Hurt Locker, straight up racist movie

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
There are 0 repercussions for his supposed risks.

except for the soldier who is shot & seriously wounded b/c of a stupid risk James takes. maybe you missed that part...? (the true hero of the movie, if any, is Sanborn - the black guy - but that's another matter)

as if the director has no choice in how to craft a film

the director does craft a film - that's exactly what I said. you, OTOH, are suggesting that this film -goes out of its way- to portray combat as being, in your words, "cool" and "fun". you're also saying that the only possible motivation it could have for doing so is to "romanticize the occupation", e.g. that the director's previous work, aesthetics, narrative, etc. (any non-ideological reason) couldn't possibly be on an influence on how it was shot. again, it can't be a film, it has to be, above all, a political statement, tho preferably one you endorse.

Ultimately nothing you've said responds to the crux of my argument, that this movie is smooths over the moral complications of fighting in an illegal occupation and asks no questions of its audience by presenting a romanticized view of the occupation.

one has to ask - what would a film about the war look like that wasn't "romanticized"? clearly our definitions differ greatly. The Sands of Iwo Jima, that's a romanticized war film. I get the feeling you'd only be happy with a film that portrayed all American soldiers as vicious & stupid. (or as cool guys like Joker who speak truth to power expository about the evils of the illegal occupation & so on) does it cover every single ugly piece of the war? Blackwater, Haditha, Abu Ghraib, WMDs, etc.? no. but does it claim to do so? or to be the single defining narrative of the war? no. you want to see a political message, so you're creating one. sure, it's pro-American soldier, but there is a world of difference - which you refuse to acknowledge - between that & being pro-American policy. the message of the film there is ambiguous, which seems to be your problem. I think many of the moral complications are present or implied without having to be shouted out loud

what questions should it have asked of its audience, according to you? (as if it were up to this film to tease out all the moral complications of the Iraq War) if you were saying "to make a film after Iraq is barbaric" & uttering a blanket condemnation it would one thing - I would disagree, but at least there would be consistency. instead, films can be made, but not only do they have to have a starkly mapped out political message, it has to be one vetted by you.

I'm not slamming the anti-war movement (tho, speaking from personal experience, not much of a movement w/r/t this war). I'm slamming the complacency of the large majority of Americans, irregardless of their politics, for the last decade. let him the shoe fits wear it; if that's not you, great. I do wonder about this illegal occupation - you'd have preferred that we left in the country in 2004 or 2005 (or whenever), in total shambles? keep in mind that this is not the same the thing as the initial invasion, which we all agree was a terrible idea. you'd have been fine with the consequences of that? you don't think Iraq is better off now than in 2004 (not that that is a justification for abuses, but nonetheless)? these are not rhetorical questions - I would like to hear what you have to say.

lastly, calm down. it's just the Internet. it feels like you're about to have a stroke.
 
D

droid

Guest
Disappointing. Suffers from similar problems. Plenty of hand wringing, but totally dehumanises Palestinians who have almost no voice in the film. As a film about soldiers it makes sense in an extremely narrow way. Otherwise its totally ambigious through its lack of context, both political and historical.

But as has been stated, what else can one expect?
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
ah right.

i know Vim and i agree that J Sacco's Palestine is a very good attempt at fleshing out the Palestinian experience: and i know you are a big graphic novels man, Droid.

the last good sound/vision attempt at 'Palestinian life' i saw (and i don't see many, granted) was that (i think BBC?) British TV documentary about a tea selling lad.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Disappointing. Suffers from similar problems. Plenty of hand wringing, but totally dehumanises Palestinians who have almost no voice in the film. As a film about soldiers it makes sense in an extremely narrow way. Otherwise its totally ambigious through its lack of context, both political and historical."
I think that's a little unfair. It is from one person's perspective so it is going to be narrow and, as that person is an Israeli, it's unlikely to give the Palestinians much of a literal voice. The viewpoint you do get though, while it could be described as hand wringing ('cause really that just means regretful right?), is fairly sympathetic to the Palestinians. I haven't seen The Hurt Locker so any comments I make on that are obviously limited but I get the impression from what people are saying that it lacks even this kind of balance.
 
