Tomorrow is the last day for Academy members to vote on this year's Oscars, and it's interesting to note that both The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times published stories this final weekend attacking the movie as inaccurately portraying the experience of combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Until now, The Hurt Locker has been notable for the near-absence of any political controversy, particularly strange for a movie about a war that is still going on. The film is not explicitly anti-war, nor does it take an overt position on George Bush's move into Iraq.
Is it a coincidence that two papers on opposite coasts mount such similar stories just days before votes are due in an Oscar race in which The Hurt Locker has emerged as a favorite?
Until now, The Hurt Locker has been notable for the near-absence of any political controversy, particularly strange for a movie about a war that is still going on. The film is not explicitly anti-war, nor does it take an overt position on George Bush's move into Iraq.
Is it a coincidence that two papers on opposite coasts mount such similar stories just days before votes are due in an Oscar race in which The Hurt Locker has emerged as a favorite?
What do you think? Is the movie pro- or anti-war, pro- or anti-military?
Posts
Seems like pretty weak criticism to me. I'm sure "Fried Green Tomatoes" had some historical inaccuracies, too, but no one held it responsible for defining a certain place and time. I agree with the guy who said this movie is really about a man addicted to war.
ReplyDelete