I am one of those who would have been shouting in an undignified manner at the TV tonight if Kathryn Bigelow and The Hurt Locker had not won.
For the record, I can’t tell you how bored I am with the complaints that the film doesn’t get all its details right. Art is not always about accuracy (for that we turn to documentary and nonfiction), but it is always about truth.
The Hurt Locker is only nominally about the U.S. Army EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) units—although it uses that material as a vehicle. It is about the ambiguity of war. And in depicting that moral and emotional ambiguity, it succeeds with great and lasting resonance.
Like all good art it allows the beholder to project on it what he and she will. For the antiwar liberal it is an antiwar movie. For the conservatives it is a jagged love letter to the bravery of our troops.
It is also none of the above and all of the above. For me the film successfully brought to life the words of Tim O’Brien, from his exquisite “The Things They Carried,”
True war stories do not generalize. They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis…..War is hell, but that’s not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead.
The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat. You stare out at tracer rounds unwinding through the dark like brilliant red ribbons. You crouch in ambush as a cool, impassive moon rises over the nighttime paddies. You admire the fluid symmetries of troops on the move, the great sheets of metal-fire streaming down from a gunship, the illumination rounds, the white phosphorus, the purply orange glow of napalm, the rocket’s red glare. It’s not pretty, exactly. It’s astonishing. It fills the eye. It commands you. You hate it, yes, but your eyes do not. Like a killer forest fire, like cancer under a microscope, any battle or bombing raid or artillery barrage has the aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference – a powerful, implacable beauty – and a true war story will tell the truth about this, though the truth is ugly.
To generalize about war is like generalizing about peace. Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true.
The beautiful and important The Hurt Locker lays out an array of these contradictory truths within the convention of a compelling and deeply human narrative —and thus it escaped the confines of its story to burrow permanently inside many of us who see it.
That is why, for me, this year—despite the joys and revelations of other work like Precious and A Single Man, Kathryn Bigelow’s relatively small film is The One.
I’m just glad the Academy agreed so I was not reduced to lecturing the television.
And I’m really, really glad Jeff Bridges won too. And The Cove. And Mo’Nique. And Christoph Waltz, while we’re at it. And I thought Sandra Bullock was fabulously classy, even though I always want Merl Streep to win. If she’s not in a movie that year, I don’t care. I just think she should win anyway. (In truth, what an array of terrific women up for best actress this year!) And anytime T-Bone Burnett can win something, it is a good night.
I think this years oscar winner for best picture “The Hurt Locker”, 20 years from now will be remembered about as well as the oscar winner in 1973, “The Sting”, now relegated to trivia question, “which movie won the oscar over what is considered one of the classic movies of all time, “The Exorcist”?
DQ, I take it this means you’d have given it to Avatar?
Overall, this was the best AA I can remember. Generally paid attention to films and performances that were well-deserved. Enjoyed the 2 Stooges hosting. I even enjoyed the bizarre humor in Sandra Bullock beating out both Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren as “Best Actress” (the presenter should have done air quotes to put that one in context.) I think even she realized it was a bit surreal. Jeff Bridges was wonderful in Crazy Heart and was a fun winner. Hurt Locker deserved all of the accolades – a brilliant film. James Cameron is just going to have to go home and roll around in that pile of money while he figures out what innovative forms of sensory overload he’s going wrap a shitty script in this time around. I’ll be disappointed if he doesn’t add Smell-O-Vision to the next one.
I didn’t get the chance to see this film (yet), but I’m just sooooo relieved that “Avatar” didn’t win.
Oh crap. The Oscars were awarded tonight. I was on a conference call for nearly 2 hours and had the telly on mute…(I’m assuming Gordon Brown probably sounds a dull as he looks without the sound on)
I didn’t see the Hurt Locker. It’s been on the ‘to do list.’ Celeste your little write up above is motivating. Thanks.
Did see “The Blind Side” and thought Sandra Bullock was great in it. Certainly the best work of her career. Glad to see Bridges get the nod for Bad Blake in “Crazy Heart.” He was awesome. Thanks Academy for ‘abiding.’
