The Hurt Locker, RE the plot

oxygen_old

First of all, if you havent seen the hurt locker, dont read this post, it will have tonnes of spoilers.

I watched it last night, and have been reading about its more than likely oscar nominations it will get. The only problem I have with this movie tho, is it has no plot. None whatsoever.

I know it was a depiction of life in war, so life doesnt necessarily follow a plot that could be filmable. But plenty of other realistic war movies follow a plot, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse now, the Deer hunter....

It was brilliantly filmed, acted, directed. Some of the scenes had brilliant tension, but it was wasted since there was no plot to follow. I thought the director could have formed a plot around the British soldiers, the Iraq boy, the Insurgents that set the bomb that detonated, etc.. But the was nothing to follow.

It just seemed to me to be alot of skill, talent and budget wasted on something that you cant actually follow

S.M.B.

Why do you think it's necessary to have a traditional plot?

MooseJam

a plot makes thing's interesting, if I just wanted to watch someone do their job I'd hang out at the local texaco

senordingdong

oxygen wrote: »

I thought the director could have formed a plot around the British soldiers, the Iraq boy, the Insurgents that set the bomb that detonated, etc.. But the was nothing to follow.

I thought it was brilliant that he didn't...and did a good job of it.
Each of the above elements you mentioned, anyone else could have made an entire movie out of each of them. But making smaller stories, withing a story, of them, was a great idea I thought.
It highlighted what for me was the bigger picture.

Raging Bob

Ugh, the director ain't male.

ScumLord

oxygen wrote: »

I watched it last night, and have been reading about its more than likely oscar nominations it will get. The only problem I have with this movie tho, is it has no plot. None whatsoever.

What's the plot to your life? It's not fairy tail where the good guys win out. It's a simple "just the facts mam" storey.

But plenty of other realistic war movies follow a plot, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse now, the Deer hunter....

Saving private Ryan was a big steaming ball of American propaganda. The Amercans just rolled into Europe and saved us all from the evil Nazis??!!! Come on surely you can see this is American fantasy?? Please god, people aren't so naive as to believe the crap that comes out of hollywood as fact.


Hurt locker is a moment in time, it's not meant to have a plot or a moral it's just a fact of lifer. This is the kind of shythe that goes on in Iraq, do what you will with it.

killbillvol2

oxygen wrote: »

First of all, if you havent seen the hurt locker, dont read this post, it will have tonnes of spoilers.

I watched it last night, and have been reading about its more than likely oscar nominations it will get. The only problem I have with this movie tho, is it has no plot. None whatsoever.

I know it was a depiction of life in war, so life doesnt necessarily follow a plot that could be filmable. But plenty of other realistic war movies follow a plot, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse now, the Deer hunter....

It was brilliantly filmed, acted, directed. Some of the scenes had brilliant tension, but it was wasted since there was no plot to follow. I thought the director could have formed a plot around the British soldiers, the Iraq boy, the Insurgents that set the bomb that detonated, etc.. But the was nothing to follow.

It just seemed to me to be alot of skill, talent and budget wasted on something that you cant actually follow

What did you want? A love story and a happy ending? You seem to have missed the whole point of the film.

ronnie3585

At the very beginning of the film the quote 'War is a drug' is presented to the viewer. The film in large part deals with this theme.

994

I think the lack of a standard plot was a plus point, it really helps to drive home the fact that in a war you can face terrible danger and risk one day, and if you survive it, the next day you have to just go on patrolling as normal. Kind of a metaphor for the whole operation in Iraq?

Manic Moran

If there was a plot to my Iraq tour, I certainly wasn't made aware of one.

To that end, THL was quite accurate. Go out every day, deal with whatever got thrown at you, then eventually go back to base. Not having a plot is far more realistic if you're trying to do an account of what life is like. Now, the devices in the movie are another matter entirely, and they, well, while not ruin the movie, certainly detract from it.

SPR was somewhat realistic. The plot was viable, the beach scenes were excellent. But, again, some of the devices within were completely unrealistic.

