Posted by Unknown
Posted on 11:33 AM
with No comments
Like Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight Rises, it looks like the press wants to talk to Tony Stark, a member of the 1% of America's billionaires. We do know that, post-The Avengers' battle with Loki, Stark becomes disenchanted and closes in on himself; Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) get into a fight; the Malibu mansion of Stark's is razed to the ground/sinks into the ocean (is his mansion "under water" like mortgages across the nation? Bruce Wayne went bankrupt and nearly lost his house) and Stark has to go back to the way it was in Iron Man in the cave where he used all his skills to create the fab Iron Man machine for which he became so famous. Most importantly, we also know that his arch-enemy the Mandarin (Ben Kinglsey) is from China and poses the world-wide threat in this narrative,... and this will set up Stark's role in The Avengers 2.
This is the new era of advertising, and cinema's ability to adapt to the hyper-speeds of the news world and social media shows it's in healthy shape. Like Prometheus earlier this year, Iron Man 3 is launching teasers for teasers, that is, posters on Facebook and the web to peak interest in the first official trailer to be released early tomorrow morning! (Thank you, Lord, the wait is nearly over! Yes, it will be posted here asap!); in the meantime, here is a sample (eighteen seconds) of the full-length sample (one to two minutes) we will be treated to tomorrow! What has the Mandarin done? Mandarin has destroyed Stark's "personal world," according to Marvel, and that's a story line many of us can understand and sympathize with. Stark will have to track down Mandarin using only his personal capabilities (again, Bruce Wayne climbing his way out of The Pit). Is it good that the two billionaire super hero story lines are so closely woven together? It depends on who you will be voting for in the next couple of weeks; since Iron Man 3 isn't due out until May, either Mitt Romney will have been in office a few more months, or President Obama will be launching his Obamacare and redistribution of wealth program aimed at people just like Tony Stark, so it will be interesting, to say the least. I have decided that, when Skyfall comes out, I am buying two tickets: one to see the first show, and one to turn around and immediately see the second show... watch, this has "new material" in it: One of many striking aspects of this narrative--in addition to ones all ready discussed and those to be discussed before the film's release--is Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) and his blond hair. Why would that be an issue? Hair symbolizes/reveals our thoughts, (we know, outside of the film, that Mr. Bardem has naturally dark hair, but we can also deduce that within the context of the film) so, with Silva's dark eyes, eyebrows and facial stubble, the bond is an artificial hair color; it's so blond, in fact, it's almost bleached, and that color can mean either he is a man of faith (a man of lofty thoughts and belief in the metaphysical laws of the universe, so to speak) or a man whose thoughts and thinking is dead or of death, and given he is the villain, I will bank on the later. We have also seen him dressed in police uniform (won't that be a fun twist to explore) but, there are those who think I read too much into films (they usually don't stick around long) so here is the clip where Bond meets Q and it is delightful in a dry, British sort of way! Yes, I am delighted that Q interprets the painting of the old ship (read "the ship of state," England itself, which made its fame through its navy and merchant ships) and that they meet within an art museum because Q engages with the art the same as we are meant to engage with the art; does Bond engage with the art? He engages the enemy, by pulling or not pulling the trigger, as he points out, but this is truly a tasty little morsel--at least for me--because you know how I love art and this really boosts my confidence in the film makers that every single aspect of the film has been carefully considered for our most in-depth discussion! I really can't wait,... I can't,... Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
Posted by Unknown
Posted on 1:07 PM
with No comments
My sister had a crisis this week and I have been helping her and now I am sick. I am terribly sorry I haven't been able to get anything new up, but I thought I might draw your attention to some of my favorite posts that perhaps you haven't read! The 1981 hit The Clash Of the Titans is the ultimate film about relationships. The riddle Andromeda asks of Perseus is a riddle every woman asks of every man, and the contents of that riddle is the key to all the strife in our relationships (please see The Medusa Within: Clash Of the Titans).
