Is it really too much to ask of Hollywood to make a war movie that isn’t 1) blatantly anti-military and anti-war, 2) filled with anti-American sentiment just for good measure, 3) and so inaccurate as to believe that nobody in Hollywood has actually ever served in the US military.
Take the most recent, and supposedly the most critically acclaimed, movie about the Iraq war — Hurt Locker. Which is being slammed by military veterans who have done something the makers of Hurt Locker have never (could never, would never) do — put on the uniform, picked up a rifle, stood a watch, and walked a patrol over in the sandbox.
Via the Washington Post:
Time magazine called “The Hurt Locker” “a near-perfect war film,” but Ryan Gallucci, an Iraq war veteran, had to turn the movie off three times, he says, “or else I would have thrown my remote through the television.”
[snip]
Many in the military say “Hurt Locker” is plagued by unforgivable inaccuracies that make the most critically acclaimed Iraq war film to date more a Hollywood fantasy than the searingly realistic rendition that civilians take it for.
And if you want to know why this type of tripe coming out of Hollywood pisses combat veterans off to much, just ask this Army Airborne Ranger:
If this movie was based on a war that never existed, I would have nothing to comment about. This movie is not based on a true story, but on a true war, a war in which I have seen my friends killed, a war in which I witnessed my ranger buddy get both his legs blown off. So for Hollywood to glorify this crap is a huge slap in the face to every soldier who’s been on the front line.
And from the LA Times:
Some soldiers and veterans say the movie, a favorite for the best picture Oscar, portrays them as renegades and doesn’t depict combat accurately. But film critics have praised its authenticity.
Uh huh. Film critics who have never been any closer to combat than accidentally driving through Compton on their way to somewhere else think the film is authentic. Based on what, I have to ask?
Just one more Hollywood POS movie that I won’t be seeing.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
I was very surprised to see this movie was selected as one of the finalist for best picture. Primarily because it was an Iraq war movie that wasn’t decidedly anti-war/anti-America.
A friend of mine has spent nearly thirty years as an EOD Tech(explosive ordnance disposal-or bomb doctor). He and the guys in his unit were invited to screen the film before its release, and he said they all hooted and hollered, while laughing their asses off. He said the movie ranked very-very-very low on accuracy, but very high on entertainment value. He recommended I see it, keeping in mind that whoever consulted the film makers on technical expertise didn’t know a damn thing.
I will say this, my bud is very tired of hearing about his friends getting blown up. EOD is no joke, and I only wish that if they wanted to make a movie about this subject, the least they could have done was hire a real EOD Tech as a technical consultant. Every man and woman has to volunteer for service in our Armed Forces, EOD Techs have to volunteer three times and be approved for a Top Secret clearance.
I find myself quite surprised at the furor surrounding the supposed accuracy of this movie. I saw it and can say I enjoyed it without getting hung up on its accurate portrayal of EOD Techs. Do you think movies featuring cops (many) nail what it is really like? Not so much.
Robbie do you think that Michael Moore is capable of a blockbuster release showing what it’s really like for a technical writer in software and defense? How about “Oliver Stone Presents, Combat Medic: A True Story”. Does either of those make you feel all warm?
In most cases 95% or more of the audience is going to accept it as true and accurate because they don’t know better. It’s possible to appreciate the realism of something knowing full well it’s not true.
Another review on it:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/essay-15/