"War Movie" is probably the most obvious and misleading of its descriptors. Sure, almost all of it takes place during a war, and most of what we learn about the characters comes to light because of (and is heavily informed toward) a life of neverending battle on Whatever Constitutes The Front Lines These Days. But it's not at all your typical Hollywood peacenik "My God, War is Hell" diatribe, which might have made for some quality post-Vietnam stories but can't seem to find an audience with this century's ever-jaded audiences.
A lot of critics have been calling this the first great film about the Iraq War, and I think that's exactly because the film isn't trying to be. At least, not exactly.
The Hurt Locker does something very simple: it seeks nothing more than to tell a story in the best way it can. Nothing gets in the way: not ideology, not inflated egos, not mass-market paranoia.
Wait, in Hollywood? (This is probably why it started as an arthouse film, only growing to wide release thanks to overwhelmingly positive word of mouth. Look, I don't need to tell anyone that arthouse fare is generally better-written and more insightful than the average megaplex feature. I guess the reason this film throws these differences into such sharp relief is that, on first glance, it looks like it belongs at the megaplex, what with the explosions and expansive sets and even Guy Pearce. We all have such strong expectations of how a film like this typically behaves, and Locker so deftly subverts them within its first ten minutes that you can't help but sit up and wonder, now more than ever, why more films can't not just look but also feel so real.)
Locker explores a small number of characters in a wartime situation that happens to be Iraq. The rationale for the war is never explored; the soldiers' place in an infamously contentious situation never outright questioned. There are no grandstanding judgments or righteous crusades, no Ultimate Antagonists without or within. Even the protagonist, who suffers from a kind of cowboy-action-hero syndrome, is shown as neither Perfect American Hero nor out-of-touch goofball. The film explores these characters and how they live with a situation that exists beyond their control or understanding. And it's that deceptively simple framework that produces results far more interesting and surprising than anything you're going to see in those other war movies that decided they were going to be "important" from day one.
It speaks to a larger idea of what's supposed to be important versus what is important; the divide between intent and execution. If you're creating something, there should never be such a divide - unless you're creating some experimental wankery about artist vs. audience and all that, and if so, best of luck to you - but how do you ensure that intent is execution? It's the same deceptively simple answer as before: make sure your intent is to tell your story the best you possibly can.
That may be unfairly reductive, especially when many have to deal with the whims of financiers, editors, deadlines, feeding one's family, etc. But I see it more as an umbrella term with a lot of possible manifestations, like Keep Revising, Do Your Research, Let the Story Tell Itself. Don't Discount Someone's Feedback Because They Don't Understand Your Big Ideas. Do Not Expect to Win an Oscar. And however many other rules you can think of.
And this extends to other walks of life too. If all you can think about at the office is getting that promotion, you're not going to be able to put in the work necessary to earn it. If you're killing yourself always trying to look flawless for the opposite sex, you won't be able to loosen up and actually engage with anyone. (This last one, I am still working on.)
So the moral of the story is... well, I guess you could boil it down to one of many familiar idioms, in one way or another. Look Before You Leap. Don't Count Your Eggs Before They're Hatched. It's All in the Follow-Through. You get the idea. But just spouting the idiom kind of takes away from all the work you put in to get to that point, and the understanding you reach from having achieved that knowledge on your own. Which, I guess, is an inverted way of saying what I already said. Maybe this wasn't so hard to explain after all.
