Academy Best Director Award...much ado about...

[Andrew Rieger]

A couple of quick points.

After some additional research, I have found that film is not as popular with troops as I had thought. As Tom stated, you tend to be very critical of films that depict your profession and mistakes stick out, mistakes that those without experience, will miss. Granted, there are very few war films that do not feature at least one scene with some "Hollywood" magic thrown in to keep audiences interested.

I do not feel that any of this should take away from the film itself. My cousin, who served two tours in Iraq feels that many troops don't understand how different this film is compared to the usual Hollywood crap. As someone who loves film, he has viewed almost a dozen Iraq films, both narrative and documentary, some by prominent directors, all bashing the military, focusing on civilian casualties, depicting troops and commanders as imperialistic rednecks who get a rush out of exploiting Iraqi citizens. He liked the film because it was void of politics and while not accurate in the fullest sense, he felt it captured the intensity of combat, the environment and provided an interesting look into the mental state of the troops themselves.

A vet is claiming that the story has been ripped of from his experiences and that some of the events in the film were stories he told to the writer back in 2004, so some of the scenarios may not be as far fetched as some think. Some have said that a bomb disposal team would not know how to use a Barret .50 so effectively. I've shot one before and having no sniper experience, I got than hang of it in a clip or two. Would blood make a gun jam? No idea, that would be a good question for Tom. Would a troop go through a city at night alone? No, but I think the point was how reckless he was. Would a team split up at night, no but look what happened. There were flaws sure, but compared to the shit produced by the film industry lambasting the troops, this was refreshing and for the most part, showed the compassion that many of the troops have for the people in Iraq.

 

[mikeburton]

I'm with you on this one Tom. I seriously didn't understand what the hype around the Hurt Locker was all about. It was flat out boring at times, caught a burst of wind come awards season and sailed off into the sunset. But my vote was for Inglorious Bastards. I could live with Avatar even seeing as though its the most successful movie EVER~!
Ultimately, I don't really care that much as I feel the overall public is always thrown for a loop and disappointed by the academy outcomes. I think they do it on purpose so we all talk about it the next day and tune in next year to see what ridiculous decisions they will make then. I congratulate the winner but shake my head yet again at the academy.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

I'm with you on this one Tom. I seriously didn't understand what the hype around the Hurt Locker was all about. It was flat out boring at times, caught a burst of wind come awards season and sailed off into the sunset. But my vote was for Inglorious Bastards. I could live with Avatar even seeing as though its the most successful movie EVER~!
Ultimately, I don't really care that much as I feel the overall public is always thrown for a loop and disappointed by the academy outcomes. I think they do it on purpose so we all talk about it the next day and tune in next year to see what ridiculous decisions they will make then. I congratulate the winner but shake my head yet again at the academy.

I have never heard The Hurt Locker described as boring. I loved Inglorious Basterds but Tarantino was much better in his early days when his films like Pulp Fiction and RD broke new ground. His films these days just put new spins on old styles but I am growing tired of the whole homage thing with him, he needs to do his own thing. I will agree that there were some scenes in The Hurt Locker that were drawn out but there were scenes in Inglorious that were way way way too long (pub shootout and first scene). It would have been a travesty if Avatar won, financial success is no indication of greatness. The film was an exercise is FX development and nothing more.

I don't feel the public was disappointed by the selection, at least not from what I have read, unless of course they were al pulling for Avatar. In that case, whatever, let them be disappointed. If the Hurt Locker did not win, I would have liked to see D9 win but that may have proved even more controversial (another film you either loved or hated). I feel these films should polarize audiences. For the most part, there were no major surprises this year. What I cannot stand is when people don't even give a film the chance. I have read some comments where some have stated they stopped watching after 30 minutes. Well, I guess you could go watch Avatar for the 4th time, that may grab your attention.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

The thing is, we're really wandering off a few important facts. A movie does not need to reflect whatever subject it's based on faithfully, otherwise it wouldn't be artful interpretation, but a mere documentary. That is not the Hurt Locker's main flaw, however right true combat veterans may be about it feeling flat and untruthful. The movie is interesting, different, and at times, intense, but that's pretty much it. Characters are formulaic, the whole lone warrior not fitting into the team riff has been played to exhaustion, the photography is at times horrible with all the Super 16mm grain clouding the view, and although the direction is assertive and secure, nothing about really jumps out as being great.

