Academy Best Director Award...much ado about...

[Michael McVicar]

What do you think was said in this scene Michael?

I got the real disconnect from the life he returned to. He was used to making simple life and death decisions and was now faced with inumerable choices over cereal. Something he couldn't care less about. You could see how he couldn't wait to get back where it seemed to matter what he did and decided. Plus it was light and funny making a perfect setup for the intensity that followed. A lot of what we perceive is contrast with something else. Plus I and a lot of people I've talked to can relate to product choice overload in the aisles. Great low camera angle in the shot also.

 

[rod bradley]

I feel very similarly to David in that I think opportunities were missed that might've nudged Hurt Locker toward greatness, and some fairly conventional (and unnecessary) attempts at dramatic conflict and obvious little setups that were borderline cliches. As well as elements that stretched credulity without the breech of reality being internally motivated.

But it avoided a lot of potential pitfalls and was compelling, although for me I liked it best when the shakey cam was least -- especially as it was used inconsistently-- sometimes movitated, sometimes not, especially bad in one of the wide shots. Always takes me out of the film when it becomes noticeable.

And whatever the hypocrisy that might be involved in giving the "little film" the nod -- it still helps spread the wealth and opportunity, and I think that's a good thing. And there might be a fair amount of quiet patriotic troop-support sentiment in the choice as well. But it was a film that actually did (sorta kinda) try to say something fairly seriously, which the Academy is partial to -- just wish it had dared go a step or two further -- and still won.

 

[George Chiper]

I just finished watching it,is a huge disappointment. Not only that it's effort to approach a cine-veritee style is pathetic compared to a average European standard, being just Hollywood re-digested realism, but the stereotype of the characters, the lack of minimal understanding of human beings turns it into an sub average product. It is by far the most mediocre Oscar I ever watched.And this is just about the cinematic value. If it is to judge it from a minimal human and political point of view, it is a good candidate for future censorship. If Kipling is accused of colonialism, this film should equal genocide. The natives are so bi-dimensional depicted that it makes me feel ashamed of watching it, and I am not an Iraqi, Arab or even Muslim. I think we should start to think about what type of dialog we are establishing with our fellow humans by such lousy adventures in to the Islamic culture. I warmly recommend watching some Abbas Kiarostami or Moshen Malmakbaf before USA decides to invade also Iran and do stupid movies about it.

 

[Joe G.]

"This is a discussion on films, not on your personal political beliefs. As much as I disagree with you, I respect your right to free speech but I do not want this forum to turn into a warzone (no pun intended) and be shut down."

There's nothing in my post to "disagree" with. Just the facts. If you had facts that disagreed with mine, you would doubtless have responded with them.

Here's two articles about your baby, The Hurt Locker:

The Hurt Locker (2009),
Cultural Politics and Uncritical Critics

Watching “The Hurt Locker” Hurts
by Jasmin Ramsey, P U L S E

We can disagree on artistic interpretations all day. The UN Charter, however, is explicitly clear. Ever read it?

 

[Andrew Rieger]

"This is a discussion on films, not on your personal political beliefs. As much as I disagree with you, I respect your right to free speech but I do not want this forum to turn into a warzone (no pun intended) and be shut down."

There's nothing in my post to "disagree" with. Just the facts. If you had facts that disagreed with mine, you would doubtless have responded with them.

Here's two articles about your baby, The Hurt Locker:

The Hurt Locker (2009),
Cultural Politics and Uncritical Critics

Watching “The Hurt Locker” Hurts
by Jasmin Ramsey, P U L S E

We can disagree on artistic interpretations all day. The UN Charter, however, is explicitly clear. Ever read it?

Funny you should ask, I have been a member of Model United Nations for 6 years and have probably read the UN charter more times than you have.

Second, everyone will agree that this forum is for film discussion and Red info, not discussing the war in Iraq. My lack of a political response is not because I have nothing to respond with (I have plenty by the way) but because I do not want to give you what you desire, a heated political battle that will result in the thread's deletion.

Second, the Hurt Locker is not my baby, just a film I loved. It's critical acclaim is justified and if they gave you what you wanted than it would have been like every other Iraq war film. I am happy to discuss UN related issues in depth, just not here.

The fact of the matter is, your just upset that the film did not give you what you wanted, a preachy film intent on bashing the military. The filmmakers were more mature than that, allowing the viewers to focus on the experiences of the troops rather than telling us why they should or should not be there. Are we not allowed to think for ourselves? Does every film that takes place in Iraq need to hold our hand and tell why we should be outraged? There are plenty of films that do that (which your articles indicated, yes I read both of them, I am not close minded and am willing to hear the other side. Like you, the authors of your articles wanted the film to go in a certain direction and got mad when it did not). The film is stripped down to a moving depiction of what the troops experience day in day out in what is essentially hell on earth.

What portion of the UN charter were you referring to by the way? The Preamble? I'm just curious. (PM me).

 

[David Wyatt]

So true. Watched 2001 for the 13th time last night. The Academy should be ashamed of some of their past choices.

