Burning Questions From the Academy Awards

It's officially over as the book is now closed on another year of movies. As a victim of the highly publicized war between ABC and Cablevision, I missed the first hour of the show last night. That didn't bother me too much considering it's usually about 15 hours too long anyway, I'm not big on musical numbers and the categories given out early (supporting actor, animated feature, best original song) were pretty much locks. But I was really interested in seeing the John Hughes tribute so I guess I'll have to catch up with that online. As far as my predictions, I went 16 for 24, and while that's far from embarrassing, it isn't anything to brag about and easily my worst showing in years. Missing the two screenplay categories killed me and the rest I bombed out on were the usual picks everyone misses in their office pools because they're just wild guesses (i.e. animated short).

The good news is that the ratings for the telecast were the highest in five years. Attribute that to two factors: Avatar and Sandra Bullock. Say what you want about them but the public clearly loves both and that's why they tuned in. It was all people talked about the next morning so despite The Hurt Locker racking up most of the awards it'll likely be joining the ranks of other forgotten Best Picture winners. It was a very predictable show but not an awful one and, as usual, there were many head scratching moments.

Even though I didn't see it yet, isn't it great that they actually paid tribute to John Hughes instead of just throwing him in the death montage?

And shouldn't they try to do that more often?

Shouldn't they have done it for Patrick Swayze also?

Is it some kind of cruel karma that my ABC feed came back just as Miley Cyrus was presenting an Oscar?

Did I just type the words Miley Cyrus and Oscar in the same sentence?

Can you believe Precious beat Up in the Air for Adapted Screenplay?

And didn't that completely throw a wrench in everyone's predictions?

With Jack Nicholson absent has George Clooney become the new go-to guy for reaction shots?

Has Nicholson given up attending the Oscars?

Can you blame him?

What was up with Clooney anyway?

Was he drunk?

Weren't Martin and Baldwin the two most absent hosts they've ever had for the telecast?

Was anyone clocking their screen time for the night?

How silly is it that they replaced "And the Oscar goes to..." with "And the winner is...?"

Did we really need this to be viewed as EVEN MORE of a competition?

Wasn't Mo'Nique dead-on in her speech about rewarding the performance not the politics?

And wouldn't it be nice if the Academy did that for more than just the two supporting categories?

When I heard the stars of Twilight would be appearing on the show was it wrong of me to hope they were referring to Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon?

Did I actually see a clip from Twilight (the 2009 one) in the horror movie montage?

Is that montage the closest horror will ever get to an Academy Award?

Even after Morgan Freeman explained it, did you still have no idea what the difference is between sound mixing and sound editing?

Isn't it nice that they finally singled out The Dark Knight... for something...a year too late?

When Avatar lost both sound awards didn't you just know it wouldn't win Best Picture?

Is it a little unsettling for anyone that movie that's all CGI and green screen won Best Cinematography?

Is Elizabeth Banks thrilled that she now joins the elite company of Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel as the latest hottie selected to host the technical awards banquet?

For a change, wasn't James Taylor a great choice to perform during the In Memoriam section of the show?

How could they possibly exclude Farrah Fawcet and Bea Arthur?

After what seems like years in seclusion have you noticed that Jennifer Lopez has been showing up all over the place lately?

Was that interpretative dance tribute to the Best Original score nominees dumb or what?

How much sense does it make to include that on the show but leave out performances of Best Original Song?

Not really a question but....OSCAR WINNER FISHER STEVENS!

How many people watching actually got the connection between Keanu Reeves and The Hurt Locker?

How many people watching have even seen The Hurt Locker?

Does having these long, personal introductions for each nominee in the Actor and Actress category eat up enough time?

But isn't it worth the wait just to see Jeff Bridges FINALLY get what he deserves?

Wait a second...Jeremy Renner was in S.W.A.T.?

Doesn't Bridges' Oscar really tie the room together?

Is it okay if I pretend he won this for The Big Lebowski?

Could his turn as The Dude be the greatest un-nominated performance of all-time?

Is this the first career make-up Oscar we can actually cheer?

Couldn't they do a little better than having some of the nominees' co-stars from the performances they're nominated for THIS YEAR introduce them?

Wasn't Oprah's intro for Gaby Sidibe actually somewhat moving?

Didn't you kind of want her to pull the upset after that?

How much did that audience love Precious?

Even though The Hurt Locker and Avatar won more, didn't it feel like that movie came out as the big winner of the night?

How unfair is it that the Oscar season ends just as I finally learn how to pronounce Gabourey Sidibe's name correctly?

