If the pre-Oscar guild and critic awards are to be trusted, the two films with the best chance to take home Oscar’s top prize are “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker,” two movies that couldn’t be more different.
With “Avatar,” everything is supersized. From its $500 million-plus price tag to the $15-plus ticket price (thanks 3-D!), to being directed by the self-proclaimed King of the World James Cameron, “Avatar” is all about excess — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
To date, the film has earned $670 million domestically and a tidy $1.7 billion worldwide. That’s more than enough cash to persuade the Na'vi to ditch the eco-forest and get into showbiz.
The profits reaped from Hollywood blockbusters and franchise movies are the reason studios can afford to take chances on smaller films. If the Paramounts and Warner Brothers of the world weren’t raking in money on the success of their megahits, they certainly wouldn’t green-light smaller films with limited box office appeal.
“The Hurt Locker,” on the other hand — one of the best reviewed films of the year — almost didn’t even get made. Producer Nicolas Chartier had to find unique ways to raise the $15 million in production costs, but somehow got the money together. And the chances of an Iraq War movie actually appealing to both critics and moviegoers? Slim, considering the failures of “Stop-Loss,” “Rendition” and a handful of others, yet this one seemed to coalesce perfectly.
Oh, and just for a bit more intrigue into the square-off between the two films, Cameron and “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow were once husband and wife. Bigelow is on the threshold of becoming first woman to direct a best picture winner.
Who to root for?
So who is Hollywood rooting for in this race of unequal combatants?
Stone believes, however, that if “The Hurt Locker” does triumph, many of those tuning into the Academy Awards broadcast March 7 on ABC will turn off their TV sets afterward hugely disappointed.
The art vs. commerce showdown between the two couldn’t have been better scripted by ABC, which is expected to get a nice ratings bump from those who can’t get enough of “Avatar.”
But “In Contention” blogger Kris Tapley is another who believes members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences won’t be thinking box office when they mark their ballots.
“The Academy doesn’t need to be in step with the public,” he said. “The Academy’s job is to celebrate the art form, and I don’t think that’s in consideration of what the public wants. It’s just what those 6,000 people in the industry think what’s best.”
There have been other David vs. Goliath Oscar showdowns, with none probably more noticeable than between 1981 films “Reds” and “Chariots of Fire.”
“Reds,” budgeted at $35 million, garnered a whopping 12 nominations — more than any other film that year — and had the aura of a sweeping epic. Plus Warren Beatty’s opus about an American journalist involved in the Communist revolution had an incredible supporting cast: Jack Nicholson, Diane Keaton (a former Beatty paramour) and Maureen Stapleton. All three were nominated and Stapleton won, while Beatty won as director but not lead actor.
“Chariots of Fire,” a $5 million English film about two British university students who compete in a series of races against one another at Cambridge against the backdrop of anti-Semitism, ended up taking home the best-picture Oscar to the amazement of many. With a lead cast that were virtually unknowns, “Chariots” also defeated a little something called “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
And then there was “Rocky.” Starring and written by Sylvester Stallone — almost an unknown at the time — the $1 million-priced “Rocky” was the feel-good film of 1976, but the consensus was that wouldn’t be enough to defeat Paddy Chayefsky’s brilliantly scripted “Network” or “All the President’s Men,” starring ’70s superstars Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford in a film that examined the crippling Watergate scandal which forced Richard Nixon to resign from the Oval Office.
But, no, the South Philly’s southpaw’s remarkable tale was enough to woo voters and take home the best-picture statuette.
A more recent example: 1998's “Shakespeare in Love” taking on “Saving Private Ryan,” which had the cache of Steven Spielberg and the gravitas of World War II. Alas, not good enough. Indie studio Miramax’s head-spinning marketing campaign was cited by many as the reason the Gwyneth Paltrow film came out on top.
So where does that leave “The Hurt Locker” vs. “Avatar”? Well, it’s not about how much you spend to make a movie, but the lasting impression it leaves on voters. If Academy members enjoy a good sci-fi yarn, "Avatar" remains the one to beat. If realistic drama is more up their alley, the authenticity of "Hurt Locker" will continue to resonate.
In two films that look at the military from completely different perspectives, Jeremy Renner’s bomb-diffusing Staff Sgt. William James might not have the muscle of Stephen Lang’s Col. Miles Quaritch, but he ultimately might prove more effective.
Stuart Levine is an assistant managing editor at Variety.