Film
Movie theaters, reviews and showtimes in Chicago, plus articles, trailers and more
- Home
- Box Office
- Listings
- Trailers
- Features
Bookmark this page- Edition:
Why 'Avatar' lost the Best Picture Oscar
Everyone expected ‘Avatar’ to be the big winner at last Sunday’s Oscars, but it was a smaller film that did the business. Dave Calhoun finds out why.
Most of the talk before Sunday night’s Oscars boiled down to two films: ‘Avatar’ and ‘The Hurt Locker’. James Cameron v Kathryn Bigelow. The battle of the exes. Digital v analogue. David v Goliath. As the weeks went by, post-‘Avatar’ sobriety set in and ‘The Hurt Locker’ became the narrow favourite to win the Academy’s big prizes. And so it was that Bigelow’s film about a US army bomb disposal unit in Baghdad won six Oscars, including prizes for Best Picture and Best Director, while ‘Avatar’ won only three, for Visual Effects, Art Direction and Cinematography.Now that the Champagne is drunk and the tuxedos are back in storage, it’s time to ask: why exactly did Bigelow’s $11 million film (which took less than $13m at the US box office) triumph over James Cameron’s $300m, box-office-busting blue juggernaut? Most people agree this was a middling year for Oscar nominees. ‘The Hurt Locker’ is smart, swift and sane – but nobody thinks it’s a masterpiece. Which means there’s more behind its triumph than mere quality. So, what other factors were at play?
1 Oscar is sniffy about sci-fi
The Academy is a conservative body, not known for a love of sci-fi. Those who thought ‘Avatar’ had a chance of winning the Best Picture Oscar pointed to Cameron’s ‘Titanic’ and its success at the box office and the Oscars (despite, like ‘Avatar’, being slammed for its poor script and story). But ‘Titanic’ was a traditional picture: historical, romantic, epic, led by stars. ‘Avatar’ is different. Oscars-wise, it’s comparable to ‘Star Wars’, which was nominated for ten and won six – all of them technical.
2 James Cameron is not as popular as his film
‘Avatar’ is hugely popular and has made billions of dollars. But there is less goodwill in the US film industry towards Cameron than many may have thought. His ‘king of the world!’ outburst at the 1998 Oscars lingers long in the memory and earlier this year he irked traditionalists by dismissing a harmless comment by Meryl Streep that her work doing a voice for ‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ was similar to the work of actors on ‘Avatar’. ‘She did a voice performance for a day or two,’ Cameron said in rebuttal, leading to silly reports that he had ‘slammed’ her. A month later, a British producer told me the same story at the Baftas, suggesting that Cameron’s ego was causing annoyance in the film business.
3 Oscar voters like to think that Hollywood matters
The Oscars are voted for by members of the industry, many of whom like to think they’re doing more than making mindless multiplex fodder. ‘The Hurt Locker’ is a good film for the conscience. ‘Avatar’ just screams mammon.
4 ‘Avatar’ is divisive. ‘The Hurt Locker’ was a consensus choice
Many conversations about ‘Avatar’, even among fans, go this way: ‘It looks amazing, but the characters are dodgy and the new-age stuff is iffy.’ ‘The Hurt Locker’ might be less groundbreaking, but more people agreed it was a balanced work, with directing, acting and writing all working in harmony.
5 A chance to make history in an unhistoric year
Bigelow is now the first woman to win a Best Director Oscar. The opportunity to break a 65-year, all-male run surely proved persuasive to those whose pens were hovering over the ballot paper.
6 It’s not all about the money
There was much talk about this year’s Oscars being destined to reward commercial success (ie ‘Avatar’). This was repeated so often in the media that maybe there was a backlash among voters annoyed at being typecast as interested only in money, not art.
7 Hollywood loves a comeback
Bigelow was on the skids before ‘The Hurt Locker’. Her last film, ‘K19: The Widowmaker’ (2002) only made $35m at the US box office, despite a budget of around $100m. Fans of ‘Near Dark’ or ‘Point Break’ would have been satisfied to see her back on fighting form with a self-produced, independently made film.
