Two smaller-scale films stand up against blockbuster season, and get so much more out of so much less by brutally focusing on their subjects.

In a season known for all things huge — budgets, celebrities, marketing, even explosions — two of the season’s best films go the opposite route. Not just because they’re more highbrow or too indie to afford all those things, though that’s certainly true as well. But more importantly, because the smaller scale actually makes them better movies.

In one of my all-time favorite Q&A quotes, after an AFI screening of The Empire Strikes Back, director Irvin Kershner was asked to compare that movie with the later prequels. Tactfully, he focused on how the limitations they faced in bringing Yoda to life as a character forced them to work all the harder to give him presence and personality, and contrasted that with the limitless digital canvas of its follow-ups. The implication being that in the end all the wizardry of ILM can still leave you cold, whereas a brilliantly acted puppet can deliver a piercing performance. The same holds true even in a non-blockbuster like Children of Men, where the few enormous sequences end up being the most memorable moments. The intimacy we feel with the characters is dwarfed by our personal reaction to the incredible world on screen.

The Hurt Locker and Moon, both smaller budgets and smaller scale stories, get so much more out of so much less by brutally focusing on their subjects. What sticks with you aren’t the precisely choreographed action sequences or epic set pieces. What resonates are the moments of human vulnerability: confusion, fear, despair. That’s what makes them much more powerful works. That’s not to say there isn’t a place for the big bad blockbuster. But behind the Terminators and Transformers dominating billboards around town, a few excellent character dramas are working a lot harder with a lot less, and shouldn’t be missed if you’re lucky enough to find them at your local multiplex.

……….

The Hurt Locker

Following a bomb squad tasked with disarming IEDs in Iraq, The Hurt Locker does have its share of gunfights and explosions. It does take place in a war zone, after all. But what sets this apart from other war movies, or even other action movies, is its restraint.

This is the polar opposite of a Michael Bay festival of bullets and bombs — where gunfire is the soundtrack and mushroom clouds are the scenery. In The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow makes sure every shot fired or charge set off is an emotional crescendo. It recalibrates our expectations from the first scene, flying in the face of our desensitized action-movie culture: in this film, when weapons are used, lives are changed. People die. Not just faceless enemy henchmen, but human existences, ended before our eyes.

Going equally against the grain is the film’s central character, bomb expert William James (played by Jeremy Renner). In an unsettling portrayal, the play-by-his-own-rules hero isn’t the likable wild card of male ideal. He’s a flawed man, more unhinged than anyone would like to admit, who happens to be the best man for a particularly insane task. Between missions, he’s friendly and supportive one day and having breakdowns or violent outbursts another. By the end we’re not so much cheering him on as crossing our fingers that he’ll come back from the dark side before it’s too late, before the unfortunate realities of war eat away every part of him that isn’t a soldier.

Both more personal and deliberately paced than most war films, this smaller, tighter action movie trades scale for intensity. We see these men up close as they’re pushed to their limits, whether facing ticking bombs or personal demons, and The Hurt Locker keeps you on edge the whole way through. It may not be a flashy thrill ride or even a poignant story of patriotism, but this movie entertains while showing us the true face of war, scars and all.

……….

Moon

Smart sci-fi films are hard to come by, mostly because they’re hard to pull off. Sure, the old man vs. alien, man vs robot plots are easy to go back to for easy cannon fodder (massacring green men or steel men en masse is far less troubling than, you know, proper men; remember how many droids they maimed in Episode III? That shit would not fly if those were people).

However, creating believable non-humans, or even entire fictional worlds, is neither the only nor even the most important task of the genre. The vital heart of really good sci-fi — or as the master Harlan Ellison supposedly prefers, ’speculative fiction’ — will always remain the question it poses: “What if we lived in a world where [fill in the blank]?” And often films that rely on things like robots or space travel or extra terrestrials don’t put as much thought into the question as they do the special effects.

Moon, directed by Duncan Jones, spends most of its energy on such a question, using its few effects shots to establish the extreme loneliness of the moon’s surface. The whole rest of the film takes place in the claustrophobic one-man base camp of a moon-mining operation run by Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) and his robot helper GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey). It’s a solitary existence that almost immediately makes normal people squirm at the thought. But when Sam finds out he’s not as alone as he thinks — spoiling the details would ruin a large chunk of the movie — the rest of the time is spent figuring out what’s going on, and what that means for Sam.

As the only real character in the movie, every moment is about his struggle to cope as he questions everything he knows and longs for home and family. It’s such an intimate story, we get scared with him, our heart breaks with his, and as the pieces come together, we arrive at the same realizations he does. Only by centering so fully on a single character can this work, because as with Sam, there’s nothing else out there to fall back on.

Contrast this film with Star Trek, the year’s giant space adventure. A story grand in scale, entertaining throughout, but whose story really only boils down to a revenge quest with outer-space backdrops. There isn’t much higher-level speculation to be had. That isn’t to say there isn’t a place for a cosmic roller-coaster ride, only that between the two, you’ll leave one exhilarated, and the other provoked to reflection. An Abrams space opera may be more fun to watch, but Jones’ smart, focused storytelling gets in your head. Though both absolutely accomplish their intent, it’s the latter that’s harder to do, and worth recognizing the talent required.