DEBATE – Did AVATAR Deserve The Big Hardware at the Globes?
DEBATE – Did AVATAR Deserve The Big Hardware at the Globes?
After a fine day of football watching and (because I’m on the left coast) anticipation for getting Jacked later in the night (solid premiere so far, by the way) somewhere in between was this awards show called The Golden Globes. Some might not feel this way, but the Globes usually end up all but sealing the fate of what will come when the Academy Awards take place. That’s why I lived vicariously lived through Jack Bauer once Hollywood collectively sniffed it’s own rectum on account of Hurt Locker getting snubbed, but to Inglourious Basterds? Up in the Air? No, the Globes saw fit to award it to the biggest money maker right now in James Cameron’s Avatar (and somewhere, 1997 is screaming for it’s award shows back.)
After going on a spree of punching every living thing I’ve seen in the solar plexus, the idea occurred to me that instead of having me come on here and having a hate-fest of Avatar, I’d instead bring on fellow Reel Loop writer and humongous Avatar supporter Max Bellamy to debate why Cameron deserved to take it home. After he called in his Leonopteryx in for attack and I sniped as many of them as I could, we finally came to a peaceful settlement that went something like this…
PHILIP BARRETT - If I’d had my way, The Hurt Locker would have won just about everything it was nominated for tonight at the Golden Globes (except for screenplay, which could have gone to either Up in the Air or Inglourious Basterds.) Well, that wasn’t to be the case and instead Avatar (surprisingly, depending on who you ask) took home the big prizes. Many may feel this way, or some (like me) might not feel James Cameron’s epic was truly deserving of it.
So Mr. Bellamy, please start us off on why Avatar deserved the big hardware tonight.
MAX BELLAMY – Avatar had Neytiri, Hurt Locker did not. That is all.
I understand you’re frustration. If I had my way, all three Lord Of the Rings films would have won Best Picture and whatever else they would be eligible for. But I digress, I’m here to tell you why Avatar won Best Picture. As a die hard supporter of the film, I suppose I’m the best candidate for the discussion.
Now, I could say that Avatar won the award due to it making a billion dollars in worldwide box office, and the Foreign Press thought that popular films should win for the sole purpose of being popular, but if that were the case, The Dark Knight would’ve won everything last year. However, I believe that Avatar was the ultimate winner, due to the film’s universal appeal. As great as The Hurt Locker was, it doesn’t have the appeal that Avatar has. It’s a film that delivers it’s themes and messages that don’t hit you over the head with the subtlety of a freight train to the cranium, and it has a familiar, yet well told story that easily brings the audience into the world that Cameron created. I could go on further, but by doing so, I may run out of arguments.
PHILIP - But didn’t The Dark Knight have the same appeal? I mean it wasn’t subtle with it’s themes when you broke it down, and it developed it’s fair share of haters because it was popular as well. However, I will say Avatar is more of an achievement than Dark Knight because of what it was able to accomplish in terms of effects and how it will eventually be copied to no end.
There’s no denying Avatar better get every single technical award there is and it’s one of the better sci-fi films of the year. But Best Picture? Maybe director I can give you because Cameron did put a hell of an effort into Avatar, but Picture? Avatar is many things, and I’ll stand by my comments on it, yet it’s not better than Hurt Locker, or even Inglourious Basterds. Do they have the appeal that Avatar has? Certainly not, I can agree, but the award is “best” not “best appeal”. If it came down to that, New Moon should have been in the mix.
MAX - Well, the whole reason why Dark Knight wasn’t nominated for big awards like picture because the academy/foreign press had some very stupid notion that Comic Book movies aren’t Best Picture quality. Fantasy yes, comic book no. As for Twilight, sure it had appeal, but Universal Appeal is my point. Twilight has a built in fanbase, so does Batman. Both films didn’t even do half of what Avatar has done overseas in box office, and reviews. People of all ages and races have embraced Avatar to an unprecedented degree, to the point where even the Hollywood foreign press was amazed.