D

droid

Guest
Hey Rich. Check out this review. Its OTM in my opinion:

To say that Palestinians are absent in Waltz with Bashir, to say that it is a film that deals not with Palestinians but with Israelis who served in Lebanon, only barely begins to describe the violence that this film commits against Palestinians. There is nothing interesting or new in the depiction of Palestinians -- they have no names, they don't speak, they are anonymous. But they are not simply faceless victims. Instead, the victims in the story that Waltz with Bashir tells are Israeli soldiers. Their anguish, their questioning, their confusion, their pain -- it is this that is intended to pull us. The rotoscope animation is beautifully done, the facial expressions so engaging, subtle and torn, we find ourselves grimacing and gasping at the trials and tribulations of the young Israeli soldiers and their older agonizing selves. We don't see Palestinian facial expressions; only a lingering on dead, anonymous faces. So while Palestinians are never fully human, Israelis are, and indeed are humanized through the course of the film.

We most often see Palestinians -- when we do see them -- being blown to pieces or lying dead, but there is one scene where mourning Palestinian women occupy a street. They don't speak; they cry and shout. We don't see the hard lines of their grief, we don't see their tears. Rather, the focus zooms into the face of the younger Folman watching them as his breathing becomes more shallow, functioning as the emotional anchor of the scene. This is very typical of the film in that the suffering and experiences of Palestinians are significant principally for the effects that they have on the Israeli soldiers, and never in their own right.

Several critics have noted the real -- and horrifying -- footage from Sabra and Shatila at the end of the film. Indeed the only people portrayed in the film who are not animated are Palestinians in this footage. There is a woman screaming and crying. She shouts "my son, my son" in Arabic. She repeats again and again in Arabic "take photos, take photos," "where are the Arabs, where are the Arabs." But her words are not subtitled; she is just a screaming woman and her words are irrelevant and incomprehensible. So even in the same gesture whereby we are reminded that the massacre was no animation and it was a real event, the victims of that massacre are presented to us in a way that is deeply dehumanizing and "othering." The coping of the wailing Palestinian mother cannot compete with the quiet reflection and mild manners of the Israeli veteran. Folman does not talk to any Palestinians and the only Palestinians we see are in flashbacks and this footage at the end of the film. Not only are Palestinians essentially absent then, they are also of one time -- Sabra and Shatila. Palestinians are not part of time's passage; they are frozen in an incomprehensible, and in effect inaudible, wail.

It is not that the absence of Palestinians is necessarily a problem per se. There are indeed films where what is absent is key, and therefore has a presence that is all the more significant. In Alfred Hitchcock's classic Rebecca, for example, the haunting absence of the true central character, the traces of her, the allusions to her, make Rebecca all the more present. Not so with the Palestinians in Waltz with Bashir. They are peripheral to the story of the emotional life of Israeli veterans, a story of Israeli self-discovery and redemption. Indeed, it transpires that the filmmaker does not need to find out about Sabra and Shatila for a full understanding of his own role there, of what happened, of his responsibility, of truth. Rather, Sabra and Shatila are a portal to "other camps." The psychologist-friend cum philosopher-priest-moral-compass tells Folman that this is in fact all about "another massacre," "those other camps." At this point it transpires that Folman's parents were camp survivors. "You were engaged with the massacre a long time before it happened," the psychologist says, "through your parents' Auschwitz memory." The solution that he suggests is for Folman to go to Sabra and Shatila to find out what happened. Everything falls into place. This is the meaning of Sabra and Shatila -- a means, a mechanism, a chapter in Israeli self-discovery and coming to peace. The Palestinians are doubly absent.

