Kathryn Bigelow: From TV to Oscar-Nominated Director

Kathryn Bigelow is perhaps best known for her theatrical film work, but she has also dabbled from time to time on the small screen of television.  Continuing with her quest to work on projects that make a difference and have something to say, Kathryn directed several episodes of the ground-breaking television series “Homicide: Life on the Street” (multiple Peabody Award winner and Television Critics Association honoree).  So in honor of a film director who brought her unique talents and perspective to television before it became a trendy thing to do, I chose to share a bit about Kathryn’s latest passion project – the film and Best Picture Oscar nominee, “The Hurt Locker.”

On February 24, 2010, the Truman National Security Project hosted a special presentation and screening with a select panel of guests to discuss the significance and impact of the film “The Hurt Locker.”  Attending the panel were: Kathryn Bigelow; Mark Boal, screenwriter of “The Hurt Locker”; Christine Pelosi, member of the Democratic National Committee; Paul Clark, retired Air Force officer and former White House representative; Drew Sloan, member of the Truman National Security Project and retired U.S. Army Captain who fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan; Jim O’Neil, Executive Director of the EOD memorial and former demolitions technician; and Frank McAdams, also a war veteran and current USC faculty member.

With such an extensive panel of vastly different perspectives and experience, it was intriguing to find out, not only about the genesis of the film, but also how it sheds light on the lives of the individuals that the film so vividly and humanely portrays.

When asked how the “Hurt Locker” story was initially conceived, Kathryn Bigelow credited the story as originating with Mark Boal, a writer who had been a journalist embedded with an EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) unit in Iraq during the winter of 2004.  As the audience looked in askance at him, Mark Boal humorously quipped, “Everyone has their own version of how they broke into Hollywood, I had to go to a f***ing war zone!”

After the laughter died down, and on a more serious note, Mark explained that while he was embedded in Iraq with an EOD unit, that a typical 3-men bomb squad had an average of 10-15 IED (improvised explosive device) calls in a 24 hours period. He said, “Just the sheer number of bombs.  . . these were incredibly gutsy guys, highly trained, into their jobs, wanting to do the very best they could – yet there are just so many bombs.  The war had boiled down to running around the city trying to find all the IEDs.  I hadn’t quite realized until I got there that this was the subject of the war: it was a war of bombs and this war did not have a frontline tactically.  So these bombs increasingly became with methodology of terror and bomb disarmament became the key tactical response. I was really struck just by how totally overwhelming it was.” And because the Iraq war has become the “war of bombs,” demolition squads were thrust to the forefront of this particular war.

When asked about the significance of wanting to illuminate the “human cost” of the war, Kathryn said, “I thought it was interesting. The fact that these men arguably have the most dangerous job in the world — and it is an extremely challenged situation.  From my perspective as a film maker and looking at this particular conflict in terms of the human cost — that was very, very moving to me.” Because it is the most dangerous job in the world, it is in one word: hellish.  Kathryn further shared that she just wanted to try to capture the chaos and tragedy of the conflict, as well as promote and engage in a meaningful debate regarding this unpopular war.

Looking at how “The Hurt Locker” depicted this new battlefield technique and how it matched up with the reality of demolition work in Iraq, retired Air Force officer Paul Clark stated that because IEDs are so readily available that this has become the signature weapon of the war.  There are literally hundreds of unexploded artillery that has been simply left in Iraq. Because of its ready availability, the abandoned weaponry is harvested for terrorist campaigns; thus forcing the U.S. military to develop a counter-insurgency campaign that consists of bomb squads working to prevent deaths.  Mr. Clark also explained that, “We came to the conclusion that the military system as a whole had to have that resolution — that we should protect the civilian population.  That is the primary goal and that’s what we see now in Iraq — and the same idea is now in Afghanistan where IEDs are showing up.” Thus, because so much undetonated artillery has been left behind, those unexploded bombs have become the key weapons of the war after the war and the U.S. military’s role is focused on counter-insurgency work in order to protect civilian lives.

When asked what it was like in the mind of somebody who has done this type of demolition work, Jim O’Neil shared from his own personal experience that “these guys all have something in common:  it’s a commitment to a mission and purpose.  It’s a passion for the job and it’s the compassion that is required for a guy or a woman to put on that bomb suit and willingly walk that line towards an uncertain future – and probably a future that is either going to result in death or a very serious injury.  To me, that takes a very special person.  It is a little bit different than being in the regular military, as the EOD guy knows what is waiting for him, even though he doesn’t know how it’s going to be built, he doesn’t know how many of them there are, and he doesn’t know the exact scenario – so it takes a person who is exceptional.  There is no greater love than what is inside a EOD tech because he or she is willing to take that walk and sacrifice theirself to save another person.”

