James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) is a masterpiece. It’s a movie that is epic in its scope and groundbreaking in its techniques. James Cameron is one of the most imaginative minds in Hollywood today and, in Avatar, he presents us a whole new universe so rich in detail and so endlessly inventive that one can’t help but surrender to the magic of the film. But more than being just an exciting movie experience, it provides us with so many profound subtexts that will have you ruminating long after you leave the cinema hall. Avatar is not just the special summer blockbuster, it is a scathing satire about man’s plundering of his environment, a parable about the conflict between nature and machines and the inevitable victory of the former, an appeal for conservation of diversity and a trenchant exploration of human greed and its consequences.
Ya, right. Now, the review:
James Cameron’s Avatar is a summation of all that’s wrong about Hollywood cinema. The only difference between James Cameron and the teenage fanboy who never misses out on any summer action movie is that Cameron has got the money. Endlessly exploitative, determinedly commercial, cinematically incompetent and morally dishonest, Avatar makes the films of Michael Bay seem like Martin Scorsese’s. At least in Michael Bay’s movies, like any other low-budget B-movie, one gesture of honesty shines through – that the people behind the camera are merely trying to make a living, by whatever means possible. With these movies, you at least know that everything is manipulated and put together with little creativity to sell and earn something. Unlike self-proclaimed artists like Spielberg and Cameron, these directors know their scope and are satisfied with sticking to what they do best (Can you imagine Bay making a Holocaust movie? Neither can he). Cameron returns to the screen after 12 long years, following Titanic (1997), to make this tepid genre movie and one only wonders if he was too immersed in his “research” to keep up with the pace of Hollywood in these dozen years.
The plot? Not a new one at all. The year is 2154 and it is a fact that humans have set foot on an exotic planet called Pandora inhabited by a race called Na’vi. They are here to mine some very valuable minerals and take them back home. But alas, the Na’vi are not willing to relocate and make way for the American mining company SecFor, headed by Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), that has set up a base in Pandora. The company has two schools of action. One, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), believes in learning the Na’vi culture, becoming friends with them and proceeding with peaceful negotiations for the relocation. The other, headed by Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), believes in brute force and has already mustered up enough arms to blow up the planet. Now, a disabled marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is transferred to the station and he has to act as the bodyguard (using a different body, of course) to the peaceful group as they move about in Pandora, condescending on Na’vi kids and hugging trees. But then, he discovers that he is the brave soul that the Na’vi are looking for. And all of a sudden, he becomes everyone’s hero. Knocking about in Grace’s camp, reporting to Lang and bonding with the Na’vi, Sully’s life is only all too good for him until the day, well, it isn’t.
Avatar is a conformist film. It acknowledges, reinforces and perpetuates every myth that the popular media has created and disseminated throughout the world. Mixing all possible ethnic and gender stereotypes, Cameron creates an alien race that seems just like the human race, living in perennial Halloween (Yes, there are the token Japanese, Indian and black American characters too). The Na’vi are modeled on oriental and African types of Hollywood – tall, lanky and with large nostrils and broad nasal bones. All their women have hourglass structures and the men, six packs. Their English accent and exotic religious practices are clearly those of the African clans or Asian settlements that Hollywood gives us. Not only does Cameron anthropomorphize aliens (which is only expected from popular cinema), but gives them the stock status of the noble tribe who live by strict Victorian morals and exist in harmony with nature with their simple desires and dreams. Furthermore, their emotional pattern is same as ours (surprise, surprise) with all the popular notions of love, sacrifice and fraternity intact. James Horner’s score suffuses the soundtrack with quintessential African chorus and ethnic vocals, the likes of which one can find in those movies about Tibet or Uganda. What next – a MacDonald’s outlet in Pandora? James Cameron’s film may have attempted to make some larger than life statements about imperialism, but, in the end, it is Cameron who turns out as the cultural imperialist.