Folman's psychologist friend, like many psychologists one presumes, often talks in therapist mode, in addition to his priest-philosopher mode. He puts forward the idea that Folman suppressed the memories because his 19-year-old self -- with the Palestinian camps as simulacrum for those "other camps" -- unwittingly associated himself with the Nazis. But, he reminds Folman now, at Sabra and Shatila Folman did not kill, he "only lit flares." So while Folman has been teetering on the edge of an overwhelming guilt, his psychologist friend drags him from the precipice. Folman and his contemporaries need not carry the guilt of being perpetrators -- they were accomplices. They lit flares so that Israel's ally in Lebanon, the Phalange militia butchering Palestinians could see what they were doing.

The question of who was doing whose dirty work is not so easily answered however Israel was nobody's sidekick when it invaded Lebanon. The film does not show us the Israeli shelling of Beirut that led to 18,000 deaths and 30,000 wounded, the violations committed against civilians, the destruction of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance. And what about the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization and armed resistors had been evacuated more than two weeks before the massacres, and that it was the day after multinational forces left Beirut that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon made it known that 2,000 "terrorists" remained in the camps? The focus of Folman's quest for responsibility in Waltz with Bashir hones in on lighting the flares as the Phalangists "mopped up" the camps. That two months before the massacres Sharon had announced his objective to send Phalangist forces into the camps, that the Israeli army surrounded and sealed the camps, that they shelled the camps, that snipers shot at camp dwellers in the days before the massacres, and then having given the green light to the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila, the Israeli army prevented people from fleeing the camps -- all of this is absent in Waltz with Bashir.

In the film, it is on the shoulders of the Lebanese Phalangists that responsibility for the massacres is unequivocally placed. The Israeli soldiers have qualms and do not act on them, the Israeli leadership are told and do nothing, while it is the Phalangists who are depicted as brutal and gratuitously violent. But just as this is not a film about Palestinians, nor is it a film about the Lebanese Phalangists -- it is a film about Israelis. The point seems to be to set up the young Israeli soldiers as morally superior to these blood-thirsty beasts, not only in that it was not they but the Phalangists who actually massacred and executed, but also in their very way of being in the world, they are superior.

In a moment of what is presumably supposed to pass as brutal honesty, one of Folman's friends remarks sadly of how he realized that he "wasn't the hero who saves everyone's life." Essentially this is the limit of the notion of responsibility in this film: the Israeli veteran's guilt at not having been a hero. The pain of having done nothing at the time, although there were stirrings in their consciences, even then -- which the film contrasts with the Israeli leadership, and most starkly with the Phalangists.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10322.shtml
 
D

droid

Guest
ah right.

i know Vim and i agree that J Sacco's Palestine is a very good attempt at fleshing out the Palestinian experience: and i know you are a big graphic novels man, Droid.

the last good sound/vision attempt at 'Palestinian life' i saw (and i don't see many, granted) was that (i think BBC?) British TV documentary about a tea selling lad.

Yeah, Im big into Sacco.

RE: Israeli films - have you heard about this: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113469.html

The overarching problem with American war movies, and all war movies is precisely the fact that they are set out to be 'one soldiers tale' and that 'all they were meant to be'.

Imagine a genre of film that concerned car crashes, but rather than being shown the victims we're continually bombarded with the POV of the joyrider, with whom we are meant to sympathise. Sure there may be passengers in the back telling the guy to slow down, there may even be genuine attempts to show what can go wrong when speeding around drunk in the middle of the night, but the end result is pretty much the same, empathy with joyriders, glorification of speed and adventure and willful ignorance of the fate of victims other than as ciphers on which to reflect the thoughts and concerns of the joyriders...

War is not adventure, its not 'Speed in Iraq' or cartoons in Lebanon. It's not entertainment. It's unwatchable heartbreaking misery:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3048585
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Hey Rich. Check out this review. Its OTM in my opinion:"
Some good stuff but I think it goes too far.