NTM

kowloon

MooseJam wrote: »

a plot makes thing's interesting, if I just wanted to watch someone do their job I'd hang out at the local texaco

It's called Garage.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

But, again, some of the devices within were completely unrealistic.

Any chance of elaboration on that? I'm genuinely interested.

Rabies

If it went the typical movie plot route they'd have found a way to get him defuse a bomb strapped to the love of his life and save the local McDs from exploding at the same time while wearing his Omega watch and Oakley bomb proof sunglasses.

Sleazus

Ah yes, but is a simplist A-B-C plot better than a more thematic exploration of subject matter? So, is Avatar's ridiculously done-to-death, slightly racist narrative better than the wonderfully nuanced exploration of crissi in Iraq presented here?

Apparently, if you're the Golden Globes, the answer is yes. I don't agree - the Hurt Locker was a wonderfully visceral and original film.The seeming randomness of it sucked my family in and made it seem like anything could happen - as other posters have pointed out, it's a stylistic decision which perfectly suits the subject matter.

DublinWriter

994 wrote: »

I think the lack of a standard plot was a plus point,

Exactly...I think it was a subtle comment on the whole pointlessness of the war itself.

Sean Quagmire

I completly agree. Great points in the film but It's not really going anywere without a plot. Definitly takes something away from its potential.

Happy Monday

Manic Moran wrote: »

If there was a plot to my Iraq tour, I certainly wasn't made aware of one.

Who did you serve with - Irish Guards in the British Army or US Army?
Please elaborate as a previous poster has said.

oxygen_old

killbillvol2 wrote: »

What did you want? A love story and a happy ending? You seem to have missed the whole point of the film.

What?, No, did I make any indication that that’s what I wanted. A love story, with a happy ending? That your best reply.
I didn’t miss the whole point of the film, as I said in my initial post,

oxygen wrote: »

I know it was a depiction of life in war, so life doesnt necessarily follow a plot that could be filmable. It was brilliantly filmed, acted, directed.

But some plot, to latch onto for two hours, would have been hugely beneficial. If you were watching a documentary that followed that structure, you would finish it, thinking what was the point of that. Why bring in such unrelated plot points, and not use them. British (soldiers or mercenaries?), a case of mistaken identity of Beckham etc. Even a documentary would follow the traditional ABC plot structure.

This isn’t a structure for big budget films such as Avatar with directors who need a standard plot structure to follow… This is a structure that has been used through the ages, in all plays, novels, poems, so that the audience can hold interest in something.

Just to reiterate, the film was brilliantly executed. For example, the cold unsporting attitude his wife showed him on his return from his rotation, until he returned to a new just a dangerous rotation was an excellent plot point, that wasn’t used, or fleshed out, or addressed, or acknowledged by any character.

Sleazus

oxygen wrote: »

This is a structure that has been used through the ages, in all plays, novels, poems, so that the audience can hold interest in something.

There was a structure. 'Event A' happens, and the characters respond to it. Then totally unrelated 'Event B' happens, and the characters respond to that. It was hardly an arthouse disjointed clip show - everything that we saw on screen took place in the context of events made clear to us.

Now, those events didn't necessarily follow a pattern (I'd argue that they did), but why on earth does that matter?

You seem to be suggesting that it all needs to dovetail in order to be a good film: for example maybe the body bomb builder was the same guy who strapped the bomb to the forced martyr at the end, thus allowing James the chance to take him on in a battle of wits one last time? That maybe there was a single antagonist behind everything we saw in the film as a linking thread?

If I wanted something that bland and predictable, I'd buy a ticket to GI Joe. It's hokey and it's forced and it is a step away from the natural tension of the movie. The whole point is that nobody has any idea what is happening, what will happen or why it's happening. Nothing is safe. The insurgents are faceless.

If it makes you feel better, think of the plot as the attempt by the members of the squad to get home alive.

krudler

Saving private Ryan was a big steaming ball of American propaganda. The Amercans just rolled into Europe and saved us all from the evil Nazis??!!! Come on surely you can see this is American fantasy?? Please god, people aren't so naive as to believe the crap that comes out of hollywood as fact.