How much must Forest Whitaker love Sandra Bullock to publicly confess to directing Hope Floats?

Was it wrong of me for just a second to assume the connection between Whitaker and Bullock was that Whitaker starred in Hurricane Season?

Since Whitaker directed her in First Daughter, do you think Katie Holmes could be busy preparing her Oscar acceptance speech?

And after Bullock winning is that really so far-fetched?

Is ANYONE winning an Oscar really so far-fetched anymore?

How hard must it have been to go through Bullock's filmography and not find a co-star or director involved in an embarrassing project with her?

Wouldn't it have made much more sense to have Keanu introduce Bullock instead?

Is it okay if I pretend she won this for Speed?

How great a sport is she for accepting her Razzie Award for Worst Actress in person the night before?

How tacky was it for them to tell us to stay tuned to see if an "African-American or a woman wins an Oscar?"

How cringe-worthy and annoying was Barbra Streisand's presentation of the Best Director Oscar?

Was it almost as annoying as her actual "announcement" of the winner?

Does it even top Julia Roberts' legendarily awful presentation of the Best Actor Oscar to Denzel Washington in 2002?

Did you notice "Babs" still couldn't stop babbling even after Kathryn Bigelow took the stage to accept the award?

By the way, have you heard that Bigelow is the first woman to win the Best Director Oscar?

Is it wrong that a small part of me was pulling for The Blind Side to win Best Picture just to make the night more exciting and see audience members pass out?

If history is any indication, does The Hurt Locker's victory safely secure the shelf life of Avatar and Inglourious Basterds?

Can you believe that at well over 3 hours this was the SHORTEST Oscar telecast in history?

Oscar Predictions

Well, my master plan to squeeze in viewings of all ten Best Picture nominees before the big show Sunday doesn't look like it'll come to pass. So far, I've seen 7 (not bad) and am still attempting to plow through the remainder of the nominees in a few other categories before the week is out but it's not looking so good. A lot of catching up to do. Regardless, I feel I still have enough familiarity with this year's contest to comfortably make my predictions on how things will turn out in all the major categories as well as the minor ones.

Of course, I'm more confident with some selections than others but overall I feel better about my chances of nailing these categories than I do about the chances of seeing an entertaining show given the pointless changes implemented and embarrassing presenters announced in a desperate, pathetic attempt to boost ratings and drive away any viewers left who watch to see quality films honored. Expect a little more of WHO WILL win than WHO SHOULD in my analysis below but I'll definitely be weighing in with my opinions on the films and performances I've seen and the way I'd like things to go.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Matt Damon, "Invictus"
Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"
Christopher Plummer, "The Last Station"
Stanley Tucci, "The Lovely Bones"
Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"

As the charismatically evil Nazi Col. Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds Christoph Waltz is just about as much of a lock as Heath Ledger was last year. Had he not appeared in any part of the film but the opening scene he would still win this. By far the non-race of the night, but in a way it's great to have a performance so deserving it just towers above all the rest. Will be the third consecutive villainous role to win in this category. What's Matt Damon even doing here? Harrelson's nomination was reward enough. No one knows Plummer's in this race or saw his movie while the word on the street is that Tucci was merely creepy in a stock role. Not much competition. Even the Academy can't screw this one up. You can check off Waltz with a permanent magic marker.

Prediction: Christoph Waltz


Best Actor in a Leading Role
Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
George Clooney, "Up in the Air"
Colin Firth, "A Single Man"
Morgan Freeman, "Invictus"
Jeremy Renner, "The Hurt Locker"

Analysis: This is really Jeff Bridges' career achievement award which is fine since we all know this guy should have half a dozen Oscars on his mantle already. But that's not implying the performance (which I still haven't seen) isn't deserving on its own merits. Rarely does he ever do work that isn't award-worthy. If that's not enough, he playing an alcoholic and we know how much they love it when actors do that. Clooney fell behind in this race a while back, having the misfortune to be nominated against a huge favorite much like he was a couple of years ago against Daniel Day-Lewis (for a far better performance in Michael Clayton). Freeman's nod feels obligatory. Colin Firth suffers from a common problem: Highly praised performance in a small film no one's seen. The spoiler could be Renner because as over-praised as the Hurt Locker is, his performance is strangely kind of underrated in a way. The film isn't generally viewed as an actor's movie but it should be because he carried all of it. The only small glimmer of hope he has is that Bridges' film isn't nominated for Best Picture. But as it stands now, this one isn't even close.