Washington Irving's tale The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow about a school master and his rival Brom Bones is widely recognized in American literature as being the first genuine tale that represents a purely American art form of narration; besides that, I demonstrate its importance as being a path for two conflicting pathways America could take, represented by Ichabod and Brom and why it was imperative to colonial Americans who the identity of the Headless Horseman really was (and it is not Brom Bones!) Please see The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow and the Battle For America.
It might appear to be an innocent portrait of two sisters, but John Everett Millais' Leisure Hours is a full-scale assault against Victorian society and the future his contemporaries were creating for their children. Please see my favorite painting analysis that I have done so far thus in Leisure Hours and Victorian Consumption. In 1981, the Australian rock group Men At Work came up with this #1 single, Land Down Under: The song is actually an apocalyptic warning to fellow Australians about narcotic addiction and the extravagant lifestyle they were living ("where women glow and men plunder"); please see Australian Apocalypse: Men At Work. I will get back to posting asap! Thank you for your patience! Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
Posted by Unknown
Posted on 6:30 PM
with No comments
Dated Released : 2 December 2011 Quality : BRRip 720p Info : www.imdb.com/title/tt1430607 IMDB Rating : 7.2 (2,661 users) Star : James McAvoy, Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy Genre : Animation | Comedy | Drama ----------------------------------------
By: icinema3satu.com
Download File ---- * Join (gabung) filenya dg hjsplit, caranya baca tutorial di menu panduan
Seiring perkembangan zaman, Santa Claus pun mulai mengubah cara kerjanya. Kalau semula ia hanya mengendarai kereta salju yang ditarik oleh rusa, kini Santa sudah mulai memanfaatkan teknologi canggih untuk menjalankan tugasnya setiap tahun.
Tepat di bawah lapisan es Kutub Utara adalah markas besar Santa Claus. Di sinilah tersembunyi semua teknologi canggih yang digunakan Santa selama ini. Santa tak tinggal sendirian di sana. Ada Grandsanta (Bill Nighy), Mrs. Santa (Imelda Staunton), Steve (Hugh Laurie), dan Arthur (James McAvoy). Tahun ini adalah tahun spesial buat Arthur karena tahun ini ia akan mengemban misi penting yang harus ia kerjakan sebelum fajar menjelang.
Posted by Unknown
Posted on 1:35 PM
with No comments
My understanding is that, while casting still isn't complete, they have started filming some of the battle scenes for the second installment of Thor: The Dark World, and Chris Hemsworth was slightly injured.
I decided to wait and see the box office results for the weekend before posting on Argo (Taken 2 still held onto the top position over this week's new releases with $22.5 million over Argo's $20.1 million, which actually surprised me and speaks volumes about Americans' view on our position in the Middle East; so, I will be getting Argo up today).
A teaser shot of what Tony Stark has been working on for Iron Man 3.
Big news for Marvel fans: both Thor 2: The Dark World (release date November 8, 2013) and Iron Man 3 (release date May 3, 2013) will be released in 3D! Given the effects in The Avengers were done so artfully and, let's be honest, worth the extra money, we can only hope these next two will be as thrilling (the second Captain America: The Winter Soldier appears to be in regular 2D to be released on April 4, 2014 [yes, that's right, 2014]; sorry, Chris Evans' fans!).
Out on DVD and Blu-Ray this week, HOORAY! Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (I can hardly wait to see it again!). This is a solid capitalist film so if you missed it in the theater, try to see it because it is well-done (please see Trapeze Americano: the Capitalist Circus & Madagascar 3). Also out this week is Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom. If you are a fan of The Royal Tennenbaums and The Life Aquatic, you will probably enjoy Anderson's latest film which is a support of socialism, so on the opposite side of Madagascar 3 (please see Moonrise Kingdom & Communications Technology, especially the comments section below the post where I added more commentary). Now for trailers.
Poster for Zero Dark Thirty employing methods of erasure, discussed in Without Baggage: Erasure & Identity In The Cold Light Of Day. Perfect example of how the different sides of the political debates going on in the country employ the same method while conveying radically different messages and how the same ideas are always a part of the current artistic scene, regardless of how similar or dissimilar they may appear to be in subject matter and technique.
