Love it or hate it, “Avatar,” James Cameron’s latest venture into exorbitant-budget cinema, is a bad movie. Let me explain: “Avatar” is, at best, half a movie. The 3D visuals are as breathtaking as the plot is insipid. Most of you, by now, either plan to see it or shun it. However, if you plan on waiting for the DVD release of “Avatar,” don’t waste your time (unless you plan on purchasing one of those $2,000 3D TVs set for release this spring). Watching it in 3D is the only way you will get anything out of it. Which gets me back to my initial point: “Avatar” is a bad movie.
To give credit where credit is due, Cameron wrote the screenplay for the film (i.e. the ideas behind the movie are his and his alone), which is something most of his fellow American and so-called ‘Oscar worthy’ directors like David Fincher (“Fight Club,” “Zodiac” or “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”) can’t say about their own films. Cameron’s films, however, have rarely enjoyed good screenplays and “Avatar” may be his worst yet.
Let’s start with the obvious: the characters. The meat of Cameron’s previous stories have been the characters, but in “Avatar” they provide merely a backdrop for layers upon layers of allegory. My fellow cinefile, Whitman sophomore Alex Pearson, reminded me that even in “Titanic,” a film I loathe to this day, Cameron made Kate Winslet’s character interesting enough to root for and, halfway in, you are struck by the fact that the entire story is uniquely driven by a non-stereotyped female character: feats that, lamentably, most movies fail to achieve. Conversely, “Avatar” is recklessly carried by a growling colonel (Stephen Lang), an uninspiring hero (Sam Worthington) and “Na’vi For Dummies” manual (Zoe Saldana): three items I would not take to a foreign world like Pandora.
Next, we have the never-ending ennui (what others call the film’s plot). Unlike his better films, namely “Terminator” and “Aliens,” Cameron heaves the plot of “Avatar” into the Pandora (allegory: Iraq) rain forest exceptionally prematurely. All we are told is that a corporation that employs marines (allegory: Blackwater) seeks to exploit the reserves of a valuable mineral called unobtanium (allegory: oil) before we endure an hour-and-30-minute-long encyclopedic explanation of our hero’s interactions with all the mundane elements of that world.
What the first half of the movie unfortunately demonstrates is how the impossible can not only become possible, but boring, when introduced in large quantities. Furthermore, stories of encounters (take note first-years!) are recycled without nuance by each generation: As a recent post on the ever-wonderful FAIL Blog points out, the plot of “Avatar” is eerily familiar to that of Disney’s “Pocahontas” so as to almost constitute plagiarism.
It’s unfortunate that Cameron chose to marry pathetic plot devices (and a terrible narrative) to beautiful visuals that nearly forced me to overcome my acrophobia. What’s more remarkable is the way “Avatar” uses 3D to accentuate depth instead of the proximity of objects to one’s head. Most 3D movies, until now, find humor in throwing objects or sticking things out of the picture at the audience: Even Henry Selick’s gorgeous adaptation of “Coraline,” arguably the film that most effectively used 3D until “Avatar,” hinged on things popping out at its audience.
Fundamentally, a film consists of two elements: an audio-visual one and a narrative one. “Avatar” only has a good audio-visual component and that is why it is a bad movie. A half-movie is not a good movie at all. Like “Titanic,” “Avatar” is not even a mediocre movie because it lacks the half that gives it any purpose, emotion or drive. But also, like “Titanic,” it is one that will force future cinematographers to reconsider the ways in which they employ technological advances in their films.
Nate • Jan 30, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I repeated a sentence in there twice. My bad.
Nate • Jan 30, 2010 at 8:51 pm
I think I used the term “visually different” in the wrong context, so thanks for catching me on that. I guess I meant different in terms of special effects and such. Let me just say that I’m not a fan of Cameron, and have an issue with the ridiculous amount of money spent on the film, but there are other films out there that spend just as much money and are even worse. I guess it’s my opinion that if a film is entertaining and fun. It’s not a bad movie. It’s not a great movie, nor an important movie. But I wouldn’t flat out call it “a bad movie.” Other films out there have spent just as much as Avatar has. And they are even worse. Film has many purposes, and entertainment is one of them. So if you enjoyed the film and were entertained I don’t think Avatar should be considered a bad movie. It should be accepted for what it is: entertainment.
I too am upset with the ridiculous amount of praise it has been received. And of course I don’t think that Avatar deserves a best picture nod (which unfortunately, it will get. Hopefully it won’t win. My fingers are also crossed for The Hurt Locker).
I like neorealism too, but I just wasn’t a huge fan of those. Also, if you like neorealism and Goodbye Solo, I might (not sure) be able to get you a phone interview with Ramin Bahrani for the pio. We have a mutual friend. Let me know.
Becquer Medak-Seguin • Jan 30, 2010 at 11:17 am
Dear reader,
First, I’d like to thank you for reading my piece and providing a thoughtful comment.
I think you’re mistaken about my reading of the movie and, had I had more column space, I would’ve probably flushed out your concerns more directly. But here we go.
