Avatar
OK, I'm going big here.
I am not merely going to say that Avatar is a must-see. I am saying that Avatar is the single greatest movie-watching experience of my life. I don't mean that it is the greatest movie. There is no movie that can be that, in the first place, and no, as a DVD, I don't think it will stand up against true classics. But if ever there was a movie for which the modern movie theater was made, with its stadium seating, surround sound, and all-encompassing screen, this is the one. In one fell swoop, Cameron makes other blockbuster, ground-breaking experiences like Star Wars, Jurassic Park, The (first) Matrix, and yes, even my beloved Lord of the Rings--even the whole triology, en toto--yes, Cameron makes them all into one long prologue. Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, bow in homage, Cameron does what you all wished to do.
Go see it, and, yes, you must see it in 3-D, and then let's talk!
For now, I will defy anyone to even call its story weak... Go. Now!
JAG Triplets
Ian's Koruna Muse
Slippery Joaquin's Photos
Another Team America-Avatar link
WARNING: I apologize for the language
There is some quote that is almost exactly that last one, when the top warrior na'vi guy who avatar Jake stole the girl from is going after Jake. Doesn't Jake say, "The war is out there, brother! Out there!"...
Anyway, I laughed at that part during the movie. I think that was the point where a really excited kid a few seats down, unamused, said, "who's laughing?!"
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE2NjAzODIxMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwND...
Jenkins' Review of Avatar
Seriously, this guy's name is Jenkins. Henry Jenkins -- he's a media literacy professor at USC, formerly MIT, and he writes a lot about science fiction.
I think he does well to break down the genre of Sci Fi, and puts where all of us, from JAG to HEEB, are coming from.
The Article: Five Ways to Read Avatar
Couple quotes I thought were on the money:
Neil Dickover
Seriously, Neil Dickover--I heard that name today on NPR. It has nothing to do with Avatar, but seriously, Neil. Who names their kid Neil anymore? Unsurprisingly, Mr. Dickover is a computer nerd like Hiebster.
Sorry to all Neils who might visit this blog--bad association from the few Neils I knew, I suppose. I never new Neil Armstrong, though...
Good stuff, Rhys. Thanks. I couldn't get the link on the first one. I remember literally sitting on the edge of my seat through all of Aliens, sweaty palms and all. It's not that good to me any more--and I never would have bought it, but otherwise I think I agree with Jenkins.
Thanks, Sparkle--thanks for reading all that hash, let alone enjoying it. It's great to know you're out there, just like RED and arh1...
dammit jag -- that link is
dammit jag -- that link is good. he wrote almost as much as you have about this!
Gad Blam Shlit nit!
Dude, I got that one, and liked it. It's the other one--the team-america-avatar link one--it keeps saying "access denied" to me.
oh,
that was just a funny picture of the puppet with oakleys on who said the line about the balls and stuff. no big deal.
here's another one: http://www.thewallpapers.org/wallpapers/6/647/thumb/320_Chris_WP_big.jpg
Tardy to the Party . . . .
. . . but I hope it's not too late to add a word or two.
First, thank you, both RED and ARH1, for joining the discussion and shaking me and JAG from our two-voice back and forth. The conversation was great to start but only better with your additions. And, of course, I'm glad that you enjoyed the movie too.
By now, I think all that I can say has already been said -- save one key thing: I think Jag's noble defense of the film is truly a thing to behold. Every artist, every student, every kid, and every friend should have an advocate as passionate, as thorough, as vigorous, and as persuasive as Jag. Call this treacly (if well-intentioned) cheerleading if you want. It's true. (I think Red made a similar point below.)
And it's connected to a comment Jag made in another thread. So, second, I'm dispirited too, politically at least. Amazing and frightening how quickly things can change. Just one year ago, folks were talking about the end of the GOP. Now they're calling it a party resurgent -- and perhaps for good reason too: The Dems have done much to make us angry and little to make us glad. Governance is rarely easy, and maybe it's harder now than it often is. But still: Even I, unapologetic Obama backer, feel that we're losing the true heart of our 2008 spirit -- the chance to believe in something better and the courage to be bold. Let's hope that the winds change again soon and powerfully -- and that, as he did so often on the campaign trail, Obama helps us find reason for confidence and hope.
Sorry for the rant, dtekkers. And thanks for the fun dialogue.
Yours,
SM!
i had a fun time finally
i had a fun time finally reading through all of this discussion last night. i think you've covered the basics from where i'm sitting pretty well, JAG, SM, and RED.
one other thing i'd call out (JAG made a quick reference, but mostly it's left out of the discussion below) is Cameron's explicit passing references to our own current politics: war on terror? "Shock and awe"!? is this supposed to be some sort of statement? nah, leave it out. that's bogus, offensive, cowardly crap.
anyway, suffice it to say that i did enjoy the film on a few levels, but i'm way, way less sympathetic than JAG.
and sorry to punt over there again, but i think Jeff Reichert at Reverse Shot hit the nail on the head with his review -- it's definitely worth a read.
