Hurt Locker Can't Contain the Reality of War

Hi rickkristi,

From what I know of wikipedia, it is still open source and anyone can post there. If you know of public figures who have deployed to Iraq and have voiced their favor for the movie, I would recommend you post it there. Being an open platform, I am really impressed with how nonpartisan it has come across (which of course, is a subjective value statement - take it or leave it).

Unfortunately, being a subjective piece (I was commenting primarily from my own perspective), mine is not a determinative voice in the artistic arena. I am opining as to how one veteran, and a decent number of others who share a heritage of service. I indicated "pretty unanimous" based on the article I cited (which was the wikipedia article, which is why I suggest you start there), but also on the personal communications I maintain with other veterans. In that sense, this was not a "story" per se, but an opinion piece. Everyone knows the movie won Best Picture, which, if nothing else, speaks directly to my inadequacy in judging the value of works of art.

Although, in as much as it is my own experience, this piece of art failed to accurately and considerately represent my own (and other veterans) very unique experiences. To use an analogy; imagine someone paints a picture of you, and when you see the painting you look bloated and seasick. You might protest your depiction even as you recognize that there was poetic license involved. If your family saw the painting and most generally seemed to agree with you, you might even say that there was "pretty unanimous" agreement that the painting basically sucked. Of course, not every person in your family who sees the painting is representative of every person on earth who sees it (some might even say the picture was well done), in the end, you may still in some way feel violated that this painting of you all bloated and seasick was being trounced around with your name attached to it. It is in that sense that I wrote this blog. While I obviously cannot speak for every veteran, I do feel that sufficient evidence was advanced to support my claim at this moment in time.

However, if you wish to submit an article for God's Politics, the last I heard is that they are happy to accept submissions. I know I would very much like to hear what other veterans felt. I would still stand by my earlier comment that my impression was that it left entirely too much up to debate as to what was being advocated, which is why I did see it as a "gung ho portrayal of war." This gung-ho attitude got a lot of good men and women I know killed, and I feel it is grossly inconsiderate to perpetuate that flawed mentality. That is not to say that IS what the producers intended, but it is to say that such a message is what I personally left the theaters thinking.

Talk about an adventure in missing the point. This is the limit of an activist (doing something I appreciate and agree with on many fronts) trying to critique artistic expression. There are 2 languages being spoken and 2 lenses through which the filmmakers and Laituri see the world. I hope that Laituri learns to see the world in a way that allows art to shine beyond his worldview.

in some ways this reminds me of a fundamentalist Christian critiquing Last Temptation of Christ. Sure, you can do it, but your worldview may skew your view so much that it does not translate to the rest of the world.

By the way, Laituri definitely overstated his point and stretched the truth to its breaking point in saying that "voice of the veteran community has pretty unanimously denounced it as not only inaccurate, but a dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of war."

In fact, that is sloppy in a way that the Editorial Staff should have caught and changed. It is untrue by any account to say that.

A retraction is in order. I am disappointed because this type of overstating of the truth to make a person's broader point is used by the very people Sojourner's critiques. Sojo standards must be above theirs.

"Very few service members would agree with the premise that war is a good thing, which seems to be the main character's operating principle in The Hurt Locker."
--Another major point you're missing, Logan, is the fact that the main character is not going into combat. He's a bomb disposal operator. He's saving people's lives. His main job is not attacking people, it's saving people. This is a pretty important distinction, and I don't see why anyone would object to this type of work.

Sorry Mr. Laituri but, as far as I'm concerned, the most offensive thing here is your statement, "men and women in uniform serving in your place." They may be "serving" (how I detest that word in the context of 'serving your country') for you and their corporate masters but they sure as hell ARE NOT for me. Some of us got a conscience BEFORE we put on a silly-looking uniform and went to kill people we'd never met and had no grievance with. Leave me out of your new-found conscience.

The Veteran's Voice seems to agree with Logan's analysis:
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2975

Patricia, I agree with you. I didn't see the film at all as extolling the virtues of war. Instead, I saw it as a very subtle character-study about the effects that this particular war had on a tragically-flawed soldier. Watching this film, seeing the chilling effects of war, was a much more compelling message than watching straight-out anti-war polemic.

Note how another speaker at the event you are promoting uses the film in this Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-br...

