Richland Chronicle

Issue date: 2/26/10 Section: A&E

What do 2012, Star Trek, Up, Zombieland, Paranormal Activity, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra have in common with each other that this year's Best Picture/Best Director nominees, The Hurt Locker and Avatar, do not?

The answer: I found most of them to be enjoyable, fun, popcorn movies - a chance to relax and let my mind go blank, as I said in Avatar.

Such is not the case with Director Kathryn Bigelow's anti-Iraq war film, The Hurt Locker, which got enough accolades from critics to earn nine Oscar nominations. The film barely grossed $13 million at the box office, yet it's up for Best Picture/Best Director.

Nor did I find it the case with James Cameron's Avatar, which like Bigelow's war movie, reeked of anti-American/anti-war sentiments. The sci-fi epic's greatest storyline flaw that it was as emotionally empty as it was predictable. Yet, it, too, is up for Best Picture/Best Director.

I see movies hoping I will be entertained for a few hours and escape from the real world. I find, however, the older I get, the more I don't want to be pummeled by controversial filmmakers who want to fool the viewer into thinking, "Yes, capitalism really is evil. At least that's what Michael Moore says."

Believe it or not, there are movies out there, based on current events, where directors have successfully left out their two-cents worth.

In the case of 9/11, director Paul Greengrass' gripping United 93 (2006) captured what was happening on both the ground and aboard the ill-fated hijacked flight in real time. By comparison, Oliver Stone for once didn't incorporate his personal opinions about 9/11 in World Trade Center (2006) about two port authority officers trapped under the ruins of the twin towers. United 93, however, only snagged two Oscar nominations. The one for Best Director in 2007 should also have made the list for Best Picture. Stone's World Trade Center, though a box office hit, got zero nominations. Perhaps, because it played out like a disaster TV movie of the week.

I have to wonder if both 9/11 films had blamed former President Bush and other previous administrations for not stopping the nation's worst terrorist attack, would they have gotten the same Oscar-worthy attention as The Hurt Locker andAvatar? After all, controversy sells.

The problem I had with Bigelow's Hurt Locker film is for every scene that made me admire what the bomb disposal experts went through in Iraq, particularly the character Jeremy Renner played, I saw a number of scenes that painted the American troops in a negative light. It's like listening to the good angel on one shoulder telling me to say thank you to the next soldier I see.

Then, there's the devil on my other shoulder feeding me scenes of disenfranchised military men questioning why our government sent them there in the first place. Or shots of ungrateful Iraqi citizens, some of whom could be terrorists, watching with great interest to see if any of our military servicemen will come out alive as they attempt to disarm another roadside bomb.

Then there is Avatar, where, in a futuristic society centuries from now, gun-happy marines, mercenaries and corporate executives from Earth are out to plunder the planet Pandora's precious energy resource. The tall blue-skinned digitized natives must move now or the evil military is going to step in and move them by force.

Don't tell me there aren't people out there who believe the reason American troops were sent to Iraq for Gulf War II was not to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power and keep the country from being overrun by al-Qaida terrorists. They think the reason was so "Dubya" and Vice President Cheney, with the help of Halliburton and that dastardly private military company, Blackwater, could get America's greedy hands on Iraq's oil supply.

I know there is no stopping filmmakers from injecting their personal politics into the movies they make. Bigelow has been quoted saying on IMDB.com that movies are "a great opportunity to comment on the world in which we live."

"Perhaps just because I just came off The Hurt Locker and I'm thinking of the war and I think it's a deplorable situation. It's a great medium in which to speak about that," Bigelow said. "This is a war that cannot be won. Why are we sending troops over there? Well, the only medium I have, the only opportunity I have, is to use film. There will always be issues I care about."

Next, Cameron may do a film about Hiroshima and what happened after America dropped the atomic bombs in 1945 to end World War II. The film will be told from the survivors' perspectives. Somehow, I have a feeling America is going to be the bad guy.

Bigelow and Cameron are entitled to their opinions. That's what makes America great. They should, however, be thankful to even live in a country that allows them to make anti-American films that critics and audiences embrace. If they lived in any other country, movies like The Hurt Locker and Avatar would not be tolerated, much less made.