JAT (film)-Avatar

I finally gave in. Two months after its United States debut, I decided I should probably see Avatar, in 3D mind you, before it left the theaters. Why was I so resistant to seeing the movie? Avatar was seemingly the epitome of what I resent in movies. It had the stigma of an epic sci-fi blockbuster with a stale plot-line, that was nearly entirely created on a computer. But, after having a $77 million opening weekend; reaching $500 million gross in a record 32 days; surpassing Titanic as the highest grossing film ever on January 26th, 2010; being the first film to ever gross more than $2 billion worldwide; and then earning nine Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture, I decided there must be something good about this movie.

So I went to see it, partly with the pre-conceived idea that I would not like it, and partly jaded by the movie's incredible box office success and rave reviews (from literally everyone). When I left the theater, I came to the odd conclusion that I liked it more than I thought I would, yet disliked it just as much as I thought I would. It's hard to explain how I can like and hate a movie at the same time. I will just say that in every aspect that Avatar was a success, it was also a miserable failure. What? Don't worry, I'll explain.

It seems fitting to begin with the overall storyline. I might be inclined to think that James Cameron sat at home one night, maybe while on LSD, maybe not, and watched Jurassic Park, Pocahontas, The Matrix and Richie Rich—that's right, Richie Rich—which henceforth led to the creation of Avatar. If you've seen these movies, you probably get the connections. Avatar is essentially the story of a futuristic Pocahontas mixed with The Matrix, inside a created world similar to that of Jurassic Park, all spun together with the greed of corporatism found in Richie Rich. I might be inclined to think this, if not for the fact that The Matrix came out in 1999 and ole' Jim C. started conjuring up Avatar in 1995.

I applaud the anti-corporatism/colonialism/militarism themes that were rampant throughout the film. But can one expect any less from a Hollywood film? The similarities to Pocahontas were obvious. Outsiders come to a new land which is inhabited by indigenous peoples, which they go on to overtake through brutality and force. All would be lost save for that one outsider who switches sides. He sympathizes with the natives, falls in love with the chief's daughter, and fights against the invading colonizers. In Pocahontas, this man was John Smith; in Avatar, it's Jake Sully. Hmmm. Both films have a scene where the leader's daughter dramatically leaps on top of her alien love interest to save him from death at the hand of one of her own. Both films stressed the importance of a strong connection with nature—they both have a “talking” tree for Christ's sake!

But in my eyes, the storyline works. It is believable, to me, that we as a civilization are capable of invading a foreign land solely out of greed and intemperance, for a commodity that is worth more than gold or diamonds. Incidentally, I found it quite humorous and ironic that the mineral they were after was called “Unobtainium.”

Maybe it is just the hippie in me, but I appreciated the anti-corporatism/colonialism themes. James Cameron is saying, in a very expensive way, that corporations are spiraling out of control with corruption, and this is what it could come to. Personally, I would prefer to destroy all corporations and go back to our primitive roots, living as one with nature like the Na'vi in Avatar.

I also found it ironic that Jake Sully was the savior of the Na'vi, who were fighting the aliens and their machines. Yet Jake's ability to help the Na'vi depended entirely on a machine. If someone unplugs that MRI-looking machine, or if it somehow malfunctioned, Jake and all the rest of the Na'vi are essentially screwed. So even though Avatar seems to be pro-nature and anti-corporation/technology, the hero's success, and the fate of the Na'vi, is totally dependent on those corporations and technologies. I like this hypocrisy. Is technology simply a necessary evil? Maybe moving away from our natural roots is inevitable.

In these respects, Avatar's storyline was a success. Like I have said, where Avatar succeeds, it also succeeds in failing. I most certainly could have done without the cliché military general; wearing tank-tops with muscles busting out, smoking a cigar, and all the while being the ultimate badass/jackass. Same with the cliché, slicked-back, pompous business CEO, or whatever that guy was. Further, and I know this isn't a big deal to most, but I am not a fan of voice-over narrations. They are primarily used when the story cannot progress on its own, but rather has to tell the audience what is happening. Jim Cameron cleverly covers this up by introducing the “video diary,” to collect “observations.” Nice cop out, Jim. I suppose my last qualm with the storyline is that the war between the Na'vi and the “aliens,” which theoretically could last for years, lasts about 15 minutes in the movie.

The next part of the film I will discuss seems to be the most discussed aspect of the film. I am referring to the visual/special effects, and I know that this is where most people will disagree with me. Perhaps because my appreciation for film history has grown so much over the years, I am reminiscent for films made the old fashion way. And by that I mean, not on a computer. Avatar is 40% live action, and 60% CGI; and cost over $280,000,000 to make. Doesn't anyone else see a problem with that? It's essentially an animation, only slightly more real than The Incredibles. A movie costing that much, and made primarily on computers better be pretty damn visually stunning. I personally prefer films like The Birth of a Nation, considered one of the greatest films of all time, with truly stunning battle scenes. The difference is that The Birth of a Nation came out in 1915, and thus was not made on computers.

Further, I felt as if the visual effects took away from the emotional pull of the movie. I found it hard to become emotionally empathetic with the struggles of the Na'vi, because the entire time I kept thinking it was a fake, created world, rather than a real world on another planet. Don't get me wrong, I understood that it was a real world that he was trying to save. It just felt more like Jake was playing a video game, rather than actually trying to save a real civilization. Thus, my subconscious stopped me from creating that emotional connection with the Na'vi (specifically the love story between Jake and Neytiri, I mean, are you kidding me?).

I'm not entirely against the visual effects of the film. I must admit that there is something to be said about Avatar's visual beauty. The world that James Cameron and crew created was absolutely stunning; very reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings (including the created language, very impressive). The creativity department must have had a field day creating the various animal and plant life on Pandora. And, considering it took an average of 47 hours to complete one frame of the CGI portion of the film, a bit of credit is certainly well-deserved. (In case you don't get that, one frame of film is 1/24 of a second. A total of over 10,000 hours were spent JUST on the CGI). I suppose I can respect the film in this respect. ****these stats were provided by www.IMDB.com. I recently did the math, and according to these statistics, it would have taken 6,091,200 hours to complete the CGI portion of the film; equivalent to 695 years, 4 months, 3 and ¼ days. I knew this movie took a while, but damn.

To conclude, Avatar essentially lived up to my expectations, with no major surprises. I liked it, but I would struggle if I had to sit through it again without at least a year's break. Nine Oscar nominations is an impressive feat, but it will not win Best Picture. A movie requires (or at least should require) more than just a liberal plot and stunning visual effects to win the honor of Best Picture. The acting was mediocre at best, evident by the fact that none of the actors received nominations. The storyline is nothing special, it's been seen before. Will it win Best Director? Maybe, but I certainly hope not. My vote would go to Quentin Tarentino, or whoever did Precious. I'm sure it will sweep the visual categories, though. Bravo.