They don’t mainly vote on appeal, but they also vote on overall quality. Obviously, they found something in Avatar that made them decide that it was ultimately the better film. As for what they found, I can’t say, because I’m not Foreign press, but I do have some ideas.
PHILIP - My fear is that we’re going to have another 1997 on our hands, in which the superior film didn’t win the big kahuna. It’s been obvious to you and everyone who reads this site, my Twitter and Facebook that I’ve been championing Hurt Locker to take home the big prizes, because quite honestly I feel it does deserve the awards. It may not have the best script (Tarantino does this year) but it by far has the best direction, some pretty solid acting and is the all-around best picture of the year. Bigelow grips you, and gets you with her characters with her way of building her action sequences and letting the actions, not words, define the characters. She also still has the best action sequence of the year in the sniper battle contested, ironically, by Avatar’s final battle.
MAX - It didn’t bother me that neither film won Best Screenplay, because like you said, neither didn’t have the best script, Inglourious Basterds did. Yes, I agree, The Hurt Locker has superb direction, great acting and characters. However, so does Avatar. From frame one, I was grabbed by the throat and wasn’t let go until the credits rolled. It wasn’t a film that was a series of action moments put together by a flimsy plot. That’s where both films share a similarity. They both are plot, and character driven films. But where they ultimately differ, for me at least, are the evolution of the characters and their relationships. That’s where I feel Avatar is the superior film.
Also, although I know you completely love the sniper sequence in The Hurt Locker, it doesn’t hold a candle to the climax of Avatar. But that’s just me.
PHILIP - Avatar is bigger, and it shows in the final battle, but to defend Cameron a bit here, it’s rare you’ll find someone who actually pushes the budget to the limit like he does. Regardless that it’s fifity gajillion dollars, he still makes sure we see it all on-screen.
Hurt Locker kept things more about James and how the people reacted around him and his actions. I think a better comparison might be to Inglourious Basterds. Along with Avatar, those two films tackle a wealth of characters and their own little worlds. My take though is that Basterds wasn’t as ‘on-rails’ as Avatar was with its storytelling, characters, and themes. Avatar, while engaging, did feel a little too much like Cameron took the best of Aliens, best of T2, and best of Abyss and rolled it into one movie (no, I won’t be cheap and throw in Dances With Wolves or Pocahontas.)
MAX – Tarantino borrows from his own films all the time, in themes and characters. But whether or not Cameron or other directors used similar elements in their own films, it’s the way the story is told that makes all the difference. Avatar succeeds in creating a familar, yet masterfully told story, and great characters. What makes protagonist Jake a great character is that he falls into a classic heroic archetype that serves as the audience. When we see something for the first time, he does. The whole film rests on his actions, much like James in The Hurt Locker, and we follow him every step of the way, because this situation is as new to him, as it is to us.
But in the Hurt Locker, we’re not given our eyes. We are thrown into it all, leaving us dazed and confused for a good 15 minutes, until we relaize that James, who has practically seen it all when we meet him, is our protagonist. Some may argue that Sanborn is our eyes, but the film solely focuses on him for very brief moments, before bringing us back to James’ world.
PHILIP - I’d argue that we’re not “confused” for fifteen minutes, as Hurt Locker does establish Sanborn’s group needs a new bomb tech with James. Hurt Locker splits us between Sanborn and Eldridge, wherein Sanborn is our eyes, but Eldridge is how we’d react to James and war in general. The Hurt Locker is a more character-driven piece than Avatar is, as to me it’s about what obsession does to one man’s life. Avatar is just the wet dream of what a young boy dreams of, and that is not an insult to James Cameron or the film at all, rather the highest compliment it can be paid.
MAX – I actually believe that Avatar is just as character driven as The Hurt Locker. You might be giving what the film is about too little credit. It’s not simply a young boys ultimate dream, it’s about a flawed individual finally finding a place in the universe he can call home. We open on him crippled, pathetic, and simple minded. Being shot into space onto another world was the last thing he wanted. He only does it for the money, much like the mercenaries in the film. But when thrust into a strong, agile, walking body, and finally walks along the surface of Pandora, he feels whole again. And when he meets Neytiri, and learns her ways, and subsequently falls in love, he finds his purpose. Being human no longer makes sense to him, he finally finds what he wants in a place he didn’t even want to be.
