That Many Oscars? Really?

Rating: 6/10 (12 March 2010)

I was beginning to hold out some hope (however little) that the Oscars might have been steering away from political correctness and social appeasement when, last year, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE took home 8 of the 10 categories it was nominated in, including Best Picture. A "feel-good" movie made on a $15 million budget with no-name actors, it came out of nowhere and blindsided many viewers and Academy voters. Pleasantly surprised, I flipped on the Oscars this year (2010) and watched the who's who for films in 2009.
I'm not going to take any large swings as THE HURT LOCKER because it was a good movie. I enjoyed the action, the tension, the acting. It was all nicely pulled together. But, out of the ten Best Picture nominees this year, was it really the stand-out? I felt that the Academy was slipping, once again, into the realm of trying to be "significant" and "modern" by voting for something that's on everyone's mind (the war in Iraq). Again, the movie was okay. Good. Adequate. But head-and-shoulders above such films as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS? DISTRICT 9? UP IN THE AIR? I humbly disagree that it was. And there was nothing in it that we haven't seen before: a war movie with internal angst and a man lost amidst society when he returns home. Jeremy Renner (28 WEEKS LATER) did a fine job as the risk-taking Sergeant James but, again, he was channeling every other warrior brought into a tough situation that we've seen on celluloid a gazillion times.
From reading what you've read of my review so far, you might think that I'm being more critical of the Academy than the film. That's partially correct. But when so much attention is heaped upon one film (including Best Director ...which we'll cover in a moment) and so many people think that this is "the film to watch" and not the other nominees that won little or nothing, I believe of informing those who might choose to read this of their folly should they not see something like District 9 or — one that didn't even get mentioned — MOON.
Let's hit on the Best Director item...
No female director has ever won an Oscar before Kathryn Bigelow did for The Hurt Locker. So what! We never elected a black President before Obama. Does that mean we should give him every break just because no other black man has ever sat in the White House? No! You win because you deserve to win, not because it's never happened to someone of your kind before. Was the directing of The Hurt Locker better than Inglorious Basterds? Was it? Sorry, but I completely disagree if you think it was.
I will say that I'm glad AVATAR didn't win Best Picture or Best Director. But to completely blank out such phenomenal films as DISTRICT 9 and other worthy competitors is simply ridiculous.
I think it's important for me to say here that I completely support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; they risk their lives daily so that I can live the life I do over here in the U.S. They risk they're lives so that I can write something like this about a film they may care deeply about. But caring deeply about a subject like The Hurt Locker and elevating it above other films does a disservice to the art of film-making and film-makers when you over-rate a movie based on it's significance in the world today and not on its art.
For me, the top films of 2009 were DISTRICT 9, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and MOON. Two got a smidgin of notice and one never saw the light of the Oscar ballots. Check those films out before deciding where the awards should've landed for movies made in 2009. Please.