General Odierno gives “The Hurt Locker” friendly review
As the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno must have on-the-ground knowledge of the American military teams that defuse roadside bombs in Iraq.
So it seems like high praise, indeed, that he complimented the Oscar-winning movie “The Hurt Locker” for how it portrayed the sacrifices made by bomb disposal soldiers in the Iraq war.
“I think what I like about it is, it shows, first, the camaraderie that is required here, the tension, the risk that’s involved in some of the jobs that we do here,” Odierno said in an interview with PBS Newshour.
“I’m sure many people would say it could be a bit more accurate in some areas, but I believe it’s a good representation of the sacrifice, dedication that it takes here in order to combat such a very difficult mission of terrorism and fighting a war on terrorism,” he said.
“The Hurt Locker”, an Iraq war drama about a team of bomb-defusing specialists, won the Oscar for best picture and placed Kathryn Bigelow into history books as the first woman ever to win the Academy Award for best director.
Photo credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson (Bigelow poses with her Oscar for “The Hurt Locker”)
A film classic ripe for a Washington-style update?
It’s Oscar nomination day, which means some in snow-covered Washington DC — Hollywood for ugly people, if you believe the old saying — are daydreaming about what it would be like to make a blockbuster film. “Avatar” seems to have the inside track in this year’s Academy Award race, but isn’t there an old classic movie ripe for a Washington-style remake?
How about “Meet John Doe”? It’s a Frank Capra morality piece made in 1941, where a soda jerk can speak basic truth and a rail-riding hobo is played by Gary Cooper, the George Clooney of his day. Everybody’s scrounging for a job and a buck, they’re laying off the old pros at the local newspaper and a cigar-chomping oil magnate wants to get into politics. Barbara Stanwyck plays a hard-driving columnist who fakes a letter from a mythical “John Doe” who says he’s going to leap off the city hall roof on Christmas Eve to protest widespread corruption and the state of the world in general.
But that’s all background. What makes it made-to-order for a 2010 remake is what happens when Gary Cooper a.k.a. “John Doe” speaks to a big gathering, reading remarks written by the columnist, who’s now in cahoots with the oil magnate: the crowd loves him so much they go out and form grassroots John Doe Clubs, just to be neighborly. No politicians allowed. They’re not partisan, they just want to make things a little better.
The oil magnate has another idea, to use the John Doe Clubs as a platform for his political ambitions. Meantime the columnist and the hobo fall in love, and decide they really are altruistic and want “the people” to succeed. It all winds up on the city hall roof in the snow on Christmas Eve, with (really) the “Ode to Joy” playing in the background.
OK, here’s the 2010 version: picture Scott Brown, the new Massachusetts senator, as this century’s John Doe, arriving in Washington to find a Senate tied up in knots, a House in disarray and a White House mired in debt and war. He’s buoyed by support from the John Doe Clubs of the 21st century, the Tea Party movement. Another Washington outsider, a telegenic former governor with ambitions of her own, is drawn to the nouveau John Doe and to the Tea Partiers. They go to the Tea Party convention but find their maverick message competing with entrenched Washington interests. Nobody goes up to the city hall roof, but the two newcomers emerge from the fray older and wiser and open their own PR shop.
Now the fun part — casting! Clooney would be perfect in the Scott Brown/John Doe role. Sandra Bullock would be ideal as the media star but why not get an acting amateur with real potential: Sarah Palin. For the person embodying the power elite, maybe Jack Nicholson. Again, there’s a non-actor who could fill the bill — Rush Limbaugh. He bears an uncanny resemblance to Edward Arnold, who plays the part in the original. And Limbaugh already has the cigars!
This is a screenplay that practically writes itself — so hit those keys!
As I have been to Iraq twice, as an infantry marine, and come back twice, I don’t understand the issue with the “cereal scene.” I don’t know if Death thinks it “spoiled” the movie, or what, but as a combat vet, that was THE most moving and instantly understandable moment of the whole movie. For any civilian who wonders why “war is a drug” or why the protagonist wanted/needed/or had to go back (regardless of his own opinions of the Iraq war) the “cereal scene” instantly captured, the moment i saw it, what it is like to come home from war. FOR ME, it elucidated that flat-out feeling of the over abundance and POINTLESSNESS of everyday materialistic society. How our society is jam-packed with imagery and glorification of pointless party-lives, social status, idolatry, and material shit. I have never felt more alive than when i feared that at any moment i could die. War gives life meaning, not bc you are serving some higher cause, but bc you come to realize, in the most personal way, that breathing is better than not breathing. It is as simple as that, it awakens you. Unfortunately, with extreme highs come extreme lows. You understand that there is no higher purpose, divine meaning, or purpose at all, for anything. Life is pointless, however, life is meaning. Whereas the protagonist is chasing that high that war gives him, his fellow sergeant (Sanborn) just cares to survive. For some, war is an elixir and for others, it is a smelling salt. To conclude, i found the “cereal scene” to be the most insightful part of the whole movie.