day 66 - Oscar Review, The Hurt Locker vs. Inglorious Basterds

OK film fans its Monday night, I'm tired, my stomach's been grumbling all day and the Oscar's were another celebration of mediocrity. Since this isn't a blog about sleep or eating disorders I guess I'll rant about the Oscars. For the most part is was just boring. The Guru got all of the big picks minus the screenplay awards. To be honest, as little as I cared for or was surprised by the Oscars it still bothers me that The Hurt Locker won best screenplay over Inglorious Basterds. I was reading one of the many sites that obsesses over all things Hollywood and one comment struck me as both truthful and an explanation for why the Oscars suck. The guy was bitching about the Oscars (sounds familiar) when he mentioned that most of the people voting probably never read all the nominated screenplays. Afterward he joked about how that could be the only explanation for things like Transformers II getting made. But I think it's a very salient point.

Think about this for a moment. The nominations were announced February 2nd which gave the voters about a month to read the 10 screenplays nominated for best original and adapted screenplay. Again, the key here is they would need to read it, not watch it. Now presumably these folks in the biz are actually interested in film so we would assume that they would have seen a majority of the films associated with the big categories like best film, actor, actress and so on. Leaving out best foreign film and documentary, there were 33 films nominated in the main categories. So on top of voting for cinematography, editing, sound mixing and makeup based on seeing all of the nominated films, they needed to also read 10 scripts.

With all of the other categories you can go back in your memory and mentally compare them against each other. Hell, you can listen to the nominated songs and figure out which you think works best in less than an hour. But how many of the approximately 1311 members (22% of the voters) who are actors, notorious for reading only what applies to their character, actually bothered to read each and every screenplay that was up for an award.

I'm way to tired tonight to review Inglorious Basterds, there's just too much going on to give a casual review (unlike The Hurt Locker), but I do want to clarify my point about the screenplays. When I think of a great screenplay, an Oscar winning screenplay, I think of writing that not only creates opportunities for great visual scenes filled with interesting subtext, but also wonderful monologues or dialogues. The Hurt Locker is a fine film and because of its serious issues and timely appearance I can begrudgingly see why it won its awards. But let's compare some scenes. Since both are war films that inherently revolve around tension let's take an example from each film.

For space issues I'm going to post the clips rather than transcribe them, but pay close attention to the scene and the primary tool used to create tension. First up, a scene from The Hurt Locker focusing on the tension inherent in a job defusing bombs. Next we have a scene (the first half is subtitled so you'll have to read and watch unless you're fluent in German) from Inglorious Basterds with a standoff in a bar between a German officer and some undercover allied soldiers. Putting the differences in realism aside (the tones of the two films are for the most part quite divergent), the difference between the two scripts which appear here are consistent throughout each film.

The Hurt Locker is a film about the ongoing Iraq war and a man who diffuses bombs. Very little of the tension or insight we gain about the characters comes from dialogue. This is more of a testament to Kathryn Bigelow's skill as a director than it is the power of the script. Inglorious Basterds creates tensions not only with the threat of physical danger but also with complex scenes of dialogue between waring adversaries who are testing each other for signs of weakness. It doesn't hurt to point out that the lone Oscar presented to Quentin Tarantino's film was best supporting actor for the role of Col. Hans Landa, one of the most memorable and best written characters of the last decade. Instead, one of films most clever and talented purveyor of cinematic delights lost out to a screenplay written by a one-trick pony that most assuredly will disappear as soldiers began a backlash against his exploitative (and not as authentic as you think) film. Congrats again Hollywood, when it comes to both understanding war and honoring talent you almost always manage to screw it up.

day 64 - The Hurt Locker

OK film fans, today I was able to catch up on one of the Best Picture contenders for tomorrows Oscars. It's Saturday night so let's get to it.

The Hurt Locker is a taut, concise war film that focuses on one specific unit in the military: the bomb squad. Staff Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner in an Oscar nominated performance) is the specialist in this unit, a man not unlike a surgeon or a detective, who both loves and is gifted in his career. James understands bombs and the men who make them with such clear vision that watching him work is fascinating. While he works his back is covered by Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Spc. Owen Eldridge. James joined this bomb unit after the SSG before him was killed in an explosion, just 38 days before their tour is up. James is fully aware of his skills and acts both on instinct and a wild streak, the latter of which places his support team in more danger than normal. Each of the soldiers in the unit depicts a different mindset, each with a different defense mechanism for dealing with the pressures of war.

Kathyrn Bigelow directs this film with purpose and clarity. The camera work tells the story without use of words, building tension with protracted scenes and minimal editing. She takes advantage of the elephant in the room by focusing on it without providing the release of music, comedy or quick cut editing. It builds the suspense to near Hitchcock levels while being firmly rooted in reality. I can't say I've seen all of her films, of her 8 full length feature films I've seen 5 (loved Near Dark, Blue Steel was laughably bad and Point Break is a X-Gen classic), but this is easily the best of the bunch. It seems her time away from directing allowed her to gather her thoughts and focus them with intensity not visible in her prior work.

This is a war film with similarities to Black Hawk Down and Three Kings rather than Saving Private Ryan or Apocalypse Now. It focuses entirely on a single story forsaking the backdrop of the surrounding battles. In doing so it creates a more intimate look at the day to day realities of war as well as the price the soldiers pay. It reminds me most of a recent mini-series shown on HBO, the brilliant documentary-like Generation Kill. The Hurt Locker is well acted, directed and edited. It contains moments of brutal honesty and cinematic beauty.

But this is not a Best Picture. The fact that it was nominated along with several other questionable choices in this year's expanded category signifies the lack of depth in the field. It's a very good film with several very good performances and directed with considerable skill. But the work it is similar to is nowhere near the upper echelons of War films. While this is a much smaller and more realistic film, I believe it is overshadowed by the epic and masterful Inglorious Basterds. I enjoyed The Hurt Locker and found it both entertaining and thought provoking. I just didn't buy into the hype. Of course that means it will probably win anywhere from 3 to 5 Oscars.