In the most recent development in the award season roundup, the Producers Guild of America picked The Hurt Locker as their top film of 2009. Yep, it does indeed look like we’ve got ourselves a real tussle for Oscar’s Best Picture gold.
This past week, there have been three frontrunners to come forward: Hurt Locker, which got picked by both the Critics Choice and now PGA; Inglourious Basterds, which got the SAGs best cast ensemble award; and Avatar, which the Golden Globes shined their light upon. This leaves early buzz-o-meter Up in the Air out of the top spot, as well as Precious and An Education, which were tough calls anyway.
I’m just glad there’s any Oscar race at all, since it looks like the winners in the four acting categories have been decided. If you have to choose one to get excited about, the Best Picture race (which does usually go hand-in-hand with the directors race) is the best, especially now that we have THREE strong contenders instead of the usual one or two. Here’s some pros and cons to their chances of winning the Academy Award:
AVATAR
Pros: It’s got the Titanic factor – butt loads of money grossed, all kinds of box office records broken, mostly well received critically and a draw for viewers to watch the Oscars telecast. Plus, the Academy likes James Cameron.
Cons: The film is more about the visual effects than anything else, hence the reason it didn’t get nominated for the SAGs best cast ensemble. Let’s just say, Avatar won’t be receiving any nods in the acting or writing categories, unlike Titanic, which saw stars Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart getting nominations. Plus, James Cameron has already won before.
THE HURT LOCKER
Pros: As the opposite to Avatar, Hurt Locker has superb writing and spot-on acting, along with incredibly tense, thrilling and well-crafted action sequences. And many feel it’s time for a female director to win an Oscar and thus should anoint Kathryn Bigelow accordingly.
Cons: It might be too small of a movie to win the big prize, with not enough big-name actors and/or big-name talent behind it. Bigelow is a true veteran in the directing field, but she’s made movies like Point Break. Just not as credible.
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
Pros: It’s got the Holocaust factor, a subject matter the Academy voters have historically loved to shower awards upon. But not only just that, also this whole Jewish revenge fantasy in which they get to kill ALL of the top Nazis. If Avatar hadn’t been the smash hit it is, I would have put my money on Basterds.
Cons: Perhaps director/writer Quentin Tarantino. I just don’t think the Academy knows what to make of him and his long-winded, gratuitously violent movies. That isn’t to say they won’t reward him at some point, since they can’t deny he is a talent to be reckoned with.
So, there you have it. If I were to make a guess RIGHT NOW, without further analysis and evaluation, I’d say the Academy will pick Avatar for Best Picture and spread the wealth with the other two. Say, for Hurt Locker, give director to Bigelow. And for Basterds, give supporting actor to Christophe Waltz (already a done deal) and maybe original screenplay to Tarantino. Of course, I’m just shooting from the hip, but it’s something to mull over.