Opening December 19 is Kathryn Bigelow's newest (The Hurt Locker); this is the first trailer released months ago, but if you read my post on The Cold Light Of Day, look for the "erasure" and what you think it means! In this trailer, we didn't see any faces, no one we recognize (the opposite of what trailers typically do, they give you the A-List star to tease you into wanting to see the film because you have seen their face). This is the latest trailer for Zero Dark Thirty: One way of understanding the erasure is in terms of the figures in the trailer above cloaked in the black robes, that the traditional dress of the Middle East is itself an "erased identity" intentionally created for political sabotage; but who are we kidding? We know Ms. Bigelow is a liberal, as well as Jessica Chastain and Joel Edgerton, although it is possible that the hunt for Bin Laden and the methods utilized by his "army" of supporters carry a greater political weight in terms of philosophy rather than cultural orientation. Well, we don't have long to wait to find out, it opens December 19. Denzel Washington's Flight opens November 2: I saw my mom one day and she told me she had seen this trailer and she starting getting all upset: "It's obviously about Obama and the economy and how everyone thinks he's the only one that could save us, and the ship being the Bush economy everyone thinks was in such bad shape!" and I was really proud of her for being able to see that! The key to the film will probably be the last five minutes, which has been called "messy" and filled with "platitudes" by mainstream critics in New York, but could make me very happy; the key will be if the pilot on alcohol and cocaine ("drunk on power" and napping in the cock pit) goes to prison, that will be the political cincher there. Here is the second trailer for Gangster Squad, opening January 11, 2013: The most important detail regarding this film is a detail not in the trailer, but which I snooped out: 1949. On the brink of the 1950s and mass consumerism in America post-World War II, Gangster Squad looks to be rooting out all capitalists who consider themselves God and destroy their employees, like the opening seconds of the trailer above. When Nick Nolte's character says "This is enemy occupation," Gangster Squad echoes Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and all the Time Burton films which suggest that America was intended to be a socialist country, but the likes of such rogues as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Smith, and, above all, Alexander Hamilton, turned the country from wholesome and socialist, to corrupt and filthy capitalist. This is just the trailer, and I could be wrong, but we can see Josh Brolin's private squad as a group of "communists" during the 1950s McCarthyism that was trying to uproot capitalism. Permit me to start with the good news. Cloud Atlas undermines a Darwinian universe in support of a chaotic universe (specifically dealing with "patterns" and changes or initial conditions); why is this such a big deal? In a Darwinian universe, there is no possibility of God existing, nature is the author of humanity, not God; in a chaotic universe, there is an understood "equilibrium" or "zero balance" which holds everything together mysteriously (and which means the strongest or best adapted do not always survive; there is actually more archaeological evidence in support of this than in support of Darwin's theories, however modified they have become). Anyway, with films like Men In Black III and The Avengers, the chaos model is better for Christians like myself; now the bad news. Obviously, the film is based on re-incarnation, like we just saw in The Master, which is not good for Christians like myself and, rather like Gangster Squad above, is probably going to suggest that, in one life, America was capitalist, but in our next life, we should be socialists. Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
Posted by Unknown
Posted on 4:43 PM
with No comments
Mr. Affleck's Argo is certainly worthy of praise, for his directing and acting; the pacing of the film and Mr. Affleck's realization of an entire vision. For a story with so many sides and angles, Mr. Affleck not only achieved harmony but that sought-after prize: suspense. It is certainly an excellent story, one which richly honors the courage and risks of our Canadian allies in harboring the six refugee Americans, as well as the faith and creativity of the Americans working to get them out. Similarly, in the opening sequences, he makes it clear that America had it coming. I will go into all this more in my review, however, it is clear that the film makers believe that--while individual Americans are not to blame for Middle Eastern retaliation against us--we as a country are to blame for what has happened and we should pack up our bags and get out. Particular skill was used in communicating this, the very best of cinematic devices, and it was artfully employed. Of course, as always, I will go further into it in my full review. In the meantime,... What does the information within