Here's another one
The Hannah sent me this a few days ago, though for my money, I'll take the Reverse Shot article. Good stuff from that guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html?em
Enjoy.
i haven't been able to catch
i haven't been able to catch up on the discussions below yet, but i wanted to add these preliminary comments:
indian beats cowboy!
nature beats technology!
love beats war!
the spiritual beats the corporeal!
Yes!
RED and arh1 are with us. Yes. I see them too.
RED, I want to react to your posts, and will, each in turn, but for now I just want to finish the train of thought from my last post.
Theme?
In a sentence, the theme is what the Navi witch-queen says: Let's see if we can't cure Jake (remember, he's a warrior of the other side) of his people's insanity. Similarly, Cameron is asking whether a fantastically perfect culture still completely connected to a yet unmarred living planet like Earth can have a curative effect on us. At the end of the movie, Jake Sully lets his giant dragon go, thus signaling that he got the message--he was cured. That is, he recognizes the triumph in helping maintain the balance of life--the live-and-let-live relationship between the earth and all sentient beings on it--the idea that all things are alive and connected--apart, but symbiotic, deferential, holy. He does not clasp to the comparatively myopic power he could hold over Pandora as king with a giant dragon. The separate tribes, one can also assume, go back to their own affairs, and life on Pandora goes back to how it was--minus the "sky-people" and the memory of their threat (Part Two, anyone?) The balance is restored and is understood to be greatest kind of glory. Can Cameron's audience understand the same thing? Or will it just go to McDonald's and woof down some McNuggets after the show? Humans.
Navi?
What is the Navi? Cameron's wise choice of protagonist, a marine "just looking for a single thing worth fighting for", only affords us glimpses of the indigenous culture. We must connect the dots, however few there are, inferring what we can, projecting everything else. Jake's quick and intense ascendency to the highest rank of the Navi still only leaves us with a conveniently shallow knowledge of the culture. We are mere tourists throughout, able to understand the tenets of the culture, but unaware of any dissidence or tedium within it--any discordance with those tenets, however mild, that may constitute normal Navi life. Whereas with the avatar science, which Cameron escapes with his protagonist, he wants us to connect the dots with the indigenous culture, and there's much use in doing so.
Again, what is the Navi? The main resemblance is Native American, but the whole culture is meant to be a hodgepodge of ancient human cultures. I noted, for example, the Cachuck dance of the Balinese. And I think the first words the witch-queen speaks in English are: "You can't fill a cup that is already full." That's Zen Buddhism, if I am not mistaken. But the Navi are decidedly more than that too. They are everything we would be, our potential realized, the greatness of all we have lost fused with our greatest hopes of being. Take the female Navi, for example. The female role (a real bone of contention for us humans) is hardly weak--and it isn't secondary. Without question, the Navi princess is as physically able as any of the male Navi. She's a warrior too, Jake's teacher, no less. And her mother is, in her way, more essential to the tribe than her husband, the Chief. But it is the spiritual connection to the world and to all living things that distinguishes the Navi most. Only a remnant of outcaste idealist scientist (Grace and company) can think to value that connection, even if they cannot fully fathom it or convince the brutes not to destroy it.
My point? If Pandora is perfect Earth, the Navi is perfect human--or is supposed to be. Go ahead, Cameron tells us, project the best you are into them. As the highest ideal of selfhood--a self aware of its full participation in the cosmic significance of the planet (or moon) on and by which they exist, the Navi are as worth protecting as they are overmatched by what Nietzsche would call the human-all-too-human. (If only a bunch of jelly-fish tree seeds could land on that last sentence for all of us.)
Authenticating backlog?
How deliberate is any of this? Perhaps I am filling empty vessels with all too much of myself. Well, let's see how well built the Navi are. Cameron's story starts at the tipping point of the oft repeated imperialist destruction of an indigenous people. Before the story begins, we know the Navi ceased earlier attempts to play host to these human settlers. Even Grace has been turned away. Recall the Zen Buddhist line from above, full and empty cups. The Navi have managed to maintain their openness, but the human presumptuous, which is really masked racist hostile greed, is too much to bear. You'll recall Big Bucks being frustrated with the "savages," who fail to appreciate all the more civil attempts (trading, teaching, etc.) to get them out of the way. We also know head-mercenary guy has had a few tangles with the Navi before the movie begins, which must have been, in one way or another, clear signals of how useless attempts at friendship are. Jake's people are insane, remember?. But Jake is accepted because of the tree seeds (which is a foreshadow of the active force the planet's god will take in the movie's climax), and because he is a warrior who is more open-minded than his pact with the "sky-people" would have him be. He's a guy, in fact, on whom his own government turned its back--as expendable as his legs to the Earth-destroying powers that be. (He does not get his "real" legs back in the movie. He gets more. He gets "dream" legs, and he gets the respect he deserves, not to mention the love of a princess worth every bit of her station.) And there is one more important piece from the backlog: that same princess' great great grandfather (or something like that), long before the humans arrived, rode the giant dragon and established the peace and order between the separate tribes of Navi (like King Arthur, one might say). That order, we can assume, remains in tact until the "sky-people" show up. That means it is a long tested and evolved culture--hardly primal or barbaric, but balanced and glorious, if terribly vulnerable to invasion. Tie in a real language created to make the Navi seem all the more authentic, and you have a sense of just how much thought went into creating the story of this movie.
