Oh, Avatar
So, I finally got around to watching Avatar yesterday. In 2d, not 3d, as it happens.
I enjoyed it a lot. It was fun, and yes, it even left me thinking. But it left me thinking in probably not the way that the filmmakers intended, because the core problem with it and the reason, I think, why so many people have a hard time with it, is because it is a great entertainment that is intellectually dishonest.
Spoilers below.
The dishonesty does not lie in the basics of the plot. It is an old plot, as has been pointed out by many. It’s Pocahontas, it is Ferngully, it is Dances With Wolves. It is perhaps most this latter one, because Avatar isn’t aimed at kids, it is aimed at adults, and yet it is inescapably more of a cartoon than Dances With Wolves was. One of the common critiques is the acknowledgement that “then, the humans come back and win” is the natural next step. Yes, yes it is. And part of the reason why Dances With Wolves works better in that sense is that you know that in fact, everything that the hero does didn’t work in the long run. In Ferngully we deal with fairies and fairy tales, and of course, the tale of Pocahontas does not much resemble the history of Pocahontas; Avatar suffers from being more of a fairy tale than its realism would suggest.
I have read that Cameron wrote his story a long time ago. It may be that it shows in the cartoonish villainy of the bad guys, weak-minded greedhead corporations and militaristic nutcases. What is shown is bad business and bad military planning. Our thinking on this sort of issue is a lot more sophisticated than it used to be, and there’s something wincingly wrong about a line like “they don’t need anything we have,” a sort of “noble savage” attitude that grates. Especially these days when we learn more every day about sophisticated agricultural methods such as terra preta, or more about advanced civilizations living in the heart of the jungle.
The film even undermines itself; it seems internally conflicted at times, as when the death of Michelle Rodriguez’ character comes across almost as her just deserts for having abandoned her post earlier. The fact that Sigourney Weaver’s character makes it to the heart of the Na’vi culture before dying is a weak cop-out compared to how these things go in real life — the story of Moses has a better ending.
The funny thing is that there’s enough hooks there that you could see moments that were more bracingly real. The chief villain, the soldier, is motivated more by revenge for his ruined face (and more importantly, his ruined invincibility) than by anything else. But it is badly underdeveloped. It runs through the narrative everywhere: characters who act the way they do because of motives we cannot quite see.
In the climactic battle, the soldier says to Sully, the hero who has gone native, “How does it feel to betray your race?” and Sully cannot answer except with a snarl. And it is a strong moment because, well, it’s a valid question. Sully did. The fact that Sully himself, at that moment, cannot respond, is a truthful moment — because the fact is that Sully was led to that moment as much by a desire to recapture his lost legs (manhood, life) as by any idealism, despite false-sounding lines about his “great heart.” He became a hero for largely selfish reasons.
But all this stuff is too deep under the surface — and it literally would have taken just a couple of lines of dialogue, or one well-shot scene, to get this stuff across. One scene of the soldier in front of a mirror, with a picture of how he used to look tacked up there, his hand reaching up to touch the photo. One edit to the dialogue, changing Sully’s “I was born to fly” to “I can’t give this up for a wheelchair.” Which leads to disappointment.
The natural next steps in the story are even hinted at in the film. Of course there is something that can be offered to the Na’vi to make them accepting of humans. It may not be language or money. But a drug that hits right at their handy brainport braid? Of course that would work. Or knowledge, perhaps? This is a people who value the accumulated memories of their people, living hooked up to a planetwide memory bank and computer. Somewhere among these people is the equivalent of the scientist from Earth, who grows giddy with excitement at the notion of knowledge and progress. And that alone would be a wedge. Say, a Na’vi who is seduced by the idea of a way for humans to contact Eywa in order to attempt reverse colonization.It is hard not to contrast this with the other big SF film of the year, District 9, which does not shy away from this sort of thing.
At the end of the movie we see scientists left behind; we see Na’vi holding machine guns and wearing t-shirts; we see them occupying the research facility. This is not where it ends. The natural sequel is indeed one that undermines the entire notion of the first film, one which shows natural evolutions of Na’vi culture with technology, commerce, and the like. And yes, deforestation, nature preserves, camps. One where Earth scientists have developed mechanical ways to interface with the Eywa-bio-computer, realizing that Weaver’s scientist was right, that there is more value in that stored data than in the mineral they wanted to mine.
