I've got to address some points people are making about last night's Academy Awards telecast. I did a running blog during the show, just a little exercise in sillyness that made me happy and nobody read anyway. But, of course, I'm not the only one. Anyone who scours the web looking for inside movie information concerning upcoming films, newly released trailors, casting information, and movie reviews has probably stumbled across Harry Knowles' AintItCoolNews.com. Needless to say, he's a film lover who's probably seen 90% of the movies in existence. His knowledge of film is vast and impressive, as it spans through every decade and genre imaginable. But, given this information, sometimes his opinions are flat-out absurd.
In reading his running blog during the Oscars last night, I noticed a shade of sheer bitterness being spewed in the general direction of eventual Best Picture winner, "The Hurt Locker". Seemingly, he would have preferred to see "Avatar" steal the big award away from the front-runner, though I'm still struggling to see why. People, especially some heated talk-backers on his website, are making the case that "The Hurt Locker" isn't militarily accurate and "Avatar" deserved to win because it made a gaggle of money and changed the way films can be made for the future.
To address the first issue I'm simply going to state some facts: "The Hurt Locker" is about a bomb squad in Iraq, led by a rogue cowboy who's laugh-in-the-face-of-death attitude and screw-the-rules mentality is a constant thorn in his compatriots side, especially considering their tense, life-and-death profession. Is it believable? Maybe. Would the military allow for such a loose-canon to be running amok during a highly-tense war? Probably not. The sniper scene? Maybe a little too neat and tidy, but there's more going on in that scene than just unrivaled accuracy with a rifle. In all fairness, these things are slightly possible.
Now, for "Avatar": a group of scientists set-up a base on a distant planet with the plan of using fake versions of the blue, cat-like indigenous people, the Na'vi, controlled by the scientists in order to study their world and their species. I'm going to stop there because there's all kinds of weird, fantastical stuff going on throughout the movie, far too much to comment on. But, for those of you concerned with getting the facts right and hell-bent on movies being completely accurate, I just have to say: REALLY? You're willing to suspend disbelief and take that gargantuan leap of faith in "Avatar" but a not cut some slack for a couple of minor details in "The Hurt Locker"? And, as for the money issue, when did box-office receipts add up to quality films? Does everyone remember when "Titanic" won Best Picture in 1998? It beat out "L.A. Confidential" and "Good Will Hunting" for the top award that year, and everyone has been bitching about it ever since. It's humorous to point out the parallel points between "Avatar" and "Titanic": both directed by James Cameron, both were the most financially successful films of all time during the Oscar telecast, both lacked screenplay nominations (concurrently, both were written by James Cameron, himself), and both cost more money to produce than any other film in history at their respective times. If "Avatar" won we would have been subjected to the same crap 5 years from now: it was another plainly scripted special-effects blockbuster that's really little more than summer fare that didn't deserve to win Best Picture. "Avatar" was a peg lower, even, considering it had zero acting nominations and "Titanic" had 2. No acting and no screenplay? How does that equal a good film, nevermind the best film of the year?
Harry, how could you possibly tout a big-budget, predictable, brainless, only-pretty-on-the-surface movie like "Avatar" over the likes of truly well-told, well-written, layered stories like "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" or "The Hurt Locker"? I just don't get it. For someone who loves and knows that much about film, I have a hard time believing you actually got swept up in the "Avatar" hype so much that you were angry when "The Hurt Locker" won. Did you think it deserved to win based on artistic merit? What are you seeing there that I don't?
It's pretty depressing. Here was a guy who's opinions I trusted when I was first getting interested in film, just based on his knowledge and experience, and now he's let me down. I suppose I'll still look at his site for breaking news and tidbits about upcoming films, but I don't think I'll be paying too much attention to his reviews from now on. Oh well.
No comments:
Post a Comment