The Film:

As the son of a retired decorated military officer, politics and war have often been a part of my life. I remember growing up in Greece and my father not being able to come home during the first Gulf War, and that’s only one of a thousand memories pertaining to the military. In addition to that, two of my uncles were drafted for service during Vietnam, and my grandfather volunteered to join the fight in World War II. As such, the military has quite a presence for itself in the Cook household. Even in my good friends that have enlisted recently, the effects of war are quite apparent. The psychological effects are complex, as seen in one of my uncles that changed drastically from war. To this day he barely addresses the fact that he served. My other uncle doesn’t like what he had to do, but has great pride in his service despite the later lasting effects of new warfare tactics used in Vietnam. My grandfather, too, is very proud of his service to his country in WWII, despite some of the horrors of war he saw.

Going into Soldiers of Conscience, I didn’t know what to expect. I assumed it was going to be a drastically far-left Anti-War movie that painted all soldiers as Neanderthals with machine guns. But such was not the case. The movie follows eight men in the uniformed services, from Private First Class to a Major, encompassing both enlisted men and officers. Four of the subjects are active, retired, or honorably military members and the other four are classified as “CO,” conscientious objectors. The film starts with presenting a little-known fact: 25% percent of soldiers in World War II fired at the enemy when given the chance. “Great,” I thought, “my assumptions were right. I’ve just sat down to an 84-minute anti-war soapbox.” But as the documentary progresses, the vivid footage adds a subtle feel of how primitive war reverts soldiers. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The central focus for this doc is that of Conscientious Objection, which is defined as refusal on moral or religious grounds to bear arms in a military conflict or to serve in the armed forces. This thought seemed very hypocritical of itself. People who raised their right hand and swore to defend this country changing their mind.

But as the stories weaved from the objectors to the servicemen, with a dash of experts thrown in for good measure, some of the soldiers were making great arguments about their military service and objections. Towards the end of the movie, the film makers caught the court martial of one of the Conscientious Objectors and the outcome. The military doesn’t make conscientious objection an easy out of the military, and this is explained briefly but well-enough to get the point out.

The journey that the film covers is an interesting one, with three of the four objectors presenting valid points. The one that I wasn’t too keen on was the soldier that made his objection more on a religious basis than anything else. He brought up the fact that he was an Evangelical Christian, and the religious aspects of his beliefs conflicting with his duty. But, while the three other objectors used religion as a crumple zone for more substantial reasons,  I found his religious argument laughable considering the enemy and their blind faith being their driving factor. His Utopian views were also very far-fetched. By saying we can live without war and basically saying there are diplomatic solutions for everything I found myself uninterested in his situation.

On the other hand, the soldiers that were following orders weren’t without their own internal struggle. Many times, the four seemed a little too brainwashed. They each had their own way of dealing with what they had to do, and accepted what they’ve done. All four were significantly more patriotic-sounding than the objectors.

In the end, the movie does a good job of addressing the difficulty in killing that our soldiers have in the Iraq War. Soldiers of Conscience addresses the ability to kill when told. The thought-provoking arguments brought on by each of the soldiers were well-constructed and fairly un-bias, though still Anti-War. Neither side is portrayed as the evil, heartless monsters or sissy little Nancy-girls that this could have turned into.  But this is a documentary that everyone should see, regardless of your view on the current war. The situation can be related to every war, as internal struggles of beliefs over duty will always be present.

The DVD:

Audio/Video – Well, this was one of the few DVDs I’ve watched this year. The image upscaled well, though?Some of the source footage is of poor quality, but that’s not the film maker’s fault.

The audio was great considering it was mainly monologues about their experience and some footage of training.

Bonus Material – The DVD’s bonus features were simplistic.

Excerpts to Encourage Discussion – Exactly what is says it is. More of a highlight reel for debate, it strips the movie down to its more thought-provoking parts.

Trailers – Two trailers, one that should be red-banned, and one that focuses on faith.

About Luna Productions – a minute-long intro to the production company. It’s a fancy powerpoint presentation mixed with a business card.

About Docurama – a little paragraph about the distributor.

Conclusion – While this movie didn’t really justify soldiers becoming Conscientious Objectors, it did provide a better understanding of what they have to deal with. From basic training to court martials, this movie does a fairly good job being only a little bias. I will say that the war-time footage is heart-wrenching at times, and sometimes shocking, to say the least. But everyone who can hold their own valid argument should give Soldiers of Conscience a watch.

The Film: Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

The DVD: Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

To bury The Hurt Locker under the stigma of just “another Iraq war movie” is a grave misinterpretation of the film. True, we might have all grown tired of the constant news coverage and the slew of films dealing with the Iraqi invasion, but Kathryn Bigelow and, perhaps more importantly, Mark Boal, give us a war film that is not about the war, who’s right, who’s wrong, but about the people within the war.

Foregoing needless scenes of recruiting, training, and drill Sargent tough talk, The Hurt Locker would rather focus on people than war film conventions. Needless to say, the film is exactly as it’s hyped up to be. It’s a powerful, riveting portrait of men in 24-hour chaos. The last I remember Bigelow was from K-19: The Widowmaker; a decent film, but something from the break she has had, must’ve wound up a beast within her, because The Hurt Locker is crafted with such precision and intensity, you’ll be as up tight and tense as the EODs.

The film follows a group of three EODs (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) on their final 40 odd days left of active duty. The film early on has a key scene which shows off a stunning explosion of intense intimacy, both in execution of the staging of the explosion, but also within the characters. This scene will dictate the unpredictable routine the EODs go through, day in and day out, as well as letting us into the Iraqi lifestyle. The audience and the characters will go on to learn of life’s brevity, and perhaps appreciate it. Make no mistake, this is a war film, and there is plenty of action, but the film tackles it in interesting and different ways.

I can’t get that scene or two of a limping cat rolling through the war-torn streets out of my head. This off-handed shot, adds a layer dialogue can’t.

We follow the characters in their routine, sometimes embarking on false alarms and other times, nail-biting situations. We tend to forget that this war is vastly different than previous wars. Rolling out to a mission, one of the EODs notices tanks just sitting there and makes a one-off comment on how stupid it is to have them in Iraq. The comment has a nice meaning to it, as we see later, with Bigelow’s crafty eye for action. Little details might have a greater, graver meaning to them. Nothing is as it appears. We see the team roll around in the city, sometimes disarming road side bombs, sometimes waving to the locals. Where do tanks fall into all of this? They don’t, and that’s the point of the comment. In the mundane routine of daily life as a soldier in Iraq, it’s either extremely boring or extremely dangerous. Your enemy is hidden and sneaky. Gone are the days of one-on-one Risk-style of combat. This is what Jarhead wanted to be.

Jeremy Renner has been under-the-radar for a while, although I’ve enjoyed him since Dahmer. Here, he will bust out of the shadows and into the Hollywood lime-light. It’s a damn great performance, perfectly fitting his persona he carries with him from film to film. People will be talking about Renner, but evenly matched is Anthony Mackie, last seen in Notorious as Tupac. He’s equally as complex and emotional. It’s another performance worthy of discussion.

But what ascends The Hurt Locker into greatness, besides the performances and Bigelow’s direction, is the theme of the story. The film wisely plays to no one opinion. To these characters, war is hell, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. But the film captures a rare phenomenon of addiction to the high stakes involved with life or death. Some can play, others cannot. The life of a soldier for some is a job, a job they’ll be trained to do well, and for others, is an adrenaline rush. The Hurt Locker captures the rare voice of the day-to-day soldier, offering no answers, no political finger-waging, just the sneaky notion of life and death and fatigue.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars