"The Hurt Locker" describes precisely the contradiction in the state of the "ism vacuum" in the United States after the fall of neoconservatism: knowing the cruelty of war, but wanting to stop it. It's just that the film can be more detached than the Obama administration. It has chosen a middle route, without any criticism of reality, and only uses the lens to affirm its own attitude towards soy sauce. Although it failed at the box office, it caused people to think about one of the most important practical problems around them. It is natural to win the prize.
In the 82nd Academy Awards, "The Hurt Locker" is crazy. Winning six major awards allowed him to beat the box office myth "Avatar" 6-3 in this duel between his ex-wife and his ex-husband. Many commentators think this is Oscar's return to realism. If this view holds true, then the film’s middle route may be the best proof.
Obama's victory was once regarded as the complete defeat of neoconservatism in the United States. Even the fire of hope in the eyes of anti-war elements. The budding of neoconservatism began to appear as early as Roosevelt's New Deal era. At that time, Roosevelt called himself a liberal out of political need and succeeded. In order to regain power, his political opponents gradually formed neo-conservatism. In other words, neo-conservatism is actually mainly transformed from liberalism. And the members are mostly fanatical liberals. Neo-conservatism began to take shape in the 1960s, but because of Roosevelt’s deep roots in the hearts of the people, neo-conservatives often used ways of agreeing with their opponents to hide themselves. Until the Reagan administration, neoconservatives still dared not directly promote their value theory. They were exactly the same as Obama today, using CHANG to whitewash what they did.
By the time of Bush Jr., neo-conservatism had reached its peak. Especially after 9/11, the national crisis enabled them to unscrupulously promote their values at home and abroad with a strong attitude. You may not forget that after 9/11, including China, all countries echoed the US call for anti-terrorism. When the United States unilaterally sent troops to Afghanistan, no one expressed even the slightest opposition.
The neo-conservatives in the United States advocate the establishment of a unilateral world centered on the will of the United States, and they have reached a compromise with the hawks in their actions. They advocate the implementation of a "preemptive strike" strategy against "terrorism" and treat "terrorist countries" with "state terrorism". The most typical case is the Iraq War.
However, the heavy cost of war and the risk exposure of neo-conservative economic policies broke out in 2008, giving birth to the first black president in American history. Like Lincoln 1 or Roosevelt, Obama hopes to bring his political career to a glorious peak by implementing major changes to the country. However, judging from his performance in power over the past year, his personal political charm is far less than that of his two predecessors. When his term ends, people may have the impression of him as an ordinary politician rather than a great politician.
Obama's inaction may not be his personal reason. After neo-conservatism was rejected by voters, there was an ideological "national crisis" in the United States. Today, the United States has entered an era of "political vacuum" that is rare in history. Obama advertised "political harmony" by appointing political opponents as officials, especially the economic team in the government, almost all of them regarded Friedman as his ancestor. However, it can be found from the voting results of Congress that the political rift between the two parties is not shrinking, but widening. In fact, this kind of contradiction is the manifestation of the American "ism vacuum". On the one hand, it tries to get out of the shadow of neo-conservatism. On the other hand, it cannot be replaced by new politicalism, so it has to continue to pursue neo-conservatism to a certain extent. Some practices.
What "The Hurt Locker" describes is precisely the status quo of the "ism vacuum" in the United States. The film is quite documentary, with a large number of short shots just like CS, creating a realistic sense of scene. In the film, we see the cruel current situation of Iraq under the shadow of the war: the hot streets are sparsely populated, littered, and wolfish; every Islamic person’s eyes are full of hostility to the American liberators; scattered fundamentalists Frequent attacks on the U.S. military. Especially the opening scene of the film is a comprehensive record of the death of the former bomb disposal expert. We need to know that for the US government, the most sensitive thing is the number of soldiers killed in the war.
But on the other hand, the protagonist James is a war madman. In the war, he was more chic than all his comrades in arms. He didn't know what death was, and he got a strong sense of pleasure in the tense atmosphere of bomb disposal. Especially after he returned to China at the end of the film, he felt as if he had lost his soul, feeling lost, just like Li Yunlong, who commanded the Korean War on the sand table every day in "Bright Sword", finally chose to return to the battlefield.
Perhaps for the director, he may hope to achieve the goal of anti-war through this lunatic. If so, then she clearly failed. Heroism has been thoroughly promoted in James. "The Hurt Locker" is like a draft advertisement for the US Department of Defense, telling those on the front lines who wish to return to their homes as soon as possible that it is the happiest thing to stay.
This is the current contradiction between the Americans: they know the cruelty of war, but they can't stop it. It's just that "The Hurt Locker" can behave a little more detached than the Obama administration. It has chosen a middle route, does not make any criticism of reality, and uses the lens to affirm its own attitude towards soy sauce.
(Note 1: Democratic President Barack Obama’s black status reminds people of the former Republican President Lincoln who liberated slaves in American history. Although Lincoln is a Republican, the political tendencies of the two parties in the United States are marked by the "Roosevelt New Deal". Both have undergone a major shift. It can be said that the Democratic Party of today is the Republican Party of the past; the Republican Party of today is more like the Democratic Party of the past. In the past, Lincoln’s Republican Party represented the industrial states of the North, and these are precisely the territory of the Democratic Party of today; The Republican Party, whose main political sphere of influence is the central and southern parts of the agricultural states. In the 1860s, it was the Democratic Party of the time who declared independence in the South, which detonated the "Civil War".)
View more about The Hurt Locker reviews
