I’ve been disappointed with most CGI-heavy films over the last few years. It started with Peter Jackson’s King Kong remake. I mean, how is it possible to watch a giant monkey fight a giant dinosaur and be so bored? Then Michael Bay’s Transformers movies managed to give clashing giant robots all the visual impact of differently coloured paints mixing together.
So despite a predictable childhood obsession with James Cameron’s Aliens and Terminator 2, I approached Avatar with a healthy dose of skepticism. With its maybe $300 million budget – and the swirling rumours of much, much more – I was afraid that no matter how good a film it might be, I’d be stuck staring at the price tag dangling invisibly from the corner of the screen and wondering if it was worth it.
But Avatar successfully stopped me thinking about its dollar signs. It’s a massive 160 minutes long and I didn’t once look at my watch. Yes, it trades in clichés – ‘naive scientists’, ‘evil corporations’, ‘noble savages at one with nature’, and (perhaps unfortunately) ‘white man saves the day’. Some are already complaining that the story’s too simple. Well, ‘complicated’ doesn’t equal ‘good’ – Matrix sequels anyone? – and Cameron’s simple story is masterfully told.
It’s far too deliberately paced for action fans, and barely a sci-fi at all. Cameron has little interest in exploring any ideas behind the projecting-human-minds-into-alien-bodies technology that provides the film’s title. It’s a deeply earnest and old-fashioned adventure story. If anything, Avatar is a conceptual, mirror-world sequel to his Aliens from 1986. Imagine if one of Aliens’ marines had a change of heart and decided to fight alongside the creatures with acid for blood. It even has a new Paul Reiseresque corporate stooge!
And here’s the ultimate compliment for Avatar’s special effects: they’re so good that I don’t feel much of a need to talk about them. Yes, the world of Pandora and its giant blue inhabitants is visually overwhelming at first. Too busy, too day-glow, too outdoor rave. Once you adjust, Avatar is completely immersive. The Uncanny Valley that turned films like The Polar Express into horrific parades of undead fleshbots is nowhere to be seen – thanks to being artfully subsumed into alien facial features.
I’m nervous about saying it in case Avatar completely falls apart on a second viewing, but there were brief flashes where I felt like a kid watching Star Wars for the first time.
All Avatar‘s above pleasures, however, depend on your ability to process this pair of facts: it’s about a noble indigenous population fighting corporate greed and American imperialism in defence of their world’s vibrant ecosystem… that also happens to be the most expensive film ever made.
As Alanis Morisette might say: that’s the black fly in your chardonnay.
Does the production of a film affect your enjoyment of it? Read this unmissable New Yorker piece about Cameron’s creative process on the set of Avatar, and wonder if we should dismiss all art made with money that could have been better spent. I think it’s only human to hear an obscene Hollywood budget like this and have a flicker of thought about starving third world children – but if you follow this logical path, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the cost of any art at all.
Is the disjunction between Avatar’s moral message and its decadent production an unforgiveable hypocrisy? Or is the fact that Cameron convinced his backers to throw hundreds of millions at a film that’s so overtly anti-corporate and anti-America the ultimate act of insider subversion? Does it matter?
If it sounds like I’m making excuses, I don’t mean to be. It’s perfectly reasonable to think the amount of money spent of Avatar is repulsive, and avoid it for that reason alone. It’s to James Cameron’s credit, though, that I was so completely taken in by the movie that these questions didn’t even occur to me until after the credited rolled – and after the hideous Titanic-style ballad began.
#1 by dsi r4 on December 30th, 2009
Avatar may be a little hollow in the center but the sheer scale and ambition of the production make it hard to beat. Never mind the inadequacies of the story, just savor the spectacle and what can be achieved with the appliance of science.
#2 by Alison on January 2nd, 2010
I saw Avatar last night, with no expectations of liking it. I had seen a preview for it a few weeks back and actually found it yawn-inducing (the story, when compressed into a 2 min preview seems even more ludicrous) and the visuals were too startling to be immediately enjoyable (it looked like a computer game on acid). But friends wanted to see it, so I went along too.