I forget where that happends in SPR, care to remind us? aside from the D-Day landings they only ever show small conflicts,and Omaha was only US troops iirc, its the story of one group of soldiers not the entire US army, thats like saying The Great Escape is unrealistic because theres only one American in the entire POW camp, doesnt matter if theres no other Allied forces in SPR, thats not the story they were trying to tell.

As for The Hurt Locker, I liked how there was no a-b plot in it, its just random events that happen at war, there doesnt have to be a main villain or someone that has to be taken down in these movies, does Black Hawk Down have a plot? not really its 2 hours of non stop fighting for the most part,still a great war movie though

kenon

I was thinking about Black Hawk Down while reading about the complaints about the lack of a traditional plot. Loved Black Hawk Down, gritty and hard to watch in parts. Didn't feel like watching "American propaganda" either. Thats probably due to the mess that the operation was.

I just watched the Hurt Locker the other day and really enjoyed it also. Felt realistic to watch (not that I have any experience related to the film!). Just the whole, disarming bombs one day to the big come down when your in an empty supermarket picking out cereal.

Manic Moran

Even at that, Black Hawk Down has a definable start, middle, and end to the story. Makes it quite definitive. Not so much for 'the story of a tour of duty' outside of a start and end defined by time, not acts or situations.

Who did you serve with - Irish Guards in the British Army or US Army?
Please elaborate as a previous poster has said.

One need not be in the Irish Guards to be an Irishman in the British Army. You can't forget the Foreign Legion either, I know of at least one Cork guy at an FFL base up the road from me. However, I'm US Army.

Just like THL, my tours have not been definitive in any 'plot' sense. I'm in my sixth month in Afghanistan right now, and I can point to nothing which we have achieved in our time here which can be easily recognisable as a plot point. We've done lots of things, had lots of different incidents, but the entire war is just a whole load of nearly insignificant little events or accomplishments which all put together have the potential of changing the course of the war, but which, individually, will seem like a totally disjointed collection of unrelated happenings, few of which can be focused on to tell a story of movie-making proportions. (That said, we had a documentarist along with us for a while, so keep a look out for 'Hooligans At War' (www.hooligansatwar.com). My guess is it will be utterly boring and unentertaining.). I show up in the middle of the war, I leave and the war is still going on. Not definable in any 'movie' sense whatsoever. and sure enough, we just count days. Today is day 279 since our mobilisation, as per my daily announcement in our evening meetings. The 'movie' for us starts on day 1, and will end on or about day 350 (On the current schedule), regardless of if any linear storylines are completed.

But, those events will still all have their little effects on my psychology. And, of course, there's the culture shock of coming home. One friend once asked me if it's a bit of a shock to go to Afghanistan. It's not. You have a job, you establish a routine, all is well with the world. Coming home, on the other hand, you remember that bit in THL where he's staring at the variety of boxes in the cereal aisle? Spot on. Since early April, the first decision I would ordinarly have to make in the morning of "What shall I wear today?" has been answered with: "ACUs" (Current term for fatigues). I get home, I'll be faced with a whole slew of possibilities, a decision which is purely a luxury and really is not anything which is required to live. Same with breakfast: I'll have whatever's on offer. What's this 'choice of cereal boxes business?' One thing about these tours, it really makes you realise how little you need to live. Outside of a Yorkie bar I found on a Canadian base, I've bought nothing more than an Afghan rug and a couple of gemstones since I got here.

Any chance of elaboration on that? I'm genuinely interested.

The level of individualism was ridiculous. Not just at the soldier level, but at the point of the whole mission. For example, EOD does not go tootling around the battlefield on its own in a HMMWV. They're a protected asset (The Army spent lots of money training them!) and will have, at a minimum, three other HMMWVs with a dozen riflemen keeping an eye on them. For that matter, nobody goes tootling around on their own in a HMMWV, not even Special Forces. Those dozen riflemen absolutely will not let EOD go wandering around a few alleyways on their own, and, frankly, if an E-6 told an E-5 and an E-4 to split up and go down roads completely isolated, the E-5 would tell the E-6 to go pound sand.
Similarly, the off-base excursion is beyond belief. Now, such stupidity is not without precedent. There is one junior soldier currently in Taliban custody who apparently decided to go off-base. This is an example as to why that sort of thing doesn't happen often. But getting off-base, and getting back on again are two entirely different matters. Does anyone really think that if a team leader walks up to the front gate of BIAP in civvies after an excursion downtown that he won't be immediately relieved of his position?