This attempt by the script to overreach and make broad political statements is what really kills Avatar. Remove the 380 million dollar cover of the film and you will find a B War movie chuckling beneath. Avatar regularly tries to call our attention to the parallel it strikes with the WW2 and the Vietnam War (One character calls the Na’vi “blue monkeys” in the bushes and another wants to blow up a crater on the Pandora surface that generations will remember. Oh, how subtle). The sheath it uses to cover its shallow liberal messages is as deep as thin ice. And the movie harnesses every possible chance to demonize these characters who want to plunder the resources of Pandora at any cost. Is this a gesture of introspection or self-criticism? No, it’s fake repentance. Avatar still remains a film that upholds the political ethics of America and continues the streak of white man’s victory in an alien land. Look how Cameron has the handful of guys in the film, who apparently want to negotiate peacefully with the Na’vi, side with the natives and take up arms all of a sudden (as if they didn’t see this coming) and, in effect, segregates the “good” Americans from the “evil” ones. By alienating one set of Americans by intense caricaturing and observing the other with considerable empathy, Cameron successfully preserves the popular morality of the American armed forces, wherein the just alone shall be rewarded. It still takes the leadership of a white man and the martyrdom of a few others to defeat evil forces. Now, why in Pandora couldn’t the Na’vi kick all the imperialist butts by themselves in the first place?
In Starship Troopers (1997), a film that I don’t really care much for, Verhoeven avoids most of these pitfalls as he stretches the film’s campy nature all the way to leverage the resultant the absurdity to make his statement. But no. Cameron wants us to engage emotionally with the characters – with these shallow characters. Complete with the corniest of lines, which are at least three decades old for Hollywood, each character in the film is a cliché. The American dude, the geeky systems engineer, the savage colonel, the resolute female scientist, the brave and virtuous native girl and her tough suitor are all familiar to us now and not one of them has any depth (No, not because I saw the film in 2D). Only rarely are the characters aware of the same (Weaver seems to be consciously reprising her character from the Alien quadrilogy), but Cameron kills of any such cinematic joy immediately. Not just the characters, each body gesture, each conflict, each set piece and each emotional conversation falls on predictable lines, as in ordinary animation films. One can actually spot the precise points where the first and second acts end. Unlike Peter Jackson’s Rings trilogy or even the Warcraft series of games, Avatar just doesn’t have meaty literature or memorable characters to build upon and nudge us into a complete new world. And did someone say that Cameron was a visual storyteller? For most part, instead of simple on-screen text, Avatar’s story is told to us through unbelievable conversations between characters where they sum up situations and emotions (Parker has to remind grace about their mission even after years of working in Pandora). Avatar could have well served as a commentary about internet culture, where one can assume a whole new personality and lead a whole new life, where one can try to undo all the wrong moves he/she might have done in real life and which, like cinema, is a zone of wish-fulfillment. But the film sets its gaze elsewhere.
Suspending all my complaints about the shallow and pretentious script and considering Avatar as an uncomplicated genre movie does not help either. One strong point for the movie seems to be the exhilarating experience and the visual inventiveness the film supposedly offers. But there, too, Cameron’s movie seems utterly deficient (I have only seen the film in 2D, but I do believe that 3D, unless used for Brechtian causes, is purely a gimmick). Cameron sticks to tried and tested genre grammar and compositions which are far from the breakthrough that the film is being hailed as. The diagonally descending camera as the characters commute, the arcing shots when a CG delicacy unfolds, the handheld through the woods or even the sudden exposure of vast, open spaces are all tools exploited and killed many times over right from the Indiana Jones (Spielberg, now there is a visually inventive director) to the Transformers series. A lot of times, I felt, Cameron sacrifices composition for cheap 3D jolts (the arrow has to hit you some time in the movie, that’s the basic), which one can identify easily in the two dimensional version too. His cuts serve the purpose of hiding CG defects than to provide a new way of depicting action. Then, there is Cameron’s excessive use of close ups of the Na’vi that seem like moves to show off character design (the science behind which is indeed praiseworthy). These are shots that cry out for technical attention and which will be, without doubt, played endlessly in technical conferences and in the DVD extras where the makers would explain how they used “emotion capture” to create the Na’vi out of the actors and how they had to design separate jaw and dental systems for the creatures (Yes, I’m taking about you, Mr. Button). Mr. Cameron, we are the audience, not the auditors. You need not justify your budget within your film.
Let the fanboy bashing begin!