Instead, we end where we do, because while the movie plays with the meaning of the word “avatar” it ends up firmly on the mystical side of the definition rather than the modern one. Sully isn’t stepping into other shoes to self-actualize; he’s ordained as a savior by mystical lights to become the new warrior leader and by the end, is even the real shaman, the one who can talk to Eywa and change it. And then, incredibly, the film betrays its own mysticism, by having Eywa in fact absorb the human notions of survival, and fight back by marshaling armies. Eywa cannot survive except by becoming the enemy, and doing exactly what its shamans say is contrary to its nature.
The most fitting ending for a trilogy of Avatar movies would be for a wheelchair-bound Na’vi kid to plug his braid into one of those cool curved screen computers, to log in and play a Na’vi game where he can run as a fierce noble warrior, in brilliant 3d; where he can jump and fly in a world that never quite was, as a wish-fulfillment avatar in a world where the answers are easy. It could even end in exactly the same way, with eyes open in sudden astonishment, behind 3d goggles. This would speak to what fairy tales we like to tell ourselves, in a way that the movie doesn’t.
But that is not the ending we will get. Instead of the avatar bearing enlightenment, in Avatar it brings avoidance; instead of ending with the kid playing the movie, it ends with the movie playing us. And yes, I enjoyed every second of the ride. But I would have enjoyed it more if it were either pure cartoon or if it confronted its own issues. Instead, it feels like a movie that knows it is lying — to us, to itself? — but gives the happy ending anyway.
I do want to see it again, in 3d, though. 🙂
31 Responses to “Oh, Avatar”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
3D was pretty good, but not as impressive as I would have thought as a lot of scenes don’t seem 3D at all. Then you progress to the next scene which is obviously meant to be 3D. It feels disjointed at times.
I agree that Avatar has some issues with the character motivation and could have been fleshed out, but I still think its a masterpiece for its visual power.
I think the movie says that the only way to avoid that which is coming is with the help of God.
I agree with much of what you said, Raph. Rather than review the film, I did a post of how I’d improve the script 250% by changing 15% of it.
I enjoyed the film but it didn’t break any boundaries with it’s plot or story. In fact, it was pretty mediocre in that regard. Still, as an enjoyable film, it was good enough 🙂
I actually liked that the 3D was a bit “shy”. Well more than what we usually see. It feels more like it’s just normal to have 3D instead of being a gimmick.
Raph,
As usual, a very thoughtful treatment of the story and its weaknesses. I’m not sure that Cameron understands people or characters very well. Everything he does is on the macroscopic scale, but he works at that scale amazingly well.
I think that every single weakness you pointed to in the characterization is spot on, but it didn’t interfere with my enjoyment of the movie because I didn’t go into the movie expecting to encounter well-developed characters.
I would love to see what would happen if Cameron worked with someone like Jack McDevitt or Tad Williams – someone who could buy into Cameron’s world and infuse it with thoughtful, deeply realized characters.
@Rik: In what way is Eywa analogous to Yahweh? They’re about as comparable as Zeus and a stormcloud.
Did you read the io9 article – “When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar”? Thought it was one of the more insightful posts about the movie. http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
“I’m not sure that Cameron understands people or characters very well.” I’ve seen a few things Cameron has done that demonstrate that he does. But never mind that.
The one thing that bothers me most about the movie is that a race of people that can effing feel what creatures around them feel, are a hunter/warrior people. Makes. No. Sense. At all.
Fix that, and you can’t make a movie with such a simplistic plot.
Stunning graphics, though, I thoroughly ejoyed those!
ok…are you saying you enjoyed watching what was unarguably a tech demo for 2-1/2hrs? After 30mins I was ready to yell at the screen “OK WE GET IT – YOUR CGI WORLD IS VERY VERY PRETTY”. But 10yrs from now when this technology will be similar to the first cgi movie of the 90’s, who is going to fondly remember Avatar?
Cuppy, I hadn’t, but it is great.
The first thing I thought when the credits began was, “I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
Not that it should’ve been longer, but a side-plot that made nuclear assault politically impossible would have helped.
Personally, Avatar doesn’t strike me as a movie I’d want to see. I’m more interested in intricate dramas with political intrigue, where stories are told about people and how they work within organizations. Most movies gloss over the details and I guess they have to given their 1- to 2-hour time slots. I guess that’s why I prefer TV shows: they explore societies much, much better. But it’s nice to read a review of Avatar that doesn’t sound like “it’s the last movie you’ll ever want to see” because, quite frankly, who’d want to reach the pinnacle so soon?
You said everything I’ve been saying, though 100x more eloquently.