8 Finally, an Iraq movie everyone can get behind
‘The Hurt Locker’ isn’t the first movie about Iraq (‘In the Valley of Elah’, ‘The Messenger’, ‘Redacted’…) and neither did it break the run of such films performing badly at the box office. Yet ‘The Hurt Locker’ is a film that is both topical and entertaining – and one which is mildly questioning of the war while still honouring the courage and sacrifice of US solidiers. Everyone’s a winner!
Author: Dave Calhoun
User comments on this story
-
- Toni said...
- I LOVED Avatar. It drew me in and i was there with them, it had Action, sadness, comedy, and the 3D just took me into wonderland. I go to the cinema to be enteretained, not to have my senses battered by war films (get enough of the real thing on tv) or beaten up by what someone else thinks is the right and wrongs in the world, so just let me be entertained by a film that takes me to another world for a while Posted on Mar 21 2010 12:51
- Report as inappropriate
-
- tk said...
-
i saw avatar whilst on an overnight bus ride in argentina, where the general pick are dated stereotypical blockbuster movies, and there was little that suggested that avatar was any different. it was only upon my return that i learnt that avatar was a hot candidate for this years oscars and honestly i couldn't believe it. the plot is boring and predictable, the characters flat and most easily divide into your average good/evil categories. and then there's one guy who sort of migrates from the bad to the good camp and then he dies. and?
ok, visuals are fine, but then, hey, that's been on screen a couple of dozen times since 'mars attacks' or what you have.
i haven't seen 'the hurt locker' yet, so cannot asses it's quality, but avatar not having won best film somewhat restores my faith. Posted on Mar 19 2010 19:37 - Report as inappropriate
-
- kaos said...
-
Why 'Avatar' lost best picture? Because it was dumb, predictable, formulaic eye candy. It failed to address all the fascinating and problematic issues raised by its own concept; from the failure to move beyond the 'simple, pure and exotic' stereotyping of 'native' cultures to the oversimplified evil corporate greed versus verdant nature dichotomy apparently at its centre. Which utterly failed to recognise that the salvation of 'nature' may well mean the destruction of humanity (see Princess Mononoke!). The issues raised by the idea of growing people to use and discard their bodies at will, who conveniently 'slept' when abandoned was skipped over entirely, and while it was technically accomplished the art design was unoriginal and derivative, the landscapes looked like 'yes' album covers and the action generally felt like advertising for the video game.
Please let somebody else have hated it as much as I did; the emperor has got no effing clothes on, people. Posted on Mar 19 2010 06:30 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Nabi said...
- Cameron has a talent for gambling huge amounts of money on dumb gigantic projects and making it pay off. He seems to be able to accurately gauge the public appetite for foolish spectacle. He should have received some sort of dumb Oscar in recognition of this odd talent. Cathy married him so I doubt she's any stunning genius but probably the pickings are slim in those circles. Posted on Mar 17 2010 21:45
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Robert Walker said...
- For all those people comparing Avatar to Star Wars... I presume you mean "Revenge of the Sith" (not "A New Hope")... I agree then - they are both CGI cannon fodder... :-) Posted on Mar 17 2010 07:02
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Prajyoth Pradeep said...
-
You don't have to be sorry Wayne S. What is the BAFTA-these are mere Brit awards with no identity of their own.
Avatar not getting rewarded at both the BAFTA and Oscars show that both U.S and Britain were badly hit morally (I'm mentioning the political administration of these countries not the public). American and British troops hunting for oil(treasure) in the name of terrorism is simply not on when civilian life and society are destroyed in exchange. The American public have worked hard to put where America is today. Covert organisations like CIA are just spoiling that name just to keep America on the superpower pedstal. People of the world know how to reason and they know whats right or wrong. Thats why Avatar has got the popularity it has got. Hell its is now cool to slam Micheal Moore into the Anti-Americanism bracket but he is no Anti- American he is just the truth. Posted on Mar 17 2010 02:30 - Report as inappropriate
-
- me said...
- because the film is not that good and has a weak story Posted on Mar 16 2010 13:28
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Wayne S said...
