MovieChat Forums > The Hurt Locker (2009) Discussion > From the point of view of a former soldi...

From the point of view of a former soldier

posted 14 years ago by FrenchCelt
104 replies | jump to latest

This movie bothered me for one reason and one reason alone: the filmmakers apparently did no research into the protocol of rank (or just didn't care).

1) James was a sergeant first class (despite the end credits listing him as a staff sergeant--he wore the rank insignia of an SFC: three up and two down). There is no way in hell a sergeant (E5) would call a sergeant first class (E7) by last name. He would always address him as Sergeant James. And a specialist (E4) like Eldridge wouldn't dare call James by first or last name. It's simply not done. That gets you dropped for push-ups. A sergeant first class is a senior NCO. There is a fundamental difference between junior and senior NCOs. Which leads me to my second point...

2) No way Sanborn would berate James the way he did, and forget about punching him in the face. That would have resulted in an Article 15, at the very least, and possibly a court martial and time in the stockade. Sanborn could have been demoted down to E4 as a result of that. I've seen demotions for less cause than assaulting a senior NCO.

3) An SFC would not have been intimidated by a colonel the way James was when Colonel Reed talked to him. E7s and O6s often have about the same number of years in the service. My father was an E7 and, other than saluting and calling them sir or ma'am, he did not act especially deferential to them.

4) On the other hand, a specialist would not be so buddy buddy with a lieutenant colonel the way Eldridge was with Cambridge. He would have been "Sir, yes sir," all the way. When I was a specialist I would never have dared talk to an LTC the way Eldridge did. The LTC might not have minded, if he wasn't a command officer, but any NCO that overheard me doing that would have chewed my ear off and probably dropped me for push-ups.

If I didn't have such an extensive military background, maybe I would have liked this movie more. But I can't shut off that part of me. From the point of view of someone who knows the Army through and through, this aspect of the movie kept ruining my willing suspension of disbelief.

I think the writer shouldn't have made James anything higher than a buck sergeant, E5, and Sanborn should have been a corporal (E4, but the NCO version), and Eldridge a private first class (E3). Then more of this behavior would have tracked a little more accurately. Still would be inaccurate for other reasons, but at least then the protocol wouldn't have been so FUBAR. I know there will always be inaccuracies, although some reasons are more legitimate than others, and I don't mind small ones that don't really hurt the important elements of a story, like plot and character development, but the plot and character development hinged so much on these characters behaving in completely unacceptable ways for real soldiers, in terms of relating to each other when there is this kind of rank disparity going on.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FrenchCelt 14 years ago

Yes, all of that bothered me somewhat, but I also understood cinematically why things like that were put into the movie (I write narrative fiction and want to try my hand at screenplays, and one thing I've had to learn is that sometimes too much realism actually hurts flow and makes things boring).

1) Of course in real life, there is no way James and Sanborn would have been laying there in the open in what was essentially a sniper duel against an enemy that had already shown enough skill to kill three others, including the guy using that very same rifle in that exact same position moments earlier. They wouldn't have let the British contractor man their .50 cal while they hightailed it for cover in that ditch. If my unit had faced that situation, we would have jumped back into the HMMWV and kept moving in a zig-zag in order to make it really hard for the sniper to draw a bead on us. We would also have called for support and gotten the hell out of there while firing the .50 cal to force the sniper to stay behind cover.

2) James would have been reported to the base CO for that, in reality. The guy who let him in wouldn't have had the authority to look the other way. The MPs would have taken him into custody the moment they identified him.

3) I've never seen real EOD guys at work, but I've talked to a few before, and from what they told me, what the movie depicted wasn't that accurate. The cowboy antics we see from James wouldn't fly, for sure, and they don't operate in three-man teams like that, on their own. As for how they operate in Iraq, yes, there is always the danger of civilians being a little too close for comfort. The Army can't just clear everyone out of the vicinity, although they can clear out a perimeter.

These things are understandable in order to maintain pacing, dramatic tension, and so forth. It's hard to keep up a certain narrative flow when you halt everything in order to show proper procedure and discover how much of military action is "hurry up and wait."

[–] jackfrusciante80 14 years ago

Guys, and OP, thanks for your service,

I was in the Navy so I do not know a lot about EOD, but I know about rank and ROE and all of that good stuff.

This is where I lost respect for the movie: The writer was embedded with a bomb deactivating unit in Iraq, a war zone. Just follow them around, there is your conflict. You do not need to create "artificial" conflict with Beckham or going jackie chan like someone says. If he had paid any attention and tried a bit harder, he would have been able to write a story that is very suspenseful, like the beggining of the movie was, without inventing it.

Look at generation kill for example, there is enough conflict in a car full of marines driving in a war zone in unprotected humvees, you do not need to create it yourself. You just have to be creative and try a bit harder.

And on top of that, Hollywood thinks he got the war story right, and award him for being mediocre...that's the problem with the movie.

[–] MrBook_ 13 years ago

This is where I lost respect for the movie: The writer was embedded with a bomb deactivating unit in Iraq, a war zone. Just follow them around, there is your conflict. You do not need to create "artificial" conflict with Beckham or going jackie chan like someone says. If he had paid any attention and tried a bit harder, he would have been able to write a story that is very suspenseful, like the beggining of the movie was, without inventing it.