So, SM!, I think this movie may be a good one to own after all. I need to sleep on it, but I am pretty sure I dig the movie, through and through. It's enduring work of art, I think I would argue now. It takes itself seriously, and not merely as a scheme for making bucks or for revitalizing cinema. Its story is predictable, but its tropes are not empty. And, as I initially argued, the movie's use of lines and situations from previous movies is more allusive than derivative--deliberate, not diffident nor desperate. I would even go so far as to say, its subtext theme, through the references to however many movies, may be that such fantastic worlds as can be created in cinema can and should strive to change our present reality, not merely distract us from it. Ha, that's a real 180, isn't it?
But to answer your question, going back to former assumption that the movie will shine in the theater but flop at home, I would only say it's like the difference between music on the dance floor and the same music in your room. The dance floor is where some music belongs--why some music exists; and it is therefore no argument against it to say it's not as good in the place it never concerned itself with in the first place. Of course, some music rocks everywhere, but that doesn't make great dance music bad, just different.
OK, I must stop there. What do you think? (RED, I will react to your posts soon.)
RED & ARH1 saw the movie!
Saw it yesterday.
JAG, I need to start this by noting that you have a moviegoers inner life that is like the spirit of the Navi -- heart and mind as one.
Short review: I liked it. I want to see it on IMAX. The effects were worth the trip. The story was thin. Having seen a lot of movies, including Cameron movies, makes it hard not to dismiss the story, or be lazy with the subtext* because you've seen it all in other movies, but that residue also added to my enjoyment. Saw it with Andy, a fellow fan of early Cameron -- Terminiators, Aliens... and that's it. Who you see a film with is critical to the experience. Andy killed Gladiator, which I went in giving a chance at being more than a mash up of old action-adventure movies combine with tech feats in a new setting... He killed that one (about a white guy fallen from grace who connects with dehumanized savages to rise against the blood lusty imperialists). But going into this one, I had already heard the "You're not in Kansas anymore" line, and was ready. So my expectations were exceeded. I did laugh out loud several times when reminded of Team America, Aliens, Titanic, etc. -- which, as I said before, added to my enjoyment.
BUT, I also was swept away at other times, knowing I'd seen it all before, but somehow the combination of technology, and the perfect storm of movie/storybook/musical tropes got me misty on a few occasions (my favorite was when the two lovers, out of breath from being chased by the big bird, giggle at how much they are "just livin' on the extreme"** together. I love that I can still get caught up, emotionally in a disney-like movie. Media Studies has not killed the movie fan in me -- even when the critical wheels are spinning. Not all techno-ride with romantic bits do that for me -- so I thank Avatar for that.
Question for the group: Where is the line that can be drawn between great movies in this genre, and rip-off weak ones? Is the line between this and Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Aliens, The Terminator (others you might call the best/genre-defining movies that get reused in others that follow) in the character-development? Are all of the stories basically the same, and the quality is in the execution of the ride? Is your enjoyment determined by when you see them in your movie-going life (although JAG demonstrates it's possible to get past that)? I heard a teenager comment on Jake's science-nerd buddy who also had an avatar -- "he's awesome!". Why? How could that guy stand next to Lando Calrisian? Sgt. Al Powell? Hicks? Kyle Reese? Sullah? That's where I draw the line.
Star Wars seemed to have a lot more mystery behind all of the characters -- there were allusions to back stories, etc. that weren't all laid out up front... They didn't have a schematic history laid out of why the big battle was about to happen where all of the stakes were deliberately communicated in dialogue. Avatar was pretty easy to figure out (recognizable native american, environmentalist philosophies), or else they told you everything you needed to know -- "and if the soul tree gets blown up, it's all over." Maybe they're equally simple and I've grown up...
That's my best effort for this go. JOE-AG -- thanks for getting us out to the theater -- I had a great time!
* With a story so perfectly thin, it seems like you can just create as deep a subtext as you want. Joe, you've done a hell of a job.
** No one said "just livin' on the extreme", but they did say:
"Sometimes your whole life boils down to one insane move"
"I see you, brother..."
and many more that I could not hang on to -- maybe because they were so generic. some had to be directly quoted from Team America.
Quick reactions
RED, I wanted to respond to your posts more directly, though some of what you said found its way already into my last post.
In any case, my chief argument for the movie is there. But let's see what I can add to it here.
1. You're welcome. I am only sorry I am the same guy who liked Independence Day to you. But maybe that helped--kept the expectations low. I wonder if Avatar will go the same way for me as ID. As you can read above, I don't think it will. But even if it does, like you, I am glad I can still get into a movie, even if the story is predictable. My dad is great on that score. When Jurassic Park came out, I was 19 or 20, and he took me and my two older brothers to the movie three times in four days. At Star Wars, as I mentioned before, the whole family stood in a line for an hour or so, a fun memory of childhood. Dad's a play-baby and I'm proud to follow in his steps, and not just as a father. Remember Braveheart? Yea, I have done it now--squashed all suspicion of any artistic acumen on my part. Anyway, I took Laura Nelson to it on our first, second and fourth dates (--I liked her, but that's a different story). Truth be known, I don't like most movies, and that is especially so when it comes to Cameron: Titanic...puke, and I didn't even given True Lies a chance. But as you can tell, against all my expectations (--remember, I am a reformed and proud ID hater now--I even told a kid before winter break that I could not share his excitement for opening day of Avatar--and when my brother and father raved about it, I still was cynical--how did I become such a debbie-downer?)--but Cameron hit this one out of the park for me. It's the achievement of his career--the result of learning from mistakes, not a continuation of them. For me, anyway.