To sum up:
Tactically, the movie is atrocious, and you will not find any military reviewers giving them points for accuracy. Psychologically, it's pretty much on. But I think they could have gotten 95% of the effect of the movie without making the conduct of the Iraq war look like an Ealing farce.

NTM

djc1616

I think as someone has said already, there wasn't a plot as such but mainly a point, i.e. proving that war is a drug, although not necessarily for everybody.
Plot wise, I thought it was more documentary fly-on-the-wall style, rather than stroy-driven. Therefore, characters and incidents more important than plot in this style of film IMO.

tba

You are getting confused between an arc and a plot.

The film was meant to impose an emotional response.

All films need an arc, this had an emotional one instead of a story based arc, he accepted his need for this "drug" hence he concluded the film.

X-Calibre

I was actually thinking about the lack of plot when watching it. My friend starting watching late and I asked him if he knew what was going and he guessed "they are after a group of terrorists who keep planting bombs". It made me think that if there was some sort of plot like that, it really would have become just like any other war/action movie.

What I loved about Hurt Locker was it didn't need some fictional plot to drive it forward. The sheer tension in every bomb defusal/sniper shootout and the multiple layered lead character was enough to keep me hooked.

kowloon

Cheers Manic, now that I think back on it, they really didn't go to much of an effort to show that there was any kind of structure, you get no impression that they're part of any higher unit.

cable842

I liked the film I really did but the only things that let it down is there should have been more bomb defusing bits like Blown Away. also what was with the goin to the kids house bit and the ending the ending was the worst

i_inky

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

I completly agree. Great points in the film but It's not really going anywere without a plot. Definitly takes something away from its potential.

Was that not the point though? War has no plot. For the most part it is a series of uncontrolled events that have to be dealt with as they arrive, which I thought was dealt with brilliantly.

(Also thought the supermarket scene towards the end was used superbly)

sprinkles

Firstly, I don't know anything about the practicalities of war other than what I "learn" from Hollywood or Call of Duty and for that reason I found Manic Moran's post above very enlightening. It's always interesting to see how those that a movie is (loosely) based upon react to it. There are limitations to what can and can't be done without loosing some of the entertainment value of films but in general I think this film threaded the line fairly well.

Personally I thought the whole point of the film was to show the supposed futility of their job. Another IED another day and yet no discerning resolution to look forward to. In addition to that, and probably more obvious, was the issue of his addiction to the rush of the high pressure situation and the juxtapose of normal life when his tour ends. Instead of counting down the days to coming off duty he is counting down the days to going back. Put simply it’s a glimpse into the psyche of someone dealing with extreme situations, with whom the vast majority of us, thankfully, will have no experience with.

Most (not all) films work on a three act structure – Set up the characters, introduce the confrontation for the main character(s) and finally the resolution. While THL doesn’t have an obvious plot it does have one and it’s also one that fits into the 3 “acts” structure above. Here's my take on it:

The characters and location are clearly identified in the first 30mins. This is done exceptionally well imo which means the audience can get a real sense of the climate the characters are based in and also the various conflicting personalities within the group. You create a connection with the characters and from then on you care for them. This was the most important step - without that connection the bomb scenes would have lacked any feeling or tension - kinda like why I don't really care if Shia LeBouf dies in Transformers films

The main confrontation is his addiction to the adrenaline rush of disarming the IEDs. This is his inner demon and something he is wrestling with throughout the movie. The Iraqi boy is his humane side, trying to show him that maybe life isn't all about war.

Finally the resolution is that he accepts that he needs that rush and can’t survive without it.

It’s not an obvious, straightforward, good guy against the bad guy mechanism. It’s a physiological movie and imo one of the best.

