This movie did a great job of looking and feeling like Iraq environment and paranoia wise. I was there twice. I can't adequately explain the terror of patrolling while an alien language is being spoken all around you with the oppressive fear of an IED with every step taken.

PSA: movies with doctors in it are rarely an accurate depiction of medicine. Movies with scientists in it are rarely an accurate depiction of science. Movies with lawyers, bankers, teachers, strippers, cops, musicians or [insert here your profession] are rarely an accurate depiction of their field of work. Movies with military are no exception.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

absolutely. I like to say that movies are made for everyone except those who are experts on the subject matter of the movie.

@gpaderx6105

4 жыл бұрын

Yea, this true. I never seen any movie that has a perfect accurate portrayal of their professions like doctors, scientist, even teachers and nurses. IT WON AN OSCAR BECAUSE OF THE STORY I never heard 'Hurt Locker' won or nominated as Best in Production Design. The way they film, edit the film, edit the sound, direct, and the way they tell the story are *I* would say 'fresh and new' to me. That's how it won. It looks like not a movie, but still it's a movie. . One more thing, all movies have fictitious disclaimer, IT'S FICTION. and Oscar's is not the type of competition where in they minus the score of the movies if there was an inaccurate portrayal of bomb defusal specialist. Idk why people don't get it

@Nga_Babaye

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I was a combat engineer and, later, explosive ordnance removal. We never wore them death trap suits because the only guy that I ever knew lived was a comatose vegetable. I think we decided death was better.

And this vid perfectly articulated why I loved this movie and I couldn't explain to naysayers why exactly I didn't care about the innacuracies, love it!!

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

It took me a long time to figure out why the inaccuracies in this film didn't bother me. The film always worked, but figured out exactly what it was doing took years.

@tymacrae6052

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah you don’t care cause you didn’t go through it

@tavishkoul5036

2 жыл бұрын

I would prefer up to win Oscar instead of hurt locker

THIS CHANNEL IS SO UNDERRATED. He literally breaks out what is the meaning of this movie where many people misunderstood it.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

thanks! I appreciate your comment

@gpaderx6105

4 жыл бұрын

@@MoviesUnderTheSurface yea. After I saw Hurt Locker, I searched videos for facts, meanings or something like that. Most are negative. They didn't get the story right

This channel deserves more attention. Your content is awesome man. Keep it going.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

thank you. Its getting there! Hopefully it keeps going!

@ccseancc

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah yo just one thing I would recommend for your production quality is to add a little bit of reverb to your voice to help glue your vocals to the video.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

thanks. I never thought of that. I'll look into it for future videos

Just watched THL again after a few years and agree with your points. Good review man

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

thanks!

Thank you for doing this. I just got done with the movie and I give it 8 for story and 10 for filmmaking. I did not understand why certain events occurred and thought certain aspects were pointless. Thank you for these thoughts, they really help.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

thanks for your comments! glad you enjoyed my video!

Excellent observations I fully agree

I am pissed off this channel doesnt have more views. You have some incredibly intelligent analyses and are short and use footage well and don't have exaggerated personas, intros, or gimmicks. You're to the point, unpretentious and succinct. Good job.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

thanks! You just mentioned all the things I try to do!

@Cyba_IT

5 жыл бұрын

Exaggerated personas? I feel that's a bit of a jab at Jeremy Jahns and rightly so. If he wasn't shouting the whole time I'd watch his reviews more. Agree with your other points too. insightful review

I like this movie. It is currently on Netflix.

I've just found your channel half an hour ago and I'm obsessed, I love watching film & tv analysis but you are something special, I haven't come across many channel that hit on these things like you do, can't wait for more content!

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

thanks! there's lots more videos I want to make, so stay tuned!

Great video, great movie. What I got from the movie is that we (everyday Americans) don’t have to see the death and destruction so it doesn’t affect us as much as is if if we’re right in front of us like the brave soldiers in the movie. (And real life)

I need this for my exam 😂

Absolutely adore this movie

As usual, amazing idea. I'm not convinced, though. Maybe a little more evidence for this one? Great channel, great content

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

This one is definitely a more difficult sell than most of the other videos I've made. thanks for your comments though!

