Folks who know me are probably aware that I was furious that Avatar won the "Best Picture - Drama" and "Best Director" Golden Globes over The Hurt Locker; and here I will tell you why I was (and still am) quite upset over Avatar's wins.
First of all, let me set the record straight: Though it may seem like it, I do not hate Avatar. On the contrary, I actually liked the film quite a bit, though really just because of its groundbreaking technical merits. The problem I have is that it stole two awards from much more deserving films. My love for The Hurt Locker notwithstanding, I am going to give you three reasons why Avatar should not have won Best Picture. You can continue reading after the jump.
1) - Avatar was the weakest film to be nominated.
Forget about The Hurt Locker for a moment, and take a minute to look over the other three nominees in the Best Picture - Drama category. Inglourious Basterds and Up in the Air are both far less flawed -- I have not yet seen Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire but have heard great things about it -- than Avatar. First of all, Avatar's story is nothing original. In fact, it follows a formulaic, predictable formula and does not say anything that has already been said many times before. Plus, the characterization is wooden, some of the acting is lacking verve, the villains are one-dimensional, and the dialogue is laughable in certain spots. In essence, the film does not have much of a plot, or rather, it does not have a very substantial plot.
Conversely, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air are all far more substantial when compared to Avatar. Starting with The Hurt Locker, the plot is original and unpredictable, the film is well-acted around the board, and the dialogue is sharp. You could say the same things about both Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air. Up in the Air does not have much of a plot really, but the story it tells is very a timely one indeed. Avatar has next to none of the other films' merits when it comes to substance, making it the weakest film to be nominated by far. That said, it should not have won the award. My fanboy love of The Hurt Locker aside, if any other film had one the award besides Avatar, I would have been perfectly fine with it.
2) - Avatar really only has a couple things going for it.
That "thing" should come as no surprise to anyone: its special effects. There is no denying that Avatar's special effects are spectacular, but what else did it really have going for it? Sure James Horner's musical score helped things, but if you compare it to Horner's past works, it doesn't really sound any different. With that in mind, you cannot really count Horner's score, so that leaves the only the special effects and James Cameron's direction, which elevated the film to be more than the sum of its parts.
Avatar's special effects are definitely groundbreaking and certainly deserve to win numerous technical awards, but does its technical merits alone make it deserving of winning Best Picture? Absolutely not. One must look at the film as a whole, and as a whole it is deeply flawed. However, Cameron's direction did deserve to be nominated for Best Director, but his direction still did not hold a candle to Kathryn Bigelow's nearly flawless direction. Bigelow was definitely robbed in that category.
3) - Avatar should not have been nominated in the first place.
Taking the previous two points into account, there are several much more deserving films that could have easily been nominated in place of Avatar. Films like Duncan Jones's brilliant indie sci-fi Moon, or Jamin Winans's excellent directorial debut with Ink. There's also Ryan Fleck's and Anna Boden's Sugar, which is easily the best sports film of 2009. Even Neill Blomkamp's District 9 is more deserving of a nomination than Avatar, and Werner Herzog's fearless Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is also a better film than Avatar. The list goes on.
And there you have it. Those are my three reasons why Avatar should not have won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. All things considered, Avatar is not the best movie of the year -- not even close -- so why give it such an award, let alone nominate it over far better films? The HFPA apparently has no shame for having given the award to such an undeserving movie, let alone nominating it in the first place.
Whether or not Avatar will also win Best Picture at the Academy Awards still remains to be seen; but if the Academy has any sense of decency, it will only give Avatar the technical awards it so very much deserves and give the overall quality awards to films that actually do deserve them. Films like The Hurt Locker, for instance.
7 comments:
Well-raised and well-supported critiques. I take off my hat to you.
Do I think that Avatar was a beautiful masterpiece that at the very least deserved to be nominated? Sure. Though I will say you do raise a point that District 9 probably should've gotten in there before it did. Do I believe it deserved to actually win? Not by a long shot. Like you say, it most certainly was the weakest of all the films nominated, and even though I consider it to at least be one of the best films of the year, it was definitely far from the best. With all of the praise I personally have for this movie even I have to wonder what on earth they were thinking giving it best picture. I can see it being nominated, since this is the Golden Globes and all, but I'll also agree to the fact that a best picture nomination at the Academy Awards is something that it should not have, as much as it deserves plenty of other nominations.
Personally, I really didn't think the story, writing or acting to be all that bad, or at least not nearly as bad as some critics like to point it out to be. But even with that said, if there's any major flaw I believe the movie to have, it's most certainly in it's story. I don't think the acting or writing was necessarily flawed, but it wasn't necessarily spectacular either. Not nearly as spectacular as I would have expected of it anyways.
Thanks for your feedback, Saki, it really means quite a lot to me. :-)
Figured you would have a good amount of input too, Nate, but it is nice to see that you do agree with me at least somewhat. What I'm bracing for is the potential outcry from Avatar fanboys who are far less reasonable than yourself. ;)
I'm glad that my opinion is worth something :3.
And yeah, them fanboys/fangirls are annoying.
I read somewhere that Avatar is expected to win at the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes (which it already has), because of its worldwide commercial success (it's now the highest-grossing film of all-time). But I don't think it deserves to win Best Picture for that merit alone. The Dark Knight was also a huge success, but it wasn't even nominated for Best Picture last year. I agree with your statements that Avatar had a poor story and poor acting. Therefore, it should not have not won for Best Picture overall. The Hurt Locker was more deserving. But, with a big name director like James Cameron standing behind Avatar, it seems like the HFPA believed they should just hand the award over.
Your an anime fan right wouldn't you mind visiting and linking with my blog its also about anime and other related stuff..
http://adventorder.blogspot.com/
Agree agree agree agree agree agree agree agree with this post!
I was so pissed that it won there and so happy that it lost at the Oscars.
Of course, then again, they gave best foreign to secrets in their eyes, when really, White Ribbon was a much better film...
But I digress. Hi, I'm a filmmaker into anime. Pleased to meet you. :)
Post a Comment
Got something to say? Then post it, darn you!