- Sorry, Prajyoth, but your reasoning is illogical. Didn't "The Hurt Locker" sweep the BAFTA awards this year too, beating "Avatar" head on in many categories? So much for your theory of the rigged American jury. Face it, "Avatar" is a popular entertainment meant to entertain the video crowd, but director's Cameron's ego proved detrimental to his quest for award's glory when he shoe-horned in his environmental wacko, liberal white guilt, anti-American, Michael Mooreish gobbledygook that turned out to be so off-putting to all but the lemmings. Quaility is an issue and "Avatar" failed miserably. (By the way, he forgot "global warming.") Posted on Mar 16 2010 09:59
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Prajyoth Pradeep said...
- The Oscars is an AMERICAN award ceremony. So a film that pleases the Oscar jury stands a very good chance of winning. Many so called 'Quality film approvers' have an illusion that Hurt locker is one of those 'small high on quality giant killer movie. ' Avatar is a very very good movie which gives an indirect message to the U.S military or its covert organisations, and indeed to the rest of the world and to anyone who harbours greedy intentions. If its the simple story of Avatar thats the reason for it not winning big then Titanic should have not won a single award. Posted on Mar 16 2010 09:39
- Report as inappropriate
-
- David Smith said...
- Oh please, it was the media industry voting for a woman rather than what was best, jsut as they hugely voted for Obama a couple of years ago to be politically correct. Who cares a fig about the Oscars - it's all a fix anyway Posted on Mar 15 2010 14:04
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Karen said...
- I have seen Avatar 6 times and I would have continued to see it if it had not left town. Each viewing brought new sights and appreciation, but the main plot as I see it is TRANSFORMATION, and it spoke to me deeply. I have not seen the Hurt Locker, but will watch it on a small tv, something the transporting Avatar should never be viewed on. Picking a small, grown up, painful movie over the beauty of Avatar seems a shame. Bet the Academy feels so proud of themselves. Posted on Mar 14 2010 10:18
- Report as inappropriate
-
- linda said...
- i was reading about avatar not having a story did they listen to the film they were fighting for there make beleive land just as america was fighting for ours just like di caprio didn:t get recognised as his part in the aviator was spot on when he played howard hughes Posted on Mar 14 2010 05:00
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Wayne S said...
-
Face it, "Avatar" was a visual feast but the silly bits (unobtainium?) detracted from the picture as a whole. Cameron writes stereotypes, not people. "The Hurt Locker" on the other hand leaves an indelible imprint on the memory because it's characters were real people with real emotions. Great drama, unbearable tension and suspense, and a picture that says a lot about the motives and impulses of the common soldier.
Bigelow's direction was top notch. Posted on Mar 13 2010 23:21 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Technoguy said...
-
Atavar is all about effects,CGI and technology.Its story
sucked and it is a rip-off of Pocohontas.It is NOT the future of cinema!The future of cinema will lie in non-
Hollywood world cinema,the independents or cinema
which is underfunded and independent with good story-
line,drama and characters,using real actors or non-
professionals,not animated puppets.Bigelow's film is
balanced,moderate,pro-war(and pro-American) and
concentrates on the psychological motivations of 3
soldiers in an IED unit.The script is based on embedded
journalism and helps create the realism and grit of the
film.Incidentally it uses little-known actors who can act.
Bigelow is a good film-maker and showed the boys how
to do movies based on serious subjects. Posted on Mar 13 2010 10:13 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Charles said...
- Ridiculous. 5 years from now, no one will remember Hurt Locker while Avatar will have inspired a wave of films. This is just like Star Wars vs. that Woody Allen movie, can't even remember the name and no one else can. Star Wars went on to influence the culture, Anny Hall (finally remembered it) influenced nothing. Hurt Locker was not that good, folks. Plenty of other war movies are much better. It was tedious and depressing, qualities very few people enjoy. Posted on Mar 13 2010 09:01
- Report as inappropriate
Features
Gray's anatomy
James Gray wants to push buttons—again.
The next big thing?
Gigantic Releasing tries to rethink indie distribution…without movie theaters.
Red Diva: Lyubov Orlova, First Lady of Soviet Cinema
So you think you can dance, comrade?
Puppet master
Coraline director Henry Selick takes stop-motion animation into 3-D.
Socratic method
Laurent Cantet's approach on the set matches the message of his film.
Wander woman
Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy puts a Bush-era spin on the road movie.
Oscars
Read our interviews with the nominees, our reviews of the nominated films and more.
What do you think?
Post your comment now