Also great to see Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman, but it would have been nice to give them a turn on stage for a moment rather than wave from the audience. Two legends of the industry and they get treated like visiting relatives. I haven’t seen Blind Side and I’m not that anxious to, until it shows up on cable, but I thought Bullock gave a very nice, classy speech. Also liked the way they recognized the best actors with kind words from a friend. Nice touch and didn’t seem overly phony, considering it was the AAs.
Didn’t see Crazy Heart, and didn’t have any problem with Hurt Locker winning but though Precious and Inglurious Bastards were also terrific. I didn’t see Avatar, not a big cgi fan.
Much as I rarely agree with Don, The Exorcist is #1 on the list with many true horror fans and sites. It was easily better than The Sting and won The Golden Globe as best picture.
In a way, Inglorious Basterds and Avatar are really quite similar. Similar in that they are fantasy mediations on how history’s greatest victims overcome their persecutors — the Jews v. Nazis and Hunter Gathers v. the Industrial Revolution. In both films, I think the respective directors embellish these views.
Imho, the violence become gratuitous, but there were two absolutely fantastic scenes in IB: The opening sequence that introduces the “Jew Hunter” and the lead up to the bar room shoot out. Both of these scenes were absolutely top notch.
Bergman’s “Cries and Whispers” and George Lucas best film, “American Graffiti” were also nominated in 1973 and deserved the award more than “The Sting” (which is an enjoyable movie on its limited terms and, despite don quixote’s assertion, is still remembered and watched as a light, gimmicky comedy.) Worse than The Sting winning “Best Picture” – in that it was extremely popular – was George Roy Hill beating Ingmar Bergman, Bernardo Bertolucci, Friedkin and George Lucas as Best Director. HIs film was without question the least interesting from the perspective of direction.
The Academy is notorious for giving “Best Picture” to mediocrities and popular lesser pix – in ’76 Rocky beat Taxi Driver and Network. Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction, The English Patient beat Fargo, Dances With Wolves beat Goodfellas. In The Heat of the Night beat Bonnie and Clyde. Worst ever – Greatest Show On Earth beat High Noon and How Green Was My Valley beat not only Citizen Kane, but the Maltese Falcon. This stuff is kind of par for the course. Also, the academy would probably do better to have two or three categories, like the GGs – maybe SciFi/Horror, Drama and Comedy/Musical. Since there’s no accounting for taste, I’ve never seen the Exorcist except bits on TV and have zero interest in it, although I know it’s a well made film. I have next-to-zero interest in Avatar, although so many people have raved about the effects and 3-D I might go see it. I can see some people not getting Inglorious Basterds, although I loved it. How do you compare “Up In the Air” to “Precious” or “Avatar” – seems stupid to even try to fit them into a single category. I’m so unmoved by SciFi/Fanatasy I went to see Lord of the Rings with my son who is a Tolkien fan and thought it bordered on ridiculous, and would absolutely have given the Oscar to Mystic River or even Master and Commander. My kid loved it. Although I didn’t hate Crash like some folks did (actually thought it was engaging if not taken as realism but quasi-Brechtian fable) I would have given the Oscar to any of the other movies nominated that year – Capote, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck and Munich – over Crash. And that was a group of films that actually were comparable.
The great thing about the AAs this year was that astonishing commercial success and what must have been innovative hyper-CGI, harnessed in the service of a pretentious concept, was ignored by the voters in favor of nitty-gritty, low-budget, passionate film-making about something very real and not very popular in the public mind of 2010 – which borders on bizarre behavior for Hollywood.
Oh – I forgot one of the worst ever in Oscar history – Ordinary People beating Raging Bull !
I look as forward to the Academy Awards as I do the announcment of the Nobel Peace Prize. Both contain strong elements of anti-Americanism.
Not really necessary to chime in here, jackass. We’ve already got more than enough proof you’re dumber than dirt.
reg, before someone calls me dumb, he at least should have finished high school.
I’ll break my self-imposed silence for one moment to say that Woody is dumb.
The anti-Americanism clearly came through when Kathryn Bigelow was praising those who serve in the military – to thunderous applause – as well as those who wear uniforms as first responders, also to thunderous applause.
Don’t compound the embarrassment for yourself, Woody.