Prediction: Jeff Bridges


Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Penélope Cruz, "Nine"
Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"
Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"
Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"
Mo'Nique, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Analysis: In a category with a long history of shocking upsets don't expect any this time around. It's no secret Mo'Nique's taking this for her role as monstrous mother from hell Mary Jones in Precious and no matter what you may think of the polarizing film, she's earned it. Kendrick and Farmiga will split their votes, but it still boggles my mind Farmiga's performance as basically a female George Clooney is deemed Oscar worthy in the slightest. That she's in while Inglourious Basterds' Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger are snubbed is a joke. Penelope Cruz is just lucky to be there so if there's a spoiler it'll be the respected and well-liked Gyllenhaal for her turn as a reporter opposite Bridges in Crazy Heart. But that's not happening. It's a done deal.

Prediction: Mo'Nique

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side"
Helen Mirren, "The Last Station"
Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Meryl Streep, "Julie & Julia"

Analysis: A two-way Streep/Bullock race with Bullock firmly in the lead. Mirren is the only nominee with NO CHANCE of winning since no one's seen that film and she was just nominated because she's Helen Mirren. If anyone's going to sneak in it will be Sidibe. No one's had a bad word to say about her performance and if voters get tired of hearing about the two front runners, she's a worthy alternative. The same could be said (to a lesser extent) for Mulligan but the film she stars in probably doesn't have enough mileage to secure her the votes necessary for a surprise win. With newcomers the nod is often reward enough. Everyone loves a comeback story and there's no better one than Sandra's...at least commercially. If nothing else, expect a memorable speech.

Prediction: Sandra Bullock

Best Directing
James Cameron, "Avatar"
Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Lee Daniels, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Jason Reitman, "Up in the Air"

Analysis: Unless James Cameron gets a sex change operation before Sunday we can comfortably call this race over. He's probably thought of (rightly or wrongly) by voters as more of a motion capture or special effects coordinator than a director anyway. It's just a shame all the focus is on Kathryn Bigelow being the first woman to win Best Director rather than the actual work itself. Sure, she may have been nominated because of the work but she'll be winning because of her gender and the Academy's need to "make history." And I can't think of a worse reason to hand someone an Oscar. Lost in all this is the fact that Tarantino deserves to win. How many other directors could have taken that material and accomplished what he did? Unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance. No one else in this category does either.

Prediction: Kathryn Bigelow

Best Picture
"Avatar"
"The Blind Side"
"District 9"
"An Education"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"
"Up in the Air"

Analysis: The field of nominees may have expanded to ten this year there's really only five to talk about here: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air. The remaining pictures are just filling up slots and don't have chance. A win for Avatar is a win for big budget, effects-driven movie making and sci-fi, which is never recognized for anything. Commercialism wins out and the profile of the Academy Awards as a barometer for public taste rises slightly. Finally a movie wins that people have seen and heard of.

A Hurt Locker victory accomplishes just the opposite. No one's heard of it. It made no money. It covers a depressing topic. Film snobs everywhere rejoice while Hollywood bleeds money at the worst time and ratings for the Oscar telecast plummet. None of this should matter and the BEST FILM should be awarded the statue, but it matters... to them. It seems everything but the actual quality of the films is taken into account when voters fill out their ballots which is why the Oscars have very little credibility left.

That The Hurt Locker would be the lowest grossing winner in history hurts its chances but Avatar has even more going against it. It's the type of movie guaranteed to get a strong response either way while it's almost impossible to find one person who didn't at least like The Hurt Locker (if they saw it). Besides featuring new technology many in the industry (especially actors) aren't yet willing to embrace, Cameron isn't exactly known as the most likable guy around. Nor was it nominated in any screenplay or acting categories, which is unheard of for a potential Best Pic winner. And with the exception of the Golden Globe, it's lost every precursor award usually needed to win. So it won't.

I still haven't seen Avatar so can't comment on its worthiness, but plan on re-watching THL before Sunday in hopes of seeing this "masterpiece" everyone is raving about because, while I still respected it greatly, I just don't get what all the fuss is about. It feels like something we've seen before. On the other hand, Inglourious Basterds was a film that should have felt very familiar but didn't because Tarantino took an issue and completely revolutionized it. It works as compelling drama AND a fun piece of entertainment that should hold up years from now. I'm still hoping the top two favorites cancel each other out and it somehow pulls off the upset but that's wishful thinking.