She uses the film to jump to the important issues she wants to discuss. This is very effective and draws the reader in, not away.

jessie - Everybody saves lines in combat, I saved lives. In fact, I received the first of three combat decorations on my deployment for my actions defending a Police station in Samarrah. Claiming that an EOD expert is "not going into combat" in Iraq is borderline disrespectful to many of our men and women in uniform. That's like saying only Apache (AH-64) pilots are in combat, but not Blackhawk pilots, since the UH-60 has a utility designator. A very close high school friend of mine who deployed for 15 months as a Blackhawk pilot likely would take considerable offense to your assumption. If there is another word you feel more appropriate to use in describing spotting and sniping the enemy on the battlefield, or shooting armed men who are dragging away your comrade, please feel free to share. Finally, I do not object to the work of EOD, to believe that I do based on what I have written seems to strain logic.

rickkristi - As per my comment above, my objection to the movie was not that it was an engaging piece of art, but that it was needlessly, and if I am to trust the opinions of other vets (some who are public figures and some who are not), inconsiderately misrepresentative of the experience it hopes to portray. As for retracting the post due to stretching ones point, I think I addressed that by quoting several other veterans from reputable organizations who shared my assessment and sentiment of this particular movie placing glamour and glitz above the imperative of accuracy. My "worldview" is the very thing being portrayed. To separate them into two disparate fields does them both an injustice.

Logan,
I think you know what I meant. His primary job was to dispose of bombs. No pacifist would have a problem with this. Why do you?

http://sangambayard-c-m.com

Hi rickkristi,

From what I know of wikipedia, it is still open source and anyone can post there. If you know of public figures who have deployed to Iraq and have voiced their favor for the movie, I would recommend you post it there. Being an open platform, I am really impressed with how nonpartisan it has come across (which of course, is a subjective value statement - take it or leave it).

Unfortunately, being a subjective piece (I was commenting primarily from my own perspective), mine is not a determinative voice in the artistic arena. I am opining as to how one veteran, and a decent number of others who share a heritage of service. I indicated "pretty unanimous" based on the article I cited (which was the wikipedia article, which is why I suggest you start there), but also on the personal communications I maintain with other veterans. In that sense, this was not a "story" per se, but an opinion piece. Everyone knows the movie won Best Picture, which, if nothing else, speaks directly to my inadequacy in judging the value of works of art.

Although, in as much as it is my own experience, this piece of art failed to accurately and considerately represent my own (and other veterans) very unique experiences. To use an analogy; imagine someone paints a picture of you, and when you see the painting you look bloated and seasick. You might protest your depiction even as you recognize that there was poetic license involved. If your family saw the painting and most generally seemed to agree with you, you might even say that there was "pretty unanimous" agreement that the painting basically sucked. Of course, not every person in your family who sees the painting is representative of every person on earth who sees it (some might even say the picture was well done), in the end, you may still in some way feel violated that this painting of you all bloated and seasick was being trounced around with your name attached to it. It is in that sense that I wrote this blog. While I obviously cannot speak for every veteran, I do feel that sufficient evidence was advanced to support my claim at this moment in time.

However, if you wish to submit an article for God's Politics, the last I heard is that they are happy to accept submissions. I know I would very much like to hear what other veterans felt. I would still stand by my earlier comment that my impression was that it left entirely too much up to debate as to what was being advocated, which is why I did see it as a "gung ho portrayal of war." This gung-ho attitude got a lot of good men and women I know killed, and I feel it is grossly inconsiderate to perpetuate that flawed mentality. That is not to say that IS what the producers intended, but it is to say that such a message is what I personally left the theaters thinking.

"The voice of the veteran community has pretty unanimously denounced it as not only inaccurate, but a dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of war."
--I'd just like to point out that this statement isn't true, even based on the link you posted.

I liked the Hurt Locker and appreciated the fact that it both honored our troops and had some pretty grim depictions of war. It wasn't glorifying it at all.

Do you have any qualms with inaccurate depictions of war that portray our troops in an unflattering light? What movie would you say gives an accurate depiction of war?

Wow - did we see the same movie? I had a completely different interpretation and response - and my whole family is military.

I understood the movie to be an examination of the repercussions of the main character's addiction to the rush of being on the edge of life and death, and his inability to function in a world without that rush. I experienced him as tragically flawed, a danger to his fellow squad members, and a disappointment to his family. Actually, Sgt. James closely resembled members of my family (not just military members) who have struggled with and continue to struggle with addiction - to drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors.

