海角大神

In the long campaign leading up to this year鈥檚 Academy Awards, Hollywood was applauding itself for embracing the 鈥渁political鈥� Iraq war movie, 鈥�The Hurt Locker.鈥澛�

That applause grew louder when, earlier this month, Hollywood voted it the Oscar for Best Picture, choosing it over the 鈥渃ommercial,鈥� billion-dollar-earning, 3-D extravaganza 鈥�Avatar.鈥� The purring heard since then is that Hollywood went for the serious, artistic choice.

But hold the applause and consider this: How can artists, especially ones who call themselves serious, not take a political point-of-view of a war that, unlike a 鈥済ood鈥� war like World War II, is a seriously 鈥渂ad鈥� one 鈥� one that was premised on an audacious lie (weapons of mass destruction), fomented by official fearmongering, made torture an instrument of US government policy, and has killed over 100,000 of the people that we presumed, uninvited, to liberate?聽

For an artist to take an 鈥渁political鈥� stance in relation to such a war, a war that tramples all over the moral line, is to surrender the title 鈥渁rtist.鈥澛�

That this bad war may eventually have a good outcome 鈥� the democracy we forcibly imposed may actually be taking hold, with Iraqis turning out in elections this month in numbers higher than those of many American elections 鈥� just adds to the layers of irony and moral complexity that only a serious artist can engage.

鈥淭he Hurt Locker,鈥� being apolitical by design and focus, addresses none of these points. Rather than a wide-angle critique of the war and its validity, "The Hurt Locker" focuses narrowly聽on one bomb squad whose mission is to detonate myriad improvised explosive devices (IEDs) set by what seems the entire Iraqi population.听

The main character, Will, is a 鈥渨ild man鈥� who takes wildly crazy risks in already wildly dangerous work; rather than principles, he鈥檚 got attitude. The conflict, as if a war movie needed more, is: Will the 鈥渨ild man鈥� go too far and get his two buddies killed as well as himself? 鈥淏and of Brothers鈥� this is not; the focus, like the culture that sent him, is narcissistic, driven by self, in this case a self addicted to danger.听

How much more compelling if, as Will is c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y extricating the wires of yet another bomb, he were to ask: 鈥淚鈥檓 risking vaporization for a war based on lies?鈥� or 鈥淭he guys at Abu Ghraib just lost this war for us, why am I doing this?鈥� (The torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison broke in 2004, the year this film is set). That would have been daring filmmaking. 聽

Equally unsettling, the film鈥檚 view of Iraqis is condescending and dehumanizing, the saddest illustration being Will鈥檚 contact with an Iraqi teenager who sells porn videos, a line of work made legitimate by American pop culture. The extent of Will鈥檚 鈥渞elating鈥� to the boy is to complain about the technical quality of his last purchase. What this presumes to say about both cultures is beyond sorrowful.听

In these depths, we are far from Hollywood鈥檚 long and proud tradition of war films that, if not explicitly antiwar, then portrayed war as a necessary hell. Everything depended on the filmmaker鈥檚 political point-of-view of the war in question.听

World War I, largely seen as mass carnage with no high purpose, inspired films fiercely antiwar 鈥� 鈥�All Quiet on the Western Front,鈥� 鈥淭he Big Parade,鈥� 鈥淲ings,鈥� 鈥淒awn Patrol.鈥� By contrast, World War II, seen as a necessary call to arms against an enemy bent on global domination, produced films reflecting that high purpose while underscoring combat鈥檚 hellishness 鈥� 鈥淭hey Were Expendable,鈥� 鈥淏attleground,鈥� 鈥淭welve O鈥機lock High,鈥� 鈥淭he Best Years of Our Lives.鈥� With Vietnam, widely seen as a bad war, Hollywood reverted to a fiercely antiwar stance 鈥� 鈥�Apocalypse Now,鈥� 鈥�Platoon,鈥� and 鈥淐oming Home.鈥澛�

Moreover, the characters portrayed in these films possessed a moral compass of some sort, which induced nausea in them about the act of killing they were forced to engage in, while also making them worthy for us to root for. Losing a grip on that compass is the Colonel Kilgore character in "Apocalypse Now," who exulted in 鈥渢he smell of napalm in the morning.鈥澛�

But 鈥淭he Hurt Locker,鈥� far from being antiwar, and despite the filmmakers鈥� professed dedication to our troops in Iraq, finally nets out as pro-war. Horrifying proof of this war-love is the ending, when Will, unable to connect to his wife and infant son back in the States, emotionally and morally vacant, mutely returns to Iraq for another tour of duty, another adrenalin fix of detonating bombs. The bottom line: War is Will鈥檚 only聽option, one that sooner or later will kill him 鈥� which, it is clear, is the end he seeks. For Will is a walking suicide, and so, it would seem, is his hurt locker of a culture. What a pity that Hollywood, in voting it Best Picture, was blind to the film鈥檚 death-loving heart, but then, so were many critics, a culture鈥檚 ostensible gatekeepers.

Instructive at this juncture is the prophetic work of the great Greek dramatist Euripides, specifically his tragedy 鈥淭he Trojan Women.鈥澛�

Writing of Greece鈥檚 sacking of Troy, an event by then 800 years in the past, Euripides sought to stir his countrymen to the nation- and soul-destroying perils of Greece鈥檚 resurgent militarism. From first to last, the play articulates the miseries that war visits on both conquered and conquerer, citing especially the hubris of the conquerer and warning: 鈥淗ow are ye blind,/ Ye treaders down of cities, ye that cast/ Temples to desolation, and lay waste
聽/ Tombs, the untrodden sanctuaries where lie/ The ancient dead, yourselves so soon to die!鈥澛�

Moral weight clearly lies with the conquered, signaled by the play鈥檚 title and borne out in the suffering of the widowed women, who are assigned as concubines to the conquering generals. Cassandra鈥檚 curse leveled at the 鈥渨inners鈥� echoes Euripides鈥檚 brief: 鈥淭o die in evil were the stain!鈥� For all his valor, Euripides did not win his day鈥檚 Oscar, but met with such disdain from both the public and the ruling war factions that he exiled himself to Macedonia. Greece fell to Rome several generations later.

If America is to reverse its own unfolding tragedy, it will need to kick the suicidal habit of war. Thus the stories we tell ourselves will be key. Once upon a time, Hollywood, our preeminent storyteller, appealed to a high common denominator in telling our stories, of war and peace, life and love, but in recent decades, that denominator has been lowered. Yet, promisingly, there is a new yearning now in the American public for something higher 鈥� call it hope, change, 鈥渢he upper air.鈥澛�

Will Hollywood grease the skids down 鈥� or point the way up?

Carla Seaquist, a playwright, is author of the play 鈥淲ho Cares?: The Washington-Sarajevo Talks鈥� and is working on a play titled 鈥淧rodigal.鈥� Her book, 鈥淢anufacturing Hope: Post-9/11 Notes on Politics, Culture, Torture, and the American Character,鈥� was recently published. She blogs at .听