Avatar was, true and through, the best film of 2009, never mind how much money it made or how much it cost. Why punish the film for being an overachiever? Why punish Cameron for being so far ahead of anybody else that after being absent for 12 long years, he comes back and delivers something clearly ahead of the technical curve, where he created or perfected techniques and methods that brought the "wow" back to movies? Why bash the movie for its strong environmental message, what the f..k is wrong with a strong environmental message when the planet is slowly suffocating? I guess the people who cringe at the Ferngully similarities and laugh of how "obvious" the tree hugging is are the very people that don't believe in global warming, or worse, don't care about it, or don't recycle, or throw garbage on the floor, or consume in massively irresponsible amounts, etc, etc. It amazes me that so many are actually "bothered" by the message in Avatar, why, because Cameron waves it right in our faces? Well, at least he does it while truly entertaining us, showing something never before seen and pushing the cinema science into a new era. Now, if Michael Moore did it his way, annoyingly bending the facts to suit his version/vision, then it'd probably be ok, since he's an honest documentarian, but Cameron and his multimillion budget don't deserve any spiritual credit? Was there any other film that a) wowed audiences with a great, entertaining story, b) did so in spectacularly amazing fashion, and c) delivered a message that is supremely prescient and important given the current state of affairs, and did so without affecting points a and b? No other film accomplished that like Avatar, at least not from the nominated movies, and that's why Avatar was the worthy winner.
The fact that Avatar actually won for cinematography, where so little of it is actually true cinematography as opposed to a fictitious construct where fictitious characters move, clearly shows where the levels of common sense, and intelligence, of the voting academy members really reside. But at least Jeff Bridges won! Then again, Sandra Bullock trumping Meryl Streep, somebody pass me my cyanide pills please...

 

[Andrew Rieger]

The thing is, we're really wandering off a few important facts. A movie does not need to reflect whatever subject it's based on faithfully, otherwise it wouldn't be artful interpretation, but a mere documentary. That is not the Hurt Locker's main flaw, however right true combat veterans may be about it feeling flat and untruthful. The movie is interesting, different, and at times, intense, but that's pretty much it. Characters are formulaic, the whole lone warrior not fitting into the team riff has been played to exhaustion, the photography is at times horrible with all the Super 16mm grain clouding the view, and although the direction is assertive and secure, nothing about really jumps out as being great.

Avatar was, true and through, the best film of 2009, never mind how much money it made or how much it cost. Why punish the film for being an overachiever? Why punish Cameron for being so far ahead of anybody else that after being absent for 12 long years, he comes back and delivers something clearly ahead of the technical curve, where he created or perfected techniques and methods that brought the "wow" back to movies? Why bash the movie for its strong environmental message, what the f..k is wrong with a strong environmental message when the planet is slowly suffocating? I guess the people who cringe at the Ferngully similarities and laugh of how "obvious" the tree hugging is are the very people that don't believe in global warming, or worse, don't care about it, or don't recycle, or throw garbage on the floor, or consume in massively irresponsible amounts, etc, etc. It amazes me that so many are actually "bothered" by the message in Avatar, why, because Cameron waves it right in our faces? Well, at least he does it while truly entertaining us, showing something never before seen and pushing the cinema science into a new era. Now, if Michael Moore did it his way, annoyingly bending the facts to suit his version/vision, then it'd probably be ok, since he's an honest documentarian, but Cameron and his multimillion budget don't deserve any spiritual credit? Was there any other film that a) wowed audiences with a great, entertaining story, b) did so in spectacularly amazing fashion, and c) delivered a message that is supremely prescient and important given the current state of affairs, and did so without affecting points a and b? No other film accomplished that like Avatar, at least not from the nominated movies, and that's why Avatar was the worthy winner.
The fact that Avatar actually won for cinematography, where so little of it is actually true cinematography as opposed to a fictitious construct where fictitious characters move, clearly shows where the levels of common sense, and intelligence, of the voting academy members really reside. But at least Jeff Bridges won! Then again, Sandra Bullock trumping Meryl Streep, somebody pass me my cyanide pills please...

