Avatar

[vison]

My 12 year old grandson and his friend liked the movie. They weren't blown away by it or anything, but they liked it. It isn't frightening or disturbing. There are growly animals, but they are cool growly animals.

As I said, my Oz liked the movie, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't "exciting" enough for him and his chum to "really" like it. There are action sequences, of course, and I find that they are invariably far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far too long. What is almost "believable" rapidly becomes incredibly stupid and unbelievable as unlikely moments pile upon one another. Brevity is not the soul of wit only, more is only more, not better. Just as I found the stupid cave troll to be a nearly complete annoyance, there are a couple of scenes in this movie that made me want to throw rotten tomatoes at the screen. I suspect this is a Man Thing, to love guns blazing and impossible feats.

Luckily, those parts are not most of the movie. Don't think it's all battles, because it's not at all. I can ignore them, for the sake of the trees.

There are some very incredibly lovely sequences and the 3-D effects are wonderful in some spots, you really feel your stomach drop away as the characters climb into very high places.

[solicitr]

Doctor Zero's take:

Science fiction and fantasy provide a storyteller with the fantastic power of an infinite blank canvas, upon which any setting can be created, to sustain any sort of plot. In Avatar, James Cameron has created a world that justifies the smug arrogance and bitter alienation of the radical environmentalist. The alien world of Pandora really is a maternal Gaia spirit, with every bit of the flora and fauna connected in a mystical web that capitalists and soldiers are too blind and stupid to see. The alien Na’vi really are what infantile liberal mythology has made of the American Indian: innocent, peace-loving, simple, and so harmonious with nature that they can literally plug it into their pony tails. Lacking the conflict and flaws that make the Indians so fascinating and tragic, the Na’vi are utterly boring, aside from the heroine brought vividly to life by a remarkable performance from Zoe Saldana. The childlike environmentalist daydream of a “perfect” society, sustainably at peace with Mother Nature, is captured in the image of the Na’vi tribe snuggled in hammock-like leaves, embraced by the vast branches of their goddess tree. No ambitions, no failures, no questions, no achievement, no future. These giant blue aliens leave absolutely no carbon footprint.

What happens to this wish-fulfillment watercolor of eco-paradise? Why, greedy idiots with guns and bulldozers show up to mow it down, of course. Humans suck, man. They deserve to die… and die they do, in a hail of arrows, fangs, teeth, and lots of screaming plummets from great heights. All those military toys beloved by the right-wing warmongers of the military-industrial complex prove to be useless against the righteous fury of an aroused Gaia and her chosen champion, a redeemed soldier who has seen the error of his ways. Take that, Marine killbot slaves of Big Business.

http://www.doczero.org/?p=13880

[yovargas]

Some may complain because of the politics of the storyline. If you are a conservative who is gun ho about the military, you might resent some of it.

[Primula Baggins]

solicitr, does everything you post have to be politically tinged? Surely there are other reasons to dislike (or like) this film than whether it conforms to a particular rigidly anti-environmentalist political doctrine. It's just a piece of adventure fiction.

[solicitr]

I think that this

Science fiction and fantasy provide a storyteller with the fantastic power of an infinite blank canvas, upon which any setting can be created, to sustain any sort of plot.

is a substantial consideration, and one which goes to the integrity of the story. Utopias are too cheap and easy- the great power of speculative fiction is the 'what-if' aspect; but with science fiction, in particular, the result develops (if it's any good) from postulating a what-if and then pursuing how it would all work out in practice, according to what we know of the laws of nature (except deliberate violations like trans-light travel etc., which become part of the what-if)

Here the consequences are not been pursued at all, so that the wonderworld is defined in advance is Good and the possibly not-so-good ramifications aren't explored at all. Imagine what Ursula leGuin could have done with it! But in Avatar there's no ambivalence permitted. The base concept of Pandora might have made a very interesting story, had Cameron been the least bit inclined to explore it rather than define Nirvana-by-fiat, his giant blue lotus-eaters an idle daydream. Even without politics that's bad science fiction, and if the intention is polemical than it approaches intellectual dishonesty.

It's I suppose worth pointing out that in reality rebellions against technologically-superior opponents only work if the overlords are *not* completely ruthless, as Cameron's military-industrial complex is. Insurgents don't win smashing battlefield victories; they win by outlasting the enemy and making appeals to the public conscience, until the Brits or Americans hang it up. But in Cameron's cartoon morality, of course, nothing but revenge-fantasy will do.

does everything you post have to be politically tinged?