Oh, I see, Randy. One applause, presumably for our military, reverses decades of and still rampant Hollywood activism against our nation. Right.
In applause, the crowd was simply being fashionable but really saw the film as an attack on “George Bush’s war,” that they always opposed and that the film portrayed as futile. (Hey, did you see that voting in the Iraqi democracy this weekend?) The film also is misleading in that it shows a team leader who’s a junkie and doesn’t care about his men’s lives.
Actually, it was appropriate that Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand had prominate roles at the awards. And, Avatar, which is definitely anti-American and anti-military, got its props.
No, the Academy Awards show is run by and for socialists against American values. That has not changed.
However, Randy, thanks for stepping in for the dropout.
Here’s a typical liberal “intellectual” response about “The Hurt Locker” and how the Left sees it in terms of our military and nation:
In other words of the Left, veterans of the Iraq war can still go to hell. They should’t walk across the campus of Columbia University, especially when liberals are expectorating.
Woody, go change the Depends. You’ve got a full load. However I will admit it’s appropriate, in your case, that you wear them on your head.
One applause, presumably for our military, reverses decades of and still rampant Hollywood activism against our nation. Right.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
Woody, I see by the nature of your comments that you haven’t seen the film since you’re prattling on about the usual liberals hate soldiers nonsense.
As for the reaction of the military’s men and women? They’ve voted with their feet. PX’s around the world, including war zones, report the video of The Hurt Locker selling out.
On the military chat boards, some like it, some criticize it as getting details wrong, but an awful lot of service people, it seems, want to see it—and have.
By the way, if one stops dividing the world into US and THEM, it’s a better place to live.
Personally I hate big SciFi special-effects movies like Avatar. I have no idea what the plot infers and don’t really care.
But since America obviously loves Avatar – having voted it the most popular movie ever with their dollars in the marketplace – Woody hates America. This is more proof of just how out of touch the hate-America Right is with their lunatic ideology and burning resentments.
As for the Iraq war, Woody is more than welcome to continue as cheerleader for a willful blunder in which American soldiers – recklessly sent to war on an alleged mission to destroy a non-existent threat – were the biggest losers and Iran was the biggest winner. Dumb, fucking war. Criminal, really. But Woody considers any tributes to the heroism of soldiers caught in this mess that doesn’t put rationalizing the base motives of the cowardly pricks who sent them there “anti-American.”
The only thing Woody loves is demented, ill-informed far-Right ideology, founded on his petty, reactionary resentments. Total fucking idiot and an indecent little man, as his self-absorbed, intrusive, half-assed hijacking of this thread with hare-brained slanders demonstrates.
Of course, now the ridiculous little shit is quite pleased, because it’s “all about him.” He doesn’t have the intellect to discuss films on their merits, so he turns it into another Woody sleaze-fest.
Go to hell, you creepy bastard.
Celeste – Woody doesn’t care about the facts. And, unfortunately, the Woodys of the world make the “us” and “them” divide a reality. It’s not about conservatives vs. liberals, but about isolating and identifying a cohort which has shed common decency and embraces ignorance.
To answer your question Celeste, yes, I think any non prejudiced movie fan would have undoubtedly given not only the Best Picture award but Best Director award to James Cameron and “Avatar’. Avatar took the movie goer on a fantastic trip, to another time and place, but with all the ugly human traits like greed and hunger for conquest and arrogance that we seem unable to shake, it might have gotten a little mushy at times but all in all it was by far the most enjoyable movie I saw this year, it took everyone on an incredible journey that made 3 hours go by in flash, no other movie was even close. The technique of digital 3D that James Cameron and Co developed for Avatar has revolutionized film, and it is still filling up theaters around the world almost as more of an event than a movie.
There is often a jealous backlash from people and especially the sometimes delusional and petty Academy voters. Hey if someone produces a great movie and makes a Billion or so dollars on top of that I say more power to them!
There is no comparison between “Avatar†and “Hurt Lockerâ€, Avatar will be considered a historic and classic movie 50 years from now, Hurt Locker will go down as one of the forgettable movies and a trivial pursuit question.
