The Hurt Locker** (2008)

For all the clamoring about James Cameron’s Avatar during 2009, there were always audible whispers about this gritty little war film. Critics loved it and lined up in droves to throw their annual society honors at it. Sure enough, The Hurt Locker became something akin to The Little Engine That Could. While war films are by no means strangers to Oscar glory, this eventual Best Picture winner took a long and winding path to playing David to Avatar’s Goliath.

For Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), war is a drug. As frustrating as his duties may be, diffusing improvised explosive devices in post-invasion Iraq is what makes the man tick. James takes over as the team leader of a three-man Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit after the previous leader was killed in action. His new partners, Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge get more than they bargained for with James. He knows his stuff and is willing to take on risks that his crew views as reckless and a danger to all of their lives.

The rest of the film is a series of vignettes, each one showing a dangerous assignment or encounter that befalls the EOD squad. As Sanborn and Eldridge get closer to the end of their tour of duty they become increasingly frustrated with James’ wildcard antics and tempers flare. From diffusing a number of frighteningly complicated artillery bombs to being ambushed in the middle of nowhere, there is very little rest for this war-weary trio.

To call this film intense is an understatement. Director Kathryn Bigelow and her team of filmmakers pull out all the stops to present an in-your-face experience. The opening segment presents you with the grim reality of war- there are no guarantees that anyone gets out alive. We take this prologue into our journey with James and his new partners. Never are we given the option of taking comfort that all three will make it to the end of their tours. This leaves you with a constant unsettled feeling that is frustrating to no end but also a terrific achievement.

One critical ingredient to The Hurt Locker’s effectiveness is its lack of a Hollywood star on the EOD team. Jeremy Renner became a big deal after this film but he and his co-stars were relative unknowns in the industry, mostly nabbing supporting roles in modestly successful films. This gives the characters an everyman feel. They look, talk and act like regular people, making it easy for audiences to connect with and care for these men. They’re no angels, but how effective would a film about a squeaky-clean bomb squad really be?

The way the film is shot adds to the anxiety and emotion. Rarely does the camera cut away to a safe distance. Instead we are forced to take in all the fear, anger and confusion in an up close and personal way. Time rarely skips ahead in each vignette and when it does it’s never by much. This prolonged exposure to the realities of war is draining and just might leave you as breathless as the soldiers.

We get only the briefest of glimpses into the struggle for soldiers to reintegrate back into society. In this case, war and the skills learned during combat are drugs that cannot be given up. Some may view this as pro-war propaganda but it’s really just a case of ‘old habits die hard.’ Anyone engaging in a specific line of work for a long time will struggle to adjust to a new setting that is fundamentally different. If anything, this should raise awareness for supporting our troops when they return to the States to move on with their lives. While it is certainly frustrating to watch, I think the filmmakers are subtly making valid points for us to pick up on.

Despite laying a few ideas before us, The Hurt Locker does not take any kind of political stance on war. It’s not pro-war even though characters like James enjoy what they do. It is also not anti-war despite all the carnage and frustration we see. This is a rare thing, especially for a film centered on the Iraq war. Several films about the recent conflict have been released but many faltered in their one-sidedness. The Hurt Locker plays out like a polished documentary. The audience is like an embedded reporter, sticking beside the soldiers through all the trials and tribulations. There are no sides to take, no inferences to make; all we can do is digest what befalls us.

Filming on location in Jordan with hundreds of Iraqi refugees as background extras adds an enormous amount of realism to the film. There are no pre-fab sets or obvious special effects to create scenes of desolation and endless sand. The actors aren’t just acting as if they are struggling with their environment; they are living in it. That’s real sweat, real heat fatigue, and real dehydration on the screen. That kind of authenticity can’t be beat.

There are only a few pieces to the puzzle that didn’t fit right for me. There is one scene where James leads his EOD trio on an unauthorized reconnaissance mission during the night. This sort of bold action does not make sense to me. It emphasizes James’ rogue status but it doesn’t feel like anything a real soldier would do. There also aren’t any emotional revelations in dealing with ‘addiction’ to war. The soldiers play it close to the vest and just deal with getting through their assignments. We see growth and development on a team level but not on an individual level.

Perhaps this is what held me back from throwing The Hurt Locker into the upper echelon of my rating scale. It’s expertly filmed, perfectly cast, and the writing flows with spot-on realism. The heat of battle is largely an emotional vacuum (save for aggression and fear) but it would have been nice to see a little more internal struggle. I have not yet seen all of the 2009 nominees for Best Picture but I have little doubt that any of them can compete with the intensity of this very worthy winner.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

(This film premiered at the Venice Film Festival in 2008 but did not get distribution in America until 2009, allowing it to compete for the 2009 Oscars)