YES. That's exactly what I was thinking watching the movie. In the early scenes I actually thought that's what it was going to be, a realistic portrayal of fighting in Iraq, but before too long it became sadly obvious that they were going to wedge some conventional storyline onto it. It's all the more insulting that they broke with realism by basically just inserting a bunch of Hollywood cliches. He's a loose cannon who doesn't play by the rules! His partner's a grouchy black guy who plays by the book! Should he cut the red wire or the blue wire! Etc.

I had similar problems with Saving Private Ryan. Look, Steve, you're already dealing with possibly the greatest story ever, the Second World War. You don't need to add some high concept storyline. If the whole movie had been like the opening Omaha Beach scene, it would have been the best war movie ever made (although it also probably would have been almost impossible to watch). It's a similar situation with this movie. It could have been the definitive statement for all time about the Iraq war, and instead it's just a dumb action movie, albeit with a few real thoughts about war in it. The idea of a guy who becomes institutionalized to war and ends up abandoning his wife and baby to go back into it could have been much more insightful, if they hadn't made him a maverick bomb-disposal guy who's ADDICTED TO ADRENALINE!!! I consider this movie a wasted opportunity.

I'll bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

[–] bigBang8 11 years ago

They did call for support, it just never came. How'd you get into the humvee if the sniper is skilled enough to shoot one of u before u get into it. Easy to talk about it when you've seen it, another thing when you're right there with the sun cooking your brains.
The increase in human knowledge is the cause of the decline of religions.

[–] Skullomania 14 years ago

Hi FrenchCelt, never been in the army myself, the face punch bit set Hollywood alarm bells off for me. But can I ask? The way the wrench guy got snipered, does it happen like that? people go down before you hear the gunshot? The subsequent scenes it didn't look that far, so bullets travel faster than sound?

Http/1.1 Service Unavailable

[–] FrenchCelt 14 years ago

Yes, bullets move faster than sound (that loud pop sound you hear when firing a weapon is a sonic boom), and if the shot is fired from far enough away, the bullet will arrive well before the sound. I worked with snipers before and did a training exercise with them involving MILES gear (kind of like laser tag using our real rifles with a laser transmitter attached and firing blanks). My MILES sensor went off, indicating I'd been killed, and then a few seconds later I heard the rifle shot from the sniper over 1,000 meters away. And in the movie, the sniper was actually pretty far away. They needed scopes and a spotter to spot each other and adjust their shots. I'd estimate they were close to a kilometer apart.

[–] airjoemcalaska 13 years ago

Wouldn't that be different than shooting an actual bullet, since the laser from the MILES gear travels at the speed of light?

[–] FrenchCelt 13 years ago

Yeah, it exaggerates the difference, but not that much. The laser would arrive instantly and a real bullet would lag by a few seconds depending on how far away the shot was fired, but for training purposes it's considered negligible.

[–] crockett_john 12 years ago

It's a huge difference and not the same at all. The beam it fires is traveling at the speed of light, not the speed of a bullet.

As for your MILES gear going off and then hearing the shot, the reason for that is simple: someone cheated. You can easily make the MILES gear fire the beam without pulling the trigger. On exercises, there's always a cheater or group of cheaters who do this by pressing your finger over the little bladder that senses the change in movement. The cheaters only start firing blanks when their prey starts to get wise or they think one of the referees is going to discover them. I've been sitting somewhere when one guy's gear goes off. A few seconds later, another guy's gear goes off, followed by another and another. About the time someone realizes what's going on, that's when they start pulling the trigger, after several people are already "dead."

[–] FrenchCelt 11 years ago

I should have responded to this a while ago...but no, the sniper didn't cheat. He had an observer on him the whole time. I helped set up that training exercise with my battalion's training NCO. The sniper's observer confirmed a good kill with the observer for my group (we were doing a POW rescue op training exercise and I was the prisoner). And yes, I know how that cheating method works. I saw my buddies do it all the time.

Anyway, the difference between the speed of light and the speed of a bullet remains negligible at short distances (1000m or less) relative to the speed of sound (I should have clarified that this distinction was the relevant point in my earlier post). They're both going much faster than sound, and that's all that matters in terms of hearing the shot after the bullet arrives. A sniper bullet fired from 1000m away will arrive in a little over one second. The sound from that shot will arrive a couple seconds later. The MILES laser would travel 1000m in picoseconds and the sound from firing the blank round would arrive maybe three seconds later. You're telling me that such a difference isn't negligible for training purposes?

What I found silly was using MILES on the TOW II antiarmor missile system. Firing a laser at a target 5000m away, which basically arrived near-instantly, compared to firing an actual missile that would take nearly 10 seconds to travel that distance, was a joke. For training purposes, that difference was HUGE. A lot can change in that amount of time. Also, the lack of a real backblast (the "blanks" we used simulated a backblast's heat exhaust, but not the intense shaking you get from a real missile launch) was a terrible training tool. At least firing blank rounds on the M16A2 did a decent job of simulating live ammo...still not perfect, but a better training tool.

