Connor McLaughlin Mr. Rand Civic and Cultural Literacy II 12 October 2011 Hurt Locker: An Addiction To War The Hurt Locker can give almost anybody the nerves with its numerous suspenseful moments. But what lies inside all the tension filled scenes is a much deeper meaning. Kathryn Bigelow stresses an important message in this Oscar-winning epic. Although the film depicts the gruesome horrors of war, Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker is not an anti-war film.The Hurt Locker is a film about James’s addiction to war because it shows his desire tension risk filled scenes, his lack of resentment for the war, and his inability to integrate himself back into “normal society” It is clear from the beginning of the movie that it was going to be filled with intense tension-filled scenes of diffusing bombs.
This only escalated with the Introduction of Sergeant James as the new bomb tech. One can tell immediately that James is an adrenaline junkie that is willing to take risks. It is evident in all of the bomb scenes that Bravo Company encounters.In the first scene he refuses to let the bot diffuse the bomb because he would rather do it himself. His love for high risk is intensified even more by throwing down a smoke can and the face-off he had with the cab driver. His love for risk is verified again when he diffuse the car bomb with no bomb suit on.
Even the small things that he does like taking down the artillery shield from his window confirm his love for risk and lack of concern for his life. All of these scenes confirm that James is an adrenaline junkie who loves putting his life in danger.He seems to love the fact that every time he straps on that bomb-suit he is in a life or death situation. This is evident in the scene where James explains that he has a crate of triggers that have almost killed him. He seems to love the fact that there have been so many opportunities where he could have died and he keeps each trigger as a memento for each situation. James’s love for risk and adrenaline relates back to the statement “war is a drug” because diffusing bombs is his high.
The adrenaline rush that he gets in war is similar to a high a person gets when they take a certain drug.James seems to need the risk in order to cope with everyday life. Although Sanborn and Eldridge do not have this love for risk and have concern for their lives, they represent the majority that does not partake in drug-use. Like in reality, not everybody needs drugs in order to cope, but there is a small fraction (James) that do.
Another interesting thing is that James never seems to complain about having to be in war. This is evident several times throughout the movie. When they are hunting the sniper down in the house, James does not complain about having to stay and wait out the sniper.It should also be noted that James does not even show resentment after he believes Becham is killed. His is deeply affected but when he finds out that he is alive, he detaches himself from him so that he will not have to go through the same trauma. James’s lack of resentment is clearly evident after he failed to save the man with the bomb strapped on him.
Sanborn is very emotional and believes that he is going to die and nobody will care. He asks James why he can just roll the dice of life and death. James says that he really does not think about.James’s lack of resentment for his condition shows that he cannot find anything terrible with what he does. It is also another reason why he is addicted to war.
This also shows why the film is not supposed to be an anti-war film. Not only is there little resentment to the war, they never mention any of the politics surrounding it. How can it be considered an anti-war film if none of the characters question the reason for war, or any politicians for that matter? The film does not focus on the purpose of the war but more so on how the war is conducted. One of the more interesting parts of the movie is James’s reaction to the real word.
It shows that James cannot cope in a civilian lifestyle. This is very evident when he goes back home to the States. In the supermarket he seems lost, a feeling he never really seemed to have in Iraq. He hesitates when he picks out a cereal; James never hesitated back in Iraq. His inability to cope with civilian society is also very evident when he is in his house. He tries to tell his ex-wife all about the stories he has from Iraq but she does not listen.
It appears that being in a bomb squad is the only thing that he talks and cares about. The defining moment that explains James’s inability to be a civilian is when he talks his son.He says that there is only one thing in the world he loves. The next scene shows him going back to Iraq and putting the bomb suit back on. This scene in particular highlights his addiction to war.
He was unable to have a happy life at home so he needed to go to the one place that made him happy. It can be compared to a drug addict going back into a relapse after a break. Although one can argue that James’s addiction to war is an effect of the war which would make the movie anti-war, the last scene shows him comparing war to something he loves and is very happy to be back in Iraq.This also brings up the question how can this be an anti-war film if the film ends with James’s going back to war.
It makes it appear that war was a good thing for him not something terrible. The Hurt Locker is a tension filled film that analyzes how James became addicted to it. The risks that it portrays seem to be a drug that causes him to forget about the politics of the war and even his home. The Hurt Locker suppresses the politics of the war thus making the film not anti-war. It merely allows the general audience to see life through a soldiers lives and if anything give them more of an appreciation for what they do.