Prediction: The Hurt Locker

Other Categories:

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, "District 9"
Nick Hornby, "An Education"
Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche, "In the Loop"
Geoffrey Fletcher, "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
* Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"

Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker"
* Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman, "The Messenger"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"
Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Tom McCarthy, "Up"

Best Animated Feature Film
"Coraline"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Princess and the Frog"
"The Secret of Kells"
"Up"

Best Art Direction
* "Avatar"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
"Sherlock Holmes"
"The Young Victoria"

Best Cinematography
"Avatar"
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"
* "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"The White Ribbon"

Best Costume Design
"Bright Star"
"Coco Before Chanel"
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"
"Nine"
* "The Young Victoria"

Best Makeup
"Il Divo"

* "Star Trek"

"The Young Victoria"

Best Documentary Feature
"Burma VJ"
* "The Cove"
"Food, Inc."
"The Most Dangerous in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers"
"Which Way Home"

Best Documentary Short
"China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province"
"The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner"
* "The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant"
"Music by Prudence"
"Rabbit à la Berlin"

Best Film Editing
"Avatar"
"District 9"
* "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Foreign Language Film
"Ajami," Israel
"El Secreto de Sus Ojos," Argentina
"The Milk of Sorrow," Peru
"Un Prophète," France
* "The White Ribbon," Germany

Best Music (Original Score)
"Avatar"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Sherlock Holmes"
* "Up"

Best Music (Original Song)
"Almost There," "The Princess and the Frog"
"Down in New Orleans," "The Princess and the Frog"
"Loin de Paname," "Paris 36"
"Take It All," "Nine"
* "The Weary Kind (Theme from 'Crazy Heart')," "Crazy Heart"

Best Short Film (Animated)
"French Roast"
"Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty"
"The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)"
"Logorama"
* "A Matter of Loaf and Death"

Best Short Film (Live Action)
* "The Door"
"Instead of Abracadabra"
"Kavi"
"Miracle Fish"
"The New Tenants"

Best Sound Editing
* "Avatar"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Up"

Best Sound Mixing
"Avatar"
* "The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Star Trek"
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

Best Visual Effects
* "Avatar"
"District 9"
"Star Trek"

The Hurt Locker

Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly, David Morse
Running Time: 131 min.
Rating: R

★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

From the moment The Hurt Locker was released to universal critical acclaim it was practically a foregone conclusion that the war drama would be included among the newly expanded field of ten Best Picture nominees. I rolled my eyes at the mere suggestion, thinking they'd be rewarding a topic rather than a film. Now after seeing it I'm forced to begrudgingly concede this is one of the best war films in years (as faint as that praise may seem). My trepidation and bias would be understandable to anyone who had the misfortune to view any of the embarrassing political war propaganda studios have inflicted on us in the past couple of years. This includes but isn't limited to preachy one-sided liberal sermons like Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Elah, Rendition and Stop-Loss. For a while there was a genuine fear that no intelligent movie could made about the Iraq War.

Director Kathryn Bigelow has taken a different approach by just showing us. It's that simple, yet no other filmmaker was smart enough to do it. She succeeds where everyone else failed by resisting the temptation to get up on a soapbox, instead just letting us draw our own conclusions based on what we see. And by doing doing that she may have ironically crafted the ultimate anti-war (or maybe anti-addiction) film, even though any agenda of the sort of refreshingly absent. What appears in its opening minutes to be merely a workmanlike procedural evolves into something far more affecting as we connect with the three lead characters in such a way that they almost feel like family by the end of the picture. I feared for their safety and worried during every scene if each would make it home in one piece.

You wouldn't figure something as visceral and exciting as this would be considered an "actor's movie" but in many ways it is with an electrifying lead performance belonging to an unknown who probably won't be unknown for much longer. This isn't my kind of film and couldn't imagine watching it again but I'm forced to eat crow and admit Bigelow has directed a nearly perfect picture. The praise it's gotten is exaggerated, but not by much.

It's 2004 during the early stages of the Iraq War when the leader of the Bravo Company's EOD unit, Staff Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce) is killed by a remote IED (improvised explosive device) in Bagdad, leaving Sergeant J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) without a first in command. Enter Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), an egotistical hotshot who makes reckless, split-second decisions that frequently put the lives of himself and his team members in danger. A title card appears on screen letting us know how many days remain in the company's rotation as we follow the soldiers on their missions. Sanborn and Eldridge attempt to communicate via radio with James in his protective bomb suit which proves to be difficult when he constantly ignores every word they say.

The film unfolds as almost a series of episodic vignettes as we watch James disarming bombs in a variety of suspenseful situations, including one where the team is pinned down by snipers and the most memorable involving a civilian with explosives strapped to his chest. Through all of it tensions continue to mount between the three men as a result of James' controversial, self-serving leadership style. He frequently seems more interested in playing hero than saving lives. Or so it seems.