@lattice737

5 жыл бұрын

Movies Under The Surface I appreciate you hearing me out. Definitely had to have several more viewings after hearing your thesis, that’s what it’s all about right? Discussion and perspective. Pretty giddy that you replied haha you are amazing, dude

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

@@lattice737 thanks! definitely watch the film again, it is a great film and that is what it's all about!

@bassboye8959

3 жыл бұрын

I think it was simply made to provoke more thought the next time we send people into situations that only these types of personalities could survive. The cost & toll to thier families. So instead of churches organising political opinions, organise your own militias like The Kurds. You fund them, send them off instead of people who just signed up to do thier duties? Further thier educations vs your opinions becoming law & destroying the families of the innocent soldiers , men & women while you thump your chests in comfort here at home! Think about it. WHO are last in line, when it's time for the rest of us who paid the bill on the front end , then asked to fix your twisted messes.

I've never seen veterans complain about the accuracy of this movie from the point of view that, "Not that many crazy events go on in one single soldier's life." Of course, they have to be all exciting and interesting, because its a movie. What i have read veterans complain about is specifically Jeremy Renner's character being a reckless cowboy that takes chances and puts others' lives at risk. They consider that an insulting depiction. That is just about the only complaint i hear from veterans.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. From what I've seen, the complaints about this film shifted since the movie was first released, and what I mentioned were the original complaints, not what they shifted to. Even so, the rest of my video would be the same regardless of what the current complaint about this film is.

@mikfhan

14 күн бұрын

It certainly is risky film wise putting all of civilian ignorance, us foreign policy and military industrial complex into one person, and it being the main protagonist makes it a huge risk for the film. He is definitely not a real person.

Any movies on Syria war?

When I watched this movie for the first time, I was "apathetic". But then I started to remember this scene (the "talk to the baby" scene 2:02) and how profound it was compared to the rest of the movie. Now, reading the comments, I ended up making a connection with the end of the series "Life on Mars" (UK). I won't give spoilers, but both seem to deal with the same theme, but with a diametrically opposite prism. It seems that each character makes the same decision, within what their own reality allows.

This movie portrays fear perfectly, yet the lack of fear James portrays the movie shows us how far gone he truly is.

7:30 wait is that the same kid who sold him the disks? i thought he died and that was his replacement

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

2 жыл бұрын

it's not the same person. the body bomb was another kid who James mixed up with the DVD kid

And lone survivor is on Netflix to.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

I worked a camera test day on that film. One of the coolest shoots I've done!

Damn, you gave me a 180 perspective about this movie. Good video, could be better paced, and explain sooner that the movie narrative is a metaphor.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

2 жыл бұрын

thanks for your feedback!

I didn't like Hurt Locker at the time. I appreciate it more after this explanation.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

2 жыл бұрын

awesome! glad it made a difference

i wouldnt call him an idiot, id say he is just too trusting, calling him an idiot just seems so callous

I think your review was too partisan. I’m not disagreeing with your political viewpoint. However, this was an apolitical film about how the trauma of war has differing impacts on the characters. This is a psychological film as much as a war film.

James represents a soldier doing it for the good of all humanity. He's not addicted to war. He just knows all of life is a war. At least in Iraq, he can combat it directly like a man and save lives. The illusion is only with who's on which side there. The other two do it because they're ordered to, because it's their duty, their job, for the man on their left and their right, etc., but they just want to do their work, take no unnecessary risks, and go home.

@SpeedKosts

4 жыл бұрын

And before you think I'm saying "like a man" to belittle the other two, I am not. I'm referring to the scene where James is in the super market, and it's quiet, and peaceful, and boring, and he feels out of place. And the war is still going, but you have to fight it with a smile and a nod and be sure not to make others feel uncomfortable, which is impossible, because your enemy will always claim victimhood anyways, no matter how sensible you are. So he backs up from the moment and decides to go back to where the war is undeniable, others' feelings, calories, prices, and peas are the last thing you need to worry about, and where everyone understands that life is always on a razor's edge and hanging in the balance.