Mr. O’Neil further shared that when he watched the film “The Hurt Locker,” that “one of the elements that really struck me in the movie was that war is a drug. Think about it in terms of when you’re over there you actually feel like you’re making a difference.  One of things I noticed about this movie is there are really no politics involved in this movie.  This is simply a movie about soldiers doing a soldier’s job – and it is amazingly sensitive.  The purpose you have when you’re the ‘tip of the spear’ — when you’re in Afghanistan or Iraq — you believe in what you’re doing, even if people back home don’t quite understand.  You feel like you really matter.”

When asked how “The Hurt Locker” got past the war-fatigue or clutter of all the other war films that are out there, Kathryn explained that from her point of view, “We certainly were not going to wait until the war ended because that could have been several lifetimes.  I think we [she and Mark] both felt so strongly about this project and we basically were undeterred by the other films.  Quite honestly, I felt that there was something so specific about this movie being the ‘tip of the spear’ — that EOD was at the heart of this particular conflict.  There were very specific assumptions that we were exploring and examining and that it really separated this particular project from anything that I was aware of, and also just to the general public.  Certainly, speaking for myself, nobody understood that this conflict has no front — no rear.  So being able to kind of examine it through the eyes of this particular solider — looking at this conflict as a character study became very, very important to distinguish it from whatever was out – from the Iraq-fatigue, whatever you call it. And, I was determined.” Kathryn felt strongly that focusing on the ‘tip of the spear’ story was inherently compelling — and she really wanted to address the issue of:  what does victory mean in this particular conflict?

Screenwriter Mark Boal also explained that “The notion that people don’t care about the war is totally very, very wrong. I think people really do care. But there’s a difference between caring about it and convincing a studio to market a film. It was the film critics that pushed the movie out into the culture and, without the support of those people, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.” Mark too shared Kathryn’s compulsion to emphasize the importance of separating the story of the warrior from the story of the war.

Trying to tie the film back to whether it was an accurate portrayal of what a soldier would go through, Drew Sloan volunteered, “I think one thing that the movie captured very well was the sheer intensity of moments of combat.  Most tours are a year long, during which time probably only 1-5% of that time is like ‘game on.’  The rest of the time is you’re just kind of hanging out.  I thought the movie did a very nice job of really being realistic.  The way the streets look and the trash — how that made my heart palpitate a little bit, because trash over there, it hides so much.  And that really is what an IED is all about.  An IED is all about being hidden so people who are superior to you in terms of technology don’t see it and then all of the sudden – bam!  And there’s nobody there to fight against.  There’s nobody there.  It’s what really kind of makes the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan so awful in a lot of ways.  You can see the long term effects of that:  a year of not knowing when you’re going to get attacked.  And I think that right there is what this movie did.  It captured the sheer intensity of moments.”

Also nicely captured and portrayed in the film was the unspoken emotion.  Mark Boal explained that in writing the screenplay, he felt that action provokes emotion.  Thus, it was a deliberate attempt to be naturalistic — to make dialogue as real as possible.  Kathryn also shared that in producing and directing the film, she looked at it as, “I just came to realize how inherently dramatic just a day in the life of a bomb tech was.  And realizing that the silence was almost as profound as the detonation and those sequences really required a kind of cadence and a kind of resonance.  There was a tremendous amount of anticipation once you went through that opening sequence which was almost designed so that it educated the audience.  That was the method by which you would understand what a day in the life of a bomb tech really was.  And I think the silence is something so critical in this profession.  I mean, these are individuals who have only seconds to make a tremendous amount of decisions under extreme pressure – at any moment someone could call in a sniper’s strike.  So it is not just the problem in front of them in the ground. I was just trying to give the audience that kind of understanding.  That was beautifully crafted in the screenplay – the rhythm and cadence.  The silence became as important as the sound.”

Kathryn further elaborated, that the film was “an opportunity to use film as social commentary — an opportunity to explore this conflict — to look at it through the eyes of the character, through experiences of the soldiers, to invite the audience into a day over there, to try to bring the war home.  I think that was something that we both felt very strongly about.”

Mark also stated that, when comparing a journalist’s perspective to a soldier’s perspective of the war, that it was impossible to portray.  He could not even begin to describe it as it would be a pale imitation.  Thus, “The Hurt Locker” was intended to be an exploration of what makes the EOD team tick and to make them as humanistic as possible.

