AlmostSideways - Top Five Reasons The Hurt Locker Should Win Over Avatar

AlmostSideways.com

New Releases

November 8, 2024

November 1, 2024

October 25, 2024

October 18, 2024

October 11, 2024

October 4, 2024

September 27, 2024

September 20, 2024

September 13, 2024

September 6, 2024

Top Five Reasons The Hurt Locker Should Win Over Avatar

Article by Zach Saltz

Posted - 3/2/10

For those of you who know me, it should come as no surprise that next Sunday, I’ll be virulently rooting for The Hurt Locker to become the 82^nd film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture over James Cameron’s labyrinthine Avatar. Never mind that it is a superior film; even the supporters of Avatar seem to casually concede this fact. Fortunately for Avatar, the Academy has a penchant for awarding lavish films that are upbeat escapist crowd-pleasers with doorknobs for brains (see Gladiator and Chicago). We know they are also big on films with a large cult following (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King) and films that preach that the legacy of white man imperialism is bad (Dances With Wolves). Films that examine the existential futility of war (Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July) fare poorly, along with “political” films that – God forbid – try to make a statements about current global conflicts (Syriana, Traffic). With the storied history of the Academy’s preferences in mind, Avatar is the odds-on favorite to win top honors. But hidden beneath the veneer of ungodly sums of box office profit now being used to install another swimming pool at James Cameron’s house lies the fact that The Hurt Locker is still not only a better film, but the clearly the best of the nominated features, and here are some (admittedly unorthodox) reasons why:

5. Movies and other select things that earned or cost more money than The Hurt Locker ($12.6 million):

Box office gross of Space Chimps ($30.1 million)

Annual salary for Regis Philbin ($20 million)

Box office gross of Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience ($19.2 million)

Amount of viewers who watched The Jay Leno Show its first week (17.7 million people)

Guaranteed money in 2009 contract for Detroit Lions QB Matthew Stafford ($41.7 million)

Amount owed in back taxes from Mike Tyson ($13 million)

Movies and other select things that earned or cost less money than The Hurt Locker:

Opening weekend gross for Any Which Way You Can in 1980 ($8 million)

Annual salary for Kelly Ripa ($7 million)

Copies of ‘N Sync’s Greatest Hits album sold (500,000 albums)

Amount of viewers who watched The Jay Leno Show its second week (6 million people)

Total cost of the Pontiac Silverdome, at 2009 auction ($583,000)

Mike Tyson’s salary for appearing in The Hangover (hopefully less than $12 million)

4. How ironic that, in a year when the Academy foolishly expands its Best Picture category to ten nominees to appease angry fans of Pixar and Batman, only two films are seriously in the running for top prize. It’s like the 2003 gubernatorial race in California: everyone from porn stars to Gary Coleman was in the running and we all thought, “Hey, in an era when Jesse Ventura gets elected governor and the village idiot in Texas gets handed the Presidency by Florida Jews, anything can happen!” With the Academy’s supposedly “democratic” proliferation, we can now say things like, “This is great, and has been a long time in coming. If this had been enacted in 1987, Teen Wolf Too would have received the nomination it deserved!” But not so fast. As we can see from my expert analysis below, the nominees from this year auspiciously resemble those from past years, and remind us that the more things change, the more they stay the same:

An Education: Stuffy British import with no chance, audience comprised squarely of festival goers and gay Anglophiles, lead actor or actress nominee no one has heard of this side of the Atlantic.

Relatives: The Queen (2006), The Full Monty (1997), Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994).

Real-life parallels: The unexplainable success of Boy George in this country.

Avatar: Megablockbuster liked by liberals that redefines special effects in the industry, more money made than total expenditures for Joan Rivers’ plastic surgeries.

Relatives: Dances With Wolves (1990), Forrest Gump (1994), Titanic (1997), Gladiator (2000), Lord of the Rings (2003).

