Something weird happened two nights ago. The "award giving community" gave an apology for snubbing a certain cinematic masterpiece that also went on to become a cultural phenomenon. If you don't know what movie I'm talking about, just google "biggest Oscar snubs", it should be near the top.
On sunday night James Cameron's Avatar took home two of the most important awards at the Golden globes: Best picture and Best director. While there is no doubt that Avatar is a genuine cinematic wonder in terms of the visuals and Cameron is a genius when it comes to blowing our minds with never before used technology, this time I honestly question the objectivity and honesty of the foreign press
There's a certain criteria that a movie with a "best picture" label has meet. First of all, it has to have a good story. As Orson Welles put it, everything starts with a screenplay. Next, it has to have compelling characters that draw an emotional response out of you. You don't necesarily have to have sympathy toward a character... You can loathe him/her, you can be scared, even disgusted (Hannibal Lecter, anyone?) but an emotional response is mandatory. It means that the actor/actress and the screenwriter did their job right. Last but not least, the direction. It is the director's job to bring all the previously mentioned elements together with the right pacing, mood and make one coheretive piece of art. The special effects should be icing on the cake.
Avatar has it all backwards...
First I wanna make one thing very clear: I enjoyed Avatar. It is great escapism cinema. As I've mentioned before, James Cameron has to applauded for the world he created. It is something we've never seen before and probably won't see again for a very long time. In short, this movie has sex with you eyeballs. However, it also has (to put it mildly) a mediocre screenplay and not a single interesting character (OK, maybe one). The story is a complete retread of earlier films such as Dances with wolfes and The last samurai where an all-American army guy comes across a society he believes to be hostile but ends up switching sides. Now, one can use the argument that Cameron knew exactly what he was doing and intended to make Avatar accessible to the ages of 7 to 77. And on that note, he succeeded brilliantly. This is a movie that anyone can go see and enjoy without worrying of being disturbed in any way. But by making that choice and focusing all of his creativity on the visuals, Cameron lost sight of those basic elements I talked about. I don't mind that people love this movie. Again, it is a perfect crowd-pleaser and I see the appeal. But what I don't get is why did the award community honor Avatar even after acknowleging its shortcomings in thousands of reviews?
To put it simply: Because they blew it last year
After The dark knight got shamelessly ignored in pretty much every aspect, the critic community and the general filmgoing public were furious. It was clear case of snubbing because a movies was of a certain genre that didn't fit into the "award standards." And then this year we have Avatar, which the audience absolutely loves and have made it their own. And the oportunity for an apologizing came up. By awardind Avatar, they're basically saying: "We fucked up the last time but hey... better late than never" The difference, however: The dark knight was a masterpiece. Avatar... is not. A wrong message is being sent. A message that as long as a movie looks good it doesn't matter that it is flawed in other areas. Objectivity goes out the window and the most important thing becomes not making the mob angry ever again.
Iadmire the attempt to recognise movies that have a more wider appeal but that doesn't mean that we should lower our criteria. There are movies that are fun crowd-pleasers but are far more compelling in other aspects.
Star trek, for example