"The Hurt Locker": Best Film of the Year?

 The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow won Best Picture this year at the Academy Awards. It has received rave reviews from some movie critics who believe that not only is it the best movie made so far about the Iraq War, but it might be one of the best war movies ever made. For example, a New York Times review states that the film "is the best nondocumentary American feature made yet about the war in Iraq" . And another movie critic, Roger Ebert, says, "The Hurt Locker is a great film, an intelligent film, a film shot clearly so that we know exactly who everybody is and where they are and what they're doing and why."

However, for every positive, gushing review, there have been deep criticisms of the film. After watching the movie in class, we read another piece from The New York Times, a blog post by Michael Kamber who is currently a war correspondent in Iraq. In his essay, "How Not to Depict War" he insists that The Hurt Locker "glamorizes war" by creating an action hero out of the main character, Sergeant Will James. Kamber also feels that the film is not realistic and does not show the true dangers of what soldiers face in Iraq, and he is worried that too many people think the film is accurate.

So what do you think? Is The Hurt Locker a great war film that shows us what it was like to be a soldier in Iraq in 2004, or does is present a "fake" portrait that misleads the viewer about what it's really like in Iraq? How does it compare to another controversial film that we viewed, Fahrenheit 9/11, which focuses on the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war? Is that film fair? Is it misleading? And whose responsibility is it to "tell the truth"? Should films be more "truthful" or is it our job to find out?