« Invictus | Main | The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond »
Avatar
Dragging
Titanic
James Cameron's Opus is all Wet
By Cole Smithey
The most
expensive film ever made leaves much to be desired. Paralyzed from the waist
down, former Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington - "Terminator
Salvation") voices several movies worth of tell-don't-show narration for
the benefit of audiences who like being read to when they watch a movie. With
no oil resources left on Earth in the year 2154, a battalion of outsourced
military bozos have set up camp on the moon "Pandora" with a group of
optimistic scientists in order to incite a tribe of native aliens called the
Na'vi. They want to drive the Na'vi out of their giant tree home to extract an
energy-producing mineral called Unobtainium (an arcane reference to sci-fi
B-movies of the '50s). Chosen for his DNA, Jake's lack of scientific training
nevertheless allows him to rest in a coffin-like bed from which he projects a
walking-talking avatar in the form of a Na'vi creature. Jake's mission is to
earn the trust of the blue-skinned Na'vi and report back to the colonizing
military forces, who want to dispossess the aliens rather than kill them all
outright. The Na'vi are primitive aliens who wear loin cloths, do battle with
bows and arrows, and fly around on winged six-legged horse-like creatures.
Naturally, Jake falls for Neyfiri, a charming Na'vi played by Zoe Saldana, who
returns his affection. The inevitable David-and-Goliath war that transpires
delivers a familiar tale. For an ostensibly anti-imperialist war movie written
in all caps and splashed with every primary color in the Maxfield Parish color
wheel, "Avatar" ends up being a toothless rollercoaster of eye candy
that sexes up war, the very thing it professes to detest. "Avatar" is
the perfect film to desensitize young audiences before they get the call-up.
At least an
entire generation has come and gone since James Cameron's last film
("Titanic") broke every box office record on file in 1997. To some
degree, Cameron's success with "Titanic" seems to have caused him to
do what Francis Ford Coppola did after filming "Apocalypse Now," go
underground. So wrecked from his long and arduous jungle shoot was Coppola
that, for his next film ("One From the Heart"), he set up shop on a
soundstage to recreate a scaled down version of Las Vegas rather go to the
actual place. The resulting film was nearly unwatchable and emptied Coppola's
pockets so badly that his career never fully recovered. While
"Avatar" surely won't bankrupt Cameron, it has sapped 12 very
important years from a filmmaker who probably would have come up with a much
better movie had he played the numbers and put out five or six films since
then.
For all of
its inventiveness, "Avatar" feels like it was made in a vacuum. From
a science fiction standpoint, Cameron's "The Abyss" (1989) is a much
stronger story, and a better film. Given the choice of watching
"Avatar" again or screening Cameron's "Aliens" (1986),
there's no contest. "Aliens" wins out hands down because, again, it's
a better movie. It's more convincing and you care a lot more about Ripley and
Newt than you do about a glorified inflatable doll (Jake's avatar) whose
organic facade fools a group of doomed natives whose unavoidable fate is
inextricably bound up with that of the American Indian, and hordes of other
cultures that 500 years of colonization has wiped out. That "Avatar"
toys liberally with refiguring the effectiveness of arrows against rocket
propelled grenades shows a lack of imagination on the part of screenwriters
whose strategic logic would be utterly useless in any group of asymmetrical
resistance fighters. This year's "District 9" did a much better job
of getting at the complexities of an alien occupation, and of the psychology of
a changeling being, which is what Jake aspires to be.
There is an
unintended subtext in the phenomenon of "Avatar" that points up the
misplaced priorities of a country engaged in two endless wars for oil, while
its own infrastructure collapses. No one needs to see "Avatar" to
contemplate a little bit of macro-consciousness that Americans comprehend all
too well. In relation to "Avatar," it's a matter of timing. The film
would have played a lot better ten years ago. Now it's too little, too late.
2154 came a long time ago.
Rated PG-13. 160 mins. (B-) (Three Stars)
Posted by Cole Smithey on
December 23, 2009 in Action/Adventure | Permalink
Save to del.icio.us |
Digg This
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2b7953ef0128767aeb9a970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Avatar :
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.