"This is very typical of the film in that the suffering and experiences of Palestinians are significant principally for the effects that they have on the Israeli soldiers, and never in their own right."
I'm not really sure that's true, we see the Palestinian's suffering and, yes, it comes through the viewpoint of the Israelis - as does everything in the film 'cause they are the narrators - but the suffering still comes through to the viewer. Most of the people I know who've seen the film have said something along the lines of "Crikey the Palestinians got a rough deal" and never "Oh, I never realised, a few of the Israelis were actually decent blokes who worried when they were blowing up innocent people" so if the aim of the film is to get that message across I would say that it's failed.

"There is a woman screaming and crying. She shouts "my son, my son" in Arabic. She repeats again and again in Arabic "take photos, take photos," "where are the Arabs, where are the Arabs." But her words are not subtitled; she is just a screaming woman and her words are irrelevant and incomprehensible. So even in the same gesture whereby we are reminded that the massacre was no animation and it was a real event, the victims of that massacre are presented to us in a way that is deeply dehumanizing and "othering." The coping of the wailing Palestinian mother cannot compete with the quiet reflection and mild manners of the Israeli veteran."
But it does compete, in fact it obliterates the "quiet reflection" of the veterans because it's that scene that everyone I've asked remembers and when they do they are definitely not in any way sympathising with the soldiers - they are sympathising with a woman in anguish even if they can't understand what she is saying.

"The solution that he suggests is for Folman to go to Sabra and Shatila to find out what happened. Everything falls into place. This is the meaning of Sabra and Shatila -- a means, a mechanism, a chapter in Israeli self-discovery and coming to peace. The Palestinians are doubly absent."
There is something in this.

"Folman did not kill, he "only lit flares." So while Folman has been teetering on the edge of an overwhelming guilt, his psychologist friend drags him from the precipice. Folman and his contemporaries need not carry the guilt of being perpetrators -- they were accomplices. They lit flares so that Israel's ally in Lebanon, the Phalange militia butchering Palestinians could see what they were doing."
Well yeah, but that's pretty bad isn't it? I don't think they absolve themselves of guilt by admitting only to that - and the fact that the rotoscope coalesces into horrible, real footage (the final scene I think?) is evidence of that. That point is the "realest" point of the film, you could equally well argue that that sudden realness cuts through the pontificating and reveals the reflections of the poor, traumatised Israelis for the insubstantial hand-wringing it is.

"The pain of having done nothing at the time, although there were stirrings in their consciences, even then -- which the film contrasts with the Israeli leadership, and most starkly with the Phalangists."
So the film says that the Israeli leadership were responsible after all?
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
worth quoting normblog (let me roughly outline two common responses to normblog that we would expect to encounter on a lesser board, but thankfully, this board i know sh/wouldn't entertain such juvenile claptrap: 'he's a prissy or precious writer who annoys me so i am not minded to take anything he says that seriously, though i might give this a look', or, 'he supported the invasion of Iraq and is a Eustonian, etc, Decentist, etc, therefore anything he says can be scorned'; i apologise for outlining this crude rejoinder at the start, but, hey, you never know...)

Is it possible to enjoy a movie, and more than that, judge it to be a good movie, when you think there's something wrong with the politics of it? This is one, I would say, that's not for John Rentoul's 'Questions to Which the Answer is No' series. The answer to it is so obviously yes unless you have a cramped imagination. Welcome, once more, to Slavoj Žižek, who's writing on the London Review Blog about The Hurt Locker. As I've already said my piece about the film, I won't repeat my positive assessment. But here's Žižek:

The film largely ignores the debate about the US military intervention in Iraq, and instead focuses on the daily ordeals, on and off duty, of ordinary soldiers forced to deal with danger and destruction.