[–] dudi-10 11 years ago

The speed of sound is 343.2 m/s
meaning that if you would shoot from 1 km distance, the sound would reach your ear in about 3 seconds
that's a pretty big delay, saying that anything under 1 km is negligible is just wrong
there is still a 1 second delay at 343.2 meters

________________________
| Musa sapientum fixa sum |
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[–] FrenchCelt 11 years ago

I don't think you understood my point.

In a training scenario, in which a sniper takes a shot from 1 km away, whether you use the laser from the MILES gear or actually shoot a bullet, you won't be able to tell the difference in terms of cause and effect at such a short distance.

If you shoot a real bullet from 1 km. out, the bullet will hit the target in about 1 second, because a bullet is supersonic, and the sound from the shot will arrive at the target in about 3 seconds or so. As far as the target is concerned, he got shot and then two seconds later heard the shot from off in the distance.

If you shoot a laser as the target's sensor from 1 km. out, the sensor will beep essentially instantly from the moment the rifle fired the blank, and then 3 seconds later, the sound from the blank being fired will arrive at the target. As far as the target is concerned, his sensor beeped and three seconds later heard the shot from off in the distance.

From a training perspective, that one second differential is negligible. In other words, you would train exactly the same way as you would for MILES as you would for actual combat.

Make sense?

[–] phoenix_risen 14 years ago

Being another former soldier, I offer the following counterpoints:

1) You've obviously never been in a small unit. You're correct about protocol, which is all fine and dandy back in garrison or around a staff, but it gets overlooked the smaller or more elite the team gets. Personal experience in the matter. I also saw in different MOS. When I was a private and doing a FTX in Germany, our CO talked to some SF guys that were also out there. The Captain in charge, when he spoke to us, had trouble remembering the last names of his guys. He introduced his team as "1LT....Mike, and this is SFC...uh...John..."

2) The first point aside, we need to look at the inner motivations of the characters. James knew what he was doing, but got caught up in the moment while they were outside the wire. He was in the wrong, so maybe he felt like he deserved it. He knew Sanborn would have his back out on mission and needed to vent, so maybe he just decided to take it and defuse the situation. Let's not forget that Sanborn called him out on it at the appropriate time (after the mission) and in the appropriate place (on base, in private). Unless things have changed in the last few years, Army leadership focuses on handling incidents at the lowest possible level and out of sight of asshats that have creases in their uniforms in a deployed environment.

3) It's been a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember him being intimidated by that LTC.

4) Don't remember that scene. Going to have to watch it again.

I think you're either reading too much into it or you were unfortunate in your service to be stuck around protocol asshats. It's not like it was some 80's Schwarzenegger movie where nobody ran out of bullets in their magazine until the appropriate scene where he was to use his knife.

"There are many forms of grieving, but I don't think 'wheel-barrow' style is one of them."

[–] FrenchCelt 14 years ago

I was in the infantry, so yeah, large unit, and in the infantry, protocol is king. Missteps get you dropped for twenty. The company First Sergeant had no trouble dropping other NCOs for push-ups if they screwed up. I once messed up phone etiquette while manning the company HQ's front desk when the battalion's command sergeant major called. He dropped me for push-ups over the phone.

You have a point that perhaps James let it slide when Sanborn hit him for the reasons you outlined, but the sergeants I knew, especially my own platoon sergeant, an SFC, was such a hardass that he had the other sergeants working for him constantly scrambling to please him, and he wouldn't have taken an E5 punching him no matter the reason. Ditto my father. I saw him at work and he was an intimidating presence. An E5 would have been terrified to defy him, especially since he was so much older (unlike James, who barely seemed old enough to be a staff sergeant).

James stammered and seemed disconcerted in trying to answer Reed's questions. He seemed ruffled. I read that as intimidation. Of course, Morse played that colonel pretty tough and menacing, and that may have played a role in their dynamic.

[–] phantom2-2 14 years ago

are there any war movies where the cast spends the majority of the time doing pushups for using names instead of ranks among the enlisted men? i'm trying to remember if anybody even mentions rank in saving private ryan, for instance, other than for captain miller - do they? this is a fictional film, not a documentary after all, and in all these films protocol tends to go out the window as soon as the bombs start dropping unless it's to show the insanity of the senior soldier.

i don't think james was the least bit intimidated by the colonel, who seemed to be much more of a fanboy than a tough guy. james was embarrassed by the lavish praise the colonel was laying on him, because he doesn't do what he does for the recognition. he also didn't want to show off in front of the rest of the men by saying how many bombs he'd defused.

maybe an ordinary soldier would have been flustered, but james is utterly fearless by this point. what's intimidating about one boisterous colonel when you could have been blown up 800+ times and shot countless others?

[–] jackfrusciante80 14 years ago

you guys are trying too hard to make excuses for a lazy writer. I dont believe any of the above to me true, he wrote the conflict between James and officers just like a lazy hollywood writer would, from his point of view, not from a soldier's point of view.

[–] phantom2-2 14 years ago

no, i write from the point of view of an ordinary movie-goer who's seen a ton of war movies and wonders why this one in particular gets slammed for allowances that are common in other films.

is it because it's "current" material and there are more people who have current knowledge of the subject matter (though i have to say that most of the complainers don't seem to have first hand knowledge of the subject, it's all "i know a guy who says...")? is it because the typical viewer can't see anything but the most superficial details instead of the bigger picture? is it because the production is actually so good that you forget that it's a small-budget picture that didn't have the resources to make things "perfect"? i dunno, you tell me....

