The Politics of Avatar and Hurt Locker - Hype or Real?

One of the major plotlines of this Oscar season has revolved around the politics or lack thereof in The Hurt Locker.  As with most war films it’s difficult not to read some political subtext into Kathryn Bigelow’s masterful film.  Unlike her ex-husband’s film Avatar, Bigelow doesn’t bludgeon her audience with her message.  Whether Bigelow was successful in her attempt to show the dehumanizing aspects of war is debatable, what she does shows is that for even the most modest of people war can change them fundamentally.  Now that the film has reached frontrunner status, it has earned detractors.  Much of this has been highlighted by the recent news that one of the film’s producers has been sending emails asking voters for vote for the film.  Yet, many of these negative voices how come from veterans of our conflict in Iraq.  This only serves to heighten the political nature of the film.

Many of these negative voices have been raised about the realism of what is depicted, despite the so-called “independent” nature of the film; it presents a Hollywood version of war.  Regardless of intentions, the film is still profiting of a conflict in which we are still engaged.  Bigelow can make the point of how her film has anti-war message, the film works because it so exhilarating.  I’m as guilty as anyone for being caught up in the thrill ride; after all it is very well made.  Any political intentions are secondary to the audience identifying with these characters.      

Another point of controversy to arise over the last month is regarding Bigelow’s gender.  Many of the detractors have said she winning her awards based on her gender, rather than her work as a director.  To be sure Bigelow is not one of the top directors working today, but neither is she a complete hack.  As much as her supporters would like to beg to differ, at some level the fact she is a woman is driving their desire to see her win.  Considering no female director has ever won has to play on us at even a subconscious level.  The fact she has made a really good film heightens this desire.  This holds true to both men and women, women who want a support of girl power and guys that some sexiness added to the proceedings.  To be clear I fully support her win, but the work of other directors in this field does not make her a clear favorite and a win by any of them would not be a travesty.

Avatar on the other hand wears its politics on James Cameron’s sleeve.   Cameron’s action films in the past have always relied on underlying social messages to propel them past your average action flick.  With Titanic he extended those messages to class distinction and the arrogance of the rich.  I’m not so sure he is aware of his own arrogance, but seeing as hubris has yet to catch up with him, I think he remains acutely blind to it.  With Avatar he comments further on environmentalism, but also our unifying humanity.  Many have praised its criticism of imperialism and capitalism, others point out that it’s another story of a white man saving a native culture.  These debates make Avatar more controversial while also keeping the spotlight on it, an aspect that should hinder its chances of winning.

We haven’t been treated to such political questions regarding the Best Picture race since 2005 when Crash stole Brokeback’s thunder.  Both liberal films to be sure and the Academy certainly felt like they were being noble in honoring a film about race.  However, the film presents a very simplistic view on race relations, we all have prejudice but can also do great good and for such a large ensemble the audience is never given a chance to connect with many of the characters.   The fact that they passed over the more liberal minded Brokeback Mountain remains a head scratcher.  I’ve never been entirely convinced that its tale of forbidden love is a timeless classic, but the film was still much stronger than the mediocre Crash.      

Wrapping things up, I should note that Avatar is very much a war film, so the political debates remain just as relevant for it as they do for Hurt Locker.  Yet, despite the position of some Hut Locker isn’t a complex art film.  The movie plays out more as pure entertainment than many of the other nominees.  District 9 while highly entertaining is also very political, same holds true for Inglourious Basterds.  Precious has also been the center of political backlash and its focus on an inner-city teen certainly puts a large focus on race and class.  Lastly, The Blind Side has been bashed by many as being a Republican movie.  Of course that it seems to represent a Hollywood understanding of Republicans is rarely discussed.  With just a week to go expect these discussions to increase, and continue after the victor is announced.