I saw “Hurt Locker” and thought, wow what’s the big deal about this movie; it was just another war movie with all the typical clichés and lots of bad unbelievable effects. “The tough black guy who is really a softie, “the loud belligerent officer who really has his soldiers best interests in mind”, “the college graduate soldier who has a misguided view of war” and the worst cliché of all “the tough soldier who befriends the young Arab boy and gets all gooey (bordering on man boy love!). And the wing nut main character with obsessive-compulsive disorder, what was that all about? Were we supposed to be sympathetic? According to people I know who were in Iraq he wouldn’t have been allowed to get anywhere near any explosives with his mindset.
Naw, the award for best picture to “Hurt Locker” was a petty jealous reaction to the success of Avatar and James Cameron.
And Reg, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you serious as a movie aficionado when you can make a statement such as “The Sting” was an enjoyable movie on a limited basis, huh! Don’t you recall the trite, goofy, cute, buddy movie shit with Redford and Newman? It was so precious and saccharine it made me want to drink to excess, and don’t you recall that obnoxious music that you could hear everywhere and that made your teeth ache (almost as bad as “We Are The World”!), that award winning score by the equally obnoxious “Marvin Hamlisch”! Yikes!
And then in almost the same breath you say you have no interest in seeing “The Exorcist”? The Exorcist, one of the classical movies in the history of film, it’s on every film buffs list of greatest movies of all time, it is an exploration into not only a little girls possession by evil, but the story of a troubled yet brilliant Jesuit priest and the battle within himself over faith and duty and good and evil, a staggering performance by Jason Miller.
Max Von Sydow as Father Merrin, the old priest battling his own demons and health but with unshakeable resolve to battle evil even at the cost of his own life?
Lee J Cobb and Ellen Burstyn?
You kidding me?
PS; My favorite trivia questions regarding mediocre movies that won over great classics would be (besides this years fiasco), 1948, Olivier’s “Hamlet” over “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (maybe my favorite movie), 1941,”How Green was my Valley” over “The Maltese Falcon”, (you can tell I’m a big Bogart fan), and 1996 “The English Patient” (horrible movie!), over the Coen Bros, great “Fargo”.
All the winners were English movies, hmmm, a conspiracy by Royal Imperialists, no doubt about it.
Also, and I know some people will take me to task on this, but I have never liked the 1939 winner for best picture,”Gone With The Wind”, it puts me to sleep every time I try to finish watching it. My choice for 1939 would have been the still enjoyable “Wizard of OZ” or even the John Ford western classic “StageCoach”
One more thing, besides “The Sting” winning the Oscar over “The Exorcist” in 1973 there was another classic nominated that year that should have won, “Last Tango In Paris” with one of Brando’s greatest performances in it.
Cameron cannot write. Both of his screenplays for his best-picture nominated films did not even get a nomination.
Titanic was an execrable piece of crap, containing pretty much every cliche in the book.
Richard Pryor had the best take on The Exorcist. Friedkin is another journeyman director, who got lucky with the French Connection and managed to make the remake of The Wages of Fear (Sorcerer) tedious. The Exorcist bored me.
Friedkin doesn’t know how to be subtle.
“Naw, the award for best picture to “Hurt Locker†was a petty jealous reaction to the success of Avatar and James Cameron.”
Films like literature are terrific to debate because what touches one person, leaves another unaffected.
I loved the whirlwind of the senses that was Avatar and very much want one of those tails that I can connect up with cool flying beasts. Technologically, the film is enormously important. But I found the script DOA. I didn’t care, really, because I was so delighted to be in the world that Cameron had created. But my insight—admittedly personal—at the time I was watching it was that, although Cameron had clearly read and reread Campbell’s Hero With a Thousand Faces, he was not able to create a resonant myth with this story. (With the first, Terminator movie, absolutely, but Avatar? I just don’t think so.)
So for me, for all its gorgeousness and techno brilliance, and heart in its own way, the story itself felt stiff and predictable. It skimmed the surface emotionally, but what a stupendous surface it was.
So that’s why I didn’t want it to win best picture. I can’t tell you what the Oscar voters were feeling, but it was for the above reasons that I didn’t think it would win.
Again, however, its all personal taste—which is the fun of it.
don quixote – you’re welcome to your world. The obnoxious music in the Sting was Scott Joplin. I’m assuming you’re 12 years old, so I’ll refrain from treating you like an asshole and leave it at that.
