Spoils of War: An Oscar for the Locker

When I saw The Hurt Locker back in August, I thought, "Finally a grunt's-eye view of the war in Iraq. And not so gung-ho either." Leave it to my staff of thousands to straighten me out.

Bill Osborne wrote in an e-mail message, "I thought it was a subtle form of American war propaganda that could work as a kind of perverse, macho recruiting film." He cited Hurt Locker screenwriter Mark Boal's acceptance speech, dedicating his Oscar to the troops, at last night's Academy Awards:

His statement lets the cat out of the bag. It's a war movie that glorifies the macho stupidity of war while disguising its agenda with a kind of fake depth and dimension. It could easily fall into the category of "Pentagon movies." [The Defense Department dropped its official support for the movie during filming.]

When will there be a movie that makes it clear that we invaded Iraq to steal their resources and strategic position and that the soldiers there are not a citizen's army but essentially mercenaries? The best that we can say for them is that at least most of the grunts don't know what they are really doing. Whatever happened to artists telling the truth?

Osborne isn't alone in thinking of the movie as a recruiting tool.

Tara McKelvey, reviewing it in The American Prospect, wrote:

The Hurt Locker sets itself up as an anti-war film. It opens with a quote, "War is a drug," from Chris Hedges, a Nation Institute senior fellow and author of War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. Yet for more than two hours, the film imbues Baghdad's combat zone with excitement and drama. ... The fact that the war itself seems to have little point fades into the background. For all the graphic violence, bloody explosions and, literally, human butchery that is shown in the film, The Hurt Locker is one of the most effective recruiting vehicles for the U.S. Army that I have seen.

As to the troops in Iraq being "too stressed out ... to reflect on larger questions about what they are doing there," as one rave review put it, Osborne says, "Well, hell, what a convenient little coincidence." And as to the large number of National Guard soldiers who didn't really volunteer for the war but who were essentially drafted into it, he says:

Those poor folks were suckered. They sort of made a pact with the devil, and then were called to pay the price. They didn't really know what they were doing. The government likes it that way. The military uses a lot of tricks in recruiting. It even uses threats and forms of financial blackmail to bully its way into our schools, where high school kids -- children really -- are manipulated into signing up. Preying upon children to find cannon fodder has to be one of the most evil things our government does.

"When the draft was ended," he adds, "I thought it was the beginning of an entirely new and more just world. What a delusion!"

The government and military had already seen in Vietnam that a citizen army is not well suited for imperialist war. History shows that Americans step up to the line when the cause is just. But the government saw that it needed soldiers more along the lines of mercenaries, people who are in it basically for financial reasons and don't really consider the moral implications.

Above all, the "hypocrisy of our society" is to blame:

When the going gets tough we expect those young people from the lower stratas of society to do their "service." At the same time, we conveniently forget that when the government becomes immoral or misguided it's supposed to be we artists and intellectuals who take the risks and step up to the line to help chart a better course.

Those young people, mercenaries or not, wouldn't even be over there if we hadn't abdicated our responsibilities. That might not justify being a mercenary, but it shows where the larger responsibility lies when a society drifts so far away from telling the truth. A cinematic storyline that hides essential parts of the truth is a perfect example of that kind of moral abdication. I guess it shows what an Oscar really counts for.

OK, I'm willing to consider it a mere souvenir among the more significant spoils of war.

(Crossposted at HuffPo)

March 8, 2010 12:36 PM | | Comments (3)

3 Comments

I always liked the film, "Behind Enemy Lines" based on the ethnic cleansing in Serbia/Croatia with Luke Wilson and Gene Hackman and the commander not to disobey an order.

There are wars and conflicts we do not get into b/c of profits. Lets use the proper word for Iraq also, not war, but an "invasion" -- no weapons of mass destruction ... just a leader who bluffed too much.

Sure they can be. In any case, "Green Zone" -- an action pic that just opened -- manages between chases to lay out the WMD lie behind the invasion. The flick comes a little late, though, not that it would've done any good earlier.

"We just need to create phony remorse by cinematizing our alligator tears. In mass psychology, the dramatization of guilt creates the illusion that justice has been served." -- Bill Osborne

Meantime, have a look here:
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

I've heard that soldiers everywhere LOVE the napalming scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. Which says to me that any war film can be used as a recruiting tool, no?

Leave a comment

Me Elsewhere

'WILD SIDE' STILL ROCKS 

Nelson Algren was one of the great American authors of the 20th century, it is no exaggeration to say, and among the most neglected. Consider his underrated classic, "A Walk on the Wild Side." The title -- popularized and co-opted as an idiomatic phrase by Hollywood and Madison Avenue (institutions Algren loathed) -- is familiar to most anyone who speaks English or knows Lou Reed's lyrics. But the novel itself? Hardly.

BUSTER KEATON REVISITED 
Buster Keaton: Tempest in a Flat Hat is not a biography. "This book is merely a fan's notes," Edward McPherson writes in the introduction, although his publisher ignores the disclaimer and calls it a biography on the cover. In fact, the book is a bit of both, a difficult combination to bring off unless you're David Thomson, who set the standard with Rosebud, his penetrating rumination on the life and career of Orson Welles, which was nothing if not a distillation of every obsessive thought he ever had about the myth and the man and all his movies.
LAUREN BACALL, STILL SALTY AT 80 
When Lauren Bacall writes that her singing voice ranges "somewhere between B minus sharp and outer space," she's being candid and funny. It's not every stage star with two Tony Awards for best actress in a musical whose vocal talent offers so little promise. (OK, Harvey Fierstein excepted.) Still less would one admit it.
THE STARS ACCORDING TO BOGDANOVICH 
Peter Bogdanovich's superb collection of movie-star profiles and interviews -- a sequel to Who the Devil Made It, his interviews of top film directors -- begins with an affectionate tale about Orson Welles that reminds us just how intimate the author's connection to Hollywood's greatest has been. But contrary to what we've come to expect from dime-a-dozen celebrities and celebrity interviews not worth two cents, the tale avoids bromidic egotism and journalistic platitudes.
SAMMY'S WHITE DREAMS 
Four decades ago Lenny Bruce sentenced Sammy Davis Jr. to "30 years in Biloxi," stripping him of "his Jewish star" and "his religious statue of Elizabeth Taylor." Now we have two new biographies of Davis that spring him from ridicule, if not from doubts about his legacy, and restore a measure of dignity to a black entertainer whose huge fame and success never overcame his devout wish -- indeed his lifelong effort -- to be white.
more picks

Sites to See

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Straight Up | published on March 8, 2010 12:36 PM.

Still at Large was the previous entry in this blog.

It's Still a Circle Jerk, That's Why is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.