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.

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.

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!)

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?

(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”?

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.