Brothers in blue

Far from being a mass beloved film, “Avatar” has had a polarising effect. The film has clear minded, articulate champions – James Berardinelli, David Poland, Michael Wilmington and His Holiness the Dalai Ebert – and equally well versed critics, including Devin Faraci, Armond White (who thought “Up” was pathetic, so his credibility is dubious) and Jim Emerson. It’s in the internet wars between these two factions that names like “Dances with Smurfs” and “Ferngully 3-D” have been thrown around. People who really like the film are utterly devoted in their admiration. Both sides have solid observations. Meanwhile, the film’s detractors are not hesitant to lash out at the film and its maker, James Cameron.

Cameron is best know, pre-“Avatar”, for “Titanic” (1997), which bulldozed its way to the Oscars and is the reason that Curtis Hanson’s noir effort “LA Confidential” was denied any such accolades. Cameron made his mark much earlier with genre classics. In the mid 1980s, he took Ridley Scott’s ominously quiet “Alien” and made its sequel, “Aliens”, an all-out action film without sacrificing character integrity (Ripley remained the focus, not the acid-oozing creatures). That was also the decade of “The Terminator”, and in the early 1990s, Cameron’s “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” became one of that decades most beloved early box-office successes (remember when people actually looked forward to Arnold Schwarzenegger movies?). In contradiction with those films’ violence-driven narratives, Cameron’s “The Abyss”, set in the depths of the oceans, was far more pacifistic and on a technological level made visual f/x breakthroughs that lead to later developments for “Jurassic Park” and eventually his own latest opus, “Avatar”.

I emphasise the action and visual f/x in Cameron’s filmography because that’s what he’s good at. In terms of spectacle and technology, “Avatar” moves mountains (literally). Its set pieces aren’t just entertaining, they’re mind blowing. It seamlessly blends CGI and live action and presents an alien world so idealistically beautiful that many viewers have claimed with dismay that earth could never be like that (one blogger said he’s going to induce a coma so that he can keep dreaming of this fantastical world). Clearly, on an effects level, I cannot fault “Avatar”. It should win every possible award for its groundbreaking work in visual f/x.

Part of “Avatar’s” success is the 3-D technology it utilises. It makes the world of Pandora immersive by creating the illusion of being in the film, of being an arm’s length away from hungry carnivorous beasts and majestic layers of foliage. Simply, it works.

I only get to the plot now because the film itself treats everything as secondary to its fantastical world. Spectacle comes first, and the rest follow. The film follows marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) as he becomes part of a pioneering science programme. Jake, a paraplegic, is to use a synthetic body called an avatar to interact with an alien species on Pandora named the Na’vi. See, Pandora contains valuable natural resources that an American company wants to mine. Jake’s job eventually is to infiltrate the native Na’vi and convince them to allow the company to go about their business. This proves more complicated than expected when he falls in love with a Na’vi female, Neytiri (Zoe Saldanha), though this development is unexpected only to him, and not to the audience who can predict almost to the beat which character will do what to or with whom, and when it will happen.

Obligatory spoiler warning. Regarding the characters and what they do, Sully’s path is clear, as we understand his role as triumphant hero. Then there’s Neytiri, whose movements and dialogue often come across as exaggerated and melodramatic. There is also the Quaritch (Stephen Lang), an army man with an itchy trigger finger. We know from the start that he will face off with Sully at some stage, since he is clearly being set up as the film’s villain. We also know that this face off will occur at the climax, when the larger battle has come to an end but personal conflicts must still be resolved. When that moment comes, it’s spectacular, but, like many of the minor character in the film, is borrowed from earlier Cameron movies. One such character is Michelle Rodriquez’s XXX, whose shift in allegiance is nearly inexplicable. Other characters, such as Neytiri’s ruler father and mother, do not register as characters because of the dialogue. More often than not, they sound like they are channelling other movie incarnations of B-movie shamans, despite Wes Studi as the father.

Oh, the dialogue. Cameron is an idea driven innovator, not a writer. As much as he manages to precisely plan and design his image, he fails to apply the same nuance and detail to his characters and what they say. I fear for a world where “I see you” becomes a general way of greeting. It’s already happening online. Even the film’s champions admit that some dialogue goes disastrously wrong. Often the dialogue, especially when things get emotional, is a hundred percent cornball. You cringe at the words and gape at the spectacle at the same time. The result is an occasional detachment from the screen, 3-D or no 3-D.

Let us not forget that 3-D is a gimmick. A gimmick that works remains a gimmick; it does not evolve into a new cultural art form. 3-D contributes nothing to the possible complexities of film language. Something I found with the 3-D (and keep in mind that I saw it in Real 3-D, which is apparently the best 3-D currently on the market) is that while it gives depth to the screen, it also makes the screen seem smaller. 2-D gives ample impression of depth without compromising perceived screen size.

All in all, “Avatar” is well worth seeing in any format. Cameron’s Pandora is a botanical paradise and he gives the Na’vi an adequate socio-cultural context, even if the depiction of this blue-skinned alien people tends toward ‘noble savages’ too often. The film has a clear ecological agenda in promoting the planet as a live, even sentient entity, and reserves much of its criticism for the American war machine, positioning it as something that destroys what it doesn’t even try to comprehend.

I can see that there are many excellent stories with possible anthropological insights waiting to be told as the Na’vi mythology becomes more elaborate and complex in possible sequels and spin-off products such as novelisations. Indeed, the film gives us a vast world to be explored, especially as the different clans are made manifest towards the end of the film. With the popular if inflated Academy Awards only a few months away, “Avatar” is said by many to the Best Picture frontrunner. It’s already won the Golden Globe.

Make no mistake: “Avatar” does not deserve a Best Picture anything.

The often hammy dialogue and shallow character writing hamstring what could’ve been a genuine cinematic achievement. The story is unoriginal though its setting is new and shiny. When I strip the film down to its basics, to story and character, it’s not even Cameron’s best film. Cameron has always been an innovator, tinkering with new toys and technologies and breaking ground from the 1980s onward. But he’s never been a visionary in the sense of imagining film worlds that are new in ways other than their content and manner of their presentation. “Titanic” worked so well (at least to an extent) because the romance was primary, with the sinking ship as the backdrop. In “Avatar”, everything is a backdrop to Cameron’s spectacular fantasy. Let it also be said that “Avatar’s” song over the end credits (mercifully I can’t recall its title) makes “My Heart Will Go On” sound like a profound and philosophically grounded treatise on human desire (“near far, wherever you are…”).

What “Avatar” is, and it’s no mean feat, is a milestone in visual f/x. Best to leave it at that.