In The Hurt Locker, we don’t have such a moment with James. We find that he loves his job more than his wife and kid, a revelation we know right when we see him disarm the first bomb we see. We learn and sympathize more from our supporting characters, than the one we’re supposed to follow. This isn’t to say James isn’t a likable character, it’s just when compared to Jake, there isn’t much evolution. I like characters a lot more when they evolve, or go through a great change that doesn’t make them the same person we saw at the beginning.
PHILIP - James is never meant to evolve though, which is why his character comes around full circle. The war is his home, and that’s what we learn from him. He may not evolve, but the audiences view of him does from rabid wild man to a sense of sympathy that he’ll go out like he wants to. Like you said with Jake, being normal doesn’t make sense to Will and in turn the war is where he’s safe.
In a sense it comes down to presentation, and with Avatar Cameron felt more compelled to tell an action story with some character in it. It’s not a slight against Jim, and again he’s the best when it comes to invigorating these blockbusters with the right amount of character development. I never felt challenged with Avatar though, like I did with Hurt Locker or Basterds, and it’s partially because Cameron holds our hand through most of it. It may have been a ‘good enough’ story, but nothing outstanding.
MAX - I’ll give you the point that James was never meant to evolve, but like I said, I usually prefer characters who do. If they don’t develop, it gives me a disconnect. Every once in a while, I like a character who doesn’t change, but The Hurt Locker to me almost demanded it, and it didn’t deliver.
If you’ve ever seen me on message boards, I HATE it when people call Avatar an Action Picture. It’s not, it’s so not. It was almost disrespectful to the film when it won the Critics Choice Award for Best Action Movie. How can it be called an Action movie when it’s first set piece is the last 20 minutes of the movie? It’s like calling Heat an Action movie because there was a shootout in the middle, it just isn’t. It’s first an foremost, an Adventure film, and yes, there is a difference. The Thanator chase and the Hometree destruction aren’t action sequences, one’s a chase scene, the other is a moment of tragedy, I don’t recall having the least bit amount of fun during that particular sequence.
When it came time for the big battle scene at the end of the movie, Cameron had done something during the film that The Hurt Locker barely had me do. He made me care. Now, towards the end of The Hurt Locker, I did get a little scared that James was going to bite it, but the others, not so much. In Avatar, I was scared, very scared that either Jake or Neytiri was going to die by the end of the film, because I was so invested with then throughout the film up to that point, that if either one of them was killed, I would have been crushed. I remember you saying one time about Up, that the film sometimes made it look like major characters weren’t going to make it to the end, I felt that way when watching Avatar.
Also, fims can get away with a lot, just for having a “Good Enough Story”. Star Wars had a “Good Enough Story”, now it’s herald as a classic. Talking about the Originals, of course. Inglourious Basterds has one, and The Hurt Locker has one, doesn’t matter if it’s good enough, or great, it’s all about execution, and if the characters are worth caring about. Even films that can have stories that sound stupid on paper, can end up being classics when executed right.
PHILIP – But like Avatar, Star Wars also borrowed heavily from another source (the Kurosawa film The Hidden Fortress.) Yet both pictures (Star Wars and Avatar) accomplished the same goals and in the end, aren’t really about the story so much as they are an adventure. Maybe Avatar 2 will feature a more well-rounded story and given Cameron’s track record with sequels, I suspect it will be better.
Certainly Cameron made the final battle exciting and that has a lot to do with the sheer scope of the whole thing. In fact the final battle could be described as that amusement park ride that makes you think you’re going to die, only to leave you all but excited by the time it’s over. As much as I do praise it, I could predict where it was going with its beats, but that doesn’t make the ride any less exciting.
So there you have it. Afterward I went back to defusing all the bombs Max had Neytiri set around my house whilst he tried to have a Thanator chase me. But really, in the end I think what we’ve proved is that different films will work for different people, and that when it comes to film, how many rings you have don’t matter in the end.
