The 25th Frame
"Avatar" wins the Golden Globe for Best Picture. What. The. Hell.
Let's just get this out of the way: James Cameron can spend $500 million. I'd rather give him the money over Michael Bay. However, I admit I had to take a week off mentally after the Golden Globes. Why, you ask?
“The Golden Globe goes to...Avatar!”
“What...the....fuck...?!” went all seven of the voices in my head.
They've since calmed but it wasn't easy. I had to play a lot of “God of War” on a very hard mode. Over in the Alborn camp, we were rooting for either “The Hurt Locker” or “Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire,” both films that were superior not only in their direction (Katheryn Bigelow got robbed, by the way), but their overall quality. In fact, all the films nominated with “Avatar” were superior. So why did “Avatar” win? I honestly could not tell you. But I can warrant a guess or two.
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (the body of journalists that vote on the Golden Globes) is a fickle creature. In looking at their past decisions for Best Picture, it's not always the best film in terms of quality but the best film that got the most coverage (or made the most money...or both). Given the overexposed nature of press on “Avatar” versus the other nominees, I'd imagine many voters would rather award the Globe to a film that's easier for the public to recognize than award it to a smaller (and more deserving) film less likely to have been seen by the masses.
Mind you, I've no proof, nor am I saying this is how it is. But if you think about it, when was the last time that the Golden Globes or the Oscars were really watched by everyone? Closest I can recall was when “Lord of the Rings” swept for “Return of the King”. Viewership went through the roof. Why? People tuned in because they wanted to see a film they loved be recognized with a win. Let's face it: A lot of people loved “Avatar”. Some even called it the “Star Wars” of this generation (which is complete crap, by the way).
Word of mouth has been ridiculously positive with the majority of audiences, though that number tends to drop substantially when you talk to anyone who counts themselves a lover of film (myself included). From a technical standpoint, is “Avatar” a success? Absolutely. Is it a visual feast and a sign of things to come for 3D films? Completely. Are its story and characters going to stand the test of time? Never in a million years. Not even a month. Not even an hour after I saw the film. You don't remember “Avatar” for its characters. You remember it for its visuals. The physical (albeit digital) world Cameron built truly is spectacular.
However, It's story and characters are NOTHING we have not seen before. In fact, it's boarder line insulting to tout “Avatar” as being anything other than eye candy or even imply originality in its central themes. There is a difference between entertaining and storytelling, Mr. Cameron. You can put on one hell of a show but that's about all I get from you. Not to mention the only films you've made that I believe aged at all well were “The Abyss” (which I love) and “T2: Judgment Day,” and those were awhile back and took more time with their characters than their set pieces and effects.
So why in the hell did “Avatar” win again? It's a press juggernaut fueled by a public that oftentimes is more interested in visuals than content. Humans are visual creatures after all. Not to mention it has gotten considerable coverage for breaking a number of box office records, even if that coverage misses the fact that it benefits from the higher ticket prices for 3D shows or that the film is doing more business overseas. Nope, it's one of the highest grossing films EVER, so that makes it good, at least to the intrepid Hollywood Foreign Press.
Whether it wins or loses come Oscar time, I assure you “Avatar” will not age well. Much like Cameron's last film, “Titanic,” “Avatar” will be recognized for its fantastic production quality but look wildly dated 10 years from now when the technology used to make has become commonplace in Hollywood films. I just hope history does not repeat itself in terms of awards, because the Academy has a lot to kick themselves for, and awarding the Oscar for Best Picture to “Titanic” in 1997 is one of the big ones.
By the way, can anyone explain to me how “The Dark Knight” failed to even be nominated last year despite the fact that it was better in virtually every way? Seriously, I'll be waiting right here for an answer. The voices in my head are pissed off again and my doctor says I can't go out in public until they calm down.
Posted by Max Alborn, Max Alborn on Jan 25, 2010 @ 12:00 am