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

thanks. some of the criticism this movie has gotten just makes no sense to me, as it's just typical war movie stuff. mix that with a strong blend of "my experience was different so this is *impossible*" and folks forgetting the limitations due to the low budget and that pretty well covers all the complaints.

we have a few very vocal whiners revealing more of their limitations than those of the film. oh well, it's imdb - that just comes with the territory. without them, who would we argue with? :)

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

these days final responsibility for the finished film lands on the director. whatever boal's story was originally, bigelow is the one with the final say. i thought the two of them worked pretty closely on the film, but i'm sure if she thought the story would be best if it went a certain direction then that's how it went.

so much of the griping here is simply that the film was directed by a woman. like men have never directed "inaccurate" war movies? it's not like sgt james is running around iraq with a pink bow in his hair! i wouldn't have known if i hadn't been told.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

hmmm...there may have been a few flaws in the movie, but none of them really jumped out at me. most of the so-called flaws i've seen mentioned here have been failures of understanding by the viewers as to what was going on, or that they'd have reacted differently, or that their personal experience was different so it's impossible for it to be any other way, or due to the limited budget. i didn't notice any flaws that couldn't be explained pretty easily.

and many of the worst complaints were by avatar fan-boys who couldn't believe that saint james cameron could be beaten by a mere woman (and his ex-wife, at that). hurt locker wouldn't have been my pick for best picture (inglourious basterds or up would have been my choices), but i thought it was worthy.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] waterwizard2005 14 years ago

I've thought too much about what made me so angry about The Hurt Locker and its critical reception.

For me it boils down to a few reasons.

1. War movies are okay but I don't like them that much.
2. I don't like action movies much at all.
3. Kathryn Bigelow directed Point Break. There's some Point Break in this "realistic" war film.
4. If I want to see a war film about Iraq I might find something like Restrepo to be more my style.

[–] spcscandle 14 years ago

I have read all the remarks in here and everyone raises good points. I am also in the military and my opinion of this movie is it is completely and utterly dumb and ridiculous. The idea that 3 EOD guys are cruising around Iraq all by themselves in and out of different situations, cruising the desert and running into some SAS guys at random, come on man. I am a tanker, and EOD would not leave the wire with no less than 4 tanks escorting them at all times. This movie looks so good to people who are clueless, and idiotic to anyone who knows anything about tactical warfare. The fact is, the acting was not bad at all, I thought that was solid, but the story itself is so ludacris I couldn't get past it the whole time I was watching it.

[–] darkknight1515 14 years ago

The writer (Boal) and director (Bigelow) have addressed on numerous occasions that the film was restricted by the budget and they did the best that they could with the money that they were given.

It's an unfair charge--not just to you, but to everyone who nitpicks the film--to call it lazy filmmaking.

[–] jackfrusciante80 14 years ago

I called it lazy because the writer did not challenge himself to go the more difficult way, creating drama and tension while keeping the soldiers and the Army life real. For christ's sake, he was embedded with them for a couple of months, if that doesn't inspire you to write a good story about the troops, than might as well find a new career or switch topics. I don't think any amount of money would have been enough to get them to see the soldiers for what they were and honor them by portraying them realistically.

Look at what Evan Wright did with the marines in Generation Kill, the book, than miniseries. He wrote about what he saw, because having 19 year olds trained to kill, going in another country and invade it is very interesting subject in itself. You don't have to add any more drama to it.

[–] darkknight1515 14 years ago

So wait, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are punishing the writer for writing and producing a film that he wanted to make? I'd argue that there is tension and drama in the film; it just wasn't what you, as a viewer, were looking for and--seemingly--found in Wright's work. But to each his own.

Why is everyone comparing the film to a miniseries? That series follows a cast of characters for--what?--like seven hours of screen time while this film gives us only two and some change? That's like comparing the format of a novel to the format short story and saying one is better.

On a side note, if I sound like a douche, I don't mean to. [Insert lame emoticon here.]

[–] efs2 14 years ago

It's not a question of whether the story is what a viewer is looking for. A writer and filmmaker should be able to create tension and drama and tell James' story through a realistic depiction of EOD operations and without adding fantastic elements. As is, the story seems contrived. It's like adding a love triangle to the story of the sinking of the Titanic.

Werewolves Ate My Platoon!

[–] phantom2-2 14 years ago

excellent point - nobody could possibly be interested in seeing a film about the sinking of the titanic with a love triangle story included. that's a guaranteed box office bomb that even sgt james couldn't defuse.

[–] MrBook_ 13 years ago

It's like adding a love triangle to the story of the sinking of the Titanic.

Or for that matter to the story of Pearl Harbor.

I'll bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

[–] phantom2-2 14 years ago

eh, this is lazy criticism. you say the film could have been more "real" and still been just as good, but i disagree - the heightened, condensed nature of the characters (that is, their "unreality") is what makes the film work. it's fine that you like generation kill, but beating up on hurt locker for not being a copy of generation kill is not fair to either work.

the filmmakers did what they could with what they had available, which meant no military assets to play with. no 4 tank and 100 troop escort to make it "real". not seven hours of screen time to show all the pushups that these insubordinate sob's would surely be doing.

apocalypse now is totally unrealistic, "dishonors" the troops right and left and gets many military details wrong. do you have the same opinion of that film?