Given that this is an overtly political film? Cameron has declared publicly that Avatar is "really" about the Iraq War and global warming; and it's not possible to overlook the salacious glee with which he lovingly depicts the slaughter of American servicemen.

whether it conforms to a particular rigidly anti-environmentalist political doctrine.

Fallacious inversion, Prim. I don't think I've ever seen a film which "conforms to a particular rigidly anti-environmentalist political doctrine." But there's no point pretending that Avatar doesn't conform to a rigidly (and radically) pro-environmentalist doctrine.

[sauronsfinger]

Avatar is a film which has a definite political bent to it. It is pro environment. It is fairly anti military. It is also fairly anti big greedy capitalistic corporation. Those things are fairly obvious in the film.

I do not think Solicitr or anyone is wrong to point that out and take issue with it.

Having said that, there is nothing basically wrong with any film, book, play, piece of music, whatever the art form may be, in taking a strong political stance.

I really do not think that Cameron is going to convert any significant numbers of people to any of his own views just based on the viewing of his film.

[Frelga]

Soli, LeGuin does have a story pretty much like that, with furry natives who live in harmony with their forest planet and pursue their philosophy of non-violence in the face of greedy and brutal human agression. Up to the snapping point. Don't remember the name, but perhaps you were referring to it? Not having seen Avatar, I can't compare the two. is

And for the record, there is nothing wrong with avoiding any work of fiction that promotes a viewpoint that one finds unpalatable.

[Teremia]

THE WORD FOR WORLD IS FOREST.

Brought back some ancient memories there, Frelga!

[vison]

It's a movie. A fun movie that 'hits' the right notes in the current culture. If it didn't hit those notes, who'd care about it? At this time many
people are sick of war, appalled at the careless destruction of our environment, are longing - naively - for a 'lost Eden', and Cameron's movie lets them go to such a place. Not only that, things turn out 'right' in this tale. But there is nothing revolutionary except, I guess, in the hardware of movie-making - which means zippo to me and probably zippo to most fans.

What is the critic quoted by solictr afraid of? Rampaging hordes of militant eco-terrorists? Fat chance. By the time the viewers have driven home in their SUVs, having stopped at MickeyD's for some fat bombs on the way, by the time they have climbed into soft beds in their overheated houses, all that will remain of Avatar is a misty memory of a fun movie.

Jeez, maybe one or two people somewhere might think seriously about the issues! The end of life as we know it!!!!!

I thought it was actually quite hilarious that in a story set 150 years from now, Cameron still had US Marines going around with the veins bulging in their necks. Evidently the Earth of 2154 is completely under the thumb of Uncle Sam. So solictr's critic and others of his ilk can be smugly satisfied that the Empire is going to have a pretty long run at it.

[sauronsfinger]

Vison... it is neat that you mention that the look of the military man had not changed despite being well into the next century. I also thought that the soldiers had the look of an old Sgt. Rock Marvel comic book and their characters were about as sophisticated. It was also interesting that jargon and language had obviously not evolved beyond the slang of todays world also. Despite 150 years of "progress" Cameron did not see fit to upgrade that part of his society.

But all in all, I am not complaining about the experience and did get my moneys worth. I suspect that if Cameron had to make it on a half or even at third of the budget, the film would be no better than the run of them mill thing you see on the sci-fi cable TV channel. Instead of being a 7 out of 10 it probably would be a five without all that beautiful eye candy and special effects to carry a rather mediocre story which has been done much better by others.

[solicitr]

....to carry a rather mediocre story which has been done much better by others.

YES! Which is my point!

Frelga, I'm not saying anything like what you assert, avoiding films with politically-disagreeable messages (one can still appreciate the cinematic virtues of Battleship Potemkin or Birth of a Nation while being revolted by their political stances, and be disturbedly awed by the moral self-examination demanded by A Clockwork Orange).

What I am saying is that Avatar's script is cliche'd, lazy, two-dimensional... it's poor science fiction, and it's poor (arguably) because it is driven by simpleminded polemic. Where a real 3-D exploration of a culture like the Na'avi (warts and all) might well have been interesting and satisfying, in Cameron's hands they simply represent the Perfect in opposition, and a tool through which to act out a bloodthirsty virtual tantrum. Cameron doesn't love the Na'avi - they're too bland and bloodless to evoke any emotion - they are simply a convenient cardborad conduit for Cameron's hate.

