Kathryn Bigelows Movie - The Hurt Locker - Research Paper Example

The Hurt Locker The inhuman aspect of invasion and related socio-political issues is a popular theme among renowned movie directors. Some directors try to examine the psychological effect of invasion, but some other directors try to unveil the ideological differences between democratic ideology and despotism. Within this scenario, Kathryn Bigelow’s movie (The Hurt Locker), related to war film genre, tries to lead the viewers towards the realm of modern warfare. To be specific, modern warfare is exceptionally different from traditional mode of fighting each other with arms and ammunition. Ideological differences and socio-political issues result in violence related to modern warfare, and the film named as The Hurt Locker proves the same. First of all, one needs to realize that the influence of religious belief upon the political scenario of a nation is totally against democracy. To be specific, autocrats exploit and depend upon the influence of religion on national politics. Within the Middle Eastern context, the dependency on religion to crush democratic ideas is evident. The clash between the Middle Eastern nations and the west can be easily identified as the clash between socio-cultural and religious differences. When the term modern warfare is superimposed into the context of the fore pointed differences, one can see that the western nations support democracy and the Middle Eastern nations support autocracy and the influence of religion within their political context. In the film, the protagonist’s mission is not to fight against the so called enemy groups, but to provide humanitarian aid to the victims. Michael L. Gross makes clear that, “Humanitarian intervention is only justified when the weaker, rogue nation is so egregiously criminal that it is impossible to think their soldiers might somehow retain a measure of moral innocence” (49). Besides, this group cannot be considered as insurgents because their mission to defuse explosives and save innocent civilians and others. But the members of the protagonist’s group do not realize the significance of their mission. To be specific, they consider that their mission is to overpower their foes. This difference in perceiving the essence of one’s duty, or the protagonist’s view on his mission, is the core aspect of the movie. On the other side, the real villain (autocratic ruler) in the movie is still behind the ‘silver screen’ and tries to make use of innocent civilians as scapegoats of hostility. The protagonist knows this fact and deals with his responsibility without any emotionality. He knows that emotionality cannot help one to be successful in saving innocents. He provides importance to his responsibility and depends upon his experience in the field of defusing explosives. On the other side, he does not provide importance to heroism and showing off his abilities. Still, he does not blame others on failed missions because he knows that he cannot save all those who are engaged in modern warfare. One can see that heroism related to military service is a myth within the context of modern warfare. Gerald Sussman opines that, “The 2009 film, “Hurt Locker,” though largely a paean to the heroics of the invasion of Iraq, offered one small detail about how the military employs propaganda in every aspect of its violent adventures: the renaming of a base camp from “Liberty” to “Victory” ” (65). To be specific, the soldiers (especially those who involve in defusing explosives) know that their most important aim is to save the people from the threat of being killed in explosions. On the other side, the problems faced by the mass are totally neglected by the political elite because they are never interested in creating cohesion between different ideologies. To be specific, national politics in the Middle East, under the influence of religious belief, accelerates the influence of religion on political affairs. From a different angle of view, the protagonist’s detachment from emotionality is one among the characteristics of modern warfare. When autocrats hide behind the mask of innocent civilians, one can expect bloodshed in peacekeeping missions and related methods of defusing explosives. In the film, the authorities know that the protagonist’s role in the warfront is valuable and assigns him as the leader. This first mission was successful but the group members do not realize the importance of leadership. When the following mission becomes futile (even some members like Eldridge got injured), all blamed the protagonist. Besides, some members like Sanborn began to realize that exposure to violence really influence human emotionality. Still, the protagonist is does not feel moved by constant exposure to hostility because he knows that there must be some people to provide humanitarian aid to the needy. This democratic attitude is entirely different from the autocrat’s negative attitude towards his own people. To be specific, the viewers can feel the presence and influence of the autocracy. But autocracy fails to provide humanitarian abet to the needy. Within this scenario, the protagonist knows that his presence in the warfront can uphold the essence of democracy because his mission is symbolic of the same. Still, the viewers must try to evaluate the protagonist’s mission beyond the context of war. Then, one can perceive the basic difference between saving innocents by defusing explosives (democracy) and exploiting innocents by using them as human shields (autocracy). The protagonist hates pretentiousness because he is aware of his role in his team. To be specific, he tries to keep himself away from unwanted emotionality because he knows that the same can hinder him from keeping focused. Emmett Early states that, “He keeps returning to combat because he no longer fits in anywhere else” (135). On the other side, other members of his group consider him as an unemotional