By Community Correspondent: Jamie MacEwan

Or, rather, ex-Ms Cameron, as Kathryn Bigelow pulled up the red carpet from under James Cameron’s feet before his impotent effort ‘Avatar’ was swept under it. As far as the 82nd Oscars went a few weeks ago the heavy traffic of awards went more or less one way only.

‘Avatar’s awards were quite simply perfunctory recognition of its technical achievements; it won in 3 of the more lightweight categories (Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects). These really seem to reiterate the same point; Avatar was visually excellent, but was lacking elsewhere. In stark contrast, Bigelow did the ‘double’ by taking the Best Director and Best Picture – the first woman to win the former.

If Cameron’s vision of a 3D-dominated film industry takes life ‘Avatar’s standard should look pretty standard soon; will he be left with having accomplished much at all in a few years? It is difficult to tell, but it seems that the narrative in ‘Avatar’ was not compelling enough to keep the public interested; it was no ‘Titanic’, despite the colossal box office tally it recorded. Even this was due in part to the higher – ‘3D’ – price of tickets.

This leads us onto a point of great contrast between the two projects. Financially, ‘The Hurt Locker’ was severely outnumbered: it had a budget of $15,000,000 against $237,000,000 for ‘Avatar’. And while ideas for the latter began germinating in 1994, the former is distinctly a product of the wars of its time. And yet it seems better equipped to survive the accumulated mockeries and fashions of time.

Importantly, its characterisation is magnificent, which takes it away from being purely a war/action film and into more well-rounded territory. Furthermore, it is compelling from start to finish with some genuinely terrifying moments, although the fear is cleverly built up slowly and stressfully. Much as it would do ‘on tour’. We must not take away from ‘Avatar’ some of its more interesting facets, such as the concept of identity, liberation in a new body and its environmental message.

Yet it seemed too geared towards a younger or more male audience and some of its characters really were caricatures (see the evil General with literally NO other side to him). In this way, it stayed put in the ‘light entertainment’ category; deep films leave you quiet and thoughtful; they’ve said it all. Shallower efforts ones have you chatting about the graphics and action straight away after wards. They are then promptly forgotten.