Hurt Locker = war propaganda film or fair & balanced?

[rocketpig]

sapphi_snake said:

Badassbab said:

sapphi_snake said:

Badassbab said:

sapphi_snake said:

Badassbab said:

I thought it was a pretty good film, a bit long if you ask me but I don't see much politics behind it. It doesn't justify the war nor against it, just another one of the many Hollywood films to make us feel sorry for US soldiers.

In other words it's pro-war.

Not really because there are other Hollywood films which were anti war but through the prism of making us feel sorry for US soldiers (as opposed to the death and destruction wrought upon the native population). The numerous Vietnam War films spring to mind.

http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745329826& - Interesting read.

Then they weren't anti-war films, were they?

They were anti war but through the prism of 'bring the troops home cause we can't win this war'. They were still anti war just not anti war because it was illegal and/or genocidal. That was as left as it got in the mainstream media during the war in 'Nam'.

When I see a movie with the message "why the fuck are we having this stupid war in the first place" I'll say "now that's an anti-war movie". Movies that focus on soliders and how they try to survive and treat the opposing side as a force of evil threatening the survival of the soldiers who are the main characters will never be anti-war movies, but will have the opposite effect.

I felt the exact opposite way when I finished watching the film. I felt for the soldiers and the predicament they were put in the film. It all seemed rather pointless.

So, in your OPINION, it's a pro-war piece. In my opinion, it's neutral to anti-war but mainly, it's a character piece.

Isn't that the point of good art? To challenge perception and let the audience take from it what they will? Maybe both of us are right, maybe neither of us are right.

But to definitively say that the film is pro-war is, frankly, bullshit.