First Locker? Not Even Close

So to follow up on my previous Oscars rants, I've decided to disentangle precisely why I think Kathryn Bigelow and The Hurt Locker were the wrong choices for their respective categories. Let me start by saying I totally reject arguments of redressive equality - that Kathryn Bigelow is a woman (indeed, the first woman to win a best director Oscar) is as irrelevant as Clinton's womanhood or Obama's race, and anyone who voted for her on that basis is an imbecile. It is, of course, another discussion entirely as to whether her sex/gender influences her directorial style, or permits her insight a man could not provide, but I don't think it's a necessary one to the focus of this post - we can, I think, debate the merits of directors and their styles without referencing the origins of either. Art stands alone, independent of the creator.

With that established, let me say that I enjoyed the Hurt Locker. It is a film which exhibits an extremely impressive grasp of cinematic tension and release, and hints at some interesting debates. But it is no less 'predictable' than Avatar - it was obvious to me that Lt Colonel Cambridge would die as soon as he asked to accompany the team on their mission, or that James, on returning home, would have difficulty adjusting to the 'real world' and end up going back to his comfort zone. In terms of America's role in Middle Eastern conflict, the effect on individual soldiers and all the other pertinent and engaging questions the Hurt Locker is purported to raise, most everything in it and more is covered better and in greater detail by The Kingdom, which is well worth your time and which I have discussed before.

The victory of the Hurt Locker is a result of both major categories being pitched as the battle of the sexes and the ex's - the underfunded, sexually and historically disadvantaged, flag-waving, underdog ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow, representing 'character-driven' and 'independent' cinema in the one corner, and the 'commercially driven', big budget, 'tecnhologically-reliant', anti-imperialist ex-husband, James Cameron, in the other. Awarding the gongs to Bigelow and the Hurt Locker is Hollywood patting itself on the back in a way which confirms many of the worst criticisms thrown its way - that it is elitist, self-serving, and self-congratulatory. While these may be sometimes true - after all, self-congratulation is often just a negative way of describing the recognition of achievements upon which awards ceremonies are based - it is often incidental to the Oscars, not the purpose of it, for the clique to pat itself on the back.

The Academy had no trouble awarding Cameron for his first record-breaking blockbuster endeavour, the billion dollar plus, financial powerhouse Titanic. But when he repeats, and in fact, outdoes his own success, not only with a superior movie, but also through advancing the cause of film (with undeniably inspiring advances in technology) and cinema (by giving punters a reason, in the shape of 3D, to turn from piracy and flock to movie screens) in the process, the same people who sang his praises and overwhelmingly voted him in for every category a little over a decade ago jump ship to avoid being caught up in the whirlwind of bullshit accusations about style over substance and hype over heart. I've already spoken about why I think Avatar is one of the best films you'll see this year, so I won't go into it again unless pressed, but even if you were not a fan, there are other films in the top 10 worthy of consideration.

Up is a film that has its problems, but surely even for the sublime opening 10 minutes, which I would rank as one of the finest pieces of cinema I have ever seen, it earned its place amongst those nominations. Though it drifts in and out, which is particularly clear in comparison to the Hurt Locker's consistent and quality pacing (barring the ending), its moments of genius are so far beyond anything Bigelow has to offer that they redeem Up as a whole, and push the film well beyond The Hurt Locker in terms of quality and Oscar-worthiness. Consider also Inglourious Basterds, without a doubt Tarantino's finest work to date: humour, intelligence, tension and suspense that easily rivals and almost certainly surpasses The Hurt Locker's, and the integrity to follow its characters and story to the end, regardless of history. Which is not even to mention the absolutely stunning and deservedly rewarded supporting actor performance from Christoph Waltz.

District 9 is a fun but ultimately overly flawed film, and ranks alongside Hurt Locker in terms of quality, whereas A Serious Man sits firmly at the bottom of the pile, being, as it seemed to me, humour about Jews, by Jews, for Jews (though I have similarly heard Jewish friends accuse it of anti-semitism, so burning bridges all round, really). I have not yet seen An Education, Previous or Up In The Air, which have all received high praise (and indeed more serious Oscar recognition for Precious), but the point still remains that there are at least 3 films and directors more deserving of their respective Oscars this year than Kathryn Bigelow and The Hurt Locker were.

It's been said before by many people about many things, often falsely, but I will make a bid to join the list of those whom history proved right: The Hurt Locker will not be remembered in 10 years time, certainly not as a classic, and certainly not if it hadn't won an Oscar. It is not especially new or clever, nor does it have anything remarkable to say or any remarkable way to say it. It does not, in short, either advance the cause of cinema, as Avatar has, or merit repeated viewings and fond remembrance, as Inglourious Basterds and Up do. For this reason, it does not deserve its successes. For yet another successive year, the Academy has got it oh so wrong.