individual. Still, the protagonist likes his role because he knows that his service is important for his group and for the victims of modern warfare. The general notion on modern warfare is that the same is with less moral aspects. To be specific, modern warfare is considered as the end result of arms race and invasion. One can see that technological supremacy is important in modern wars. Theodore Ropp opines that, “The increasing importance of technology is a major feature of modern warfare, as it is of modern life” (13). On the other side, the nations with less technological support cannot expect victory in modern wars. On the other side, terrorism based on religious fundamentalism hinders the spread of democracy. Besides, autocrats exploit the scope of religion in national politics. At the same time, more people are attracted to this trap because they never know that religious belief is hijacked by autocrats to accomplish their self-centered agendas. One can see that humanitarian intervention is interconnected with the responsible attitude of the world nations. To be specific, most humanitarian interventions aim to dethrone autocrats and to restore peace. Still, the Middle Eastern nations provide less importance to basic rights and project innocents as victims of humanitarian interventions. This sort of double game interrupts the scope of humanitarian interventions in general. In the film, the mission undertaken by the protagonist is symbolic of the moral aspects of modern warfare. Ernest D. Giglio states that, “The Hurt Locker is neither a conventional combat film nor a polemic but rather an examination of soldiers doing a dangerous, but necessary, job without fanfare or heroics” (224). For instance, the protagonist tries his best to rescue a boy. One may feel surprised because general notion on modern warfare is that the same is against civilian life. Besides, Sanborn’s view on war and related bloodshed is symbolic of the moral aspects of modern warfare. The general notion on military service is interconnected with fearlessness and devotion. In real sense, heroism is overrated in modern warfare because close examination of fight in the warfront proves the same as wrong. To be specific, the soldiers never expect any sort of reward for their deeds because they know that service is their duty. Still, those who possess mental capacity to withstand critical conditions can easily survive the emotional problems related to wars. From a different angle of view, the director does not try to link war with heroism, but tries to portray the effect of war on human beings. The protagonist does not consider his deeds as heroic, but as his duty. In short, the director makes use of his characters and the portrayal of a real confrontation (war in Iraq) to share his views on the moral aspects of modern warfare. One can see that autocrats exploit the political aspects of modern warfare. As pointed out, autocrats make use of innocents as human shields. When these innocents are victimized, autocratic rulers attract international attention by claiming that innocents are brutally murdered by the invaders. At the same time, the so called invaders know that their aim is to defeat the autocrats. Besides, the autocrats depend upon their political supremacy to manipulate the mass. During the war in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, thousands of people lost their lives because the political elite class never tired to help them. Besides, they considered that humane concern towards the mass may restrict their political agenda. In the film, the director provides ample importance to the political aspects of modern warfare because the film portrays the political agenda of the despotic ruler in the Middle East Asia. Jeff Lewis opines that, “Kathryn Bigelow’s film, The Hurt Locker (2009), situates this sort of interrogation within a more personal experience of the Islam-west interface” (161). The innocent civilians never know that they are the victims of the alliance between religious fundamentalism and national politics based on autocracy. In the film, the protagonist and his group try to defuse explosives. This effort is symbolic of ‘defusing’ the political agendas of despotic rulers by the supporters of democratic ideology. The protagonist’s disinterest in worldly affairs can be evaluated as his effort to keep aloof from the psychological effect of aggression. So, one can see that the director does not neglect the political aspects of modern warfare because the civilians are portrayed as the victims of politics. Summing, the director does not try to glorify wars, but portrays the different features of modern warfare. One can see that the director’s view is different because the movie helps the viewers to view modern warfare from a different angle. Besides, the real fight in a modern warfare is between ideologies, not between nations. This feature of certain wars (say, Iraqi War) helps the same to be considered as humanitarian intervention, not as genocide. Still, the layer between peacekeeping and invasion is thin and can be easily misinterpreted as aggressive nationalism. In short, the director’s effort to make use of the theme and characters to portray the socio-political aspects of modern warfare is successful to an extent. Works Cited Early, Emmett. The Alienated War Veteran in Film and Literature. North Carolina: McFarland, 2014. Print. Giglio, Ernest D. Heres Looking at You: Hollywood, Film & Politics. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Print. Gross, Michael L. Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print. Lewis, Jeff. Global Media Apocalypse: Pleasure, Violence and the Cultural Imaginings of Doom. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Print. Ropp, Theodore. War in the Modern World. Maryland: JHU Press, 2000. Print. Sussman, Gerald. Branding Democracy: U.S. Regime Change in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Print. Read More