David Kusumoto wrote this on Mopo, and although I do not agree with everything said, I thought it was the most interesting and comprehensive study of Avatar Vs Academy Awards I have read yet.
T
** Meanwhile, you're right, Doug -- "Avatar's" story line has been done 1,000 times before, and that's my only objection to it. "Avatar's" script resembled "Dances With Wolves Meets the Blue Man Group" -- with the standard theme of "money-grubbing corporations" raping the natural resources of a planet populated by blue aliens -- whose every utterance is noble and forcefully profound, e.g., like lines given to every Native American character in Disney's "Pocahontas."
** Anyway, I was put in my place by a former colleague and mother of two kids who agreed with me -- but who told me -- (and she was right) -- "you know, you and your historical film references makes you old and out of date -- it makes everything you see today sound irrelevant with a "been there and done that" feeling. Well, that's not true for everything. Zillions of people are paying $15 to see 'Avatar' without your historical references; they don't care about "Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas." Even if they did, those pictures were made 15-20 years ago, before today's movie goers were born; they were made in ways that seem obsolete or less engaging to kids today. This doesn't mean old films are less important. It just means they're not important to young people YET. Someday they'll like them. Like we did. Geezuz, we weren't all born in 1920. Young people buy WAY more tickets than old people. Remember how you used to go to every opening night? You don't anymore because you hate long lines. You're not supporting the industry and you're well past the 'sell-by' date for mass entertainment. So stay at home and watch PBS, TCM or HBO. 'Avatar" may not be the best picture of the year, but it is historic and my kids loved it."
** I thought about this tirade for a moment and I said, "you know, you're right. Most people coming out of 'Avatar' are having fun -- and I admit it's astounding that a guy like James Cameron can knock out hit after monster hit, while having total control of material that, unlike Spielberg, always seems to strike industry watchers and the bean counters to have an "iffy" quality -- BEFORE they're released. Cameron's films never SEEM to feel like they will be guaranteed box office gold until AFTER word-of-mouth spreads."
** The box-office receipts of Cameron's last three films including "True Lies" -- have blown past everything Spielberg has done since 1993, including "Jurassic Park," a film at the time I thought was a technological game changer. I just wonder whether "Avatar," even as a "game changer" -- has a story/script worthy enough to be a Best Picture. "Titanic" beat back those same obstacles in 1997 with an old-fashioned, 1940s type love story that had teenage girls returning in droves.
** I liked low-budget picture, "The Hurt Locker" -- and was shocked that I also enjoyed the true story of Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael Oher in Sandra Bullock's "The Blind Side" -- but "Avatar" didn't hit me in the gut. Honestly, the best performances I saw in 2009 came from Meryl Streep as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" and Christoph Waltz as the smooth Nazi in "Inglourious Basterds."
** If I had to root for a single picture, it might be "The Hurt Locker," but only because I think it's the first picture about the war without a political message; none of the actors "debate" why they're in Iraq. There's no sledgehammer message. It's a strange film whereby the emotional centerpiece is the adrenaline of survival; some soldiers have it and some don't; this adrenaline is all that matters to the main character played by Best Actor nominee Jeremy Renner. I also thought "The Hurt Locker" was a giant leap for action director Kathryn Bigelow, who's never done anything like this. If anything, its neutral political stance underscores how many soldiers are ignorant of the politics of anything they're involved in. They just do their job.
** But my gut feeling is the 9 films going against "Avatar" -- all have the "Gandhi" hex hung around their necks. That is, if any picture OTHER than "Avatar" wins -- it will be a dubious distinction akin to "Forrest Gump" beating "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp Fiction" in 1994; "Shakespeare in Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998; "Chariots of Fire" beating "Reds" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981; "Ordinary People" beating "Raging Bull" in 1980; "Platoon" beating " Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" in 1986; "The English Patient" beating "Fargo" in 1996; "Dances with Wolves" beating "Goodfellas" in 1990 and "Gandhi" beating "E.T" in 1982 and on and on. I remember being angry when Oliver Stone's "Platoon" beat Woody Allen's "Hannah" in '86, the latter film much decorated in the all-important acting and screenplay categories. And last week, I put on "Shawshank" on the DVD player and my wife and I were in tears all over again. Still a great picture.
** I know the Oscars are such bullshit (and not the original point of Doug and Kirby's posts below) -- and I know these trophies are laden with the "politics of their day" -- which have proven time and again that the Academy's choices do not a classic make. But if "Avatar" loses, I sense many will feel like they've witnessed the "crime of the century," further exposing the gulf between the Academy and popular sentiment (arguably as they should be) -- but over a picture that is not only a box-office smash, but has also received good-to-great reviews. I won't mind if "Avatar" wins because I do know people who think despite its high-school-ish script (esp. the romance) -- that the picture is a critical and commercial juggernaut that should NOT be denied the biggest prize on March 7, which has forced many production companies to re-tool their future releases to integrate the 3D format in a "non-intrusive" way, which is "Avatar's" biggest strength.
** Despite 10 Best Picture nominees, I'm kind of indifferent this year, not one film screams "stupendous." But I was emotionally responsive to 5 of the nearly 35 films released in 2009, one of which is not even among the 10 nominees: "The Hurt Locker," "The Blind Side," "Up," "Inglourious Basterds" (despite its excesses) -- and "The (500) Days of Summer," the latter which I thought was going to be a stupid, sophomoric young-love beach film -- but turned out to be a new way of telling a story about a broken urban romance that doesn't get near a beach or a keg-party. Wonderful surprise.
** A digression -- I did not object to "Annie Hall" beating "Star Wars" in 1977. "Annie Hall" was a film I saw in contemporaneous release and I did feel at the time that it broke new ground for Woody Allen and for the "urban comedy genre" in a different way that "Star Wars" broke bigger ground for family entertainment the same year. But I also vividly remember going to work the next day. My work mates asked me, with great incredulity, "Star Wars lost to Annie WHAT? Your movie choices SUCK." I loved both films but I've never forgotten how that experience exposed me as a high-button, stuck-up, holier-than-thou snob.
