![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[This is a rather long post, I'm afraid. Because I have a lot of thoughts and I want to express/share them, but am struggling to find the way to do it. I will cut tag to save my flist, but if you choose to read this post - please - make certain you read the part about what I brought with me into the theater - what was influencing my thinking/perspective at the time. Because I think that part is very important.]
Well, I decided to see Avatar in 3 D today, largely because of this review by Roz Kaveny, which I saw linked to in her lj. I respect Roz, who has been on the front lines of what can best be described as the culture wars for more than a decade. She also doesn't proselytze or judge, so much as convey her point of view even if it may differ from your own. Not an easy thing to do, as I'm sure most of us can attest, much to our own chagrin. ;-)
http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2010/01/avatar-comments.shtml#comments
Her review is the opposite of the vast majority of reviews I've read online, which largely state that while the film is visually stunning, it's storyline is cringeworthy, offensive, and a tad redundant. Not to mention, repetitive and just plain stupid. (And from the many comparisons to the Kevin Costner film Dances with Wolves - I'm guessing a lot of people hated that film. If you did, you probably wouldn't like Last of the Mohicans, and 90% of the Westerns made.) Most of the reviews I read of it online, made me either want to boycott the film or avoid it. Roz's review sparked my curiousity, as did two other factors: Avatar has made within its first three weeks abroad, over 1 billion internationally.
It has broken international records. I wanted to know why that many people from that many countries were going to this film, what was it about Avatar that appealed to them. And the idea of 3D. The last 3D film I saw - was Voyager's Journey to Mars - which was in the early 1980s and it gave me a headache, wearing the red/blue cardboard glasses. So, I was admittedly skeptical. But I've heard what Cameron does advances the 3D technology further than any film ever. That is why I went to see the film today at 11:35 am. That and the fact that I'm brain dead from work and wanted escapism. Just to lose myself in a visual movie that required little thought and Avatar doesn't require much thought.
It is worth noting, I suspect, that I went to see the film with very low expectations. My hope was that it was better than Titantic (which drug in the middle and I found a bit on the hookey side), not dull, and not too cringeworthy.
After I saw the film, which was far better than I expected (not sure what I expected, but I did not expect to like it, I rather expected to despise it and want to poke fun at it) - I came back to re-read Roz's review and the comments below it - which I recommend. For they made me aware of -
1. The far-right, ultra-conservative, or progressive right - hates Avatar and wants to boycott it for its depiction of the military and corporations. But mainly the US military and Americans. (did not know about this, although after seeing the film - I completely understand it. It does not paint a nice picture of the military or corporations or our search for oil, and that is putting it mildly.)
2. The left - hates Avatar because of its depiction of the aliens as Native Americans and the precolonialism white guy as savior mythos a la Dances with Wolves or Pochoantus. (I'd add Star Trek and Doctor Who to that trope as well. They also feature white guys who save women and the world and indigenous/alien people who don't know any better.) (This bit I already knew about because it featured in 80% of the reviews I'd read.)
This reminds me oddly enough of the battle over Huckleberry Finn. The African-American community wanted to ban the book in schools in the 1980s due to its negative and offensive depiction of persons of color, specifically Huck's friend Jim. While in the early 1900s, when Twain first published it, the White community wanted to ban the book in schools due to its postive depiction of persons of color, specifically Huck's friend Jim and it's anti-slavery, anti-racism tone. By the way, if you've ever read Huckleberry Finn, you'll know that both views are understandable reactions.
Demonstrating once again that stories are not told in a vaccume. Or rather those that are shared, aren't. Once the story gets out there and others view or see it, they bring their own history to the mix. The story changes. That's why it is possible for two contradictory reviews of the same subject matter to exist. Or why you may love the film Star Trek for example, and another person may hate it for being sexist and racist. You may not see those things in the film or you do, but they may not bug you in the same way not because you condone them so much as you may find in them a way of understanding that perspective. Same deal with Avatar - I think. But I think that is putting words in others mouths, and I don't want to do that. When we watch or read something, it is my belief that it is personal, it is unique, it is individual to us. What we feel is real. What we see is real. And I'm not sure, sometimes, anyone but us can really understand the experience we have of watching or reading something, why we love, hate, adore, despise or are ambivalent - even though we try very very hard to share and communicate it.
My own take on Avatar is a complex one and difficult to put into words. To fully understand it, you'd have to know what I'd watched prior to seeing it this week, what I'd read, and what I thought about. Because I brought more with me into that film besides my body, my coat, hat, gloves, scarf, and purse, and of course 3 D glasses - funky sunglasses reminiscent of Risky Business (a Tom Cruise flick from the 1980s). I brought everything beneath the cut as well:
Starting with watched: I watched on Wednesday night, Howard Zinn and Matt Damon's film version of Zinn's acclaimed historical text "The People's History of the United States", the people speak. It is a story of the protestors, activists, writers, singers, strikers, union organizers, and the minorities - those brought to the US against their will, those that were here long before the Europeans arrived in their fancy ships with their fancy guns seeking gold and riches. If you have not seen this film - I highly recommend renting it on DVD.
Here are the quotes from it that stuck with me, that I jotted down while viewing, and influenced my viewing of Avatar today:
1. Satirist and humorist Mark Twain, who was adamantly against the expansionist movement in the West and in the Phillipines and, comments on the US battle in the Phillipines - during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency: The US soliders were told to kill or capture the 600 battling, which included women and children. The battle was fought with prodigious efficency and complete victory for the Americans. Not one of the 600 was left alive. Today, you upheld well the honor of the American Flag, signed Theodore Roosevelt." Twain pauses and then adds with more than a touch of sarcasm, "I was never more proud of the American Flag than now."
2. After Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas and the Spainish declared the indigenous inhabitants to be little more than animals. A Spainish Missionary writes..."Of the 3 million previous inhabitants, only 200 were left by the Christian Spainish Colonials in their quest to acquire gold and achieve stations above their merits. Before one of the Indians was killed, he was asked if he wanted to convert to Christianity in order to go to heaven. The man, having no knowledge of such things, asked, is that where Christians go when they die. When he was told this was so. He said, he'd much rather go to hell - it would be a better place because there would not be any Christians."
3. Emma Goldman from "What is Patriotism": We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.Such is the logic of patriotism.
4. Howard Zinn - we are the only nation that has been fighting a war for more than 40 years, but never on our own soil - we go to other's soils. And that may be the reason. We do not know what it is like to have bombs falling from the air, or bodies torn asunder. And we feel powerful about this. Think of the wars we have fought with scarcely a break between them: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan...
5. A former General, Ricter (I think) - there is no just war. I served in the Pacific during WWII. 100,000 lives lost in Tokyo alone. Constant bombing. Old men send young men to war. Just a miserable ugly business. We steal lives of these kids. We take it away from them we kill them. Been fighting war since 1940, gone elsewhere to fight our wars.
6. Phyllis and Orlando Rodriquez, who lost their son in 9/11: we see our hurt and anger reflected on everyone we meet - we read enough of the news to know our government is heading in the way of violent revenge. It will not avenge our son's death, it is not the way..not in our son's name.
7. 4,000 of the 16,000 Cherokees ordered to relocate from their home in the east to the west, in the trail of tears, died on that march.
In The Unquiet Earth by Denise Giardina one of the characters, Dillion, has just returned injured from WWII, with a limp. His leg was shattered by a bullet. It was, it turns out friendly fire. One of the Americans returning to camp, shattered by what he'd seen, freaked out when he saw Dillon at the outhouse, taking a crap. He thought Dillion was a German and opened fire. Dillion returned fire to defend himself and ended up with the shattered leg as well as killing the man - he had no choice. He tells this story to his mother. She says no one would blame you. He responds with the following speech:
I blame myself. He was an American, joined early like I did. But it ain't him being an American that bothered me. Way I see it, an American ain't no more valuable than any other human being in God's eyes. But I had a choice, it was him or me. I chose me." He drained the bottle of beer and opened another. "They said the fellow's best friend had his head blown off right in front of him, and he'd been on the verge of cracking all week. They was going to send him to a hospital in Cairo soon as they got some help. Nobody blamed me. I found out what I could about him. He was Ed McCamey from Centre Hall, Pennsylvania. Sounds like a damn estate, don't it. Centre Hall?"
His mother states: "It happens in War".
"Yes, it does." He answered quick, like he was ready to agree with anything I said as a way to mock a mother's comfort. "And why did I choose me instead of him? Because that's the way do, ain't it? It's natural as breathing I should choose me so Carrie Freeman (his mother) can sit on the porch with her son and Ed McCarney's mother can lay flowers on the grave. You'd rather be setting right here, wouldn't you? You know what I done while I was laid up in the hospital? I read the Bible. Now that's something you aint known me to do, is it? You never thought of me as religious, and I ain't in the church going way. But I believe in God, and I believe they'a a fire running through everything that lives. When that Bible starts throwing rules at me, I laugh, but when it tells how sin burns and says turn the other cheek and when God gets hung on that cross, buddy I'm right there. I chose me and that's sin. I ain't no better than a goddamn Nazi. That's what they do, they choose themselves. And the rich people that keep what they got, they do the same. It's sin and the only way you burn it out is to die. Only it don't work if you just die for yourself, it's got to be for somebody else.
And finally, a post by lj user gabriellabelle, I may have the name wrong, that asks this question - how do writers make a story so gripping or so wonderful you love it and can't put it down? Is it magic? (In response, people stated that the story she was reading they weren't crazy about, so maybe it has something to do with the reader?) It is an interesting question to me.
It is also probably useful to mention that I studied the Western film genre in undergrad, wrote papers on The Searchers, The Wild Bunch, Red River, and Ride the High Country, along with Stage Coach. I also saw Terminator in college. And wrote a paper on it and Aliens. As well as having read various Louis L'Amour novels, watching a vast majority of Westerns, and taking my Granny to Dances with Wolves, which she and I enjoyed a great deal. My Grandmother spent a great deal of time with the Native Americans in the West, learning how to bead and teaching them how to do it. She had a vast collection of their creations. And told me many of their stories. My niece is part Cherokee and has a Cherokee middle name. And my sisterinlaw is part Cherokee as well, her first name is Cherokee - her last is inherited from Kit Carson, the negotiator, moutain man, and betrayer of the Indians to Custer, who gave many Cherokee women his last name. In Law School - down the road was the Tribal Law School - where you could learn Tribal Indian Law - which is a separate nation within the US. I note this because it also influences me and plays a part in how I viewed the film.
Add to this, the fact that while I enjoyed Star Trek the film - like most popular sci-fi films, I found it to be teethgrindingly sexist and racist, with a glorified male white hero. I noticed, but pushed it aside, commented on it. In some respects Star Trek bugged me more than Avatar in this respect, even though I would cheerfully watch the film again, found it more entertaining than AVATAR, and even asked for it for Xmas, and still enjoy it. Something can be enjoyable, yet also bug you at the same time or at least that's true for me. But it doesn't keep you from noticing the things that bug all the same.
And finally, my cultural anthropology background, as well as my love of genre - specifically science fiction, fantasy, and westerns - which throughout my life I've had to defend to people for being low-brow or un-pc or sexist or racist, mostly sexist. All of this influences me, I brought it with me into the theater. Just as I brought with me my memories of other similar films, books such as Ann McCaffrey's Pern series, and my recent accident - where I sprained an ankle and had to use a crutch for several months.
My thoughts on Avatar...
Avatar much like Star Trek and District 9 - which I also saw this year, and had equally mixed feelings about.
I know why it is doing well now, better in fact than either Star Trek or District 9, and it's relatively simple reason that may shock people...it's because the film is a bit like Independence Day, except the bad guys are the US Military and US Corporations, while the good guys are the Natives. It is a film that more or less says in big bold letters the wars we have fought on others soil, in others lands, for our own selfish interests, however justified, are wrong. The other statement is - we are destroying our planet with our violent wars, and violent need for power - to our planet's detriment. Instead of living in harmony with our world, we are attempting to congueor it, to control it, to enslave it, to mine it, and to take from it - giving nothing of use back. These are the themes and in an age of global recession, terrorism, constant war, violence, deforestation, global warming, funky weather, and natural disasters - brought on by mining and deforestation and global warming - they are relevant. And it expresses this theme in a feel-good way, the protagonist, Jake Scully has bought into the patriotic chant of his own race. At least up to a point. He is the everyman. The working block. The career solider. Injured. Disabled. Ron Kovics of Born on the 4th of July, except still patriotic and still a solider. He's also lost someone, his twin, who was brighter than he was and physically able. He wants, and he is blind. A baby, naive.
Following orders.
He is the representative of the power, one who aides it, and enjoys it. Yet doesn't seem to realize it.
So he enters what the earthlings call Pandora. It is important to note that the film is told entirely through Jake Scully's point of view. It is the white guy's view, which makes sense since Cameron is a white guy. So see Scully as Cameron's Avatar or his pov. We are in Cameron's story. And he has chosen to tell it from the perspective of the privileged white male, who while disabled, critically so, has options more than most. Scully is caught between the male run military and the female run anthoprologists, one that wishes to exploit and ravage the planet, the other that wishes to study and investigate it. He is also, once he takes on the body of his avatar, a human/native mixed dna body that his mind is inserted into, and makes contact with the planet's populace - caught between the planet's indigenous population and his own race. Not quite fitting in anywhere. I sort of identified with that one bit - the feeling of not fitting in, of being on the outside, looking in. I think if you can find something to identify with in a lead character - the film will work, if you don't or the lead pisses you off or pushes your buttons, the opposite happens. (My parents have warned me not to see the film Up in the Air, which they loved, and to wait to rent it - they strongly believe Clooney's fellow female consultant, played by Kendrick, not the love interest, will seriously piss me off - from her description - I'm guessing they are right and I should wait to rent this baby. I'd probably want to kill her. And I have enough problems restraining myself from murdering the textmessagers in movie theaters...or at the very least smashing their cell phones.)
Sam Worthington is actually pretty good in the role of Scully - considering he spends 80% of the film in the Nav'i or his Avatar. And the Nav'i to give Cameron credit are beautiful, and different from any creature I've seen. Yes, they dress and act a lot like the Apache and certain, not all tribes of North America. Not all Native Americans use feathers, war paint, and chant by the way. I know - I studied some of the tribes in school. Also quite a few, were fairly peaceful and not warriors, did not eat meat. I get why the feathers and chanting, it is frigging hard to come up with new stuff and Cameron is not the most imaginative guy on the planet. He probably grabbed what he knew, like we all do. And I'm guessing like most film directors - he saw a lot of Westerns growing up. This film reminds me a lot of some of those Westerns, also a lot of Star Wars, Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, Star Gate series, Farscape, I mean this not a new trope. And I've seen more than one sci-fi guy do the whole Native American thing as aliens on another planet that the white heroes are either visiting, intruding upon, or exploiting in some way. After all sci-fi is the twin of the Western - they are both about the thrill, risk, ups and downs, and moral quandry of expansion and exploration. From Hondo, the Searchers, and Rio Bravo to Battle Star Galatica and Star Trek..to Wagon Train to Earth2...sci-fi follows the same trajectory and asks many of the same questions. Do we have the right to come to another person's land and impose our own beliefs and culture on them? What if we have no choice? What if our land is gone? What if our god has lead us here and it is the promised land? What if we have no land of our own? What about their rights? An old question that goes back to the Bible.
The disturbing bit about Avatar is that Scully goes from traitor to hero in a blink of an eye, becoming the chosen leader, the promised one - or chosen.
He is the one that gives the information regarding the Nav'i's homeland to the military, enough to enable them to destroy the Hometree, which as Grace Augustine attempts to explain is part of a vast data network on the planet, not just any old tree. But the Corporate big wig cares mainly for his quarterly reports, expenses, and the project - its just another twig to him. He stopped caring about forests ages ago. This is a bit cliche, and I've seen it before, hints of Ferngully, and Farscape, and well a lot of other things come to mind. As Roz K states in her review above, Cameron is shameless in his grabbing, although I doubt it is deliberate. Art is not created in a vaccume. We inadvertently take from the things we've read or seen or have influenced us at one time or another. Often without realizing it. This is why a lot of would-be writers, and several actual writers do not read anything in the genre in which they write, although it is worth noting the successful ones do and steal shamelessly. Because that is part of the process. So that part is not what is disturbing.
What is..is well, instead of having Scully learn and maybe influence the native leader, he becomes it. It feels a bit too much like a video game and perhaps that is the intent. The film itself has been critiqued as borrowing heavily from video and role playing games, both in its imagery and f/x graphics, and in its avatar/hero journey. And I will admit this bit was the reason I was hesitant to see the flick and a tad squirmy during the final half hour.
The first two hours I rather enjoyed, the last...felt too video game and white liberal male fantasy to my liking. (White liberal guilt is a frustrating thing...because it often results in fantasies of saving the ones we feel guilty about hurting - see we saved you, we are your leader, we taught you to live better lives...forgive us! And all can be merry. If only it were that simple. And if only the intent were less self-serving.) That is the problem with Jake Scully's arc - he doesn't sacrifice anything. If anything he gains, and continues to gain. We don't really see him fail, just fall on his butt once or twice. Both the Nav'i and the scientists accept him almost too quickly. While he works to gain their respect and trust, while backstabbing them with the general...it isn't that hard. And when he loses it, he regains it fairly quickly afterwards. It's not that Jake isn't lovable - he is. Or sympathetic. But he feels a bit too much like a kid playing a video game at times. We see the struggle - but it is in the human character, not the Avatar. Also, I had problems with the fact that he gets so embroiled in his quest for manhood, that he fails to warn them of the doom that he has aided in bringing down upon their heads. Nor has Grace for that matter. I can defend this of course, but it nags at me.
Perhaps if the characterization had been deeper? I didn't mind too much in the theater, but then I'm brain dead from the work week and wanted to lose myself in escapist fare. No thinking required and preferably no blood-pressure raising. It succeeded in the first bit, the last hour raised the blood pressure - but then it was supposed to. The characterization is sort of sketchy, although to be fair deep characterization, crisp clever dialogue - were never Cameron's strong suites. His earlier movies maybe, the later, not so much. Titantic was horrid - I was so bored during the Leo/Kate romance, and cringed every time they opened their mouths. This is actually far better and unlike Kate, I adore the Neytari (sp?), who is strong, and lith, and beautiful. I also like Jake and see their romance as realistic. But the other characters feel a bit underdeveloped. The General or Ranger Rick, Miles, is your stereotypical military bad guy, as are most if not all of his recruits. He is a one-dimensional character who is visually speaking, 3 D, neat trick that. And Sigourney Weaver's Grace - is equally one dimensional - a sort of Diane Fossey, but without the interesting quirks or backstory...she lacks the depth necessary for me to care when she is injured or dies. Trudy played by Michelle Rodriguez ( a favorite sci-fi actress of mine - since well Aliens, and one of the many reasons I saw this flick) - is also one dimensional - she's the female grunt, the military gal with a heart of gold. Her character in Aliens, also supporting, albeit brief had more depth, as did the character she played in Resident Evil - which is saying something. Actually all the characters but Jake and possibly Neytari who we see through his eyes, are underdeveloped.
There's a reason for the simplicity - the emphasis is on visuals. The planet itself. It's creatures. And the 3 D effects. Which are inexplicably amazing to behold. You actually feel like you are inside this world at times, that you can reach out and touch the seedlings, floating towards you. It's not like most 3D - you don't have arrows and guns, and bombs being fired at you, but rather...seedlings floating, dust, leaves...and the details, oh the details, are beyond anything you can imagine. Colors so vivid, like looking at a Monet painting for the very first time. The film itself feels like a work of art, a painting, and the cinematography and direction and scenic design is a wonder to behold. It is not an acting movie, it is not a writer's movie. The story, the characters are simplistic, tropes that we are familar with and obviously find comforting on some level or we wouldn't keep paying for these stories, we wouldn't keep telling them. The tale that the child askes her parents to tell her repeatedly before bedtime, a different way each time. Or that tale we tell around the fire, to keep us safe and warm at night, the same tale, just a different perspective.
Has this story been told over and over and over...yes. Different ways. Different mediums.
Is it better or worse than the others? Hard to say. Since it is the same yet very different. Besides better or worse don't interest me that much - too subjective anyhow. I'm more interested in why it is still being told. Is it because there are no original or new stories? Or because it is comforting on some level? Although it wasn't to me. Maybe to someone else. Or is it because it is asking questions that have not been answered? Why are we still at war? Why do we still fight for things like oil and land that is not ours? Why do we hurt others to further our own interests? Why can't we realize that we are connected to our earth and each other...one dies, we all do, to an extent, regardless of creed, nationality, race, religion, gender, or faith?
The world of Pandora - not the native name - is a world where each member is respectful of the rest. The natives only kill when they have to eat, and they thank the beast and return it to its rest. Their religion is the mother goddess and their religious leader, a priestess, an odd blend of matriarchial and patriarchial. The male warrior chooses his mate. But the female warrior commutes with God. Reminds me a bit of The Iron Dragon's Daughter, which also bugged me for similar reasons. Also reminds me of a statement made in Howard Zinn's the Peoples History of the US, Sojourner Truth states..."they say woman should not have the same rights as men, that is ordained by God, but God sent his son made of God and woman, man had nothing to do with it." This movie puts the women on pedestals, trophies to be won, guides to follow, goddesses to commune with...warrior women to aid, but they aren't front or center, more to the left and two rows behind, granted not as far behind as they are in Star Trek, Iron Man. I know Neytari far more than I know Uhurua. I feel her in my gut. And she is far less cliche, far less there for male eye candy. She saves Jake, she kills the villian. She is the hero and wins the war, not Jake - and that is something. Cameron proves himself to be a bit more of a feminist in spirit than some of his compatriots. Also, the god there is the mother, nature, tree, earth. The mother goddess, while the sky is the devil. The People of the Sky - the demons from the SKy, the SKy Bully...who preachs wars and fire. The Mother preaches healing and balance, and only interfers when she must, calling all her children to defend her limbs, note defend, not invade or ambush. And there's something beautiful in that.
It is a mixed bag, much like Pandora's box is a mixed bag. Not one that is digested easily or sticks with you well. But it doesn't evaporate either... not like some of the critics have stated. Making me think it depends on what you are thinking and who you are when you see it.
See, here's the thing, I think films and books and even music tell us more sometimes about who we are than they do about who others are. They reveal bits and pieces of our souls. But they also show us another view, another perspective other than our own, sometimes foreign, sometimes abhorrent, but definitely other. And I'm of the opinion that seeing that other view, that new angle - teaches me something, makes me grow and change and reflect and alter a bit in the process.
AVATAR is not, I guess, for everyone. But if you have 3 hours to kill on a cold day or a rainy one, and it is playing in a comfy theater, in 3D, I do recommend checking it out. It is unlike any film you've seen before - that much I can promise you. The story may well be, but the presentation is not. And come to think of it, most stories we've heard before anyhow - we're really in it for the show.
While not as entertaining as Sherlock Holmes, it is in some respects better and in others worse, I'm not sure they are comparable. No, they aren't. Not at all.
Overall rating, taking in account the splendid visual effects - which blew me away and changed my mind about 3D (done well, it is effective, although still looks wonky on human faces, CGI - a whole other story), not to mention CGI (Cameron took it to a whole new level, this ain't your Daddy's CGI) - is a B+.
Well, I decided to see Avatar in 3 D today, largely because of this review by Roz Kaveny, which I saw linked to in her lj. I respect Roz, who has been on the front lines of what can best be described as the culture wars for more than a decade. She also doesn't proselytze or judge, so much as convey her point of view even if it may differ from your own. Not an easy thing to do, as I'm sure most of us can attest, much to our own chagrin. ;-)
http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2010/01/avatar-comments.shtml#comments
Her review is the opposite of the vast majority of reviews I've read online, which largely state that while the film is visually stunning, it's storyline is cringeworthy, offensive, and a tad redundant. Not to mention, repetitive and just plain stupid. (And from the many comparisons to the Kevin Costner film Dances with Wolves - I'm guessing a lot of people hated that film. If you did, you probably wouldn't like Last of the Mohicans, and 90% of the Westerns made.) Most of the reviews I read of it online, made me either want to boycott the film or avoid it. Roz's review sparked my curiousity, as did two other factors: Avatar has made within its first three weeks abroad, over 1 billion internationally.
It has broken international records. I wanted to know why that many people from that many countries were going to this film, what was it about Avatar that appealed to them. And the idea of 3D. The last 3D film I saw - was Voyager's Journey to Mars - which was in the early 1980s and it gave me a headache, wearing the red/blue cardboard glasses. So, I was admittedly skeptical. But I've heard what Cameron does advances the 3D technology further than any film ever. That is why I went to see the film today at 11:35 am. That and the fact that I'm brain dead from work and wanted escapism. Just to lose myself in a visual movie that required little thought and Avatar doesn't require much thought.
It is worth noting, I suspect, that I went to see the film with very low expectations. My hope was that it was better than Titantic (which drug in the middle and I found a bit on the hookey side), not dull, and not too cringeworthy.
After I saw the film, which was far better than I expected (not sure what I expected, but I did not expect to like it, I rather expected to despise it and want to poke fun at it) - I came back to re-read Roz's review and the comments below it - which I recommend. For they made me aware of -
1. The far-right, ultra-conservative, or progressive right - hates Avatar and wants to boycott it for its depiction of the military and corporations. But mainly the US military and Americans. (did not know about this, although after seeing the film - I completely understand it. It does not paint a nice picture of the military or corporations or our search for oil, and that is putting it mildly.)
2. The left - hates Avatar because of its depiction of the aliens as Native Americans and the precolonialism white guy as savior mythos a la Dances with Wolves or Pochoantus. (I'd add Star Trek and Doctor Who to that trope as well. They also feature white guys who save women and the world and indigenous/alien people who don't know any better.) (This bit I already knew about because it featured in 80% of the reviews I'd read.)
This reminds me oddly enough of the battle over Huckleberry Finn. The African-American community wanted to ban the book in schools in the 1980s due to its negative and offensive depiction of persons of color, specifically Huck's friend Jim. While in the early 1900s, when Twain first published it, the White community wanted to ban the book in schools due to its postive depiction of persons of color, specifically Huck's friend Jim and it's anti-slavery, anti-racism tone. By the way, if you've ever read Huckleberry Finn, you'll know that both views are understandable reactions.
Demonstrating once again that stories are not told in a vaccume. Or rather those that are shared, aren't. Once the story gets out there and others view or see it, they bring their own history to the mix. The story changes. That's why it is possible for two contradictory reviews of the same subject matter to exist. Or why you may love the film Star Trek for example, and another person may hate it for being sexist and racist. You may not see those things in the film or you do, but they may not bug you in the same way not because you condone them so much as you may find in them a way of understanding that perspective. Same deal with Avatar - I think. But I think that is putting words in others mouths, and I don't want to do that. When we watch or read something, it is my belief that it is personal, it is unique, it is individual to us. What we feel is real. What we see is real. And I'm not sure, sometimes, anyone but us can really understand the experience we have of watching or reading something, why we love, hate, adore, despise or are ambivalent - even though we try very very hard to share and communicate it.
My own take on Avatar is a complex one and difficult to put into words. To fully understand it, you'd have to know what I'd watched prior to seeing it this week, what I'd read, and what I thought about. Because I brought more with me into that film besides my body, my coat, hat, gloves, scarf, and purse, and of course 3 D glasses - funky sunglasses reminiscent of Risky Business (a Tom Cruise flick from the 1980s). I brought everything beneath the cut as well:
Starting with watched: I watched on Wednesday night, Howard Zinn and Matt Damon's film version of Zinn's acclaimed historical text "The People's History of the United States", the people speak. It is a story of the protestors, activists, writers, singers, strikers, union organizers, and the minorities - those brought to the US against their will, those that were here long before the Europeans arrived in their fancy ships with their fancy guns seeking gold and riches. If you have not seen this film - I highly recommend renting it on DVD.
Here are the quotes from it that stuck with me, that I jotted down while viewing, and influenced my viewing of Avatar today:
1. Satirist and humorist Mark Twain, who was adamantly against the expansionist movement in the West and in the Phillipines and, comments on the US battle in the Phillipines - during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency: The US soliders were told to kill or capture the 600 battling, which included women and children. The battle was fought with prodigious efficency and complete victory for the Americans. Not one of the 600 was left alive. Today, you upheld well the honor of the American Flag, signed Theodore Roosevelt." Twain pauses and then adds with more than a touch of sarcasm, "I was never more proud of the American Flag than now."
2. After Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas and the Spainish declared the indigenous inhabitants to be little more than animals. A Spainish Missionary writes..."Of the 3 million previous inhabitants, only 200 were left by the Christian Spainish Colonials in their quest to acquire gold and achieve stations above their merits. Before one of the Indians was killed, he was asked if he wanted to convert to Christianity in order to go to heaven. The man, having no knowledge of such things, asked, is that where Christians go when they die. When he was told this was so. He said, he'd much rather go to hell - it would be a better place because there would not be any Christians."
3. Emma Goldman from "What is Patriotism": We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that she will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.Such is the logic of patriotism.
4. Howard Zinn - we are the only nation that has been fighting a war for more than 40 years, but never on our own soil - we go to other's soils. And that may be the reason. We do not know what it is like to have bombs falling from the air, or bodies torn asunder. And we feel powerful about this. Think of the wars we have fought with scarcely a break between them: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan...
5. A former General, Ricter (I think) - there is no just war. I served in the Pacific during WWII. 100,000 lives lost in Tokyo alone. Constant bombing. Old men send young men to war. Just a miserable ugly business. We steal lives of these kids. We take it away from them we kill them. Been fighting war since 1940, gone elsewhere to fight our wars.
6. Phyllis and Orlando Rodriquez, who lost their son in 9/11: we see our hurt and anger reflected on everyone we meet - we read enough of the news to know our government is heading in the way of violent revenge. It will not avenge our son's death, it is not the way..not in our son's name.
7. 4,000 of the 16,000 Cherokees ordered to relocate from their home in the east to the west, in the trail of tears, died on that march.
In The Unquiet Earth by Denise Giardina one of the characters, Dillion, has just returned injured from WWII, with a limp. His leg was shattered by a bullet. It was, it turns out friendly fire. One of the Americans returning to camp, shattered by what he'd seen, freaked out when he saw Dillon at the outhouse, taking a crap. He thought Dillion was a German and opened fire. Dillion returned fire to defend himself and ended up with the shattered leg as well as killing the man - he had no choice. He tells this story to his mother. She says no one would blame you. He responds with the following speech:
I blame myself. He was an American, joined early like I did. But it ain't him being an American that bothered me. Way I see it, an American ain't no more valuable than any other human being in God's eyes. But I had a choice, it was him or me. I chose me." He drained the bottle of beer and opened another. "They said the fellow's best friend had his head blown off right in front of him, and he'd been on the verge of cracking all week. They was going to send him to a hospital in Cairo soon as they got some help. Nobody blamed me. I found out what I could about him. He was Ed McCamey from Centre Hall, Pennsylvania. Sounds like a damn estate, don't it. Centre Hall?"
His mother states: "It happens in War".
"Yes, it does." He answered quick, like he was ready to agree with anything I said as a way to mock a mother's comfort. "And why did I choose me instead of him? Because that's the way do, ain't it? It's natural as breathing I should choose me so Carrie Freeman (his mother) can sit on the porch with her son and Ed McCarney's mother can lay flowers on the grave. You'd rather be setting right here, wouldn't you? You know what I done while I was laid up in the hospital? I read the Bible. Now that's something you aint known me to do, is it? You never thought of me as religious, and I ain't in the church going way. But I believe in God, and I believe they'a a fire running through everything that lives. When that Bible starts throwing rules at me, I laugh, but when it tells how sin burns and says turn the other cheek and when God gets hung on that cross, buddy I'm right there. I chose me and that's sin. I ain't no better than a goddamn Nazi. That's what they do, they choose themselves. And the rich people that keep what they got, they do the same. It's sin and the only way you burn it out is to die. Only it don't work if you just die for yourself, it's got to be for somebody else.
And finally, a post by lj user gabriellabelle, I may have the name wrong, that asks this question - how do writers make a story so gripping or so wonderful you love it and can't put it down? Is it magic? (In response, people stated that the story she was reading they weren't crazy about, so maybe it has something to do with the reader?) It is an interesting question to me.
It is also probably useful to mention that I studied the Western film genre in undergrad, wrote papers on The Searchers, The Wild Bunch, Red River, and Ride the High Country, along with Stage Coach. I also saw Terminator in college. And wrote a paper on it and Aliens. As well as having read various Louis L'Amour novels, watching a vast majority of Westerns, and taking my Granny to Dances with Wolves, which she and I enjoyed a great deal. My Grandmother spent a great deal of time with the Native Americans in the West, learning how to bead and teaching them how to do it. She had a vast collection of their creations. And told me many of their stories. My niece is part Cherokee and has a Cherokee middle name. And my sisterinlaw is part Cherokee as well, her first name is Cherokee - her last is inherited from Kit Carson, the negotiator, moutain man, and betrayer of the Indians to Custer, who gave many Cherokee women his last name. In Law School - down the road was the Tribal Law School - where you could learn Tribal Indian Law - which is a separate nation within the US. I note this because it also influences me and plays a part in how I viewed the film.
Add to this, the fact that while I enjoyed Star Trek the film - like most popular sci-fi films, I found it to be teethgrindingly sexist and racist, with a glorified male white hero. I noticed, but pushed it aside, commented on it. In some respects Star Trek bugged me more than Avatar in this respect, even though I would cheerfully watch the film again, found it more entertaining than AVATAR, and even asked for it for Xmas, and still enjoy it. Something can be enjoyable, yet also bug you at the same time or at least that's true for me. But it doesn't keep you from noticing the things that bug all the same.
And finally, my cultural anthropology background, as well as my love of genre - specifically science fiction, fantasy, and westerns - which throughout my life I've had to defend to people for being low-brow or un-pc or sexist or racist, mostly sexist. All of this influences me, I brought it with me into the theater. Just as I brought with me my memories of other similar films, books such as Ann McCaffrey's Pern series, and my recent accident - where I sprained an ankle and had to use a crutch for several months.
My thoughts on Avatar...
Avatar much like Star Trek and District 9 - which I also saw this year, and had equally mixed feelings about.
I know why it is doing well now, better in fact than either Star Trek or District 9, and it's relatively simple reason that may shock people...it's because the film is a bit like Independence Day, except the bad guys are the US Military and US Corporations, while the good guys are the Natives. It is a film that more or less says in big bold letters the wars we have fought on others soil, in others lands, for our own selfish interests, however justified, are wrong. The other statement is - we are destroying our planet with our violent wars, and violent need for power - to our planet's detriment. Instead of living in harmony with our world, we are attempting to congueor it, to control it, to enslave it, to mine it, and to take from it - giving nothing of use back. These are the themes and in an age of global recession, terrorism, constant war, violence, deforestation, global warming, funky weather, and natural disasters - brought on by mining and deforestation and global warming - they are relevant. And it expresses this theme in a feel-good way, the protagonist, Jake Scully has bought into the patriotic chant of his own race. At least up to a point. He is the everyman. The working block. The career solider. Injured. Disabled. Ron Kovics of Born on the 4th of July, except still patriotic and still a solider. He's also lost someone, his twin, who was brighter than he was and physically able. He wants, and he is blind. A baby, naive.
Following orders.
He is the representative of the power, one who aides it, and enjoys it. Yet doesn't seem to realize it.
So he enters what the earthlings call Pandora. It is important to note that the film is told entirely through Jake Scully's point of view. It is the white guy's view, which makes sense since Cameron is a white guy. So see Scully as Cameron's Avatar or his pov. We are in Cameron's story. And he has chosen to tell it from the perspective of the privileged white male, who while disabled, critically so, has options more than most. Scully is caught between the male run military and the female run anthoprologists, one that wishes to exploit and ravage the planet, the other that wishes to study and investigate it. He is also, once he takes on the body of his avatar, a human/native mixed dna body that his mind is inserted into, and makes contact with the planet's populace - caught between the planet's indigenous population and his own race. Not quite fitting in anywhere. I sort of identified with that one bit - the feeling of not fitting in, of being on the outside, looking in. I think if you can find something to identify with in a lead character - the film will work, if you don't or the lead pisses you off or pushes your buttons, the opposite happens. (My parents have warned me not to see the film Up in the Air, which they loved, and to wait to rent it - they strongly believe Clooney's fellow female consultant, played by Kendrick, not the love interest, will seriously piss me off - from her description - I'm guessing they are right and I should wait to rent this baby. I'd probably want to kill her. And I have enough problems restraining myself from murdering the textmessagers in movie theaters...or at the very least smashing their cell phones.)
Sam Worthington is actually pretty good in the role of Scully - considering he spends 80% of the film in the Nav'i or his Avatar. And the Nav'i to give Cameron credit are beautiful, and different from any creature I've seen. Yes, they dress and act a lot like the Apache and certain, not all tribes of North America. Not all Native Americans use feathers, war paint, and chant by the way. I know - I studied some of the tribes in school. Also quite a few, were fairly peaceful and not warriors, did not eat meat. I get why the feathers and chanting, it is frigging hard to come up with new stuff and Cameron is not the most imaginative guy on the planet. He probably grabbed what he knew, like we all do. And I'm guessing like most film directors - he saw a lot of Westerns growing up. This film reminds me a lot of some of those Westerns, also a lot of Star Wars, Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, Star Gate series, Farscape, I mean this not a new trope. And I've seen more than one sci-fi guy do the whole Native American thing as aliens on another planet that the white heroes are either visiting, intruding upon, or exploiting in some way. After all sci-fi is the twin of the Western - they are both about the thrill, risk, ups and downs, and moral quandry of expansion and exploration. From Hondo, the Searchers, and Rio Bravo to Battle Star Galatica and Star Trek..to Wagon Train to Earth2...sci-fi follows the same trajectory and asks many of the same questions. Do we have the right to come to another person's land and impose our own beliefs and culture on them? What if we have no choice? What if our land is gone? What if our god has lead us here and it is the promised land? What if we have no land of our own? What about their rights? An old question that goes back to the Bible.
The disturbing bit about Avatar is that Scully goes from traitor to hero in a blink of an eye, becoming the chosen leader, the promised one - or chosen.
He is the one that gives the information regarding the Nav'i's homeland to the military, enough to enable them to destroy the Hometree, which as Grace Augustine attempts to explain is part of a vast data network on the planet, not just any old tree. But the Corporate big wig cares mainly for his quarterly reports, expenses, and the project - its just another twig to him. He stopped caring about forests ages ago. This is a bit cliche, and I've seen it before, hints of Ferngully, and Farscape, and well a lot of other things come to mind. As Roz K states in her review above, Cameron is shameless in his grabbing, although I doubt it is deliberate. Art is not created in a vaccume. We inadvertently take from the things we've read or seen or have influenced us at one time or another. Often without realizing it. This is why a lot of would-be writers, and several actual writers do not read anything in the genre in which they write, although it is worth noting the successful ones do and steal shamelessly. Because that is part of the process. So that part is not what is disturbing.
What is..is well, instead of having Scully learn and maybe influence the native leader, he becomes it. It feels a bit too much like a video game and perhaps that is the intent. The film itself has been critiqued as borrowing heavily from video and role playing games, both in its imagery and f/x graphics, and in its avatar/hero journey. And I will admit this bit was the reason I was hesitant to see the flick and a tad squirmy during the final half hour.
The first two hours I rather enjoyed, the last...felt too video game and white liberal male fantasy to my liking. (White liberal guilt is a frustrating thing...because it often results in fantasies of saving the ones we feel guilty about hurting - see we saved you, we are your leader, we taught you to live better lives...forgive us! And all can be merry. If only it were that simple. And if only the intent were less self-serving.) That is the problem with Jake Scully's arc - he doesn't sacrifice anything. If anything he gains, and continues to gain. We don't really see him fail, just fall on his butt once or twice. Both the Nav'i and the scientists accept him almost too quickly. While he works to gain their respect and trust, while backstabbing them with the general...it isn't that hard. And when he loses it, he regains it fairly quickly afterwards. It's not that Jake isn't lovable - he is. Or sympathetic. But he feels a bit too much like a kid playing a video game at times. We see the struggle - but it is in the human character, not the Avatar. Also, I had problems with the fact that he gets so embroiled in his quest for manhood, that he fails to warn them of the doom that he has aided in bringing down upon their heads. Nor has Grace for that matter. I can defend this of course, but it nags at me.
Perhaps if the characterization had been deeper? I didn't mind too much in the theater, but then I'm brain dead from the work week and wanted to lose myself in escapist fare. No thinking required and preferably no blood-pressure raising. It succeeded in the first bit, the last hour raised the blood pressure - but then it was supposed to. The characterization is sort of sketchy, although to be fair deep characterization, crisp clever dialogue - were never Cameron's strong suites. His earlier movies maybe, the later, not so much. Titantic was horrid - I was so bored during the Leo/Kate romance, and cringed every time they opened their mouths. This is actually far better and unlike Kate, I adore the Neytari (sp?), who is strong, and lith, and beautiful. I also like Jake and see their romance as realistic. But the other characters feel a bit underdeveloped. The General or Ranger Rick, Miles, is your stereotypical military bad guy, as are most if not all of his recruits. He is a one-dimensional character who is visually speaking, 3 D, neat trick that. And Sigourney Weaver's Grace - is equally one dimensional - a sort of Diane Fossey, but without the interesting quirks or backstory...she lacks the depth necessary for me to care when she is injured or dies. Trudy played by Michelle Rodriguez ( a favorite sci-fi actress of mine - since well Aliens, and one of the many reasons I saw this flick) - is also one dimensional - she's the female grunt, the military gal with a heart of gold. Her character in Aliens, also supporting, albeit brief had more depth, as did the character she played in Resident Evil - which is saying something. Actually all the characters but Jake and possibly Neytari who we see through his eyes, are underdeveloped.
There's a reason for the simplicity - the emphasis is on visuals. The planet itself. It's creatures. And the 3 D effects. Which are inexplicably amazing to behold. You actually feel like you are inside this world at times, that you can reach out and touch the seedlings, floating towards you. It's not like most 3D - you don't have arrows and guns, and bombs being fired at you, but rather...seedlings floating, dust, leaves...and the details, oh the details, are beyond anything you can imagine. Colors so vivid, like looking at a Monet painting for the very first time. The film itself feels like a work of art, a painting, and the cinematography and direction and scenic design is a wonder to behold. It is not an acting movie, it is not a writer's movie. The story, the characters are simplistic, tropes that we are familar with and obviously find comforting on some level or we wouldn't keep paying for these stories, we wouldn't keep telling them. The tale that the child askes her parents to tell her repeatedly before bedtime, a different way each time. Or that tale we tell around the fire, to keep us safe and warm at night, the same tale, just a different perspective.
Has this story been told over and over and over...yes. Different ways. Different mediums.
Is it better or worse than the others? Hard to say. Since it is the same yet very different. Besides better or worse don't interest me that much - too subjective anyhow. I'm more interested in why it is still being told. Is it because there are no original or new stories? Or because it is comforting on some level? Although it wasn't to me. Maybe to someone else. Or is it because it is asking questions that have not been answered? Why are we still at war? Why do we still fight for things like oil and land that is not ours? Why do we hurt others to further our own interests? Why can't we realize that we are connected to our earth and each other...one dies, we all do, to an extent, regardless of creed, nationality, race, religion, gender, or faith?
The world of Pandora - not the native name - is a world where each member is respectful of the rest. The natives only kill when they have to eat, and they thank the beast and return it to its rest. Their religion is the mother goddess and their religious leader, a priestess, an odd blend of matriarchial and patriarchial. The male warrior chooses his mate. But the female warrior commutes with God. Reminds me a bit of The Iron Dragon's Daughter, which also bugged me for similar reasons. Also reminds me of a statement made in Howard Zinn's the Peoples History of the US, Sojourner Truth states..."they say woman should not have the same rights as men, that is ordained by God, but God sent his son made of God and woman, man had nothing to do with it." This movie puts the women on pedestals, trophies to be won, guides to follow, goddesses to commune with...warrior women to aid, but they aren't front or center, more to the left and two rows behind, granted not as far behind as they are in Star Trek, Iron Man. I know Neytari far more than I know Uhurua. I feel her in my gut. And she is far less cliche, far less there for male eye candy. She saves Jake, she kills the villian. She is the hero and wins the war, not Jake - and that is something. Cameron proves himself to be a bit more of a feminist in spirit than some of his compatriots. Also, the god there is the mother, nature, tree, earth. The mother goddess, while the sky is the devil. The People of the Sky - the demons from the SKy, the SKy Bully...who preachs wars and fire. The Mother preaches healing and balance, and only interfers when she must, calling all her children to defend her limbs, note defend, not invade or ambush. And there's something beautiful in that.
It is a mixed bag, much like Pandora's box is a mixed bag. Not one that is digested easily or sticks with you well. But it doesn't evaporate either... not like some of the critics have stated. Making me think it depends on what you are thinking and who you are when you see it.
See, here's the thing, I think films and books and even music tell us more sometimes about who we are than they do about who others are. They reveal bits and pieces of our souls. But they also show us another view, another perspective other than our own, sometimes foreign, sometimes abhorrent, but definitely other. And I'm of the opinion that seeing that other view, that new angle - teaches me something, makes me grow and change and reflect and alter a bit in the process.
AVATAR is not, I guess, for everyone. But if you have 3 hours to kill on a cold day or a rainy one, and it is playing in a comfy theater, in 3D, I do recommend checking it out. It is unlike any film you've seen before - that much I can promise you. The story may well be, but the presentation is not. And come to think of it, most stories we've heard before anyhow - we're really in it for the show.
While not as entertaining as Sherlock Holmes, it is in some respects better and in others worse, I'm not sure they are comparable. No, they aren't. Not at all.
Overall rating, taking in account the splendid visual effects - which blew me away and changed my mind about 3D (done well, it is effective, although still looks wonky on human faces, CGI - a whole other story), not to mention CGI (Cameron took it to a whole new level, this ain't your Daddy's CGI) - is a B+.