Picture courtesy: guim.co.uk
THE TRIUMPH OF GOOD
MAR 9, 2010 – AT THE END OF THE LAVISH – and, quite frankly, tedious – ceremony that marked Oscar 2010, there was the sense of witnessing a morality play unfold, a sense that good had won over evil. As the extraordinarily elegant Kathryn Bigelow stood on stage, flanked by hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, a golden statuette clutched in each hand, we shared her disbelief, that a little-seen drama about an unpopular war could trounce the highest grossing movie fantasy of all time (not counting inflation, of course). The night was supposed to belong to her ex-husband, James Cameron, who proclaimed from this podium over a decade ago that he was King of the World, a justifiably titanic claim considering that he’d beaten all odds – inclement conditions, escalating costs, widespread skepticism about a love story set afloat a sinking ship – and delivered the highest grossing movie of all time (again, not counting inflation, till he shattered his own record with Avatar).
Instead, The Hurt Locker won, and all was right with the world – David had risen, once again, and brought down Goliath with the humblest of slingshots, with old-fashioned filmmaking. It’s seems almost quaint now to make movies the way The Hurt Locker was made, to actually travel to distant locations instead of conjuring them up on a computer, to actually have flesh-and-blood actors employ their faces and bodies to bring to life the words on the page, and to actually hope that the strength of a powerful story powerfully told would be enough to draw audiences increasingly weaned on techno-gimmickry. Whatever the real reasons for this turn of events were – perhaps The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences simply decided that Cameron had already basked in his moment of glory and perhaps it was time to crown, instead, a Queen of the World – it was impossible to ignore the subtext that moviemaking should not be measured in terms of box-office winnings, and that tech-demos have their place but not beside movies that aspire to be movies.
And that is just what Avatar is, an expensive, jaw-dropping, never-before-seen tech-demo – nothing less, but certainly nothing more. The makers can argue that they dumbed down the narrative elements in order to make the movie play better across every audience segment in every corner of the world – but banality, however well intentioned, is still banality. It is entirely fitting that the Oscars that Avatar took home were only in richly deserved technical categories – Art Direction, Visual Effects, and, somewhat puzzlingly, Cinematography (does there need to be a separate category, henceforth, for films “shot” inside computers?). The intent isn’t to equate filmmaking with an organic diet, that “artificial” films are bad and only “natural” films are good. As Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy showed, cold technology can be used to manufacture a thrilling, heartfelt narrative – it deserved every one of its accolades. Avatar, on the other hand, deserves to be recognised simply as the film that will change the way films are made – a hugely important consideration, no doubt, but certainly not one deserving of Best Picture.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Adithya
March 8, 2010
But how would you compare Hurt Locker with something as supremely brilliant as Inglourious Basterds? Fine, take the best picture, but the director? Original screenplay? Definitely IB owned that category, why did they have to give it to Hurt Locker is beyond me.
I hope you caught Up in the Air as it released here a week ago. Such an awesome film cruelly sidelined on the so called big night.
LikeLike
Rahul
March 9, 2010
“Avatar, on the other hand, deserves to be recognised simply as the film that will change the way films are made ”
Not only do I think that this would prove to be incorrect, but also that there is a value-oppressive assumption embedded in there, and it is surprising that it is never really examined, that the Avatar technology is better in any objective cinematic sense than the traditional technology. The jury should still be out on that.
LikeLike
Rahul
March 9, 2010
I was searching for a review of the Foreign language winner and it appears that it, too, is a movie that is traditional with respect to its peers,though in not as stark a way as “The hurt locker” is to Avatar.
Quoting from the review-
“When trolling through the catalog of a festival the scale of Toronto, there is always the temptation to look for the next thing, the new thing, the thing that hasn’t been done before. There is an urge to always look ahead to see what may be next in the world of film and – unfortunately – while doing so to disparage or overlook films made using more traditional styles and methods. The obvious flaw in this thinking is, of course, that the traditional styles became traditional precisely because when done well they are extremely effective”
http://twitchfilm.net/reviews/2009/09/tiff-09-the-secret-in-their-eyes-review.php
I do not know what the odds were in this category, but it seems that this is also a kind of a David v Goliath in face of highly stylized opposition like “A Prophet” and “The White Ribbon”.
LikeLike
VJ
March 9, 2010
“The intent isn’t to equate filmmaking with an organic diet, that “artificial” films are bad and only “natural” films are good.”
