Almost every story on The Hurt Locker’s (well-deserved) victory at the Oscars makes a big deal about how it was the lowest-grossing film ever to win an Oscar. That’s fair enough. But so far, amidst all of the “no one has seen it” talk, I haven’t heard anyone really discuss why it grossed so little. It’s not because it’s a bad movie or because it’s too edgy and artsy. It’s certainly as accessible as No Country for Old Men (which I loved and which also won an Oscar).

It seems obvious to me that The Hurt Locker’s poor box office performance has at least something to do with the fact that Hollywood has served up a huge pile of steamers on the subject of the Iraq War and the War on Terror, and audiences have given up on the genre. Making a good war movie after so many bad ones is a big risk. That risk didn’t pay off at the box office but it did at the Oscars. I’m delighted for Kathryn Bigelow (also the director of one of the best vampire movies of the last couple decades: Near Dark) because she made a great movie and because her ex-husband didn’t deserve the Oscar.

Update: Sounds plausible, from a reader:

Another reason no one saw it is because Hollywood just didn’t market it (certainly not to the extent were seeing adds for Green Zone) and didn’t put it in a lot of theaters. That may have been due to bias against a non-message war movie, or it could’ve been the fact that it’s a bunch of unknowns in the lead roles. (Well, unknown to anyone who hasn’t seen 8 Mile or S.W.A.T.). Perhaps the mixture of soured box-office had something to do with that as well, but Kingdom of Heaven found an audience, and I’m sure this movie would’ve as well had it been in more theaters with more advertising.