"Avatar" vs. The People

Following the ascendancy of "Avatar" to becoming the number one grossing film of all time, we thought it was important to discuss it in terms of the upcoming Academy Awards. So we organized a debate through exchange of emails between two of our movie critics. On one side, Brian Welk discusses James Cameron's epic from a "pro" perspective regarding the Best Picture award; John Barnett takes the other side. John leads off the debate, enjoy! --

I have to start this conversation out by saying how ludicrous I think the whole "10 Best Picture nominees" concept is. The only reason I can possibly discern for this is just to beef up ratings. People who might feel alienated when just "arty" movies are nominated will have a few afterthoughts to root for. "Hey, I liked 'UP!'" "Hey, 'Up' was funny AND heartwarming!" etc.

Anyway, I want to also preface this with my guess as to which movies will be the 10 nominees. Just for discussion/comparison purposes. They are:
- "Avatar"
- "Inglourious Basterds"
- "The Hurt Locker"
- "Up in the Air"
- "Precious": based on blah blah blah
- "An Education"
- "District 9"
- "Up"
- "Julie & Julia"
- "Nine" (because Oscar loves nothing more than to gag on Rob Marshall's peen)

OK, on to "Avatar." I'm honestly baffled as to who will win the big one this year, since Hurt Locker took the Critics Choice, "Avatar' won the Globe, and "Basterds" nabbed the SAG. "Up in the Air" seems like just the kind of pap Oscar will lap up, just like they did with Jason Reitman's last mediocre but amusing and quotable movie "Juno." I don't think "Precious" has a shot, only because Mo'Nique is a lock and the telecast will be content to end its coverage of the movie with yet another shot of director Lee Daniels looking like he just got kicked in the balls and is about to shit his pants at the same time.

So "Avatar." I would say Cameron's brainchild has at least a 40% shot at the top prize, primarily because of the lasting effects it will end up having on the film industry. I agree with some of the naysayers that Cameron's screenplay, as well as some of the acting, is not Oscar caliber. On the other hand, from a purely aesthetic standpoint the film is a complete masterwork. One could've leveled the came criticisms about "Titanic," and many surely did. Don't forget it won 11 Oscars. Cameron is nothing if not a populist director, which is sort of odd considering he's such an abrasive egghead. Oscar certainly doesn't reward populism in the same manner as the Golden Globes, but they certainly don't ignore box-office success and hype.

At this moment, I would say the percentage odds stand here:
"Avatar" - 40%
"Up in the Air" - 25%
"The Hurt Locker" - 20%
"Inglourious Basterds" - 15%

I'll await your reply.

-John Barnett

I totally agree that no matter what the Academy says, this 10 Best Picture nominees thing is completely a ploy to boost ratings. However, I would say the Academy's experiment has worked, because this is a very worthy lineup of 10 films.

If there five, they would be "Avatar," "Basterds," "Hurt Locker," "Up in the Air" and "Precious," and those are more than worthy.

As for the others, "An Education" and "Up" are both fantastic, and are likewise in. It's the last 3 that are toss-ups. "District 9" is getting a lot of buzz as of late, so I can see that. And I would say "Nine" and "Julie & Julia" are definitely out, firstly because "Nine was terrible" and "J&J" would've been a disaster were it not for Streep. Although both films are up the Academy's alley, I would say the two inspirational sports movies about South Africans and a strong woman ("Invictus" and "The Blind Side") are better bets. And suddenly, don't count out "The Hangover" after a surprising upset at the Globes.

Moving on, the four films you selected are definitely the ones fighting for the top prize, but I don't where you get the percentages, because it really is anybody's race at this point.

The reason "Avatar" is the current front runner stretches beyond that of its Golden Globe win and James Cameron's Best Director win. Like "Titanic" before it, the film's overwhelming success at the box office represents a cultural staple, one that everyone can rally behind. As the most successful film of this decade, the Academy may seek to honor "Avatar" not because of populist reasons but because they want to create a lasting statement of a film that defined this time period.

"Avatar" is also a spectacle. Unlike a simply amazing action film like "The Dark Knight" that the Academy snubbed, it is a wondrous experience that characterizes film's visual abilities like no other movie like it. A better comparison would be to the original "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings," because like those two movies, the industry's expectations on how Avatar can influence the way cinema is made is ambiguous, but they recognize its potential.

What it has to overcome however is a variety of factors: Does a film like "The Hurt Locker," a definitive Iraq War picture, or "Up in the Air," a concept ripped right out of today's headlines, better represent the values the Academy is trying to represent? And will an equally spectacle driven film like "District 9" potentially split some of "Avatar"'s vote? If both "District 9" and "Star Trek" were nominated, it might not be able to beat both. 

I guess the next question to ask is, what do we want to happen on March 7, and would an "Avatar" win be a good thing?

You start.

- Brian Welk

I totally forgot about "Invictus." That will be in the list of 10, I'm sure. I refuse to believe they'll nominate "The Blind Side," but I suppose anything is possible. Also, those percentages I applied to the top four movies were just my feelings on the likelihood of the Academy voters bestowing the prize on each movie based on what I know about the history of the Oscars. In reality, though, it may well be a complete toss-up between all four.

There was recently a great article by Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weekly about the politics he forsees in this year's Best Picture race. You can find that here: http://movie-critics.ew.com/2010/01/02/avatar-vs-up-in-the-air/

In terms of what I WANT to happen on March 7, my personal favorite film that I saw in 2009 was "Inglourious Basterds." I think it's Tarantino's second best film, only short of "Pulp Fiction," and I still get a little sore when I think about the 1995 Oscar telecast when "Forrest Gump" was sort of a hulking freight train taking everything else down. I mean I love "Gump," but "Pulp" was the best and most groundbreaking movie of that year by a longshot. Oscar often loves a feel-good hit, and they even more often love a movie with a showpiece performance at its heart.

