Did you know that in the movie The Hurt Locker, James was based on a actual person. Sgt. Jeffery Sarver was a bomb specialist and he holds the record for the most bombs defused. Sgt. Sarver felt like he was being ridiculed by the film. He felt the film ruined his reputation in the army.
The film makers based some of the scenes on his experiences. Those include firing a handgun at suspected car bombers, placing the gun to the forehead of an Iraqis driver to get him to move away, and setting off smoke screens to avoid snipers. This film shows him as a reckless soldier and a soldier who does not follow protocol. He claims this is a bad reflection on him at work, home, and with friends.
Sgt. Sarver wrote to the court and announced how he felt and wanted to sue the film. Sgt. Sarver wrote in a declaration, "Defendants have essentially placed a bulls-eye on the back of my army uniform and bomb suit for my current and future deployments." Jeremy claims that he never gave the film director Mark Boal permission to use personal details in the story. He feels this ruined his reputation. Sgt. Sarver believes that Sgt. James is based on him and this led other soldiers to question his abilities. Sgt. Sarver also feels that the Army thinks he sold his tales of his experiences so that it could be made into a movie. In which Sgt. Sarver thought hurt his chances at a future promotion. I actually contacted former Army Ranger Jay Powell who coached me in high school. I asked him if things like that would actually hurt your chances at promotions. He told me that things of that nature are looked down upon in the Army. He talked about the core values in the Army, that if you tried and sell your story or do anything for a personal gain it would not be looked well upon. Powell said, "It's awesome that he stepped up and let people know he wasn't insane, and that he followed protocol."
Sgt. Sarver lost the case,because the film was protected by California law and the First Amendment. I believe that Sgt. Sarver had a right to file a lawsuit and voice his opinion as he did, but the film should not use his story without his permission. Jeremy Saver had a point when talking about the scenes where the film used his experiences, but I do think he went far when saying it ruined his reputation and all this other stuff. Think about it, when you're done watching the movie do you run and look up the character and if there based on real people and their actual actions? I think that the court got it right in this case. What about you? Do you think the court made the right decision?
I think that he should have won the case. I don't think the court made the right decision. Sgt. Sarver should have been asked to use his experiences and given some credit. I also can see how the movie could have hurt his "image", the movie portrayed Sgt. James as a very reckless and not caring soldier. Although, the events Sgt. James portrayed or Sgt. Sarver were true, he also got the job done. I don't the writer of the movie should have written it before talking to Sgt. Sarver first. Hollywood will do whatever they can to produce a movie though.
ReplyDeleteThis post is very similar to my own. The media and Hollywood often take little pieces of stories and bend them to the way they want them told. I believe it was wrong to use some of Sgt. Sarver's life experiences without asking his permission first. Displaying a character of his likeness as reckless and disrespectful is wrong in my opinion. Unless Sgt Sarver would have came out and said something about the movie, I would have never known it was based on certain people and events. He may have blown the whistle on himself in this particular situation.
ReplyDeleteThis is a 123movies online about a bomb technician, Sergeant William James , whose talent for defusing every kind of bomb in the Middle East reaches epic proportions. He is hailed by his superiors as extraordinary- but the men who work with him can't decide if he is a terrifyingly dangerous adrenaline junky or merely the bravest man they ever met. The film does a good job of letting us decide which. This zmovie gives us a great insight into the new battlefield- urban warfare and what it means for our fighting men and women. It also shows the tension of fighting a war for people who don't see us as their saviors. Indeed, they seem to think of us as interlopers. Again, the film does a good job of showing the psychological effect of this on our soldiers. The set, the gear and the wardrobe of the soldiers and 'extras' is completely and utterly genuine (although I'm not sure that Humvees have plywood on the inside! lol). The biggest problem I have with this film is that I never really connect with the main character. I watch him throughout the film and he is flat, unknowable and unemotional. Even in the end, his choice concerning his family (vs. the conclusion reached by his squadmate, Sergeant Sanborn) was disappointing and almost unbelievable. I couldn't see the point of the film- or the message. It neither showed the glory of war nor the ugliness of it. It didn't show man's degradation under war, nor his ability to find redemption or higher purpose within war's degradation. Due to this lack of core message and any ability to reach me emotionally, I can only give an otherwise well made movie a three star rating.
ReplyDelete