People complain about the story or conflicts in character development vs what might happen in reality, but the fact of the matter is that it was still a good movie, and a well-spent 3 hours.
If you leave a theatre wishing you were still in the film-world, finish a book being sad that your adventures with the characters are over, or complete a game and lament even your victory because there are no more places to discover, the creator of that media has done their job well.
@Saerain, I’m not saying it’s about my “one true god” but about the viewer’s “one true God”. And clearly Eywa is made to be both sciency and spiritual. Is it so crazy that something called a god could symbolically be a god reference?
Unfortunately with a budget that high and so much technical risk on the project, it wasn’t really possible to take risks with the storytelling.
Thanks for the terra preta reference – fascinating stuff. Movie plot was predicatable, but somehow I think that anything that had a plot more complex than that wouldn’t have made as much money. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but many people don’t make movies that make them think, at all, and would rather not see said movie than think.
Over time, I keep seeing assumptions pop up that are disturbing. Not by all I suppose, but these assumptions seem to go pretty much unchallenged. Some time ago, I saw the assumed “fact” that torture doesn’t work. It does, ask John McCain or any of many veterans who were tortured.
Now I’m seeing the assumption that the White Man committed genocide on the Indian peoples. Not so much here in these posts, but in the articles linked. And again, it goes unchallenged.
So allow me to challenge that assumption, in the spirit of knowledge and debate.
Following is the wrap up of an article linked below from the History News Network publication at George Mason University….
My comment is awaiting moderation, but I don’t see the link. So here it is.
Link
Raph –
Check out “Blue War” by Jeffery Thomas. I’ve yet to see Avatar, but this book seems to be quite similar in setting but with a much more mature view of the subject matter.
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-War-Punktown-Jeffrey-Thomas/dp/1844165329/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263225806&sr=8-1
Itwasntme, I think there is little doubt that there were plenty of instances of mass murder and racist treatment, despite the vast majority of the death being caused by illness. Just glancing over primary sources gives plenty of evidence.
I also think you are missing a subtle distinction on the “does torture work?” question. The question is “does it work to extract reliable information?” and the problem (well-documented) is that it does extract valid info, mixed in with invalid info, making the aggregate of the info unreliable.
Raph, yes there was no doubt of mass murders and racist treatment. The article I linked includes all of that, and details. But this went both ways. As Mr. Lewy pints out, after so many deaths from disease and the results of disease leading to more deaths (lack of hunters to feed the young, as an example) the outcome left no uncertainty. But more to the point, as he writes, there was only one incident where it was proven that someone went through with a plan to commit genocide. There were a few other incidents that were questionable, but each also had documentation showing that no genocide was committed. These documents may have been falsely written though, a testament to the fact that this was illegal and punishable. So much for the idea that The White Man intended to commit genocide as any plan of action.
As to torture, there is no such thing as “invalid information” when someone crosses that threshold. And it’s easy to determine this point for those who know how to torture. It plays on the mind, and while that threshold may vary from one to another it most certainly does exist. When someone gets there, their mind will no longer fathom deceit and trickery. They simply can’t, it’s beyond their control. The brain is an organ, you see. Tap someone on the knee with a hammer and their leg kicks out, break someone’s mind and they will sing like a bird, truthfully and without any regard to attempts otherwise. That is why torture is so terrible. Because it does work, and thus people keep doing it.
I’ve never been tortured, but I’ve suffered the same kind of pain as tortures that rely on pain (as opposed to those that play on death/survival). Now, I’m a tough minded guy. I’ve faced death several times and did it with courage. I’ve had broken bones, cute all the way down to the bone, and other painful things. But when I would be struck with this pain (it came and went), what doctors told me “is as bad as it gets” and “it’s as bad as any torture”, I’m telling you that most people never feel this kind of pain in their entire lives, and cannot fathom it. Even my memory of it can’t summon the full scope of it. I’m telling you that anyone would break and tell the truth, if it were a situation of torture. Anyone.
That leaves a question, a very unnerving question. If the only way you had available to you to save lives was to torture someone who would kill you and your loved ones without hesitation, what would you do?
Here’s an excerpt from that article that shows how things got out of hand. It leaves the question, while this was most certainly mass murder, was it planned? I think you’ll see that it wasn’t. I think this is how things generally went, and you can reverse the sides in other instances.
