Academy Awards will prove big-name celebs losing importance

The 82nd Academy Awards will take place Sunday,March 7, and although most categories seem to have predictable winners, the Best Picture and Best Director races are close.

The frontrunners for both are the 3-D action blockbuster "Avatar" and the Iraq war drama "The Hurt Locker."

The two films are in many ways opposites.

"Avatar" director James Cameron has made the top two highest grossing movies of all time (not adjusted for inflation) and has achieved critical success in addition to commercial.

"The Hurt Locker" director Kathryn Bigelow was not particularly well-known until now, spending most of her career directing action movies that became sleeper hits such as the kitschy surfing-themed cop flick "Point Break" and the vampire western "Near Dark."

"The Hurt Locker" did not even get a wide release in all areas (I'm from the Charleston, W. Va. area, and it did not play in our theaters at all), although like many limited releases, it saw wider exposure on DVD.

To add another level of opposition, the two directors were once married.

For all their differences, the two primary Oscar contenders share one important element: Neither movie stars famous actors with box office draw power.

"Avatar" features veteran actress Sigourney Weaver in a supporting role, but she hasn't been a big star in the last decade.

The movie's two main players, Sam Worthington ("Terminator Salvation") and Zoe Saldana ("Star Trek") are notable up-and-comers, but they have not been around long enough to inspire people to watch a movie just because they are in it.

The only actors in "The Hurt Locker" who are somewhat famous are Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes, and each only has one scene in the whole movie; their presence alone would not attract viewers since their appearances are virtually cameos.

The lack of star power driving these two successful films raises the question of whether or not stars really matter that much.

More often than not, success, be it defined either by respect or revenue, is reflective of promotion.

"Avatar" did not need big stars, because so much money was put into its hype as a technologically revolutionary picture that people would see it just to see what the big deal was.

Spending money to make money isn't a guaranteed win, but it's usually a safe bet for very high-budget movies.

The main focus of promotion for smaller movies like "The Hurt Locker" and last year's Best Picture winner "Slumdog Millionaire," is often success at major film festivals and award outlets.

In either case, big-name actors aren't part of the equation unless they give exceptionally memorable performances.

When looking at recent Oscar years, many acting winners like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Javier Bardem and Tilda Swinton were not names at the top of posters before they won their awards.

Promotion also played a big role last year in unexpected theatrical hits "District 9" and "Paranormal Activity," which both gained attention from distribution by major studios and endorsements from household names like Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg.

Meanwhile, star vehicles like "Funny People," "Land of the Lost" and "A Christmas Carol" were generally considered to have underperformed in theaters, although the latter of the three was profitable in its worldwide gross.

I attribute the decrease in star prevalence to a few reasons.

In the new media age when many big-selling movies have interesting or unusual marketing campaigns, often heavily featuring online components, things are more likely to feel old because of all the new elements used in movies.

Without a promotional factor that makes it look different from other comedies, a movie like "Funny People" was probably seen as just another Adam Sandler movie (which actually, it wasn't).

With 3-D pictures and top-of-the-line sound systems, combined with increased ticket prices, the theatrical experience is becoming a bigger draw than seeing a particular actor.

Lastly, the surge in popularity of reality television in the last decade and the growth of the Internet's capabilities for user-generated content in recent years have continuously perpetuated the idea that anyone can be a celebrity.

And since anyone can get famous on TV or in their own homemade video, the status of celebrity has lost some of its luster.

This mentality is commonly shared among many, if not most, people in our society, so it can be extended to films and other forms of art and entertainment.

Is this the end of the Hollywood movie star?

No.

Many are still going strong.

It has been strongly shown, if not proven in recent years, big stars aren't the key to big attention.