Second, read my rant.
Goldman asserts that Kathryn Bigelow, director best picture front runner The Hurt Locker should not win the oscar for best director. Why, do you ask? Because it only grossed roughly 16 million dollars. Mere chump change when compared to the absurd amount of money that Avatar is and will continue to generate as it breaks every box office record imaginable.
Goldman has other qualms, mostly concerning the plot, structure and themes of the film that are so ludicris and unfounded that I will not even attempt to post any sort of rebuttal (muddled politics? really? the film is inherently a-political, only attempting to accurately document the experiences of an elite group of soldiers, something you would understand, ms. goldman, if you performed a political self-lobotomy and just watched the damn film.)
By overtly implying early in her piece that Hurt Locker is less a film because it grossed less than 1% of Avatar's box office is offensive. While I enjoyed Avatar immensely, and respect it greatly, it cannot even compare with the honest, intense experience that is The Hurt Locker. The subtle performance of Jeremy Renner is filled with countless quiet moments that speak volumes above any of the loud, bombastic and computer-assisted performances in Avatar. The scene where Renner stands in the shower, in full combat gear, and breaks down is in itself reason enough for the film to win not only best picture, but best director for Bigelow. And the idiotic assertion that Hurt Locker is less a film because of it's box office gross fully misses the central point of what the Oscars [should be] attempting to do: award the best cinematic achievements of the year with the recognition they deserve.
Do I think The Hurt Locker is the Best Picture of 2009, and that Kathryn Bigelow deserves Best Director? Maybe. I have yet to see each of the films nominated for both best picture or director. My fear is that if the central criteria of consideration is box office, we totally overlook the essence of what good film can do: connect with and somehow change the audience.
One of my favorite films of all time, American Beauty, boasted a production budget of 15 million and grossed, after nearly a year in theaters, roughly 130 million dollars. Avatar has managed to rake in over 700 million in mere weeks. American Beauty won best picture in 1999 not because of mountains of box office revenue, but because it is a quietly affecting film that connected with, and changed audiences. I only ask that a year from now, will people primarily speak of Avatar as a film that affected and changed audiences, or as a film that broke millions of box office records?
Think about this for a moment: in an economic downturn, studios and independent financiers only have so much money to produce film projects. When films like Avatar, which is a quality film of it's kind, gross such insane amounts of money, studios and producers see this type of film as the only kind of film will result in a return on their investment. Hence, in the upcoming years, we will more than likely see big budgeted, science fiction spectacles attempting to ride on the fart winds of Avatar's success, at the expense of smaller, quiet films that, historically, have shaped and defined American and World Cinema. Think of a world without The Philadelphia Story, Sunset Boulevard, Singin' in the Rain, The Godfather, etc. These films were risks when first made, but have each impacted the American cinematic landscape as we know it. What films will we lose because of Avatar's monetary success? And how is that compounded by awarding Avatar Oscars primarily because of said success?
AUDIENCES NEED TO FUCKING WAKE UP.
Demand quality film.
Refuse to passively experience film.
Refuse to let film merely dazzle you.
Expect, and want film to change you, affect you somehow.
that's all.
No comments:
Post a Comment