Billions, schmillions—Avatar is sheer self-indulgence touted as cutting-edge sci-tech.
But that’s not my big issue with this bloat of folkloric cheesiness wrapped in day-glo and eco-blather. And I don’t care how many billions are being shelled out for this film.
My main problem with Avatar lies with the moral implications of such big budget generic commercialism: Lack of courage.
Once upon a time, filmmakers had imaginations larger than their budgets. Often they had fresh stories to tell, and fueled by their imaginations they shaped these stories with words, images and directorial vision into cinematic gems. The greatest made work that endured, enchanted and enlightened.
Given the amount of advance hype, the ten years of his life director James Cameron (The Abyss, Aliens, The Titanic) gave to the project, and the amount of money it cost, there was good reason to get excited about the Big Holiday Movie that opened less than a month ago. Alas while Cameron took his sweet time tinkering with technology and special effects, film fashion passed him by. The hackneyed graphics, the psychedelic sensibility, the embarrassing ethnic stereotypes, the recycled underwater-meets-the-rainforest imagery, the sophomoric script and most of all the shocking lack of fantasy/sci-fi vision make this the howler of the decade.
Dances with Wolves meets The Lion King
Cameron is a sucker for simple tales of worlds colliding with some sort of trans-species lovefest as a result. He’s made that film before – and better. Yet here it is again. Cameron’s “breakthrough†film offers us the clash of two planetary cultures, one a dying exercise in warfare and pollution (us), the other a paradise of ecological sensitivity and peace (them). Within that us/them duality lies another one: passionate science nerds exploring a new world and its highly evolved ecophere, vs. a pack of military/industrial types intent upon raping the land for its mineralogical loot. Yes, a plot as fresh as transfats in a time capsule.
But Cameron, who lost his sense of perspective as well as his fourth and fifth wives during the interminable filming of this pixel hog, doesn’t even see the irony here. He spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the technology to make this film, which allegedly is about the evils of technology. Our Netflix order of Zabriskie Point, arguably one of the alltime screen bow-wows, looked bracingly astute by comparison.
There’s plenty of cultural cowardice to go around. Cameron is obsessed with hustling tired scenarios tarted up as new eye candy. Think Dances With Wolves meets The Lion King and you will have the basic “plot.†Earth guy comes to exotic planet where the “natives†are all large, blue and in tune with Nature. And they all have natural rhythm too. Predictably the earth guy “goes native,†and here’s where the film devolves into “We are the world, we are the children.â€
Cameron is liberal with his stereotypes. There isn’t an ethnic group he fails to insult in his determination to play imperialist bwana to people of photoshopped color. But since this film has grossed so blitheringly much money, I have heightened doubts about the level of inquiry and imagination of the public at large. How can so many ask for so little? Consider the artistic sloth of sticking to a safe formula disguised with golly-gee special effects. Emotionally shallow mainstream audiences ask so little, and filmmakers are happy to respond with even less.
There’s 20 minutes of interest here, especially the parts where the big blue people from planet Pandora (I couldn’t make this up) ride through the air, swirling and soaring, on the backs of their winged teradactylesque creatures. Shimmering waterfalls, islands in the sky, flourescent forests, yeah there’s some nifty stuff to look at. But not two and a half hours nifty! In the end, Avatar (itself an avatar for the director’s ego) is just plain boring. Cameron’s lack of chance-taking (or maybe it’s just lack of imagination) cuts him out of that inner circle he feels so entitled to. He’s no Stanley Kubrick (who reframed edgy, controversial texts), and he’s a far cry from Steven Spielberg (a storytelling genius). Even George Lucas’ Freudian playfulness leaves Cameron in the dust. Folkloric cheesiness and expensive digital effects in service of a generic plot. What a waste of serious money that might have financed dozens of genuinely innovative films.
And with dialogue like this —“If they get to the Tree of Souls, it’s over!†—Cameron should be forced to vacate Malibu.
It was technically lovely, but as a SF reader the story was unimpressive, and I am being kind.
The thing that I liked about the film as the seamlessness of the different technology they used in making the world and creatures alive. Tthe 1.5 dimensional charictors were an insult. And the general lack of originality with the plot was sad.
Can we not go to the movies once in awhile just to be entertained?? That’s what “Avatar” was for me – entertainment. If you want to criticize the familiar plot, or the film appealing to a mass audience with their obviously-beneath-you “level of inquiry and imagination,” surely that applies to 98% of films that are released. I often think of the shameful waste of trillions of dollars spent on crap “entertainment,” which of course could be directed to so many projects that would make the world a far better place. But that’s the world we live in at this time and place. (and it’s not just Hollywood – think of Bollywood…) I’d love to see Adam Sandler movies be against the law, but they’re not. “Avatar” was a fantasy movie. On going into the theater I expected it to be an overblown video game but the movie exceeded my expectations. I see TONS of obscure “art” films, so I didn’t feel guilty about shelling out a few dollars to see “Avatar.” I felt I was watching a real break-through as far as 3D filmmaking. (Can’t wait for Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” in 3D!)
Christina, I couldn’t agree more! This film was a big blue ordeal. I stumbled out of it clutching my head. Why bother spending so much money on visuals only to graft on one of the tiredest plots in history? Not a single cliche left unturned. Such a waste.
Am I the only person who is appalled by violent films like this? Or is everybody else “entertained” by let’s blow stuff up? Nothing in any of the reviews prepared me for this and I’m really mad about it. You can’t decide whether to see something or not based on reviews; the reviewers are busy telling us whether it’s “art” and rarely mention how violent a movie is. I was so upset I walked out about 2/3 of the way through, and cried most of the way home. Yeah, I’m a big baby. Sorry to be a buzz-killer but I don’t find warfare entertaining. It depicts destruction and dehumanization and somehow I can’t just tell myself it’s only a movie. I think perhaps because we see so many violent images everywhere no one thinks anything of it; we’re completely desensitized. The most disturbing thing of all was seeing so many people in line with small children. Since when is this healthy entertainment for little kids?
Christina, 180% in your corner! Different take. I saw it as a rip-off of “The New World” by way of “The Lord of the Rings” films, “Jurassic Park” and “Matrix” — with some “Transformers” thrown in. The very idea that this crap is nominated for Best Original Screenplay of 2009 by the Writer’s Guild is puke-making in the extreme.