Finally, in response to the question whether the film should be viewed as a political-film, Mark explained that “The Hurt Locker” is first and foremost a work of art.  But he acknowledged that the film is clearly political because it deals with a political subject – just not with a capital “P.”  He also explained that because of the events of 9/11, he is much more attune to the people involved – the “human cost.”  Thus, when he wrote “The Hurt Locker” and because modern day news is such a black-hole, the film was to be a way to show people what it is really like over there.  The film would take on the role that journalism used to serve.  Kathryn added that it was not their intent to use the film strictly as social commentary, but really it was intended to bring the war home on a human level.  Drew Sloane interjected that it was key to remember that this is not just a movie; that there are soldiers going through this right now.  To which Jim O’Niel shared that, in 2009 alone, 16 bomb technicians lost their lives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are true “warriors” — they are doing something they feel that matters.  And Kathryn summed it all up with that it was her intent that “The Hurt Locker” invite a debate and dialogue and a quest for resolution so this conflict so that it is never abandoned. Thus, the purpose of the film was not to emphasize the polar opposite viewpoints, but to bridge the gap with understanding of the people who do volunteer for this heroic work – to serve and protect in other nations.  It is not about who is right or not, but focuses on service to help others at personal risk and cost – it is perhaps the perfect example of pure altruism.

After hearing all these remarkable viewpoints on a film that is credited with reawakening the movie-going and television audiences to the plight of those still suffering in the war zones, it is a privilege to honor and showcase Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal’s astounding film “The Hurt Locker.”  May it inspire another generation of film and television writers to share more of these extraordinary stories of the men and women to voluntarily serve our nation and the entire global community in order to make the world a little safer for us all.

Related article:

http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/03/01/kathryn-bigelow-from-tv-to-oscar-nominated-director/

Remembering and Celebrating the Film “Moon”

Why the indie film “Moon” is perhaps the best sci-fi film of 2009 that no one has heard of and puts several bigger sci-fi films to shame

In a year with so many other bigger and splashier sci-fi films overshadowing it, the film “Moon” deserves to be remembered and celebrated for its clever ingenuity. Preying upon every sci-fi buffs fear that this was going to be a remake of the sci-fi classic “2001: A Space Odyssey,” it surprised us all with several delightful twists and turned out to be one of the most sophisticated sci-fi films ever seen.

So what happened with “Moon”? Why did it launch in a year chalked full of superb sci-fi films and yet barely registered on the radar, while films like “Avatar,” “District 9” and even “Terminator Salvation” all went on to make obscene amounts of money at the box office?

Using the 9-prong argument utilized in my recent article analyzing why I thought “District 9” deserved to win the Oscar for Best Picture more than “Avatar,” the following is an analysis of what differentiated “Moon” from its peers.

Profits

Whereas “Avatar” earned in excess of $1.9 billion and “District 9” earned over $204 million, “Moon” grossed only $7 million world-wide. It is hard to fathom exactly why “Moon” did not tickle the fancy bone of the movie-goers. But it can be attributed to several possibilities, such as: too much competition, lack of marketing, no identifiable big names attached to it, no source of visible conflict to drive the story, or even just a lack of interest as there was no “hook” to draw the audience in. Unlike “District 9” or “Avatar” which had visible aliens in all their marketing materials, “Moon” had nothing for the audience to latch onto. It felt a bit too ambiguous to see a poster of a man in a space-suit standing on a white round spiral. Perhaps there was confusion as to whether the film was a fictionalized account of a true story. Nothing alienates (pun intended) an audience faster than the notion that a film may be a documentary — or just as off-putting can be a film based on a true story. Additionally, the tagline was not illuminating or helpful, “950,000 Miles from Home, the Hardest Thing to Face is Yourself.” While absolutely accurate, this bleak description gave the impression of a story about a solitary existence in a remote locale. No one could quite figure out what this film was about and thus stayed away.

Realism

In an area in which it excelled, “Moon” felt very real. It looked and appeared like it was entirely possible that there was a man actually living on the moon. This concept is not entirely impossible for we certainly have put astronauts on the moon and we have been looking for years to find a way to exploit any resources the moon may offer. It was helpful that writers Duncan Jones and Nathan Parker came up with something that the people of Earth needed so much that we had a reason to put a man on the moon for an extended period of time. Using much of the technology currently available today with only modest enhancements, the film felt like a realistic version of what a space station on the moon would look like, as well as populating it with advanced computer assistance that would be needed if we were to exploit the moon’s resources. Thus, the film was immediately relatable and believable. So, in realism, “Moon” simply excelled. It took our visions of the future and made it feel real enough — like it was happening today.

Scope of Story

As far as scope goes, “Moon” cannot quite compete with either “District 9” or “Avatar” because “Avatar” created a whole new world to utilize as the backdrop for its sweeping story and “District 9” used the city of Johannesburg as its canvas for its film. But “Moon,” well, its story was isolated to space station on the moon and its few outlying buildings. It felt nearly myopic in how narrow a scope “Moon” chose to embody. But perhaps its strength lies in staying so tightly-focused and not choosing to distract the viewer with a wide array of locales.