The messages you got - that the main character believes that war is good, or that the movie was glib, or that it totally misrepresented the realities of war - were totally lost on me. Like I said, it's like we didn't even see the same movie.

I support your work regarding conscience and moral freedom, but I think you have misrepresented this particular movie to make your point, and I don't think that's quite honest.

Jesse, maybe the link got redirected inaccurately, here is just a few of the comments from the wikipedia entry (and this does not include the twitter feeds of vets that I follow);
"...For Hollywood to glorify this crap is a huge slap in the face to every soldier who's been on the front line." - Paul Riekhoff (IAVA)
"Hollywood's version of the Iraq war and of the soldiers who fight it, and their version is inaccurate." - Kate Boit
"...if you know anything about the Army, or about operations or life in Iraq, you'll be so distracted by the nonsensical sequences and plot twists that it will ruin the movie for you. It certainly did for me." - Brandon Friedman (VetVoice)
"Some of the scenes are so disconnected with reality to be almost parody." - Christian Lowe (Politico and Military Times)

I suppose I took some license with the word "dangerous," but my impression was exactly that. I did not see anything in the movie that imbued his "love" for war (in the next to last scene, with his baby) with anything negative. The movie closes with him smiling as he walks into another full rotation in Iraq. I can't understand how that image suggests that it is an addiction, it suggested it nearly as a love story between a man and combat. However, I will reiterate what other vets have said, that watching with my background, much of the movie simply did not make sense (why were they wandering the desert alone before the stumbled upon the bounty hunters?). This certainly made it difficult for an unbiased critique ,but that is my point. As a war movie, it seemed to me a kind of affront to my experience. Besides that, I worked with EOD in Iraq. This was a condensed, embellished account of their work. It might be good to point out that this was not a documentary. Part of me just does not sit well with anyone making a name for themselves or making a living off of things like this and not capturing the essence of their subject matter in a more coherent, defensible way. Heck, Transformers even got cooperation from the Army. Funny story; so did Soldiers of Conscience, the Emmy nominated documentary the Truth Commission was inspired by. Patricia, I'm very sorry you think I am being dishonest, or that I'm trying to push a point, but that's about as honest as I can get. I just did not see what you saw...

Talk about an adventure in missing the point. This is the limit of an activist (doing something I appreciate and agree with on many fronts) trying to critique artistic expression. There are 2 languages being spoken and 2 lenses through which the filmmakers and Laituri see the world. I hope that Laituri learns to see the world in a way that allows art to shine beyond his worldview.

in some ways this reminds me of a fundamentalist Christian critiquing Last Temptation of Christ. Sure, you can do it, but your worldview may skew your view so much that it does not translate to the rest of the world.

By the way, Laituri definitely overstated his point and stretched the truth to its breaking point in saying that "voice of the veteran community has pretty unanimously denounced it as not only inaccurate, but a dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of war."

In fact, that is sloppy in a way that the Editorial Staff should have caught and changed. It is untrue by any account to say that.

A retraction is in order. I am disappointed because this type of overstating of the truth to make a person's broader point is used by the very people Sojourner's critiques. Sojo standards must be above theirs.

No one ever said that individuals did not agree with Logan. However, one review, or even many, people that agree with his analysis does not equal near unanimity in my eyes. Does it in yours?

I think this article would have been stronger, and better received had you chosen to frame it as you are doing right now, not by trying to insinuate that you were part of a near unanimity, but that as a veteran and peace activist, you felt it was an inaccurate and gung-ho expression of war. It would have helped had you kept it personal and made no appeal to near unanimity.

I would say that your line "my impression was that it left entirely too much up to debate as to what was being advocated, which is why I did see it as a "gung ho portrayal of war" is an indication that you were looking for an echo chamber, a political piece that looked at the war as wrong. That would be fine and good art has been created that did that (see 3 Kings), but the very triumph of this film is that it left things up to debate. Sometimes good art is open ended. it is the difference between art and propaganda.

The film became a Rorschach test in which people can place their won agenda on it, think it says the opposite of their agenda, or realize that it was one of the first War films ever that tried to stay non-political and work on a different level. To move beyond confirmation bias to mature logic in watching art is needed.

While I am not a veteran, I am a military child, having a father that served in 3 American wars. I understand the military pretty well, having grown up in the whole Navy Brat lifestyle. I chose against that lifestyle at a young age, becoming an advocate for non-violence. However, I am not going to hold something against a movie that works hard to have no political agenda because it did not trumpet my political agenda. The Right does that too often with movies like Avatar. I think it is better when the Left chooses a higher road (or at least goes after movies that actually have pro-war agendas).