Actually, re-reading your description of Hurt Locker, (“man-boy love”, “wingnut main character” ????) I have to say that you strike me as pretty much of an idiot.
Incidentally, I looked for The Exorcist on Roger Ebert’s list of 100 greatest movies and it’s not there. I guess he’s not a “film buff.” It’s not on the AFI Top 100 films list either. Not on Entertainment Weekly’s list of 100 best films. Nor Richard Corliss’ and Richard Schikel’s TIME best 100. It does make it into the NYT’s 1000 best. But since that one also includes “The English Patient”, I’m not impressed.
“Titanic was an execrable piece of crap”
Thank you !
The dropout: But since America obviously loves Avatar – having voted it the most popular movie ever with their dollars in the marketplace – Woody hates America.
Actually, more people in this country have not seen Avatar than have seen it, so I’m with those who love this country.
– – –
I see, at most, two movies a year. Last night we saw Alice in Wonderland. It was something about a girl falling into a hole and eating some hallucinogens, which made her believe that she was talking to Johnny Depp. The 3D needs a lot of help. It looked like a bunch of 2D images overlayed. I have one more movie to go before I reach my quota this year.
“I think any non prejudiced movie fan would have undoubtedly given not only the Best Picture award but Best Director award to James Cameron and “Avatar’.”
It must have been difficult for the voting Academy members to decide in their annual display of bad faith which they hated more – America or James Cameron. Thank God we’ve got honest brokers like Woody and don quixote to cut through the bullshit.
After crowing that “I’m the kind of the world!” Cameron will never win another best director or picture. Well, at least never as long as the current crop of Academy voters have any say about the matter. These awards require at least a feigned sense of humility: look at those like Streep, who graciously still manage to convince that this latest award means just as much to them as earlier ones, and they won’t let it go to their heads.
The way he’s been played up as a movie god in “Entourage” probably also backfired on him. Bigelow was more modest and genuinely moved and – she’s a woman, at a time when as the media’s been pointing out in recent days, there are still very few women in charge of major motion pictures.
(Note, I said “major motion pictures” not “films,” where they have been very active, in the grueling and low-paid world of raising money and working 18-hour days, begging and borrowing what they can, to make “their vision.”)
I was struck by a comment Kathy Griffin (OK, no great sage but it’s precisely her random off-the-cuff comments that can cut to something real) made about Bigelow, that she “looks like a runway model” which shows that it helps to look gorgeous even as a director, in Hollywood.
I don’t think that had anything to do with her selection, but I DO think it’s cool that she can look that great at 58, to which she readily admits. But I do wonder if her being no ingenue had something to do with the older-skewing Academy members deeming her “ready” for such an award, over younger women directors who’ve had critical hits in the past.
Good God! Who could have imagined that a discussion about films would have caused such writhing around in agony, the hemorrhaging of epithets, “Idiot†“Asshole, “Bullshitterâ€, from Reg! Oh the wrath and indignation from Reg, it’s very frightening, I know I’m scared!
Reg your obvious expertise on all things movie and music, as diminutive and dependent on the Roger Ebert Polls as they are, is as impressive as your fearsome rage at any disparaging opinion sent your way, I know that the Internet is trembling before you.
But just for the record, (and please don’t take this as an attack on your advanced sensibilities), the music that your legendary, always innovative, (and every old stage Mothers darling boy), the Wayne Newton of Musical Movie Scoring, the one and only Marvin Hamlisch, did indeed use the original music by Scott Joplin (although one of Joplin’s weakest most uninspiring works, IMO), “The Entertainer” in the movie “The Sting”.
So? Hamlisch using clarinets and other gimmicky crap just made the musical score even more insipid and monotonous. But I imagine that a real music aficionado such as yourself Reg, clearly from the Ferrante and Teisher school of soul music, would probably disagree.
As far as the Exorcist not being on anyone’s list of not only great horror films but great films period, well sometimes as they say “their taste is all in their mouths†but when I check AMC and every other respected list of great films, the Exorcist is on the list.
