Hey everyone. Oscar week here (as well as, well, everywhere). I’ll be sharing my thoughts on the 10 Best Picture Nominees, along with various other Oscar-related posts when I get the time and inkling. For now, here are my quick thoughts on five of the Best Picture nominees. Look for part 2 on Friday.

AVATAR

The Academy faces a difficult task in evaluating “Avatar”, especially when held against the other Best Picture nominees. How do you compare a perfectly made 5 course meal to a perfect cheeseburger, even a cheeseburger that might change your world outlook? (side note, if there is such a cheeseburger, I want to eat it.)

So many things, groundbreaking and path-forging things at that, went into the making of “Avatar” that it stands in a category all to itself. Of course it was the most amazing, impressive, difficult-to-execute-and-yet-executed-well film of the last, oh, 10 years. Of course its story seems derivative (it’s basically the classic hero’s journey, which society has been telling and retelling as long as there’s been society.) Of course it’s difficult to evaluate because it’s hard to tell where the film stops and the Computer Generated atmosphere begins. But all of these things are part of what made “Avatar” such a hugely-successful film. Just because it’s going to end up (by hundreds of millions) the most successful film in world history doesn’t mean it also isn’t worthy of praise as the year’s finest.

This film would be nominated if there were 10 nominations, 5 nominations, 3 nominations, or maybe even just one. It will be the formative picture for any children who saw it, much the way “Star Wars” was for a generation before. When Jake first sprints through Pandora in his avatar, it’s as breathtaking a transition as when young Judy Garland first stepped into the brilliant colors of Oz. So many things in this film are epic in their scope and impact. It’s just a swaggering monolith of a film. It’s a five-course meal prepared to perfection. Will it merit evaluation as Best Picture based on that, or will the Academy choose the divinity of sublime simplicity that is a perfect cheeseburger as the “tea leaves” awards (Editors, Cinematographers, Directors, Producers, The British) have done in choosing “The Hurt Locker” as Best Picture so far?

To me, it’s impossible to even compare “Avatar” to other films this year, or, really, ever. I’m not going to be hurt if “The Hurt Locker” wins; it is a perfectly made film. But it’s nowhere near the project that “Avatar” was. If “Avatar” was trash, it would be one thing, but “Avatar” is outstanding in many ways, certainly outstanding enough to earn any praise it gets.

9/10

Completely Made up Odds of winning Best Picture: 3/1

DISTRICT 9

The premise of the film—that aliens reach the US but end up over Johannesburg, South Africa (instead of New York, LA or London), are unwanted and eventually cast into apartheid ghettos, is interesting and works very well. And it worked very well as the short film “Alive in Joburg” that lead director Neil Blomkamp to catching Peter “Lord of the Rings” Jackson’s hairy eye and getting the go ahead to expand the premise into a feature.

The problem is, the film doesn’t work nearly as well as a full length feature. Blomkamp has serious issues expanding the premise. The film is presented as a documentary bringing us up to speed on what’s happened to the aliens to date, and following a hapless bureaucrat as he attempts to evict and move over a million aliens to a facility outside of town. The first third of the film is succulent with subtext—human rights issues, xenophobia, media coverage, and the tender traps of bureaucracy are scattered, smothered, and covered deftly at a breakneck and entertaining pace. This is a film that, for the first third, is alive and rife with more hot buttons than keyboard on fire. It’s the best kind of science fiction, this close to real, and so it’s scary and impactful in unusual ways at the same time.

But after the first third, the subtextual wheels fall off, and the film ceases to be interesting on any level except mere entertainment. And even in that realm, it doesn’t reach rarified heights. The documentary style is gone, kind of, but then it’s not. Then it’s just another shoot-em-up action flick, with great effects and engaging central performances, but showing nowhere near the promise the first act of the film does. The third act is the messiest; for some reason the documentary style presentation is back, and you’re left wondering what the narrative style of the film even is or was supposed to be. The storytelling of the film, including the most obvious open doors to a sequel seen in any film this year, is forced at times, and more manipulative than you’d expect if you only watched a third of the film.

