The hurt locker (2009)

In sleazy newspaper articles, journalists always say the same things about Kathryn Bigelow. That she is not a typical female director, that she is "one of the boys". These journalists seem to think that a typical female director makes movies about romance & shopping. Naturally, Bigelow and The hurt locker are everywhere right now. But it's actually a good, intense film that in no way gives praise to "our boys" or "our war". It's a film the politics of which remain ambiguous. There are some stereotypes and some mannerisms in the dialogue have a paper doll ring but that didn't bother me too much. The film follows three soldiers who defuse and sometimes detonate home-made bombs, IED:s. It's a film in which the differences between the characters are nicely played out. In almost all scenes, we get several pictures of what it means to be a "professional", a soldier, a man. It turns out that war means different things to these three main characters. It's perhaps an unusual film in that danger is not an excuse for action, but rather a topic that is explored most of all through the ways the characters react to situations.
What struck me was that this is a film that doesn't really have a "narrative". The New York Times calls it "a series of set pieces". It's more a meditation on boredom, excitation and addiction than an attempt to build a story. And, mind you, it is not "a film about war". It's more specific than that.
What was a happy surprise for me was how The hurt locker goes beyond the orchestrated elegance of conventional war movies. The soundtrack sometimes consists of almost jarring sounds, the camera is sometimes hand-held and the pictures at times grainy. These are all effects that work.
It's not the worst film to win an Oscar.
Maybe I should watch ... Point break.