The State of the Race: The Art of War

In many ways, 2010 may mark the year when the Oscars became relevant again. They wouldn’t have made themselves relevant because they nominated The Blind Side over A Single Man, The Road, Where the Wild Things Are, Invictus, or 500 Days of Summer. Becoming relevant doesn’t require that one appeal to the masses. The same way fashion week dictates how we dress and defines the changes in the fashion industry which then influences our culture at large, when they are working best, the Oscars can dictate quality and taste.

The last few years have produced a slate of films that rival their best era, the 1970s, when it seemed that the influences of actors like Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro and Jack Nicholson were choosing directors to work with who valued artistry above anything else. The next two decades would usher in the box office giants and at some point, money seemed control how films were made and for whom they were made – mainly, the target demographic of young boys.

The “indie scene” was born out of that because, for all of those people out there who believe the film industry is driven solely by money, there are whole populations of artists who don’t. And though many of those are making films in foreign countries, and are making documentaries — there are still filmmakers here who occasionally throw it all on the line not for money, but for art. Art, which has almost become a dirty word in film.

God forbid if you don’t get those twelve year-old to 20 year-old boys in those seats you will be considered a failure.

The Academy shows their relevance not by picking the easy gets this year but by showing the world they can honor both the successful films and the daring ones.

The reason that The Hurt Locker stands heads and shoulders above the other films isn’t because you are wowed by what you are seeing on screen the way you are with Avatar and Inglourious Basterds, two wildly entertaining, vividly and enthusiastically made films by true auteurs – yes, Jim Cameron is an auteur.

The Hurt Locker can’t beat either of those films in terms of box office returns or star power or escapism. They both offer an out for audiences, a door that takes them away from their miserable lives and into a world where yes, the Jews can actually kill Nazis and even round up the worst Nazi scum into a theater and burn that mother fucker to the ground. (“Oui, Shosanna”).

They can walk through a door that takes them into Pandora – where we can be Jake, transforming from his crippled body into a ten foot tall Na’vi, falling in love with the most desirable female character of the year, and saving that lush planet from the clutches of Americans who want nothing more than to use and destroy their own resources.¬† We get to be heroes. In both movies.

The reason it stands above the others is simple: the writing, the directing and the acting are all a perfect ten. Moreover, you can sit anyone down in front of it and they will get it, if not love it (an Oscar Watch rule). Finally, what really sets it apart is that it is about right now.

Precious reminds us of the all-too-common physical abuse that victims suffer across all racial lines. It is hard to look at, hard not to look at. Up in the Air reminds us that there really is no point in buying into the marketing schemes of corporations who pretend to care about you — the only thing that matters, as Laura Dern says in Jurassic Park, are the people we love. Both of these themes would have resonance any year.

But we are in 2010 and, as Keith Olbermann reminds us every night after his program, our President declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. Seven years ago.

According to Wikipedia, and this site, over 4,000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq since 2003.¬† Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the conflict, many of them civilians.¬† But these aren’t the numbers we are paying attention to. We keep hearing $16 million, $12 million, $2 billion, $700,000.

And yet, as last year was coming to a close and audiences “weren’t turning out for Iraq movies,” Hollywood was ready to drop the lid on movies about Iraq.

The argument could be made that there isn’t anything we can do and therefore, it’s too depressing to think about. The argument could also be made that Hollywood movies have no business in politics and that any attempt by them to take credit for the hard work the soldiers are doing in the Middle East is wrong.

But the real reason is that it comes down to cold, hard cash. Money, money, money. If audiences won’t go see Iraq movies, why bother making them? Moreover, why bother making them without at least a couple of big name stars to draw in the crowds? And why have them be directed by women when everyone knows women can only make money at the box office if their film is about sex or romance. All of these proclamations are commonplace in Hollywood.

Despite the main characteristic of The Hurt Locker, that’s a it’s a war movie, it is unusual to tell the story with no good guys and no bad guys. You can’t take a side in the film because you don’t know who the enemy is. This is why if any actor in Hollywood has the audacity to claim they are “against the politics” of The Hurt Locker, first they have to identify what the politics are. It is anti-war. And in my view, it is firmly against the invasion, and it beautifully states the conundrum we now find ourselves in.

We are fighting a war with an enemy we can’t even identify, and enemy that just wants us gone. Like the Na’vi, the Iraqis and the insurgents never wanted us there to liberate them in the first place. Perhaps Bush thought it would be a wham, bam, thank you ma’am, but it has turned out to be anything but. We are so deeply entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan right now that pulling out would cause the bottom to drop out. We can’t leave. We can’t stay.

That dynamic is personified in the lead character of Sgt. James, played with exquisite depth by Jeremy Renner — a cock-sure “adrenalin junkie” who is hell bent on saving the bomb squad he’s working with, and the innocents, wherever they may be. He is us. He is America. He is our participation in a war we can’t win and can’t lose. The hollow ambiguity of our unwinable war is so beautifully delineated in Bigelow’s film it has to then be called the definitive film not just about war itself, but THIS war.

