My review of Bulletproof Salesman, a little-seen doc about a dude who sells luxury armored cars in Iraq, is up on the new and improved Filmcritic.com.

Yeah, it’s been a while.  Blame SXSW and a new job.

Anyway, the highest-grossing (domestic) film starting with the letter “D” (“The” not counting) is, of course, The Dark Knight.  But that’s not what I asked.

The second-highest grossing “D” of all time is…

The Da Vinci Code, which nabbed $217.5 million after bombing at Cannes.

If you count the word “The” as a disqualifier, which was my second question, the new answer is Dances With Wolves, which nabbed $184.2 million twenty years ago, plus a Best Director Oscar for Kevin Costner, who would then spend that credibility on Waterworld, launching a redemption/condmenation cylce that continues to this day.

Eagle-eyed reader Brian guessed The Da Vinci Code and Dr. Suess’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas. This is a tough call.  The “proper” title of that film is kind of hard to lock down.  IMDb, Wikipedia, and Amazon list the film as How the Grinch Stole Christmas and you’ll find posters that simply designate it as The Grinch.  However, IMDb indicates the Dr. Suess version as a “complete” title and the Universal store lists it this way as well.  If you count it, it defintiely wins with $260 million.  But even the site I’m using as my source for the numbers (um, The Numbers) lists the title as How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Let’s start with the heavy hitters.  No, not Evan Williams.  His keynote interview was as boring as it should have been fascinating.  No, the talk (it wasn’t even a keynote, but give him time) that I keep telling everyone about, the one that makes it all worth it (there’s always at least one) was Clay Shirky’s presentation, Monkeys With Internet Access: Sharing, Human Nature, and Digital Data.

Originally it was just called Clay Shirky.  That’s all it said in the schedule.  That’s all it needed to say.  After seeing him on the New Think for Old Publishers panel in 2009 and reading Here Comes Everybody I was ready to suggest a panel called Clay Shirky Is Smarter Than All of Us Put Together.  Go Ahead.  Try to Be Smarter Than Him.  I Dare You. So it was with rather high expectations that I walked into Ballroom D on Saturday morning.

I was not disappointed.

Shirky started out talking about PickupPal, a ride-sharing service that discovered that the key to revolutionizing commuting was to move information, not people.  As in, if I know that you’re going to the exact same destination I am on the same date and time and we live relatively close to one another, that’s valuable, efficiecny-creating information.

Unfortunately, it was deemed “too efficient to be legal,” in Shirky’s words, in Ontario and the bus system, threatened by the loss of revenue, lobbied to have it shut down.  They succeeded.  At first.  The public mobilized and the law making the service illegal was overturned and now everyone (except the bus people, I imagine) is happy.

What Shirky illustrated with this opening salvo is the notion of “jackhammer sharing.”  Sharing that breaks things.

The next illustration had to do with Bibles and the fact that the initial use of the Gutenberg press was to print indulgences, not scripture.  But the same technology that allowed the Catholic Church to keep up with the increasingly high demand for indulgences also allowed Martin Luther to reprint and distribute his 95 Theses attacking the church for those very same indulgences and, as we all know, nothing ever really came of that.

So, explaned Shirky in what became the mantra of the talk, “Abundance breaks more things than scarcity,” which is a sentiment I first started thinking about in the middle of reading Here Comes Everybody, when it occured to me that the laws of economics have not changed with the dawn of the Interwebs.  Money is still money and business is still business. What’s changed is the environment.  Many products that used to be scarce (mostly content) are now abundant.  We know how to make money off of scarcity.  We’re still figuring out how to monetize ubiquity (more on that).

Another interesting turn of phrase that came up was “The medium destroys the message,” in reference to the fact that one artisan desperate to keep the good name (and jobs) of scribes alive after the invention of the printing press had to resort to using a printing press to get his message out in a timely manner.  (In fact, how “a timely manner” is defined is the greatest change most technologies bring about.)

Next, Shirky went into the example that I’ve had the most fun sharing with people, and it’s about the three modes of sharing as outlined in Michael Tomasello’s Why We Cooperate.

First Mode: Imagine you’re walking down the street and someone asks you for money.  This would be sharing of goods.

