An Education

Although I have mixed feelings about “The Hurt Locker” itself, and about the cultural-psychological reasons for its ascendancy, Bigelow herself is a genuine and strange cinematic genius who has paid her dues several times over and richly deserves her moment of triumph. (Is “Hurt Locker” her best film? Probably not. Her second-best? Not even sure about that.) I wish producer-screenwriter Mark Boal hadn’t complicated Bigelow’s big moment on the stage of the Kodak Theatre by persistently tugging on her elbow, like a kid in a department store who needed to use the john. That was odd.

Did it take a grueling, ¿Quién es más macho? war thriller for a female director to win a pile of Oscars? I know there are counter-arguments — mainly, there just haven’t been that many Oscar-scale movies made by women — but I kind of think, yeah, it did. This may have more to do with the Academy’s recent preference for “serious,” male-coded film genres than with simplistic sexual discrimination. Hollywood legend Joseph L. Mankiewicz won back-to-back writing and directing Oscars in 1950 and 1951 for “A Letter to Three Wives” and “All About Eve,” but it’s difficult to imagine such female-centric movies garnering those kinds of honors today.

Taking the longer view, this year’s Oscar campaign and its conclusion offered some crucial flashes of insight into how the Academy works in the 21st century, which is a whole lot different from the way it used to work. Although this goes against nearly everything I believe about life on Planet Earth, I have concluded that Academy voters as a group are less cynical and calculated than I thought — but also that there is a conflict or schism between the membership and the needs and desires of the Academy’s leadership, or at least its image-management and P.R. teams.

I exchanged e-mails late on Sunday night with a critical colleague, one who’d made the same misguided assumptions that I had about the inevitable victory of “Avatar,” notwithstanding the accolades heaped upon “Hurt Locker” by every critics’ group and industry trade organization. Our fundamental error, we concluded, lay in believing that after several years of victories by mid-budget Indiewood pictures the Academy’s collective thinking, and voting behavior, would at some point return to “normal.” What we meant by normal, of course, was an ingrained institutional preference for big-budget spectacle. But that old normal is dead, and here’s the new normal: Hollywood’s central trade group doesn’t like its own movies that much.

Allow me to quote an esteemed expert: “One thing that’s become clear is that the film industry feels no confidence about the cultural significance of its own products. Hollywood’s self-appointed division of self-importance, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, passed up the chance to honor one of the most ambitious and successful films the American movie factories have ever made in order to hand out hardware to a mid-budget, semi-independent production made in Jordan without movie stars.”

OK, the expert is not all that esteemed. It’s me, and other than replacing “India” with “Jordan,” that’s taken verbatim from the article I wrote last year about the Oscar victory of “Slumdog Millionaire” and the shunning of “The Dark Knight.” If anything, the contrast is even starker this time around. “Avatar” is, of course, a much bigger hit than TDK, and its use of motion-capture technology and 3-D clearly points toward the Hollywood future. “The Hurt Locker” is a genuine indie production, financed and made entirely outside the studio system, which grossed less than $15 million in the United States.

Comparing different eras of financial and cinematic history is rife with pitfalls, but that clearly makes “Hurt Locker” the lowest-grossing best-picture winner in Oscar history. (No. 2 is probably “The Last Emperor” from 1987, but when you adjust for inflation, Bernardo Bertolucci’s costume drama made almost three times as much money as Bigelow’s war epic.) It’s delicious and strange and at least potentially ironic that this happened in the year when the Academy expanded the best-picture category from five to 10 nominees, in an evident effort to make the competition more commercial and more attractive to mainstream audiences.

Honestly, the only conclusion I can draw is that Academy members are voting with their hearts. Who’da thunk it? Maybe an earlier generation of Oscar voters was more persuaded by box-office numbers, mass popularity and marketing muscle — or was simply more in tune with mass taste — but they evidently don’t give a damn about those things now. Personally, I’d have ranked a couple of other nominees above “Hurt Locker” — definitely “A Serious Man,” maybe “An Education” — but it’s an idiosyncratic film made by a genuine visionary. Even setting aside the history-making element of this vote (which was surely a consideration) it’s a respectable choice.

