Disclaimer: I think "ranking" works of art is an ultimately futile pursuit, am distrustful of award shows and awards in general, and ultimately don't really care who wins what. [cue Larry David voice] That being said...
So, Google News tells me that The Hurt Locker took home the big prize last night. (For the first time in years, I actually watched some of the Oscars, but no way can I last until the end of that marathon.) In recent weeks, popular opinion had it down to a two-film race: Locker vs. Avatar. Frankly, I was surprised the latter was even nominated, much less in the running for Best Picture, but then again seemingly half the movies that came out last year were in contention under the new 10-nominee system.
Now don't get me wrong; Avatar was as entertaining as anything I saw last year, but I am also entertained by water slides, yet I don't think they should be considered for Best Picture. The 3D effects and set pieces were nothing short of amazing, but they mostly served to obscure a rote storyline (my prevailing thought was that James Cameron could have saved a lot of dough by just re-releasing Pocahontas in 3D).
So, just between the two of them, I think Hurt Locker was the better choice. I also think it was a very strange choice for Best Picture. Not necessarily wrong, just strange, considering how the Academy usually seems to operate. Unlike other "respected" war movies, it is not a broad political statement. Screenwriter Mark Boal says, "This isn’t about the diversity of opinions in Iraq...That would be a great subject for a movie that someone should do. But The Hurt Locker is about the daily life of bomb squad soldiers." And indeed, the vast bulk of the story is the main character going on mission after mission, pulling the viewer deeper into his world with set piece after thrilling, suspenseful set piece. The film is practically a clinic on how to shoot an exciting action movie. In the end, though, that's all it is: an action movie. Its nearly complete lack of realism in the details of its treatment of the soldier's experience has been covered elsewhere:
NY Times: How Not To Depict A War
Army Live Blog: EOD Soldiers view ‘The Hurt Locker’
Director Kathryn Bigelow feels otherwise, about both the film's realism and its politics. "I wanted to keep it as reportorial as possible--to keep it raw and immediate and visceral, to give the audience the opportunity to be inside this company, to be a real boots-on-the-ground look at combat," she says. "The fact that these men live in mortal danger every day makes their lives inherently tense, iconic, and cinematic...[a]nd, on a metaphorical level, they seemed to suggest both the heroism and the futility of the [Iraq] war."
The Academy, if its treatment of other "action" movies is any indication, sides with Bigelow. One can hardly imagine an escapist shoot-em-up, even one so well-crafted as this, taking home Best Picture. And yet, if we are to believe the knowledgeable sources above, that's exactly what has happened here.
So, I put it to you: does the fact that a piece of pop entertainment is set against a relevant political backdrop automatically make it a "political statement"? Overlooking her seeming misguidedness on her film's level of realism, does Bigelow have a point about its value as metaphor? Is attention to detail necessary for a work of art such as this, which purports to depict our military in a realistic fashion? Do Bigelow, Spielberg, and others who claim to interpret our soldiers' experience for the masses, have any obligation to accuracy in their depictions? Or are we just overly complacent in our information intake? Is the fact that we allow fiction to color our sense of realities we haven't experienced an error on our parts?
2 comments :
This article brings up an intriguing series of questions.
First, I must state that I appreciate a level of accuracy in movies and TV. It allows me to feel like I'm learning something (as minute as it might be) in addition to being enveloped in a story. Take Man vs. Wild: I now feel completely prepared to be dropped in the desert; 30 minutes well spent.
Don't worry, I'm not that naive. It's obvious that not everything on film or TV is meant for education (not even Man vs. Wild). Entertainment is the goal; getting there is the key.
So what was Bigelow's intention? If this film was aimed at teaching someone how to defuse bombs, it would be a failure. Bigelow, however, was trying to capture something else. She depicted her version of a soldier's daily life so we could more easily compare our drive to work, grocery lists, and movie rentals to his dirty quarters, tension filled management of the locals, and daily brushes with death. The rawness of the story and filming grasps the audience emotionally. It gets them thinking what they would do in the soldier's shoes, or how they would feel in his situation. And with any luck, it enables a person to reflect on his/her own relevance and his/her own reality (even if the film isn't depicting someone else's exact reality).
When watching a film that takes place in a recognizable real life setting or event the audience must consider that the cinema does not reflect truth. Even a documentary is tainted with perspective. And on the other hand, it should be appreciated that a unique perspective is often what enhances the beauty of art and expression.
For me, The Hurt Locker did it's part. It allowed me to feel vulnerable in someone else's shoes and consider a life far from my own. It also allowed me to appreciate the calculated method and beauty of film making & the art of evoking emotion. To some that might be more meaningful than Bigelow getting all of her facts straight.
So, I offer this to the audience. Take film for what it is: a representation, not a reality. Facts can be found through other means.
I thought the Hurt Locker was more about a character study. It's taking three very different kinds of people and seeing how they deal with stress - the overwhelming stress of possibly being blown up. One guy gets gun-shy, one guy simply tries to stick it out, and one guy lives on the fucking stuff.
That's what I thought made it interesting, that study of rejection, adapting, and embracing fear. That's not something you'd see in an action movie (like Avatar) where ever move the characters make is dictated by what would make the most explosive scene.
Also, Kathryn Bigelow directed Point Break so she gets a free pass to do whatever she wants forever.
Post a Comment