[–] spcscandle 14 years ago

restricted by the budged is the best excuse they've got? its sickening, and fools like you support this filth. i despise you

[–] dude_guy99 14 years ago

Budget constraints is probably the dumbest excuse for not being able to get millitary protocol right. How does not having money stop you from picking up a phone and talking to some soldiers?
I can understand it for the whole 4 tanks escort type deal but at least try and come up with SOME excuse as to why they wouldnt be able to get an escort.
If you can't do it right dont do it at all.
As for Apocolypse Now that movie isn't even about the war, its Heart of Darkness with a vietnam backdrop, it never claimed to be realistic or an accurate portrayal of the vietnam war. Coppola has said plenty of times that he was trying to make it surreal as possible.

I Was Here But I Disapear

[–] phantom2-2 14 years ago

obviously since the writer was embedded with the troops in the field picking up the phone to talk to soldiers wouldn't have told him anything he hadn't already seen first hand. and obviously those first hand observations showed him that rigidly following "protocol" isn't always how things are done in real life.

if they'd come up with an excuse for not having an escort we'd just have a different chorus of "they'd never allow that excuse" whiners.

i've read heart of darkness, and i've seen apocalypse now many times. while i haven't actually been to vietnam during the war, the film captures the war much better than it does the short story. coppola's most famous quote about the movie is along the lines of "it's not about the vietnam war, it *is* vietnam".

but that's just a for-instance. pick almost any other war movie and you'll see "protocol violations" galore. it's the nature of film-making to choose cinematic impact over documentary correctness.

so why pick on the hurt locker for something common to all war films? it doesn't claim to be a documentary, after all.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBook_ 13 years ago

You don't need a big budget to write realistically. You don't need ANY budget. The directing was actually top-notch and Bigelow deserves all (okay, most of) the accolades she's gotten. It was the script that was silly.

I'll bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

[–] crockett_john 12 years ago

Yeah, this is really what bugged me about the film, the part about these guys going cowboy wherever they wanted to go. I can overlook all the weird stuff like the sleeves half rolled up, wrong uniforms, poor protocol, and whatever else, but this really stands out to me. The other thing is that this is what Hollywood praised as being "realistic."

[–] michaeluk26 12 years ago

It was very realistic to me, the environment I mean. Most of the stuff in THL was far from realistic. But the first time I watched this movie I could not believe how accurate they got the "look" of the place. The sights and sounds, the paranoia, tension, garbage, ect. In that regard, for me at least, it hit a home run.

Haters gonna hate

[–] carbondate 13 years ago

Well, if you prefer a documentary, then yeah. You should probably avoid films with actors playing fictional characters.

[–] MightyTiki 14 years ago

This movie bothered me for one reason and one reason alone: the filmmakers apparently did no research into the protocol of rank (or just didn't care).

1) James was a sergeant first class (despite the end credits listing him as a staff sergeant--he wore the rank insignia of an SFC: three up and two down). There is no way in hell a sergeant (E5) would call a sergeant first class (E7) by last name. He would always address him as Sergeant James. And a specialist (E4) like Eldridge wouldn't dare call James by first or last name. It's simply not done. That gets you dropped for push-ups. A sergeant first class is a senior NCO. There is a fundamental difference between junior and senior NCOs. Which leads me to my second point...

2) No way Sanborn would berate James the way he did, and forget about punching him in the face. That would have resulted in an Article 15, at the very least, and possibly a court martial and time in the stockade. Sanborn could have been demoted down to E4 as a result of that. I've seen demotions for less cause than assaulting a senior NCO.

3) An SFC would not have been intimidated by a colonel the way James was when Colonel Reed talked to him. E7s and O6s often have about the same number of years in the service. My father was an E7 and, other than saluting and calling them sir or ma'am, he did not act especially deferential to them.

4) On the other hand, a specialist would not be so buddy buddy with a lieutenant colonel the way Eldridge was with Cambridge. He would have been "Sir, yes sir," all the way. When I was a specialist I would never have dared talk to an LTC the way Eldridge did. The LTC might not have minded, if he wasn't a command officer, but any NCO that overheard me doing that would have chewed my ear off and probably dropped me for push-ups.

If I didn't have such an extensive military background, maybe I would have liked this movie more. But I can't shut off that part of me. From the point of view of someone who knows the Army through and through, this aspect of the movie kept ruining my willing suspension of disbelief.

I think the writer shouldn't have made James anything higher than a buck sergeant, E5, and Sanborn should have been a corporal (E4, but the NCO version), and Eldridge a private first class (E3). Then more of this behavior would have tracked a little more accurately. Still would be inaccurate for other reasons, but at least then the protocol wouldn't have been so FUBAR. I know there will always be inaccuracies, although some reasons are more legitimate than others, and I don't mind small ones that don't really hurt the important elements of a story, like plot and character development, but the plot and character development hinged so much on these characters behaving in completely unacceptable ways for real soldiers, in terms of relating to each other when there is this kind of rank disparity going on.

