BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum

The World Beyond BetterMost => The Culture Tent => Topic started by: Front-Ranger on March 05, 2010, 11:35:57 pm

Title: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 05, 2010, 11:35:57 pm
This movie is being forecast as the movie with the smallest audience to ever win Best Picture, if it attains that award on Sunday evening at the Academy Awards. It has nine nominations, the same as Avatar, with which it is vying for the award.

I went to the theater tonight to see The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus once again, but it wasn't showing, so I saw The Hurt Locker. Within minutes of the movie beginning, my heart was pounding, and there was scarcely a break in the suspense and horror for the whole movie.

The story, acting, and characters were very believable, yet there was high drama, pathos, and meaning. I caught myself being cynical about the story, which concerns soldiers in Iraq who work in a unit that defuses bombs and IEDs. For instance, when a soldier confessed that he regretted he hadn't married his girl and had a baby with her as she had wanted, I thought, "Uh oh, that guy's never going to make it." When two soldiers developed a hate/love relationship, I thought, "One of them's a goner for sure." But the movie didn't stick to a formula at all.

I found myself dreading the music, wishing I could shut it out. Because the music was so portentious and added immensely to the sense of danger. The cinematography also contributed to the sense of impending danger. The camera would scan the scene, and stop fleetingly on small details. I found myself suspecting everything I saw. Where was the bomb? Was it in that piece of trash? Around that corner? In the minaret? It was coming, I just knew it! I was on the edge of my seat thru the whole movie.

The movie, and the team, went from awful horrible task to task, each one more horrifying than the one before it. And each task presented greater unknowns and unthinkable challenges. Then, suddenly, the deployment was over and the soldier was faced with the daunting task of selecting a cereal box from a seemingly endless row of almost identical cereal boxes. The soldier is putting his son to bed and muses that one day, he will grow up, and maybe there will remain only one thing that he still loves. What is that one thing? It is revealed, and it will surprise you.

No, it was never explained what the hurt locker is, as far as I could tell. I thought it was perhaps akin to the heart locker, a place where you put your heart and your humanity for safekeeping while you had to do unspeakable things. Maybe someone who has read the book can say.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Clyde-B on March 05, 2010, 11:52:19 pm
I saw The Hurt Locker a few months ago.

I couldn't wait for it to be over.

Kathryn Bigelow's speciality is in getting the audience to feel what the characters feel, and she's extremely good at it.  This is one long adrenaline rush that just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.  It's 131 minutes of unrelenting tension, disarming bombs, where sudden death may happen at any second, and you have no way of knowing who among the crowds of locals are friend or foe.
   
It's very well made, very effective, but it's not for everybody.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Fran on March 06, 2010, 02:12:04 am
I just finished watching it.  What an intense movie!  Totally different than what I expected.  I wonder if it will get "Best Picture."

No, it was never explained what the hurt locker is, as far as I could tell. I thought it was perhaps akin to the heart locker, a place where you put your heart and your humanity for safekeeping while you had to do unspeakable things. Maybe someone who has read the book can say.

I was wondering about the meaning of "hurt locker," too.

I found this:

The Hurt Locker : Interview (http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2806910.htm)
MARGARET: Well, I'm curious about the title, to start with.

KATHRYN BIGELOW: The Hurt Locker directly translated means the place of ultimate pain and it's a term that Mark Boal, when he was on the embed in Baghdad with the explosive ordinance disposal team, would use from time to time mentioning... "If this particular ordinance were to detonate, we would be in the hurt locker."

Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Kelda on March 06, 2010, 06:28:33 am
Its on my list after reading this Lee!
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: serious crayons on March 06, 2010, 08:57:09 am
For instance, when a soldier confessed that he regretted he hadn't married his girl and had a baby with her as she had wanted, I thought, "Uh oh, that guy's never going to make it." When two soldiers developed a hate/love relationship, I thought, "One of them's a goner for sure." But the movie didn't stick to a formula at all.

