Avatar
“There’s no green there. They killed their mother.”
by Philip Bassett
This past Friday I went to see Avatar, James Cameron’s expensive new feature film, for four dollars. I was so surprised by this low ticket price that I found myself in the right frame of mind for experiencing a movie so enveloped in hype. Four dollars bought me access to a world that cost 300 million. I may not have had 3-D glasses, but I had James Cameron and his Cave of Wonders in my back pocket.
I should start with the outline of the story. An American company is mining a valuable resource on Pandora, a planet that makes earth look puny. But the largest deposit of this resource, unobtanium, lies under the home-tree of the Na’vi, the tall blue locals who are mostly a mystery to the Americans. So, the company has created a science division to study them and to get them out of the way, diplomatically. To achieve this end the scientists have created avatars–man-made replicas of Na’vi bodies that are remote controlled–but these they are not being accepted by the tribe. “They smell funny.”
Time is running out on diplomacy, so the company’s military division has hired a soldier to participate in the science project and gain intelligence on the Na’vi. This man is our protagonist, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who has lost the use of his legs in past combat and been promised new ones in return for his services. Because avatars are remote-controlled by human minds, Jake is a perfect candidate for the job, but this is not the real reason for his hire. Jake had a twin brother, a lead scientist who was killed on the field. Because avatars are both built to match the DNA of their operator and quite expensive, Jake is just a replacement for his brother–a cost-efficient commodity, in other words. This detail becomes important after Jake is accepted by the Na’vi and begins to question his loyalties.
Once the movie establishes these specifics, the story plays out like a three act play. We get a budding romance, a scandalous betrayal, and a climactic battle. This sci-fi spectacle certainly has something for everyone if, that is, we can bring ourselves to care about blue aliens. This is the task facing James Cameron. Though he certainly stacks the deck, he succeeded in getting me to care, but not without some major hitches.
On that note, it seems appropriate to take a sobriety test, especially in light of the gushing reviews critics have been circulating. At its best moments Avatar offers a visionary world, a stirring romance, and a suspenseful battle; but at its worst it sinks into patronizing allegory. The story often boils down to “the colonists versus the natives”–or, to be specific, the Americans versus the Na’vi–and any contrast applies, so long as it maintains a bad-guy/good-guy distinction. Corrupt-innocent, destructive-respectful, materialistic-spiritual: the Americans are all that is wrong with Pandora while the Na’vi are all that is right. The storytelling is so simplistic that we are left with no alternative. Such narrow vision is not art but manipulation. We often hear lines like the one I have cited above, a description Sully gives of planet earth, and our intelligence feels violated. So, I am surprised by all the Oscar buzz; to me it seems unwarranted.
But the film does have other features to hold our interest. As many are saying, Pandora and its inhabitants are a visual marvel. We often feel a sense of wonder similar to a movie like Jurassic Park. In addition, I found the final battle quite compelling, especially since it pits primitive weaponry against technological sophistication. The story also left me with an intriguing question: Is Avatar anti-science? I wondered over this, because it is not a scientist who is accepted by the Na’vi people but Jake Sully, a soldier. More signficantly, Sully becomes a beneficiary of the Na’vi god, Eywa, while Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the lead scientist, is rejected by him. (Her avatar, by the way, is out of place and a distraction, because she is a recognizable actress in an unrecognizable world.)
But the movie is not really interested in this question or others that its premises provoke. (What happens to avatars, for example, when they have to be “unmanned,” so that their human drivers can get a bite to eat? Avatar answers this question, but much later and with less depth than I hoped for.) This movie is, after all, not an enduring work of art but an entertainment. But it is a good one, especially for four dollars.
Rating: Enjoyable/Impressive
Written on December 21, 2009 by Philip
Points of Interest: Action, James Cameron, On DVD, Sam Worthington, Science Fiction
Letters to the Editor
Leave a letter!
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://thephotoplay.com/blog/2009/12/avatar/trackback/
If you don’t see this in 3D, all you get is a goofy environmentalist platitude. However, if you do don the magic glasses, it’s one of the most visually stunning movie experiences since Star Wars. IMAX made it so immersive, I half expected to meet some indignant Nav”e on the way out of the theater. I just hope this will open the Digital 3D door for more serious Si-Fi film makers.
My biggest problem with the film is a new and abiding dissatisfaction with my non-holographic computer display.
I give it two thumbs pointed at each other about eight inches in front of my face until I can see a tiny floating thumbnail between them.
Comment by A. Jackson — December 22, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Andy, glad to hear a good report on the 3-D experience of Avatar. I saw only the 2-D version but still enjoyed the movie. If I get a chance to see it again in theaters, I will certainly go 3-D. Hi to the girls.
Comment by Phil Bassett — December 23, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Phil, Here’s a good worldview response to the movie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=2
I would like to see your take on movies’ worldviews. I will also refer more folks here if I can count on them getting a solid Christian perspective on films. (If you haven’t read Hollywood Worldviews by Brian Godawa, you should check it out. It’s excellente with an extra “e.”)
Comment by Trey O. — January 5, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
Trey,
Thanks for the link. I came across the article a few weeks ago and posted a link to it on my Facebook page. Good stuff. I have Godawa’s book, like it, and I would also recommend Through a Screen Darkly, by Jeffery Overstreet, who is also a devout Christian and thoughtful movie reviewer. I like it even better than Godawa’s.
And thanks for the publicity. I hope to always be mindful about the ideas behind a movie.
Comment by Philip — January 6, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
Sweet! A book recommendation in response! I love it!
Comment by Trey O. — January 7, 2010 @ 3:30 pm