Optimalprimerib

I loved the hurt locker. You could argue that each situation followed the traditional plot device in itself. It felt as if it could have easily been a tv series as a movie due to the set pieces not having a definable link to one another.

adrian522

I have to say I think the movie is way over rated, not because there is a no 'story' but more because I find it very difficulty to identify with any of the characters in it or to sympathise with them.

That whole scene where he thought the boy selling the dvd's had died so he goes charging around the city looking for someone to kill was just cringe worthy.

Maybe I just missed the point of the movie but I didn't feel like it really had anything to say.

I'm also sick of people getting slated for not liking this movie, as in people saying well 'what do want a love story with a happy ending' .

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I for one don't buy into the hype around this movie.

bryaner

Must agree with the OP

Manic Moran

Personally I thought the whole point of the film was to show the supposed futility of their job. Another IED another day and yet no discerning resolution to look forward to

Eh? The resultion -is- the disarming of the bomb. Face it, how many jobs truly give you a sense of completion? Cop goes out, arrest someone, no end to crime, he's back out again tomorrow. IT tech fixes a printer, he knows a scanner'll likely go down tomorrow. Banker reviews a loan application, hands out cash, then has another application on his desk.

If you enjoy your job, you'll keep doing it for the job, not just because of the desired outcome.

NTM

sprinkles

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eh? The resultion -is- the disarming of the bomb. Face it, how many jobs truly give you a sense of completion? Cop goes out, arrest someone, no end to crime, he's back out again tomorrow. IT tech fixes a printer, he knows a scanner'll likely go down tomorrow. Banker reviews a loan application, hands out cash, then has another application on his desk.

If you enjoy your job, you'll keep doing it for the job, not just because of the desired outcome.


NTM

Perhaps, but that is taking each individual bomb or incident in isolation. I was referring to an overall resolution. My point was that it's a never ending stream of dangerous situations (be it IED disposal or not) with no obvious end in sight, at least that is how it was portrayed.

EDIT: I see your point about the IT guy etc but in a similar fashion if there was a movie made about the futility of being an IT repair guy then I would say the same. I still maintain that the movie deals with the frustration and futility of a never-ending fight

Sir Gallagher

adrian522 wrote: »

I have to say I think the movie is way over rated, not because there is a no 'story' but more because I find it very difficulty to identify with any of the characters in it or to sympathise with them.

That whole scene where he thought the boy selling the dvd's had died so he goes charging around the city looking for someone to kill was just cringe worthy.

Maybe I just missed the point of the movie but I didn't feel like it really had anything to say.

I'm also sick of people getting slated for not liking this movie, as in people saying well 'what do want a love story with a happy ending' .

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I for one don't buy into the hype around this movie.

+1

I feel the exact way, just felt completely underwhelmed by the whole thing, cue somebody coming in saying "Oh well you're supposed to feel underwhelmed that's what the director meant" or some other overanalitical nonsense.

The more i think about this movie the more it annoys me, the point where they were in the desert and they came across Ralph Feinnes and his crew i thought, oh cool there's Ralph Feinnes and a group of mercenaries i like where this is going then

they all get shot

and it's back to the three lads who at that stage i really care nothing about.

missingtime

Manic Moran wrote: »

The level of individualism was ridiculous. Not just at the soldier level, but at the point of the whole mission. For example, EOD does not go tootling around the battlefield on its own in a HMMWV. They're a protected asset (The Army spent lots of money training them!) and will have, at a minimum, three other HMMWVs with a dozen riflemen keeping an eye on them. For that matter, nobody goes tootling around on their own in a HMMWV, not even Special Forces. Those dozen riflemen absolutely will not let EOD go wandering around a few alleyways on their own, and, frankly, if an E-6 told an E-5 and an E-4 to split up and go down roads completely isolated, the E-5 would tell the E-6 to go pound sand.
Similarly, the off-base excursion is beyond belief. Now, such stupidity is not without precedent. There is one junior soldier currently in Taliban custody who apparently decided to go off-base. This is an example as to why that sort of thing doesn't happen often. But getting off-base, and getting back on again are two entirely different matters. Does anyone really think that if a team leader walks up to the front gate of BIAP in civvies after an excursion downtown that he won't be immediately relieved of his position?

