Monday, January 11, 2010

Blockbusters

James Cameron is not a director who makes petite films nor like some directors (Woody Allen) is he content to duly churn out film after film every passing year. No, Cameron will wait until he feels he is as close to perfection as possible and until the technology is adequate for his vision. It has been twelve years since the release of Titanic, his last film. Like George Lucas, his predecessor in technologically based entertainments; he is obsessed with furthering the capabilities of the movie-making process. This blockbuster auteur does not merely trade in spectacle but rather demands and revels it. Where a director like Cecil B. Demille may have taken the Bible as material for his epic films: Cameron enlarges his material to Biblical proportions, be it the love story from Titanic or the maternal relationship at the heart of the second Terminator film. Avatar may be his biggest movie yet.
The film takes place on the remote planet of Pandora in the not-so-distant-as-it-seems future and the cinematographic and technological achievements of the film may seem as if they were beamed in from that time period. Never before have their been such advanced motion-capturing technologies as showcased in this film. The scenes containing the sacred tree of the indigenous Na’vi people are extraordinarily striking and while like nothing seen by anyone who has never gone deep-sea diving, nevertheless, look incredibly realistic. In the human perspective, this technology is best exemplified in the character of Neytiri, the Na’vi princess. The nuanced body language shown by her character shows how this technology could, combined with a fine acting job, imbue an entirely new dimension to screen acting. In fact, the female characters in this movie, as in much of Cameron’s oeuvre, are the most headstrong and often downright fierce characters in the film, such as Sigourney Weaver’s chain-smoking, Na’vi expert Grace. By the end of his career, Cameron may be most remembered for pushing the technological boundaries of film and along with Ridley Scott, proving that women could be action heroes of their own, rather than merely the ingĂ©nue or femme fatale.
Avatar is however, not a film without flaws, the single largest of which is to be found within the screenplay. Where perhaps much of the tropes found within the script, were meant to be seen as archetypal and universal, they instead come across as clichĂ© and rote. Immediately after the showing, the film titles of Fern Gully and Pocahontas were bandied about. A few even noticed the similarities between the Na’vi queen and the baboon Rafikki from The Lion King. The dialogue also came off as stilted and trite in moments such as when the protagonist Jake is reaching out to a Na’vi prince and says “I will fly with you brother”. That is a cringeworthy and banal line that should have been excised during script revisions. It is moments like these and moments of none-too-subtle commentary on the politics of today that prevent Avatar from being a truly outstanding movie but it surely a great entertainment and once would be hard-pressed to find a more enjoyable and seemingly breezy way to spend 160 minutes.

4 comments:

  1. I think you did a fine job. You certainly appear to know a lot about film, and draw great comparisons among directors. I don't know what your deal is with Woody Allen, but I otherwise think your knowledge of film canon is quite useful in making your point, as well as adds to your credibility. I would have liked to have read more of your thoughts on the overall screenplay as opposed to the distaste of one obnoxious line (which I agree is a pretty stupid line). What would you have liked the screenplay to have been had it not been a none-too-subtle commentary on politics? As the story itself seems to be the only issue with this film, what should have been done differently, especially given that you mention the near perfection that Cameron believed this film to represent. What would be perfection?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really enjoyed your review! Very good research behind the film's background, and you also did a good job centering it within film as a whole. I would only like to see a little bit more plot (as someone who didn't see the film) or at least a little bit more of an idea, even if it's in a critical manner (such as at the end where you compare it to Pocahontas and Fern Gully). I liked how you mentioned reactions and impressions that viewers had, as well as the easy readability of your writing style. Good work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your opening was impressive and drew my attention immediately. After reading your first few paragraphs I was intrigued by this perfected new animation technology by Cameron. You really play up the beauty of the film without giving away any scences.
    However, in the second half of your review I was disappointed to learn of the unfulfilling script. The content is great, but maybe you could intersperse your criticisms and likings more evenly throughout your review?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was at first overwhelmed by the bulk of your review, and I think it would be more consumable if you broke the writing up into shorter paragraphs. I was impressed, however, by the content of your piece in its nuanced view on the movie so many are saying has value only in its aesthetics. I think you balance criticism with praise well, especially within the discussion of the depth of Cameron's characters. Overall, your review was enjoyable and insightful.

    ReplyDelete