Normally I don’t do this, but I would like some feedback below, and not of the “THAT AVATAR GEEK IS A MORON” variety. Did Cameron deserve it, or should it have been Tarantino, Reitman, or Bigelow celebrating? Comment, and in the meantime, I have more Thanator’s to snipe.
Nice read, guys! While I'm still firmly in the "Inglourious Basterds deserves every award" camp, you both present very decent points.
This is a good article, and I can relate to and understand comments on both sides of the debate. Phillip, I appreciate that you don't simply bash Avatar, like a lot of critics have been doing. You have a certain respect for the film and those who enjoy it. I loved that film (I went into the theater knowing nothing about it and expecting to hate it). Because I loved it so, I want to take issue with one thing you said. You said that Inglorious Basterds and The Hurt Locker were simply "better." This is a very subjective statement. While I can see how Inglorious and Hurt Locker have amazing cinematography and screenplay, I simply like Avatar better. I love Avatar, while I find myself only appreciating the artistic merits and uniqueness of the others from an emotional distance. What I am saying is, I can appreciate their "high art" merit, but I will probably not see them again. Avatar, for me, was a surprisingly powerful film. I saw it once, expecting to hate everything about it, but get a visual treat in the meantime. I ended up seeing it three times, shedding tears all three. It is an admittedly simple, but emotionally powerful film. It makes my heart turn. It gets me deeply, emotionally involved, in spite of the simplicity of the script and all of the supporting/antagonistic characters. For that reason it is a better movie in my estimation. I'll see it again again. In the realm of film, it is sometimes tricky to make an objective statement of "this one is better." That's what YOU think. While Inglorious and Hurt Locker are better in some respects, I like Avatar better as a whole. It is a big picture movie, they are trying to say very much in a relatively short space, and they are especially trying to say it through the faces and emotions (not through the words) of the two main protagonists throughout the film. It's a different type of film. It requires you drop your prejudices (not your brain) at the door, and take simple, relaxed, open perspective. I think the film can and should be appreciated on this level, and that's where it's greatness–it's simple yet powerful emotional punch, it's heart-touching endearment and attraction–finally resides.
Max said he was actually scared that Jake or Neytiri was going to die? Come on. Those were the lone two folks that I never doubted for a second would survive. About an hour into the film I guessed which characters would live and which would die and I ended up being right. I loved Cameron pre-Titanic but now he is spending hundreds of millions on special effects and about five bucks worth of time on his scripts. Maybe Max cared so much about Jake or Neytiri because those were the only two characters given even slight development (and frankly Neytiri's development was very slight). All the other characters in the movie were caricatures or one dimensional. Kinda like Titanic in which the attention was so focused on Jack and Rose (James Cameron must love those male protagonists who names begin with "J") that the audience didn't care nearly as much about the other passengers of the doomed ship who drowned.
–continued–
So many great sci fi films over the years that DESERVED the Oscar not just because of the special effects and the money they made but because they had such great stories that weren't so predictable at every turn. Avatar isn't at that level because its story is so pedestrian. And it doesn't help that the villains are mustache-twirling imbeciles without an ounce of depth.
Oh, and the comparisons Max made to Star Wars need to stop. There are actual lines in Star Wars that instantly became classic quotes. There isn't one such great line like that in Avatar.
actually ive been hearing a lot of Avatar quotes on the internet
I see you.
55 years old and Avatar is at the top of favorite movies seen in my lifetime, along with Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, and All the Lord of the Rings movies.
The characters were the movie, the scenery was spectacular foil for them to interact with and in, and Jake was, without a doubt, as Max put it so well, our eye and ears into the world of Pandora and the lives of the Navi. When he was fleeing from the Thanador and dived beneath the tree roots, I pulled my legs in so they wouldn’t get bitten!