this trailer remind us of? The Academy's Best Picture of the Year, The Artist. The clip of Sir Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock, writing out a check to make the film he believed in, the film that would change the way we would watch movies, the first blockbuster hit--that is capitalism! This film, this statement will be an old-fashioned canon ball right through the enemy lines of those arguing that art is better off under socialism. In and of itself, it might not be a good film, but it will be important. Does that matter? Yes and no. It's rather like the releasing of The Lord Of the Rings, I thought the adaptation was perfectly awful yet it introduced author J.R.R. Tolkien to a new generation of readers and (I guess) blew many of them away with the story, and the same is bound to happen with a new generation unfamiliar with Hitchcock. Hitchcockwill be released in 2013. The second of Quentin Tarantino's trailers for Django Unchained (opening in December) has been released: Essentially, it's the same premise as Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter: the attack on plantation owners is really an attack on any business owner in America (if you employ even one person, even if they are your spouse or child, you have "enslaved" them and you are a KKK member); the problem with this, as I have taken pains to reveal the obvious in so many of these anti-capitalists works, is that THE PLANTATION OWNERS WERE ALL DEMOCRATS, and they were the ones refusing blacks their freedom and the ones wanting to withdraw from the union. Tidy, isn't it, forgetting history? That makes everything so much cleaner,... Reviews will be forthcoming! Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
Posted by Unknown
Posted on 6:56 PM
with No comments
Why was this movie made? Usually, when I disagree with the mainstream critics, it's because I have found a gold mine they have overlooked; Paul Thomas Anderson's two-and-a-half-hour drama The Master has received fabulous reviews; I do understand the praise for the acting, however, it seems everything in the plot is meant as an exercise for the actors, and naught else. What point there is seems to never exceed that everyone has appetites and we can curb them a little, but not extinguish them. Okay,... in other words, The Master seems to be masterful only at contriving situations to rack up Oscar nominations.
The group is at the house of a follower and Dodd starts singing A Roving; during his song, Freddie, a sex addict, imagines all the women naked as Dodd dances around them. I mean, we can say that Freddie sees Dodd as a genuine man, but "sees through" the facade of the women making over him. The problem is, that interpretation is a real stretch because throughout Freddie is so obsessed with sex that it's just a pit stop in his mind for the audience to see how sexually focused Freddie is in every situation; there was little artistry in this film but a lot of ego.
When Freddie (Joaquin Phoenix) first meets Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Freddie has awakened from a drunken stupor and is taken in to meet Dodd who wears red pajamas (pictured below); Dodd informs Freddie that Freddie had been drinking all night then reveals that Dodd sampled the alcohol in Freddie's flask and drank the whole thing, then wants to know if Freddie can make more. Red is a strong color, and for a character to be wearing that when we first meet them and it means one of two things: either they are strong in their ability to love and they will love to death (red is the color of blood which is shed for the one we love) or they are a person of the appetites (love is the opposite of the appetites because love is given yet the appetites take). Since he emptied a flask of strong alcohol, we can assume Dodd is a man of the appetites and he doesn't disappoint us.
Dodd loves the drinks Freddie mixes, and drinks them up the way Freddie drinks up the questions Dodd asks him, especially about Freddie having sex with his Aunt Bertha. We see Freddie mixing the drinks and at least one time he includes paint thinner in the brew; why? It's a commentary on what drinking does to us all, it thins down the paint of the facade/mask we wear in society and reveals what is really there. I can go to a bar to find that out, thank you.
But this is the only real conflict of the narrative: even as Dodd's writing condemns the appetites, and he focuses his energy and "wisdom" on trying to save Freddie from Freddie's boozing and lust, Dodd gives into his own appetites. Each member of the Dodd family wants to ex-communicate Freddie from their midst because he brings out the worst in each of them, specifically, the lust and greed each thinks they are above: Lancaster Dodd, on the other hand, wants to keep Freddie because he thinks he can cure him (which is Dodd's ego appetite). By the end of the film, when Freddie engages in casual sex with an English girl, and repeats like a stumbling parrot questions Dodd asked of him, it appears that his time with "The Master" has changed him, but not significantly so. And that's about it.