I’ve seen it twice both times in 3D. Without the 3D, it isn’t nearly as good a ‘production’. It is Dances With Smurfs and I’m ok with that. I didn’t expect it to be Tolstoy except in length. It is too long. OTOH, the CGI is seamless, the color palette is unbelievably good and the box is showing the kind of resiliency we haven’t seen since… well “Titanic”.
It is resurrecting the theatre experience. At home on DVD, it just won’t be as good. I do get a little tired of overly subsonic’d soundtracks and the previews before Avatar were ghastly, as in, films I won’t bother to see.
Racist? When black became the new black, that became the horse to ride. White people AND black people will quit making these movies when they stop selling, but I think those going after it from that angle might be looking for something to criticize. Remember the critiques of Jar Jar Binks? That one is silly. Sorry guys. It just is. If you ever want anything like racial justice, you’re going to have to find something worth fighting for like access to capital and not a movie made with the strongest casting they felt matched their story.
It is a ground breaking movie not for the story but the technical achievements. I expect it to take a not insignificant number of Oscars, be the highest grossing film of all time, spawn a lot of cheap knock offs, make some CGI houses very very wealthy, and change the way movies are made for the big and small screens. That’s a helluva victory for Cameron and because of it, the tech to make your better story will be there.
Sometimes it’s better to just applaud with the rest of the crowd and then get ready for your contribution to appear. Otherwise, it tends toward sour grapes.
BTW, the YouTube video made alledgedly for $300 in Uruguay of the robot invasion just garnered the creator a $30 million dollar deal. Cheap done well works.
As for a marvel of solo production and CGI, this piece from Alex Roman is a marvel.. Alex Bowles gets the props for finding this one.
“Over time, I keep seeing assumptions pop up that are disturbing. Not by all I suppose, but these assumptions seem to go pretty much unchallenged. Some time ago, I saw the assumed “fact” that torture doesn’t work. It does, ask John McCain or any of many veterans who were tortured.”
I find I can’t let this go and drive on. In the first place, John McCain doesn’t support torture. In the second place, torture is great at getting people to talk, but terrible at making what they say truthful. People will say whatever they think will make the hurting stop. If they don’t know anything, they will make stuff up. That is what is meant by “torture doesn’t work”.
As to your cite, it says, “The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life.”
In what way does this not support the thesis “white people committed genocide on the Indians”?
I’ll grant that not all, perhaps not even most of the white people were motivated by malice, just mostly by ignorance and naivete. But the result, ruined habitat, ruined means of subsistence for the Native American, is the same. I don’t happen to think there was any way to stop it, but inevitability doesn’t change what it is.
Finally, the “white man goes native” plot doesn’t work for you if you aren’t white. I am white, and I while I loved it as a kid, I find it kind of boring now. There are much better ways to deal with these themes, from a “white guy has gone native and now some interesting stuff happens” place. Princess Mononoke deals with these themes in a very remarkable way.
Is this title a reference to Wizards? ’cause every time I see it in the RSS feed that’s how I read it in my head.
please, please, please write more about movies. Even a separate blog. This post about Avatar was infinitely more illuminating than any of the 10 screenwriter/industry blogs I read.
Please.
A few points I would like to make :
1 – Yes, the movie could have definitely used a better plot and it was the one notable kink that bugged me at the end of the movie. I had felt like I had seen the movie a thousand times. That being said, while the major plot itself was disappointing, there was a lot of details in the way that it was done that I appreciated. The mecha vs Jake fight scene in the end was interesting in its twists and turns, even if the ending was predictable.
2 – I approached the movie with one thing in mind: someone is obviously trying to show me a graphical and technological wonder so I appreciated it on that level. That was why I was not upset that the plot was flawed (you have a spaceship carrying explosives… why not have it launch them from a much higher altitude?).
3 – A special note for Raph: when Jake first awakens in his Avatar body and steps outside, he finds 2 more Avatars playing basketball. This means that there are more than the 3 Avatar main characters. At the end of the movie, the Na’vi holding a machine gun and wearing a T-shirt is most likely an Avatar controlled by a human (the scientific community of the human settlement apparently supporting Jake). The only way to distinguish them is that Avatars have 5 fingers while naturally born Na’vi have 4 (I noticed this the second time that I watched the movie).
A few folks have mentioned that the Na’vi at the end is likely a human avatar. He’s too far away to see the fingers, I think.
Not sure it matters. Given the premise, some Na’vi will be using machine guns within a matter of days. 🙂
[…] thought I could avoid it, but after reading my friend Raph’s thoughtful review, I had to chime in too. Spoilers, […]