That was the question running through my mind as i was reading the first 2 paras of the article 🙂 .But I get your point and dont get why everybody went so overboard when Avatar was released .
so btw have you seen HurtLocker ? what did you think ofit ?
LikeLike
brangan
March 9, 2010
Adithya: About Up in the Air, I thought it was fantastic for about an hour, and then it began to pull its punches. We keep complaining that our films keep pandering to a hero-image, but here’s George Clooney, and they have to saddle him with a redemption arc. (I haven’t read the book, where I suspect the character is much darker, without these silly last-minute rom-com epiphanies at airports.)
You know at beginning that he’s going to come to crossroads that empty miles aren’t going to make up for family life – especially as he gives motivational speeches about emptying one’s backpack of material goods and relationships — you know a comeuppance is right round the corner. And the predictability isn’t staved off. All that “soulless man discovering a soul” life-lesson shit… Isn’t Hollywood tired of it already?
Jason Reitman is a curious filmmaker. On the one hand he wants to make quirky throwbacks to the great 70s films, which were driven by character and not plot. (To see a true depiction of a rootless soul, try Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces, an astonishing film.) But on the other hand, he likes to leave his audiences happy (or even with films with not-exactly-happy endings, he likes to not ruffle them too much) — he isn’t interested, for instance, in the irony of a “firing expert” who may end up getting fired due to a new technology.
And as with Juno, we end up with painful subjects gussied up with light touches — and that in itself isn’t wrong, but then the characters end up getting compromised. For instance, the movie began to fall apart once he goes to the wedding. That glib motivational speech to the groom, that one-shot reconnect with the sisters to whom he’s a stranger (again, see Five Easy Pieces) — these were too simplistic in a film that, so far, was beautifully textured.
The first hour or so, however, was truly fantastic (“We are here to make limbo tolerable” — what a great fucking line!) — and even otherwise (i.e. in laid-back non-review mode), I enjoyed UITA very much. The three central performances were terrific (though I thought Clooney was better in Michael Clayton, which I also think is a far better film simply because it embraced its dark side far more honestly).
VJ: I really liked it — especially the way it was paced. Though as Adithya says, I’d choose IB for screenplay. But this was a very well directed movie.
LikeLike
arijit
March 9, 2010
Rangan,
Do agree with you that the redeeming ending somewhat takes the sheen of UITA but don’t you think that was one of the points Reitman was trying to make about replacing people with technology. 🙂 Clooney was fantastic but as you say he was better in Michael Clayton. He should have won it.
Also IB should have got the screenplay award. It is sad that the academy failed to recognize yet another brilliant effort. Also what were they thinking when they gave Avatar the best cinematography award? Or do computers need to be recognized as video/photographic equipment from now on? 😉
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
March 9, 2010
Hi Baradwaj,
Have you seen District 9? Would like your views on that one. I liked it a lot, disappointed that it got snubbed by the Academy
LikeLike
Venkatesh
March 9, 2010
@BR : “You know at beginning that he’s going to come to crossroads that empty miles aren’t going to make up for family life” – spot on., Juno was much better directed.
For all the Hurt Locker fans , everything about the movie – except the Action sequences was boring. The ending was a foregone conclusion, yes it was a small movie made by a woman in actual locations etc. etc. but that should not be the reason for giving it the Oscar. Best film of the year – UP or IB , Hurt Locker probably best directed. My 2 pennies worth.
LikeLike
Krishna
March 9, 2010
@BR
“we shared her disbelief”
Really? Cameron was always the cocky and no-self-deprecatory-in-ME-you-got-that-right kind of an achiever.
Mark Harris describes this phenomenon – http://nymag.com/movies/features/63661/index7.html
In the numerous runups to the Big Night, he was wont to diss someone else. He did that with Meryl Streep, and I quote Harris:
“From far away, I can feel Fox executives emitting psychic beams: ‘Stop talking now.'”
It helped that Bigelow was running against Cameron and not, say, Reitman. If more than half of the Academy were paid for working on Avatar, then more than half certainly got to observe James Cameron up close in his creative shell.
And that couldn’t have been good PR.
LikeLike
anamika
March 9, 2010
a break from the oscars…
are you going to do a piece on the road movie..watching it made my day…without any intention of a spoiler, just want to say what a charming delightful little film this is and yes, we are pushing the envelope..
are you listening Mr.Hassan?!
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
March 9, 2010
Well, Couldn’t have expected anything more from the Academy. When thousands of guys vote for an award, really good films are bound to go unnoticed.