Real-life parallels: “Everyone and their mother owns a Toyota Camry, that’s why I bought one! Wait, why won’t this break pedal go down . . . AGHHHHHH LOOK OUT!”

The Blind Side: Fan favorite, not expected to be nominated for anything upon release. If it gets enough steam, watch out.

Relatives: Crash (2005), the 2006 George Mason men’s basketball team, the “Pants on the Ground” guy from American Idol.

Real-life parallels: Isn’t the “Pants on the Ground” guy good enough?

District 9: Semi-cult status summer hit that most people have heard of it, but if they actually watched it, they would realize it’s not all that great.

Relatives: Moulin Rouge (2001), Seabiscuit (2003), Little Miss Sunshine (2006).

Real-life parallels: Any Woody Allen comedy of the last eight years. Woody has lost all knowledge of how to make a funny, sharp film that engages people breezily for a scant 90 minutes. Maybe it’s because no one can quite get his imitation down – not Jason Biggs, Will Farrell, or even Larry David. Maybe he has gotten old, and is just phoning it in for a few more checks for Soon-Yi’s pedicures. Whatever the case, all of his summer films this decade – from Melinda and Melinda to Vicky Cristina Barcelona to Whatever Works – have flat-out sucked. He needs another scandal to stir interest.

Inglourious Basterds: Weinstein. Not a serious threat unless it’s too sophisticated for American audiences.

Relatives: Finding Neverland (2004), In the Bedroom (2001), Chocolat (2000).

Real-life parallels: Oprah’s Book Club. Now the majority of titles here are estrogen-laden crap, but when push comes to shove, Oprah totes her guns in crunch time. When she selected The Road and millions of women’s book clubs across the country accidentally purchased Rand McNally atlases, Cormac McCarthy finally took home his long-overdue Pulitzer. All O.J. Simpson needed was for Oprah to back If I Did It and then he could have earned enough money from sales of the book to do it (again).

A Serious Man: Only got nominated because of its legendary director(s). Not a chance in Hell unless that legendary director hasn’t already won the award.

Relatives: Munich (2005), JFK (1991), Gosford Park (2001).

Real-life parallels: Julia Roberts getting nominated for a Golden Globe for Duplicity. Normally I don’t like bringing up an institution as “lowbrow” as the Golden Globes, but has there ever been a more clear instance of a high-profile “filler” just to make sure the category is rounded out with recognizable names? Now Duplicity did earn more money than The Hurt Locker (but less than Underworld: Rise of the Lycans) and A Serious Man earned more money than the current exchange rate for WorldCom stock, but less than the weekly allowance of an average 7-year-old.

Up in the Air: Trendy comedy pick with a hip director that people went to see for some laughs, but came out with more heads hurt than bellies; lead performances nominated but no serious contention except in the screenplay category.

Relatives: Lost in Translation (2003), Sideways (2004), Juno (2007).

Real-life parallels: Dave Eggers. The dude was a literary wunderkind after the success of the modestly-titled A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, but his writing is now unremarkable and unmistakable and has inspired an insipid group of literary clones who have adapted his “hipster dufus” style to their own limited creative capacities, with unremitting pop culture references to the 90s and uninspired narrative techniques. He may have been great five years ago, but his shelf life is wearing thin.

This leaves three films that don’t quite fit any sort of category: Precious, Up, and The Hurt Locker. The first two will become staples of the new ten-nominee system: The Black film and the Animated film, neither of which will ever be serious contenders. But The Hurt Locker is quite unlike anything the Academy has ever seen before – a low-budget film about a big-budget subject that no one really saw, but those who did raved about it (or if they didn’t upon immediately walking out of the theater, they read highbrow critics that intellectualized it to death, and then raved about it). I suppose it is a little like Crash, but instead of Matt Dillon and Ludicris, we have Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie. It’s a film whose power seizes its viewer after talking about it after seeing it, meaning that its complex messages do not jump out in obvious ways, like Avatar. It’s an action picture that is the only nominee not to be financed by a major studio, and has a woman director. For all the talk of Avatar’s novelty in its 3D and utterly “original” conception of the planet Pandora, The Hurt Locker’s investigation into the thrill-seeking impulses of soldiers doing more harm than good on the battlefield is the far more original and intriguing premise.

