As a feast for the eyes it's amazing not so for our intellect...

Rating: 3/10 (10 December 2015)

Hollywood likes to glorify war and those that participate in them. Especially those in which the U.S.A has a central role. Recently they have started to produce war movies that are more realistic and that show exactly how ugly and terrible war is for everyone involved. But they are still prone to portray soldiers idealistically and although they do show that these soldiers are imperfect and human, they still portray them as some kind of heroes.
The movie "The Hurt Locker" portrays its main character, Sergeant James, as such flawed hero. He personifies all the character attributes and ideas embraced and encouraged by most in the American culture and so the film make known to the spectators that such qualities are the stuff heroes are made of. Such a view is unsafe in that encourages the philosophy that the United States' involvement in these wars is vital and heroic when in most cases the opposite is true.
In the nascence of the movie, Sergeant James is depicted as a brave and a self sufficient man who goes the extra mile in doing his job. These characteristics are highly acknowledge and cultivated in Western culture. For instance in the scene where he first disarms a bomb with his new team, he confronts a haji (insurgent) in a taxi boldly with his gun. Everyone is in an uproar but he gets the taxi to back off when he admonish him. He also uses smoke bombs (without telling his team first) to formulate a diversion and also comes out successful. His teammate, Sanborn, lectures him about how they have to work as a team but James does not listen and does things his way. And again, he has success. This communicates to the audience that James' "fearlessness" brings about victory and reinforces the idea that things are done best individually. His team is there with him and help him but the film conveys the feeling that it's really James' individual actions where our focus must be on.
It's no accordance that individualism is subtly (and sometimes not so) shown as something that influences a positive outcome in the counter plot. When there is a second bomb to disarm (a car bomb) James changes the compelling of the crowd once again without consulting them. When he can't find the bomb, Sanborn advises him that they should get out. But James obstinately stays and looks for the bomb. He even turns off communication with his team and for the second time he successfully disarms the bomb. His teammates are miserable with his actions but somehow they do not sound like the voice of reason they should sound like. Instead they come off as not as brave as James. Even if in theory their actions are reasonable and responsible, James is the one who comes off as the hero. When they encounter one of their superiors (Reed) he shows great interest in James and his individual accomplishments. He glorify him as a "wild man" and says it as if that's a great thing to be. He does not presents any interest in the other two team members. James' status as a "wild man" is portrayed throughout the film as something that brings about positive results and therefore a desirable character trait.
At the termination of the movie, during a suicide bombing, James decides to go off and look for the bombers himself. Sanborn tries to reason with him, saying not to go and that that's not their job, but James does not listen so the team goes haji hunting. James' continuous overlook of team work, of not following rules or protocol, is shown to bring about heroic results. This continues until the end of the movie.
Throughout the movie, its James' individual choices that ultimately bring some kind of reward. There is a scene where Sanborn tells him that he does not want to die and admits that he wants a little son. Someone that will really care if he dies. He then asks James if he minds that they can die anytime and James tells him to not think about it. During this emotional talk, there are Iraqi boys throwing stones at them as they pass by in their tank. With this the film cleverly appeals to the audience to feel for these soldiers. We love heroes, fighting for worthy causes and justice. We get the sense that James' and the rest of the soldiers are exactly that and are battling for that.
In the end, where he is talking to his little son, he says that there are very few things that a man loves and that with him it's really one. Cut to him going back to disarming bombs. In that final shot, the camera focuses on his U.S. Army badge and poignant music is played. There he is clearly portrayed as a hero. This ending is clearly aiming towards eliciting a positive emotional response from the audience towards James. He is a hero, who dismiss rules, follows his gut and is fearless. He takes risks and wins (even at the expense of his teammates). He is flawed, yes, but inspiring.
"The Hurt Locker" does not really focus on the struggle(the war with Iraq) but on the soldiers. We are not shown the other side's point of view and therefore makes it hard for the audience to really ponder about James' character and his actions. Instead we get another movie where the "flawed war hero" almost singlehandedly saves the day. We do not get to feel conflicted about the U.S presence in Iraq but get presented with insurgents and extremists that serve to justify it. "The Hurt Locker" fails to be what an exceptional war movie should be: unbiased and able to show both sides of the conflict.