2. Who you see a movie with is critical! But how do you explain it? We are so much more receptive than we know. Ha, could we propose a correct movie etiquette, so as not to hamper another's experience? Does the effect also happen with strangers, or only with those we are hoping to share the experience with? How much is determined by our approach to it? And how does this "effect of company" relate to other arenas and situations of our life? We could really run with this. Reminds me of how careful arh1 so as not to pollute the psychic atmosphere around him. Also reminds me of my incredible wife, whose attitude is almost always beneficial to everyone else, even while she is wrestling three kids at once...
3. Character development? Like I said before, the replication of Vasquez from Aliens bothered me the most, but I got pass it easily. The principals were solid, though, wholly buyable, and as I tried to argue above, the Navi were successfully, if cleverly, credible. And Grace and Big Bucks were strong secondary characters, I think, if not quite Han Solo. Norm's part was too small to compare to anyone, Lando or anyone else. Tell the kid he's a nimrod (unless it was Jonah). My counter-question is this: were the characters all they needed to be to make the story work? Were they sufficient unto their own function? I generally think everything in the movie was perfectly sufficient--a real feat of craft, and one I did not expect from Cameron.
4. Star Wars? I'm sorry, the last three Lucas additions to the saga were so bad, so gimmicky, that they have drained the first three of much savor for me. Like I said in my post above, Avatar takes itself seriously. I don't see dislocated comedy or overt attempts to sell kids--no ewocks, or JaJas or three-stooge robots. Perhaps, he is selling the kid in all of us, but not kid kids, and not even primarily. I honestly feel Cameron wants to sell his story, first and foremost.
5. Norm? If I were to say Norm's name is as significant as Grace's, would I be giving Cameron his due, or simply allowing myself to continue to appreciate the story as subtle? Is the story thin, and am I simply playing make believe when I make it seem deep or subtle? I don't know. I really think Avatar warrants every bit of energy I gave it. Titanic does not. One excites my interest. The other doesn't. Of course, one might say I protest too much--that I am trying to justify my joy in the movie not because it is actually good, but because I am afraid of resembling the simple-minded common audience for whom the story reportedly was written. That judgment could easily work the other way too, though, toward dismissal, and for the same reason. Or, if we quote Hamlet more directly: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." I wonder how much that passes for criticism is the simple laying of claim to some unmentioned seemingly significant tidbit in order to support a bias carried to the subject in the first place. That's how a nothing like Norm is great, I assume. And also how he is a travesty of character.
How do we remain open and free? That's a question we have taken up in AP English with The Awakening recently. Absolute objectivity is impossible (--the reason it matters who you see a movie with), but we must attempt that objectivity, all the same, we concluded. But how objective have we honestly attempted to be here?
Good discussion guys... It's been a while since we had one. Let's keep it going. Joe
Team America: Pandora
Huh
These guys are so good at editing. I enjoyed the Avatar preview after it also. Now, I don't agree with point I think it wants and fails to make, that the plot of Avatar is so thin you could superimpose it on top of pretty much any sequence of images and it would more or less make sense. The Team America sequences do not fit the overlay well. But it does highlight a question I had in my head while watching Avatar: might "terrorists" resonate with the Navi, even if the Navi aren't resorting to suicide attacks that kill civilians? Hmmm.
SNL, Cameron, Weaver: Laser Cats
Funny Shit?
Cameron and Weaver able to parody themselves--that's good. But is it modesty, or a white flag on their parts? A surrender, of course, would suggest that I am full of shit--funny shit, no doubt.
The Story?
Sparkle, back up to the top. I have a small window of time, but let's see what I can do (--I'll try to get to your last question too). First, though, let me say that you do not have to worry about seeming pejorative, not here on this thread, or anywhere else we might interact. Conversely, I hope I don't seem sensitive. This medium, as you are well aware, teaches us to be very careful in crafting our tone--it can make even a discussion about a stupid movie break down to mere egoism quickly. But let's not worry, either of us, from now on. At the risk of making you puke with perhaps the cheesiest thing either of us could say in this discussion or in any other: I see you.
OK, the story. Predictability. Yes, it's predictable (--as predictable as my counter to this charge will be, I'm guessing). But, for me, it wasn't "cloyingly predictable." It's true, I was not twenty minutes into the movie before I realized that Sully was going to fall in love with the Navi, gain their trust even while betraying it, which would lead to his being sharply rebuked, until he could somehow clearly prove his earnest conversion, regain their trust and be the key in a battle against the blind force from which he came. Now, the movie's detractors will say its plot is derivative, and they'll point to Dances with Wolves or something like it, somehow missing that they could point to almost every romantic comedy ever made, and to many movies and stories in between. But (--and here it comes) what they call derivative might just as easily be called prototype. I am no Joseph Campbell, but I don't need to be. Honestly, from a sufficient distance, what story isn't predictable? And besides, the real derivation of this movie is man's own repeated history. If only I could change its ending the way Cameron does.