I had to check this because I couldn't quite believe it...but not only was 2001 not nominated for best film, Geoffrey Unsworth wasn't even nominated for cinematography (while "Ice Station Zebra" was!!)...laughable!!! Kubrick was at least nominated for director and won for visual effects...

 

[Andrew Rieger]

The film was a decade ahead of its time.

 

[Joe G.]

AR: "The fact of the matter (SIC) is, your just upset that the film did not give you what you wanted, a preachy film intent on bashing the military."

This is called straw man argumentation (look it up / or apparently you already have).

Since I haven't offered "what I want," and you assume it for me, you can pretty much assume anything you like in typical straw man fashion.

AR: "The filmmakers were more mature than that, allowing the viewers to focus on the experiences of the troops rather than telling us why they should or should not be there."

Why on God's earth does that make it "mature?"

That's a cop out, a blatant disregard for the entire situation, how it came to be, why the people on the other side (not the stars, the other side) are planting road side bombs in the first place.

Rather than mature, it's pure exploitation. That's a rather immature approach, in my book.

And it's not any war. It's not a fictional war. It's an ongoing war and occupation, that's really happening to a country of 25 million people. How it is perceived, portrayed, depicted, what have you, actually matters.

AR: "Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?"

Allowed, absolutely. Able?

AR: "Does every film that takes place in Iraq need to hold our hand and tell why we should be outraged?"

No. But ignoring the Big Lies is condoning them. The filmmakers choose the stories they want told and subsequently awarded in front o the world. They didn't choose a story about heroic Iraqis fighting off a ruthless, overwhelmingly superior military force, now did they?

Obviously you're not "outraged" that more than a million lives could be snuffed out based on lies. The whole undertaking is a lie. The general public still believes a number of these lies, now that they have bought into the warrior culture and the endless war agenda.

The US government has not taken responsibility for its massive war crime. The US public has not taken responsibility for its support of this war crime. The filmmakers have profited handsomely by ignoring this massive war crime and pretending it doesn't exist.

AR: "There are plenty of films that do that (which your articles indicated, yes I read both of them, I am not close minded and am willing to hear the other side. Like you, the authors of your articles wanted the film to go in a certain direction and got mad when it did not). The film is stripped down to a moving depiction of what the troops experience day in day out in what is essentially hell on earth."

Well even some troops dispute the authenticity of the narrative.

Others can't wait to go there and kill "Hajis."

They are all volunteers.

I know of a handful of moral US service people who defied their (illegal) orders due to the blatant illegality of the invasion. Lt. Watada is one. He was court martialed of course. Others were prosecuted too. They were not allowed to raise the argument that the war itself was patently illegal, which, of course, the world knows it is.

Ignoring the reasons why Americans are shooting at Iraqis on their soil, and calling it "mature" is baffling.

AR: "What portion of the UN charter were you referring to by the way? The Preamble? I'm just curious. (PM me)."

Are you serious?

First, you claim to have read it numerous times. Then you claim you were part of some organization that studies this for six years. And yet, you have no clue whatsoever that invading other nations is a breach of the charter?

Are you just toying around?

It's pretty hard NOT to know this.

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
-Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN

"This intervention is certainly a violation of the UN charter."
-Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali

 

[Rudi Herbert]

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No more political manure here, leave that for your blog man, the aptly called "Political Film Blog", hard not to see right through you it is...If you're so unhappy about the direction the filmmakers chose to go with their film, and "ignore" all those truths you know so well, then go make your own film, but for the love of god, not more preaching here, one way or the other....

 

[Andrew Rieger]

AR: "The fact of the matter (SIC) is, your just upset that the film did not give you what you wanted, a preachy film intent on bashing the military."

This is called straw man argumentation (look it up / or apparently you already have).

Since I haven't offered "what I want," and you assume it for me, you can pretty much assume anything you like in typical straw man fashion.

AR: "The filmmakers were more mature than that, allowing the viewers to focus on the experiences of the troops rather than telling us why they should or should not be there."

Why on God's earth does that make it "mature?"

That's a cop out, a blatant disregard for the entire situation, how it came to be, why the people on the other side (not the stars, the other side) are planting road side bombs in the first place.

Rather than mature, it's pure exploitation. That's a rather immature approach, in my book.

And it's not any war. It's not a fictional war. It's an ongoing war and occupation, that's really happening to a country of 25 million people. How it is perceived, portrayed, depicted, what have you, actually matters.

AR: "Are we not allowed to think for ourselves?"

Allowed, absolutely. Able?

AR: "Does every film that takes place in Iraq need to hold our hand and tell why we should be outraged?"

No. But ignoring the Big Lies is condoning them. The filmmakers choose the stories they want told and subsequently awarded in front o the world. They didn't choose a story about heroic Iraqis fighting off a ruthless, overwhelmingly superior military force, now did they?

Obviously you're not "outraged" that more than a million lives could be snuffed out based on lies. The whole undertaking is a lie. The general public still believes a number of these lies, now that they have bought into the warrior culture and the endless war agenda.