Am I being too hard? No. There is such a notion as Art For Art's Sake which posits that art is not bound to serve any purpose, it exists merely for the sake of being beautiful, bound in no way to serve politics, religion or any agenda but beauty (Edgar Allan Poe and Oscar Wilde strongly believed in this). I can adhere to this ideal completely, but it begs the question, "What is beauty?" and "How does one communicate beauty?" which beings us to the question of the role of the artist and issues of "quality." (I'm really sticking my foot in it today, aren't I?).
This brings us to another question: is it morally acceptable for a film maker to make a film based on their bet they can get an Oscar for it? On par with that could be a politician who changes or adopts a certain platform to get votes from a particular segment of society so they can hold office.
This is a worthwhile discussion because there are times when we don't like certain films, various songs or other works of art, like painting and poetry, and it's just as important and personally fulfilling to be capable of articulating why you don't like something as why you do like it. An artist has a duty and a responsibility, regardless of their medium, to communicate with their audience. They have the exemplary calling in life to hold up a mirror to society and attempt to show us what we need to see but can't or won't; during the 2.5 hours I was watching The Master, I never felt Anderson acknowledged me as his audience, I never felt the actors considered me their audience, but were, rather, performing for other actors. In other words, I felt the whole film was phony, just like Freddie finally figures out that "The Master" is phony.
This is the best shot I can find of it, but Freddie has a tendency, throughout the whole film, to keep his hands placed on his hips. In terms of body language, it's meant to accentuate the penis and his male dominance over others in the situations in which he finds himself (it might also be a subliminal message that he is thinking of his sexual needs more than the situation he's in, which was antithetical to "The Cause" of the group) but Freddie can't dominate anyone, rather, everyone dominates him (which may be why he resorts to violence so often. Freddie also has incredibly small, hunched shoulders, revealing that he is unable to carry the basic burdens of life (everything "weighs down" on him). Freddie always talking out of the side of his mouth indicates that his appetites are crooked (the mouth is the primary location for the appetites).
Even if The Master is an exercise in Art For Art's Sake, it has failed to deliver anything of beauty or knowledge. Again, the characters seem more like hook lines for accolades than characters (Mrs. Dodd jerking her husband, Freddie making it with a sand woman on the beach, then jerking off or Elizabeth fondling his leg or a room of naked women... what am I supposed to say? Isn't that edgy? Wasn't that daring? Fearless performance! I won't say any of that about contrived circumstances for someone to show-off what they think is acting with no regard for their real audience). There is a tension in the narrative that is always there but just haunts instead of propelling events; if Anderson's point is so subtle that we can't discern it, he has failed to communicate with his audience. Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
Posted by Unknown
Posted on 8:09 PM
with No comments
Why do this now? Besides my love of fabulous films, as 2010's Best Picture of the Year, The Hurt Locker is not only in the mind of a film maker like Ben Affleck, releasing his Argo Friday, but as well, in the minds of viewers during films such as Expendables 2, Taken 2 and potentially Skyfall; because The Hurt Locker is by far the most complete statement of the War on Terror, and what it has done to us as a country, and the brave soldiers fighting, we can't help but somehow mentally reference the film that visually gave us the the metaphor of the Middle East as a bomb, and the costs of disarming it. Whether we realize it or not, The Hurt Locker provided us with an education regarding the war we are fighting, who we are fighting, and how they are fighting us back, and--most of all--when we see real-life images of anti-American protests in the Middle East, we seek solace in knowledge, specifically that knowledge of the war which has come to us through this film.
With the opening quote, "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug," the second half of the quote, "for war is a drug," is broken away and left lingering as its own statement on the screen for viewers' meditation (War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, 2002, Chris Hedges). Does this automatically make The Hurt Locker an anti-war film? No. There are too many elements of undecidability to make a definite statement, which means, more than most films, The Hurt Locker aptly mirrors what the audience all ready believes about war and solidifies, rather than converts, the viewers' perception about what war is (whether it's a drug or not).