3. The Hurt Locker does seem destined to win one award: For Bigelow’s direction. Now of course, she deserves the award whole-heartedly, but the Academy is giving it to her for the wrong reasons. The award will not reflect her talents as a director, but will instead reflect that she lacks a penis. Furthermore, she is working within the overwhelmingly male genre of war film, which makes the parochial Academy Awards happy that, if they are forced to bestow a woman with its most heralded award for behind-the-camera work, at least it will be for a “manly” film. Bigelow makes few statements about gender, which certainly aides in the Academy’s chronic refusal to bring to light issues of unbalanced gender and racial makeup behind the camera. When Spike Lee, Barbara Streisand, and Nora Ephron talk about this problem, they are shunned by the Academy and denied nominations. Additionally unsettling is that any time Bigelow is mentioned in a conversation about her nomination, the discussion invariably shifts to how she was once married to Cameron, and it was he who told her to push forward in making The Hurt Locker. Bigelow deserves praise on her own, and the only way her achievements will be properly recognized is if her film takes home Best Picture, acknowledging both her skill as the artist behind the work, as well as her ability to manage and facilitate the set of the best motion picture of the year – an achievement of merging both successful art and commerce.

2. In 3D, Avatar is a visual spectacle. The most convincing portions of the movie were the moments when Sully first arrives on Pandora and leaps through the forest. Undoubtedly, there were few cinematic moments this year that matched the sheer marvel of this scene, with luminous colors stretched throughout the screen and cool objects flying around. The 3D augmented the visceral effect of this scene marvelously, and throughout most of the picture, remained unobtrusive and decidedly un-gimmicky.

But how much of the wonder of Avatar would remain when put in pedestrian 2D? I would argue that the awe of the visual experience would diminish greatly, and viewers would be left with an underwhelming screenplay with trademark James Cameron narration trying awkwardly to sound like Terrence Malick philosophical quandary (Sully: “Sometimes your whole life boils down to one insane move”). It’s a little like late 2006, after the Steelers had won the Super Bowl, the Heat had won the NBA title, and the Cardinals had won the World Series. Perhaps if we just have a slight sense of retrospect . . .

October 27, 2006: “Man, what a great year in sports this has been! Roethlisburger and the Steelers, Wade and the Heat, Pujols and the Cards! This will be remembered as one of the best years ever for professional sports!”

October 28: “You know, the Cardinals did just win the World Series, but they only won 83 games this year. They also had two 7-game losing streaks after the All-Star Break…”

October 31: “It’s opening day in the NBA, and the Heat just lost by 42 to the Bulls at home. Some return to championship form!”

November 5: “The Steelers are 2-6. Charlie Batch is playing better than Roethlisburger. Did they seriously just lose to the Raiders?”

April 29, 2007: “The Heat just got their asses kicked in a four-game sweep by the Bulls. Was it just obligatory that they make the playoffs just because the refs won it all for them last year?”

September 16, 2007: “The Cards just lost three of four to the Cubs and are out of the playoffs. It didn’t seem to matter much when the lost games last year!”

January 5, 2008: “Wow, did you just see that amazing run by David Gerrard? The Jaguars beat the Steelers twice in Pittsburgh this year! Man, Jacksonville is so AWESOME!”

February 25: “The Heat are 9-45 and have won one game since Christmas. How they ever won a championship defies logic.”

And so on (maybe the Jaguars victory isn’t completely relevant, but I needed to include it nonetheless). Maybe the downward trajectory for Avatar won’t be as linear, but I do think the hysteria surrounding it is largely artificial and overhyped. When people buy thins thing on DVD to put on their 13” television sets with the volume turned down, will they be as impressed? I suppose a similar argument could be made for The Hurt Locker – you really do need to see it on the big screen to appreciate its overwhelming tension. But at least with The Hurt Locker, the film is reproduced with no glaring omissions or alterations to what audiences have seen in theaters. Innumerable visual flair will be lost with the transition of 3D Avatar to 2D, and this will only be heightened when the “novelty” effect of 3D becomes even more mainstream in the next several years. Just as rewarding Bigelow for her direction is really just awarding her because she is a woman, giving Best Picture to Avatar is akin to rewarding producers for successfully managing to reincorporate 3D in major mainstream American cinema, and providing a gimmicky device that will draw audiences to Z-grade entertainment which would otherwise, in conventional 2D, earn little to no attention. Doesn’t this adequately account for the better-than-expected box office success of Monsters vs. Aliens and The Final Destination in 2009? It also provides an avenue for Sony (through Real D), Dolby, and IMAX to reap the benefits of monopolizing the profitable industry of equipping 2D theaters with 3D capabilities. Avatar is a validation of what is already obvious in American motion pictures – the trend toward conglomerating visual novelty over auteurs and uncompromising independent features – and is a symbol of hard times to come for features like The Hurt Locker.

1. The Clash of the Titans remake. You heard me right. This is the most convincing and salient argument in favor of a Hurt Locker victory. Let me elaborate.

The other day while I was waiting for Shutter Island to begin, I saw the preview for the new Clash of the Titans movie. Now, the very idea of remaking a movie as classic and deeply loved as the original campy Clash of the Titans is unfathomable and proof that Hollywood moguls are unscrupulous in resurrecting even the most cherished works of camp for opportunistic profit. Also, the fact that Liam Neeson and Ralph Finnes are reunited 17 years after Schindler’s List for this crap should violate some sort of ethical standard for pairing up a once-legendary combination. It would be like Karl Malone and John Stockton playing pick-up ball for a Mormon missionary group or Woodward and Bernstein now writing for Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.

Watching this preview, I recognized Sam Worthington as the lead actor in the upcoming feature. Already in a foul mood at the prospect of this upcoming summer feature, Worthington’s presence only worsened the atmosphere. The producers of Clash of the Titans knew that Avatar would be a massive hit. They knew that millions of fans would flock to theaters and watch Worthington bravely battle troops scourging Pandora, and they knew his name would imminently become marketable. To cast Worthington in an upcoming action feature was a “safe” choice on the part of the film’s producers because Avatar, with its bulky budget the rivaling the size of most first world GDPs, would be a hit, even if it earned substantially less money than it did in actuality.

Now let’s consider Jeremy Renner, the lead actor in The Hurt Locker. Like Worthington, he was a virtual unknown at the beginning of 2009, and emerges in 2010 not only as the star of a potential Best Picture winner, but a deserving Best Actor nominee. Renner is not starring in any upcoming blockbuster summer features, as far as I am aware. According to IMDB, all of his future projects are either in production or post-production. True, there have been rumors of him starring in Peter Berg’s new film, which is great. I hope the guy can be in movies like Clash of the Titans; Lord knows, he was more impressive this year than Worthington. And that’s precisely the point: no one could have expected the critical success surrounding The Hurt Locker because, like most great films, the achievements of the film weren’t lauded in advertisements or by marketing executives, but came from the critical establishment and viewers. The Hurt Locker is a great film, to be sure, but it is one that required word-of-mouth and positive reviews to receive anything close to the kind of attention it has received at countless award ceremonies and critics’ top ten lists. It represents what is best about movies – that they are shaped by viewers, and the process of watching and engaging with a motion picture is not as one-sided as most audiences believe or expect. Avatar came spoon-fed in a defined container for us as viewers to consume; The Hurt Locker was molded and shaped by those who saw it, which may not have been as many people as those who saw Avatar, but enough to the extent that most observers believe The Hurt Locker should win the Academy Award for Best Picture, even if it in actuality will not.