Now, the Academy brass, especially its marketing mavens and the shepherds of its lucrative contract with ABC, may take a more jaundiced view of the membership’s sudden attack of integrity and independence. Oscar’s long relationship with the wider moviegoing public has always been tempestuous, but both as a television franchise and a touchstone of cultural relevance, the Academy Awards cannot afford to be seen as some elitist, out-of-touch coastal bastion of indieness. If we allowed ABC execs a free spin in the time machine, and a chance to replace the last four or five years’ worth of Oscar-winners with movies heartland consumers actually paid to watch, they’d take it in a heartbeat.

Still, at least in terms of water-cooler controversy, this year’s Oscars were largely successful. Mind you, the telecast was a misbegotten mishmash, and the toxic, unfunny repartee of Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin made Hugh Jackman’s 2009 song-and-dance numbers look like the height of showbiz professionalism. But viewership was up, reaching the best numbers since the “Crash on Brokeback Mountain” showdown of 2006, and the huge roster of nominated films yielded contradictory but complementary results: Multiple nominations for hugely popular films, and an underdog victory. A lifetime achievement award for Jeff “The Dude” Bridges (let’s be honest; that’s what it was), and shocking proof that Sandra Bullock is not just a human being but a funny, warm and generous-spirited one as well.

But the repercussions of “The Hurt Locker’s” victory over “Avatar” go well beyond Kathryn Bigelow’s historic breakthrough, and well beyond questions of which movie you or I like better, or which one made more money. It’s another salvo in Hollywood’s peculiar, long-running war against itself, a war unlikely to have any winners.

So along with the predictable passel of nominations (nine apiece) for James Cameron’s “Avatar” and ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” — and I’m calling the divorce settlement here and now: Jim gets best picture; Kath gets best director — the Academy spread the love in all directions. Disney/Pixar’s “Up” was nominated for both best picture and animated feature. The family-football-Sandra Bullock vehicle “The Blind Side,” which has made a ton of money while leaving bicoastal critics in glycemic shock, also got multiple nominations. Lee Daniels’ “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” got a best-picture nod along with two major acting nominations. The exquisite British female-coming-of-age film “An Education” was nominated for best picture, in a mild surprise, alongside a fully expected best-actress nomination for its irresistible ingénue star, Carey Mulligan.

In garnering best-picture and best-director nominations for his unspellable and borderline-unwatchable World War II pastiche, Quentin Tarantino becomes this year’s winner of the Martin Scorsese Way Too Late award, handed out annually to a director whose more worthwhile work has been largely ignored by the Academy. (Q.T. shared a screenwriting Oscar for “Pulp Fiction” in ’95.) In other news, it’s mighty peculiar that hardcore New Yorkers like Joel and Ethan Coen have become beloved figures in Hollywood, but there can no longer be any doubt. Their brilliant black-comic fable “A Serious Man” — a movie that gleefully and maliciously embraces the old cliché about being “too Jewish” for mainstream America — got a well-deserved nomination. But that surely wasn’t the big surprise among the gang of 10.

In a dinner conversation with critics last week at Sundance, we all agreed that one film among the best-picture nominees would be something nobody had expected. I remember a few possibilities mentioned: Wes Anderson’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Pedro Almodóvar’s “Broken Embraces,” Steven Soderbergh’s “The Informant!” But of course once we’d mentioned them, they weren’t unexpected anymore, were they? Nobody brought up “District 9,” the sci-fi action-allegory made by South African expat Neill Blomkamp under Peter Jackson’s production aegis, which became a surprise late-summer hit. (Dept. of complicated Hollywood dis: The movie made by Jackson’s little-known protégé gets an Academy nod, while Jackson’s own prestige production, “The Lovely Bones,” pointedly does not.)