I think most will disagree that Avatar was the best film of the year, from a technical level yes, but it failed on so many other levels. You criticize The Hurt Locker for being formulaic but Avatar is the worst offender of the year in that regard. Have you seen The Last Samurai, Silent Running, Ferngully, Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves? Avatar is the same plot as all those films. Yes, Cameron is a technical wizard who drives fx development but he is not a master storyteller, I much prefer his earlier work. About the wow factor, there are technical awards such as best fx for a reason. About the environmental message, I hated how it crammed itself down your throat. I hated how troops are made out to be imperialistic savages only concerned with the bottom line or how humans in general are depicted as parasites. I respect environmentalists and feel that were are doing a great deal of damage to the planet but if I wanted a film about Cameron's political beliefs, I would have watched the work of Moore. The Hurt Locker was the perfect setting to preach about imperialism of oppression of foreign cultures but the filmmakers were more mature than that. Cameron thinks it is his job to educate us, The Hurt Locker respects the audience and lets us make our own conclusions about the war. Was Avatar, spectacular? Yes. It was however filled with cliche, bad acting, and a weak script that had my head shaking numerous times. Its not that the message is bad, it is that it is so preachy to the point of being corny. Avatar is worthy of top 5 but District 9 was way more creative, more though provoking, interesting, equally entertaining and featured better acting. All around, a much better scifi film. Like Titanic, public opinion will change as the hype wears off or the next fx driven film upstages it, then it will not seen so special. In the end, all special effects look dated overtime.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Amen, Rudi!

The fact that Cameron lost Best Director is also a farce, IMO. He spent four years of his life on this film, breaking all kinds of barriers and turning in a film that IMO will go down in history with the likes if Wizard of Oz, King Kong and Star Wars.

I do think this might be some kind of payback for his "King of the World" nonsense.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

At this point, comparisons are pointless. You either approved of the selection or you did not. I have made my point clear and other have as well. There are truths on both sides. If it is any consolation to Avatar fans, it is the highest grossing film of all time and did well at the Golden Globes. It is also the most internationally successful film of all time. Don't get me wrong, I loved it and saw it three times but as I look back, there were too many flaws to define it as a piece of art worthy of the same award bestowed on films like the Godfather, not that the Best Picture award is the gold standard of film perfection, I tend to disagree with most of the selections, just not this year. I respect the input of guys like Tom since they has been there and I admire their dedication and patriotism. I guess I am surprised it has not been well received considering the usual Hollywood tendency to bash the military, Avatar included.

 

[Joe G.]

Iraq is an ongoing war crime. Technically, it's a Crime Against the Peace, established at the Nuremberg Tribunals against Nazi commanders, several of whom were hanged.

Turning this monumental crime into popcorn fun, devoid of actual content, is just the "victors" writing their own version of history. Big surprise it wins awards here.

"Iraqi deaths due to US invasion: 1,366,350"

If any other nation did to the USA what the USA did (and is doing) to Iraq, or Afghanistan, it would be seen in quite a different light.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

This is a discussion on films, not on your personal political beliefs. As much as I disagree with you, I respect your right to free speech but I do not want this forum to turn into a warzone (no pun intended) and be shut down. Please take the political comments (unless there are within the context of a film critique) somewhere else.

 

[Jon Carr]

Anyways, I think Inglourious Basterds would of been a much better choice for best picture. But the Hurt Locker was also a good choice. I wasn't impressed by the story of Avatar, it had great effects. Just saying the story didn't have the power, that visuals had.

 

[Neil Larson]

Andrew, you must have really loved The Hurt Locker because no one can express their opinion about it without you defending the film. Wow. We all enjoy different films. I said it before, and I'll say it again. The hurt locker was NOTHING special. I've seen hundreds of films like it. Great film, but in no way special the way Avatar is.