Verdict:
December 19, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I am very happy to see an honest review on Avatar. Each reviewer and each newspaper are competing with each other in praising this movie. But I feel this movie lacks soul. I have watched it in Imax 3D in Hyderabad, but to be frank, this movie is plain boring. My friends and colleauges laughed at me upon hearing my opinion. Glad that I can find a reviewer who thinks in the same way.
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Kishor,
Exactly. Leave alone soul, this one lacks a body. This movie is just a reflection of a reflection.
Please ask your friends to see the film without the glasses and with a barf bag. Nauseating experience.
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Hmmm… Haven’t seen Avatar yet. But I guess on deeper analysis and further contemplative introspection you will find that the movie severely lacks that ONE potent force Starship Troopers and Transformer series had.
Namely the hawt, smoking babe(s).
*Clears Throat. Keeps a straight face*
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 9:51 pm
No, it does. She’s the Miss Pandora title holder of 2009.
Cameron makes sure that he sticks to the formula there too..
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“It ain’t the same ballpark, man! It ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport” – Pulp Fiction
Comparing Denise Richards (of the 90s) and Megan Fox to a blue, emaciated reptilian chick ….Not happening, dude :D
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Ha, at the other end was Sigourney Weaver…
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Yes. The plot was wafer thin. Yes. The references were bloody damn obvious starting from the name of the place to the mineral. This was never meant to be an intellectually challenging movie.
Yes. Each of the many sequences may not be the first of its kind. Yes. Gollum, perhaps one of the most endearing non-human characters, may have been already created using the same techniques as used for each of these characters. But, then , hell, this lasts for a whole 2 and a half hours. And frankly at one level, I was transported to their little world.
Yes. Every little twist may have been anticipated by an intelligent observant viewer, but I do not see that being a negative. The suspense is not what will happen next, but what you will see next.
If I may make one small comparison, if all 3-D / animation movies may be equated to Rajini’s formulaic movies then Avatar is the Basha of them all. :)
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“But, then , hell, this lasts for a whole 2 and a half hours”
–I think you swapped “this” and “hell” by mistake.
Yes, I accept that this one should be viewed plainly as a genre movie. But then, it only makes the movie all the more bland, because it adds nothing to the script or even the visual experience. If it is 3-D that makes all the difference, it’s just another flaw for the movie.
Frankly, if it was all about the visuals, why should Cameron cut to the action in an MTV pace?
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 12:16 am
I have yet to see Cameron’s latest ‘product’ and I am unlikely to do so given the overwhelming hype surrounding the film’s release. I see that you were not convinced in the slightest. Excellent dissection. I do agree with your observation that this is a conformist film – most mainstream Hollywood blockbusters with an over-inflated budget tend to subscribe to the dominant point of view, but some critics are reading this is as an allegory for the occupation of Iraq? What do you think or is this just more ridiculous hype aimed at collective conviction. One thing I have been noticing is that some critics who are resolutely disapproving of Hollywood blockbusters which depend greatly on special effects have opted not to slam the film, but consensually praise it. This seems to prove how important a film like ‘Avatar’ is to the American film industry – its sheer budget means that the film critics and reviewers assigned to the mainstream media have simply proved that critical autonomy is repressed by the hegemonic impulses of corporate Hollywood.
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 7:57 am
I’m not sure if the Iraq war is pertinent here. I see that Cameron started the film 12 years ago – much before the war. If he did have intentions of making statements about the Iraq war, it would only mean that he started working on the script much later than he did on the technology – which is appalling…
“that critical autonomy is repressed by the hegemonic impulses of corporate Hollywood.” – Perfectly put. I’m not sure if the major critics work with complete independence at all. For eg. Roger Ebert knows how a thumbs down from him can have massive repercussions on the BO success of the film. He seems to always try to be nice, even when he is dissing a movie. And Avatar’s BO success is critical for the studio. We’ll have to wait for a couple of months to actually let the honest opinions surface…
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 1:38 am
JAFB
Completely agree. Though Cameron does manage to attempt the division of a new aesthetic for 3D, and somehow manages to resist the temptation of throwing things at the audience (something even the Lumieres couldn’t, with the shot of the train arriving and making the audience scutter around for cover); it just is a failure as a film. I am shocked by the response given to it by Dargis, Ebert and Berardinelli. Somehow, Armond White ‘almost’ gets it right.