Bigelow and screenwriter/freelance journalist Mark Boal made a wise decision in narrowing the focus to just a bomb tech team and letting the rest of the details of the war exist on the periphery. This isn't so much about war as it is about their jobs and how they handle them. Through that we get to know each of these men and what makes them tick under the most dangerous of circumstances. We care about this war not because the filmmakers told us we should but because we're absorbed in the psyches of these characters fighting it. It becomes a personal story instead of a political one, and as a result, we're left to draw our own conclusions as to the effects this ordeal.

With no standard plot to speak of, the events are filmed in a documentary style not unlike United 93, but more action-oriented. This gives the picture an even greater sense of objectivity in just showing what's happening and that's it (although that's admittedly a lot under Bigelow's direction). This could be disappointing to those who hoped the movie would take some grand stand one way or another either against or in support of the war, though I can't see why anyone would want that given how clumsily the topic has been explored in other films. As suspenseful as they are, it is draining watching these missions for 130 minutes straight and it isn't an experience I'd feel like repeating anytime soon. Of course, it's not supposed to be.

The film belongs entirely to the three actors who infuse life into soldiers who could have easily been played as stereotypes. Resembling a cross between Russell Crowe and Benjamin Mackenzie, Jeremy Renner doesn't make a huge impression initially as Sgt. James and it's far from obvious he's going to be the main character. "Who's this nobody?" could describe my initial reaction. But Renner puts all those doubts to rest quickly and as each scene wears on it becomes increasingly apparent that this is no poor man's Russell Crowe. He has the charisma to hold the screen like nobody's business, revealing James to be a whole lot more than the arrogant hotshot with a hero complex we had him pegged as. What's so brilliant about the Oscar-worthy performance is how while the character's actions suggest he doesn't care and is operating out of pure selfishness, Renner suggests the exact opposite in the film's quieter moments. James' real problem actually isn't that he doesn't care, but that he cares TOO MUCH.

"The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug."

That's the quote from New York Times journalist Chris Hedges that opens the movie and can very well sum up not only the character of James but the story itself. His most memorable scene comes not in Iraq but at home, when a trip to the supermarket with his family is more foreign to him than anything in Iraq. He doesn't just want to go back there. He NEEDS to because he forgot how to survive in the "real world."

Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are slightly more recognizable as actors but casting relative unknowns in the three main roles was a masterstroke in that you're given the sinking feeling any one of them can go at any minute. Mackie (almost equally as impressive as Renner) plays Sanborn as the hothead who won't stand for what he perceives to be James' grandstanding while Geraghty's green, naive and petrified Eldridge represents the audience's entry way into the movie, questioning why they're even there.

Bigger name actors appear in much smaller roles. In addition to the aforementioned Pearce, David Morse has a bizarre scene that's wide open for interpretation while Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly (as James' wife) both enter and exit the film fairly quickly. Of those, I thought only Lilly's needlessly called attention to itself and caused a distraction, which could be chalked up to me just being so familiar with her from Lost. The second she appeared I was taken right out the movie, wondering how Kate got off the island again. Granted not everyone watches that show, but if the role is just a cameo wouldn't it make more sense to cast an unknown?

This isn't the small, art house drama it's been toted as. It's exciting, suspenseful and obviously represents a big comeback for the director best known for more fun, but no less accomplished efforts like the Patrick Swayze/Keanu Reeves not-so-guilty pleasure Point Break and 1995's underrated cyberpunk thriller Strange Days. Still, I don't concur with those who feel it's everyone's moral obligation to see this film because of the subject matter and can understand why audiences have stayed far away. I mean, can you really blame them? This topic has been embarrassingly (dare I even say offensively) mishandled so many times that I'm sure no one felt like getting burned again by the type of movie that wouldn't have them giddily skipping to theaters even under the best of circumstances. I'd also much rather have a risky out of left field choice that really needs the attention occupying one of the expanded Best Picture slots rather than something that would have been an easy contender anyway if there were five nominees.

That I'm not as over-the-moon about the movie as everyone else is more a reflection of my long-standing bias against the genre than its actual merit. It'll be interesting to see if I can temporarily put that bias aside long enough to include it on my list of the year's best, as it's definitely worthy of consideration. This film is playing in challenging territory where it's close to impossible to bring anything innovative to the table or say something that hasn't already been said. Ironically, The Hurt Locker ends up working so well because it bravely chooses to say nothing at all.