Second Mode: Same scenario. They ask you to help them cross the street.  This would be sharing of services.

Third Mode: They ask you for directions.  This would be sharing of information.

The feelings we have about these modes of sharing are very different.  The last mode, sharing information, generally makes us feel good because it costs us nothing and provides value for someone else.  Not to mention the social stigma against refusing to give something when it costs you nothing to do so.

This is important because it helps us come up with a better explanation for Napster.

When Napster first came out the hue and cry was that they were enabling the criminal tendencies of youth.  But the above paradigm suggests a completely different scenario.

Used to be if you wanted to listen to my music, I had to give you my copy on CD, tape, vinyl, etc., which meant I didn’t have it anymore (sharing of goods).  Then came the dawn of the mix tape which, while it allowed me to keep my copy, meant I had to make an effort to make you yours (sharing of services).  Finally napster came along and the music itself was nothing more than data that I could share without losing it and without effort (sharing of information).  So, really, it would be downright rude of me not to.

Somewhere in here Shirky posited that Behavior = Motivation + Opportunity.  In all these cases, technology is creating the abundance that provides the opportunity to partake in the human motivation to share.

[In all of this is the presumption of an evolutionary advantage to sharing information.  What interests me at this point, as a side note, is the coevolution of secrets, which have their own survival benefits.]

At this point, Shirky started pointing to more political activism oriented examples like Ushahidi, which created a general solution to information distribution during a crisis from the specific problem of reporting on outbreaks of violence after the Kenyan elections by putting them on a map using crowdsourced intel .

The most inspiring example centered on a group of extremists who were brutalizing women who attended bars in India because they believed it was wrong for women to be out in public on their own.  They did this with impunity.  They declared that on Valentine’s Day, they were going to do it again.  Women could either stay at home and give the extremists what they wanted, or go out and face unimaginable violence.  But one woman found a third solution.

She formed a Facebook group called the Consortium of Pub Going, Loose and Forward Women and mobilized its members (who signed up by the tens of thousands) to send pink panties to the extremist group leader.  This got a lot of attention and, as governments respond better to groups than individuals, they finally took action and arrested the groupmembers and their leader – on Valentine’s Day.

In summation, Shirky said that the old model was doing little things for love and big things for money.  Abundance has broken that, making the new model to do bing things for love.

Nothing opened as strong as I thought it would, which is probably good news for this week’s newbies.

4/2

Wide

CLASH OF THE TITANS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Wow, Harry Hamlin really pulled it together and…oh, no, wait, this is a new guy.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is good.  I’m surprised because for every The Thing, there’s twenty any remake you can think of off the top of your head that sucks.  That having been said, Louis Leterrier is a solid action director.  He won’t make you think, but he will keep you entertained.  Good cast, too: Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Flemyng, Mads Mikkelsen, Nicholas Hoult, Pete Postlethwaite, and Danny Huston.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Originally this was supposed to come out March 26th, but then they decided to make it 3D which, apparently, takes a week to add.  So now it has to vie for space on 3D screens with the second frame of How to Train Your Dragon.  This, however, is a rich person’s problem.  $177mil.

THE LAST SONG

(3/31)

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Man, that Notebook guy sure wrote a lot of books.

WILL IT SUCK?
This is the first time that Nicholas Sparks has had a hand in the screenplay adaptation of one of his novels.  No idea what impact that will have.  Director has done some good TV (Pushing Daisies, Grey’s Anatomy, Weeds).  Greg Kinnear is, you know, Greg Kinnear.  Yeah, I’m not that psyched.

However, this is called Not Without My Daughter 2 in the Philippines, so it has that going for it.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Combining the Miley Cyrus crowd with the Sparks crowd with an inexplicable two-day head start should be successful counterprogramming to a bunch of CG scorpions. $70mil.

TYLER PERRY’S WHY DID I GET MARRIED TOO?

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Finally someone brings back the use of the word “too” in a sequel title.

WILL IT SUCK?
You know by now whether or not you like the Tyler Perry.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
The audiences have already decided that they like the Tyler Perry.  $58mil.

Limited

LEAVES OF GRASS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
A man (Edward Norton) goes to his hometown to investigate the death of his twin brother, only to find out he’s still alive and now they’ll have to figure out how to have them both onscreen at the same time.