Whenever he interacted with the amazing flora and fauna of Pandora, I found myself feeling hsi reactions, and being right there with him. I was Jake (and i’m a female) through most the film. There were times when I did identify with Neytiri (as I said, I am a woman myself), and often with the Navi people as a race. This movie’s plot was, perhaps, predictable, but I think that is because is human history played out as it has so many times in the past. Only this time, the indians beat the cowboys. That’s what everyone loves about this movie and that’s why it’s grossed over a billion dollars and will, I predict, surpass Titanic to stand at the top of the charts.
And, oh yes, the technology was TOTALLY OUT OF THIS WORLD! When we, as a human species, can do this, why can’t we stop wars and overcome famine?
Then again, I am forever the eternal optomist. Those who just don’t get Avatar, I think, lost their rose colored glasses way too early in life, or never were given a pair in the first place.
I agree with Dustie. This is probably THE BEST movie I have seen in thirty years. I appreciated the familiar, yet unfamiliar characters of Pandora (hell, it even cracked me up that the planet was called Pandora); and the more complex than simply “jar-head clan” character that Jake evolved into. I felt like I could relate to Trudy, (being a female veteran) and Mo’at (yeah, hard core Pagan over here) and even a bit Tsu’Tey (I mean come on, he was just doing his job for the people, right?) all the key players I understood. The trifecta of Power, Progress and Knowledge were easily identified in the characters Quaritch, Parker and Grace; no blurring of the lines… I like that. I think having a plot that’s been told many times before, and dialog that was pretty boring except for a few key quotes, allowed me – the average viewer – to appreciate the amazing beauty of the film and just be “entertained.” Sure, I take issue with the rape-ish way the Banshee were tamed and the seemingly endless battle scenes (ok, in all fairness I knew there’d be battle scenes, they’re just not my favorite.) But to go into a theater expecting to be somewhat bored by a trailer that did the movie NO justice and to come out bawling and awed (not to mention exhausted from feeling a part of Jake and Neytiri’s advenuture)…um, yeah, Avatar deserved the kudos it received. Didn’t your heart just crack a little when you saw Neytiri’s face as she witnessed Hometree’s destruction? Come on!
I do not care about James Cameron’s past Jesus weirdness or the NWO Hollywood movie claims being touted all over the internet, I don’t even buy into the whole Pagan/Christian story line debate. I spent hard earned money on a film (not once but three times – which for me is unheard of) and felt like it was money well spent. I want to see Inglorious Basterds but I can wait for the video…and The Hurt Locker, um…not so much. One thing that should have been done though, was instead of a trailer they (they who, I dunno, someone in marketing) should have shown the “behind the scenes” making of the movie as part of the trailer. I had no idea going in the first time how the movie was done and did not give the actors the credit they deserved…I assumed it was “animation city” and was surprised when I saw the making of the film after the first viewing. Having a glimpse of how it was “really” done made seeing it twice, and then another for good measure, worth it.
Did I meantion I cried often during the movie, both times I saw it, only the 2nd time I was sure to take tissue so I didn't have to miss a thing getting up and going out to grab a wad of toilet paper to sop up the tears. And I cried more for the beautify of the art, the amazing CGI and 3D technology as I did for the characters, although there were more then a few times they filled my eyes with tears too.
This is definitely a pocketful of tissues movie for anyone who get's emotionally involved with their movies.
Dust
Its really all about which movie accomplished its goal better. Avatar wants to get you fully invested in the lives of jake and neytiri, it wants us lost in the wonder of an unpolluted planet (unlike earth), and it wants is to make the connections to our own conscience. It is not like it tried to hide its themes in subtlety and failed. It wants to make them blatently obvious to the viewer because its very important that the viewer understands the theme.
The Hurt Locker tries to get us enthralled in the actions of one character and his troop. I believe the acting among the three soldiers in bravo company was flawless. However, all in all it is still a very shallow movie. In the end there is dramatic music and we see that delta company has 365 days left. DUHH. Of course the guy who is addicted to war is going to go back. By the end of the movie which was solely about an analysis of main characters we learn one important thing in his addiction to the danger war. That's all we learn about him. Think about all the things Avatar accomplished versus that one feet. Avatar was better, sorry.