I loved the way the opening scene plays on the audience's expectations regarding movie characters and actors, setting you up to understand that nobody is safe. Then there's another scene, later in the movie, that does it again.

I thought the hurt locker, at least in the literal sense, was the box that the main guy keeps under his bed.



Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 06, 2010, 12:33:07 pm
The opening scenes portray a busy marketplace and as soon as I saw a side of goat or lamb hanging for sale, I steeled myself for a grisly gory movie. But surprisingly there is an absence of gore except for one scene involving a "body bomb." No exploding people with body parts flying everywhere, no decapitations, etc.

Another thing I really liked about the movie was that it just started. No credits, no title till the end.

Here's an article that goes into the controversies surrounding the movie. Caution, there are spoilers:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124319820&ps=rs
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 06, 2010, 06:09:52 pm
Another nuance of the meaning of the title could be (Meat) Locker. People as animals, just trying to survive, and people who are powerless in the face of violence and chaos.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Mandy21 on March 06, 2010, 07:04:11 pm
Lee, I'm glad you started this topic.  I thought it was an important film, but I admit that I wasn't overly impressed with it.  I think there's several movies that have already covered these war scenarios / soldier rivalries / leaving families back at home / readjusting, etc. over the years.  I watched HL three times just trying to figure out why it was nominated for Best Picture, and I still can't quite grasp it.  Maybe I've just seen too many horror films in my life, but I saw right through each of the supposedly-suspenseful scenes.  I did love Jeremy's performance, and I hope that he wins for Best Actor, but other than that, I guess I must be missing something in terms of thinking this might qualify as a Best Pic contender.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 06, 2010, 09:54:44 pm
I think there's several movies that have already covered these war scenarios / soldier rivalries / leaving families back at home / readjusting, etc. over the years. 

Which ones did you think were best?
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Mandy21 on March 06, 2010, 10:24:11 pm
Hey Lee, I can't say any of them were "best", but of late, within this genre, I've enjoyed "The Last Detail" with Nicholson, "Three Kings" with Clooney, "Grace is Gone" with Cusack, "The Lucky Ones" with Robbins, "Jarhead" with our boy Jake.  I just enjoyed and got more out of each of them than I did HL.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: David In Indy on March 08, 2010, 12:47:53 am
I am watching it now. I started it about 15 minutes ago.

It's VERY intense thus far. :o
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2010, 01:02:01 am
I tried to warn you!
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 08, 2010, 01:04:04 pm
So, what did you think? Are you still in shock?

Congratulations to Kathryn Bigelow on winning Best Director and Best Picture for The Hurt Locker last night!!
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Mandy21 on March 08, 2010, 01:40:03 pm
from Reuters today:

Why Oscar chose "Hurt Locker" over "Avatar"
            – Mon Mar 8, 3:32 am ET
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – By the time "The Hurt Locker" won the best picture Oscar Sunday, it seemed almost a foregone conclusion since it previously earned honors from the Producers Guild, BAFTA, Broadcast Film Critics, the National Society of Film Critics and critics groups in New York, L.A. and elsewhere.

But "Hurt Locker" was anything but a sure thing. In a historical context, its win is surprising. After all, it is the lowest-grossing best picture winner of all time; it was never on more than 535 screens; and it beat the highest-grossing movie in modern history, one that has been playing on thousands of screens for nearly three months. In the era of blockbusters, "Locker" cost a mere $11 million to make compared with the more than $230 million cost of "Avatar."

To earn its gold, "Hurt Locker" had to break what producer Greg Shapiro called "The Iraq War Curse," referring to all the movies touching on that conflict that had failed to find an audience. It had to weather attacks in the media and from some in the military who questioned the realism of how it portrayed the bomb-removal unit. The film also drew censure for the illicit campaign methods of one of its producers, the first to be banned from attending the Academy Awards. And it had to win with backing from Summit Entertainment, a relatively new and small distributor that had never before won an Oscar.

