Movie Doubles - 'The Hurt Locker' & 'Revolutionary Road'

Too Much Of A Good Thing

I touched upon the theme of the formation of the family as an enduring American theme in movies when I wrote about 'Up in the Air' and 'Couples Retreat'. Sometimes a film comes along and dissects such themes and garners critical acclaim, like 'American Beauty'. Thus it is kind of interesting to see 'The Hurt Locker' walk away with Best Director and Best Picture at the Oscars this year with a film that is decidedly about a guy who can't do the family thing. At the same time I picked up 'Revolutionary Road' by Sam Mendes which is also a film about people who end up destroying their own family much like 'American Beauty' but much nastier.

Why do the families fail in these films, and how do such films garner so much critical acclaim? It seemed like worth looking at them in a tandem to pick out some things.

The Myth Of Talent

The more central myth in American cinema over the family may actually be the myth of talent. What both of these films do is to try and place the issues of talent at conflict with the issues of family and proceed to affirm talent. 'The Hurt Locker' is a 2hour long journey into the world of a war zone bomb squad. The long and short of it is that the main character Sergeant Will James is not only good at his job, he's addicted to the rush of doing his job. It seems unlikely, but it is his sheer talent that allows him to diffuse bomb after bomb. At the end of his tour, he goes home to his family, only to choose going out to the field of battle once again. The film is celebrating the unlikely talents of an unlikely man in an extreme situation.

In turn, 'Revolutionary Road' is about a couple, ostensibly in search of talent. Kate Winslet's April wanted to be an actress but failed. Leo DiCaprio's Frank can't figure out what his talent is, until he actually stumbles upon his gift in the language of advertising copy. The film turns on April's strong desire for Frank to discover his true calling, but their situation devolves into a very nasty domestic situation of betrayal and resentment. It makes for torturous viewing.

When you think about it, 'talent' might be single-most praised commodity in American cinema. Pick a film - any film - and the point of the main character would be that they had talent. Not faith or pedigree or education or context or god forbid luck, but talent. From Luke Skywalker down to the cheesiest action hero played by Steven Seagal, the film narrative is predicated upon the idea that the main character is in fact in possession of talent. You'd be surprised at how few stories would or could function without it.

The point about talent in a film like 'The Hurt Locker' is that it goes to affirm the film maker the most. Because the talent that is on display in the film is in fact the silent cipher for the film making community - and the film making community likes to think of itself as being talented in one way shape or form. That it is talent that separates it from all the people with boring office jobs with boring family lives with their boring domestic arguments and boring divorce tragedies - and oh look, we can turn that into a movie... You can see how it might go.

As such, what makes 'Revolutionary Road' so interesting is that it shoves Frank's talent to the back of the concern and dwells on April's deep concern over her lack of talent. The deep concern overwhelms the family and leads to her death. In other words, 'Revolutionary Road' isn't about people without talent, it's actually a tragedy about not having talent. In that sense, it negatively reinforces the predominant discourse about talent in American cinema.

The tragedy it seems might apply to all of us in the real world, so it's hardly a comfort.

Conceit As Charm

I don't know if it is fair to single out these two films in particular to talk about this, but seeing that we've touched upon talent as a theme and issue, it seems pertinent to talk about conceit. Both films present characters that function in relation to talent in a way that can only be described as conceit. Will James is reckless and a loose cannon because he knows he is good and his value as a bomb tech makes him so valuable that he can break a few rules and get away with it. The film celebrates Will James as a rugged individualist hero in a hot combat zone, but in some ways it's a celebration of smug conceit.

Both Frank and April in 'Revolutionary Road' are equally difficult because Frank has the conceit of the talented person without knowing what it might be or care to find out, while April has the conceit of the talented and not the talent to back it up. The truly beautiful moment that unites them in the film is when they decide to embark on a move to Paris and they break the news to people around them an watch the devastating effect their words have. It's fun to share in their conspiratorial moment of their joint conceit. It's a tragedy because they never find a way to back up their words.