@SpeedKosts

4 жыл бұрын

Hence, he really is a "wild man," as the Bible defined it, finding no true friend even amongst his own.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

so why do you think the film opens with the quote about war being a drug?

You seem to consider Clint Eastwood’s « American Sniper » supportive of Bush’s war. If so you can’t be more wrong. « American Sniper » is one of the greatest anti-war movie.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

how so?

@Sam_on_YouTube

5 жыл бұрын

I haven't seen American Sniper, but it is worth noting that the politics of Eastwood are VERY different from the politics of the author of the book (whose own accuracy in telling his story is under serious doubt). At the risk of oversimplifying, he is a pacifist libertarian who strongly favors Republic fiscal ideas. In 2015, Eastwood himself told the Hollywood Reporter that the film was "the biggest anti-war statement any film can make."

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

@@Sam_on_KZread I know that's the film Eastwood tried to make, but I don't think that is what he made

@Sam_on_YouTube

5 жыл бұрын

@@MoviesUnderTheSurface Fair enough. Like I said, I didn't see it. I was just supporting the other commenter with the quote I found.

@jeodee

5 жыл бұрын

As for anti war movies, how about Born on the Fourth of July?

Does Any1 kno how the Beckham kid is still alive @ the end of the film...? We clearly see him dead @ the warehouse, they don't explain it @ all... I can ASSUME he has a Twin, but yea it seems jus a lame cop-out 2 me...

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

The dead kid wasn't Beckham. Renner's character got confused because they looked similar and the dead kid's body was mutilated. He also got confused because he was making his work way too personal. Unfortunately, his response to this was distancing himself from Beckham, not from the work itself. There's symbolism there.

To me it's a film about PTSD

can someone please explain to me how he DVD KID , BECKAHAM, was still alive? i cant figure it out and it makes no sense.....and no explanation ever is given.....WTF......his body was made into a bomb......and no1 has an issue with this? please explain

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

2 жыл бұрын

the body bomb kid wasn't the dvd kid. Renner's character was confused because he was too close to his work. As a response, he distances himself from the kid, not the work. There's symbolism there...

@jaredrubin7843

2 жыл бұрын

@@MoviesUnderTheSurface totally does make sense now....thanks bud....

im from the UK and i didnt see the Hurt locker saying anything about the US, Iraq or US soldiers. It's bigger than that. What it says to me is than men love war -- regardless of state / nationality. Or as Hobbes would say, '...the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

But neither Sanborn nor Eldridge love war and they are both men. Sanborn is ready to be a father by the time the film is done (being a man), and he says that in the same exact scene where he talks about how much he hates Iraq

Number 15: burger king hurt locker

At the end it seem like you implied that American Sniper is a pro war movie? Clint Eastwood said that if people think that they got it wrong. Personnaly I think it's against violence but it had respect for the soldiers which his why the moves seem in a grey zone about it.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

Clint Eastwood thinks people who think American Sniper is a pro-war film got the film wrong, but I would say that if Eastwood was going for an anti-war film (and according to him, he was), then he made the film wrong

@alexandrebeaudry8377

2 жыл бұрын

@@MoviesUnderTheSurface You may not be wrong. I don't remember what I thought about the movie on war. It's seem more grey to me. There is something I read about it where I think Eastwood deserve respect. The father of Chris Kyle told Eastwood that if the movie was disrespectful to his son he would punch him. The father said it was respectful. I appreciate that. Respect for the family is gold.

If there's anyone still watching this clip, this interpretation is wrong. His interpretation of James is wrong

@siddharthghosh8750

4 жыл бұрын

James is a righteous person at heart. He's a guy who believes in taking action and getting things done. He is sad because he's seen too much. He has experienced first hand what terrible things humans are capable of. War is a tragedy. No two doubts about it. It tears people apart and people lose their loved ones. The movie is about humanity and what we have made out of it. It's about how this sadness has pushed you to extremes. Where James goes on to diffusing bombs with the intention of saving lives. He now finds happiness only in doing this raw job. He can't stay on the sidelines and watch the bad people play their hand. Basically it's about humanity and what we have made this world into. The Hurt Locker remains one of the greatest films ever made. Big big thanks to Kathryn Bigelow. These are some of my views. Comments welcome.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

How does the quote at the beginning of the film play into this?