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 7:59 am
Haven’t read any of the reviews yet, except the superb one at Emerson’s. Catching up now…
Ha, Like the Lumieres. BTW, I did hear that that anecdote is a rumour.
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 8:19 am
Just saw the synopses of all the reviews. Shocking. How could anyone use all those flowery words to describe this piece of trash?
“This is the most technically amazing motion picture to have arrived on screens in many years. ” – Berardinelli
“James Cameron has turned one man’s dream of the movies into a trippy joy ride about the end of life — our moviegoing life included — as we know it. ” – Dargis
“James Cameron’s Avatar is the most beautiful film I’ve seen in years.” – Denby
And White’s synopsis seems to be, as usual, provocative. I’m gonna read only the two neg reviews -White and Hoberman…
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Srikanth,
Critics pan Jarmusch and Woody Allen for heavily scrutinised shortcomings. I have a feeling that the same standards disappear for ‘different’ kind of cinema (read ‘cinematic experience’).
Consider the voice over in VCB. It was touted as the biggest drawback in the film; meant to keep you away from ‘wholesome’ entertainment. It missed scrutiny, analysis.
Critics used it to make themselves feel better about cinema.
Thus, if the movie does not offer you the new, the wholesome, then it is scrutinised for deficiencies; its fault being that since it conveys the natural, uses the obvious and the available means at its disposition, it must rest at par with the critics’ idea of the masterpiece.
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Kartikey,
Thanks for the comment. I’m not sure what your stand is on Avatar though.
The greatest problem with Avatar is not that it offers nothing new, but it takes some very wrong things to the next level.
The joy of watching a genre movie is the revelation or discovery of the “new”. When a genre movie does not make us see something new and maintains status quo, it simply fails to achieve greatness.
P.S: I’m a defender of the voice over in VCB…
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 9:29 am
YOU HAVE MADE MY DAY JAFB!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am presently preparing my MMD, and won’t have a full review up until Tuesday but I have been promoting this film all over the place. I have been ravished, overwhelmed and devastated! i walked out of the theatre this afternoon with tears in my eyes! The lyricism, indelible images and stirring emotions have also caused me to call this film a masterpiece and a strong contender for the year’s best film. This is a mighty piece here and I one I fully endorse!!!
JAFB: Please check out this comment thread to see how I am been going nuts all day about this film:
http://livingincinema.com/2009/12/19/shelter-from-the-avatar-storm/comment-page-1/#comment-98886
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 9:34 am
Needless to say JAFB, my joy was short-lived!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 9:38 am
I fully understand where you were coming from, though you will read exactly why I felt the way I did.
“Suspending all my complaints about the shallow and pretentious script and considering Avatar as an uncomplicated genre movie does not help either. One strong point for the movie seems to be the exhilarating experience and the visual inventiveness the film supposedly offers. But there, too, Cameron’s movie seems utterly deficient (I have only seen the film in 2D, but I do believe that 3D, unless used for Brechtian causes, is purely a gimmick).
I don’t feel dialogue in this kind of visual, immersive, emotional tone poem of a film requires strong dialogue, but coming from where you are coming from it’s a valid complaint. I agree the 3 D thing is a gimmick, that’s why I saw it in 2 D.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 9:39 am
“Some people instinctively are jealous when they don’t feel what the predominant majority feels and they play the devil’s advocate game.”
Sam, I’m really sorry that I’ve broken your day now. I do accept that I am damn jealous of those who had a marvelous experience. And I do hear that the 3D takes the film to a whole new emotion level. But the “film”, as such, fell falt for me.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 9:41 am
And it’s surprising that you were overwhelmed by the 2D version itself. People tell me that it’s clearly inferior.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 10:06 am
JAFB: You are a good man and a fantastic critic. We won’t always agree, but we do most of the time.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 10:44 am
[…] “Just Another Film Buff” is no fan of Avatar. Check out his superbly-written piece: https://theseventhart.info/2009/12/19/pandora-mon-amour/ At “Aspiring Sellout” Jon Lanthier has a sleigh pictured with some music to hear: […]
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 9:08 am
Its a movie which I feel is best seen and forgotten. I saw the movie in 3-D and the visuals were very good but Cameron forgets that there is more to a movie than just graphics.