What makes 'Revolutionary Road' a cut above the average movie then, is how it introduces the character of John, the insane son of the local realty lady who seems so socially inept he cannot hold back describing things the way he sees it. I guess John has the tragic talent for saying the truth. Frank and April's marriage breaks down essentially because John has the ability to read Frank's change in position and thus John's inevitable ensuing castigation. If anything, John is the most savable character in a movie filled with damnation.

Both films do make one consider the deeper ramifications of conceit  because it seems both the films are arguing that it is conceit that makes people charming, but the conceit has to be backed up by talent.

As a side note, one of the most awful thing about meeting your heroes that are famous people is the pungent conceit they have of you having bothered to go see them; to have consumed their work; and have paid for their house; then they complain about having to face the public as famous people. It's a special kind of awfulness, all of its own, because it's the kind of conceit you wouldn't take from your friends or mates or fellow humans dating back to the school yard. but nobody makes a film about that.

Is This All There Is In Cinema?

Both of these films were highly acclaimed. They're both real drags to watch. I can think of any number of cheerful films I'd rather be watching on any given Saturday. Both films present ordinary life as some kind of evil to be avoided when in fact that is exactly where most of us live; and they offer no particular solutions. They're not interested in engaging us with their theme, they're interested in insulting our intelligences or trying to make us squirm in our ordinary existence. The dripping condescention in both films is a bit much.

It's curious that such films get such high praise from critics. but we'll leave that aside for a moment. What these films tell us about the world we live in is actually much less, and much smaller than we feel when we watch them.

As critically acclaimed films go, they're quite disappointing precisely because they still play with the same old themes that seem to win over the critics. If you're going to denounce the consumerist world, don't you kind of have to go towards 'Fight Club' and denounce everything including talent and conceit? But you didn't see them heaping Oscars and praise on that movie.

War In American Cinema

While 'The Hurt Locker' is overtly about war, 'Revolutionary Road' also touches upon war when on several occasions when Frank talks about the war, and recounts it as the time in his life when he felt most alive. Indeed this sentiment is also the backbone of 'The Hurt Locker' so it seems pertinent to ask what the hell war is to America, at least in its cinema.

Neither film posits any kind of theory of war. They're not there for ideology or a cause. It seems war prevails upon the American citizen and they're obliged to go, only to find out it's actually liberating and fun. I don't know about you but I actually find this a little more than rah-rah bullshit and not particularly insightful.

'The Hurt Locker' is particularly bad because the film isn't terribly anti-war. If anything it's firmly in the corner of condoning war, with perhaps the most surprising thing about is that it's coming from a woman director who presumably hasn't gone to war. The only tragic tone in the film is when American soldiers are killed or hurt. It's not even tragic when the allied British guys get killed - just an obstacle and challenge to be surmounted. As fot the Iraqis who die by the dozens, the film just isn't interested in that. It's a far cry from the First Earth Battalion of  trying to win the hearts and minds of the people.

The bit where wild goats roam the Iraqi streets immediately brought to mind 'The Men Who Stare A Goats'. 'The Hurt Locker' is nowhere near as good. Where 'The Men Who Stare At Goats' ventures to ask questions about war and how we fight them, 'The Hurt Locker' never rises to ask a single existential question about the war itself. The silence on the issue is most telling.

The war - World War II - as it figures in 'Revolutionary Road' is even worse. If ever there was a war that America could lay claim to legitimacy,World War II must have been it, except Frank's experience of it is to relate a contemptible little anecdote about how the First division sang Happy Birthday to him as they marched through Belgium. And it's an anecdote he repeats telling to his neighbors. No accounts of combat. It's as if the Germans just rolled over and died for Frank, and in turn it is as if World War II wasn't even a minor tragedy next to the tragedy of not having talent.

What may be more telling is that World War II is box office death. Perhaps it is because there have been so many more wars since; and as Quentin Tarrantino showed with 'Inglorious Basterds', war depictions in cinema itself is laughably stupid.

I'm not saying all this because I'm a knee-jerk anti-war kind of guy. I'm saying that the rush to praise these films is a little short-sighted. These films are not anywhere near as good as critically acclaimed when it comes to discussing why we fight wars.