So if that slaps it with the dirty word, “political,” so be it. Avatar is unashamed in its politics. But that’s because it made so much money no one could say a damned thing, not even Fox News.

Still, if it were only about the political and cultural resonance of the film, there is no way it would be winning award after award. It keeps winning because it is great filmmaking.

The Hurt Locker is the story of three men that we grow to care about in the hour and a half we’re watching them. They aren’t faceless army guys whose lives are expendable. Each of them has something significant happen to them in the 365 day-tour of duty. One has to live with the unfathomable truth that he recommended his doctor, his only relief from the war, to ride along with them on a mission. When the doctor is blown to bits by an IED that they never saw, he blames himself.

Sanborn starts off thinking he knows what he’s doing but working with a hair-trigger headcase like Sgt. James, he almost becomes unglued. But it takes a suicide bomber whose life they can’t save, and the near-death of Sgt. James, who would be his second bomb tech to die in the course of the 365 days, for Sanborn to finally admit that he wants to live, that he wants to have a son and get out of Iraq.

And finally, Sgt. James starts to believe he is godlike – that he can’t be killed. He is challenged by the scrappy Iraqi bombers and most of the time he can find and defuse the bomb. He avenges the death of his friend, only to discover he has once again risked his life doing something crazy by breaking into the home of a civilian family. James keeps the gun pointed at them. The old man tries to treat him like a human being, not like a murderer. That moment shames Sgt. James back to reality. And he has to ask himself – who is it he’s trying to blame for the death of his friend? And will killing this nice old man change anything?

We invaded Iraq to avenge the deaths of those in the World Trade Center. There has never been a valid connection nor a good reason why. Yet there we are, hunting down an enemy we not only don’t recognize, but we also have to realize that how many dead Iraqis will avenge the deaths of those we loved?

And so we find ourselves on the eve of the Oscars. Avatar fans are feeling badly for Jim Cameron, who delivered his lifelong dream of bringing the idea of avatars to the screen – it cost a lot, but it made a lot. And Inglourious Basterds are hoping that their film can pull in a last-minute upset because, so goes the narrative, Tarantino is “due.” But those of us who followed Scorsese’s tragic trajectory know that Tarantino is anything but overdue for an Oscar. He has a lot more masterpieces to go before he is really overdue. That isn’t enough for a win anyway — they have to really like the movie.

In the final analysis, most people probably just like The Hurt Locker more. It works as a suspense film on its own. But if you start looking for something deeper, you will find it. It was on the page, and it is on the screen.

As for why “no one saw it,” that is a mystery. It certainly doesn’t go to the quality of the film. More often than not it’s simply because no one has ever heard of it.

If the Academy decides to award The Hurt Locker its Best Picture prize it will be cause to celebrate their relevance. They won’t have picked “the people’s choice,” but they will put themselves in a position of power: to dictate taste, to send the message that they do care about the quality of the writing and the directing and that they care less about the high returns.

Will it piss people off? You can count on it. Will it look courageous looking backwards in time? Absolutely.¬† I have been surprised and admiring of the Academy’s choice in the last few years, even if they have taken a hit for it.

Meanwhile, in the Best Actress category, it is perhaps a three-way race, with Sandra Bullock firmly in the lead, followed by Meryl Streep and then perhaps Carey Mulligan in a possible upset. There is little doubt that Meryl Streep gave the best performance, but Sandra Bullock has paid her dues and The Blind Side managed to get a Best Picture nomination, which is practically a miracle. For Bullock to lose at this point there would have to be a good reason for it – and that reason would probably be something like a messy divorce or a bar room brawl.

Best Actor still feels like it’s Jeff Bridges’ to lose. There isn’t anyone gaining Adrien Brody-like steam.¬† The only one would have been Viggo Mortensen in The Road but he didn’t get a nod. Jeff Bridges is so beloved and his performance was so good – and he was in a movie that people seem to really like, certainly enough to give Maggie Gyllnehaal the supporting nod. So when people start to say that the actors are going to drive Basterds through to Best Picture you have to wonder why neither Diane Kruger or Melanie Laurent were not nominated.¬† Yes, Gyllenhaal has a lot more friends in the Academy to be sure.¬† How did Penelope Cruz get in for supporting for the disaster that was Nine and not Diane Kruger who is brilliant in Basterds?

Supporting actor and actress couldn’t be more locked. Both will seen as the big wins for their respective films, which means they can’t really lose.

The two open categories right now are still Picture and Original Screenplay in the major categories. Everyone is so quick to call the race done and done, but the truth is, with ten nominees and preferential ballot, anything could happen. The Blind Side could happen.

I would also say cinematography could be open. It seems like Avatar would take that one, except for the fact that most of that cinematography is in truth, visual effects. Barry Ackroyd’s difficult multiple camera 16MM shoot in The Hurt Locker could be the upset there.