Maryam Rahimi Blogs!
I agree with most of the nominees and winners of this years Oscars, however, my issue is with the best picture and best director category.
The Hurt Locker is a good war picture. It touches on issues soldiers deal with when at war (have we not seen this before over and over?), some say it's the best picture for what really happened in Iraq. Is it? what did we learn about the war? With The Hurt Locker we see the lives of bomb squad techs. In the Pianist we see a Polish Jew who survived the Nazi occupation of Warsaw, and in Full Metal Jacket we see a U.S. Marine observing the dehumanizing effects the Vietnam War on fellow marine. I think these are great movies, but people, we are talking about Oscars! Innovative, new, fresh, GREAT films should take home that gold statues, not pictures that has been shot and seen before, no matter how great the story telling is. We've seen these war visuals so many times before, that is what makes me so sick of war pictures.
On the other hand, Avatar was original with visuals we haven't seen before, story we haven't heard of before, and great directing to carry out a unique story telling. Give me an example of what could be compared to Avatar please? I would love to hear it. Maybe you could change my mind.
The best prize should go to originality with the best execution, not a picture that is heartfelt and showcases a different prospect of war. War is war.
The Hurt Locker doesn't bring anything new to the table of grunts-in-the-firing-line movies, it's beautifully shot, well acted, and completely unfocused to the point of, well, what was the point?
Avatar on the other hand... most unique and best to date visuals, beautifully shot, well direct and to the point.
That's my two cents.