Last Sunday was a big night at the Oscars for “The Hurt Locker”: Six awards, including Best Picture, left champions of the Iraq War film with plenty to cheer about. And I’m proud of director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, in an I’ve-never-met-them-but-they-seem-nice kind of way.

Unfortunately, my own enthusiasm for the movie’s victory was tainted by the events of the preceding Wednesday, when real-life bomb disposal technician Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver sued the filmmakers for essentially stealing his life. Yeah, I know, Hollywood’s hit with lawsuits every day from misguided citizens who think they can wrangle big bucks out of a half-assed claim that their ideas were stolen. You’d think this one wouldn’t be any different.

But it is. See, Sarver actually has a fairly legitimate leg to stand on, considering that Boal was embedded with his Iraq unit when doing research for the original Playboy Magazine article that inspired the film. That article, by the way, is a full-fledged profile on Sarver himself, and many key scenes from the supposedly fictionalized film were lifted directly from real life.

Like William James, the character played by Jeremy Renner in the film, Sarver also kept a box of disarmed explosives parts under his bed. And like James, Sarver once stripped off his bomb suit when confronted with an unholy amount of death dynamite. Sounds pretty damning so far, right?

Except that because he needs a heart-wrenching, sympathetic story, Sarver couldn’t stop there. Apparently he also invented the phrases “the hurt locker” and “war is a drug.” He was somehow unaware that Boal was planning to write an article about his unit. And he’s upset that Jeremy Renner looks so much like him, because he believes the producers deliberately set out to cast a Jeffrey Sarver lookalike.

It’s the kitchen-sink approach to the legal system. If you complain about one thing, complain about everything. The false claims don’t harm the real ones; in fact, they accentuate the narrative that Sarver is trying to present. This is what happens to anything involving both Hollywood and the American legal system, otherwise known as the two best storytelling organizations in the country. Each side’s job is to get you to believe its carefully constructed tale over the other, whatever it takes.

Not being a law student, I don’t feel qualified to make any statements about the actual validity of the case. But what I can judge is the presentation of the arguments. After all, this is good, old-fashioned courtroom drama, and it’s tailor-made for the movies, from classics like “Anatomy of a Murder” to 2008’s “Flash of Genius.” The side that wins is the side that can use the most special effects to distract from any flaws in the story. Just like how “Avatar” won the box office.

And the hero of any good story is the one who convinces you he's standing up for the little guy. Take a look at Geoffrey Fieger, the lawyer representing Sarver. He’s a Michigan grad and a celebrity trial lawyer, having previously defended Jack Kevorkian and other high-profile figures. Fieger’s firm is based in Southfield, Mich., and if you grew up watching Detroit-area TV like me, then you saw his commercials all the time.

This is a guy who’s clearly been studying Hollywood-style storytelling all his life, because his ads are shamelessly manipulative. You’ve got the shots of him delivering stirring speeches to his boardroom and the members of his firm gallantly ascending the courthouse steps on their way to fight for your rights.

In 2007, when Fieger was in hot water for alleged illegal campaign contributions to John Edwards, he even exploited Martin Niemöller’s famous Holocaust quote (“First they came for the Communists…”) in a TV spot. Why? Because he needed to construct a narrative that would position himself in a positive light. This is show business, kids. It ain’t pretty.

As consumers of stories, we always search for the same old good guy vs.