@siddharthghosh8750

4 жыл бұрын

@@MoviesUnderTheSurface It refers to the tendency of humans to take up violence. Not a reference to James directly

@siddharthghosh8750

4 жыл бұрын

I will support my initial view of the movie with this scene: When James goes above his line of duty to help a local boy. (Which he finds later is dead) He is a compassionate person. Another scene when James is in US after the tour, he speaks with his wife about the situation in Iraq.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

@@siddharthghosh8750 fair enough. also, regarding the idea that James goes on diffusing bombs with the intention of saving lives. Why does he continue diffusing that one bomb even after everyone had been evacuated, meaning he wasn't saving any lives, only risking the life of himself and his team? Regarding him not being able to stay on the sidelines and watch the bad people play their hand: why does he let the bombmaker of the first bomb he diffused just walk away? Also, you do realize that James does not save a single life over the course of the entire film? Also, what do you have to say about the fact that James admits he loves bomb diffusion but doesn't love his wife or his kid?

Good stuff but your voice sounds like your Gliding across Gravity..

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

I dont know what that means

I think I can be kind of neutral about the US's external policies and specifically the Iraq war. I'm more o less informed about the issue 'cause I found it interesting and I don't buy the propaganda the US throws at my country, but also I don't hate the US therefore my interpretation of this film and this video essay It's not as biased as if I was a US citizen or a US detractor. That said, I'm gonna get right to the point: I loved your analysis. Though I think I'm gonna need to rewatch the film in order to get all of your arguments, I noticed some of them. For example the psychiatrist and its "weird" (to use a euphemism) point of view about the war. Or James' apathetic attitude and constant search for emotion in his job. Point is. This film is not commercial and that's why it does not makes its message too straightforward. It aims to its audience to interpret it, to read the subtext, and to develop a unique opinion about it. It does not scream "war is bad" at you like a commercial film would do (the broader the target audience, the easier to identify the message, and vice versa). It leaves you clues here and there for you to pick up and connect. Hence, a lot of people would not catch it if they don't read between the lines. Thus one has to ask themself why James acts like that. Why is he so bold? Why is he so detached from people, from his teammates, his wife, and his children? Why does he refuse to calm down and accept the Iraqi professor's hospitality? And why does all of that result so contradictory from him establishing a bond with some Iraqi boy? Those questions are the clues the director put on her screenplay and I think this video essay has read them more or less accurately. Maybe it's not the ultimate interpretation but for me, it's on the clue. James has seen a lot about war and he doesn't understand it yet (the US has indeed taken part in a lot of wars), he's addicted to bomb disarming not as a coping mechanism but because he was apathetic even before the war (not loving his wife nor identifying himself in his children). He's not a bad person and he believes what he's doing in the war is the correct thing to do but he feels entitled to impose his values and perspectives upon even his comrades. And that's a deep flaw the US society has got over the years. US citizens (at least, most of them, especially during the Bush administration) have stretch patriotism to its extreme. There's nothing bad about being prideful about one's country's culture but it does not give anybody the right of being blind about other cultures nor to force our values on them as if we, and us alone, would wield the ultimate truth. James feels entitled to break into a civilian house because of baseless suspicions. He does care about his teammates but their integrity and safety are below his own hunger for adrenaline. He grew fond of some Iraqi kid but when he believes said affection started to give him trouble (or to mislead him in his mission) he rejects it altogether without giving any explanation. For me, all of those attitudes (especially the latter) speak a lot about a prevalent, hypocritical kind of xenophobia. The kind that is so common in the US. I mean, how do US citizens treat immigrants? In general, they may show some sort of kindness and acceptance, but they're quick to blame them whenever some problem pops out. And most of these problems aren't exactly immigrants/foreign people's fault but the result of the country's systemic flaws. Just to clarify, this attitude is not unique to the US people but for a number of cultures (including mine) but since the film goes about that specific country... and all of that is harmful to both foreign people and the country's population (soldiers and any person who does not fit in the "ideal US citizen" stereotype). PS: sorry for the testament ^^' and remember is just my opinion and I'm open to dialogue. Edit: this interpretation does not mean there can be other readings. For example, it's not mutually excluding with the film deconstructing the war hero trope. And that complexity makes this screenplay so rich and well done.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

thanks for your response. Glad you enjoyed my video so much. It means a lot!

