The Oscars

This weekend, a band of elite, far-left personalities will get together and congratulate itself for all of its hard work in 2009. Having taken a vote amongst its members, this group will then tell the American people about how wonderful its products are and use the world stage it has erected to promote them.

No, it has nothing to do with healthcare reform. It's the Oscars, brought to you by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

That was a cheap shot, I know, but you cannot deny that the Oscars are at least partially a political affair. In recent years, message movies like Million Dollar Baby (euthanasia = good), Brokeback Mountain (gayness = good), and Crash (racism = bad) have provoked "controversy" (I hate using that word; it's what THEY want us to say) by becoming Academy-sanctioned winners. Blowhards like Michael Moore have taken the stage at ceremonies, yelling "Shame on you, George Bush!", and the like.

To be fair, however, the Academy has also made some laudable choices in recent years that have bred public acceptance of cinematic work that might otherwise have been lost upon the masses. This, in spite of its politicking, mind you.

In 2007, the Coen brothers' bleak, bloody, philosophical adaptation of No Country For Old Men won the big prize. I can only quote the review on the back of Cormac McCarthy's paperback: it's a story "with themes as old as the Bible and as bloodily contemporary as the morning's headlines". Were I to explicate the film's value and its relevance to post-millenium America, I would be sitting here all day. Maybe it calls for its own post some time.

Also in 2007, one of my favorite films of all time was raised to prominence as a result of its many Oscar nominations. Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is the Citizen Kane of the 21st century, a parable on greed and personal corruption that never veers into the realm of heavy-handed, anti-capitalist tripe like so many similarly-themed pictures.

Going further back, you can't knock the academy's love for Lord of the Rings from 2001-2003. In the wake of a new era of war and strife, the Academy wasn't so attached to its deconstructionist, relativist worldview that it couldn't honor one of the greatest good-versus-evil stories of all time.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My point is, the promotion of worthwhile films that stimulate a better understanding of human nature and the world is an important undertaking. When the Academy gets it right, I am appreciative. When they get it wrong, which is fairly often (just look back at the sheaf of message movies that were nominated last year), I get indignant. I do not look to the Academy's vision as far as my own film choices go; however, mostly everyone else does, and so the Academy's failure bothers me for their sake.

Let us segue into this year's nominees. For the first time since the '40s, there will be ten Best Picture nominees. They are:

-Avatar
-The Blind Side
-District 9
-An Education
-The Hurt Locker
-Inglourious Basterds
-Precious
-A Serious Man
-Up
-Up in the Air

I admit to only having seen five of the ten: Up, Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, and Inglorious Bastards. From what I have seen, the most deserving film nominated here is Up...almost. Almost, I say, because I was awfully fond of The Hurt Locker, and it has grown on me since I watched it.

Up is one of the most profound meditations on aging, loss, and love that I can remember seeing on a movie screen. It's a Pixar cartoon, meaning that its emotional power is complemented by strong writing, animation, and character development. In a now-famous opening montage, a couple's life together is vividly, beautifully telescoped into just a few short minutes of footage, from its hopeful beginning to its touching end. Who would have thought that the medium of 3D animation would be capable of such depths?

The Hurt Locker is an Iraq war film for people who are sick of preachy Iraq war films. Recent stuff like Lions for Lambs and The Valley of Elah got so lost in anti-war messaging that they were ignored by audiences. The Hurt Locker is different: it's about characters within the war. In particular, the film follows Staff Sergeant William James, an IED bomb squad soldier whose strange addiction to the adrenaline rush of war compromises his relationships with other soldiers and his family at home. The story works on various levels. As an action film, it is relentlessly thrilling. I've seen too many movies, so I usually don't get pushed to the edge of my seat, but The Hurt Locker left me slack-jawed. In addition, James' bizarre obsession with insanely dangerous situations is engaging. There are men like him, men who lose themselves so completely in their martial pursuits that the rest of life becomes a blur. The movie has little to say of "the cause", of "George Bush", of "blood for oil", etc. It is focused on more primal issues, and hence, it is a living, breathing motion picture and not a screed.

Which film will win the big prize? Probably Avatar. A cornocopia of liberal ideas and strong special effects, James Cameron's sci-fi epic is the biggest, brawniest contender, and the highest-grossing film in history. It will not be denied.

This is disappointing. Up and The Hurt Locker represent the best filmmaking of the year, from what I've seen. Even Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds and Neil Blomkamp's District 9, neither of which strike me as "great" films in the classic sense, both qualify as far more interesting and more competent than Avatar (and, as sci-fi, District 9 is far more inventive).

Liberal ideals will win the day this year. Avatar is entertaining schlock, and I enjoyed experiencing its trippy worlds and its blue aliens. It is, however, representative of the Academy's political priorities, and all that implies. Perhaps next year, we'll see another victory by something more worthy, in the fashion of 2007. As usual, don't hold your breath.