To sum up:
Tactically, the movie is atrocious, and you will not find any military reviewers giving them points for accuracy. Psychologically, it's pretty much on. But I think they could have gotten 95% of the effect of the movie without making the conduct of the Iraq war look like an Ealing farce.

NTM

This is why I did not like the movie and I think its seriously overrated.

senordingdong

I loved it because if you detach minor details like how many Humvees there should have been etc... and just focus on the characters individual situations.

Renner is so good at his job because he has no regard for his own life, and then at the end you see him unable to adjust to his 'real' life. And goes straight back to the battlefield.

There are loads of other exmaples but that's the one that sticks out most.

fat liar

I agree the story line is a bit empty.

senordingdong

I guess the characters themselves were the plot.

BostonB

I thought it was terrible. Theres nothing original in it, and the combat scenes and characters are so unrealistic, I was expecting the A team to roll up. Ok, "Soldiering is 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror" and that its hard to adjust to real life or normality we know already. It has been done to death, this film adds nothing new. I'll give it some credit in that it does create moments of tension and atmosphere a few times.

I heard great things about this movie and I was bitterly disappointed. If you've not seen many war movies, and know nothing about the subject at all, then you might enjoy it.

I think it based not on a book but on the experience of a reporter. From that we can surmise, he didn't understand what was going on, or the people, or bother to find out either. So he reverted to stock characters. We get the crazy guy, the straight up guy, the noob. He didn't see or find out what actually went on, so just made up what he thought happened, or what he thought would entertain. Hence the unrealistic combat scenes. What he did experience was that it was loud, noisy and scary. Which is the only thing that works in this flick. Other than its a shallow Hollywood Action Flick.

BostonB

Incidentally, since it was mentioned. IMO saving Private Ryan has some great scenes. But over all its a very unrealistic movie aswell. Very Hollywood. But its a good yarn, and thus a good movie. Good characters too.

BostonB

The futility of war isn't enough to hang a movie on, its been done to often, and better. Neither is the fact that 99% of someone experience is routine and boring. Its just not very interesting or entertaining. There has to be something else, character development, or as a contrast to something else.

Sir Gallagher

I still can't believe this movie is favourite to land an oscar absolutely shocking.

senordingdong

BostonB wrote: »

I think it based not on a book but on the experience of a reporter. From that we can surmise, he didn't understand what was going on, or the people, or bother to find out either.

Well there ya are, that's a good point of the film imo.
Half of the time, I'll bet the soldiers don't know what's going on.

They're not part of the bigger picture, the war or the victory....or whatever.
They;re just a few dudes, doing their jobs, trying to do good jobs, and trying not to get killed in the process. And as the film progresses, we get insight into their inner workings, when we find out the Renner has no regard for his life, or that Mackie, for his hard exterior, is scared ****less all the time and fears he'll never have a family, while Geraghty is the n00b who's already on the verge of breaking. And as it transpires, the only half sane one is Renner...who we find out, is infact, emotionally numb.

It's just a day in the life of three soldiers.

As you said, the documenter didn't understand (the bigger picture)....he didn't have to, neither did the viewer.
The war in question is irrelevant, it could have been any three guys in any conflict.

But like I said, the bigger picture is irrrelevant.
It's what the man are going through.

BostonB

Its not the fog of war, its the fog of not writing a decent screenplay.

Its a Hollywood Movie, where one minute your a sniper, next bomb disposal, next minute rambo, doing a one man army snatch squad, you'd have every reason to be be nuts. Because thats not real. Like wise to do all those things (ignoring that you wouldnt) you'd need to be highly trained, otherwise you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed. So it makes no sense to that highly trained people would be ignoring all that training, not once or twice but pretty much every scene.Someone acting screwy and putting others in harms way gets noticed kinda fast. Usually fragged.

Its not that war makes no sense, or that the characters are confused. Its that the characters and scenerios make no sense. Its just not believeable. Unless of course you don't think about it.