Anyway, as little of a real chance I think my personal favorite film of the 2009 has to win Best Picture (much like "There Will Be Blood" two years ago), I can dream. I will say that the only movie I hope does NOT win, and the one I'll be rooting against, is "Up in the Air." No, Cory, I've still not actually seen it. I did, however, read the screenplay after it won the Globe. In a year when a serious epic like "Avatar," a masterpiece like "Basterds," an acting tour-de-force like "Precious," and the best modern war film in ages in "The Hurt Locker" are all up for the top accolade, I'd just rather a minor-key meditation on recession-era romance by the guy who made "Juno" not best them all.

So would "Avatar" winning be a good thing, or the further creation of a monster? In terms of the sheer amount of time and obsessive detail James Cameron put into his first film in 12 years, I believe he certainly deserves the Best Director prize. However, the utilitarian screenplay and occasionally leaden performances are not Best Picture caliber. Of course that's not stopped films like "Crash," "Gladiator," and Cameron's own "Titanic" from winning in the past. I could envision a future where an "Avatar" win would a bad thing if directors everywhere start trying their hand at world-build and make the false assumption that the more money they spend on their movies the more money their movies will make. There are just some things McG shouldn't attempt (actually, there's nothing McG should attempt).

"The Hurt Locker" and "Basterds" are, in my opinon, the most deserving potential recipients of Best Picture this year, because not only are they personal films in the minds and eyes of their creators and writers (as is "Avatar"), but have a great cast that supplied memorable performances on top of it. "Avatar" winning Best Picture risks sending a message to Hollywood which they've been sent many times before... that epic = success. This will only lead to a slew of empty-headed epics that are churned out on a year-by-year basis. I don't forsee many directors dedicating a decade of their lives to a singular vision. I do forsee five more Stephen Sommers movies in the next decade.

Don't get me wrong. I love "Avatar," but a Best Picture win could send the industry off in a direction that's probably not the best scenario for the industry. If only we could trust filmmakers and studios to use more of their energy incubating passion projects and original ideas instead of just treating films like traded commodities. But I'm a hippie idealist. Maybe THAT'S why I enjoyed "Avatar" so much.

- JB

Curiously enough, "Basterds" is my pick for best movie of the year too, and its certainly a dark horse in this race against three films that all stand for something in terms of 21st Century values.

To be honest though, I much rather would like to see "The Hurt Locker" win the big prize. Consider for a moment that the film made barely $13 million at the box office. It's a sin that such a great film has gone completely unnoticed by the general public. A win for it would mean a surge of appreciation for the Iraq War genre, and the pulse pounding perfection of "Hurt Locker" also deserves a win from Kathryn Bigelow for Best Director, creating a big stride for female directors.

But back to the work of her ex-husband Cameron. An "Avatar" win would by no means be a bad thing. The increasing numbers of action extravaganza films is inevitable, and its been that way ever since "Transformers 2" made $400 million. What's more, there isn't another living director that can churn out revolutionary films the way Cameron can. I think the message that will be sent will be less "epic = success" and more of a lifetime achievement award for the King of the World. I think "Avatar" is a great film and that it does have the potential to change the way at least spectacles such as this one are made, and arguably, a loss at the Oscars or a low round up of awards could be stifling that opportunity.

I think we can agree its a race between "Hurt Locker" and "Avatar." I'm actually going to put my money behind "Hurt Locker" because this film isn't just the critical favorite; it has been met with overwhelming support by everyone who's seen it.

But maybe I should cheer for "Up in the Air" out of spite. That is a wonderful film, smarter than any movie this year, containing a timely and timeless message and with multiple excellent performances. Reitman is no doubt an emerging director soon to be one of the greats, and he deserves to be recognized.

- BW

I'm find it very interesting that the movie that was your favorite from 2009 is not the movie you hope wins Best Picture. Of course, I totally understand why "Hurt Locker" winning would be a good thing. It's a perfectly taut, thrilling movie, and it's criminal that it's only made $16 million when the Jamie Foxx vehicle "The Kingdom" made $163 million in 2007.

Needless to say, we clash on our opinions of Jason Reitman. I'm sure I'll rent "Up in the Air" when it's released on DVD. For now, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that guy.

Realistically, the Academy could go one of three ways. Unfortunately, I don't think a "Basterds" dark-horse victory is one of them. The Academy DOES tend to be pretty harsh on films it considers to be contrary to conventional ideals of morality (see "Brokeback Mountain"'s confusing loss to the anti-racist speachifying of "Crash"). Of course that doesn't go very far in explaining "No Country for Old Men"'s win in 2008. "Up in the Air" could get the "feel-good" vote, even though the script has a lot of sadness at its core. Still, it's a dramedy. They LOVE dramedies. "The Hurt Locker" will get the artistic and political vote, because even though "Avatar" is chock full of liberal political commentary, it's really all about floating mountains and flying dragon things. "Avatar" will get the industry stalwart vote, which is always a big factor at the Oscars, though nowhere NEAR as big a factor as it is at the Globes.

I would disagree with you that Cameron "churns" out revolutionary films, primarily because it takes him so long to make a film in the first place. But his films (with the obvious exception of "True Lies") ARE revolutionary. This has been said many times, and I'm really just repeating it here, but if "Avatar" wins Best Picture I think it will be primarily because Cameron created a film people were actually willing and excited to pay to see in a theatre, as opposed to waiting for DVD or Netflix. Not just because of the astronomical gross, but because of the spectacle itself.

-JB