“The Hurt Locker”—A Deconstruction

By Jim Elston

“War is a drug,” says part of the epigraph at the beginning the 2010 Oscar-winning Best Picture, The Hurt Locker. This phrase lingers on the screen when the rest disappears, as if director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal are making sure viewers get the point. I didn’t.

Sure, there’s all kinds of adrenaline rushes associated with combat. As a civilian who’s never been on the battlefield, I can only guess what these are like, so perhaps I’m wrong when I liken them to the so-called runner’s high—once the run’s over, and the adrenaline is still surging through you for a few seconds, you feel like Leonardo DiCaprio on the prow of the Titanic. When Locker central character Sergeant James comes out of the burnt-out car and says, ”That was good,” he’s riding that high, not celebrating the fact that the danger is past and he’s alive. In fact, Sgt James can’t wait until the next IED (improvised explosive device) or whatever needs to be disarmed so he can feel that high again. If this is what the film means by a drug, it’s easy to understand. But I don’t think that’s what it means, because the film wants us to think this drug called war is a bad drug – not medicinal, but addictive.

Read On
http://www.au.af.mil/au/aunews/archive/2010/0510/0510Articles/HurtLocker0510.htm