Dare I admit that AVATAR left me feeling... um... unfulfilled? I’m at a loss as to how to begin my response to this new 3-D super-high-tech film. While some of those who are singing Cameron’s praise as the Ruler of the Universe look at me like I’m crazy to not join in the mantra, I sit dumbly with no response... kind of like I did during the movie. True, it was full of beautiful eye candy, but I feel like the kid on Christmas who opts to play with the box rather than stare at the fancy gadget her parents forgot to buy the batteries for.
Was it just a matter of the hype setting me up for such disappointment? I wondered if that might be the case, but then I remembered TITANIC. Cameron’s previous film was also surrounded by a lot of hype. I went to see the sinking ship film at the bidding of a friend who said I had to see it because it was “the best movie ever made.” I admit that, initially, I was sucked in by the visual beauty, the romance, and the emotional ache that left me feeling like I had experienced something profound... but it didn’t last. In retrospect, I know that I was manipulated, not truly moved to think or process my response to the story. TITANIC did such a good job telling me what I should feel about it that the experience never became personal for me, and thus, it has not lingered in my memory as a great movie.
It’s not that AVATAR is a bad movie, per se. Perhaps I wouldn’t feel compelled to rant if it weren’t for all the hype. When hype goes to the extreme of not only making sweeping Oscar predictions, but even making comparisons to classics that have stood the test of decades, I believe hype warrants a deeper analysis. Avatar is being touted as an historical landmark. One comment in response to a review of this film read:
“AVATAR is to our generation as Gone With The Wind was to our parents (or grandparents) generation. This is the dawn of a new era in movie making.... You will be forever changed after you experience AVATAR. I feel grateful. Awsome [sic] is the only word I can use.” (Victor Nemo, http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/12/avatar-movie-review.html)
As the praises of masses rise and undulate in the balmy, albeit smoggy, breezes of Hollywood, it’s as if it fulfills some visual prophecy given within the film itself. The masses of admirers sit naked in the moonlight, bowing and chanting in unison the name of James Cameron, as if he were the tree inhabited by the mother goddess. All are connected, of one mind. Why am I not in tune with this universal hum? Why do I feel like mourning in the midst of this celebration?
The visual achievement of AVATAR is unquestionable, but is that alone enough to stand the test of time? Not long ago, I heard a speaker at a screenwriting conference say that a time will come when all films will be shot and exhibited in 3-D. The idea saddened me. Earlier 3-D was clunky and had a tendency to call attention to itself. I must say that this technology was a much more natural element in AVATAR (even if the glasses were still oppressive to a four-eyed geek like me, who had to add them to the weight of spectacles already perched on my nose--when will they come out with 3-D clip-ons for those of us already wearing glasses? I mean, you just try being comfortable wearing TWO pairs of lenses for almost three whole hours! But I digress.)
Back to the reason the 3-D trend disturbs me. When I think about art and painting styles, it would be tragic if due to the ready availability of photography, artists stopped painting. You may say that is an absurd comparison, but the idea some have that ALL film will be 3-D in a similar way signals the potential of loss of legitimate forms of artistic expression. My primary concern, however, is the plight of story. Will the penchant for out-tech-ing previous films become so epidemic that story will habitually be relegated to second fiddle? Stephanie Zacharek made a good point in her review of AVATAR (
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/avatar/index.html?story=/ent/movies/review/2009/12/17/avatar), that although Cameron essentially spent fifteen years bringing this story to the big screen, the script—that is the story—does not seem to reflect such an investment of time. I would have to agree.
The idea was good and had great potential. However, I think I know where that additional “D” in 3-D came from. It didn’t appear out of thin air, but rather was stolen from the characters, who--even though they visually “pop” off the screen--are nonetheless flat caricatures, and the storyline, which suffers from lack of development. The stereotypes (especially of the bad guys) were so pervasive that there really was little to relate to except from a distance.
Enough of my film snobbery! Even though, like so many others in this industry, I’m prone to the “I could have done that better” attitude, that’s not what I’m saying. I know I couldn’t have done better on such an ambitious project as writer/director/producer/editor/and-whatever-I’m-missing-in-the-total-king-of-the-world-job-description. Not I, as in “I alone.” Something would have suffered, and with me, it likely would have been the special effects. However, in the company of great collaborators whose skills are being milked to the fullest, I know this could have been a much better film. I hope this lesson will stick with me in the rare event that I ever personally achieve “Queen of the World” type success: turn down the title, embrace the team, and never lose sight of the importance of story. A strong story will cover a multitude of technical mediocrities, but I don’t think the reverse is true if you’re looking for a lasting emotional impact. At least that's my opinion.
p.s. If my friend who acted in the film reads this, please know that MY idea of how to make the script better would include enlarging the role of YOUR character ;)