Here are some of your examples, when moving beyond Wikipedia to actual primary sources (Wikipedia should lead you to better research, not become the stop for research). I am sorry you do not have the time to research the myriad of conclusions vets and active duty soldiers have about the film. It is blogging 101 to do it yourself instead of relying on commenters to do it when they call you out for inaccuracy. In fact, that is what google is for. As you will see, some of these agree with some of your contention. But, WAY TOO MANY disagree with you for anything to be called near unanimity.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2010-0...

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=17513&cpage=1

http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/2009/06/most-ent...

http://op-for.com/2010/03/fallujah_the_real_hur...

Do you dismiss this person as one of the reasons it is only near unanimity and not complete unanimity?

"I think everybody should watch it and see how things really are," says Marine Lance Cpl. Nate Knowles, 23, who lost his left leg in Afghanistan to an IED (improvised explosive device) in June and declares The Hurt Locker "amazing."

or this person?

"It was a therapeutic journey for me. It allowed my mind to process experiences that occurred over there," says Army Capt. Steve Scuba, 34, a nurse who served in Iraq for 15 months from 2007 to 2008 and suffered shrapnel wounds from the explosion of a bomb packed into a parked car.

He found authentic the soldiers' language, their camaraderie, the street scenes, even the silhouettes of Iraqis in the windows as U.S. troops pass by, never certain if they are friend or foe."

Or him?

Jim O'Neil, executive director of the EOD memorial foundation, said the inaccuracies do not take away from the importance of the film.

"The vast majority of everyone I talked to enjoyed the film, and they appreciated there is a credible EOD movie. This very dangerous field in the military has been overlooked in the entertainment industry," O'Neil said. "It's a movie, not a training film."

or him

"It had its Hollywood aspect," says U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Kieran Flynn, who has done two tours in Iraq as an EOD soldier. "I liked the movie, and I like the attention it's bringing to EOD units. But when you're an expert, you can tell Hollywood is there."

and him?

""The Hurt Locker" has numerous supporters within the military - including Purple Heart winner Drew Sloan"

or this guy?

"The top Pentagon official, Gates, has a very positive view of the movie. "This is the first Iraq war movie that he has liked, or for that matter seen," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. "In looking at all previous films he thought they had too much of a political agenda.

"He just thought it was a very compelling, and what he thought was authentic portrayal of what life is like for many of our troops in Iraq. Of the films that have been done about this war, that is the most authentic."

Yes, many in the military and veterans had problems with the film, many of which are the same issues with any Hollywood film on war. Entertainment always trumps complete authenticity in film making. that is why it is not documentary making. But, there is a diversity of opinion, not near unanimity.

The film's aim is to put the viewer into the visceral experience of this soldier, the terror and the adrenaline (and if you are saying most soldiers do not have an adrenaline junkie side, then do your research). It exists because a reporter embedded himself with a group of people that most of us ignore, whose lives are one of the stories of this war, as opposed to other wars. But, it is a movie. And it is there to keep you in your seat for 2 hours, feeling the rush, excitement and stress of an adventure film. Of course, it will not contain the reality of war. No book, film, photo will. Only, those of you that were there will contain that (and it will be your experience which is not the reality of war for all).

I still say this is a sloppy piece and a little more work, or an Editor that helped you, would have elicited a better reaction. You could have used the film as a jumping off point, instead of creating a diatribe against a film many others interpret completely different.

Yes, this whole post is one big facepalm. Was he killing people? No? Then he wasn't in combat. Pretty simple. Killing people=combat, not killing people=not combat. How could this be disrespectful? If the truth is disrespectful then Laituri deserves bucket loads of disrespect.

Director Sam Fuller was of the opinion that for a war movie to be true, it would have to be punctuated at unpredictable parts in the film with real gunfire raking the audience and audience members maimed and dying. He was of the opinion that genuine combat was far from entertaining to those who are not mentally disturbed and therefore entertainment cannot be true to what war is really all about. He particularly hated John Wayne style movies and in fact ended up being exiled from Hollywood because he wouldn't make those propagandistic films that always seemed to enjoy full military cooperation.

We live in a culture that worships violence at some level, when "properly" directed (which really means, when one follows the money, by Wall Street and its cohorts.)

