Hurt Locker : logos & Ethos

Rating: 8/10 (12 September 2019)

The Hurt Locker was made in 2008, the director of the film is Kathryn Bigelow. The Hurt Locker is about the war in Iraq, and a new Sergeant is assigned to an army bomb squad. The new Sergeant assigned was put at odds with his crew because he was thinking in a very unique way that did not always agree with everyone on his team.
To begin with, I would say that the stance that this film takes on war is very unique and sends a great message across to the audience. I think that the Hurt Locker is not pro war or anti war, it is something else entirely due to the nature of the film and how it is made. I believe that the film does not show a certain side wither it be pro or anti war. The film creates an atmosphere when watching it of the idea of it being something else entirely. So in a way it showcases and displays what war is and all of the aspects of war. By using the story of a Sergeant who is assigned to the army bomb squad and loves what he does and does it in an eccentric way displays what war does to a person. He displays that everyone has that certain something that makes them special. By using his story the director is showcasing that war is a part of life that cannot be ignored and affects everyone, wither they are in the field or at home. Being able to understand what war is and inform the audience is enough to understand that war has pros and cons that cannot be ignored.
In addition, the film had a lot of words, phrases, language structures, language references, visual rhetoric and cinematography that created a lasting statement of the film and how it is more then just a anti or pro war film. Some words that were used throughout the film that seemed to have meaning were victory, justice, trust, missions, fatal, control, terror, respect, die, reckless, live and specialist. Each of these words have meaning because they were used multiple times so that created an area of interest due to the amount of times that these words were used. These words have meaning because they are devices that are being used to tell a story about war. Such as the words missions, fatal and specialist because they have the most meaning to better help understand war and see that missions are key to making the team survive when the specialist is going in and trying to disarm the bomb. Each time that they use those words they were showcasing their stance on war which is neither pro or anti but it means to display how difficult war is and necessary it is to keep people safe from harm.
Furthermore, some phrases that were used were blaster one, meters, good to go, roger, unknown territory, and Bravo Company. Each of these phrases where used in a unique way that helped tell the story through the directors eyes. They have intense meaning due to the nature of the phrases themselves, since they are all army jargon that cannot be understood by the regular civilian. Such as the meaning behind blaster one, is understood that he is in charge of the blast sight and it also shows his importance to the 'mission'. All of these phrases give us a look into what war is like and how they must fall into command in order to be successful. The language structure is very clear and understanding due to repetition within the film. The language is very structured due to it being a war film and showing the side of the army by using terms that only they know. A lot of the language structure that is used makes the war statements more prominent to the audience. All of the language references are related to patriotism and have relation to the war rhetoric used throughout the film. The references are all army terms such as delta, bravo, roger, unknown territory, blaster one. Some other references that made throughout the film are more relatable to the strength and control of the army.
Therefore, some visual rhetoric that is seen throughout the film is mainly logos and ethos. Logos is seen throughout the film through their mission when disarming the bombs that help the audience better understand both sides of war. The logos is displayed throughout both sides showing the overall meaning by displaying the importance of war and how it can seem to be unavoidable at times. Ethos is present when dealing with the tortured minds of people who deal with war and what seems ethical to them may not seem ethical to normal civilians. This film shows that war can change a person's perception on what is right and what is wrong. Ethos has meaning throughout this film because it shows that pro or anti war, due to the ethics being questioned throughout war itself.
Moreover, the cinematography in the film was very important because it sets up the scenes in a way to better understand them in the audience. It gives the scenes more meaning and worth then others to show the essence of war and how it can effect certain individuals. There are a few prominent shots throughout the film that make it more persuasive toward the idea of war being anti and pro. The main shots used are long shots, medium shots, close up and deep focus. An example of a long shot used was when the film started they used long shots to show the desolate atmosphere and the environment in which the army men live and work. The medium shots displays the men talking together and showing the brotherhood of the army and how they all have to work together to create a cohesive unit. The close ups were used to show the complexities of the bombs that the main character was disabling and the intensity of it. The deep focus was used when the characters were waiting for something to happen and it showed their eyes and nonverbal communication compelling their determination to complete their tasks. It embodied their fatigue that it created on their bodies and minds through this lense. This means and showed that the war aspect can be altered through different cinematography to highlight the more important aspect of war for the audience.
There are a lot of themes that come throughout the film, but the most important themes seemed to be war, friendship, brotherhood, life and death and individual versus the group. The main theme that I think has the most value in this film is individual versus the group due to the nature of war itself. Throughout the film the individual versus the group is displayed visually and verbally. It is shown verbally through the film when the new 'specialist' decided to do things his own way the first time and not really informing the group of how he disarms the bombs and his methods. His individuality was going against the group because the longer he took to disarm the bomb the more time his team was exposed to possible attacks. Visually the 'specialist' makes himself and individual versus the group when he throws off his head set when he is disarming a car bomb because it was distracting to him. While his team was very exposed to a possible attack happening , they see a civilian with a camera and they start making motions toward the team.
Overall, I believe that director is trying to tell the audience that war is very complex and cannot be put into two separate categories of being a pro war film or an anti war film. I believe that she makes it quite clear that she is trying to show a certain side of war to showcase what war is and how if affects the mind and body. Displaying the aspects of war makes it more relatable to civilians because I can see that although war is grueling at times, sometimes it is the only place that certain people feel comfortable. Some economic trends that this film shows is that some people go to war because they do not have a good home life and do not have any other skill set. Others go to war because that is where their skill set is and they know they can contribute more to society at war then at home.
In conclusion, I chose this film because I heard it had great cinematography and is not the same as every other war film and I am inclined to agree. Most war films have a stance wither it he pro war or anti war, and I believe that this film was more about choice and skill set. I think The Hurt Locker is very unique because the main character James, knows that he is meant to help society by disarming bombs and him being at home is no help to anyone. The ending is not your typical war ending because he decided to go back instead of staying home because he knew that he could be of more use at war. This is a great film and I believe that it is neither a pro or anti war, but a display of choice and how war can affect the choices wither it be to stay at war or go home.