Civilians praise it... Veterans hate it... why?

Rating: 7/10 (22 August 2010)

It's interesting how this movie has received so much praise from civilians and almost universally bad reviews from Iraq/Afghanistan veterans. Most of those bad reviews from vets are hung up on the film's inaccuracies regarding military procedures and soldier behavior. Not being a veteran, I can't really affirm those criticisms, but I tend to believe them. Much of the film's depiction of the "maverick" Sgt. James character rang false to me, specifically the way he routinely put himself and his team in danger by disregarding procedure. He struck me less like a hero, and more like a psycho.
As I watched, though, it became clear the film also came to that conclusion. It wasn't trying to paint him as a hero or -- and this is what some vets miss, I think -- even a typical soldier. (e.g., note the portrayal of the two others in his team). Whether he was an adrenaline junkie addicted to combat, or simply so psychologically ravaged by it, Sgt. James was one messed- up dude. The fact he got the job done was in spite of, not because of, his recklessness. This is made patently obvious time and again. Sgt. James is an unstable man who happens to be really good and, thus far, really lucky at disarming improvised explosive devices.
War, like all intense human experiences, transforms those who endure it. Outsiders will never have the understanding of those who lived through it. Conversely, those who have experienced war firsthand often have difficulty looking at it from a broader perspective. The fact so many veterans who see this movie spot a list of things wrong with it certainly indicates that it is flawed. A film like this needs to do its homework and get the details right out of respect for those who actually served. However, as a speculation on how the intensity of combat -- particularly the twisted guerrilla-insurgency of Afghanistan and Iraq -- might warp a man's mental state in a self-destructiveness that could be mistaken for heroism, "The Hurt Locker" makes some interesting points.
I wonder how all those veterans bothered by its inaccuracies would have received this movie were it based not on a real, current conflict theater but some other hypothetical urban war zone. If this weren't Iraq in 2004, but, say, the West Bank in 2015, I think the underlying themes of the film might come through with less interference.
-- mm