His unit members, Sergeant JT Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge reflect the average, well-trained and disciplined American soldier. They command and follow orders at almost a rhythmic pace, creating a sense of harmony in the middle of a battlefield. They are the epitome of The American War Hero. The juxtaposition of the character of Staff Sgt. James and his unit create tension within the film as he is constantly found putting his unit in immediate danger.
Though the plot itself is turbulent, the objective of the war and the soldiers’ role in it remains pretty monotonous. Throughout the war, there is no end in sight. This war is simply: see a bomb, defuse the bomb, wrestle with your buddies in the barracks, rinse and repeat. The soldiers don’t seem to have any real motivation that keeps them fighting. By the end of the film, Sgt. Sanborn lays out a monologue that clearly differentiates the two experiences of two different characters. Sgt. Sanborn shows his hand, lamenting his perceived reality that all of his efforts in the war are nothing more than years of his life wasted.
Staff Sgt. James, on the other hand, just wants to explore his genius. He is obsessed with the game, with methodically defusing each bomb. He loves the complexity and the skill required, but he also loves the thrill of knowing that he is dancing with death. He doesn’t care about the war; he doesn’t even really care about his family back home. He just cares about his game.
One interpretation of “The Hurt Locker” proposes the juxtaposition of characters in the film as an analogy for the dissonance between the American people and American troops. The YouTube channel “Movies Under the Surface” explains this tension between Staff Sgt. James representing the American people, and his unit representing American troops. The narrator of this channel says, “If Sanborn and Eldridge represent the soldiers fighting in Iraq, that means James represents those putting them in danger… Despite this, James clearly does not represent insurgents or terrorists… So other than the enemy, who else put U.S. soldiers at risk?” His answer? The American people and Bush’s America, who supported the war and sent troops to Iraq.
While a very bold claim, this interpretation reflects the sentiments of the time in which “The Hurt Locker” was produced. Although most Americans supported sending troops to Iraq at the beginning of the War on Terror, by 2007, there was growing opposition to sending more troops to the Middle East from the Democrats. In response, Bush sent 20,000 more troops, a decision that 61 percent of Americans opposed, according to Pew Research.
In an interview for “The Hurt Locker” with Slate Magazine, Bigelow describes the film as “a nonpartisan piece that actually puts a human face on a conflict that I think is fairly underreported.” While there are opinions and viewpoints from various people and in various mediums, the memory of war in Iraq is all very ‘human’—messy and unreliable yet undeniably real. In this film, Bigelow beautifully presents the memory of this war as one in which the soldiers should be remembered the most. This, I believe, is what we should remember now about the wars going on. Remember the people.
“The Hurt Locker”
The 2008 film “The Hurt Locker,” directed by Kathryn Bigelow, does a beautiful job of highlighting America’s error in our involvement in the Middle East. Bigelow frames her film with a quote by American Journalist Chris Hedges:
“The rush of war is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”
This film was produced and released five years into the eight-year-long war in Iraq. In it, Bigelow portrays the soldier’s experience, confronting trauma in a unique way to post-Vietnam war media. She also critiques the behaviors and mindset— good intentions or not— that put other people in danger. “The Hurt Locker,” known for being nonpartisan, very subtly opposes this unwinnable war on terror, which took an estimated 300,000 lives, about 5,000 of which were American soldiers. It was a war that was fought to prove American strength– to terrorize the terrorists. America is addicted to war because it is the means by which it asserts power. This, I would argue, is Bigelow’s intended meaning when framing her film with this quote.
“The Hurt Locker” remembers the early years of the war in Iraq while the bullets were still flying. It is set in 2004, the beginning of American occupation, and it follows an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit stationed in Iraq for 38 days. The main character, Staff Sergeant
William James, is not your average soldier. He’s a genius, but he is reckless and explosive. So much so that if a soldier were to behave in the manner that Staff Sgt. James does in the film, that soldier would not even last a week at war. Staff Sgt. James routinely makes rash decisions that ultimately put not only himself but also his unit in danger.
His unit members, Sergeant JT Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge reflect the average, well-trained and disciplined American soldier. They command and follow orders at almost a rhythmic pace, creating a sense of harmony in the middle of a battlefield. They are the epitome of The American War Hero. The juxtaposition of the character of Staff Sgt. James and his unit create tension within the film as he is constantly found putting his unit in immediate danger.
Though the plot itself is turbulent, the objective of the war and the soldiers’ role in it remains pretty monotonous. Throughout the war, there is no end in sight. This war is simply: see a bomb, defuse the bomb, wrestle with your buddies in the barracks, rinse and repeat. The soldiers don’t seem to have any real motivation that keeps them fighting. By the end of the film, Sgt. Sanborn lays out a monologue that clearly differentiates the two experiences of two different characters. Sgt. Sanborn shows his hand, lamenting his perceived reality that all of his efforts in the war are nothing more than years of his life wasted.
Staff Sgt. James, on the other hand, just wants to explore his genius. He is obsessed with the game, with methodically defusing each bomb. He loves the complexity and the skill required, but he also loves the thrill of knowing that he is dancing with death. He doesn’t care about the war; he doesn’t even really care about his family back home. He just cares about his game.
One interpretation of “The Hurt Locker” proposes the juxtaposition of characters in the film as an analogy for the dissonance between the American people and American troops. The YouTube channel “Movies Under the Surface” explains this tension between Staff Sgt. James representing the American people, and his unit representing American troops. The narrator of this channel says, “If Sanborn and Eldridge represent the soldiers fighting in Iraq, that means James represents those putting them in danger… Despite this, James clearly does not represent insurgents or terrorists… So other than the enemy, who else put U.S. soldiers at risk?” His answer? The American people and Bush’s America, who supported the war and sent troops to Iraq.
While a very bold claim, this interpretation reflects the sentiments of the time in which “The Hurt Locker” was produced. Although most Americans supported sending troops to Iraq at the beginning of the War on Terror, by 2007, there was growing opposition to sending more troops to the Middle East from the Democrats. In response, Bush sent 20,000 more troops, a decision that 61 percent of Americans opposed, according to Pew Research.
In an interview for “The Hurt Locker” with Slate Magazine, Bigelow describes the film as “a nonpartisan piece that actually puts a human face on a conflict that I think is fairly underreported.” While there are opinions and viewpoints from various people and in various mediums, the memory of war in Iraq is all very ‘human’—messy and unreliable yet undeniably real. In this film, Bigelow beautifully presents the memory of this war as one in which the soldiers should be remembered the most. This, I believe, is what we should remember now about the wars going on. Remember the people.