But, yes, even from the typical distance with which we watch movies, this story is terribly predictable. I think Cameron understood that well enough--was close to sickening himself, which is why, for instance, he was careful not to drag out either of the two scenes you talked about, the taming of the big dragon or Jake Sully's transformation into the Navi. He knew we would accept both parts without having to see them acted out. However aware Cameron was or not, though, I took the story's frame the way one might take a sonnet's form: the tension, for me, was not in what rhyme scheme came together, but in how that scheme was filled--not in what happened so much as in how it happened. Was Cameron able to fill the form, that is--able to make each major step in the sequence flow naturally? I believe he did. SM!, I also do not like wild twists, etc--they are artificial and they make the story a patchwork. But everything story-wise and production-wise (music, special effects, whatever) fit. And that is my chief contention: the movie is not empty, however many of its tropes seem recycled. It works. Cameron pulled it off. He doesn't explode the form in the way Hamlet does, but I also didn't want him to, even if it were to gain artistic value by doing so. 3-D Hamlet would be a travesty. But failing to burst the convention does not mean it is empty. It's not.
Prove it? OK, where to start? Man, time is ticking away--this could be messy (beware)...
Let's launch into it by looking at Sigourney Weaver's character Grace (--and we'll see what my feeble memory can muster, squeezed as it is between the next and last baby feeding). All right, the name "Grace" comes close to "unobtainium," but let it pass (--at least Cameron doesn't insert some little furry muppet to attract the kids, or some dwarf comedian out of step with the gravity of the moment). Early in the movie, exhorting Jake, she says, "I would die to get some samples," from the place even she, despite being so clearly good-natured, has been denied access to. When Jake brings her to that same place to die, she says, "I have to get some samples." That makes the audience laugh, but it's more than a punchline, and more than a haphazard literary device. When she and Jake are trying to explain to the head guy who, like most of his woe-begone species (our species), deifies money, she says, "What we think we know is that the entire planet is a living brain full of memory and spirit, the destruction of which can only possibly be construed as murder, or really, genocide, even deicide"--well, something to that effect, anyway. Later dying in the aforementioned special place after the unsuccessful transition into her Navi avatar, she tells Jake, "It's real. I am becoming one with the tree--planet--brain--Navi, ancestors and all." This, of course, is the fruition of all her study--her life's work and her dream. It's real. She doesn't think; she knows. And now we know, which, in turn, highlights the reason the "Sky-people" must be stopped (as, of course, they have never been stopped, apparently from one world to the next and so on). Yea, and "Sky-people"? People who are disconnected--whose gods, it may even go so far as to suggest, are in the sky and not in the earth.
But wait, that's not all... Before Jake takes Grace to the place to die, he says, "Everything will be all right." Grace responds, "Jake, you forget, I'm a scientist: I don't believe in magic." Well, that highlights the central crux--realism vs. idealism. Grace and her fellow scientists are left-wing, tree-hugging, idealistic snobs. Mr. Big Bucks (--I agree, SM!, it would not be surprising if that were his real name) and the corporation behind him, plus the blood-lustful mercenaries he hires--they are right-wing realist might-equals-right pretext-givers (you know the kind). Go back, for a second, to the scene where Grace is trying to tell Big Bucks not to destroy the tree-brain-planet-god-thing. False-idol worshiper realist boss guy retorts "What are you guys smoking?" and the mercenaries and the rest of his corporate flunkies all snigger. The implication, of course, is that the environmentalist hippie Indian-lovers are good-for-nothing hallucination addicts. Now, Jake is a marine who eventually cannot see the difference between the dream world (the ideal) and reality. He eventually converts: a paid gun to a self-immolating Navi king. The naive Navi need Jake's inside knowledge of their adversary, together with his unflinching courage, and with it are able to do what the most native tribal populations never could, unite. But even that is not enough. Might will write history on Pandora too.
Back to Grace for a second. Jake asks the tree where Grace dies to look into her mind and see why the indigenous culture needs its help against the "sky-people." Thrillingly and fantastically, the place where Cameron changes the all-too common story for a dream--the climax of the movie, where Jake and the Navi are doomed as human history teaches us they will be, the planet--the tree--and, yes, a divine-like "grace" and active power, rallies to protect itself and win the day. Oh, and the ancestor tree, earlier described and later proved to be a brain is incased in what looks like a rib cage, signifying that it is also a heart--a heart and mind fused. Cameron's cleverness throughout is Pandora. Whenever we say, "That cannot be," he pulls out, "But this is Pandora." Pandora must be enough like our world for us to care about it, but where it diverges--where it is Pandora and not Earth, it does so as we wish ours could, possessing the power to defend and deify itself, prove its own supremacy by our own terms. But that begs the question: can the fantasy inform our reality--can Avatar's theme be our own? Not unlike Grace, Cameron (or at least his writer) is hoping that his analogue, artistic and historical, might make the synaptic leap in us, and rally our spirit to the defense of itself.