It does several things well, and one of those things is inversion: whereas the big star usually survives the film and takes the lead as the hero, both "big stars" of the film, Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce, have only one scene and die in that scene, shifting the binary scales to the "unknown actors" and giving them the stage. It is possible, as numerous other interpretations of the film, that one can see that as a statement of international politics, i.e., the big players, such as the US and Great Britain, are going to have "regulated roles" in the future of global politics, while leaders heretofore unknown will take the center stage and save the day. Again, another liberal, anti-American way to view the opening scene with Staff Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce) is that the American Army sends out a wagon with disarming explosives and the wheel falls off, suggesting that the entire Army is a "flat tire." If you are a liberal, that is something you would pick up on as a reason for being against the war, you despise the military and the broken wagon symbolizes the "broken vehicle" of war and American power; on the other hand, if you are like me, and believe in the honor and dignity of our soldiers, and the incalculable sacrifices they (and their families) make for the safety of the country and the world, you might see a brave soldier going to do his duty regardless of the risk involved to protect innocent people in the path of the explosion because he is man enough to do it.
When we first meet William James (Jeremy Renner) he plays loud rock music and even though the musical genres are different, it reminded me of Lt. Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall) playing Ride Of the Valkyries after a napalm strike in Apocalypse Now. This, along with Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) calling James "red-neck trailer trash," can be taken as a visual image on Teddy Roosevelt era foreign policy and America becoming a super-power on the world stage. The argument is, the American military is only as good as its soldiers, and liberals can easily see James being their poster child for doing away with the military, while conservatives, such as myself, can site the expertise in James' fulfilling his duty fearlessly and his relationship with little Beckham as typical of military personnel and why they, as individuals and representatives of America, make such an important difference wherever they are called to serve.
As usual, a mature female symbolizes the motherland, America, and James' complex relationship with his wife/ex-wife reflects Bigelow's view of the military and the homeland it protects. Her coldness and indifference to his experiences in war can be taken as an example of how we should act towards the mission of the War on Terror, but it can be a chilling lesson of what not to do and how not to act. Why does James seem to say he loves disarming bombs more than his wife/ex-wife and son? Well, if you were in a "relationship" with her, would you be fulfilled? There is really no other way to describe it but her "interior poverty" of love and nurturing lacking to aid James' healing from his war wounds perpetuating his emotional and psychological damage, so, for the sake of his sanity, it's easier to be in a war that is exterior to you, than to be stuck in a war inside you from which you can't escape. Its not that James doesn't love her and his son, but the "home front" is a losing battle for him and to survive, he needs to be able to have a shot at overcoming his battles.
While we experience intense and thrilling sequences of James disarming bombs and "saving the day," it's the bombs he can't disarm that liberals see as indicative of flaws embedded within American foreign policy: for example, when Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) gets shot in the leg and has to go "to the hurt locker," (off duty due to injury), Eldridge "explodes" at James for his reckless need for an adrenaline rush which liberals would certainly seize upon as using war as a drug which brings only harm and damage to all. On the other hand, we can see Eldridge as a soldier psychologically troubled by the demands of combat and his "explosion" at James is really the anger and guilt transference within himself onto a scapegoat.
The other bomb James can't disarm is the vest of the forced suicide bomber: "There are too many bombs, there are too many wires!" Given the man has four children, we can look at him symbolically as being an elder or "founding father" of the country who has been forced into this role of suicide bomber with re-enforced steel locking him into the vest, and that vest symbolizes the bombs waiting to go off throughout the Middle East they themselves are responsible for (including religious powder kegs). Seeing this imagery, understanding this Gordian Knot, do we leave the powder kegs unattended, as liberals would have it, or do we make the best attempts we can at disarming it? Because of your politics and your morals, you all ready have your opinion formulated when you watch this scene, but the scene "arms you" with the reasons you believe what you believe.
The box of things that almost killed him could be a sign of why James went into bomb disarmament: everything else in his life was exploding (like his relationship with his girlfriend/wife/ex-wife) so he transfers the emotional and psychological bombs in his life to the real bombs he learned how to disarm because that provides a sense of control on the battlefield he doesn't have in his inter-personal relationships.