LikeLike
Vivek Gupta
March 10, 2010
I am sure I was part of the big minority of true movie lovers that breathed a big sigh of relief when Avatar did not win. I haven’t seen Hurt Locker, but I was as sure that it must be better than Avatar as I was sure of the fact that Jeff Bridges will win the Best actor or that the sun will rise from east tomorrow. Even the nomination of Avatar got me all pensive about the state of justice in this universe and to see it win Golden Globes was only a hair’s breadth away for me to pick up arms and raise a passionate private army of glorious movie loving basterds. Thankfully, the academy award jury hasn’t completely sold out to hollywood movie moguls yet, unlike many of the movie critics in US. Some justice was restored with a resounding thumbs down to the most overhyped blockbuster tripe in the movie history.
LikeLike
Rishi
March 10, 2010
Realistic question: Have you seen and, in fact, liked Hurt Locker?
It’s quite a boring movie and plenty of Iraq veterans (even those who wish they were never there in the first place) have come out against the film.
The Academy constantly misfires on films. Come back in twenty years and see which film is more remembered: Avatar or Hurt Locker.
LikeLike
KayKay
March 10, 2010
3 cheers for Katherine Bigelow and The Hurt Locker!
I hope this at least puts her on the road if not actually catapult her to the long overdue A-List Director league and we get a slightly more prolific output from her.
A career spanning almost 30 years and less than a dozen movies to her credit? Glass ceiling or her own choosiness I wonder?
In Locker I feel Bigelow finally found a script worthy of her ability to paint gorgeous cinematic landscapes, a bridging of content and visuals where her previous movies used to be notable for the often yawning chasm between the two.
Loved Near Dark for it’s sombre meditation on the drudgery of small town existence but it didn’t quite work for me as a vampire flick (and the Terminator like climax with “reversing vampirism through good blood infusion” was a put off).
Blue Steel was hobbled by a preposterous plot abetted by an abominably stupid climax.
Strange Days simply didn’t do enough with it’s premise of experiencing another’s sensory input, and 2 hours with a greasy, pussy whipped Ralph Fiennes is no picnic.
Dazzling action scenes in Point Break that unfortunately came with a plot so perfectly generic, Rob Cohen could “drag and drop” it with little or no effort (and variation) a decade later into a Vin Diesel flick with cars and Paul Walker.
K19 The Widowmaker..Harrison + Liam + Submarine..and still boring as shit.
But it all comes together beautifully in Locker. White-Knuckle tension combined with an exploration of the macho Man Of War psyche with a pitch perfect Jeremy Renner (pity about the Bald Guy going to Starman instead).
At least the “right” ex-spouse won:-)
I loved IB, but feel Tarantino’s still an acquired taste, especially if you’re going to tether the Oscars to either “epic” or “noble” film-making.
Like pretty much everything else in his ouevre, IB exists in a reality of it’s own, and is a cock-tease pretty much like every other QT flick.(i.e from a Heist Movie without a Heist to a 2 movie arc heading for a climactic showdown that never quite unfolds in the epic fashion you expect it to, and now, a WW2 flick without the war where the titular characters are mere side players). I love it, but can’t see the stodgy Academy voting for a revisionist end to Hitler quite yet:-)
I’m at least thankful the Iraq war is no longer deemed as material that’s too “fresh” or “sensitive” for consideration although Box-Office runs for them will continue to be dismal for awhile yet.
Raj, Loved District 9! An ugly, grimy movie, a stark contrast to the eye-candy that’s Avatar, but unlike that Dances With Wolves re-tread in outer-space, D9 boasted a compelling plot and propulsive narrative, and the final 30mins were a terrific homage to the splatter-fests that Paul Verhoeven used to be famous for?
Is is just me or did the climactic scene where the protagonist straps himself inside a robot reference the ED-209 robot from Verhoeven’s masterful Robocop?
LikeLike
Deepak
March 10, 2010
Have to agree with Rishi. I found Hurt Locker rather boring. I think it was the lack of expository dialogue. Was not able to figure out exactly what went through the lead characters head.
For instance, he thinks the kid, Beckham has been turned into a body bomb. He becomes visibly upset and tries to investigate what exactly happened. The next day, it becomes apparent that it wasnt in fact Beckham…but he shows no emotion and just walks away without saying a word. I couldnt figure out the reason for that at all. Was he thinking he shouldnt have cared at all in the first place and put himself in so much trouble?
LikeLike
vijay
March 11, 2010
Glad that you wasted only 3 paras on this borefest. Oscars suck.