What's the theme? What's so special about the Navi, speaking of tropes? And what's the backlog of the movie which supports all these eventualities, making them seem authentically grown? I'll get into that next (alas, time has nabbed me). But I am hoping I have already proven that the story has more than anyone else seems to grant it. Of course, that doesn't say much, and, in all honesty, I wonder if I couldn't have done the same thing with Titanic, which I did not like, even a little. But I really like this movie, and it achieves its argument in me (--screw Titanic). Where it exceeds my expectations the most is in that its form is filled and filled well. It does not strike me as having an amateurish patchwork story meant only to prop up new special effects. No, as I have said, the story, music and effects all meet and match each other well. The puzzle fits together, and Cameron can notch the best movie of its kind on his belt.
OKay, SM, Let's do it.
Assured by both RED and arh1 that they will follow all the hype into the movie theater, and aware that SM!'s Avatar-discussion-readiness is waning, I say we push ahead and see what we think of this movie. I, myself, saw it again this last Saturday, on the IMAX screen--surprised by how much better the 3-D seemed, and I am planning to see it again (on Imax, of course) next Thursday.
Fair warning to anyone who has not yet seen this movie: If you're planning on watching this movie, don't read ahead.
OKay, SM!, we're on. Hopefully, others won't be far behind. At present, I have little time to write, so I will just throw out a couple of starters.
1. I will reiterate my qualifier from above: it's the best movie for the modern movie theater experience--fulfilling the expectation evolved by our endless will toward ever better, more engrossing distraction. In this sense, the movie is also terrible in its greatness--a presage of more and more mindlessness.
2. That said, I think the movie's story has more depth and is more subtle than its detractors care to recognize. Granted, I had low expectations, and I think everyone else did. I mean, this is James Cameron: True Lies, Terminator 2, and dare I say it, Titanic. The movie was packaged and sold as a meat grinder, but it is much much more than that--a wonderful surprise. We'll see how the story holds up with the third viewing, but I strongly suspect it will. I know the criticism--heard it on NPR, actually: the story is derivative and empty. Sure, and perhaps my lack of familiarity with the movies from which it may be derived accounts for the magnitude of its impact on me. I think of myself as a story guy, too. Yes, I noted the replication of some characters, and even of certain shots, yes--and Sigourny Weaver is yet again on an alien planet, for goodness sake. But this movie, it is still my contention, is much more than Aliens or than any other movie of its kind, making its "derivation" appear "allusive." No, this is not just surface. There are layers here, not so many as to approach disintegration (ie. Lord of the Rings), but enough to suggest great depth. Again, it's not a Cormac McCarthy novel, and it would bore us if it were. It is what it needs to be, sufficient to the overall experience which is its goal, and, in my opinion, its achievement. If Cameron failed before, he seemed to have learned his lessons.
3. By overall experience, I mean, of course, the special effects, the scope and depth of story, the acting, directing, and the music--the music was perfect--everything well balanced--a seamless production. As I said in my first post, it's the best movie-watching experience of my life.
OKay, your turn, SM!
Awesome, Jag!
Dear Jag,
Thanks for indulging my feeble memory. These things are great fun to discuss -- particularly with a passionate interlocutor like you -- but the fun diminishes as my recollection fades. Perhaps I'll be able to keep the ball in the air long enough for RED (resident movie expert) and ARH1 (resident star of all things) to join the fray. I'm sure they'll have more incisive things to say than I will.
And thanks too for the passionate and unreservedly effusive initial post. My fear, of course, is that anything I'll say will seem churlish by comparison -- and perhaps rightly so. Here's why: I enjoyed seeing Avatar, Jag. I really did. But I think it's more a technological show-piece than an object of durable of art. Put differently, I think Avatar augurs a new day in film technology -- and perhaps a good one -- but we'll likely look back on it, ten years hence, like we now look at Roger Rabbit: commendable in its ambition, important for its "next wave" initiation, marketable beyond limit, but far from a cinematic masterstroke.
None of that, of course, cuts against your first point: Avatar is a terrific theater-going experience. It's so good, in fact, that it may do what the studios seem to hope it will -- namely draw big crowds out of their homes and back to the theaters. (Seems as if it already has.) As I understand things, one of the reasons Cameron could secure nearly a quarter of a billion dollars (say that twice!) in backing was that folks in H'wood thought Avatar would make movie theaters relevant again. Too many folks, apparently, were staying at home, netflix-ing away in front of their 60-inch plasma screens. Something had to draw them back -- and Avatar, or at least its technology, apparently did. So I agree completely: It's a thoroughly engrossing theater-going distraction.
At least for a time. But at the risk of exposing my own attention-related deficits, I'll admit this: The novelty wore off fairly quickly. After four 3-D previews (including a haunting and intriguingly bizarre Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton) and fifteen minutes of wild in-your-face Avatar action, I sort of got it. I could, already, appreciate the surface appeal. I still liked the rest of the ride, of course, even if I think that the music was a bit too maudlin (or Titanic-y, given James Horner's predictably soaring refrains) and the battle sequence was 30% (or 40 minutes) too long. But after fifteen minutes of beautiful artifice, I wanted something more.