WILL IT SUCK?
Well, Roger Ebert sure likes it, given that they quote him three times in the trailer.  But other people seem to like it, too.  The thought of Ed Norton in dual roles is pretty tempting, and Richard Dreyfuss is supposed to knock it out of the park in a supporting role.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
A bit of competition from The Greatest, at least among Susan Sarandon fans (she appears in both) but nothing else in indiewood has this kind of pull.  $9mil.

THE GREATEST

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Boy meets girl (Carey Mulligan).  Boy dies in car crash.  Boy’s family tries to cope with the fact that the girl is now preggers.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is good but not great.  Susan Sarandon and Pierce Brosnan play the parents.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Mulligan is a hot indie property, and while the trailer may not look as fun as Leaves of Grass, this should still be a draw.  $7mil.

THE WARLORDS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Here’s a history lesson.  Jet Li, Andy Lau, and Takeshi Kaneshiro were there for the Tapei Rebellion of the 1860s.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is mixed, but the reuniting of Lau and Kaneshiro for the first time since House of Flying Daggers is enough to get me interested even before you throw Li into the mix.  Not for nothing, but the flick won Best Actor (Jet Li) Best Director, Best Film and five other awards (nominated for a total of 13) at the Hong Kong Film Awards.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Funnily enough, House of Flying Daggers is the last time the arthouse crowd really seemed to care about kung fu.  $1mil.

Next Week: Why didn’t they start combining the leads of the NBC Thursday night comedies sooner?  We could’ve had Harry Anderson and Bill Cosby in, you know, something!

Wonderland acting like Avatar and just refusing to leave the top spot with a take Dr. Wife and I contributed to this weekend and for our trouble got a relatively meh entry into the Burton canon.  Helena Bonham Carter’s big giant head is pretty entertaining, though.  If it got a spin-off where it traveled the country solving crimes, I would watch it.

3/26

Wide

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Kid makes friends with a dragon.  His dragon-killing Viking clan freaks.

WILL IT SUCK?
From the writer/directors of Lilo & Stitch, which, if you’ve never seen it, is actually very good.  Some nice comic voice talent: Jay Baruchel, Kristen Wiig, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, America Ferrara, and Gerard Butler who can be quite funny when he wants to be (see him in Rocknrolla).

Early buzz is very good.  Apparently makes good use of 3D.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Clash of the Titans is an issue, not just because it will draw on some of the same demo, but also because it will (now that they’ve retro-fitted it for 3D) take up a lot of 3D real estate that would otherwise go to this flick’s second frame.  Still, this weekend will give it a nice head start.  $155mil.

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Title pretty much says it all.  John Cusack, Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, and Clark Duke get in a hot tub and go back in time.

WILL IT SUCK?
2/3rds of the writers did Sex Drive.  Kind of nullifies Steve Pink (the underrated Accepted) at the helm.  In spite of an underwhelming early review, the general buzz seems to be positive.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
With better buzz than expected, could be good counterprogramming to Dragon.  $64mil.

Limited

GREENBERG

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Romantic dramedy about an aimless slacker (Ben Stiller) who falls for a musician (Greta Gerwig).

WILL IT SUCK?
I’ve long known that Stiller can carry weightier dramatic fare (check out Permanent Midnight) and in the hands of The Squid and the Whale‘s Noah Baumbach, the results should be interesting.  Co-starring Jennifer Jason Leigh (who has a story credit), Rhys Ifans, and Mark Duplass.  Early buzz is good.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Coming off of The Squid and the Whale, better.  Coming off of Margot at the Wedding, not so much.  $3mil.

CHLOE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Julianne Moore hires Amanda Seyfried to tempt her husband (Liam Neeson) to see if he’s the cheating kind.  When it turns out he is, things take a turn for the really interesting when Seyfried’s advances prove equally effective on Moore.

WILL IT SUCK?
All heterosexual males who read that first part (and I would assume many lesbians) have already made up their minds.  For those of you looking for artistic merit, know that this comes from indie maestro Atom Egoyan and is, according to IMDb users at least, his best film since the astonishing Sweet Hereafter.  Critical response has been a bit more mixed.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
If they do an ad buy on SpikeTV and Maxim, awesome, but I don’t think they will.  $4mil.

THE ECLIPSE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Ciaran Hinds stars as a widower who begins to see ghosts and consults an author (Iben Hjejle) who specializes in the supernatural and is having difficulties of her own with a very alive ex-lover (Aidan Quinn).

WILL IT SUCK?
Mixed notices with audiences taking more of a shine to it than critics.  From writer/director Conor McPherson who, among other things, wrote the criminally underseen I Went Down many years ago.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Flick won’t even catch a break on Google thanks to Twilight.  $750,000.

Next Week: “Release the Sam Worthington!!!“

Alice wins again.  Guess that narrow DVD window is really killing it, huh?

3/26

Wide

THE BOUNTY HUNTER

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Midnight Run if Robert DeNiro and Charles Grodin used to be married, and were Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston.

WILL IT SUCK?
From director Andy Tennant who brought us Hitch and Ever After, yes, but also Fool’s Gold and guess which one this looks more like. By the way, even the music on the Web site sounds like a Midnight Run rip.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Neither Butler nor Aniston are foolproof box office openers, but they’re bigger stars than in any of the romcoms breathing the same air. $78mil.

DIARY OF A WIMPY KID

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Trials and tribulations of a kid in middle school. Based on the popular web-comic-turned-teen-novel-series.

WILL IT SUCK?
From the director of Hotel for Dogs and some 70′s Show and 90210 (reboot) writers.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
How to Train Your Dragon next week isn’t going to help matters. $36mil.

REPO MEN

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Repo! The Genetic Opera without the opera.

WILL IT SUCK?
Most encouraging thing about this is co-writer Eric Garcia (who wrote the novel on which Matchstick Men is based) adapting his own novel with a scribe from House. Cast is good, too: Jude Law, Forest Whitaker, Liev Schreiber, and RZA.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Unless word of mouth really takes off, will get drowned out by second frame of Green Zone, first frame of Bounty Hunter, and How to Train Your Dragon the following week. $48mil.

Limited

THE RUNAWAYS

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Before Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart) loved rock n’ roll, she fronted a groundbreaking all-female punk band that apparently Dakota Fanning was in as well.

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is good after a successful bow at Sundance. Stewart and Fanning are supposed to be great, and Michael Shannon, who co-stars, is supposed to be even better. And you can’t go wrong with Alia Shawkat.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Probably one of the most anticipated indie releases of the year. $24mil.

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
A murder investigation involving a writer and a hacker with the eponymous body art.

WILL IT SUCK?
I read the book this was based on for my book club. Yeah, I’m in a book club. Wanna fight? Anyway, it was a good book, but I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Still, it could make an interesting movie. Early buzz is extremely good.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
I don’t know that it has to do all that well, given that it was a huge hit in its native Sweden and has already spawned two sequels (the novel is the first in a trilogy) and plans for an American remake. But if they really want more dough, the novel’s following should help. $8mil.

HUBBLE 3D

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Some guys go to try to fix a telescope. A really big telescope. In space.

WILL IT SUCK?
If you watch the trailer and just imagine what it would be like to see those images on IMAX in 3D, the fact that the writer/director also did the acclaimed Space Station 3D becomes icing on the cake.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Given that Space Station 3D, released in 2002, is still making money (north of $80 million as of this writing), it’s safe to say this won’t tank. $61mil.

Next Week: Another Dragon movie. But this one actually has dragons in it, thank you very much!

It would be silly to ask what the highest grossing film of all time (U.S.) starting with the letter “D” was (assuming the title can start with “The”).  So I’ll ask, what’s the second highest grossing D movie of all time and what’s the highest grossing D movie if it can’t start with “The”?

I’ll give you a hint; they’re two different movies.

So, when I predicted $207 million for Alice‘s final take, I thought I was being generous.  $200 million plus is, after all, an extraordinary haul for a non-blockbuster season release.  Turns out, I’ll probably end up $100 million shy of it’s final tally given that highest grossing non-sequel weekend and all.

Oh, and I suck at predicting Oscars.

