The Oscar Project #82: The Hurt Locker (2009)

by Chris Marshall:

In 2009, a war film once again won Best Picture, and like all the previous winners, it focuses on a small group of individuals rather than providing any broader context for the events depicted. This time around, our protagonists are members of a bomb squad in Iraq, faced with the extremely dangerous task of defusing IEDs.

We spend an extensive period of time with three different characters, but the true focus of the film is on William James (Jeremy Renner), who takes over as head of the squad when the previous leader (Guy Pearce) is obliterated by a remotely detonated bomb[1]. James seems like a normal enough guy at first, but it soon becomes apparently that there is something a little off about him. It’s as if he cherishes the thrill of his job.

That’s a positive characteristic in many occupations, but when your job entails a significant risk of dying every time you do it, it can be a little unsettling, especially if you are one of the guys with the duty of protecting him. Making matters worse is that James is not much of a communicator, going so far as to remove his headset during one mission.

The Oscar Project #69: The English Patient (1996)

by Chris Marshall:

I spent so much time dreading The English Patient that it became something like a superstitious object. For whatever reason, I had it in my head that it was the worst movie ever made, maybe even worse than The Great Ziegfeld. I guess that had a lot to do with its tone and subject matter, as well as being perhaps the clearest example of Oscar bait in many years. Whatever the reason, I always viewed this film as the last real roadblock of The Oscar Project.

Then I watched it, and strangely enough, it wasn’t as horrible as I had feared. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I liked it, but it was nowhere near the worst Best Picture winner I’ve seen on this journey. The most obvious comparison that came to mind while watching it was Out of Africa. I could recognize why it’s considered a “good movie,” but at the same time, it was the type of film that often fails to capture my interest.

I’ve had a long-running joke with my former (and future) roommate Justin, in which I claim that nobody has ever actually seen The English Patient, and it won the Oscar because all the voters assumed it was probably good but didn’t want to take the time to sit through it. This is a slight exaggeration, of course, but I’d venture a guess that it is probably the least seen Best Picture winner of the last 25 years.

The Oscar Project #66: Schindler's List (1993)

by Chris Marshall:

Steven Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time, and I think it’s unfortunate that, at least in some circles, his contributions to cinema aren’t appreciated to the fullest extent. I think most people enjoy his movies, but he’s not often considered as one of the top “artistic” auteurs in the medium. Perhaps there’s some truth to that, but when you have a filmography like his, it’s impossible not to acknowledge his genius.

I believe this lack of universal respect for his artistry is the main reason why only one of his movies has won Best Picture. He’s considered more of a populist director, and while many of his biggest blockbusters have been nominated, only Schindler’s List took home the top prize, likely because it is an “important” movie in addition to just being a great one. Just to be clear, I am taking nothing away from Schindler’s List; it is brilliant, but I wish his more “fun” films garnered more respect.

Anyway, about the movie. I assume it’s a movie where, even if not everybody has seen it, at least everybody knows what it’s about. It is a holocaust film, yes, but more than that, it’s about a man who dared to take action, at great personal risk, in an attempt to save the lives of more than 1,000 Jews.