And, much as it pains me to disagree with you, I have to say that what was beneath that first layer didn't grab me. I've not paid much attention to the "critical" take, though I have heard whispers about derivative plots (Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, Pocahontas, Ferngully), vapid dialogue, and racist undertones (white guy, even in blue guise, gets to be the savior of non-white-but-very-noble indigenous population). Perhaps that's all sour grapes. I hope it is. But I found the story almost cloyingly predictable in matters big and small: Of course Sully was going to fall in love with the princess; of course Sully was going to tame the gigantic (and beautiful) super-dragon at the moment of greatest need; of course the attempt to transform Sigourney Weaver's character into a living, breathing Navi foreshadowed Sully's own transformation. Not that I crave wild turns and random surprises, Jag. But it seems as if one of two things occurred: Either Cameron opted to recycle easy tropes and standard themes because his market likes them, or he decided that his movie was really about surface, not story -- so he crafted a story that wouldn't much intrude.
Or I'm totally wrong. You note that the story was stronger and deeper and richer than you anticipated. Please tell me how. I don't doubt you at all, and I'm ready and eager to hear. I'd really like to learn. As it stands now, though, I think our agreement may only be skin deep.
One last aside: Is calling the coveted mineral "unobtainium" a hackneyed joke? Clever? So obvious as to be clever all over again?
Hope you're well, Jag.
Yours,
SM!
Yes, SM!
Good stuff, my friend. Enjoyed your writing as always, and, unfortunately for us and for everyone else, I think there is little to counter your criticism, except by degree or approach. My expectations were exceeded where yours were met, but the excess does not account for half so much as our different receptions suggest. That said, I am glad we disagree on some level--it will make the post more interesting.
Effusive? Yea, I am effusive about a lot of things these days--perhaps trying to keep up with the three miracles evolving on my living room floor. Or maybe, I am just effusive? As arh1 has already pointed out, I have shown susceptibility to such H’wood schemes before. In fact, part of my joy in this movie was that I found myself once again in a queue at the theater, and with my mother and father, no less--just like Star Wars, how many years ago? Nevertheless, I hold to this claim (and stake what acumen I ever seemed to possess on it): Avatar is the best movie-theater experience yet.
To be fair, though, I suppose I should concede that "movie-theater experience" sounds much bigger than it is in my mind. I mean to compare Avatar to a very narrow set of movies--movies that effectively take me to a another world. No Country for Old Men and The Road, on second thought, and a whole host of war movies like Saving Private Ryan, or almost anything Kubrick ever made--they all used the theater expertly, and they all are much better movies than any of the ones I would compare to Avatar. But none of them transport me to a new reality--none of them are an amusement park ride. A more accurate statement (though one I think would fail to get RED and arh1 to the theater) would be: Avatar is a better movie-watching experience than Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, and The (first) Matrix, or than any of the movies from which critics say it is derived. I don't know if it will long endure, but , and I hope I don't offend your sensibilities here, to endure a day is to surpass the novelty of Roger Rabbit. Longer than Star Wars (whose reign ended the moment the new Episode One parodied it)--that is my wager. So qualified, Avatar is the success of all Cameron's hopes, delivered as packaged, thrilling through and through, living up to any of the hype I can prepetuate (--though, like you, I don't think it or anything else will usher in a new golden age for movie theaters--sorry H'wood).
I lack time at present to clarify my argument about the story, though. So let me quickly respond to a few points you brought up, instead.
1. The special effects were great precisely because they were not the end all be all of the movie. Where you felt that the novelty wore off quickly, I felt completely absorbed by it. Cameron did not opt to impress us again and again and climatically again with some fx we hadn't yet seen, and I was glad for that. It would have been too much, like that travesty of a movie-theater experience, Armageddon. Steering from a fireworks display saved the movie for me.
2. And Horner's music fits here, I believe. Titanic-y for me reveals not the error of the music so much as of the movie. Titanic made the music and everything else maudlin, I would argue: it painted Horner in the corner in which you find him--sucking his thumb and pretending to be proud. Maybe I'm just not a big-boat kind of guy. So, yes, too flighty on the foredeck of even the Titanic, screaming "I'm king of the world," but perfect on the back of a dragon, or hopping around the responsively glowing grounds of our dreams.
3. Dialogue, yes, vapid, at points, but not utterly so. My wife pinpointed this line: "You're not the only one with guns, bitch," as her example of what was wrong. And I agree. It would have certainly been better if "bitch" were replaced with "you bastard." But that whole Vasquez-from-Aliens type character bothered me anyway, whatever else she could have said. But some of the dialogue works, I feel. But that brings us to the story, which I lack time to discuss right now.
Start with that, though, SM!. We'll get to the story and whether or not it is ruined by its predictablility (--yes, who didn't know that Sully was going to fall in love and be converted before the end of the exposition?) in the next day or two, I bet.
PS. I liked "Unobtainium," but get what you're saying, Sparkle. The idea is right, if insultingly simple. "Pandora" was what bothered me. How does that fit, unless, of course, this movie is itself the opened box by which our world will be consumed by virtuality--mind you, not at the theater? That's the greatest irony of the movie, given its themes. But that for another time--maybe Saturday.
Awesome stuff, Jag.