From a soldier, No war isnt a Drug, we go to war because 1- we are ordered to go and 2- we want to keep our brothers safe.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

Did you watch my video? Cause in it I agree with you. In my interpretation, the film specifically says soldiers are not addicted to war, it is the people who keep sending soldiers to war who are addicted to war.

I didn't think the film deserved an Oscar nomination TBH, but I loved your analysis. I think though you didn't go deep enough. It didn't speak about Bush's America as such, but about America itself, and the gung-ho uber masculine cowboy mindset embedded into American culture (a theme that runs through much of the director's work). The US has an addiction to war, it's been at war for most of its existence, bombing over 60 countries since then end of WW2 alone. The reason it wasn't a big box office hit was that it held up a mirror to Americans, and addicts don't like being told they're addicts if they haven't come to realise that on their own.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

I thought about looking into this in my video, but in the end, I preferred to focus on the film itself, rather that using it as a mirror for society. The Hurt Locker is specifically about Iraq, and from what I remember, there wasn't much (anything?) to imply that its message applies beyond the scope of that war. That doesn't mean it doesn't, it just means that's an extrapolation of the film, not directly what it is doing. That being said, Bigelow and Boal's follow up film, Zero Dark Thirty, is about Afghanistan and does not have a similar message, a fact that does not support the extrapolation that The Hurt Locker applies to more than the Iraq War. It would be interesting to make a video about how film has the power to hold a mirror to society. I'd like to do that. Just gotta find the right movie to do it with. Maybe I could've done it with this one, but I try to avoid politics on this channel, for reasons I'd rather not get into. So I'll try and find a non-political movie I can do this with. Might be difficult, but I'll search.

@3omar3aysha

5 жыл бұрын

Films are a mirror to society for sure. You might be right that this film is only about Iraq, and perhaps even inferring it was anti-GOP, but I stand by my analysis of why the film wasn't as successful as say something like American Sniper, the latter presents the US army protagonist as the hero, this film presents the protagonist as an addict ie the US is addicted to war. Saying all that tho I'm glad I found your channel. Top level analysis, really makes me think, keep up the good work.

Sergeant first class not staff sergeant

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

the film's credits list him as staff sergeant

I never liked this movie. Nice analysis though.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

thanks! and thanks for watching it

I wonder if this person critiquing and narrating has served

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

I haven't. That's one reason I don't critique that aspect of the film in my video

the us depends on being ar war even a pointless and endless war after all the us is a war profiteering and the only state that has the highest count of veterans comitting suicide or being homeless

My dad and his military buddies hated this movie. Said it was disrespectful and didn’t like how military was portrayed in it. I never watched it out of respect for them. I figured I’d finally give it a chance, but then saw more service members that didn’t approve and it pushed me away again.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

I've heard this a lot and totally understand it. The main character in the film is a mis-representation of the military, but as I say in the video, that's because in the film he's not actually representing the military. Its a pretty advanced cinematic technique that really only appeals to cinema people, which I think is why it doesn't work for the average filmgoer, who generally enjoys movies for character and story, not the deeper cinematic elements. I hope this doesn't come off as pretentious, it's not my intention.

@JakeNaughtFromStateFarm

5 жыл бұрын

Movies Under The Surface Nah, I wouldn’t call it pretentious. Just stating why I couldn’t even give it a chance. Too many people I had too much respect for had so much to say about it is why I’ve never seen it. I don’t hate people that like it, and am fine with the the “cinematic,” reasons you like it. I believe what offends most is that they see the movie as trying to show what the war and soldiers were like. That’s what offended my dad and his buddies, military portrayal.