And since taste in movies is very a very subjective matter I’ll just say that my pick for best movie and director, Avatar and James Cameron will be judged by the test of time and in 30 years will be considered one of the best movies of all time, just like “The Exorcistâ€.
And Reg, out of respect for Celeste I’ll refrain from calling you an Asshole, A loudmouth wimpy punk, an ego driven ruminator, or even a potty mouthed, peevish, internet dilettante, but maybe one of these days we’ll bump into each other somewhere for further discussion.
Like Woody, you never miss an opportunity to out yourself as an even bigger asshole than one might have suspected.
“I check AMC and every other respected list of great films, the Exorcist is on the list.”
Bullshit. Simply not true. For starters, there’s no AMC “100 Greatest Films” list that corresponds to the ones I mentioned. They have genre lists. You can find Exorcist on genre lists, but it’s not on any major or “respected” list of the “Great Films”, as you claim unless you stretch pretty far, like 1000. AFI’s is the Gold Standard, whether you like it or not.
Also, 3D isn’t a big deal and has been around forever. Digital effects, where Cameron has been involved on the cutting edge, have been a big deal, but mostly to the detriment of story telling. And I doubt Cameron will ever make a sci-fi film to match, much less top, Blade Runner.
You are free to sputter…aside from pointing out that you’re totally full of shit making that claim about the Exorcist being on every respected list of great films, it’s troublesome stooping low enough to deal with you.
Incidentally, you were the one who hauled out this assertion that Exorcist is on “every film buff’s list of greatest movies”, not I. I simply stated that the movie doesn’t interest me. At all. Despite your pleading for it. But don’t try to impress us with the claim that it’s a great movie because it’s supposedly on every list of the greatest “classical” films of all time, when it’s not. You dug the hole. You can’t crawl out of it simply by yelling and insulting me. And your absurd and demeaning description of Hurt Locker is what earned you the “idiot” – because frankly I think anyone who would invoke “man-boy love” in discussing the plot of Hurt Locker has issues.
What more proof does one need to show that the Academy is anti-American? — Farrah Fawcett – Oscars Bosses Defend Fawcett Montage Snub
Would y’all mind terribly if we avoided the character impugning and swearing in the course of this heated film discussion? Personally I think art—and what pretends to art—should be discussed as a life and death issue.
But if one can avoid the calling of names and the suggestion that one’s morals are deficient if they fail to appreciate one’s taste in movies, that would be a good thing.
Just a quick chime in that while I agree with most of the comments about Avatar’s plot and characters lacking life and originality, you are not excused from seeing this movie. Get out of the house, put on the 3-D glasses, and sit yourself down with a jumbo sized tub of popcorn. If you like film, hell if you like cool-looking stuff, you absolutely cannot miss this in the theaters. It’d be like watching the Jazz Singer on mute.
Okay, on the above issue, I have to agree with Woody. It was bad enough to screw up and leave Farrah out, but to then defend the decision???? Definitely un-American (and un-be-freaking-lievable that they’d try to justify it!) Feel free to call those fools all the names you want.
I could care less about people’s taste in movies. But I’m not a big fan of reiteration of totally false assertions or the too-familiar slanders based on political pathologies.
Insulting you Reg? Why I thought I told you out of respect for Celeste I wouln’t go to the epithets like you and call you an Asshole, A loudmouth wimpy punk, an ego driven ruminator, or even a potty mouthed, peevish, internet dilettante, no I will leave you at peace with your opinions about Marvin Hamlisch music.
OK so the Exorcist is only on everyones list of scariest movies of all time, along with classics like “The Shining”, “Alien”, “Nosferatu”, among others but it’s also on many lists (including mine) as one of the great movies ever produced.
And I stand on my assertion that “Hurt Locker” is a movie that is just average and in many ways an unoriginal production, full of cliches, that was pushed by many people envious of Cameron and his successful effort with Avatar. I seem to recall that a producer of “Hurt Locker” was banned from the Academy Awards ceremonies due to his interference, and contacing Academy Members about how they voted for Best Picture. Cameron’s digital 3D technology has revolutionized movie making from now on.
And I also stand on my assertion that the relationship of the Soldier with that young Arab boy was creepy as hell.
I also thought the late Michael Jackson’s relationship with young boys was creepy.