 

[scott william]

watched the hurt locker for the second time last night. loved it the first time and loved it just as much the second time. Didn’t really think it deserved the Oscar any more or less than the other nominations. It’s as entertaining as any film ive seen.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Andrew, The hurt locker was NOTHING special. I've seen hundreds of films like it. Great film, but in no way special the way Avatar is.

I agree. Avatar was predictable and formulaic, yes, but even then, it was the most enjoyable 160 minutes I've passed in a long, long time. I was ready for Hurt Locker to finish so I could go back home and watch some mindless HD without grain on my TV And I say that because Hurt Locker was supposed to be provocative, original, different and visceral, which it wasn't anymore than Avatar. We seem to be forgetting that film making is a craft, and as a craft, Avatar was so far ahead of anything this year that, as an achievement, just like Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park, Terminator were achievements in their day, it blew anything else out of the water. You want a visceral war movie? Go watch Platoon, and I hate, hate, hate Oliver Stone. The Hurt Locker was nowhere near that level of accomplishment. For the record, my favorite film among the nominated was UP, beautiful, haunting, uplifting, special. Avatar is not even my favorite Cameron film, that honor will rest with Aliens and The Abyss, but it is something special, and the Hurt Locker is really nothing special. And, I am a fan of Bigelow, by the way.
Avatar's loss was indeed a farce, the same way Star Wars' loss to Annie Hall was, or ET's loss to Gandhi was (much deserved Best Actor, that's it) and other crowd pleasers with a good message and great technological prowess have lost to "serious" films with a "serious" message. Bigelow rode the female wave, to no fault of hers, and the little movie that could wave, but in truth, Hurt Locker was nowhere second or third best film in terms of overall accomplishment, however much it may have resonated with some viewers.
Lastly, the hypocrisy of Hollywood is reaching comical levels. In a town where the money spent on plastic surgeries easily triples the budget of Hurt Locker, where you're as good as your last box office hit, their crusade to show Cameron that big numbers are not what "matter" in that town is sad, sad, sad, because indeed, nothing but numbers matter to all those souls that voted against Avatar because of jealousy and envy. I wonder, really, how many of the voting members actually saw Hurt Locker, when it played for a very short time in a very limited number of theaters...

Anyway, to each his/her own...where's my afternoon espresso?

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Andrew, you must have really loved The Hurt Locker because no one can express their opinion about it without you defending the film. Wow. We all enjoy different films. I said it before, and I'll say it again. The hurt locker was NOTHING special. I've seen hundreds of films like it. Great film, but in no way special the way Avatar is.

Not trying to silence anyone, simply offering the alternative pov. Not a whole lot of defenders of the film from what I have seen.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Wow Rudi,

Tell us how you really feel. ;-)

Isn't there more to the craft of filmmaking though, than just technical acheivement? The point of giving all of those individual awards, and then also one for best picture is to acknowlege the film that accells in each of the seven arts, and combines them in a way that is special... In a way that is uniquely cinema. If that is the case, then how do you strip the performance out of Gandhi and say, without it the film is undeserving? It is part of a whole, is it not?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I liked "The Hurt Locker" -- I put off seeing it, finally rented the Blu-Ray and was ready to watch it over two nights, but once it started I watched it all the way to the end. I liked the simplicity of the set-up, up to a point (see below).

Normally I don't care for shakeycam but in this case, it worked for me, the nervousness of the camera work matched the emotions of diffusing a bomb.

I had one big beef with the movie, the cameos of name actors who then proceeded to get killed, it reminded me too much of the opening credits to "Police Squad" / "The Naked Gun" ("tonight's guest star...")

On the other hand, the smart part about the casting was that one of the biggest problems in most war movies ("Band of Brothers" for example) is that all these 20-year-old men with crewcuts start to look alike, so you either have to cast distinctive types of faces, or use familiar actors just to tell them apart. In "Band of Brothers" (which I loved), you'd have some guy introduced in Episode 1 who would not show up again until Episode 5, and you'd get confused as to whether you were supposed to remember who this guy was. In this movie, I never got confused by all the soldiers coming in and out of the story.

