I'm not exactly sure when it became a thing among my tribe of film geeks to bash 'Avatar'. I know it wasn't when it came out, because most of the film fans in my circle of nerdy friends went to watch it multiple times and couldn't get enough of it. In hindsight, I suspect it was around the time when everybody and their grandmother seemed to have seen it; somehow, once the film had become the most successful movie ever (unadjusted for inflation) it stopped being cool to like James Cameron's eco-sci-fi extravaganza.
Nowadays the film is often brought up in snarky movie blogs as a typical example for a film with great effects but a dull story, unoriginal ideas and bland characters, as if this were somehow the general consensus among film aficionados. "FernGully in space" or "Dances With Wolves with blue cat-people" are some of the kinder descriptions the film has to endure - which in all honesty I don't get.
I mean, it's fine not to like the movie (all art is subjective and all that), but how so many self-professed film experts now pretend this critically acclaimed picture - which on Metacritic is rated even higher than 'The Dark Knight' - was nothing but a bland, unoriginal, run-of-the-mill Hollywood blockbuster that only succeeded thanks to the (then) novelty of 3D is frankly beyond me.
What I find even more astounding is how the very people who decry the lack of original, director-driven blockbusters in Hollywood are often the same who turn up their noses at 'Avatar': an original, director-driven blockbuster that came out when most other big budget movies were either sequels or adaptations of already existing intellectual properties. "The ideas in the film are not original", they claim. Come on guys, seriously?
So you've seen a world like Pandora before? A bioluminescent visual wonder that merges the colorful marine life of coral reefs with the lush vegetation of tropical rain forests? A world where nature forms an actual neural network that stores memories and builds a collective consciousness? You've seen many films about a bio-database that people can plug themselves into via ancient trees and communicate with their ancestors?
You've watched countless blockbusters that take place in an eco-system where you can form instant symbiosis with other creatures depending on your needs? And by the way: how many "eco-sci-fi" films have you seen? Such a worn-out concept and tired old sub-genre, right?
No my friends, in terms of Hollywood blockbusters, these ideas and concepts are about as original as they come, and some of them are even inspired by actual biological phenomenons (like the discovery that the roots of trees do indeed form a sort of neural network in a symbiosis with fungi where they are able to store and exchange information). But what is true is that the filmmaker cleverly chose a very straight-forward story to get his environmentalist plea and anti-colonial, anti-imperialist message across and make some rather complex sci-fi ideas more accessible for a broad audience.
To that end, the film uses certain well-known story tropes ("the spy who changes sides once he falls in love with an enemy"; "the soldier who realizes he's been fighting for the wrong cause"; "the invader who gets to know and appreciate the foreign culture he's invading" or the timeless trope of "the fish out of water"), but they are not what the film is about. And those tropes are not copied from 'Dances With Wolves' either - any more than that film stole them from 'Pocahontas': they are so universal you can find variations of any one of them in numerous legends and stories and thus also throughout film history, from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to 'Shogun' or 'The Last Samurai' and countless others.
And yes, our heroes Jake and Neytiri are not the most complex of characters (though neither are they as bland as the film's most vicious detractors claim), but that's because they aren't really the film's main focus. 'Avatar's actual protagonist, its true star if you will, is Pandora. It's the WORLD we get to experience through Jake's eyes that really matters here, and the film aims straight for your gut - not your sci-fi nerd brain (which I suspect is the actual reason why so many former Cameron fans - now - claim to be disappointed with the film).
More than anything, 'Avatar' wants you to lose your heart to this beautiful planet that functions as an obvious stand-in for our own threatened world, and the film is an unapologetic, uncynical declaration of love to the wonders of nature - as well as a call to action to preserve them. Which on an emotional level works marvelously: nothing in the film is as painful and shocking as the destruction of a single big tree, which symbolizes quite literally nature as the home and shelter we depend upon. It's a genius scene, and I dare you to find an action blockbuster where the distruction of a city or a whole planet carries even a shred of the emotional heft that the falling of "Home Tree" does in Cameron's film.
So again (I'm trying to hammer my point home here ;-), 'Avatar' is simple? Yes, but that's the point: the simplicity and familiarity of the story are deliberate; the themes are not just derivative re-treads, they're as universal as those in myths and fairy tales and thus speak to everyone. And that's exactly what Cameron's intention was: to use simple enough tropes and archetypes to convey a heart-felt message that would work across cultural borders and reach people all over the world. Which, given the film's success, it obviously did.
Personally, I think 'Avatar' is a prime example of visual and emotional storytelling done right, and viewing it for the first time offers an experience that is almost without equal in its immersiveness. And while this may only have been my own individual experience, 'Avatar' was also the first movie in a long time that completely vowed me in the sense that I felt like a little kid again in the theater - which had very little to do with the novelty of 3D. It was also the last time a film managed to do that.
And even in terms of pure entertainment the film is simply spectacular. It's a rousing adventure with gorgeous visuals and top-notch CGI, filled with fascinating creatures and jaw-dropping future-tech, and the final 40 minutes of the film provide an all out, non-stop sci-fi action thrill-ride on a scale the world had rarely - if ever - seen before.
Obviously that doesn't mean it's a perfect film, and as I already pointed out, it's fair not to like it for any number of reasons (above all: personal taste), but 'Avatar' is far from deserving the kind of snark and ridicule it gets these days. Get over it people: simple doesn't equal simplistic, and the fact that 'Avatar' is neither subtle nor cynical doesn't make it dumb (even if it does make it harder for some of us nerds to like it wihtout feeling slightly embarassed ;-).