Maybe it’s you Reg who has issues, well I know you have issues, but I mean of the Man/Boy kind
I’m sorry Celeste I was typing up my reply to Reg when you posted up. There will be no potty mouth rages from me.
Movies and the discussion of movies should be fun.
Once more with feeling:
“Like Woody, you never miss an opportunity to out yourself as an even bigger asshole than one might have suspected.”
I agree with Mavis and others that Avatar is a must-see in the theaters as it was meant to be seen – it’s been speculated that one reason the Academy overlooked it (besides the chest-beating and over-ratedness of Cameron himself) is that many saw it on their home screens and missed the full effect. It’s been pointed out that Star Wars, now accepted as a seminal film, missed out to the now very dated-feeling Annie Hall, also because of the inability of a traditional audience to appreciate something so different: true upto a point, but Star Wars had a great story, the classic “hero’s journey” as detailed in Joseph Campbell (who Lucas read and followed), the time-honored story from Moses and the great Greek classics to today, cutting across cultures and centuries. It also had real actors, as themselves, not just voices: maybe people are at least subconsciously rebelling against the notion that actors can be replaced by cgi and animation. While in many ways brilliant, Avatar didn’t merge the classic 3-part play structure and story with ingenuity, so it’s no Star Wars.
Having said this, I do think that Avatar will spawn a whole new genre, while Hurt Locker will become like Annie Hall is now: a film of its times.
Hmmmm, a last word freak huh, it figures, shows a lot about a persons character.
I’ll respect Celeste’s wish’s here and continue to have some fun despite the lame response and hollow epithets from a certain paper tiger.
In case anyone is interested I saw Tim Burton’s “Alice In Wonderland” with my grandchildren Saturday.
My grandson and myself are big Tim Burton and Johnny Depp fans and were looking forward to AIW. Sorry to report, but we were very disappointed at this cutsie pie, confusing, and silly AIW.
Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter comes across acting like a British Drag queen with too much makeup and a goofy lisping Scottish brogue. The great characters from Carroll’s story, the Cheshire Cat, Caterpillar, the White Rabbit were relegated to just a couple of inconsequential scenes.
The only plus in this otherwise jumbled up movie was the part of the Red Queen played brilliantly by Helena Bonham Carter.
My advice is to save your money on this flick.
Agreed that one has to see Avatar—and in the theaters. In 3D.
Thanks for the warning on Alice. Too bad. I’m a big Johnny Depp fan but even the trailers looked problematic.
Where is John Wayne when you really need him?
The Academy missed Bea Arthur as well. They also instituted a new voting procedure that seemed a bit strange when I heard it explained and you can see how it works here.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/article.aspx?subjectid=282&articleid=20100307_282_D1_Avatar118718&allcom=1
The way one feels about a movie is based on different things to different people. My love is horror, have a huge collection, but I watch all different genres.
Movies that entertained me the most last year, based on my own taste, included The Hurt Locker, Precious and Inglurious Bastards.
Than there’s these…
Fired Up
Friday the 13th Killer Cut
500 Days of Summer
Away We Go
Big Fan
Broke Sky
Cirque de Freak
Dead Snow (Best Horror Flick)
Defiance
District 9
Fanboys
Moon
Orphan
Trick R Treat
Thirst
Zombieland
To each their own.
Star Wars had a great story, the classic “hero’s journey†as detailed in Joseph Campbell (who Lucas read and followed), the time-honored story from Moses and the great Greek classics to today, cutting across cultures and centuries.
Lifted completely from Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, something which Lucas acknowledges, albeit in not so many words.
“Hmmmm, a last word freak huh, it figures, shows a lot about a persons character.”
They’re yours…
Pretty much agree with Randy that Star Wars, while creative in its effects at the time, is totally derivative. A clever combination of Kurosawa and every western/adventure flick cliche in movie history. On SBL’s comment “maybe people are at least subconsciously rebelling against the notion that actors can be replaced by cgi and animation” – one can only hope. Some years back, while I was working on a mix at Skywalker Ranch, Lucas – who is not exactly Mr Personality – sat at the table next to ours for lunch. My friend and I listened to him wax enthusiastically to another director he had just met about how great it would be when the actors could just be digitized and re-animated with computers and he wouldn’t have to direct live scenes with them. At the time he was working on the Indiana Jones TV series and connecting to the set – which was mostly a green-screen – via a video hookup to his office. It was kind of like a kid wanting to turn the craft into his personal video game and seemed a bit weird.
