Oscar 2010: Best Picture/Best Direction

Perhaps it would be better to lead up to the big categories just like they do in the ceremonies, but I'm going to need to do things backwards. I would have been upset with myself if I hadn't seen The Hurt Locker come Oscar night, because it's a major contender in multiple categories. But if I don't get around to all of the costume awards, well it's not like I'll be out of the loop when it comes time to talk around the water cooler the next day. Not that I have a water cooler to gather around. Or coworkers. Or a job for that matter. But if I did, well then, I would want to be prepared. Enough about my depression, let's talk movies!

Best Picture/Best Director

There's a lot to discuss in these categories due to the expansion of the Best Picture category to 10 entries. (An issue that I'm usually willing to discuss at length, but I think I'd rather just get over it and move along to other things. Perhaps I'll rant on that later this week.) I'm going to discuss the two categories together because, well, for one, all of the Best Direction entries are included in the Picture category. In addition, I think in a year when there are two front-runners that are equally strong in very different ways, the Academy should split the difference and throw one category to each (history demonstrates that they don't often do this, but I think there have been years where it would have been appropriate - 2004's tug of war between Million Dollar Baby and Aviator for one). It's not impossible that something other than Avatar and The Hurt Locker will come away the winner (I know many people are pulling for Inglourious Basterds, and I may be one of them in the end), but if I were to place odds on it, I think those will be the two to beat.

Before I run through the merits of several of the other films in these categories, let's get my favorites and the likely winners out of the way. I think it's going to go to Avatar for the big win. Now, do I want to see James Cameron get up there and be all the douche that he can be? No, not really. But if we want to talk about a movie that captured the attention of everyone, from critics to movie snobs to people who pay to see Eddie Murphy in a fat suit, then Avatar is that movie. I think everything came together perfectly on Avatar - the acting, the story, the technology, and I think that should be rewarded. I know The Hurt Locker has been garnering awards left and right in some of the other awards shows overseas, but I think the momentum is going to carry Avatar through to the big win.

With my split-the-categories theory, this means The Hurt Locker will likely give Kathryn Bigelow a well-deserved directing award. I was surprised by how much I loved The Hurt Locker. I think it's safe to say that I'm tired of the war. The real one as well as the thousands of portrayals of it on film and documentaries. I'm war-weary. I don't even gravitate towards that many war or action movies, but I feel saturated by their existence all the same. That being said, I loved The Hurt Locker.

"I thought I threw my ice-scraper in the trunk. Now where could it be?"

So little happens in 2 hours, but you're glued to every tense moment of a bomb-disarming squad in the middle of Iraq. There's very little plot, and yet the plot is huge and complex. But it's not because there's a lot of dialogue or a lot of characters, it's because humans themselves are so complex, especially in a situation such as war. When you get down into just two or three people and immerse them in constant tension, you're rewarded with complexity and comprehension of their personalities. Every little thing that person does matters, and spirals off into a thousand more questions of motivation and human reasoning. It was tense, and touching, and I thought it did a good job of immersing you into the constant suspicion and tension for those soldiers. It didn't delve into the big political questions, because that's a different movie. It didn't extrapolate on how that tension translates into a home life, because that would be a different movie as well. It was the story of a couple guys doing their job. Their incredibly difficult and dangerous job. Pulling together that story and getting the performances from the actors that she did warrants an award for Bigelow. (Interesting connection: Two out of the three soldiers who are the focus of the majority of the film are played by Brian Geraghty and Anthony Mackie. Those two were also together as teammates on the Marshall football team in one of my favorite crying-sports movies ever: We Are Marshall. Maybe that's only interesting to me because I liked that movie so much.)

The one movie that I think could, and maybe even should, perform an upset in either one of these categories is Inglourious Basterds. I think the only reason that it's not a stronger contender is due to its odd release date. Maybe everyone underestimated Tarantino and that's why the film wasn't put closer to awards time to make a strong impression on the voters. I don't know. What I do know is that until the awards season started and I saw clips of Basterds during the Globes and the SAG Awards, I had forgotten how amazing I thought that movie was when I saw it initially. Since it's been so long since I've seen it, I'm not going to try to analyze the finer details. Just know that it is Tarantino at his best and it's making me seriously reconsider my desires when it comes to who I would want to win.

If there were an Awesome Mustache category, Brad Pitt would win, hands down.

I think I'll save my discussion of some of the other entries when it comes time to review other categories like writing or cinematography. To sum up, I'm going to say Avatar for the big win, with director going to Bigelow for Hurt Locker. But, with a side bet on Basterds to pull out a surprise in the latter. As for what I want to win - I love Hurt Locker, but I would rather see Basterds get direction. Tarantino did a wonderful job of pulling together a great story and surprising actors and beautiful camera-work. I want to see him get the credit he deserves for that.

[Upon reviewing some of the history of the Best Picture category, it seems that it is fairly rare for a film to win Best Picture when they have no acting nominations. Now, out of my three purported front-runners for Best Picture, the only one that actually has an acting nomination is Basterds, for Christopher Waltz. So either Basterds is going to pull a big surprise and take the Best Picture, or this is just one of those years that is an exception to the rule. I think the latter is going to be true, but reviewing the history makes me wonder about Academy voters and what they'll ultimately choose. It should be noted that I am awful at predicting these things. Probably should have warned you about that at the beginning of this discussion.]