There also is the parallel question of whether "Avatar" and distributor Fox contributed to their own demise in the best-picture race. The sci-fi epic had been critically acclaimed, far more widely seen and was widely heralded for its breakthrough technology. And it boasted the deep-pocket backing of a major Hollywood studio. Could it be explained as the ultimate example of the split personality in Hollywood, where movie choices are mostly driven by the need to make large amounts of money but where the people behind the camera still want to be seen as making art? And was it hurt by attacks from the political right on the movie's plot, which was seen as a dig on America's Iraq incursion?

Or was "Avatar" doomed because it was sci-fi, a genre that rarely has been rewarded by Oscar? After all, there are precedents. In 1977, when "Star Wars" was the breakthrough movie, it lost best picture to Woody Allen's low-budget comedy "Annie Hall." And in 1982, when "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" was rewriting box office records, it was beaten for best picture by "Gandhi."

The path that "Hurt Locker" took was anything but standard. After Summit picked up domestic distribution rights in September 2008, it put the movie on the shelf because its release schedule was crowded. It eventually opened "Hurt Locker" last summer as counter programing instead of in the fall, when most serious dramas get a showcase launch.

Summit turned the Oscar strategy over to PR firm 42 West, where veteran campaigner Cynthia Swartz called the shots. Swartz was criticized for waiting until early December to send out the DVDs, even though the whole strategy revolved around getting the movie seen by as many voters as possible.

She also had to get attention from Academy voters and guild members for a movie without any marquee names and a subject that put off many people already weary of a war that never seemed to end. What Swartz did right was to center the campaign around Bigelow, a woman who directed with as much glory and guts as any man, and to feature writer/producer Mark Boal for his screenplay and real-life story as a journalist who was embedded with a bomb disposal unit in Iraq.

She had bound copies of the "Hurt Locker" script sent to every member of the Writers Guild of America, earning guild honors for the original screenplay and the same award at the Oscars.

Meanwhile, Fox seemed to downplay awards campaigning, letting Cameron take the lead. And what Cameron wanted to talk about was how frustrated he was that his actors, whose performances were captured by computer-generated technology, were not taken as seriously as live-action actors.

While his righteousness was sincere, that didn't go over well with many real-life actors who feel threatened by the possibility that they might be replaced by synthetic performers. That backlash might have mattered, because actors are by far the largest bloc of voters in the Academy.

In the end, both movies tried to position themselves as important parts of screen history. That worked for "Hurt Locker" but not for "Avatar," which will have to settle for being the biggest-grossing movie, even though it didn't gain the respect that comes with the best picture trophy.

(please visit our entertainment blog via www.reuters.com or on http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/)

Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: David In Indy on March 10, 2010, 03:09:58 am
So, what did you think? Are you still in shock?

Congratulations to Kathryn Bigelow on winning Best Director and Best Picture for The Hurt Locker last night!!


It was deeply disturbing Lee. The only reason I decided to watch it is because I knew I could pause the DVD and walk away from it for awhile if I needed to. I didn't though. The entire movie is nothing short of non stop, heart pounding suspense - and I don't mean that in a good way. This is definately a movie you DON'T want to watch if you are feeling nervous.

I found myself feeling very frustrated over the carelessness of Sargeant James. But I think the worst part for me was not knowing where the enemy was at any given moment. We constantly see large crowds of people gathering near the soldiers. It was impossible to tell the friendly people from the insurgents. I suppose this is what our soldiers go through on a daily basis. The way the camera panned and swayed and zoomed up close to the action was also nerve racking. I really felt like I was standing there with them as they tried to disarm these bombs.

