It was inevitable. For all the reviewers that threw a temper tantrum when an Iraq movie had political undertones, there had to be one guy that goes further and laments a lack of the right kind of political undertones. That (dubiously) brave man is Alexander Marlow, a Breitbart.com columnist whose review of The Hurt Locker is serious deadpan masquerading as high-satire.
If you get past the use of the word "bromance," Marlow beclowns himself by not actually talking to someone in the military before he rushes to conclude what they must feel about war at the physiological level. He takes issue with the movie's tagline "War is a drug" by breaking it down to moral terms. If war is a drug, and drugs are inherently bad, then war is bad, and eureka! Marlow dug long and hard enough find a nugget of anti-war, leftist, Hollyweird propaganda. By applying the phrase to a peculiar model of moral and political equivalence, Marlow tries to shove the square peg through the round circle to make a claim about the movie's secret perspective.
Marlow quickly neutralizes himself by failing to understand the nature of war. In a bizarre acknowledgment, he tells the reader that he "has not ruled out a stint in the military." That must give his readership pause; he has at least considered service. His strenuous claim is a feeble attempt to put forth some understanding of the military and war. Sadly, Marlow investigates the political significance of "war is a drug" rather than consider what the phrase actually implies. War is indeed is a drug, a horribly destructive thing men do to themselves that gives a rush unlike anything you can find on this planet. I've never had heroin or cocaine, but I bet it hovers near the feeling of a sniper's bullet missing your head by inches. Or the tremor in your guts when you have a live body in your sights - how the world drops away, and there isn't a thing on the planet that matters more than you, him and the rifle in your hands. And when those rounds explode out of the barrel in a brilliant flash and the acrid smell of gunpowder burns your nostrils, you know that no amount of skydiving or drag racing or sex will ever come close to what war makes you feel in your bones. That's why I can't stop getting speeding tickets or rewatching old videos from my deployment. I want that feeling back. I haven't kicked the war habit yet.
One particular criticism of the movie is rife with unintentional hilarity. Marlow quips, "There is no plot. Just a series of unrelated missions. Much like my high school dates, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this thing wasn’t going anywhere." Marlow, to his credit, accidentally quoted the thought of every infantryman in history without ever speaking to one. From the street level, there is no plot in war, just a series of unrelated missions that fit in The Big Picture on some Powerpoint presentation. Especially in EOD units where there literally is no mission, just bomb interdiction. They get a call to check out a possible threat and move to disarm it. Over and over like Groundhog Day. There is nothing romantic about that procedure. That's the nature of the game. In my infantry unit, protecting each other and bringing everyone home safe was the primary goal. Bringing democracy to the proud people of Iraq and "quashing evil" was an afterthought. There is no way those elements could come across in a movie without feeling forced or stilted. Unfortunately, obtuse people like Marlow absolutely hate it when a movie, book, TV show without an overt political agenda emerges and forces the audience to make up their own mind. They'd rather watch Autobots kick over commie tanks with American soldiers in the background than watch an Iraq movie and weigh the contents seriously.
You have to wonder about a writer when he bemoans "Won't you please think of the Iraqis?!" in a review of a movie about American soldiers. It's like asking why James Cameron didn't focus more on the iceberg in Titanic. While important, it's secondary to the conflict. The same goes for The Hurt Locker. The conflict is between a man and his EOD team, and from what I can tell, the inner conflict he faces when he goes outside the wire to confront buried IEDs. It's almost an art form to be so intellectually dishonest, and Marlow seems to be an up and coming Picasso.
Above: The lack of Iraqis in this picture is absurd. It just has an American soldier tugging on an IED wire! OUTRAGEOUS!
Even if you take away his silly posturing about what a war movie should be, he's just not very convincing with his argument. Iraq movies have been absolute garbage so far, but each should be taken individually instead of blurting out a kneejerk "liberal bullshit!" before the previews start. It's base, it's silly, and if you depend on vacuous reviews to provide insight, you might let a good movie slip by. I'll see the movie on opening day and write a review here, but I'll have to leave my rose-colored glasses and handheld patriotism detector in the closet and judge the movies on its own merits. You know, the way movie reviews used to be written.
