BEFORE: Finally getting to this one. I don't think I could show my face at Comic-Con again without having seen this, I'd lose all my geek cred. Oh, I could have watched this at any time in the past 6 months, but I waited for the proper lead-in. It's all about context, right? I'm reversing last night's film, which featured aliens replicating humans, by watching a film where humans replicate aliens! Fortunately, linking is simple - Tony Shalhoub from "Impostor" was also in "Galaxy Quest" with Sigourney Weaver (last seen in "The Ice Storm"). Glad I thought of that!
THE PLOT: A paraplegic marine dispatched to the moon Pandora on a unique mission becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home.
AFTER: This is a rather simple story, with a lot of complex details. Great artists and great filmmakers steal bits of other stories all the time - but it's putting them together in new and interesting ways that really advances the medium. Kind of like an Olympic diver jumping into a pool - there are only 2 or 3 different ways to jump into a pool (I'm guessing, work with me here...) but it's the form, the timing, the lack of splash, and the flourishes that distinguish a champion diver.
James Cameron told a really simple story with "Titanic" - boat hits iceberg, boat sinks. (Oh, sorry - SPOILER ALERT!) But it's all of the little intricate details that really made it a film for the ages. "Avatar" is a simple story at heart - it's "Romeo & Juliet", combined with a fish-out-of-water story, combined with "The Dragonriders of Pern", and splashes of "Return of the Jedi" (and of course, the "Star Wars" saga cribbed from Japanese films, Westerns, Buck Rogers, etc. - see what I mean?)
So it's all of the wondrous details that turn this dive into a real Triple Lindy - flying beasts, floating mountains, futuristic helicopters and a new spin on virtual-reality, for starters. Let's all have some of whatever Cameron was smoking! It's so rich and vibrant, I can almost forget that it's (essentially) a cartoon. Sorry, I mean "animated extravaganza".
After watching the first half, shame on you if you can't predict the turning points to come - I'd only accept that if you'd never seen another movie before. But there's something in the premise that's bothering me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. Something about how the plot necessitates the use of the avatar bodies, which justifies the transition to the CGI world. It's not like CGI is being used to tell the best possible story, but it's more like the story is exactly the way it is to allow CGI into most of the movie, which allows for filming the otherwise un-filmable. It's a case of form following function, or the art following the science.
It's also easy to see the Na'vi as an allegory for Native Americans (or Australian aborigines, or African slaves if you prefer) - with their tribal ways and their close harmony with their environment, and the audience is easily seduced into rooting AGAINST the humans (neat trick, that) simply because it seems that even in the future, and the destruction of Earth's environment, mankind hasn't learned a damn thing from history.
The thing that humans want from the people of the planet Pandora seems to be a material called "Unobtainium" - yes, that's right. What a horrible, horrible name. You'll never get it with that attitude, guys, think positive! Call it "Obtainium", or "LetsGetSomeOfTHAT-ium" to keep people's spirits up. It's the kind of name you give something in a screenplay, with an intent to replace it with a better name as soon as you think of one - so clearly, someone didn't. It's like hearing a hit song with too many "Woo-Woo" or "Yeah-yeah" parts - I call that bit of the song the "I'll write this part later" section. (See: "My Love" by Paul McCartney, or "Lights" by Journey)
Don't get me wrong, this film is a stunning achievement, a total game-changer for art and technology - and the top money-maker of all time, which makes me demand perfection, or at least a good stab at it. Could I find something to nit-pick about, in the single most popular film of all-time? Why, of course I can...
My major complaint is with the character of the Colonel, who ended up being more of a cartoon than any of the actual animated characters in the film. Would this gung-ho, hard-as-nails military guy really refer to the inhabitants of another planet as "roaches"? Umm, you're the guest on THEIR planet, dude! Humans wouldn't want aliens coming to Earth and stealing our water, or raping our land, so how does he justify doing it to another planet?
But of course, I understand that any proper conflict needs a good, strong villain. However, this brings me back to form following function - the character is the way he is because the story needs him to be - but is that justification enough?
And curse James Cameron for raising the bar - if you work in the film industry, this is the kind of film that makes you feel like you're not doing enough, like maybe you're wasting your time. Like how a back-up NFL lineman might feel, watching Brett Favre come out of retirement to win a Super Bowl - and then have the nerve to be completely gracious and humble about it. But you KNOW that he knows that he just schooled you.
Also starring Sam Worthington (last seen in "Terminator Salvation"), Zoe Saldana (last seen in "Star Trek"), Stephen Lang (last seen in "Another You"), Giovanni Ribisi (last seen in "Public Enemies"), Michelle Rodriguez, Joel Moore (last seen in "Art School Confidential"), Wes Studi (last seen in "Heat"), CCH Pounder (last seen in "Face/Off").
RATING: 9 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment