奥斯卡奖揭晓在即 最佳影片难分伯仲

[A 10-way Oscar race has boiled down to a David-and-Goliath battle between 'Avatar' and 'The Hurt Locker.' Why the two movies aren't as different as they seem -- and why another surprise winner could still emerge.]

Just as the Academy hoped, there's something for everyone among the 20 movies vying for a best-picture Oscar. (That figure includes 10 movies as they existed at the time of their release, plus the 10 cause celebres they've become after months of hype, buzz, bookmakers' rankings and inevitable backlash.) At least four of them -- 'The Blind Side,' 'District 9,' 'Precious' and 'A Serious Man' -- are beneficiaries of the expanded nominations, while all are potential victims of a preferential voting scheme that could produce an entirely unexpected winner; it's the latest confirmation of the William Goldman adage that nobody knows anything. For me, though, this year's Oscars come down to a contest between two remarkably different films, 'Avatar' and 'The Hurt Locker.' One is a huge and innovative studio production, the other a smallish-scale indie. (And one, of course, was made by the other's ex-spouse, which adds to the fun.) Yet both speak to modern audiences in the classic language of their genres.

'Avatar''s genre is the eye-popping, crowd-thrilling spectacle, and the man who made it is a direct descendant of such earlier kings of the movie world as D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille (as well as such disparate technical wizards as Buster Keaton and Stanley Kubrick). It's astonishing to see that James Cameron has done it again after taking more than a decade off for deep diving and deep thinking. The diving led to 'Avatar' landscapes that are submarine seascapes drained of water. The thinking yielded sumptuous, info-dense visuals that herald a revolution in theatrical exhibition, together with a dramatic device that qualifies as a stroke of commercial genius.

By making Jake a paraplegic, Mr. Cameron provided the gate through which young audiences enter the picture quickly, at a deep emotional level.

The storyline never sags in 'The Hurt Locker,' a stunning example of another classic genre, action suspense. In this film the connection to the audience depends, at least at first, on the primal question of whether bombs will or won't explode.

But Kathryn Bigelow's tour de force is far more than a genre piece. It's a character study of remarkable complexity, a meditation on the nature of heroism, a consideration of the Iraq conflict that's neither antiwar nor pro, but cool, mature and incisive. And it's a showcase for elegant technique -- rigorous direction, taut writing, flawless performances, masterful editing and cinematography. (Among so many vivid moments, I remember the shot of Jeremy Renner's William James standing amidst a lethal octopus's tentacles, seven pipe bombs linked by live wires.) That's why so many critics and movie professionals have rallied to its cause, and why Academy members honored both productions with a happy symmetry of nominations -- nine for the little film that could, nine for the big film that did.

From the day the nominations were announced, the temptation was to cast 'The Hurt Locker' as a modestly funded David to 'Avatar''s extravagant, entertainment-conglomerated Goliath. That's a fascinating spectacle in its own right, yet obvious differences between the two conceal essential similarities.

Despite its proudly independent roots, 'The Hurt Locker' is a heartening throwback to the golden age of Hollywood, when studio films could aspire to such lean and disciplined excellence, and occasionally achieve it. Despite its astronomical budget and studio affiliations, 'Avatar' is an indie film in the sense that the man who made it operates by his own rules. Aspiration is the common denominator of both productions. Mr. Cameron has been outspoken, as is his custom, in promising to transform the experience of watching movies in theaters, but damned if he didn't do it; against all odds, 'Avatar' has lived up to its ballyhoo. Ms. Bigelow was no less ambitious, though she kept her intentions to herself. She simply took off for the Middle East and shot an exemplary feature that went into distribution ballyhooless, then earned richly deserved adulation on its own. (Mr. Cameron's championing of her cause as best director isn't just a special form of collegiality but an expression of excellent taste.)

So which of the two will be the winner come Sunday evening? Unfortunately -- or fortunately, if you're rooting for other nominees -- it isn't that simple. Like the hovering space ship in 'District 9,' there's that hovering question mark of preferential ballots (which wrist to slit first if 'The Blind Side' wins?), not to mention lots of inside-baseball considerations that may have colored the Academy's voting.

Then which of my two favorites do I really favor? In the ballot on page W5, which makes no provision for waffling, my answer is clear: 'The Hurt Locker' should win, though 'Avatar' will. Outside the box (where the best thinking is done), I'm of two minds, with no inclination to resolve the internal conflict. In the best of all possible worlds, 'The Hurt Locker' should win because it's thrilling, engrossing and an impeccably crafted example of storytelling on the big screen. In that same world, 'Avatar' should win because it's the cavalry -- on six-legged horses -- come to the rescue of the movie medium, which has desperately needed the excitement that Mr. Cameron's majestic opus brings. But in the world we actually inhabit? Nobody knows anything, and hope springs eternal.