This year’s acting nominations ran remarkably true to form, leaving all the favorites in place: George Clooney and Meryl Streep in the leading roles; Stanley Tucci and Christoph Waltz fighting it out for the evil-guy supporting actor prize, and Mo’Nique all by herself, vacuuming some shelf space in the den for that statuette. Yes, I can hear the grumbling from the cinephile margins: Clooney was better in “Fantastic Mr. Fox” than he was in “Up in the Air”; Penélope Cruz was way, way better in “Broken Embraces” than she was in the musical megaflop “Nine”; the year’s best female performance, given by Tilda Swinton in French director Érick Zonca’s “Julia,” was never even on the Academy’s radar. Sure, yes, I agree on all counts. But when Zonca’s movies start showing up on the Oscar telecast, winning Oscars, it won’t be on NBC or ABC or A&E or any other TV network; it’ll be Web-streamed live from the back room of a Hollywood Boulevard liquor store in the middle of the night. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! That’ll be cool in kind of a different way.

I’ll consider the more niche-oriented nominations in due course, but my initial reaction is that the Academy has now avoided total disgrace in the foreign-language and documentary categories for two years running, which is an all-time record. “The Cove” and “Food, Inc.” were obvious documentary nominees, but it’s a wonderful surprise to see Anders Østergaard’s “Burma VJ” on the list. A thrilling and inspiring film largely shot by anonymous contributors inside Myanmar, it documents the doomed popular uprising against the Burmese military junta in 2007 — truly a one-of-a-kind viewing experience. It’s true that French New Wave foremother Agnès Varda’s delightful, autobiographical “The Beaches of Agnès” was left out, but you can’t call that a shocker.

Instead of the customary blend of cynical and/or sentimental foreign-language glop, this year’s Academy list includes at least two films, Michael Haneke’s “The White Ribbon” and Jacques Audiard’s still-unreleased “A Prophet,” that are clearly among 2009′s finest examples of world cinema. (I still haven’t seen the Israeli-Palestinian collaborative project “Ajami,” but I hear it’s terrific too.) Any lingering controversies in this category, such as the absence of Italian director Paolo Sorrentino’s explosive “Il Divo” or Korean director Bong Joon-ho’s “Mother,” predate Tuesday’s announcement by weeks or months.

“Paranormal Activity” took this year’s Blair Witch Memorial Award for viral-marketed zero-budget hit — grossing well over $100 million to date — and “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” has defied the film industry’s cumulative demographic and marketing wisdom to the tune of $40 million or so. If the major studios’ Indiewood specialty arms are dead or dying, old-fashioned film-festival acquisitions suddenly look like good business again.

My problem, which may be strictly my own, is that I found a lot of this year’s indie hits to be predictable, formulaic and fundamentally uninteresting. The top-grossing foreign-language film of 2009, to date, is “Coco Before Chanel,” a movie I saw and declined to review because it bored me too much. (Anne Fontaine is one of my favorite French directors, but I thought she was poorly matched to star Audrey Tautou and the orthodox biopic material.) Pedro Almodóvar‘s movie-movie noir “Broken Embraces” may wind up giving Fontaine’s film a run for the money, but while I found many of the individual elements in “Broken Embraces” beautiful — the photography, the seriocomic tone, the central performances of Penélope Cruz and Lluís Homar — it never congealed into a satisfying whole. (I’ve been told to see it again, and I plan to.)

One major foreign release still lies ahead: Michael Haneke’s austere black-and-white period piece “The White Ribbon,” already winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes and the best-film and best-director prizes at the European Film Awards. While it’s a typically dark and enigmatic Haneke work that will surely attract some big-city viewers, it lacks the contemporary setting and the Lynchian combination of violence and mystery that made his “Caché” a surprise hit a few holiday seasons back.

One imported hit that I think is being oddly dismissed by so-called serious critics is Lone Scherfig’s “An Education,” a pitch-perfect pre-feminist coming-of-age fable that ought to make Carey Mulligan a movie star. It struck me as a lovely film with a depth of moral seriousness that’s partly masked by its sets, costumes and charm — and I’m afraid that even in the year of Kathryn Bigelow‘s unexpected resurgence, “An Education” is the victim of some latent sexism.