The US government has not taken responsibility for its massive war crime. The US public has not taken responsibility for its support of this war crime. The filmmakers have profited handsomely by ignoring this massive war crime and pretending it doesn't exist.

AR: "There are plenty of films that do that (which your articles indicated, yes I read both of them, I am not close minded and am willing to hear the other side. Like you, the authors of your articles wanted the film to go in a certain direction and got mad when it did not). The film is stripped down to a moving depiction of what the troops experience day in day out in what is essentially hell on earth."

Well even some troops dispute the authenticity of the narrative.

Others can't wait to go there and kill "Hajis."

They are all volunteers.

I know of a handful of moral US service people who defied their (illegal) orders due to the blatant illegality of the invasion. Lt. Watada is one. He was court martialed of course. Others were prosecuted too. They were not allowed to raise the argument that the war itself was patently illegal, which, of course, the world knows it is.

Ignoring the reasons why Americans are shooting at Iraqis on their soil, and calling it "mature" is baffling.

AR: "What portion of the UN charter were you referring to by the way? The Preamble? I'm just curious. (PM me)."

Are you serious?

First, you claim to have read it numerous times. Then you claim you were part of some organization that studies this for six years. And yet, you have no clue whatsoever that invading other nations is a breach of the charter?

Are you just toying around?

It's pretty hard NOT to know this.

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
-Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN

"This intervention is certainly a violation of the UN charter."
-Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali

Joe, my statement was in no way a straw man argument. You have made your position quite clear in your previous posts and your blog provides evidence as well as to the nature of your political standings. Therefore, I deduced your opinion, no informal fallacy there. In order for it to be a straw man argument, I would need to skew your views in order to create an alternate version of your opinion, one that would be easier to provide a counter argument against. Have I misrepresented your opinions in any way? Your above response shows that I was right on the money.

Why is the decision to leave out politics a mature decision. The politics were not the point of the film. It takes a documentarians approach and follows the notion that images speak louder than words. The film did not need to comment on the issues, it was simply depicting them. Take Saving Private Ryan for example, void of any commentary on the causes of WW2 but rather a look into the POV of the soldiers. I agree, there should be films depicting the experiences of the Iraqi citizens but one movie cannot be everything for everyone. I believe it is you who is immature for expecting the film to push your agenda when the filmmakers clearly intended to push no agenda at all. How is the film exploitative? All of the events depicted in the film are documented as actual events. Terrorists really do place bombs inside bodies, strap them to innocent civilians and use the public as cover, intending collateral damage in order to stir up anti US sentiment. Those are the facts whether you like them or not.

Joe: "They didn't choose a story about heroic Iraqis fighting off a ruthless, overwhelmingly superior military force, now did they?

Obviously you're not "outraged" that more than a million lives could be snuffed out based on lies. The whole undertaking is a lie. The general public still believes a number of these lies, now that they have bought into the warrior culture and the endless war agenda.

The US government has not taken responsibility for its massive war crime. The US public has not taken responsibility for its support of this war crime. The filmmakers have profited handsomely by ignoring this massive war crime and pretending it doesn't exist."

You honesty believe terrorists are heroic? Your pathetic and naive. Furthermore, you fail to state that a significant portion of the lives that have been lost during the US occupation, are a direct result of the religious conflict between the Sunni and Shia populations, a conflict stemming back to the early years of Islam's founding, an issue that the US has no control over. Since when has freeing a nation from the control of a ruthless dictator who murdered his own people and fought multiple times with his neighbors, been considered a war crime? Ask the millions of Iraqi's turning out to vote with their purple fingers, if their right to vote is a war crime. Yes lives have been lost. No I am not saying it is alright but you neglect to look at the bigger picture. The issues are more complex than either of us understand and it is pathetic for you to assume that you posses the truth and that the rest of us who disagree with you are ignorant and supporting war crimes.

You have yet to provide one concrete instance of the illegality of the war. You can argue that it is morally wrong which is fine but for you to state that it is illegal would require a binding international law that bans all forms of warfare and no such document exist. If you think the UN Charter is binding, you fail to understand how the UN fits into the international community. Second, are you implying that all troops that do not defy orders are immoral? (since you said the moral ones are the ones that defy orders). I take great offense at that.

Finally, invading another country is not a breach of the Charter, if it was, than the US is hardly the only offender and certainly not the worst. The UN Charter establishes the goals of the United Nations and its structure. Documents like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights are intended to implement the goals of the Charter. Since you did not read carefully, under the title "Article 1", lies the statement: "The Purposes of the United Nations are:" It is a goal to prevent war. Nowhere in the UN charter or any subsequent document does the United Nations establish the illegality of war. The UN is much more intelligent than you and realizes the impossibility of such a law. What you also fail to recognize is that the US is the host, primary beneficiary and strongest supporter of the UN and its work. Without the United States, there would be no charter or UN for that matter.

Am I toying around? No, it is you that is still playing in the sandbox. Grow up and get your facts straight.
We are done with this argument, I feel stupid just talking to you.

Now I'm sounding preachy, can a moderator please delete this thread? It is getting out of hand and I apologize for contributing.