I am really surprised at the overall negativity of responses to this post. I appreciate Laituri's perspective as someone who has had first-hand experience with the Iraq War that I will never have. Do those of you who have posted negate responses see no value in the perspective of this post, even if it is only one perspective?

rickkristi, I appreciate your continued interest, but this will the the last time I will be able to reply to you in this medium. Again, if you disagree, I would encourage you to contact Sojourners with an alternate perspective, I am certain they would entertain the submission. You are also very capable of editing the wikipedia entry, which serves me more as a repository than a citable source (instead of citing and linking to each source, wikipedia often has a lot of very relevant sources in one place), since this is not an academic paper, but a commentary.

However, you seem to be missing the broader point of the post. The movie itself, while I found it engaging, I felt that it was not representative of my and other veterans experience. Just the fact that there is a huge debate (for example - http://twitter.com/#search?q=hurt%20locker%20ve...) is indicative that a slew of veterans are not pleased with the picture. The NCO that the writer followed, if I remember correctly, has even filed a major lawsuit against the producers. From where I stand, with my background of 6+ years on active duty and many more dealing with the VA and being a member of numerous veterans groups, have found the veteran community noticeably opposed to the treatment of facts and sentiment in this movie. Disagree with me if you will, but that remains my clear impression.

What I find alarming is that the entire point of my blog post (of the problem of overloading people with traumatizing experiences) was overshadowed by the comparatively minor issue of whether or not there was in fact a "pretty unanimous" veteran voice with which I was agreeing. I would be less averse to some of the comments left here if they dealt with anything beyond my first paragraph. To me, the connection between suicides, conscience, and the advertised "love" of war is deliberate and clear, which is why I found it coincidental that this picture won so many oscars for debuting in the US the same year that suicides hit a record high. I do not believe that is pushing a point; it is highlighting an objective reality.

jessie - Everybody saves lines in combat, I saved lives. In fact, I received the first of three combat decorations on my deployment for my actions defending a Police station in Samarrah. Claiming that an EOD expert is "not going into combat" in Iraq is borderline disrespectful to many of our men and women in uniform. That's like saying only Apache (AH-64) pilots are in combat, but not Blackhawk pilots, since the UH-60 has a utility designator. A very close high school friend of mine who deployed for 15 months as a Blackhawk pilot likely would take considerable offense to your assumption. If there is another word you feel more appropriate to use in describing spotting and sniping the enemy on the battlefield, or shooting armed men who are dragging away your comrade, please feel free to share. Finally, I do not object to the work of EOD, to believe that I do based on what I have written seems to strain logic.

rickkristi - As per my comment above, my objection to the movie was not that it was an engaging piece of art, but that it was needlessly, and if I am to trust the opinions of other vets (some who are public figures and some who are not), inconsiderately misrepresentative of the experience it hopes to portray. As for retracting the post due to stretching ones point, I think I addressed that by quoting several other veterans from reputable organizations who shared my assessment and sentiment of this particular movie placing glamour and glitz above the imperative of accuracy. My "worldview" is the very thing being portrayed. To separate them into two disparate fields does them both an injustice.

"The voice of the veteran community has pretty unanimously denounced it as not only inaccurate, but a dangerous misrepresentation of the reality of war."
--I'd just like to point out that this statement isn't true, even based on the link you posted.

I liked the Hurt Locker and appreciated the fact that it both honored our troops and had some pretty grim depictions of war. It wasn't glorifying it at all.

Do you have any qualms with inaccurate depictions of war that portray our troops in an unflattering light? What movie would you say gives an accurate depiction of war?

Wow - did we see the same movie? I had a completely different interpretation and response - and my whole family is military.

I understood the movie to be an examination of the repercussions of the main character's addiction to the rush of being on the edge of life and death, and his inability to function in a world without that rush. I experienced him as tragically flawed, a danger to his fellow squad members, and a disappointment to his family. Actually, Sgt. James closely resembled members of my family (not just military members) who have struggled with and continue to struggle with addiction - to drugs, alcohol, risky behaviors.

The messages you got - that the main character believes that war is good, or that the movie was glib, or that it totally misrepresented the realities of war - were totally lost on me. Like I said, it's like we didn't even see the same movie.

I support your work regarding conscience and moral freedom, but I think you have misrepresented this particular movie to make your point, and I don't think that's quite honest.