Still this is an entertaining, and, at least for part of it, challenging and interesting film. It just never lives up to the promise of its excellent first act. In another year, this would never have been nominated for Best Picture. But with 10 nominations, it’s there, even as a win for it would be the biggest surprise since Marisa Tomei won Best Supporting Actress for “My Cousin Vinny”.

6.5/10

Completely Made up Odds of winning Best Picture: District 99/1

THE HURT LOCKER

The Academy votes in mysterious ways. That’s how Denzel Washington can win a Best Actor Oscar for a rather boring performance in “Training Day” but  only a Supporting Actor Award for his incredible performance in “Glory”. It’s how Martin Scorsese can win Best Director for “The Departed” but not for “Raging Bull” “Taxi Driver” or “Goodfellas”. It’s how a subpar film like “Crash” dealing with big picture issues that the Academy deems important will find a foothold one year, when in earlier years it may not have.

This works in favor of “The Hurt Locker”. It doesn’t hurt that it’s also an amazingly-made film that succeeds at everything it tries to do. But that it’s covering issues—namely the day-to-day lives of a group of specialist soldiers in Iraq—that have been on the hot-seat for a few years is to its credit. The guilty history of those in the film community is clear, often they vote to make up for being behind the times before; or wait to vote until it’s acceptable to do so.

And the votes in the typical Academy Awards predictors have shown it; “The Hurt Locker” is on fire, sweeping up every major award for which it’s been nominated. Again the Editors, Cinematographers, Producers, Directors, British, all have named “The Hurt Locker” the Best Picture of 2009. This rare combination of a timely and textbook-perfect film that is getting praise for all the reasons it deserves, right or otherwise.

It’s probably because “The Hurt Locker” puts on a clinic. Not only in how to diffuse a roadside bomb (and there seem to be different interpretations of this, much to the consternation and stress of the soldiers involved) but also in how to make a film about diffusing a bomb. Really in how to make a film period. It’s taut where slack would be forgivable. It’s suspenseful where calm would be understood and expected. But this seems to make sense in the context of soldiers who live in such taut and suspenseful times. Mere things like light shining into their quarters in the barracks come at a cost of risking mortar shrapnel flying into the room. Articles, television, even films have shown this, but none as perfectly as “The Hurt Locker”.

Director Kathryn Bigelow (“Point Break”) does a fantastic job finding suspense where other films don’t spend the time. Yes, the music is key for this, but so is the sound (sound mixing especially) and the editing. This is a technically perfect film, but it’s not a mere exercise in technical filmmaking. It’s a well-acted story that affects the entire body: gut, heart, head. Some of my other thoughts on the film are here. It was absolutely one of the best films of the last decade and clearly one of the two best of the last year. It was once a long shot to win Best Picture, but now it’s a favorite.

9.5/10

Completely Made up Odds of winning Best Picture: 5/2

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

“Inglourious Basterds” doesn’t really work as a complete film, but as a collection of vignettes, it’s excellent. Director Quentin Tarantino knows how to entertain, of this is there is no question. But he doesn’t always know how to do so consistently, or seem to care. He gained fame with “Pulp Fiction” borrowing narrative style from The French New Wave but making it work in snappy and entertaining ways with an American crime film. He’s well-versed in the importance and history of cinema. And he often does it justice in his work, sometimes directly as in clear segments of homage in his “Kill Bill” films, sometimes indirectly as in “Pulp Fiction”, and sometimes ham-handedly as in “Jackie Brown”.

The problem with “Inglourious Basterds” is it engages in all three: homage, indirect cinematic tribute, and ham-handed filmmaking. As such, it’s inconsistent across the board. Often entertaining, often way over the top, and often disappointing. It’s by no means a perfect film. And unless the vast majority of the Academy harbors revenge fantasies from World War 2, it’s not going to win Best Picture.

The best thing about the film are a couple of extended sequences, especially one in a farm house to open the film, where the tension is so palpable it’s impossible to not feel on edge.  The magnificent performance of Christopher Waltz is vital to the film’s best sequences. It’s a fantastically-well-written part, and the connection between Director and Actor is clear. Waltz, well, waltzes all over the screen with an aplomb that only Quentin Tarantino could’ve visualized. It’s the best kind of pairing between actor and director, where they start on the same page and end up creating something that soars above that page.

But the film also disappoints, both in performances and in consistency of story. Sometimes it’s about a group of mercenaries sent to brutally scalp and maim groups of Nazis. Sometimes it’s about a cinema owner hell bent for revenge. Sometimes it’s about the Nazi reaction, or other resistance efforts. If the film were edited differently, like “Pulp Fiction” for example, it may be able to better work at telling all of these stories. But as it stands it’s several 15-25 minute chapters, which ends up being both a blessing and a curse. For the scenes that work well, the extended vignette style is a blessing. But it’s also a curse because as we spend so much time getting into individual chapters, in the end the film is missing a central arc.

There are stylistic issues as well, even as Tarantino makes bold choices that work stylistically, others don’t fit or don’t work and detract from the overall impact. As said earlier, he’s his own worst enemy. Still, even if inconsistent and imperfect it’s an entertaining film. But entertaining is not enough to win Best Picture. If it were, “The Big Lebowski” and “Caddyshack” would’ve won the Oscars they so richly deserve.

6.5/10

Completely Made up Odds of winning Best Picture: 25/1

THE BLIND SIDE

The problem with “The Blind Side” is Michael Oher’s true story is filled with so many emotional peaks and valleys that the film based on this story never comes to a true climax. It’s a series of huge hurdles jumped so that by the end there’s no significant emotional weight built up in any one of them. This is not to say it’s not an emotional film. Quite the contrary. It’s just not one with a consistent emotional arc.

Director/Screenwriter John Lee Hancock  took some license with writer Michael Lewis’ book on which the film is based. It seems as though if  Hancock were going to take license and change things to make them better work dramatically, he could’ve changed more to lead to a more significant emotional payoff. The book makes a huge deal out of Michael’s academic growth, for example. In the film it’s presented as just another hurdle. You don’t sense the difficulty the Tuohy’s had with Michael Oher nearly as much in the film. It’s as though once he got to the white school, he was bound for success. The real story is much more impressive.

Instead of focusing on the difficulty of bringing up Michael, the film makes the choice to celebrate the development of the relationship between Michael Oher and Mrs. Tuohy. It’s a choice that makes the film more accessible, sure. I’m just not sure there wasn’t room to make the film about the difficulty as well as development of their relationship. In narrowing the focus, the film loses the chance to really hit home on other, emotional moments.

But really, the film is to be celebrated. Considering the source material, it had to be far more difficult to keep the film from devolving into the realm of mere cheesiness, and the team behind “The Blind Side” is to be praised for preventing this. Any time you have a rags to riches story combined with a cute kid batting his eyes and a film with dialogue along the lines of “I’m not improving his life, he’s improving mine”, you’re in the danger zone. But the film wisely manages to play each scene with the right touch, not often using extreme closeups, no extended moments of tears streaming, etc. In fact, when Mrs. Tuohy hears the heartbreaking information that 17 year old Michael has never owned a bed, she leaves to collect herself in another room. Michael listens at the door, but he doesn’t hear sobbing because it’s not there.

Bullock is very good as Mrs. Tuohy, her character truly comes to life on screen in ways it didn’t in the book. It’s not Best Actress caliber, but it’s impressive to see that she had such a good performance in her. There may be hope for her career as she moves on from spunky to actual gravitas in her choices of roles.

This is another one that had not a prayer of being nominated without the extra five. Even with the extra five films, it sure doesn’t seem like it belongs. It’s a heartwarming film, and an amazing story. It’s just not terribly well-made or adapted. It tugs at the heartstrings by letting the action speak for itself, not by manipulating it. But some manipulation of the events could’ve lead to a lot more emotion even without cheesy closeups or the manufactured tears. This one’s just slightly out of focus.

6/10

Completely Made up Odds of winning Best Picture: 74/1