byronic :: mad bad and dangerous to know

strepitupido:

nickdouglas:

An Iraq War photographer explains the egregious mistakes in “The Hurt Locker” that make it an unrealistic depiction of the Iraq War.

Interesting read, and I get what they guy is saying. Fair enough.

However, I don’t think this detracts from the the film, because: a) The Hurt Locker is NOT a movie ABOUT the Iraq war - it is a film about adrenaline, addiction, and masculinity, which happens to be set in that particular context;  and b) realistic depiction is NOT, strictly speaking, the job of a feature film.

Insofar as The Hurt Locker can be accused of glamourising war, this is an old argument - films that depict violence are always accused of glamourising violence, and even the most forthright anti-war films pick up the same criticism. In order for a piece like Hurt Locker to work you have to show the reasons why these guys are addicted to the thrill of their position - what excites them and terrifies us; you have to show the stakes in dramatic terms; and you have to show the extremity of their situation for them to work as characters - not as real people in a real situation.

So let’s not get too excited here. The Hurt Locker is not a reportage on the state of the Iraq War, a hagiography for the bomb-disposal squad, a pamphlet of liberal condemnation; The Hurt Locker is just a movie.

Screenwriting has specific requirements: structure, detail, climax, development of subjectivity, heightening of action- it’s never real, no matter how closely it may resembles real life.

Getting confused about that is a big problem, because it absolves of responsibility those who are actually supposed to tell us the truth about war - and that is not necessarily the Hollywood clan.