As for Bigelow’s “Hurt Locker,” anointed by critics’ groups from coast to coast as an Oscar front-runner, uh … how can I put this? I liked it. I’m a Bigelow fan from way back to “Near Dark.” Way worse things could happen than to see her on the stage of the Kodak Theatre clutching a statuette (and looking fabulous while her ex-husband glowers in the audience) come March. But “The Hurt Locker” just doesn’t speak to me the way the films on this list do. It was terrific, visceral cinema — but I don’t treasure the experience of seeing it, or yearn to repeat it. And let’s face it: While the acting was excellent, the film’s dialogue, what little there was of it, was Michael Bay-grade awful.

So what about the movies I did like? From the Hollywood-financial point of view, it’s a whole lotta nothing. Only two movies on my list grossed more than $1 million in the United States — and only one of those made it past $2 million. I’ve got two films by American directors, only one of them made in the U.S. I swear, none of this was deliberate. I’m not consciously trying to come off like that snotty, unshaven alt-weekly critic from 1989, talking up Balkan-dialect movies nobody but him has ever seen. (I wasn’t even that guy in 1989, or not exactly.)

I do think, however, that the aesthetic conservatism that dominates American cinema at the moment — expressed on the indie fringes by a talky, unadventurous and fatally dull strain of neorealism — has taken its toll on me. I’m like a junkie GI who’s come home from Saigon and discovered to his dismay that the shit on the streets just ain’t strong enough, man! Screw these movies where people with bad haircuts sit around and drone on about their relationships, humorously or otherwise! I want Filipina transgender hookers, imitation mid-’60s crime flicks, opaque Argentine class warfare, mean-spirited Jewish fables and the completely inappropriate glorification of violent British convicts! And here they are.

Seriously, though — I didn’t put any movies on this list because I respected them. Fuck that for a game of darts, as my late Uncle Liam said on many occasions. These are the movies that dazzled me this year, that disoriented me and shifted my reality prism and messed with my head. If in most cases hardly anybody else saw them or liked them, if the great humming and coughing steamroller of defective late capitalism squished them flat without even noticing, that is strictly not my fault. Happy happies, everybody. I’ll catch you on the flippety-flop.

“Hunger“ — British visual artist Steve McQueen’s debut feature, about the Bobby Sands-IRA hunger strikes of the early 1980s, is so implausible on so many levels it’s a wonder it works at all. Straddling the boundary between narrative and experimental cinema, between pure visuals and talky drama, between Terrence Malick and, say, Sean O’Casey, “Hunger” is in fact one of the decade’s true breakthroughs. Plus, people on all sides of the Irish-British debate disliked it, which suggests McQueen was doing something right.

“Bronson“ — Another fact-based British drama that isn’t anything like what you’d think when you hear that phrase. Nicolas Winding Refn’s operatic, visionary work about the legendary, ultra-violent English convict who took the name Charlie Bronson shamelessly breaks all the rules and wears a pathological obsession with Kubrick’s “Clockwork Orange” on its sleeve. I shouldn’t rank it remotely this high, but I will anyway.

“Il Divo“ — Rigorous, adventurous and explosive, Paolo Sorrentino’s remarkable film takes the cinematic bravado of Martin Scorsese and the technical wizardry of David Fincher and applies them to the indecipherable story of Giulio Andreotti, the fabled “Black Pope” of 20th-century Italian politics. Part of the dazzling renaissance of Italian cinema, which may look sudden from here but has been brewing for a while. (See “Gomorrah,” below.)

“A Serious Man“ — I blow hot and cold on the Coens, but even their weaker films (e.g., “Burn After Reading,” “The Ladykillers“) reward repeat viewings — and their better films reward them even more. This utterly delicious black-comic Jewish fable, set in a middle-class Midwestern suburb in the ’60s (a place that still carries buried undertones of Eastern European shtetl) is among their funniest and darkest films, both humane and ruthless in a way that’s highly Coen-specific. As the last shot faded to black, I sat up in my seat and said, “Oh my fucking God!” Which is precisely right.