Name Recognition

Without the big names of James Cameron and Peter Jackson splashed across billboards and posters, “Moon” was content to advertise itself on its own merits. Unfortunately, it was then just as easy to ignore. Sam Rockwell is not an immediately recognizable actor. But then, neither was Sharlto Copley in “District 9.” However, in “District 9’s” case, there is no denying that adding the words “Peter Jackson Presents” on its marketing posters was a huge enticement for sci-fi fans everywhere. Even though no one knew exactly what “District 9” was about, everyone assumed that if Peter Jackson was producing, it must be a film to go see. “Moon,” on the other hand languished in its anonymity.

Expediency

In an area of commonality, “Moon” like “District 9” was not a film that anyone really had any heads-up that it was looming on the horizon. “Moon” had made a name for itself at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2009, but by the time it was released in June 2009, six months had passed and there was simply no push that this was a film that everyone must see. While “Moon” did not take 10 years to make like “Avatar,” without any anticipation to precede it, it did not matter if it took years or months to film. In fact, it was filmed in a record 33 days. So, in terms of expediency, it was one of the fastest film projects ever.

Waiting for Technology

“Moon” also did not wait on any developing technology before launching right into filming. Once the idea germinated and the financing was secured, it was rapidly brought to fruition in order to capitalize on the increasing interest in sci-fi films. There was simply no hesitation. We can only applaud such rapid development.

Love Story

While not as obvious as the love stories offered in “Avatar” and “District 9,” “Moon” had its own love story that was a central part of the film. Sam Bell was desperately in love with his wife and literally counting down the days until he had completed his 3 year assignment in order to get back to her. It was one of the core things that kept him motivated and inspired to complete his task and get back to Earth. Once Sam learned of her death, his desire to return home was moot. He was adrift from what he thought he knew and what he was hoping to come home to. So “Moon” offered no less of a key love story that drove the characters and storyline. For love is one of the most powerful motivators in the universe and, even when you are completely alone, it inspires us to pursue life with passion.

Portrayal of Physical Disability

Despite not being immediately obvious, there were two very distinguishable disabilities portrayed in “Moon.” Like Jake Sully who was confined to a wheelchair in “Avatar” or Wikus who was slowly turning into one of the alien prawns in “District 9,” Sam was also afflicted with a physical disability: he was a clone. Sam was not initially aware of that pivotal fact, but once another clone rescued him from his rover crash; it became obvious that he was a clone. While this may not be perceived as a classic disability, it did limit Sam’s ability to live a “normal” life. For not only did he have a built-in shelf-life (a limit of 3 years before his body disintegrated), he was also handicapped by the memories of someone else and feelings for a life that was never his – a family that was not his own – a love he would never go home to. Thus, he was disabled on an emotional level because he had become so dependent upon the implanted memories that he could no longer distinguish his reality from the fantasy. He was not able to establish his own self-identity and pursue a live he would have chosen. His sense of self-identify was crippled. However, “Moon” did nicely portray Sam’s acceptance of the fact he was a clone and how he chose to deal with his revealed disabilities. But there is no denying that he was physically and emotionally handicapped.

Corporate Greed

“Moon” like “Avatar” and “District 9” was all about how corporate greed destroyed people’s lives in order to pursue their own profits and agenda. In “Avatar,” it was about securing the single largest supply of unobtanium. In “District 9,” it was about finding a way to use the technologically-advanced alien weaponry. And, in “Moon,” it was all about harvesting helium-3. In all three films, human life was expendable to the greedy desires of corporations.

So after looking at the nine categories that helped distinguish differences in “Avatar” and “District 9,” there are clearly many areas of similarity between the 3 films. So what were the key differences that may have prevented “Moon” from becoming a serious Oscar contender? Turning to three more categories the differences become a bit more obvious:

Aliens

From the start, it was glaringly obvious that “Moon” had no aliens. Whereas “Avatar” and “District 9” relied heavily on introducing and captivating the audience with new alien life, “Moon” was ultimately the story about one man – albeit, the various cloned versions of one man, but still one man. Without the wonder of an alien race there perhaps was not enough to draw in and retain an audience’s interest.

Weaponry

Another area of significant difference was the lack of weaponry in “Moon.” Unlike “District 9” or “Avatar,” there were not grand explosions to dazzle the audience. There was no “shock and awe” campaign or heroic maneuvers using advanced alien technology. Instead, “Moon” relied on the power of the mind to entrance its audience. It was all about the choices that Sam made when he had no knowledge he was a clone and how he reacted to it once he did. But choices are never as mesmerizing as the brilliant display of firepower and weaponry.

