|
I don't know why I'm constantly defending the writer/producer of The Hurt Locker lately, but seein' as I might know a bit more (oooh, because I'm privy to the DVD commentary), I think he just meant that it was a totally independent, non-studio film. They weren't beholden to anyone, and it's great that they got to make an Oscar-calibur movie outside the studio system. That doesn't happen much. I'm not sure if he came off too cocky during his speech.
Heheh, his film surely did not restrain from campaigning. In fact, the overzealous campaigning by a producer who was subsequently dis-invited from attending the Oscars may have gone too far astray from even Oscar-campaigning ethics. But, as they say, no publicity is bad publicity. And the envelope-pushing stunt apparently did not harm their chances.
There's been a lot of complaints from the military about the film, ranging from such stupidities as they were wearing the wrong uniforms to claims no one ever acted as wild cowboy as Renner's character did in the film. On the other hand, one such soldier is actually suing the production with claims the character was based entirely on him. Pfft, can't be both ways.
In any event, the writer was there - embedded with the military, and based events on things he witnessed. The character is an amalgam of different soldiers in the confusing first days of confronting an unexpectedly overwhelming number of IEDs in Iraq, and then - yes, fictionalized on top of that to have gone a bit beyond what military-types might find plausible.
I don't think The Hurt Locker is the best movie ever made, or even the best of the year. But it was better than Avatar, so if that was the choice - I think the better film won (though, imo, two of the other 8 noms were clearly head and shoulders better than either one of those front runners. So, if you haven't yet - see both Inglorious Basterds and A Serious Man.)
|