Hurt Locker = war propaganda film or fair & balanced?

[rocketpig]

ocnkng said:

rocketpig said:

sad.man.loves.vgc said:

rocketpig said:

sapphi_snake said:

rocketpig said:

sapphi_snake said:

 

Why are the Americans over there? Should they be there? Is there any point to the war?

That's all that matters. The personal tragedy of the soldiers doesn't.

In your opinion. You DO realize that people are allowed to have dissenting opinions on subjects, right? And that your OPINION is not gospel... right?

Of couse they are. That doesn't change the fact that they're blind to what really matters (in MY OPINION, I gotta mention this;  you sure remind me of an annoying judge on The Good Wife).

But why don't you explain to me why you have the opinion that you do?

The Hurt Locker did a good job of displaying various people in the military; some crazy, some sane, some good, some bad

I

Oh wait, I forgot how it's only okay for directors to show black and white. Shades of grey are obviously unacceptable. You know what The Hurt Locker needed to not be propaganda? A massive rape scene of Iraqi women and/or cattle. It's the only way Bigelow could have shown the "evil" of the war, even though that wasn't the point of the film AT ALL and would have turned the movie into a true propaganda piece but you guys would have been okay with it because it'd be propaganda YOU agreed with.

As I said earlier, the lead character was an asshole. He wasn't necessarily "bad" per se but he certainly wasn't a good guy. Neither was ANYONE ELSE in the film. The main character was a fucked up guy who continually did fucked up things to his fellow soldiers, family at home, and then constantly put them all at risk.

Whooooooo! My HERO!

But rapes, mass killing, torture, mass incarceration have been committed by US soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you will agree? (google to find numerous news about these events)

So according to you, if a movie decides to depict the vicious crimes of an invading and occupying force that occured in Iraq and Afghanistan, which btw is depicting the truth, makes that movie a propaganda?

And I'm sure there are soldiers in Iraq just like the guys from The Hurt Locker. Bigelow has said multiple times she wanted to tell a story from the soldiers' perspective without getting into the details of the overall "right or wrong" of the war.

Yes, bad things have happened in the war. If someone wanted to make a movie about those atrocities, I'd probably watch it. If it was done as nicely as The Hurt Locker, I'd probably even enjoy it (as much as one could "enjoy" something like that anyway), just as I enjoyed Letters from Iwo Jima, which displayed much of the Japanese military in a sympathetic light when the Japanese were also mass-murdering Chinese and SE Asian civilians left and right, the film just didn't focus on it. Should I spew hatred for the film for ignoring those atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire? No, because that wasn't the point of the film. The same applies to Nazis and countless other armies that did terrible things to other people. If the director doesn't want to muddle their story with the grand scope of a military campaign in favor of telling a small, regionalized story, more power to them if they do it and do it well, as Bigelow did with this film.