Regarding Up in the air, the ending was a little ambiguous or open-ended I thought. Not sure how it is all tied up neatly as in a romcom, like you claim. Is he letting go of the backpack fully after the experience and getting back to square one or is he just letting go of his apprehensions regarding relationships and willing to give it another shot even while not relinquishing his current job? Or does he just “pick a destination” to fly to? what does that shot where he drops the suitcase while staring at the airline schedule, right at the end convey?
Also, that twist with Vera Farmiga’s home was good. Stunning blow to Clooney as well as the audience.
LikeLike
vijay
March 11, 2010
Clooney just played himself in UITA I think. He has done that quite a few times before.Have’nt seen other Best actor nominees but this performance of Clooney certainly did’nt deserve an award, based on past performances of winners.
And reg. Michael Clayton CLooney using the oldest trick in the book to nail Tilda’s character at the end was quite an anti-climax.
LikeLike
Rishi
March 11, 2010
I would have been much happier if District 9 had won, but those kind of movies never win (witness the utter lack of respect the epic Children of Men got from the Academy).
I’ll also make one additional argument that most likely will not go over well here — what is with the huge lack of respect shown to comedy films? I would be willing to bet that ten years from now, more people will remember and reference “The Hangover”, which will have far more influence on filmmaking, than “Hurt Locker”.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
March 11, 2010
KayKay/Rishi, District 9 was great stuff and deserved to win. Also liked Children of Men. This year’s should be one of the most boring oscars (not the ceremony which I did not see, but the choice of nominees). Also, I don’t understand why Up got nominated in both best film and best animation categories. Wish they go back to 5 best picture nominees system.
LikeLike
UmaMahesh
March 11, 2010
Was the choice more political? Though i haven’t seen Hurt Locker – it was about the Iraq war. Avatar was blatantly anti-establishment…what say?
LikeLike
Venkatesh
March 11, 2010
Vijay,Rishi + 1.
I am not sure about the number of people who have actually seen The Hurt Locker – its a good movie , probably a great movie but most definitely not the best movie of the Year.
This reminds me of another famous instance – Shakespeare in Love won in the same year that Saving Private Ryan was nominated . 10 years later , the ratings and the influence speaks for itself. Another one – Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction , case closed.
10 years from now, we can talk again. 🙂
LikeLike
Prashanth
March 12, 2010
Rangan,
The first couple of sentences left me disarrayed. Why would you call Avatar evil and Hurt Locker good? What is so evil about Avatar? is it the fact that it has made more money than any other movie, which would imply that any thing making a lot of money is just pure evil? What would be your logic behind calling Avatar evil and Hurt Locker good? Avatar quite simply was the best movie experience I ever had and that deserves a lot of praise and accolade.
If you say Avatar didn’t deserve it as much as any other movie or even Hurt Locker, that might be quite alright, because even I thought there were other movies which deserve it more than Avatar for example Inglorious Basterds which I thought was superb.
Anyways, have you seen Hurt Locker?
LikeLike
Vivek Gupta
March 12, 2010
Venkatesh: You have a good point for Saving Private Ryan, but Pulp Fiction is still considered only a cult classic, and even among cinephiles not everyone is in love with it. Forrest Gump, on the other hand, is one of the most loved movies of our times.
LikeLike
brangan
March 12, 2010
arijit: Yeah, that Cinematography award is very puzzling, but also could be the most defining award of this year’s Oscars. Perhaps they’re legitimising “digital” cinematography (not with digital camera, but done entirely digitally). Still, I think there should have been two awards, like how, in an earlier era, there were two Oscars for Cinematography (one for Black and White, one for Colour).
Raj Balakrishnan: District 9 was quite terrific. I wish I’d seen it on the big screen, though 🙂
Venkatesh/Rishi/Deepak: “boring” is not really a consideration, right? It’s a contrast between the high tension of the bomb sequences and the mundane stuff elsewhere. I really liked the flow and feel of the film, that borderline docudrama approach to melodramatic situations which allowed us to enter the heads of these people without “exposition,” like some sort of existential action movie.
KayKay: Point Break, I love 🙂 Yeah, and I too felt Strange Days was undone simply by the casting, but I guess Fiennes was hot off Schindler’s List and people, then, thought he could do anything.
And about the point you make about Avatar (“Dances With Wolves re-tread in outer-space”), I wonder f we’d have reacted differently if Cameron had simply said he’d made a popcorn movie, instead of all that buzz about something serious. At least I went in expecting some sort of drama, and was quite offended when it turned out so ridiculous (excluding, of course, the eye-candy). I watched it a second time to see what I’d missed (because almost all th Us publications went into a rave overdrive), but I came out with an even bigger headache.