Ultimately most good war movies are not really about accurate details regarding that particular war, they are stories of ordinary human beings put through extraordinary situations that make us all question our own humanity and how we would act in those situations, and why we put human beings through that sort of ordeal, or even, why human beings volunteer to be put through such an experience. Certainly "Apocalypse Now" is not particularly about the Vietnam War per se, it's merely a backdrop.

If I have a problem with the script to "The Hurt Locker" it's only that it doesn't particularly go anywhere too deep, it just sort of circles back onto itself. Given the metaphorical power of the scenario of bomb disposal in the middle of a war, it seemed a bit, well, light, a bit too stripped down, as if the screenwriter was afraid, or unable, of using the situation to delve deeper into human nature.

But despite those misgivings, I found it to be engrossing and evocative, which are two things I wish more movies could be.

 

[Michael McVicar]

My favorite scene was the grocery store. Simply done,great set up, perfect timing,place,mood,comedic relief,cut,location in the timeline. A lot was said with very little.

 

[scott william]

My favorite scene was the grocery store. Simply done,great set up, perfect timing,place,mood,comedic relief,cut,location in the timeline. A lot was said with very little.

What do you think was said in this scene Michael?

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I don't think you have to be ex-military to get that vibe.

I was really put off by the main character through the entire movie because I thought that it did a disservice to the story to have what amounts to a borderline psychopath as the main character.

I didn't care if he got blown up. In fact I sort of hoped the entire time a bomb would take him out so that he would stop putting people I actually cared about in danger.

Well, so probably the movie worked pretty well.

I'm certain it was not a hero quest, syd field, average script thing... Right?

:biggrin5:

I liked "The Hurt Locker" -- I put off seeing it, finally rented the Blu-Ray and was ready to watch it over two nights, but once it started I watched it all the way to the end. I liked the simplicity of the set-up, up to a point (see below).

Normally I don't care for shakeycam but in this case, it worked for me, the nervousness of the camera work matched the emotions of diffusing a bomb.

I had one big beef with the movie, the cameos of name actors who then proceeded to get killed, it reminded me too much of the opening credits to "Police Squad" / "The Naked Gun" ("tonight's guest star...")

On the other hand, the smart part about the casting was that one of the biggest problems in most war movies ("Band of Brothers" for example) is that all these 20-year-old men with crewcuts start to look alike, so you either have to cast distinctive types of faces, or use familiar actors just to tell them apart. In "Band of Brothers" (which I loved), you'd have some guy introduced in Episode 1 who would not show up again until Episode 5, and you'd get confused as to whether you were supposed to remember who this guy was. In this movie, I never got confused by all the soldiers coming in and out of the story.

Ultimately most good war movies are not really about accurate details regarding that particular war, they are stories of ordinary human beings put through extraordinary situations that make us all question our own humanity and how we would act in those situations, and why we put human beings through that sort of ordeal, or even, why human beings volunteer to be put through such an experience. Certainly "Apocalypse Now" is not particularly about the Vietnam War per se, it's merely a backdrop.

If I have a problem with the script to "The Hurt Locker" it's only that it doesn't particularly go anywhere too deep, it just sort of circles back onto itself. Given the metaphorical power of the scenario of bomb disposal in the middle of a war, it seemed a bit, well, light, a bit too stripped down, as if the screenwriter was afraid, or unable, of using the situation to delve deeper into human nature.

But despite those misgivings, I found it to be engrossing and evocative, which are two things I wish more movies could be.

Great comments David.

Well of course you like stories and that's why you put so much effort in telling them visually, but let me ask you, have you ever studied with a little more depth Screenwriting?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well of course you like stories and that's why you put so much effort in telling them visually, but let me ask you, have you ever studied with a little more depth Screenwriting?

Not in depth... I have a BA in English Lit from UCLA and took a screenwriting class when I was getting my MFA at CalArts, but that was all a long time ago and I haven't kept those skills up.