It was a VERY good movie, but it was also deeply disturbing.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: ifyoucantfixit on March 10, 2010, 03:40:48 am
   I have the same feeling about this pair of opposing movies:  that I did about Crash vs Brokeback Mountain.  The Oscar voters
had an adgenda.  They wanted to make a point.  In this case, it was, they didn't want the people of the voting group to not
be able to tell the movie watching public, that they are not classy minded enough to make the decision of what is a good movie.
   They are not too happy with Jim Cameron for making so much money.  Against the little movie that nobody saw.  It is so
depressing.  The Avatar movie is a very happy and good ending movie.  That in itself makes it a weak movie.  In order to be
a great movie, it has to be a show movie for the director, and the actors.  Its the very reason why comedies don't get nominated,
or win major awards, regardless of the merit they may have.
   Oscar members are like the clique at hi school who all decide who are the popular, or the unpopular kids.  They make all the
decisions.  If they don't like you, you are an outsider, and if they do like you, you are a popular kid.
   A perfect example of that is the movies, songs.  They are relegated to non extant portions of a movie these days.  To the point where they arent even done in full on the show now.  The music was like watered tea.  Boring and weak....
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Aloysius J. Gleek on March 10, 2010, 09:05:11 am


I haven't seen the movie yet. In the meanwhile, here's another, rather different, slant:


http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/03/somebody_from_the_hurt_locker.html

Somebody From The Hurt Locker
Probably Should Have Thanked Critics at the Oscars

(http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2010/03/20100307_bigelow_560x375.jpg)

By: Bilge Ebiri

The irony of Variety  firing its chief film critic, Todd McCarthy (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/03/variety_this_thumbs_for_you.html) (and announcing that they’re doing away with staff film reviews altogether), less than 24 hours after The Hurt Locker ’s big night of Oscar glory was sadly lost on most people. You don’t need to have been paying much attention this past year to see that film critics have been taking hits left and right, and McCarthy’s dismissal is clearly just the latest chapter. (That nonsensical Armond White–Greenberg kerfuffle (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/03/armond_white_and_greenberg_scr.html), however, isn’t.) And they were probably not on the minds of The Hurt Locker ’s team, who thanked everybody in their Oscar speeches except for, amazingly, the one group that proved key in their awards-season success.

Of course, thanking critics would be perverse in Hollywood. Because critics don’t matter. Nobody reads critics. Movies that critics like don’t make any money. That last part may be true, of course, since The Hurt Locker  didn’t make any money either (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=hurtlocker.htm). Apparently, the lowest-grossing film in Oscar history to win Best Picture, the one with no studio behind it, the one sporting one of the most disastrous releases ever, and the one made by a filmmaker whose previous height of awards glory was a Silver Raven at the Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film in 1988, somehow managed to become an awards-season juggernaut because of … well, what? Magic? Sheer pluck and steely-eyed determination? The messianic hosannas of Jeffrey Wells? Some have credited word-of-mouth (http://blogs.laweekly.com/stylecouncil/voice-film/82nd-academy-awards-oscars-kat/), but usually word-of-mouth translates to some kind of box office.

That it was a good movie certainly helped. But lots of good, even great, films came out during the year. No, The Hurt Locker  owes much of its Oscar success, frankly, to critics. The film came into the awards season trailing a litany of not just good, not just great, but practically levitational reviews — from Richard Corliss of Time (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1838615-1,00.html)  anointing it a “near-perfect war film” on the eve of its Venice Film Festival premiere (in September … 2008!) to Scott Foundas of the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-06-24/film/the-hurt-locker-ticking-time-bomb-of-a-movie/) and L.A. Weekly calling it “the best American film since Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood  way back in June. (Our favorite was A.O. Scott of the Times (http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/movies/26hurt.html)  promising that “If The Hurt Locker isn’t the best action movie of the summer, I’ll blow up my car.”) Of course, that happens every year, with a film being canonized by critics and then falling apart at the box office and seeing its Oscar chances waste away; our beloved Zodiac  comes to mind.