Not a fan of the turn filmmaking has taken in the wake of the Lucas/ILM success. I’ve seen – mostly out of context because of a periodic gig I used to have – just about every CGI shot done by ILM in their first 25 years and the ones that most impressed me were where they “erased” Gary Sinise’ legs in Forrest Gump. (Hated Forrest Gump, but I thought Sinise was very good.) CGI made the actor’s performance more “real” rather than subordinating the actors to a blitzy effects sequence, which now officially bore the shit out of me.
Watched A Serious Man on cable finally and it starts slow but is a pretty good Coen Bros.flick IMHO that actually has more “bottom” than most of their films. IMHO it should be required viewing in seminaries – a great film for bastard-child Buddhists and the kind of spiritual seekers who have unashamedly Googled Karen Armstrong.
Biggest disappointment was Public Enemies, which I had hoped would be one of Michael Mann’s periodic very good ones. Movies I enjoyed sitting through most were Inglourious Basterds and Crazy Heart. I honestly thought Hurt Locker was the best dramatic film I saw – had the most impact on me and although I know they “cowboyed” up the unit, it felt emotionally true. Very glad Precious made it to the screen and it moved me, but I did feel a bit like I was taking my Oprah-prescribed medicine – maybe cuz I’d read the book and that tends to deflate the film experience. The guy who came across as the most genuine at the Oscars was that Precious screenwriter.
On the years movies, SF mentioned Defiance, which was a good “unknown war heroes” movie and the “real inglourious basterds” if you absolutely love the idea of tough Jews killing Nazis. Got mixed reviews, but it was compelling if bleak IMHO. Don’t think many folks saw it. Big fan of Daniel Craig. Never thought I’d start going back to James Bond movies, but I have.
I think Hidden Fortress and Star Wars just happen to have the same classic structure (hero orphan or of unknown origins, born to greatness but raised in humble circumstances, with a unique talent that’s pressed into service to save mankind, the classic 3-act structure…) and I heard Lucas acknowledge his debt to Campbell. Did he actually say he lifted his story from Kurosawa? Taking nothing away from him: Ran is the greatest war movie ever made and definitely influenced many contemporary filmmakers.
I have no idea if Lucas has explicitly acknowledged Kurosawa as a source for the Star Wars story but that issue aside, he’s consistently paid homage to the master in interviews and to his credit Lucas helped Kurosawa get financing from Fox for his 1980 film, Kagamusha. Has a credit, with Coppola, as Executive Producer. Clearly a close student of Kurosawa, so similarities are no accident.
For all his many, many problems, Francis Coppola is, IMHO, ten times the filmmaker Lucas is. Coppola, to his credit, is a gifted writer. I don’t think Lucas is a particularly good writer.
That being said, Robert Altman was a great director, but a terrible writer. One of his worst and lamest films in my opinion, is Three Women. Fortunately, he had the good sense to use gifted writers like Joan Tewkesbury and Ring Lardner, Jr.
Well, I saw the rushes of “Hurt Locker” and had to rent and see it two days before Oscar. Wow! In the recent economical strike, I, a movie buff have not seen as many as I’d like, but I did see “Avatar” and “Blind Side.” The Hurt Locker was as good as the iconic “Saving Private Ryan” (which is on my all-time top-ten list,) and deserved all the accolades. I was surprised that Ralph Fiennes was so big. He’s big! Avatar is visually beautiful, and I wonder how many people know the definition of “avatar.” I am becoming elderly and can personally empathize with the young hero, who has a choce of being a paraplegic forever or have the freedom of being a Nv’ai. Not much of a choice, more like a no brainer. Then we have Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress. Huh? We simply have too many actresses who are doing such a much better job than she; as one reviewer said, “She will never be nominated again, and Meryl will be there again next year.” I’m a huge fan of Meryl; she should have won and she should have won quite a few other times, too. Congratulations to Best Director Kathryn; long may she reign.