Totally great, as always. And your effusive stands are worth the price of admission alone. I'm not sure if effusive is ever used in the pejorative, but I can assure you it wasn't used that way here. I love the bold statement; I love the grand claim; and I love the spirited conversation. I'll look forward to digging deeper into the story and the likelihood of a sequel when your schedule permits.
For now, though, a few comments on the terms you set:
(1) I'll agree to a significant point: Avatar is a great movie-theater experience. The best yet? I'm plainly the wrong one to say, not least since I've seen all of four movies in the theater in the last half-decade. But Avatar was one, and I'm glad it was. The move was, as you rightly call it, a kind of thrill-ride, one that can't possibly be recreated (yet) in the quieter air of our living rooms. Perhaps, in time, we'll look back at Avatar as the movie that made television go 3-D. (And, unless I misread the headline, those days may be closer than they seem.) But no surround-sound home-theater is adequate to Avatar's task -- save those, perhaps, in the homes of the fabulously wealthy and materially inclined. You simply have to see it as we did to experience it as it was meant to be experienced. (More on that, below.) The fact that seeing it that way earns admission to a big cultural conversation is only gravy.
But I wonder, in a sadly elliptical way, what that may say about the modern theater-going experience. (Perhaps I'm proposing a book club on Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone . . . ?) RED would surely know infinitely more about this topic than I, so I'll be both superficial and quick: There was a time, I think, that going to the theater was far more socially-engaged than it is now. Folks went to the theater to be transported in a way, sure, and to experience something they couldn't get at home either. But it was, I think, more and less than that too. They went to join with others, to delight in community reaction, to share an experience with friends and with strangers. Avatar offers some of that, but only because we've chosen, on our own, to talk about it here. It's real triumph is something different. It doesn't offer or demand or require much by way of shared experience. (Would you have felt differently in an empty theater than in a packed one?) It offers pure captivation and distraction, a sense that you're lost in some other world. A great experience, to be sure, wherever you can find it (legally). About that we completely agree. But a different experience too, and one that may say something interesting about who we are and what we want.
(2) I'm eager to hear more about the potential meta-metaphors rooted in the vocabulary of the film. Unobtainium may simply be a lark -- as I suspect it is. Pandora may simply be a fairly juvenile stab at literacy -- which I suspect too. But it's fascinating to think that, behind the screen, is some thoughtful prediction about what consequence the movie itself may sow. That conversation will take us into the story, no doubt, but I'll stake an early claim here: Neither Cameron nor anyone else of consequence cared or considered anything more about Pandora (as a word) than the cursory Pandora's Box parable would imply. Calling the planet Pandora thus works for nothing more than its superficial fit: a glorious, beautiful thing possessing even greater beauty inside -- but still fit to unleash untold pain and discord of "opened" in the wrong way.
(3) On music and effects, we may be at an intractable difference of approach (as you said). I see, cynically, a story built as an excuse for musical and special-effects grandstanding. The quality of the music and effects remains, of course, but the cart (for me) seems to come before the horse. You see, more optimistically, a set of tools and devices that elevate and integrate -- music that fits the scenic grandeur of the planet, effects that advance a self-sustaining plot. My take is probably too skeptical by half, so I'll leave with a question instead of a claim: What do you think your reaction would be if you saw the movie, for the first time, at home? (This reverts to point 1, I know -- and apologize.) Same music, though quieter. Same story, though with fewer effects. I don't mean to rehearse what you've already said: This is a quintessential theater experience. But to figure out where the epic soundtrack and the effects fit, I wonder if this thought-experiment might help. Does the movie "fail" if seen at home? And, if so, why?
Sorry to be so Delphic today, Jag. Bad week.
Hope you're well.
Yours,
SM!
ha ha, i've got to admit,
ha ha, i've got to admit, jag, your post made me lol. Independence Day, anyone? :o
nevertheless, you've piqued my curiosity. i remain, to the astonishment of many around me, actually pretty ignorant about the movie. though even i can't help but pick up a snippet of an audio clip or review here and there.
is it a "modern" movie, only possible in our present historical moment? does it capture the zeitgeist?
i'll try to give it a shot.
I'm In
Dear Jag,
I hope you're well.
First things first: I hope your new year is off to a great start. My (cyber-filtered) best to you and the young 3. If you need anything at all, don't hesitate to ask.
Second things second: Let's talk Avatar. I saw it last week -- on IMAX, no less. It was big. And loud. And beautiful. Wish they let me keep the glasses on fashion grounds alone.
Hope all's well with you and yours.
Yours,
SM!
Yes, Sparkle!
Glad to be talking with you again. Nevertheless, I am going to let this discussion stew a bit longer, so RED (official film guru) and arh1 (controversial winner of the Thurteen Days of Nerdmas two years ago), and anyone else, might also get to the movie and jump in with us.
All is well. Thank you.
Sounds right, JAG. But be
Sounds right, JAG.
But be forewarned: My ability to discuss Avatar intelligently slips each day (and was meager from the start). Before long, I'll only be able to say things like "the blue was sure pretty" or "floating trees!" or "who had to clean all of that up?" Probably not up to muster, I know. Been one of those months already . . . .
Hope you're well, all.
SM!