Edit: 7:45 PM central 6/29/09 - Removed ad-hominem comments. I'm trying to broaden discourse, not debase it.
If you get past the use of the word "bromance," Marlow beclowns himself by not actually talking to someone in the military before he rushes to conclude what they must feel about war at the physiological level. He takes issue with the movie's tagline "War is a drug" by breaking it down to moral terms. If war is a drug, and drugs are inherently bad, then war is bad, and eureka! Marlow dug long and hard enough find a nugget of anti-war, leftist, Hollyweird propaganda. By applying the phrase to a peculiar model of moral and political equivalence, Marlow tries to shove the square peg through the round circle to make a claim about the movie's secret perspective.
Marlow quickly neutralizes himself by failing to understand the nature of war. In a bizarre acknowledgment, he tells the reader that he "has not ruled out a stint in the military." That must give his readership pause; he has at least considered service. His strenuous claim is a feeble attempt to put forth some understanding of the military and war. Sadly, Marlow investigates the political significance of "war is a drug" rather than consider what the phrase actually implies. War is indeed is a drug, a horribly destructive thing men do to themselves that gives a rush unlike anything you can find on this planet. I've never had heroin or cocaine, but I bet it hovers near the feeling of a sniper's bullet missing your head by inches. Or the tremor in your guts when you have a live body in your sights - how the world drops away, and there isn't a thing on the planet that matters more than you, him and the rifle in your hands. And when those rounds explode out of the barrel in a brilliant flash and the acrid smell of gunpowder burns your nostrils, you know that no amount of skydiving or drag racing or sex will ever come close to what war makes you feel in your bones. That's why I can't stop getting speeding tickets or rewatching old videos from my deployment. I want that feeling back. I haven't kicked the war habit yet.
One particular criticism of the movie is rife with unintentional hilarity. Marlow quips, "There is no plot. Just a series of unrelated missions. Much like my high school dates, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this thing wasn’t going anywhere." Marlow, to his credit, accidentally quoted the thought of every infantryman in history without ever speaking to one. From the street level, there is no plot in war, just a series of unrelated missions that fit in The Big Picture on some Powerpoint presentation. Especially in EOD units where there literally is no mission, just bomb interdiction. They get a call to check out a possible threat and move to disarm it. Over and over like Groundhog Day. There is nothing romantic about that procedure. That's the nature of the game. In my infantry unit, protecting each other and bringing everyone home safe was the primary goal. Bringing democracy to the proud people of Iraq and "quashing evil" was an afterthought. There is no way those elements could come across in a movie without feeling forced or stilted. Unfortunately, obtuse people like Marlow absolutely hate it when a movie, book, TV show without an overt political agenda emerges and forces the audience to make up their own mind. They'd rather watch Autobots kick over commie tanks with American soldiers in the background than watch an Iraq movie and weigh the contents seriously.
You have to wonder about a writer when he bemoans "Won't you please think of the Iraqis?!" in a review of a movie about American soldiers. It's like asking why James Cameron didn't focus more on the iceberg in Titanic. While important, it's secondary to the conflict. The same goes for The Hurt Locker. The conflict is between a man and his EOD team, and from what I can tell, the inner conflict he faces when he goes outside the wire to confront buried IEDs. It's almost an art form to be so intellectually dishonest, and Marlow seems to be an up and coming Picasso.
Above: The lack of Iraqis in this picture is absurd. It just has an American soldier tugging on an IED wire! OUTRAGEOUS!
Even if you take away his silly posturing about what a war movie should be, he's just not very convincing with his argument. Iraq movies have been absolute garbage so far, but each should be taken individually instead of blurting out a kneejerk "liberal bullshit!" before the previews start. It's base, it's silly, and if you depend on vacuous reviews to provide insight, you might let a good movie slip by. I'll see the movie on opening day and write a review here, but I'll have to leave my rose-colored glasses and handheld patriotism detector in the closet and judge the movies on its own merits. You know, the way movie reviews used to be written.
Edit: 7:45 PM central 6/29/09 - Removed ad-hominem comments. I'm trying to broaden discourse, not debase it.