What is most likable about James (besides his incredible confidence level when it comes to disarming the bombs) is his interactions with the young boy who wants to be called Beckham. This creates an interesting situation because, whether or not he actually wants to grow up to be a professional soccer player, he has identified himself with that role, creating a dual identity for himself so that, when James mis-identifies the dead boy with the body bomb as Beckham, it reveals James' own inner-psychology and what he thinks of the situation in the War. The boy with the body bomb doesn't look anything like Beckham, but just as Eldridge does some psychological transference later in the film, James does it now: he mistakens the boy with the body bomb for Beckham because he sees Beckham "exploding" as he gets older. Whether it's some personal defect in the boy, or the situation the boy is in where he is growing up is not clear but it doesn't have to be. It could also be James' fatalism that, since he has bonded with the boy and his personal relationships haven't worked out, Beckham--like everyone else in his life--is going to "explode" on him and that is why James actually explodes on Beckham later to pre-empt "losing" Beckham's friendship twice (the first time being with the young boy with the body bomb).
Technically, "the hurt locker" is a term used to describe when someone has been put on the injured list and is out of active duty; we could easily identify all kinds of "hurt lockers" in the film. We know Eldridge is, technically, but is Sanborn, as we see him in his pain after Thompson's death? How often do we see James experiencing pain in the film? Is the whole country of Afghanistan in "the hurt locker?" What about all of America? Locating the hurt locker(s) in the film, and who belongs there or who has ended up there, and what was the cause?
Another important point about Beckham is the relationship to personal fulfillment and the realization of the American Dream for everyone. David Beckham typifies a person who has skill and talent, works hard and achieves--not only success--but also the personal enjoyment of doing what one does best. This is another way in which Beckham is a dual personality since he works harder at selling cheap, pirated DVDs instead of playing soccer. The Hurt Locker seems to offer the viewer a choice: either we can see Beckham as a future filled with potential and promise, or he's going to rip us off.
More revealing than possibly any other moment of the film is when James goes on his solo mission to find out what happened to Beckham (after mis-identifying him) and ends up at the house of Dr. Nabil; when James returns to base, he tells a soldier he was at a whore house. Does James lie about where , was? No, I don't think so. Psychologically, when Dr. Nabil realizes he is there, Nabil is kind and welcoming then his wife comes out and starts getting hysterical; in terms of policy, we can see this as being an accurate depiction of how some countries in the Middle East seem to be welcoming us one minute, and then getting wild and protesting the next. The question is, how exactly does James see the country prostituting itself? By pretending to like us when it really wants us to get out, or by really wanting us there to help maintain order but it prostitutes itself to hysteria and irrationality?
This is a bit of a stretch, however, I think it is something to consider: the bomb suits Thompson and James wear, and how they move in them, resembles--to me--the Apollo astronauts moon suits when they first landed on the lunar surface, winning the Cold War era's Space Race. Is this a legitimate interpretation? Given technological dominance propelling America ahead of other countries during that historical period, and the global leadership position we have taken because of technological superiority in innovation, yes, we can say that we have a duty--as international leaders--to "diffuse the bombs" of regional instability the best we can for the safety of the world. Liberals, on the other hand, can scoff and claim that we are no longer that country and, even if we were, we would have no right making such an ethnocentric boast and "assume" we are best to lead the world; what egomaniacs, they would think.
In conclusion, we can't conclude: the film challenges us on every level, and while I have only scratched the surface, I hope it will help you in your engagement with the film and foreign policy. Currently, President Obama has accused Romney of wanting a "chest-pounding" and "sabre rattling" foreign policy in relation to the attacks on the US Consulate in Libya. Since James can stand-in for that kind of American machismo, The Hurt Locker could be a timely lesson for all of us regarding the direction we think foreign policy should take and why. War can be a drug, but war can also be medicinal and teach us what we have done in the past and why we have done what we have done and make us into better Americans and better people. Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