By good luck we went to a cinema showing the movie in 3D, which really, really enhances the movie. The narrative, when played out over the 2 hours 50 minutes becomes completely involving. The character of Jake Sully works well (the preview gives no sense that he is a paraplegic, and I found that a really interesting dimension in the film) and Sam Worthington is so charismatic (he’s one of those actors about whom they say ‘women want to be with him; men want to be like him)… The film totally gallops through its running time – I had no sense of boredom or longeurs at all. I like your comments on the tensions between the narrative premise and the actuality of the film’s hyper-expensive production, and I think they’re really vaild – I agree… But it’s a testament to the powers of cinema generally and to Cameron’s film-making here in particular that the film is such an amazing experience that these tensions didn’t enter my mind during it either… The packed audience who sat gripped and motionless (many of whom clapped at the end) would also indicate that Avatar sets a new benchmark for cinematic spectacle.
#3 by Martyn on January 2nd, 2010
Alison, I had the exact same reactions to the previews – I couldn’t believe how cheesy it all looked, and made my share of “twelve years later and he still can’t make the aliens look better than rubery puppets, huh?” gags. Maybe 3D really is the difference. Something like Pixar’s UP didn’t need 3D at all – it just used it for a little extra depth, but you wouldn’t notice it if it was missing. But without 3D, AVATAR might be missing a major visual component.
(I’m fascinated by audience reactions to this one – and shocked that your crowd was receptive to the point of spontaneous applause!)
As for the “hollow” story – yeah, I know what you mean. But I don’t know if I’d describe it that way, even though it was obviously reheated from a dozen familiar sources. Some film conventions don’t seem to lose power, no matter how often they’re repeated…
What do you think of this comment by the very smart Bob Rehak – http://graphic-engine.swarthmore.edu/?p=372 – who suggests that maybe “…in such a technically intricate production, a relatively simple narrative gearing is required to anchor audiences and lead them [...] along a precise path through the jungle”?
#4 by Alison on January 3rd, 2010
Hi Martyn,
Thanks for the link to Bob Rehak’s blog – I hadn’t known about this and it looks fascinating and well-written… I like what he says about Avatar: in many ways, I would agree that part of the pleasure of watching it came from a sense of certainty in how the narrative would develop, that there weren’t going to be any sudden surprises down the track and in fact we would get to see the narrative spool out as predicted. To call that ‘hollow’ would miss the point, perhaps, in that predictable narratives or well-worn narrative conventions stay around precisely because they deliver pleasure in reliable ways. Even though we know the grooves of a story doesn’t mean that we don’t find it fun to travel along those grooves, especially when executed with such elan and aplomb…
In terms of audience reactions, you might be interested to know that the audience I was in burst out laughing when the following lines were spoken: ‘we will fight terror with terror’, and the ‘shock and awe’ line… (I found it hilariously depressing to think that in 2154 apparently the phrase ‘shock and awe’ will still be around as a cultural referent!)…. I’d be interested in knowing whether Cameron has been criticised by the Right in the US for his (albeit ham-fisted) implied critique of the Iraq War – have you heard anything about reactions to the film’s politics?
#5 by Martyn on January 5th, 2010
Oh yes, Cameron’s definitely been attacked online for making a ‘leftist fairytale’, but that’s to be expected. More confusing, though, is when the story of AVATAR is so schematic that it lets people read, uh, whatever they want into it.
Like this piece in the Guardian, explaining why Sarah Palin would love it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/30/fake-science-noughties
Listening to an interview with Cameron on Studio 360, it seemed like the plot grew more out of his childhood love of adventure films, rather than the desire to make any kind of political statement. (Although he says that he wasn’t quite as convinced that AVATAR is the new WIZARD OF OZ as some others on set!)
#6 by Manolis on January 7th, 2010
The movie might have had a big budget, but the fact that Avatar will make a profit means that that money was not wasted.
Spending $250,000 on a shit film with little artistic merit that loses money (i.e. a lot of Australian film) is much more obscene and wasteful than spending billions of dollars on breathtaking films that make a profit.
Price and waste are not directly related.
#7 by Martyn on January 8th, 2010
You’re right, of course, Manolis – and while I know I’m the one who stupidly started this whole ‘money vs art’ discussion, it really is an impossible one, I think.
For one, I love dozens of films that completely flopped at the box office, but I’ve never say they weren’t ‘worth it’. And even worse: once you start asking if art was worth the money, well, even the world’s greatest stories start to feel hollow next to starving children. I’ve always said that art is, by definition, stuff that’s not necessary – that’s what makes it art!
So, uh, in conclusion: I don’t know.