After referring to a couple of Israeli films that I haven't seen and won't therefore comment on - in one of which, according to him, 'most of the action claustrophobically takes place inside a tank' - Žižek judges the focus of such movies as politically disabling and a mark against them:
In its very invisibility, ideology is here, more than ever: we are there, with our boys, identifying with their fear and anguish instead of questioning what they are doing there.

Now, Žižek's judgement of The Hurt Locker is itself open to question. The claim that it shuts any intelligent viewer off from questioning what 'our boys' are doing in Iraq doesn't square with the movie as I, and others, saw it. Furthermore, Žižek allows no mileage to the idea that 'dismantling terrorist networks' might have something to be said for it. These responses of his, however, are predictable. They are no matter for surprise.

What is more revealing is the assumption that a film set in Iraq that 'largely ignores the debate about the US military intervention' must be defective. Why must it? What if The Hurt Locker is (though I dispute that it is) too narrowly, exclusively, focused - on the mind and the job of a man who is a member of a bomb-disposal unit? Must that necessarily detract from its quality? This last question does belong in John Rentoul's 'Questions to Which the Answer is No' series. To think about movies in this way is truly cramped, the product of an illiberal imagination. If the thing doesn't include your orthodoxy, there must be something wrong with it.

I am put in mind of a movie I liked so much when I first saw it that I went back to the cinema the next night with a friend, in order to 'show' it to him, and then we both went back again the night after that so that he could get a second look and I a third. It's one of the great pictures of the 1950s: Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront. Subsequently I read a number of put-downs of On the Waterfront from French film critics of the left, who pronounced it to be anti-trade-unionist and an apologia by Kazan for his having given testimony and named names before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Did I amend my rating of this great movie? Strangely, no, I never have.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
just saw HL and did like it mostly, for the details, for the mood, for the way it's made.

and it is without any doubts a straight up racist and propagandist movie which subtly yet certainly furthers US pro-war ideology through heroicizing US soldiers and dehumanizing Iraqis.

Gavin and Zizek are on point here.

and anti-heroes are of course, much more than anything else, heroes.
 
Last edited:

slowtrain

Well-known member
Yeah, that looks like utter shite.

I am saying this purely because if it is only about a year or so away, it means they have been working on it for a while already, and dude, how many months ago was bin Laden killed?
 

zhao

there are no accidents
if we lived in any kind of not even just, but simply less fucked world, Penguin would be publishing the collected poems and short works by Bin Laden. i hear he wrote science fiction as well. would be keen to read some but i doubt they will be available anytime soon.
 

slowtrain

Well-known member
if we lived in any kind of not even just, but simply less fucked world, Penguin would be publishing the collected poems and short works by Bin Laden. i hear he wrote science fiction as well. would be keen to read some but i doubt they will be available anytime soon.

Wow, I would actually be kind of interested in that.

As in, just to see if he was doing something interesting, or it was all 'golden age of islam, flowers and whatever' fantasy world things....

Definitely be keen for the sci-fi though.
 

grizzleb

Well-known member
Yeah I think I need to read some of that shit. There will be some quality (as in revealing) ideological shit in there if nothing else.
 
D

droid

Guest
His sci-fi is OK actually. Certainly as good as most of the stuff that gets printed in Interzone and the like.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Funny that he was into sci-fi. I read a perhaps slightly fanciful but very interesting piece in the Guardian years ago remarking on bin Laden's literary tastes and speculating that al-Qa'eda's ideology may have been influenced by Asimov's Foundation series and Frank Herbert's Dune. The latter does actually make some sense, what with all the millennial prophecy and messianic jihadi fervour.

dune4.jpg


THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!


(Unless OBL was actually just hacking out homoerotic Star Trek slash fiction, which would be kinda cool too, I guess.)

Edit: duh, post keeps replicating. Droid, what's his sci-fi like? Got a source for it? Would be interesting to see how it compares to AQ's salafist/Qutbist ideology.
 
Last edited:
Top