Hurt Locker = war propaganda film or fair & balanced?

[sapphi_snake]

Reasonable said:

The Hurt Locker quite deliberately doesn't say anything about Iraq and nor is it particularly about Iraq.  Iraq just happens to be the setting as a recent conflict.

The Hurt Locker is exclusively about men in combat, and in particular how some become almost addicted to being in a combat situation - something now recognised as true and in fact the subject of two recent books - while others just want to get through it alive.

I'd say it's a practicaly perfect film and works all the better for not even trying to explain Iraq, which is beyond the ability of a 2 hour film.  TBH that kind of depth is for books still.  What the Hurt Locker can cover very well is elements of the men on the ground, without any political overtones.

I'm afraid you're falling prey to the idea a film in a setting has to try and cover everything or it's not being fair.  This simply isn't true and simply isn't feasible.

Unless you watched a different Hurt Locker to me it doesn't tell the US side or any side.  It's about a very small number of men and how they are reacting to a situation which is not even particular to Iraq.  With practically no changes you could take the entire film and set it in Vietnam, or World War 2 in Europe, or World War 1.

The Hurt Locker is looking at some universal aspects of combat, not Iraq.

The movie had flat characters. It didn't show anyone becoming addicted to war, as the main character was already addicted, and for all we know joined the military because he liked action and was an adrenaline junkie (plus he was the only such character in the movie).

Plus any war movie about an ongoing conflict that focuses on just one side (even if it's only a small number of men from that side) is a war propaganda movie (heck, military recruiting sites were even advertising it).