So, yes, ‘Avatar’ is visually different from nearly every film out there. That still doesn’t give it an excuse to pump its audience with a terrible plot. I enjoy ‘Star Wars,’ for example, but, like ‘Avatar,’ I don’t pretend that it’s a good film. To be honest, I did enjoy watching ‘Avatar’ and the 2 and a half hours (or whatever length it turned out to be) flew by. That doesn’t mean that the film wasn’t too long (which it was) or that the film’s visuals are enough to make up for its lack of narrative.
I think your conception of “visually different” is a little off. Only in Cameron’s eyes do you have to spend a ton of money on technological advances and CGI resources to make a film “visually different” than the rest. Many filmmakers out there make movies that are “visually different” than the rest without the need to push technology at the expense of narrative. The best example of a film that does this is The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (which somehow didn’t make my top films of the decade list, hmm). This film is the closest I’ve found to one that solely is told in first person. The film is compelling, visually defying and has a brilliant script (though it becomes predictably warm and fuzzy toward the end where the book maintains the protagonists deep cynicism and sarcasm). No other film, I’d argue, comes close to The Diving Bell in terms of its visuals.
I agree that ‘Avatar’ is meant to be entertainment and not much else. However, our wonderful comrades in the Academy don’t and will likely reward ‘Avatar’ for its supposed “revolutionary visuals” instead of considering the entirety of the film. So, that is why I must level these charges against ‘Avatar’: most people I’ve read and talked to believe ‘Avatar’ is more than entertainment and would like to reward it for artistic merit. Of course, ‘Avatar’ is only visually artistic and does not, by any means, deserve to be placed in the company of, say, The Hurt Locker come awards season.
I think the way Cameron presented his idea about one’s avatar let him down. I also believe he could’ve done much more with it, but this takes us back to the wholehearted lack of a narrative with which ‘Avatar’ presents its audience. Yes, you can infer the complexity of nature via its “internet” or “network,” but if Cameron glazes over this concept in his script, not at all developing the concept of that tree that is the Na’vi’s eternal source of energy (merely telling us this fact and hoping that the audience goes along with it), then I have no choice but to not consider it as an essential part of the film.
To my knowledge, Cameron worked on the plot until right before shooting circa 2006-2007. It’s true that he had one draft written prior to the Iraq War, but he edited it several times, including the omission of the Na’vi sex scene that’s been circulating the internet for some time now. Regardless, I believe that we must judge a film in the context in which we see it (i.e. 2009). If it wasn’t meant to be some sort of heavy-handed allegory, I’m sure Cameron would’ve altered it back in 2003. Or maybe he’s more naïve than I think. A good example of a film that worked very well in the context of its release was last year’s über-snubbed Wendy and Lucy.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment and I hope to have explained myself a little better in this note. I’m glad you enjoyed my top ten list. As you can probably see, I’m partial toward neorealism and that’s why I included Tulpan and The Headless Woman in there. I didn’t get to see 35 Shots of Rum, or I’m sure it would’ve made my list as well.
Cheers,
Bécquer
Nate • Jan 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm
I don’t think anyone thinks the story of Avatar is original. We’ve been hearing jokes about how it is “pocahontas,”/ “dances with wolves”/ “FernGully” with smurfs in space for weeks. Personally I wasn’t a huge fan of the film, however I felt like there were a few things you ignored.
First of all, when making a film which is visually different from most everything out there, maybe a very original story would be too much. I don’t know if that makes sense, but when experimenting with a bunch of new technology and visuals it could be very risky to work with a very original story idea. I think Avatar is made to be entertainment. With a few exceptions, rarely does a hollywood action adventure film have a very original story. The film is made to be entertainment and have a message. Think of Star Wars for a second, (mind you it drives me insane when reviewers compare this to star wars, but I think there is something important here.) Star Wars didn’t have a very original story. Lucas himself has said this multiple times before. But its revolutionary special effects and visuals combined with a classic story, made it so much fun!
Sure, the message in avatar is far from original, and sure it’s an obvious allegory, but if one gets caught up in this, of course it won’t be possible to enjoy the film. From your clear hatred for James Cameron (from previous articles) I feel like you might have went in ready to hate the film and of course this will affect your view.
In terms of originality, I was interested in the concept of one’s avatar. I felt like cameron could have taken advantage of this idea more in the film (seeing as it is one of the more original concepts in the film), but I also felt like you ignored this concept and the idea of the forrest as a “network” or “internet” (another one of the more (but not totally) original concepts in the film.
I also find it interesting that you see the film as an allegory for Iraq, seeing as the first draft was written before the war in Iraq even started. Maybe there is a reason this allegory is so overused… maybe there is a reason it’s so important… because it’s something that has been happening again and again throughout history.
I do agree that seeing the film on DVD would be worthless. And I don’t want you to get me wrong, I wasn’t a huge fan of the film (although I’ve heard its SO much better on Imax). I just saw it in regular 3d.
Anyhow, I just felt that there was more you could have addressed in your review.
By the way, good top 10 films of the year list! (Although I wouldn’t have put headless woman or Tulpan on there. Wasn’t a huge fan of either) But besides that it’s pretty similar to mine.