I always was a little bit backwards…

It’s too hot on this Island, and I’m in a mood where if I go out and spend my money on something then I just know it’s not going to make me happy, so y’all get the benefit of reading my views on The Hurt Locker. I planned to restrict myself to 500 words with strict self-editing, but to be honest I’m not looking for any literary awards, I just wanted to do something to pass the time and rambling on in wordy, meandering sentences which take forever to reach their conclusion is as good a way as any.

So The Hurt Locker cleaned up at the BAFTAs and James Cameron’s Avatar was shunned. I expected the tables to be turned at the Oscars, but it turned out not to be the case. Cameron got his rewards at the box office, but it would seem that the Academy is being more cautious about welcoming his view of cinematic future.

I’m not opposed to seeing Avatar receive modest success; I thought little of the movie and go to the cinema to see real actors on real sets through real cameras, not to get a headache. Having said that, Hurt Locker’s trophy haul seems like a remarkably harsh kick in the teeth. Personally I respect its cinematography and direction much more than Avatar, but I would rate it fairly low on my list of top films this year.

My problem with The Hurt Locker was that I had seen it all before in a stunning BBC production called Occupation a couple of years ago. This was a three-parter shown over the course of one week following the lives of four British Army soldiers facing the prospect of returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. As the drama progressed over the week, the personal stories of these friends wove in and out of each other to form an intricate tapestry exploring the camaraderie, horrors and heartbreak of war, and how it can affect a person. It dealt with addiction, loss, dedication, bravery, greed and power; a worthy tribute to our troops without ever painting them as perfect.

It seems like The Hurt Locker wanted to pull off the same trick, but wasn’t brave enough to see it through. Bigelow felt the story “had to be told”, whatever that means. Her story follows a squad of bomb disarming experts as they welcome a new team leader, William James, into their midst. James instantly comes across as a maverick, endangering his squad with no apparent appreciation of the risks he exposes them (and himself) to.

James’ addictive character is driven home with little subtlety. He craves risk like he craves the cigarettes we always see him smoking; when he’s faced with a bomb and he has wire cutters at hand his urge to feel that adrenaline rush from disarming it will outweigh any common sense, even when the area has been evacuated and his team are risking their lives so that he can remain in the field.

I agree that this a story worthy of being told, but the film seems to get hung up on it, driving the point home to a patronising degree and then going out of its way to demonstrate that James also exhibits leadership qualities and a caring nature which make him worthy of our admiration and sympathy. By the end he’s almost painted as brave, but is a man who doesn’t feel fear really brave?

Occupation dealt with the same issues in a gritty and horrifically real manner. It also exposed a lot of what is happening in Iraq with private security companies doing more harm than good and the local communities struggling to feed themselves and treat their wounded while Western greed and corruption spread like an infection. It left me shocked and saddened. I felt for all of the characters, and came away respecting the fact that they made the best decisions they could in situations much worse than I will ever know. That’s a story worth telling.

The Hurt Locker wanted to leave me in a state of admiration for its character (for it is really one man’s tale), and to feel upbeat about the fact that he’s out there fighting for a good cause. Personally I don’t find such blatant jingoism nearly as worthy.