@3omar3aysha

5 жыл бұрын

@@JakeNaughtFromStateFarm we should watch what might offend us. Firstly to make up or own minds about it, even people we respect deeply can have different interpretations to our own. Secondly, by definition we can only learn new things when we're pushed outside our own comfort zone. Often being uncomfortable doesn't reach us anything new, but often it does, and that's a risk worth taking, unless we believe we already know everything.

@Cyba_IT

5 жыл бұрын

@@3omar3aysha Well said sir, I completely agree. Some people also forget that it's a movie, not a documentary and of course there's going to be a certain amount of poetic license and over-dramatization. In real life the soldiers meticulously plan their missions and carry them out carefully and by the book (according to the actual documentaries) and that would make for a very boring movie.

@3omar3aysha

5 жыл бұрын

You can still do things "by the book" that are wrong, whether soldiers do things properly is irrelevant if the reason they're there in the first place is wrong.

Isn't this a fancy way of saying the movie is propaganda?

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

8 ай бұрын

no, it is a fancy way of saying the movie is the opposite of propaganda

@user-jp5nc8zf7m

8 ай бұрын

@@MoviesUnderTheSurface "It's shocking how many people see this film as having an ambiguous attitude towards the Iraq War. It contains every single war-glorifying cliche known. The sweet child who wants to be like an American but can't because the enemy won't let him. The American soldier who's just a scared-shitless farm boy but becomes a man through battle. The aloof hero who sees war as just a job until the enemy takes it too far. The faceless enemy. The movie does work within the allowable political domain of the public: namely, that the war was a mistake. Therefore the film entirely ignores the larger issues and focuses instead on the soldiers. They are washed of any personal responsibility for the war -- they are just doing their jobs -- and in the movie commit no major moral lapses. Kathryn Bigelow hinted as much when she dedicated the film to not just soldiers, but everyone in uniform. The pro-war message is: thank you for fighting a war nobody wants to fight, but upon which our survival depends."

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

6 ай бұрын

@@user-jp5nc8zf7m "The sweet child who wants to be like an American but can't because the enemy won't let him." The enemy has no bearing on this relationship, its the American himself who doesnt let him. "The American soldier who's just a scared-shitless farm boy but becomes a man through battle." when does an American become a man through battle? Sanborn? Yes, he matures through his experiences in Iraq, but its more through his realizations than the actual battles. Makes a big difference imo, especially since his realizations oppose the US narrative regarding him, the battles, and the war in general. "The aloof hero who sees war as just a job until the enemy takes it too far." at the end of the film, he is still aloof and still sees the war as a job. The enemy taking things "too far" only show him to be an impulsive and irresponsible hothead, hardly a positive depiction that propaganda would show "The faceless enemy." A faceless enemy is not automatically pro-US propaganda, it depends on how this aspect of the film is used. In the case of this film, I would say the faceless nature of the enemy is a critique, as it is saying the US is so addicted to war they will go to war without even knowing who their enemy is or why they are fighting them. Furthermore, despite this film being almost solely from the US perspective (a structural technique that has many advantages but has the disadvantage of making it more difficult to give depth to the enemy), the enemy is given depth at least a couple times, most significantly in the "well if he wasn't a terrorist he is now" taxicab scene. I don't know who you are quoting and that person is free to have their opinions, but I completely disagree with them. To say the film is about the soldiers when the main character is clearly (imo and in the opinion of most military people I've heard talk about the film) a misrepresentation of the soldiers doesn't fly with me. By dedicating the film to everyone in uniform, I don't think Bigelow's message was "thank you for fighting a war nobody wants to fight, but upon which our survival depends.", I think it was "we're sorry our addiction to war sends you to die/kill/get maimed/get PTSD so often for no reason at all". I mean where in the war does the film say or even imply that this is a war on which our survival depends? On the other hand, I can list several points where the film talks about how the war is pointless PS: apologizes for taking so long to respond, youtube flagged this comment for reasons I don't know and so I only just saw it now

You're completely misinterpreting the film.

@raphaelpoitou

4 жыл бұрын

Kevin Bowen no he’s not.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

@kevin what's your interpretation?

