Movie #1: The Hurt Locker (2009)
Oscar wins: 6- Best Picture, Best Director (Bigelow), Best Original Screenplay (Boal), Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing
Nominations: Best Actor (Renner), Best Original Score, Best Cinematography
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Written by: Mark Boal
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Length: 131 minutes
Budget: $11 million
This film, by the very talented Kathryn Bigelow, was crowned Best Picture at the 82nd Academy Awards just this past Sunday. It tells the (fictional) story of Sergeant First Class William James, and his experience leading a US Army EOD team (Explosive Ordnance Disposal). Basically, he is an expert at difussing bombs, and the film follows his experience leading his team in the US Army.
Right from the opening line by Chris Hedges ("The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug") and the opening scene (where we see James's future team trying to defuse a bomb), the film's point is clear: war is explosive (pardon the pun), war is tense, and for Sgt James, war is addicting.
In a controversial time in America, where people argue over who should be in Iraq, why we're there, how many people should be sent, how many should be taken out... Mark Boal presents a completely different point of view: some soldiers want to be over there, and the only time they feel right is when their adrenaline is pumping in the middle of the fight. Is he saying that troops should be kept there and allowed to go fight because they want to? Or, perhaps that war isn't all terror, destruction and devastation, but also has a "good" side (in providing a life and a purpose to many people)?
This was my third time watching the film, and the more I watch it the more impressed I am with Bigelow's work; from the camera angles, to the effects, and above all else, the tense and intense atmosphere she creates and holds throughout the film. I have heard some people (non-critics, mostly) say that the film gets rather boring. The more I watch the film, the more I can understand this. The film moves at a slow pace, from bomb to bomb, and can get slow in between, but each bomb is filled with an intense, dramatic atmosphere that leaves you waiting for something to explode.
I was amazed the first time I read that this film premiered at the Venice Film Festival, and that companies were unwilling to pay to distribute it in US theaters (presumably because of the failure of past Iraq War films), until Summit Entertainment purchased the rights. Even more impressive: the film received (reportedly) a ten minute standing ovation after it finished in Venice! To go from little film festival to little film festival, and eventually find your way to the title of Best Motion Picture of the Year is truly remarkable.
Overall, I would say that this film is unmatched (this year, at least) in it's technical features. A very good screenplay that creates the right tension at the right times; superb acting from a lesser-known cast; incredible cuts and editing, fused with the incredible sounds; and above all else, amazing directorial work from Bigelow, with a low budget and (almost) on-site filming in the Middle East. As for it's entertainment value, I admit that if you aren't impressed by the technical features, you might find it a little slow, and you problably won't want to watch it three times like me (in one month, I might add), but it's certainly entertaining and worth the just over two hours.
Lastly, I wanted to comment on the Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker race at the Oscars. Although I believe Avatar (which I have seen) is a technological (CGI, green screens, etc) marvel, I do not feel that it was the best film of the year. Yes, I certainly think it has an argument: it was extremely entertaining, was ground-breaking in its technological features, and was revolutionary in its success. However, it also had some problems: a weak screenplay, weak supporting performances, and the fact that a lot of it wasn't "real" acting or "real" events, but computer generated. Avatar deserves some sort of recognition for it's revolutionary and amazing effects, but it just wasn't all-around good enough to be "Best Picture of the Year." Unlike past "effects" winners (The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, for example) of the Best Picture award, this one just lost too much ground to The Hurt Locker in all of the other elements of film.
One movie down, 82 more to go, 165 days.
Rankings:
1. The Hurt Locker (2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment