silverautumn
BrentonWhy Avatar Losing Kinda Ticked Me Off
March 9th 2010 05:05
Ok- I liked Avatar, but I did NOT think it was the second coming. Nor do I feel the need to give James Cameron any more awards then he already has (you hear that..? That's the sound of his head getting bigger)
BUT I was angry when it lost best picture. I was completely for Kathryn Bigelow winning best director! As a female filmmaker (I'm trying) myself I can see the importance of a woman winning in a category primarily dominated by men.
I feel like Avatar's loss wasn't Cameron's loss, but rather a loss to the genre (Sci-fi) and to technology. The Academy doesn't like the new marriage of computer and actor. This was evident when Andy Serkis' performance as Gollum was ignored. The traditionalist in me understands their loyalty to classic filmmaking, but my love for technology and advancement wishes they had a more open mind.
And as for Science Fiction- don't get me started. The Academy is notorious for snubbing anything fantastical. In 2003 they seemed to begrudgingly give the award to The Return of the King. They nominate some films here and there, and give out plenty of 'visual effects' awards, but that's it.
I was overjoyed to see District 9 and Avatar nominated yet I couldn't help but notice the lack of Moon and Star Trek.
I thought, "Certainly James Cameron is the man to get the genre their first academy award for best picture". But I guess not. If he can't then the first sci-fi film to do it will have to be one hell of a movie.
BUT I was angry when it lost best picture. I was completely for Kathryn Bigelow winning best director! As a female filmmaker (I'm trying) myself I can see the importance of a woman winning in a category primarily dominated by men.
I feel like Avatar's loss wasn't Cameron's loss, but rather a loss to the genre (Sci-fi) and to technology. The Academy doesn't like the new marriage of computer and actor. This was evident when Andy Serkis' performance as Gollum was ignored. The traditionalist in me understands their loyalty to classic filmmaking, but my love for technology and advancement wishes they had a more open mind.
And as for Science Fiction- don't get me started. The Academy is notorious for snubbing anything fantastical. In 2003 they seemed to begrudgingly give the award to The Return of the King. They nominate some films here and there, and give out plenty of 'visual effects' awards, but that's it.
I was overjoyed to see District 9 and Avatar nominated yet I couldn't help but notice the lack of Moon and Star Trek.
I thought, "Certainly James Cameron is the man to get the genre their first academy award for best picture". But I guess not. If he can't then the first sci-fi film to do it will have to be one hell of a movie.
| 46 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by silverautumn
Cinema Three
Projecting Projectionist - Film Reviews from a Small Town Theatre Employee
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
If you're pro-Bigelow winning the Best Director Oscar then surely you'd be pro-The Hurt Locker as being the better directed film? As someone who has had an axe to grind about the Academy's lack of recognition for female filmmakers, I feel incredbly vindicated that not only have they finally broken the boys club open, but they did it for a movie that genuinely deserved it. There's nothing worse than a film/person winning purely for political reasons and not for the integrity of their work.
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
However, if you want to lament the Academy's dismissal of the sci-fi genre (irregardless of special effects), then I think District 9 was easily a far more deserving film than Avatar - now that was a loss for sci-fi.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
It all came together for Hurt Locker. the script wasn't the best but still high quality. the performance were all superb and the directing...well we all know how good that was.
Comment by silverautumn
Cinema Three
Projecting Projectionist - Film Reviews from a Small Town Theatre Employee
Comment by Anonymous
And on a side note, Star Trek should have both been nominated and won, in my humble opinion.
Comment by Anonymous
I think the core values of the Academy are still very much based in the last century, and the beginning rather than the end of that century. Like with most new things, it could mean that everyone (film makers) has to go in this direction (of 3D technology) in order to survive - that would not be good. I don't think the traditionalist approach is great, but I'm glad to see things changing little by little.
When the Award was won for Special Effects and the Avatar recipient reminded us that this world was just as fabulous as the one in Avata it made me feel like screaming - this world - our world - is far superior to the imagined and created world in a movie hands down any time; I will see Avatar eventually, as I have not been along yet, but when I do, it's just another film - it may be ushering new technology in, but do we want to forget the amazing value of the silent movie or color film or color sound motion picture? Do we want the standard movie experience to involve 3D technology?
Do we want to drop everything for a new toy and let the old toy vanish into oblivion... I hope not.