[vison]

I don't characterize Avatar as scifi except in the simplest sense. Men who make movies are often crafting polemics, and this is one of them. But it's also fun.

In a society that admires, say, Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie, a little Edenic polemic is just fine with me.

[solicitr]

What is the critic quoted by solictr afraid of? Rampaging hordes of militant eco-terrorists? Fat chance.

Huge Earth First recruitment? Nah. But I do dread the oh-so-concerned sorts who have been running around Africa ripping out diesel generators and water pumps in the name of "saving the planet"- time for Third World villagers to go back to a "sustainable" Hobbesian existence. And can you doubt after Copenhagen that this sort of Rousseauvian Ludditism isn't rampant in the West as well? Avatar encourages, by design, this sort of romantic pursuit by pushing the fantasy that a State of Nature is not only possible but desirable, rather than grinding subsistence misery; and that is a very real threat, the world's economy only having been pulled back from the brink, for now, by the level-headed Chinese taking away the drunks' car keys.

EDIT: There's someone who admires Guy Ritchie? Really?

[sauronsfinger]

Solicitr - that is not what is being advocated in the AVATAR film.

As for who is admiring Guy Ritchie, the man has made at least two really good films LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH. Many of the critics are saying that the latest HOLMES pic, directed by Ritchie, is at least half of a pretty good film until it becomes a Batman comic book.

[Primula Baggins]

I still haven't seen Avatar, and plan to, so I'll wait until then to try to comment further on its content.

Le Guin's Hugo-winning novella "The Word for World Is Forest" takes (IIRC) a pretty similar attitude to what some are describing as Cameron's: Earthmen bad, alien forest inhabitants good. I haven't read it since I was a teenager, though, so there may well have been redeeming layers of thoughtfulness and irony that flew over my head.

[Frelga]

If I remember LeGuin's story correctly, there was at least one "good" human. Part of what made it interesting was the conflict of cultures - the aliens had very different views from the humans so that the two peoples just thought past each other. And it did not end with happy Ewok dancing, but with somber realization of the costs of victory.

Was going to see Avatar today, but got foiled by Best Buy and their hapless delivery crew.

[Teremia]

solicitr, there is no reason to be revolted by the politics of BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. It argues that Tsarist oppression is bad, and that it is not good to massacre people on steps.

It is entirely possible to be revolted by the politics behind some of Eisenstein's other films, of course: ALEXANDER NEVSKY and IVAN THE TERRIBLE have their pro-Stalin propaganda sides, and some critics (like Richard Taruskin) have said of those films that there are some works of art that are so politically objectionable that they should never be seen. (I personally think there are other things going on in those films that make them eminently worth watching.)

But lumping together BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN -- which is not an IVAN THE TERRIBLE -- and BIRTH OF A NATION (Griffith's pro-Ku-Klux-Klan film) seems to me an error.

[vison]

I remember a story with otter-like creatures on an ocean world who brought gems to men. The details are fuzzy. In the end one man went on a killing rampage to frighten the otter people into hating and fearing men - his motive was to forestall the inevitable plunder of that ocean and prevent the eventual slavery of its native species. I remember being very struck by that story and wish I could remember who wrote it or its title.

[yovargas]

Personally, the idea that it was "pro-environment" in a modern political sorta way seems kinda silly to me. I mean, everything was literally connected on Pandora. I'm sure you can take that as some grand, green metaphor on ecosystems or some such, but IMO the movie was much to shallow for me to imagine I'm supposed to be thinking about such things. Their connectedness just looked like one of those neato-gee-whiz alien life-form type things that sci-fi does all the time. Like a Borg hive mind with brighter colors.

As for the brutish, greedy, military folk - um, duh. It's happened a zillion times before, a stronger people take stuff they want from weaker people by force. It'll happened a zillion times again. Not sure how one can get upset by a movie showing people acting like people usually act.

[vison]

Personally, the idea that it was "pro-environment" in a modern political sorta way seems kinda silly to me. I mean, everything was literally connected on Pandora. I'm sure you can take that as some grand, green metaphor on ecosystems or some such, but IMO the movie was much to shallow for me to imagine I'm supposed to be thinking about such things. Their connectedness just looked like one of those neato-gee-whiz alien life-form type things that sci-fi does all the time. Like a Borg hive mind with brighter colors.

As for the brutish, greedy, military folk - um, duh. It's happened a zillion times before, a stronger people take stuff they want from weaker people by force. It'll happened a zillion times again. Not sure how one can get upset by a movie showing people acting like people usually act.

You Philistine!!!