It's a movie, not a documentary. Get over it.

"Toto, I've [got] a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

[–] jackfrusciante80 14 years ago

Nice try guy...

We, who were in the military, probably obsess over the little details too much, because they had us trained that if you fail to notice the little things, you will *beep* up bigger things later on.

Same thing here, if you miss the little details in a story, such a rank structure, your movie will also be crap...which I think in this case is somewhat true.

[–] flyinghigh33 14 years ago

I have read all the opinions from "former soldiers" on this thread and I am surprised by the seemingly complete lack of knowledge of small unit and front line unit familiarity. Sure, the rear echelon "yes sir, no sir" nonsense is the norm for support units and the mindless grunt but for those who served in skilled positions and on skilled teams one goes to "work" everyday and has little time for "push ups" bullshi** for referring to someone by their last name.

Are you really trying to tell me that your military experience is such that you witnessed Sgt's dishing out push ups in a combat zone? There are far better methods of motivation then having someone drop and give twenty. That is peacetime base bullsh** and has no place in the field.

While working as an FO or in an gun position CP we were a very tight knit group and rank was only something we bothered with when the big wigs were around. Other than that, we just went to work and knew our place without standing at attention when being spoken to.

A professional soldier in a professional unit has no need nor time for silly boot camp bullsh**

I am curious how many of the naysayers here served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell,I would be surprised if some of you have seen any conflict zones period.

I do agree with much of what has been said about a small team cowboying around with no support but to the rest.....please

BTW - A unit shrink (doctor) would very much cultivate familiar and easy relationships with his men. It is his job to have them open up to him, talk to him, share with him and to NOT feel like they need to see him as their line CO or senior NCO.

So, "as a former soldier" I found this film somewhat unrealistic at times yet entertaining none the less as I felt it did a good job portraying what it is like to work in a small unit with death as a very real daily possibility.

Not quite like sitting at a desk in headquarters or the Supply shack I know but hey...we need those guys to :)

[–] dpsmithusarmy 14 years ago

Alright well in this case I am a former front line soldier who has served in Iraq (The country depicted in the movie) TWICE...

First in OIF II when sh*t was still hitting the fan, and again in '09-'10. The first time i was there I was a tanker on the Battalion QRF (we responded to EVERYTHING that happened). And yes we still managed to address rank and show respect to our leadership. And if we screwed up then yeah we did pushups... It's called military professionalism.

We still had more than one vehicle on a mission and we didn't just joyride around Iraq. EOD sits on the FOB all day for days until something comes up, then they get escorted. Nine times outta ten they don't personally diffuse a bomb they send the robot with a charge and blow it up (controlled blast). And they would never EVER out soldier British SAS. EOD is not an elite unit, they just have bigger bonuses and a different AIT.

Even if you were to bypass the lack of correct military substance (very important in a MILITARY MOVIE), and just look at the movie itself, you'd still see that it's crap. THERE IS NO PLOT... It's just scene after seen with NO CONTINUITY... She tries to touch on certain undertones like the E-7 treating the boy like his son, or the crazy hero attitude. She fails!

This movie sucks and everyone in the military knows it. The only people that liked it are liberal hollywood fags that have no clue what its like and they just needed someone to make their inexperienced vision a reality... Way to go Kathryn Bigelow, you completely SUCK!!

And to you who I'm replying to, you sound like a National Guard soldier or something... You're whole spiel is about how your unit acts like civilians in Military Uniforms... LOL and you're gonna clown on the guys who actually uphold military standards... That's funny!

[–] martin_eriksson-1 13 years ago

And they would never EVER out soldier British SAS.

Are you just seeing what you want to see? Did you completely miss the fact that they were mercenaries?

The only people that liked it are liberal hollywood fags

Oh how mature.

that have no clue what its like and they just needed someone to make their inexperienced vision a reality... Way to go Kathryn Bigelow, you completely SUCK!!

She was the director, not the writer buddy.

I don't have any problem with people disliking the movie but damn dude, I wonder how you managed in a war zone if this movie upset you so much.

"I can't kill Meridian yet, I need another therapy session." -Dexter

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RodneyAnonymous 12 years ago

It happens. Not in the field, of course, but it happens. It would depend very much on the unit and the relationships within it, but I had my troops do "remedial PT" when we were inside the wire fairly often. Usually, it was very good natured and not intended as "real" punishment, but it certainly happens.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MightyTiki 14 years ago

Nice try guy...

We, who were in the military, probably obsess over the little details too much, because they had us trained that if you fail to notice the little things, you will *beep* up bigger things later on.

Same thing here, if you miss the little details in a story, such a rank structure, your movie will also be crap...which I think in this case is somewhat true.

Again, it's a movie--get over it.

"Toto, I've [got] a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MightyTiki 14 years ago

There's a difference between Hollywood and Reality.

None of the actors or film makers in the movie have been to Iraq, Afghanistan or any other war zone so why does it matter? It's a collective 2+ hour form of entertainment that doesn't have to abide by reality and they can portray the military the way they want to regardless of the approval of military personnel or not.

In other words, it's a movie--get over it.

"Toto, I've [got] a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

[–] estocade 14 years ago

I concur. We really need to get over it. Hurt Locker was a masterfully made movie. It was not about life in the army as about a guy who was obsessed with his job and cared for nothing else. Focus on that.