And you, man, just rock for the occasional Verhoeven references you keep dropping here. Starship Troopers is some sort of classic 🙂
vijay: The romcom reference wasn’t about a “happy ending,” but about the last-minute epiphany at the airport, the dash to her house and so on. Of course the ending isn’t romcom-ish at all. He’s stuck in a limbo by the end, ironically the very limbo he was trying to make “tolerable” for others. That’s why that line (“We are here to make limbo tolerable”) is so brilliant, both as a line and as a pointer to the end.
Prashanth: Oh, not good and evil in the literal sense, but along the lines of the morality play I was referring to.
LikeLike
arijit
March 12, 2010
I have seen the hurt locker…as far as war films go it is one of the best war films i have seen…there are 3 sequences that stand out…the confrontation in the desert…the human bomb and the bazaar sequence…it has some of the best action sequences i have seen…also as a war movies doesn’t fall into any of the usual trappings…doesn’t take any sides, doesn’t leave any message…it deserves the best film of the year award…which avatar sadly doesn’t…
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
March 12, 2010
@Arijit.
Although Avatar’s cinematography defines the word banal, I’m OK with such a film getting the cinematography award. Surely, there is no rule that a camera has to be wielded over mountains and oceans to call it spectacular cinematography. IMO, cinematography is all about getting the right angles, textures, meanings and moods. So it really is immaterial if it was done in CG or live action. Why, WALL-E was one of the best cinematographed films of 2008.
I do hope .they consider animation films for the category in the near future.
Cheers!
LikeLike
Venkatesh
March 12, 2010
@Vivek Gupta : Re- Forrest Gump vs. Pulp Fiction , granted Forrest Gump is well-loved but look at the influence of Pulp Fiction on pop culture – from music videos to story-telling techniques to quotes. There is no comparison. The decade of the 90’s belonged to Pulp Fiction and that;s not just me, the esteemed Mr. Ebert said something similar, i think.
**** SPOILERS ****
@BR: “like some sort of existential action movie” – you must have seen a different movie from me, then. I didn’t need any exposition but the movie except for the action sequences (which were admittedly well-done) almost felt juvenile to me. Here is this guy who does’t want normal life and wants to be in the desert defusing bombs – it was “The Man With No Name In The Desert”. At least the Man With No Name was played by Clint Eastwood.
LikeLike
joe tempo
March 12, 2010
Hurt Locker was the sucker punch movie of last year. Those who found it boring as some say, probably wandered over from a Michael Bay screening, or forgot their Ritalin prescription. HL would have opened bigger and invited widespread drooling had it’s directorial credits read as Scorcese or Speilberg – that a lady filmmaker made the first credible film on the Iraq war is, to many, simply not the same.
Regarding the protagonist abruptly walking away from the kid at the end – it is clear early on, this guy is averse to emotional displays and a man of few words; his only attachment being his collection of bomb mementos (no cute family pics!). Yet somehow he gets attached to this kid and goes out on a limb for him – as a bomb expert, he deals in precision – the kid reappearing is a shock to him in how off the base he is with the situation – he walks away as he cannot risk those emotions getting in his way again. In fact I liked that there was little expository dialogue for his actions – real life is mostly about how you interpret someone’s motives, you take what you read.
Strangely, little has been said about it’s cinematography e.g the indelible long shot of the face-off between James and the ‘insurgent in the car’. It has an almost other-worldly feel to it, not least because of the bombsuit resembling an astronauts’, the landscape could have been a Mars. Cinematography isn’t about beautiful imagery ( – the Avatar win) , but that which convey the true character of the film. With HL’s images – one felt the heat, the dust, the grime of the situation.
Basterds was brilliant but restricts its appeal to QT fanboys; UITA had great potential but didn’t quite cut it in the second half; Avatar was downright BAAD and would not have been even considered if not for its green and anti-globalisation sentiment.
The Hurt Locker was by far the best film of the year. A traditional, sensibly (read low) budgeted movie, with the gutsiest characters in recent filmdom.
