Pages

Monday, March 08, 2010

Oscars 2010

My morbid curiosity for watching the Oscars live (and unedited) has come to an end. It's really a test of human endurance to watch people go through their laundry list of thank yous. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin should be spanked for hosting one of the most boring most-watched prom nights. I was glad that 'Avatar' didn't win anything big* and 'Hurt Locker' did win the top categories. At the risk of generalization and simplification I'll say this - it's interesting that James Cameron did the most womanly of the movies I've seen in a long time (and a crappy one at that) and made a ton of money while Kathryn Bigelow made the manliest of movies I've seen in a long time (a very good one) and has until now remained relatively obscure. In a world where cinema audiences are increasing men (especially teenagers), I've got to give it to James for breaking successive records with maudlin movies featuring horrible dialogues.

I liked Sandra Bullock's speech and I'm happy for Jeff Bridges.

* Avatar won for cinematography and now I'm really confused. In a movie like 'Hurt Locker' the viewer is made to recognize the vastness and emptiness of an Iraqi desert, a bustling market, the sweats on the face of a soldier. There's a whole lot of special effects in Avatar and the cinematographer still guides the view through his lenses - but it all seems a bit fake to recognize such a movie with the highest Hollywood honor. When most of a movie is shot inside a room with a monochrome background and movements aided though software and sensors, it somehow seems unworthy of Oscars to me. But then who said that Oscars should always go to the worthy.

3 comments:

Varaha said...

http://beta.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/article231508.ece

Sudhish Kamath usually writes good reviews but not this time...

***
A tangent.
War movies usually are not that convincing...especially Iraq war...if at all a victim is to be portrayed, it is the Iraqi !! Anyway, I am not commenting on the movie, but on the context...I want to see an Iraqi war movie from the point of view of an Iraqi...

Prasad Venkataramana said...

Varaha,
1) Sudish Kamath is not the brightest bulb.
2) If you go into the theater with prejudices such as only a war movie narrated from the view of a victim will be convincing you'll be stopping yourself from appreciating many gems.

I'll make a sweeping statement - U.S has a vibrant cinema industry and U.S has been invading countries. So naturally they're inclined to tell stories from the pov of the aggressor. I have to point out that most of the movies I've seen blame the U.S and take a sympathetic view on the host.

If you want to see a movie from the victim's pov, check out United 93 by Paul Greengrass.

Vidya said...

Noted the generalization:-)