What was different this year was that the accolades kept coming: Roger Ebert had already deemed it (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090708/REVIEWS/907089997/1023) a “leading contender for Academy Awards,” and by mid-December, the Boston Society of Film Critics, the New York Film Critics Circle, and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association had all bestowed all their awards on Locker  and Bigelow, along with scores of other organizations (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/12/critcs_groups_love_them_some_h.html) . Meanwhile, the film’s box office continued to disappear (it was gone from most cities by that point) and numerous other major, much-better-funded Oscar campaigns (Nine, Avatar, Inglourious Basterds,  etc.) began to gear up. By that point, of course, The Hurt Locker  was already lapping the other films … on the critics’ top-ten lists (http://moviecitynews.com/awards/2010/top_ten/00_scoreboard.html).

To be fair, movies that sweep critics’ awards don’t always win Best Picture. (We speculated on that ourselves at one point (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/12/the_hurt_lockers_many_critic_a.html).) That is, perhaps, the one area where the critics couldn’t help The Hurt Locker  out. And in this year of relentless critic-bashing, it may have been tempting to think that the Academy would deal them another blow by picking the box-office-busting Avatar  over the Little Movie That the Critics Like. So maybe there are two unspoken thank-yous in order now: the Hurt Locker  team should be thanking the critics, and the critics should be thanking the Academy.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Aloysius J. Gleek on March 10, 2010, 09:15:30 am


http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2010/03/08/oscar_backstage_bigelow_boal_talk_the_hurt_lockers_six_wins/

Oscar Backstage:  Bigelow, Boal
Talk The Hurt Locker’s Six Wins

(http://i.blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/images/uploads/thompson-on-hollywood/g-100307-cvr-locker-924p.h2_.jpg)

The Hurt Locker  finally ended the long, difficult Oscar campaign trail winning six awards, while Avatar  won only three technical categories, for visual effects, art direction and cinematography. “I hope I’m the first of many,” Kathryn Bigelow said backstage, of being the first woman to win the best director Oscar for The Hurt Locker,  which is also the first best picture winner to be directed by a woman. “I long for day when that modifier is a moot point. I am grateful if I can inspire some young intrepid tenacious male or female filmmaker, make them feel the impossible is possible.”

Notably, Bigelow and producer Gregory Shapiro both thanked barred producer Nicolas Chartier who was celebrating in Malibu—Eugene Hernandez reports. Chartier raised the funding for the movie from foreign territories and advanced money to start production when a bank loan didn’t come through in time. Boal, who does not get along with Chartier, said, “I think Nic Chartier is very happy tonight.”

“I would say to never give up on your dream,” said Bigelow to young filmmakers following in her footsteps. “I’ve been making film for a while, 30 years. Work on stories you truly believe in, because then no obstacle is too great.”

Bigelow also thanked the “critical community” for giving the movie “wind in our sails.” In answer to questions about beating her former husband James Cameron, she said: “All the nominees were phenomenal, powerful, talented filmmakers. It was humbling to be in that company, in that conversation. Jim is very inspiring, he inspires filmmakers around the world. I can speak for all of them: we are quite grateful.”

Fair to say Cameron is a tad disappointed tonight.  But as producer Jon Landau told me, going in, Avatar  was never looking to win any awards. And The Hurt Locker,  the little movie that could, will now get a much-needed DVD boost. Maybe Summit will actually make back the $5 million or so they spent on their awards campaign.
Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: serious crayons on March 10, 2010, 10:24:29 am
Somebody From The Hurt Locker
Probably Should Have Thanked Critics at the Oscars

So true! I myself saw the movie right after it opened, choosing it entirely on the basis of the good reviews I'd seen.


Title: Re: The Hurt Locker--no spoilers
Post by: Front-Ranger on March 10, 2010, 11:02:02 am
Thanks for your comments, John and Kathryn, and thanks for your review, David. Yes, it is definitely a disturbing movie.

I came late to the movie theater just before it was about to start and plopped down in the nearest available seat next to a large man in a coat. He was so silent and unmoving throughout the movie that I started to get concerned for him. The entire audience was very very quiet except for the time when James pulled all the bombs out of the dust when several said versions of "Oh, shit."