LikeLike
Vivek Gupta
March 12, 2010
Venkatesh: Agreed about the pop culture influence. But, Pulp Fiction is a bit too “unconventional” ( not necessarily a sign of superior film making); far too occuppied with surreal situations, blood and gore to ever be considered more than a cult favourite. And even as a cult fav, it is a tad overhyped. As someone pointed out here, QT is an acquired taste, not really palatable to most movie goers. I will term Pulp Fiction as a self-indulgent movie, on the lines of No Smoking or Saawariya (as Rangan terms them). It is good, but fails to be great. Perhaps, the academy felt the same way. Even among prominent movie critics not everyone is effusive on it. Check out Anthony Lane’s not-exactly-glowing review.
LikeLike
brangan
March 12, 2010
Here’s something about cinematography and Avatar.
LikeLike
Upamanyu
March 12, 2010
It was one of the most lacklustre Oscar ceremonies I’ve seen in recent years. 2008’s Oscar ceremony was brilliant in every way. But then, you get one of the lowest TV ratings in the history of the Oscars. Watching the entire ceremony, I couldn’t really feel that “all was right with the world”. How can all be well when the Twilight stars present an Oscar? The only funny thing in the entire ceremony was Ben Stiller’s Na’vi act.
I thought the Almodóvar–Tarantino moment was the best one in the ceremony. It was interesting to see two of the finest living filmmakers (who are, needless to say, too “foreign” and too “alienating” for the Academy and, by extension, majority of the moviegoers) give away the Foreign Film Oscar. I haven’t seen Inglourious Basterds yet. But if the film is anything like the screenplay I read, it might just be a masterpiece. (QT’s got a handful of them already, hasn’t he?) But I’m sure QT won’t take home any Oscar in the near future. He’s too violent a filmmaker, no? Not that he requires the Academy’s validation.
I haven’t seen The Hurt Locker either. But there’s a lot I have to say about Avatar. But I don’t think I’ll be able to express my opinion now in a few words. Will write a lengthy piece next month. (No, I haven’t forgotten Saawariya.) I, too, was taken aback by the Best Cinematography Oscar. I was rooting for Bruno Delbonnel. He hasn’t won an Oscar (he received 2 nominations before this one) in spite of the fact that he has a great body of work. His work on Half-Blood Prince was simply magnificent. Then again, Roger Deakins (8 nominations) is yet to receive an Oscar.
Do you plan to write a longer piece on The Hurt Locker? A Between Reviews, maybe?
LikeLike
Venkatesh
March 13, 2010
@joe tempo:”Those who found it boring as some say, probably wandered over from a Michael Bay screening, or forgot their Ritalin prescription” – mate, ad-hominem attacks are the lowest form of discourse. You cheapen everything you say by that one line.
@Vivek:”QT is an acquired taste, not really palatable to most movie goers. I will term Pulp Fiction as a self-indulgent movie” – oh spot on,. but at every level i believe Pulp Fiction is better than Forrest Gump and my point was the influence of the movie 10 years down the line proves it as well.
LikeLike
KayKay
March 15, 2010
“IGNORE EARLIER POST”
Can’t help the Verhoeven references Mr.B 🙂 Have been a die-hard fan of his work ever since I watched a grainy bootleg of Robocop.
Pity his hyper-visceral film-making was deemed too much even in the States and he’s been shunted back to his home country.
Fellow Euro-Expat Roland Emmerich on the other hand is probably being given another 100mil to CGI-wreck national monuments even as I write this….
Re Avatar, truth of the matter was, I rarely expect anything profound, message-wise, from a Cameron flick, just oodles of precision-crafted action sequences centred around a generally engaging plot.
The disppointment with Avatar was the realisation that the dazzling images unfolding in front of me was in complete subservience to a story I could perfectly plot along a linear trajectory 3 frames in advance-)
It probably didn’t help that I re-watch Kevin Costner’s gorgeously romanic Sioux epic at least once a year:-)
LikeLike
joe tempo
March 15, 2010
@Venky: It’s called irony. Wrt to your Pulp Fiction v/s Forrest Gump comment however, if you seriously think you know better than the Oscar’s six thousand global artiste voters – look out for the prescription.
LikeLike
Rishi
March 17, 2010
@Joe Tempo,
“Those who found it boring as some say, probably wandered over from a Michael Bay screening, or forgot
their Ritalin prescription. ”
You’re being pretentious in thinking these things. It’s nice to be able to justify to yourself that anyone who didn’t like Hurt Locker just didn’t appreciate it, must be stupid, or have ADD, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. Some of us like movies that are subdued and simple, but Hurt Locker, in my opinion, just simply wasn’t “great”.
LikeLike
Ramesh
March 17, 2010
road, movie is not so bad if you can listen to NPR (the radio) while watching it.
LikeLike