"THE HURT LOCKER VERSUS AVATAR: HISTORIC OSCAR CHOICE"

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards this Sunday, March 7th, will be a watershed moment in Oscar history. Will the Academy celebrate “The Hurt Locker” or will it celebrate “Avatar?” I don’t think any of the other nominees have a chance except “Inglorious Basterds” which has a longshot. But bottom line it is not a realistic contender.


James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow used to be married, from 1989 to 1991, which would consist of Cameron’s “The Abyss” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” years. Now they are competing for Best Director and Best Picture.

These two strong contenders have nothing to fear against the other nominees, although two months ago I thought “Up in the Air” was the strongest candidate. Tarantino’s “Basterds” has the most solid craftsmanship of any nominee but its’ circle of fans are narrower. Other nominees include “The Blind Side,” “District 9,” “An Education,” “Precious,” “A Serious Man” and “Up.”

In any given year, a couple of the other nominees could have been the leading horse. But the alchemy this year favored “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar” and so it is futile to look beyond those two before the crucial countdown to the Oscars.

When “The Hurt Locker” was released on June 26th last year, nobody went. It was an acclaimed juggernaut, but the box office receipts got trampled on by a certain Michael Bay picture – something about metal clashing robots called, hmm, I think it was called “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” It was more about metal clashing.

Bigelow made an exceptional war picture about soldiers trying to kill less people than usual for a war zone setting, focusing in on an Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team that defuses bombs in Baghdad. Let’s not blow anything up, is the attitude. At its center is a completely enigmatic protagonist, Jeremy Renner as Staff Sergeant William James. When the movie isn’t out on field, you wonder at the back-at-base scenes on what’s making this guy tick?

Now we have “Avatar,” which opened on December 18th and has since become the biggest film in the world with over $1.8 billion dollars. Theaters probably made more money at the snack bars for “Avatar,” since I’d like to assume that the few people who saw “The Hurt Locker” in theaters were too riveted to leave their seats.

“Avatar” is a superior popcorn picture that happens to be about more than just metal clashing. It has environmental and imperialism themes. But it is also an overloaded extravaganza that patches together prosaic episodes so Cameron can have an excuse to let his visual imagination go wild.

That’s not to take anything away from Cameron’s talent. His 3D world has astonishing depth, with jungles more colorful – and vast – than any Rudyard Kipling book. While critics have taken a smack at the flawed cast of characters, I actually want to praise Sam Worthington – he is like the tougher meathead version of Ewan McGregor.

Obviously one reason “Avatar” has grossed nearly $2 billion worldwide is the repeat business. Movies that have become smash hits historically have gotten there because junior enthusiastic movie fans went twice.

But in the future, one I can clearly foresee, I imagine that “The Hurt Locker” will be met with endless repeat DVD viewings. This repeat viewing phenomenon happens, whether fans are conscious or not, because of the innumerable nuances and surprises that can be discovered and analyzed within the film.

How do Staff Sergeant’s squad members feel towards him within different parts of the film? Would they hang out if they ever make it back to the States? Does his heart race faster when he is trying to save lives or when he is trying to chase and shoot down terrorists? Who are the background people of “The Hurt Locker,” the Iraqis? There are different shades and different stories to all of them, while Cameron’s take on the Navi are mostly two-dimensional – his characters may be blue but they are square and conventional.

“Avatar” is more mainstream and worldwide friendly than “The Hurt Locker.” But the industry loves “The Hurt Locker” because it was a film that frankly surprised them. In its thrilling, but lack of firepower as its method of suspense way, “The Hurt Locker” gets audiences adrenaline going, but fans of the film are sensing that it is a different type of adrenaline. It draws you into its breathlessness, and yes, suspense. “Avatar” flabbergasts your senses.

That is what makes “Avatar” an ephemeral experience as opposed to “The Hurt Locker” which is built to last. Bigelow’s achievement is that she made a non-preachy Iraq war movie that exists entirely in scenes that encompass potential danger, with layers upon layers that fascinate you in repeat viewings.

But if “Avatar” does win it will accomplish what “Star Wars” didn’t in 1977 which is that a slambang adventure blockbuster can have the right to be worthy of gold sealed Best Picture status. This could also make up for the fact that “The Dark Knight,” the truly great blockbuster of our time, wasn’t even nominated in 2008.

By “The Hurt Locker” sealing a win it proves that an underperforming movie at the box office can make a phenomenal turnaround and take the gold. Let’s recall that “The Shawshank Redemption” was not a smash when it opened in 1994 but still captured seven Oscar nominations.

A victory for either “The Hurt Locker” or “Avatar” will make this a watershed victory for Oscar history. On a personal level, who knows what travails took place in the Cameron/Bigelow divorce some twenty years ago, but a victory for Bigelow could be sweet revenge. By the way, the Academy sees this as an opportunity to award the first woman ever with the Best Director prize. But by awarding Bigelow, they are also awarding genuine substance.