3/12

Wide

GREEN ZONE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
The Iraq Identity

WILL IT SUCK?
It’s Paul Greengrass.  Come on.  When has he ever sucked?  And he’s reteaming with Matt Damon (and adding Jason Isaacs, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan and Brendan Gleeson).  Brian Helgeland (Mystic River, LA Confidential) writes. Early buzz is mixed.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Will have the honor of coming in second to week two of Alice.  $91mil.

REMEMBER ME

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Robert Pattinson in a romantic drama in which he is not undead.

WILL IT SUCK?
From the director of a lot of Sopranos and Sex in the City and one feature (Hollywoodland, which was pretty good).  If Pattinson doesn’t do it for you, Emilie de Ravin, Pierce Brosnan, Chris Cooper, Martha Plimpton, and Lena Olin are also up in here. Early buzz is not so good.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
With She’s Out of My League and Our Family Wedding drawing on an only slightly different demo this week and The Bounty Hunter drawing the romcom crowd the next, this could have trouble, even with R-Patz front and center.  $26mil.

SHE’S OUT OF MY LEAGUE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
If you don’t get it from the title, I don’t know what to tell ya.

WILL IT SUCK?
From the writers of Sex Drive.  That is all.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Sadly, I have a feeling this might be a bit of a breakout hit.  $40mil.

OUR FAMILY WEDDING

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
An African American family and a Latino family try to sort out their differences (well, the fathers mainly) as their son and daughter respectively get married.

WILL IT SUCK?
From the writer/director of The Wood and Brown Sugar, who also wrote the fantastic Talk to Me and co-wrote this…with the writer of King’s Ransom, and the trailer looks more like the latter.  Cast is a mixed bag.  Love Forest Whitaker and America Ferrara.  Carlos Mencia, not so much.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Weekend is too crowded, especially for romcoms.  $22mil.

Limited

MOTHER

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Mother tries to clear her mentally challenged son’s name in a murder investigation.

WILL IT SUCK?
Maestro of the tonal mash-up Bong Joon-Ho (The Host) releases his best-received film since Memories of Murder.  Early buzz is amazing.  Hye-ja Kim, who plays the mother in question, is supposed to be incredible.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Even The Host didn’t do all that well over here.  $1mil.

Next week: Just be thankful they didn’t actually reboot Midnight Run.

These posters were created by the lovely and talented Dr. Wife who, along with me, curses the Academy for requiring us to come up with ten menu items this year.  Five is enough, people!

Yeah.  That’s pretty awful.  And that’s why I said it.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Penelope Cruz – Nine
Vera Farmiga – Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal – Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick – Up in the Air
Mo’Nique – Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire

Will Win: Mo’Nique
Should Win: Mo’Nique

There is no question in any award-giving body’s mind as to who will win this, so let’s concentrate on how to properly spell her name.  It’s Mo’Nique, with a capital “N,” as in the opposite of Less’Nique.

I have never actually seen a person win an Academy award in the last five minutes of a film before Mo’Nique did it in Precious.  It’s a great film already, but her moment makes it unforgettable.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Matt Damon – Invictus
Woody Harrelson – The Messenger
Christopher Plummer – The Last Station
Stanley Tucci – The Lovely Bones
Cristoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds

Will Win: Christoph Waltz
Should Win: Christoph Waltz

Again, no question.  So let’s be clear that it’s Christoph withou the “er” because someone bet him he couldn’t spell his name without an “e,” and it’s “Waltz” just like his brother, Blue Danube.

Just watch the first 20 minutes, then tell me he doesn’t deserve this.

BEST ACTRESS

Sandra Bullock – The Blind Side
Helen Mirren – The Last Station
Carey Mulligan – An Education
Gabourey Sidibe – Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire
Meryl Streep – Julie & Julia

Will Win: Sandra Bullock
Should Win: Carey Mulligan

There was a time when this was a going to be a fight between Carey Mulligan and Meryl Streep.  Then Sandra Bullock started winning things.  Marginal things like BFCA (tying with Streep), then marginal-but-high-profile things like the Golden Globe (where she didn’t really have to go up against Streep), then relatively important things like the SAG award (where she flat out beat Streep).  So while Streep may still have a shot, the smart money’s on Bullock.

I miss the days when Mulligan had a chance.  Her performance in An Education is relevatory, and as good as everyone is in that film (where are the nods for Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina, Olivia Williams, and Rosamund Pike, who takes on the most thankless role of all?) it’s the kind of movie that only works if the lead is amazing, and she is.

BEST ACTOR

Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart
George Clooney – Up in the Air
Colin Firth – A Single Man
Morgan Freeman – Invictus
Jeremy Renner – The Hurt Locker

Will Win: Jeff Bridges
Should Win: Jeff Bridges

This, too, used to be a very different race.  Time was when George Clooney, Colin Firth, and Jeff Bridges all had a fair shot at the crown, with Clooney in the lead.  But several awards shows and a SAG standing ovation later the clear front-runner is Bridges, as much for a body of work as an outstanding performance.

And it is an outstanding performance.  Bridges creates a complete character.  No less so than The Dude, which should have been his first Oscar.

BEST DIRECTOR

Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker
James Cameron – Avatar
Lee Daniels – Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire
Jason Reitman – Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds

Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow
Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow

I don’t think the Academy will blame Bigelow here for the sins of her producer.  In fact, voters looking to reward Locker are more likely to do it here than anywhere else.  It’s a way to acknowledge the film in a major way without giving it the farm.  Plus, she’s already accumulated a ton of awards culminating in a something like 90 percent predictive DGA win.

Hurt Locker and Avatar are, more than the other three nominees, “director’s films.”  I say that because I see Up in the Air and Basterds as writer/director films, which is to say the success of the film is as much about the writing as the direction, and Precious as a performance/director film, in that the performances are featured as much as the directorial style.

So looking at films that rely primarily on directorial vision for impact, Locker creates a more compelling experience for me than Avatar.  And while you can see elements of that vision in Bigelow’s previous work (look at the visual rendering of the adrenaline junkie mentality in the camerawork of Point Break) it has never been more coherent.

Put another way, she directed the shit out of that film.

BEST PICTURE

Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Will Win: Avatar
Should Win: Up in the Air

Let me be clear.  The whole Avatar/Hurt Locker race is closer than you think.  And don’t think that any amount of ill advised e-mails is going to change that.  David Poland has some choice words about that line of thinking that are worth digesting.  If Hurt Locker loses a win this big, it’s because it was never going to win it.

The case for Hurt Locker is compelling.  A PGA win when the smart money was on Avatar.  A DGA win when the smart money was on Cameron.  The (admittedly thin) lead in a pool of experts and a pool of amateurs.  The seriousness of a real war versus the fantasy of a fake one.  And the Academy likes Serious.

But here’s the thing.  They also like money.

Poland points out in that article I just mentioned that it’s very hard to make a small amount of money and still win Best Picture.

“In the last 30 years, the lowest domestic theatrical gross for a Best Picture winner was about 3x the domestic gross of The Hurt Locker… $44 million for The Last Emperor.”

By the same token, granted you qualify as “Oscar material,” financial success really doesn’t hurt.  Until recently (given that Avatar is now on top), the top two highest grossing films of all time internationally, Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, were both Best Picture winners.

The technology angle also plays a role.  This is about the future.  There is no better-looking (if completely misunderstood) argument for the viability of 3D than Avatar.  And don’t underestimate the fact that two of the ten nominees are 3D.  A win for Avatar is a win for 3D is a win for the future of filmmaking.

Granted, this argument assumes that the Academy consists of marketers, which it doesn’t.  Many of them are actors, some of whom are threatened by our new digital overlords.  And they could be the best friends an actor-centered film like The Hurt Locker ever had.

The Academy voters are also not, necessarily, a bunch of people trying to resurrect the relevance of the event in the minds of the public by celebrating the movies the public embraces.  Those would be the people actually putting on the Oscars and trying to sell it to sponsors.  And, um, adding five Best Picture nominees.  But I think those thoughts could plausibly influence a vote or two.

For all this back and forth, though, I keep coming back to the money.  Put simply, I find it too hard to believe that the Academy will ignore the highest grossing film of all time in the middle of a recession.

This could very realistically go the other way, and I’d be happy to see it, but my gut tells me Locker gets Director, Avatar gets The Prize.

All of that having been said, I liked Up in the Air better than both of ‘em.  Inglourious Basterds and Up, too.