By the time "The Hurt Locker" won the best picture Oscar Sunday, it seemed almost a foregone conclusion since it previously earned honors from the Producers Guild, BAFTA, Broadcast Film Critics, the National Society of Film Critics and critics groups in New York, L.A. and elsewhere.

But "Hurt Locker" was anything but a sure thing. In a historical context, its win is surprising. After all, it is the lowest-grossing best picture winner of all time; it was never on more than 535 screens; and it beat the highest-grossing movie in modern history, one that has been playing on thousands of screens for nearly three months. In the era of blockbusters, "Locker" cost a mere $11 million to make compared with the more than $230 million cost of "Avatar."

There also is the parallel question of whether "Avatar" and distributor Fox contributed to their own demise in the best-picture race. The sci-fi epic had been critically acclaimed, far more widely seen and was widely heralded for its breakthrough technology. And it boasted the deep-pocket backing of a major Hollywood studio. Could it be explained as the ultimate example of the split personality in Hollywood, where movie choices are mostly driven by the need to make large amounts of money but where the people behind the camera still want to be seen as making art? And was it hurt by attacks from the political right on the movie's plot, which was seen as a dig on America's Iraq incursion?