Psychological Exploration

In all three films, there was a strong psychological aspect that was the under-current of the story. In “Avatar,” Jake had been seduced by the beauty and freedom of the Na’vi and literally agreed to give up his human existence in order to become one of them. It was a psychological study of body dysmorphia at its finest. But that was a subtle psychological aspect that went unnoticed by many of the movie-going audience. In “District 9,” it was clear from the start that Wikus agonized over his physical transformation into a prawn and it haunted him as he learned to live with it. But in “Moon,” the entire film was an exploration of psychology. From the moment we first saw that Sam was living entirely alone on the moon, we wondered how he could bear it; and as the film unfolded, we saw the extreme hardship such forced-isolation had on him and his psyche. Then, as it was discovered that he was not alone, that he was a clone with many copies, and that his life expectancy had an impending expiration date, it was all about the psychological effects those revelations had on him. It was a film entirely about how a person copes with loneliness and the lack of identity. For in “Moon,” they explored what is identity: Who are we? What is it to be human? Are we who we define ourselves or are we shaped by the environment and circumstances of our lives? Can a clone ever be an “original”? Can it establish its own identity? Does a clone have a right to its own identity and life? These were all very thought-provoking and intense questions. Perhaps it was simply too much for the average movie-goers’ mind to absorb.

Conclusion

For the average sci-fi fan, “Moon” was a confection of pure sci-fi at its best. It was set in space, in the future, with technology we do not have today, and it held up a mirror on our society today which we dare not look into but through a lens of fiction. Ask any sci-fi fan who has seen all three films (“Moon,” “District 9,” and “Avatar”) which is their favorite – and they will be conflicted as each film had something fascinating to offer. But when asked which deserves the Oscar for Best Picture, then it becomes clear that “Moon” and “District 9” are more worthy. Then ask why “Moon” did not get the accolades and awards-push that “District 9” did, and that is a much harder question to answer. Suffice it to say, it is probably because people have not seen, let alone heard of, this brilliant sci-fi film. But they should. “Moon” is an extraordinary film that deserves a lot more attention.

“Avatar” vs. “District 9” – In a deeply divisive race, an argument as to why “District 9” deserves the Oscar for Best Picture more than “Avatar” (part 2)

Part 1 can be found at:
http://tinyurl.com/25eggod

To supplement and conclude the arguments raised in last week’s TV Watchtower column, the following are additional reasons why “District 9” is a more Oscar-worthy film than the mega-hit “Avatar.” As a recap, the issues previously discussed in last week’s column were (1) costs v. profits, (2) realism v. fantasy, and (3) micro-story v. epic adventure. Continuing along there are six more issues that address why “District 9” deserves the Best Picture Oscar more than “Avatar.”

Portrayal of Physical Disabilities

Another area which is incendiary, but pivotal, is the significant contrast in how people with disabilities are portrayed in each film. In “District 9,” Wikus found himself turning into a prawn, which was a horrific disability for him. It made him an outcast, potential medical experiment for his own kind, and an oddity amongst the prawns. He was unwelcome everywhere he turned. There is no place for a half-human, half-prawn. He was even more discriminated against than the prawns, as they are at least minimally tolerated. In “Avatar,” while Jake saw himself as less than a man without the use of his legs and being confined to a wheelchair, he was accepted as a valued member of the Marines and the science unit in order to complete the avatar mission. He was treated with equality and welcomed as a useful member. He was not simply tossed aside or hunted down because of his disabilities.

While both Jake and Wikus rejected their disabled status and sought to be free from it, in the end, Wikus accepted his disability and learned to live with it. Jake, in turn, fled his own human body to escape his disability. This sent a distinctly different and prejudicial message about those suffering from physical disabilities. “District 9” showed the horror, denial and then eventual acceptance of Wikus adapting to his new disabled state. Despite not being happy to be converted into one of the prawns, Wikus made the best of his changed-state and modified his life to fit in and adapt – even thought he clearly wanted to be human again, for he still loved his wife. But in the end, he did not reject his own kind in order to fit in with the prawns.

But “Avatar” showed only Jake’s disgust and revulsion for his disabled status. He did not accept his human limitations in the end, and hastily forsook being human to escape his disability and embrace a new life as one of the Na’vi. Thus, “District 9” portrayed a better depiction of living with, not escaping from a disability.

Big Name Stars v. No Name Actors

Striving to keep it real in “District 9,” Neill Blomkamp used virtually unknown actors. It was risky to cast an actor who had only one other small film role before entrusting him to carry a major feature film project. Yet it was a gamble that paid off in a big way. Having an unknown face playing Wikus made it easier to believe that he was a real person stuck in a horrible real-life situation. It kept the viewer linked into the story.

“Avatar” of course took the direct opposite approach and cast several big name and recognizable stars in order to attract an audience. There was Sam Worthington (who had just come off his starring role in “Terminator Salvation”), Sigourney Weaver (a James Cameron favorite from the “Alien” films), Zoe Saldana (made famous for her role as Uhura in “Star Trek”) and Michelle Rodriguez (best known from the television series “Lost”). Every time a new scene started, there was a familiar face for the audience to exclaim at and admire. It did not help keep the audience grounded in the film and the reality that “Avatar” had created; instead, it promptly took the viewer out of that reality.

High Expectations v. No Expectations

Also with “Avatar,” everyone saw it coming. It had been highly publicized since the day it had begun filming. For it was touted to be the next great film from the Oscar Award winning producer James Cameron. It was relying on James Cameron’s hefty reputation to carry it through in order to become a box office success. So, with the James Cameron legacy and promotional machine pushing it in a huge blaze of glory and high expectation, virtually everyone had heard of the film well before its release and it was simply a countdown to the Christmas extravaganza at the box office.

“District 9,” on the other hand, was a film that no one saw coming. Despite coming from Peter Jackson, another Oscar Award winning producer, the name recognition and publicity push just was not there. Instead, the studio elected to focus on a novel grassroots publicity campaign. It screened select scenes before a rabid group of sci-fi fans at Comic-Con one year before its release and let them, along with some strategically and thought-provoking ads, drive the momentum to introduce “District 9” to its audience before its release. Because those mysterious billboard ads and bus bench ads simply read “Humans Only,” no one knew what the film was about. It was simply out of curiosity movie-goers initially checked out the film and word then quickly spread. But even with the tagline “a Peter Jackson film,” it was not a hyped film. It was only because of the grassroots campaign that, once lit, spread like wildfire.

Waiting for Technology v. Waiting on Nothing

Unlike the egomaniacal James Cameron who boasts how he wrote the script within 2 weeks over 10 years ago and had to wait for the technology to develop before he could actually make his dream project; prior to making “District 9,” it was but a tiny story that Neill Blomkamp had previously made a short-film called “Alive in Joburg.” It was not until the financing fell through for the feature film “Halo” that he had been working on with Peter Jackson that Neill and Peter decided to tackle the small story and bring it to a wider audience. There was no waiting about it. They just saw the opportunity and went for it. It did not even deter them that the special effects company they wanted to use was already tied-up working on “Avatar.” No, once Peter Jackson and Neil Blomkamp decide to move forward, they moved with lightening speed. They did not wait over a decade for technology to develop to do the film of their dreams. They took a leap of faith and made a fantastic film — one that is now competing against the gargantum “Avatar,” that cost 10 times as much and took over 10 years to make. “District 9” is indeed the little film that launched itself with the speed many other film makers would envy.

Which had the more realistic love-story?

“District 9” offered us an established loving relationship where Wikus would do ANYTHING to get back to his wife, and who still looked after her despite being separated by the harshest of circumstances.

Whereas, “Avatar” offered a young man seduced by the wonder of a new world and the amazing delights it had to offer. He did not fall in love with Neytiri initially, but only after he realized he wanted to become one of them. Thus, it was hard to distinguish whether he was more in love with the Na’vi-life than with her? After all, Jake assimilated into her world and did not attempt to bring her into his. Was it more an act of love to willingly give up humanity itself and become one of her own kind to be with her?

Both films seemed to rely on the powerful bonds of love that compelled their protagonist to embrace extremes in order to prove their love for the woman of their dreams. Yet Wikus’ love ultimately felt more realistic as he would do anything for the woman he loved, even if it meant being separated from her and watching from afar. Jake’s love of Neytiri felt dependent on his love the world she could provide for him. He did not just want her, he wanted to be one of them and to live amongst them. His love felt more conditional as a result. Thus, Wikus’ unconditional love is much more powerful, real and touching.

Apartheid v. Corporate Greed

Both “Avatar” and “District 9” had strong socio-political messages and they were no-holds barred about it. “District 9” was a thinly-veiled mirror of apartheid in South Africa; and “Avatar” was a not-so-subtle allegory of the destruction of the Amazon and the American Indians all due to corporate greed. The “separate but equal” treatment of the prawns in “District 9” was repulsive and despicable, yet relatable given how vastly different they appeared to us – at least initially. For we later saw, Wikus and Christopher had learned to rely on and trust each other, and in the process, they also seemed to better appreciate one another.

In “Avatar,” it was just the opposite: the Na’vi had no desire to be granted equal status among the humans, they simply wanted to get rid of the humans. The Na’vi were just as discriminatory about excluding humans as the humans were about keeping them separate. It was even more telling that Jake chose to give up his human body in order to live amongst the Na’vi. He did not want to live amongst them as a human. He only wanted to live with them as one of their own kind.

So while neither film really addressed the “separate but equal” treatment as being wholly wrong, they did succinctly address the wrongness of corporate greed. In “District 9,” it was MNU’s desire to get a hold of the alien weaponry and to be able to use it that compelled them to work with the government in the relocation efforts of the prawns. And in “Avatar,” it was the greed of RDA in securing the largest deposit of unobtainium that motivated them to use mercenaries and military personnel in the forced-relocation of the Na’vi. Corporate greed was prevalent in both films and depicted with an equal measure of callous disregard for the well-being of the alien race to be forcibly-relocated.

In “District 9,” there was no resolution to this issue, other than Wikus was able to escape their evil clutches and hopefully evade capture until Christopher Johnson returned to cure him. In “Avatar,” Jake mounted a successful war to eradicate RDA and its military presence from Pandora. But in the end, one was left with the feeling that corporate greed would ultimately strike back at a later date – perhaps in a sequel film. Greed is not something that can be cured, and to this day apartheid still is a cancer we cannot eradicate from our own world, so it is hard to imagine it being cured in a sci-fi realm either.

Conclusion

In sum, both films were equally weighted in their success in generating significant box office revenue and in addressing weighty socio-political issues. But the real differences lie in the categories of: realism, scope of story, portrayal of disabilities, casting of recognizable actors, expectations, timeliness in bringing their stories, and their central love stories. In 7 of the 9 categories, “District 9” was simply the superior film. Accordingly, with so much in its favor, it clearly deserves to win the Oscar. “Avatar” is but a pale shadow in comparison. When looking for a Best Picture, the Academy surely will weigh such considerations and determine that “District 9” is the worthier film and crown it as such.

A controversial opinion, but a sound one. “District 9” simply deserves to be the Best Picture winner of the 2009 Oscar.

“Avatar” vs. “District 9″ – In a deeply divisive race, an argument as to why “District 9” deserves the Oscar for Best Picture more than “Avatar” (part 1)

Posing this very controversial argument, I want to share why “District 9” is more Oscar-worthy than the mega-hit “Avatar.”  Surely, the virtually unknown sci-fi film that was one of the few films to cross over the $200 million mark this past summer deserves a little attention – and as the Producers Guild’s nomination for Best Picture has proven, it is a worthy contender to watch out for during this award season.

 Cost v. Profits 

 Looking first at the numbers, money talks.  “District 9” cost only $30 million to make and then went on to make over $204 million in the world-wide box office ($115 domestically).  That is a return of 6 times what it cost to make.  Any way you look at it that is a phenomenal return on a mere $30 million investment; and with a prestigious PGA nomination and further DVD sales racking up, this profit margin will only continue to rise.

 As for “Avatar,” it cost $237 million to make, plus another $150 million for marketing, and has grossed over $1.6 billion world-wide to date.  That is not a bad return either. But it is only a profit margin of 4 times its cost.  However, given that “Avatar’s” resulting profit margin is over $1 billion, it is not a number to discount.  I cannot imagine that the investors for “Avatar” are displeased with such a modest return.

 So in the money game, both films are providing huge monetary profits for their investors, with “Avatar” edging out “District 9” due to its boffo box office sales.  But it can never be said that “District 9” did not do well, as it is one of a handful of films to ever cross the $200 million mark.

 Realism v. Fantasy

 Looking next at which film was more realistic, “District 9” is hands-down the winner in that category.  Taking a page right out of last year’s Oscar winner’s play-book, “District 9” was filmed in the actual slums of Chiawelo, Soweto in South Africa.  Not only did they film amongst the filth and degradation of the slums, it was filmed simultaneous to the attempted forced-relocation of the Abahlali baseMjondolo in District 6 in Cape Town, South Africa.  Thus, in an effort to make the film as realistic as possible, Neill Blomkamp and Peter Jackson literally filmed what was really occurring in Chiawelo and made a sci-fi film out of it.  They just used CGI aliens in the place of real people who were being relocated.  Thus, the story was a mirrored-reflection of the actual apartheid atrocities and discrimination that had been practiced in South Africa for over 45 years.

 Another element of realism that worked in “District 9’s” favor was its portrayal of the aliens, aka: prawns.  The prawns looked like giant bugs walking on two legs.  They did not speak English or any other human language, so there was a distinct language barrier.  They were also gritty, repulsive and overall disgusting.  These were not the humanoid creatures used to depict aliens in classic and modern sci-fi films.  The prawns looked ALIEN.  It was like having a colony of giant insects living amongst us.  No one wanted to be around them and it felt more natural to have them kept separate and secluded from the rest of the human race.  It was just unfortunate that their spaceship died while hovering right over Johannesburg and they had no where else to go.  Literally no one on Earth wanted them here.

 As for “Avatar,” it went the route of traditional sci-fi and opted to create a brand new world where everything was magnificent and glorious to behold.  Welcome to Pandora where there are mountains that float in the sky, trees grow as tall as skyscrapers, plants glow rainbow colors in the dark, dragons fly through the vast blue skies, and the humanoid inhabitants are a brilliant turquoise blue that stand nearly 10 feet tall.  Everything about this exotic paradise was meant to seduce us into their world and make us fall in love with it.  But it is simply too pretty.  Too good to be true.  It was a fictional world created purely out of CGI in order to fool the audience into thinking that there may just be such a fairy tale place that exists out in the universe.  But as any viewer perfectly knew watching the film, it was clearly not real.  You could simply not believe it.  The Na’vi were too tall, too blue and too pretty.

 In contrast, the slum-ridden background of “District 9” felt all too real.  We have seen just such places on Earth and know that they exist and avoid them at all costs.  This made it harder to distinguish that the prawns were not real, for they look exactly like a larger version of the cockroach you might find crawling out from a crack in your kitchen.

Micro-Story v. Epic Adventure

There was also the scope of the stories explored in “Avatar” and “District 9” that sets them apart. In “District 9,” the story was microscopically-focused on just a few characters: Wikus (the hapless government relocation agent), Christopher Johnson (the prawn that saved him), Wikus’s wife and Wikus’ father-in-law. It was a tale of how the average man got swept up in events beyond his control and how he inadvertently saved an alien race. He had no plan to do so, nor even a desire to do so. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and in order to survive, he was forced to help Christopher Johnson save his race. It was a very narrowly focused story on one man and one alien’s need to rely on each other to survive.

In “Avatar,” there was a larger cast, which comprised of Jake Sully (the marine grunt), Dr. Grace Augustine (the botanist), Trudy (the pilot), Norm (the anthropologist), Colonel Quaritch (the over-zealous Marine bully), Neytiri (the Na’vi princess) and a whole host of other Na’vi. Like in “District 9,” in “Avatar,” our hero was recruited to aid with the relocation of a foreign species in order to placate our own desires.

From the very first moment we saw Jake, we understood that he was in this for himself as he had been promised to have his legs fixed in exchange for taking his dead brother’s place in the avatar program to infiltrate the Na’vi. In “District 9,” Wikus was simply doing his job and, it was only after becoming exposed to a DNA-altering substance, that he became a man out for himself. In “Avatar,” that is all Jake ever was: out for himself. Jake wanted a new life and he used everyone around him to achieve it.

In “District 9,” the last thing Wikus wanted was a new life. He was perfectly content with his life and with being a part of the human race. Whereas Jake seemed to resent being human and, in the end, traded in his frail, puny-human body for the super-sized, Amazonian body of his avatar. In “District 9,” it was about pure survival: Wikus wanted to be human again, and Christopher Johnson wanted to survive to take his son home. In “Avatar,” Jake just wanted to preserve the avatar body and world he had come to love. In scope, “Avatar” was more ambitious. It had more characters, more lush beauty, more weaponry, more explosions, more big theoretical and political ideas to throw about. It was a kitchen-sink film, it had a lot of everything. But in “District 9,” they made do with what they had and kept it simple. It was a story about two men (well, one was a prawn) trying to survive and needing each other to do so. Wikus did not want to save anyone but himself and get back to his wife. Jake ended up striving to save an entire planet from foreign dominion and fighting back at corporate greed.

Try to sum up each film into one sentence and see what you come up with. I will bet that when you do this, you will see how much bigger in scope “Avatar” is than “District 9.” For, in “District 9,” a man was infected with a DNA-altering substance and he worked with an alien to find a cure, which may in turn provided a way for the aliens to return home. In “Avatar,” a man infiltrated an alien world in order to achieve a forced relocation and then became enamored with that life and turned on his human employers. But, in the end, it is simple: Wikus embraced the human-race and Jake rejected the human-race. Wikus wanted to just go home. Jake wanted to build a whole new home. In scope, “Avatar” took on a bigger story and overwhelmed us with its audacity. Whereas, “District 9” kept its story simple and sweet.

LINK to Part 2: http://thetvwatchtower.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/avatar-district-9-movies-oscars/