@siddharthghosh8750

4 жыл бұрын

His interpretation of James is wrong

@siddharthghosh8750

4 жыл бұрын

You're right @kevin

@jeffreylagos1618

3 жыл бұрын

It’s 50-50 thing on misinterpreting this film Some love the shit And some can’t

Your evaluation is quite wrong lmao James didn’t need to say “I defuse bombs because he is doing the right thing and making the world a better place” he has no need to say it because it should be common sense that if you put your life in the line for the sake of others you are already making the world a better place, also you commented on another persons comment saying “he hasn’t saved anyone at any point in the movie” but you can’t prove or disprove that, he defuses bomb so we will never know how strong those bombs are, the scene where he is defusing 6 bombs attached to one, you do not know how strong that bomb is, it’s very possible the he saved multiple lives with that, also he didn’t accept the iraqies invitation into their home because in real life, it is protocol to see any iraqie as a potential hostile, him not accepting the invitation does not help your point, in fact it contradicts it cuz every soldier in that moment would do the same thing, not just James... Also him not thinking about the fear of death is perfectly fine, most solders are not afraid of death cuz they are essentially signing their life away when they agree to go to war And the idea war is a drug is referranced to the idea that when a soldier comes home, he feels lost and doesn’t know how to function back into normal society, similarly to how a drug addict has the feeling of having the inability to function without said drug, or, AN ADDICTION. Like cmon that is obvious yet once again you skewed it try to and fit your narrative this evaluation is very poor and filled with nothing but claims supported by no facts and what if’s. If a character doesn’t say or do something that fits your narrative, you see it as flaud, very poor evaluation 👎🏻

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

you don't agree with my interpretation and I don't agree with yours. That's what art is about after all. different interpretations.

I don't think it is possible to analyze this film without analyzing Bigelow herself. In particular, her dramatization of real life events, distorting them in ways that justifiably cause outrage in Zero Dark Thirty and mkre recently Detroit. Honestly, I don't quite know what to make of her. She is clearly a talented director, but her vision in these three historical dramas, one which represents the military industrial complex as the hero in a bad situation, one which glamorizes torture, and one which looks at the suffering of the anonymous oppressed through they eyes of an apologetic oppressor, all three of which claiming to be accurate, and it is hard not to see her as a deeply flawed story teller.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

5 жыл бұрын

I dont think any of those three film are doing what you say they're doing. But that's just me.

One of the most inaccurate war movie I’ve seen

“War is a drug” said by some activist who never served

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

well The Hurt Locker isn't actually about serving (at least not in my interpretation) so the above really doesn't matter

@tymacrae6052

4 жыл бұрын

Movies Under The Surface Even if that were true wouldn’t it better convey the message if they portrayed the war and serving in the military accurately

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

4 жыл бұрын

@@tymacrae6052 the point of all powerful films is to deliver a deep level truth as powerfully as possible. Ideally you can do this and also portray whatever you are portraying accurately, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. And so if you are forced to choose, you choose the deep level truth. Sorkin discusses this very will regarding The Social Network, another movie I covered, and another movie that is controversial for supposedly not depicting the events it is covering accurately

The war depictions of Iraq and especially Baghdad is so fucking inaccurate it makes me laugh and also sad that Americans living inside a bubble and will never view us as actual humans. Just look at the double standards with how we were painted and how Ukranians are painted. I have stopped watching them war movies for a long time. Sincerely, an Iraqi viewer.

I’ll put my two deployments in Iraq against this garbage film any day.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

Not sure what you mean by that. What does it mean to put real-life experiences "against" a narrative film?

@shawnladue8986

3 жыл бұрын

Movies Under The Surface You honestly think that this narrative is based in reality? I know it’s just a movie, but the inaccuracies in this film, to numerous to count, take away from whatever narrative the creators were trying portray. Addiction is the last thing any sane human feels towards the horror of actual combat.

@MoviesUnderTheSurface

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think this film is based in a literal reality. I believe it is meant to be take on a figurative, not literal, level. As such, and as I state in my video, I don't think the film is about a soldier's addition to combat, I think it is about something else entirely. BTW: I really appreciate your response, and your service as well. I know you don't like this film, and I'm not trying to change your mind, but if you are willing I'd be really interested hearing your opinion of my take on it.