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 9:12 am
Extremely well put. It is only foolish for him to ask us not to look beyond the gimmicks…
LikeLike
December 25, 2009 at 8:08 am
JAFB: I just wanted to stop in and wish you a peaceful Holiday week, and to let you know that I did see AVATAR again in 3D on Tuesday night, and I found it visually essential and stunning from a technical point of view. But I did not feel it was enhanced in an emotional sense, meaning that aspect was pretty much the same. It’s an awespome spectacle in a genre I almost never react warmly to, but there you have it.
LikeLike
December 25, 2009 at 8:48 am
Thanks Sam. Wishing you a very peaceful and joyous Christmas too.
LikeLike
December 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm
A brilliant review (even though I am not a great fan of sarcasm).
I actually liked it a lot but was frustrated that I couldn’t like it more.
My thoughts are here:
http://checkingonmysausages.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-2009-james-cameron-in.html
I’d be grateful if you could tell me what you think.
Keep up the great work. I find this blog fascinating.
LikeLike
January 28, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Certainly a shoo-in for the Oscars….
I’m rooting for the Hurt Locker…
this is one of the best film blog out there…
LikeLike
January 28, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Thanks for the bit of rap there, Mayo. Although I feel that The Hurt Locker is, hands down, a better film, I predict a best film-best director steal for Avatar at the Oscars….
LikeLike
January 30, 2010 at 6:05 am
Boring plot? Yes. Cliched characters? Ridiculously bad storytelling? Absolutely.
But a review without having seen it in 3D? That was a mistake. Because the 3D was used in exactly an *opposite* way of a Brechtian verfremdungseffekt. Before walking in, I was afraid that it would be used “for cheap 3D jolts” (which would have broken my suspension of disbelief), but instead, Cameron’s subtle use of 3D made the world-building *immersive*.
And that’s why you should have seen it in 3D in order to review it. It’s no longer a “film”, but something else entirely.
If only he’d let someone else write the script…
LikeLike
January 30, 2010 at 7:46 am
AP,
I agree that the ideal viewing of the film would be in 3D. But when a filmmaker consciously releases his movie in another format, he should be willing to face its consequences. Say a widescreen film was also released in TV format, with its director’s approval, it would, then, be not unfair to slam the movie for bad framing. If JC wanted the film to be no more than an immersion gimmick, he shouldn’t have called it a “film” at all. Thanks for the feedback.
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Well, what do you say about TV channels chopping and cutting movies up to “fit” slots and remove “unsuitable” content, depending on country and time?
Sometimes, what happens to the movie is not up to the director, unfortunately (though I’m really not defending Cameron here!)
We should all be so lucky as to go back to the Nouvelle Vague and shoot low budget films on cheap stock on the street :)
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 6:27 pm
“Well, what do you say about TV channels chopping and cutting movies up to “fit” slots and remove “unsuitable” content, depending on country and time?” – It’s simple then. It just isn’t the same movie anymore!
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Oh yeah, but The Hurt Locker vs. Avatar? That’s a no-brainer – the Hurt Locker is incredible. Avatar shouldn’t win anything more than the technical awards. Anything else would be just unfortunate.
LikeLike
February 3, 2010 at 6:43 am
I read the first few lines of your review and was completely discouraged… Thankfully, I just went on to the next paragraph… I agree with the poster AP, I watched this film in IMAX 3d and it was worth every penny. Unfortunately, the story was so juvenile that it helped me not to waste another expensive IMAX ticket. I agree that this movie should not win anything oher than technical awards. Then again considering Hollywood’s love affair with an equally horrible movie called Titanic, I would be surprised if it doesn’t sweep the Oscars.
Kind of ironical that The Hurt Locker and Avatar are going head to head, considering Katheryn Bigelow is Cameron’s ex-wife.
LikeLike
February 3, 2010 at 6:45 am
Yes, ironical it is. And it is also the perfect fodder for the academy, which loves such drama.
LikeLike