Why Avatar is Not a Good Film

"Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as ends in themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas*

I couldn't agree more, George. And that, my friends, is why Avatar is not a good film.

* That Lucas quote is from the late 70s or early 80s and is hilariously used in this 70 minute skewering [WARNING: Strong Language] of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, which I am now convinced may be one of the worst movies ever made.

Be clear, I am not saying that Avatar is worthless or abysmal, simply that it is not a good film. One could argue that it is an impressive display of current technology, but I think we would be mistaken to assume that that is a substitute for a film that truly warrants heaps of praise and our admiration. Avatar had all the elements to be a great film, but it fails to deliver. I can't get behind something that so catastrophically underachieves.

Also, my dislike of this film is not purely backlash. I saw Avatar on opening night, in a packed theater, fully expecting that I would like it as it had gotten generally favorable pre-release reviews. Had everyone else's reaction been the same as mine I would surely not take the time to write this entry as, if everyone else agreed that Avatar was the grossest underuse of potential since Doc Gooden, I would only be echoing what a crummy movie this is. Though, rest assured, if everyone else hated it too, it sure wouldn't make me like it anymore.

Moving on...

1. The Story - Defenders of Avatar have been using euphemistic words like "simple" and "a little predictable" to describe the story, but those don't go nearly far enough. One of the biggest problems with this story is that James Cameron takes what could be a plot filled with ethical and philosophical quandaries and turns it into a flavorless "adventure" devoid of any subtlety or debate.

Consider this: At any point did the audience feel genuinely conflicted about what Jake Sully should do in regard to siding with the humans or the Na'vi? This is a movie based around a human being who betrays his own race (a line that is explicitly said in the film) and yet somehow manages to accomplish this without a moment of real uncertainty. How does Cameron accomplish such a feat? Because the humans with power (Colonel Quaritch and an utterly useless Giovanni Ribisi as Parker Selfridge) turn to being completely evil so quickly--and being motivated by nothing more than money, hate, and revenge--that right and wrong effortlessly become black and white for Jake.

Now, right and wrong as black and white is not necessarily a recipe for failure. In the original Star Wars Darth Vader is pure evil (at least for the first film); in Lord of the Rings there are good guys and bad guys; Heath Ledger's Joker is a despicable villain; so that's not the issue. The issue is that these characters in Avatar don't start out a bad guys, they start out as regular humans, just like us, doing their jobs, being afraid of what they don't understand. Their transformation is so clumsily and inexplicably executed that this theoretically incredible, poignant element of betrayal is cast lazily aside.

Furthermore, the circumstances for me to buy these humans as irredeemable, selfish villains is far from established. We are given a brief explanation of what future Earth is like: desolate, mined and pillaged to the extreme. For me to allow humans to act so callously toward that Na'vi I would need to know that (1.) humans have encountered so many alien species at this future point that contact with the clearly intelligent, thoughtful Na'vi would barely register on our collective consciousness; or (2.) that Earth is in such critical condition that this valuable element (the cringe-worthily titled Unobtanium) is absolutely essential to our continuation as a species. Because, as it is now, these guys want to make some money and are willing to engage in a genocide against a life form that's 90% as intelligent as we are (or maybe we're 90% as intelligent as they are). The logic of the premise was not convincing to me and was another instance where Cameron avoided an obvious opportunity to not only solidify the motivations of the characters beyond what was merely convenient but also to heighten the drama (i.e. maybe something vital is at stake for the humans as well other than their wallets). The only lure Jake gets from the other side is that he'll get new, working legs if he helps the General. Which he can get from the Na'vi too as we soon find out. Yawn.

What it all boils down to is that this story is a great premise but the script needed about five more drafts before Cameron spent the GDP of Germany to make this film. There are so many potentially fantastic elements that get ignored and leave us with a bland, dull story. And I haven't even mentioned that this story is one that's been done many times before. Read this quick, little ditty from FailBlog, for example. Putting this tired story on planet Pandora and then failing to take advantage of all that the setting offers keeps it from being something truly fresh or new. Just because there are aliens and Cameron changed all the nouns, so to speak, doesn't make it original.

That's my biggest qualm with this movie, but let's "quickly" hit a couple more points...

2. The Characters - Oh boy. There is literally not a single character in this movie that isn't a type*. Jake is the brash, unenlightened soldier who gains a new perspective on life; Neytiri is the thoughtful, strong heroine who goes outside of her people to teach the main character what he needs to learn; Sigourney Weaver's Dr. Augustine is the smart scientist who cares about the Na'vi and stands up to the General and his followers...and on and on and on. I'm getting bored just thinking about these cookie-cutter characters! From the arrogant chief-in-waiting who is suspicious of Jake and arranged to marry Neytiri, to the nerdy scientist who is jealous of Jake for getting to have his own avatar without the requisite training, everyone in this movie is a stock character.

* Yeah, that's right, and I'll use a double-negative to make it known.

But, even that isn't the problem. The real problem is that I don't care about any of these characters. There was one great moment where I actually cared about Jake Sully and it was in a voice-over when he was looking exhausted and saying something along the lines of, "The dream is becoming more real than the reality." It was an excellent insight into the character and made me think, "Oh yeah. That is what would happen. I can't wait to explore this further!" Naturally though, that was the last we saw of that thread. Also, I will admit that I did want Jake and Neytiri to get together, though I think that was just movies conditioning me to want the main characters of movies to get together. I suppose I can't convince anyone else that they shouldn't care about these characters, but outside of habit, I really don't see how these one-dimensional characters (none of whom were well-acted by the way) with terrible dialogue are meant to elicit any emotional attachment.

To compare it again to Star Wars (another sci-fi movie full of character types and campy lines) that movie makes me like the characters: Han Solo is cool, Obi-Wan is wise, Chewbacca is funny, Luke is a whiny little--okay scratch that last one. Or, compare it to other sci-fis from this year: Star Trek, though it had some flaws, had characters, particularly Kirk and McCoy, that were fun and likable, yet the movie still packed enough adventure and special effects to satisfy that need. Similarly, in District 9 when the main character Wikus has his "unfortunate incident" (didn't want to spoil it for anyone) the audience identifies with him and becomes wrapped up in his predicament. Point is, Avatar's characters could and should have been good, there was more than enough opportunity to give them real personalities.

3. The Little Things - Great movies get the details right. Mediocre movies get details wrong and people like me get hung up on them. I wrote this short post about the General/Colonel (I realize I've been mixing the two titles up) telling the troops, "They aren't in Kansas anymore." First of all, that's an awful, cliched line. Secondly, it doesn't make sense! Nobody in two hundred years know what the hell that means! Similarly, Sigourney Weaver calls the General "Ranger Rick." Ranger Rick? Ranger Rick is from a kid's magazine that people today barely know about. There probably one be a single human who knows who Ranger Rick is by the time the movie is supposed to take place. Plus, that line is stupid regardless. Also, Jake's wheelchair would be a piece of crap in 2010. It would really look the same in 2154? I wish I'd cataloged more of these poorly executed details but, I only saw it once and I'm sure not in any mood to see it again.

4. What I Liked About It - All right, I admit I'm getting tired of bashing this movie. I'll recharge for a moment with what I did like before I make my conclusions on why this movie is still a failure. The planet Pandora is cool. The scene at night with the colors and phosphorescent plants was pretty enjoyable. Same for the plants during the daytime and the chase scene in which Jake almost died. All good stuff. The effects were good, though I would never say that they looked real. The animals on the planet were interesting and I liked the physical way that the Na'vi could bond with the other living things. Basically, it was fun the way an episode of Planet Earth is fun, if Planet Earth felt the need to waste our time with silly characters and plot that may or may not make sense.

5. In Conclusion - In fifteen or twenty years, when Avatar's special effects become outdated, which is inevitable, Avatar will have nothing to fall back on. As much as people may want to pretend otherwise, this is not an iconic film with staying power. This isn't Star Wars. It's not Aliens.

Funnily enough, the overt message of this movie (green Earth=good, green money=bad) is, in an abstract kind of way, contradicted by the execution of the movie. Let's say that money is approximately equal to expensive special effects and the spirit and beauty that bonds us together is people and emotion, or, in other words, story and character. Here is a film that is all flash. It's all money and it's all effects. Emotion and thought take an inarguable backseat. By Avatar's own logic, is Avatar fighting against itself? And if it isn't, then I sure am.

I'll leave you with one last thought...

People often complain about movies being too concerned with action and effects and skipping time spent on actually making a good movie. The list is seemingly endless: Transformers, Fast and Furious, Star Wars; The Phantom Menace, ad infinitum. I wonder if the flooding of the market with these ghastly films has lowered our collective expectations to the point that a decent but not great movie, like Avatar, causes us to overreact and laud it as revolutionary and important, when it is instead a slightly better version of the kind of story that is corrupting the film experience. I realize this sounds pretentious and self-important, but the values of the American film goer are clearly weighted toward adventure instead of meaning. An interesting visual experience does not a great movie make.

"...filmmaking is not going to ever fundamentally change. It's about storytelling. It's about humans playing humans. It's about close-ups of actors. It's about those actors somehow saying the words and playing the moment in a way that gets in contact with the audience's hearts." - James Cameron, to Newsweek, Dec. 2009

In other words, do as I say, not as I do.

Back soon with better things to discuss.