“The White Ribbon” — Michael Haneke’s enigmatic and violent black-and-white yarn, set in rural Germany just before World War I, doesn’t open until Dec. 30. I’ll get to it then in more detail, but as is customary with the chilly Austrian-born director, “The White Ribbon” is a slippery fish. Ostensibly a parable about the roots of fascism, it’s also a tale of faith, punishment, love and the petty cruelties of ordinary life. It’s another of Haneke’s unresolvable shaggy-dog mysteries, and simultaneously the most beautiful, most chilling and most forgiving of them.

“The Limits of Control“ — People I know mostly either loved or hated Jim Jarmusch’s stylish and surprisingly political twist on the ’60s European crime film, driven by Spanish settings, Christopher Doyle’s gorgeous photography and Isaach De Bankolé’s iconic star presence and devastating wardrobe. Seriously, what’s not to like? But then, I don’t think this movie is about its conclusion (which some find dogmatic) or its reiterative-fragments-of-dialogue story. It’s more like a Bach fugue, and it’s about the moments, the silences, the faces and bodies and clothes, the endless cups of coffee. One of the indie pioneer’s best ever.

“Serbis“ — Based on the horrified word of mouth at Cannes in 2008, I didn’t see Filipino director Brillante Mendoza’s heartwarming family saga set in a dead-end porn theater until this year, when it had a very brief Stateside appearance. Last time I depend on gossip from a pack of prudish Europeans! Sure, the Family theater (yuk, yuk) is about the sleaziest place in the world — and the film includes one legendarily disgusting scene — but Mendoza’s portrayal of the struggling family behind it, and the diverse and colorful sex trade it supports, has tremendous lyricism and compassion.

“35 Shots of Rum“ — With virtually no audience outside France, Claire Denis has become that nation’s leading chronicler of social change and dislocation. This hushed, minimalist portrait of an Afro-French father and daughter on the Parisian fringes may be Denis’ loveliest and most challenging film. “35 Shots of Rum” builds slowly toward an enormous emotional payoff, and along the way offers one of the most heartbreaking and unlikely uses of a pop song in film history (the song in question being the Commodores’ “Night Shift”).

“Gomorrah“ — In adapting a nonfiction book by Roberto Saviano about the Camorra (or Neapolitan mafia), Italian director Matteo Garrone draws on his nation’s rich cinematic history for this big-canvas social drama that invokes Antonioni, Fellini and Francis Coppola. A spectacular big-screen accomplishment, whose gorgeous bleakness is well-captured in a brand-new two-disc special edition DVD from the Criterion Collection.

“The Headless Woman“ — Argentine director Lucrecia Martel’s gorgeous and deeply troubling ’70s class-warfare drama was booed at Cannes, which is way beyond ironic given its themes of blind privilege and willful ignorance. Martel tries to break through the language of conventional film and show us how her central character, an upper-middle-class blond woman (María Onetto), lapses into amnesia rather than face the consequences of her own borderline-criminal conduct. Like every other film on this list, “Headless Woman” compels a second viewing — and then compels you to recognize that it’s shown you things you still don’t understand. (Now available on DVD from Strand Releasing.)

Honorable mentions (alphabetical): Lars von Trier’s bloody, beautiful and fatally insane “Antichrist“ established, in case anyone was wondering, that he no longer has an American audience; Andrew Bujalski’s “Beeswax“ was ignored by both the hipster audience that used to like him and the grown-up audience that should; Almodóvar’s “Broken Embraces,” on which see above; Scherfig’s “An Education,” also discussed above; Terry Gilliam’s gorgeous and daring “Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus,” with a wonderful last performance by Heath Ledger; Götz Spielmann’s twisty Euro-noir “Revanche“; Carlos Reygadas’ Mexican-Mennonite adultery drama “Silent Light“; Nina Paley’s irrepressible (and uncopyrighted!) feminist take on the “Ramayana,” “Sita Sings the Blues“; Pablo Larraín’s demented Pinochet-era disco fable “Tony Manero“; Zack Snyder’s brooding, black-comic “Watchmen.”

Check in tomorrow for Andrew O’Hehir’s picks for best movie of the decade.