In all honesty, I believe if this had been a slightly more obscure film - instead of the most successful movie of all time - many of the same people who hate on it now would hail it as an epic sci-fi adventure classic for the ages. And as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what 'Avatar' is: a modern classic by a visionary filmmaker and true auteur. Rant over.
Nowadays the film is often brought up in snarky movie blogs as a typical example for a film with great effects but a dull story, unoriginal ideas and bland characters, as if this were somehow the general consensus among film aficionados. "FernGully in space" or "Dances With Wolves with blue cat-people" are some of the kinder descriptions the film has to endure - which in all honesty I don't get.
I mean, it's fine not to like the movie (all art is subjective and all that), but how so many self-professed film experts now pretend this critically acclaimed picture - which on Metacritic is rated even higher than 'The Dark Knight' - was nothing but a bland, unoriginal, run-of-the-mill Hollywood blockbuster that only succeeded thanks to the (then) novelty of 3D is frankly beyond me.
What I find even more astounding is how the very people who decry the lack of original, director-driven blockbusters in Hollywood are often the same who turn up their noses at 'Avatar': an original, director-driven blockbuster that came out when most other big budget movies were either sequels or adaptations of already existing intellectual properties. "The ideas in the film are not original", they claim. Come on guys, seriously?
So you've seen a world like Pandora before? A bioluminescent visual wonder that merges the colorful marine life of coral reefs with the lush vegetation of tropical rain forests? A world where nature forms an actual neural network that stores memories and builds a collective consciousness? You've seen many films about a bio-database that people can plug themselves into via ancient trees and communicate with their ancestors?
You've watched countless blockbusters that take place in an eco-system where you can form instant symbiosis with other creatures depending on your needs? And by the way: how many "eco-sci-fi" films have you seen? Such a worn-out concept and tired old sub-genre, right?
No my friends, in terms of Hollywood blockbusters, these ideas and concepts are about as original as they come, and some of them are even inspired by actual biological phenomenons (like the discovery that the roots of trees do indeed form a sort of neural network in a symbiosis with fungi where they are able to store and exchange information). But what is true is that the filmmaker cleverly chose a very straight-forward story to get his environmentalist plea and anti-colonial, anti-imperialist message across and make some rather complex sci-fi ideas more accessible for a broad audience.
To that end, the film uses certain well-known story tropes ("the spy who changes sides once he falls in love with an enemy"; "the soldier who realizes he's been fighting for the wrong cause"; "the invader who gets to know and appreciate the foreign culture he's invading" or the timeless trope of "the fish out of water"), but they are not what the film is about. And those tropes are not copied from 'Dances With Wolves' either - any more than that film stole them from 'Pocahontas': they are so universal you can find variations of any one of them in numerous legends and stories and thus also throughout film history, from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to 'Shogun' or 'The Last Samurai' and countless others.
And yes, our heroes Jake and Neytiri are not the most complex of characters (though neither are they as bland as the film's most vicious detractors claim), but that's because they aren't really the film's main focus. 'Avatar's actual protagonist, its true star if you will, is Pandora. It's the WORLD we get to experience through Jake's eyes that really matters here, and the film aims straight for your gut - not your sci-fi nerd brain (which I suspect is the actual reason why so many former Cameron fans - now - claim to be disappointed with the film).
More than anything, 'Avatar' wants you to lose your heart to this beautiful planet that functions as an obvious stand-in for our own threatened world, and the film is an unapologetic, uncynical declaration of love to the wonders of nature - as well as a call to action to preserve them. Which on an emotional level works marvelously: nothing in the film is as painful and shocking as the destruction of a single big tree, which symbolizes quite literally nature as the home and shelter we depend upon. It's a genius scene, and I dare you to find an action blockbuster where the distruction of a city or a whole planet carries even a shred of the emotional heft that the falling of "Home Tree" does in Cameron's film.
So again (I'm trying to hammer my point home here ;-), 'Avatar' is simple? Yes, but that's the point: the simplicity and familiarity of the story are deliberate; the themes are not just derivative re-treads, they're as universal as those in myths and fairy tales and thus speak to everyone. And that's exactly what Cameron's intention was: to use simple enough tropes and archetypes to convey a heart-felt message that would work across cultural borders and reach people all over the world. Which, given the film's success, it obviously did.
Personally, I think 'Avatar' is a prime example of visual and emotional storytelling done right, and viewing it for the first time offers an experience that is almost without equal in its immersiveness. And while this may only have been my own individual experience, 'Avatar' was also the first movie in a long time that completely vowed me in the sense that I felt like a little kid again in the theater - which had very little to do with the novelty of 3D. It was also the last time a film managed to do that.
And even in terms of pure entertainment the film is simply spectacular. It's a rousing adventure with gorgeous visuals and top-notch CGI, filled with fascinating creatures and jaw-dropping future-tech, and the final 40 minutes of the film provide an all out, non-stop sci-fi action thrill-ride on a scale the world had rarely - if ever - seen before.
Obviously that doesn't mean it's a perfect film, and as I already pointed out, it's fair not to like it for any number of reasons (above all: personal taste), but 'Avatar' is far from deserving the kind of snark and ridicule it gets these days. Get over it people: simple doesn't equal simplistic, and the fact that 'Avatar' is neither subtle nor cynical doesn't make it dumb (even if it does make it harder for some of us nerds to like it wihtout feeling slightly embarassed ;-).
In all honesty, I believe if this had been a slightly more obscure film - instead of the most successful movie of all time - many of the same people who hate on it now would hail it as an epic sci-fi adventure classic for the ages. And as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what 'Avatar' is: a modern classic by a visionary filmmaker and true auteur. Rant over.