[–] phantom2-2 14 years ago

uh...mark boal (screenwriter) was embedded with troops in iraq for quite some time. while the movie is obviously fiction, he's not writing about current events in oz.

[–] themachine420 13 years ago

i think every soldier in this argument can simply agree on the fact that you have different experiences in the military, of which you will all have a different approach because you all seem to be part of different channels of the military. and while some of the situations in this movie are "unrealistic" they are still not impossible. btw the sentence "this would never happen" should never be used unless someone was actually levitating in the movie. you do not know everything about the military, just like i don't, even tho your egos seem to lead you to believe so.

[–] johndcatl 13 years ago

Pulling a strand of several (6-8) artillery shells out of the sand by oneself. They weigh 85 to 100 pounds each. NEVER going to happen.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tammytkspr 13 years ago

MightyTiki
There's a different between Hollywood and Reality. None of the actors or film makers in the movie have been to Iraq, Afghanistan or any other war zone so why does it matter? It's a collective 2+ hour form of entertainment that doesn't have to abide by reality and they can portray the military the way they want to regardless of the approval of military personnel or not.

In other words, it's a movie--get over it.

Uh, didn't Jeremy Renner volunteer with the United Nations in Afghanistan to help remove old land mines?

PUNK ASS DECEPTICONS

[–] MightyTiki 13 years ago

Did Jeremy Renner ever serve in the military?

Was Jeremy Renner ever in combat?

That's what I thought.

"Toto, I've [got] a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBook_ 13 years ago

It's a movie, not a documentary. Get over it.

Why do people think it's worth the effort to type this? People shouldn't make observations about a movie because it's a movie? wtf?

I'll bet you could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

[–] paul-2219 13 years ago

My take was that, even thought James is a very high-ranking NCO, he wasn't a spit-and-polish drill-sergeant kind of guy. I figured the only reason he advanced so far in rank was due to his incredible bomb-disposal record and seeming fearlessness. He seems like a guy who would not care at all about protocol or "making guys drop for 20" if they step out of line, and I figured his men picked up on that right away. It was the reason, I thought, for the scene where they are good-naturedly drinking and wrestling together as equals.

James seemed like a guy whose rank was as important to him and his men as the psychiatrist colonel, in some ways a kind of honorary rank. I know it wasn't honorary in James' case, but he seemed to treat it that way. He just wanted to disarm bombs, and if his continued success meant they kept promoting him, well why not? He had not interest in maintaining discipline or protocol over his subordinates, he just wanted to get his fix.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jasmith909 13 years ago

I'm always amazed by how someone can get shot in the back and die instantly on film (wrench guy during the contractor scene).

A bullet through the liver, lung or kidney isn't going to kill you instantaneously. Even a shot to the heart won't kill you that quickly. There's still some electricity there for up to a minute after your heart stops, or possibly longer (and a minute is a long time on film). Hell, even a bullet through the head will sometimes leave a corpse writhing around for a couple of seconds. And believe it or not, but not all head shots are fatal (even through the temple). For example, there were a number of German generals during WWII who botched their suicides, by shooting themselves through the head at the wrong angle.

Point being, death on the battlefield is rarely so clean. But I guess the reality of that is too ugly for Hollywood. They need nice clean deaths, to make it look romantic. They don't want guys writhing around, and screaming, and crying, and *beep* themselves.

It's not like Hurt Locker was the first movie to do this, by any means, but they certainly didn't go the Saving Private Ryan route (which did a much better job of showing what it's like to bleed to death from bullet wounds). That's my biggest problem with the movie; that one little scene in which wrench guy is dropped within the blink of an eye. It doesn't work like that. Given the fact he was shot with a sniper rifle, I'm sure the impact would've shattered his rib cage, and maybe even his spine, which may have precluded him from screaming, but it wouldn't have been lights out right away either. There would definitely be some agony there, to be sure. Hot metal through the torso doesn't shut off your brain so mercifully (not for a little while, at least).

But, I suppose I'm nitpicking here. I thought the movie was pretty good overall. I wouldn't rank it as one of the best war films of all-time, not by a long shot, but it was good enough. The best part was when he returns home and is in the grocery store. I thought they did a pretty good job of showing how maddening it can be to return to the mundane after going through the wringer. But it's hard to compare it to a WWII or Vietnam film, given the subject matter. It's not the same thing.

[–] dom_pyburn 13 years ago

Well I'm in the British Forces, so granted my experience is obviously gonna be different from yours, as let's be honest, we're just a much, much more laid back bunch then you guys over the pond. But even in barracks in the UK, cpl's are always called by their given name or nickname 'smudge, stoz, timmy' etc. My sergeant is known as 'Doc' to all of us(He ain't ever been a medic, not really sure how that nickname came about) And our officer is just 'Boss', as are most officers apart from the really senior ones like the OC and the Warrant Officer who remain 'sir' obviously. Only time we call them by their rank is if we're in trouble, something official or the higher up officers are about. But then as I said, we're much more laid back than you guys, you'll never hear a 'Sir, yes sir'. I could be speaking to the head of the Army himself and it would still be simply 'Yes sir'. But then if you've ever worked with British Forces you probably know this already.

Having said that, we work with USMC a lot, and they don't ever seem as rigid and strict as you've described, especially not in theatre out in the FOBs and PBs. They all seem much more relaxed, never so much as we are, but still never see them getting push ups dished out for things like you describe.

As for EOD, they seem pretty much as you see them in the movie and like all other really small units. First name terms for all of them, joking about like rank doesn't exist unless it really needs to.

Oh and guys, those British guys you see in the movie, are NOT SAS, they are private contractors, why would SAS be collecting bountys for captured men? That and they are credited as 'contractors'.

As for that Colonel that Eldritch speaks to. He's a shrink right? From my experience they always encourage familiarity, rank is completely left at the door when speaking with them. It's hard to open up to someone and discuss what your feeling when you have to keep a invisible wall up because of rank.

And lastly, why the *beep* is 'movie' shown as a spelling mistake!?! I'm on the bloody IMDB!!!!!!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] artistathome 12 years ago

All good reasons why this movie should not even have been nominated much less won.
It was nominated because it showed violence in iraq, something that has been going on over 10 years and a woman directed.

These are the only reasons it won. Not because it was better than anything else!!

As for the mistakes as to how the men related to each other, I am pretty sure even in the heat of battle you are not calling your superior officer by his first or even last name.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

regarding the interactions between sanborn & james... james isn't sanborn's superior officer, because he's not an officer. they're both sergeants. i guess the fact that sanborn is following proper protocol and not trying to get them all killed gives him a boost. lesser rank + following rules > slightly higher rank + breaking every rule in the book.

the unit's problem isn't that james is knee deep in ied's, it's that he's waded into them willingly and unnecessarily.

[–] RodneyAnonymous 12 years ago

Sergeants (and Corporals) are NCOs - Non-Commissioned Officers. They have both general military authority over anyone of lesser rank, and SPECIFIC authority over those assigned under them. A lawful order from an NCO carries the full weight of a lawful order, period.

James was Sanborn's superior, also period.

It can certainly be questioned whether or not some of James' orders were lawful, or indeed whether or not James was fit for command (or even for service), but that doesn't boost Sanborn's rank, or diminish James'.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

while you're technically correct, i've never seen that "superior officer" attitude from the sergeants i've worked with (and there have been quite a few), especially toward other sergeants. i would think it would be even less of a deal out in the field with guys you work with every day.

james' orders were sketchy at best. sanborn should have reported him, but this is the way they chose to handle the situation. neither guy is the type to stand on rank or run to mommy with complaints.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

no, i've always been a civilian, i've just worked with a lot of military guys over the last 20+ years, though all here in the states at comfy military bases. i've noticed that the "real" officers are a lot more sensitive to rank than the nco's and below. that's just my personal observation and probably why the informal exchanges between sanborn & james don't bother me like they do others. they seem normal.

if i remember correctly, sanborn complains a lot but does follow orders. which, when the orders are as borderline as the ones james gives him, is what he should be doing. as an experienced non-commissioned officer himself, sanborn knows what they *should* be doing, and it's not what he's being told to do.

in exchange for sanborn not reporting james and his death wish orders, sanborn gets to punch james out (but only the once). it's their way of dealing with the situation between themselves.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

hmmm...well, i just watched cross of iron the other day. james coburn has a very passionate speech about how he "hates all officers". he's a sergeant.

do you see sergeants in officers clubs on base? no you don't.

if you think the only difference between a sergeant and a lieutenant is the technicality of a commission, then you're mistaken. it's like they come from two different worlds.

[–] RodneyAnonymous 12 years ago

I was a sergeant before OCS and my commission. There are differences, certainly, but this isn't the British Navy of 1902. There is a lot more commonality and mutual respect (as well as shared experiences) than you might think. This is not, of course, to say that there is no distinction between the commissioned ranks, the NCO ranks, and the junior enlisted ranks, but it's not as black and white as you are portraying it.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

no, it's not that black and white anymore, at least not in the us armed forces. which i think was my original point, way back when, which somehow morphed into this...

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phantom2-2 12 years ago

no, the point wasn't that sergeants hate all officers. the point was that the sergeant didn't consider himself and officer (and there are no threads on the coi board arguing "sergeants are officers too!")

ah well, misinterpretations happen. that's what the internet is best at. ;)

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

James was Sanborn's superior, also period.

It can certainly be questioned whether or not some of James' orders were lawful, or indeed whether or not James was fit for command (or even for service), but that doesn't boost Sanborn's rank, or diminish James'.

When Sanborn punches James in the face because James took his headset Comms off would that in the US Army or Marines be tolerated from an E-5 Sergeant to hit an E-7 Sergeant First Class? Or would it just slide because it was justified as James was in the wrong?

Remember they had a lot of Iraqi civilian eyes on them, some with a video camera and the VBIED could still have been remotely detonated with a mobile (cell) phone or garage opener!

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

[–] DataGrab 13 years ago

The whole movie bothered me. Even though I'm not a soldier unlike you, I knew the moment Sanborn punched James that something is seriously wrong with the unit here. I've watched a lot of soldier based movies and that could easily result to a court martial.

A ship sank at the end of the movie Titanic!