Movies as mythologically informed literature. Cinema Discourse looks at current and classic movies from a literary, and particularly a mythological, point of view.
We also have top movie reviews, current movie reviews, film ratings, movie blogs and movie history.
19th December 2009

On Avatar

posted in Uncategorized |

James Cameron’s Kitschy New Age Epic

By John David Ebert

I keep waiting for those “Wow!” experiences in film that I used to encounter routinely as a child growing up in the middle American suburbs of the 1980s. It seemed that every summer, I would go to the movies and walk away feeling that I had been temporarily transplanted into another world: there was Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, for example, or David Cronenberg’s version of the The Dead Zone (both major improvements upon Stephen King’s novels); I remember the summer when Spielberg hit me over the head with not just one, but two films: E.T. and Poltergeist, and in the same summer, John Carpenter’s The Thing and David Cronenberg’s Videodrome. These were all films of the early 1980s, but as I went into high school, I remember seeing James Cameron’s sequel to Ridley Scott’s masterpiece Alien, itself a sort of sci-fi masterpiece made with an exhilaration and a love of the genre that is rare nowadays. In the 1990s, Cameron wowed me a couple of more times with Terminator 2 and Titanic. After that, he quit making movies. I’m not sure why: maybe those three or four films were enough to prove that he could rival Spielberg and Lucas, and maybe after winning the Oscar for Best Picture for Titanic, he’d decided that his yearnings as an artist, a major director of Hollywood cinema, had been recognized and that was that. Why make any more movies?

Time went by, many years, twelve or thirteen, while Cameron made a couple of documentaries that were moderately interesting, and now, in 2009, he has given us his much anticipated science fiction film Avatar.

I can tell you without reservation that it is the biggest disappointment in my own personal history of cinematic moviegoing. It is without question not only Cameron’s worst film, but an embarrassingly bad film that is excruciatingly painful to sit through. As the years have unspooled, those “Wow!” experiences in film have appeared with less and less frequency, until now we are at the point when they seldom occur at all. Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings may have been the last one. And, by the looks of recent trailers, there may not be any more to come.The days of great visionary cinema appear to be reaching its curtain call.

It could be that at forty I’m just getting older and fussier. But it could just as well be that film really is going into the toilet. Every medium, after all, goes through a natural cycle of birth, flourishing and decadence.

So what’s wrong with Avatar? Well, for starters, it’s not really a science fiction film. It’s a disguised allegory of the white man’s conquest and ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans, and its plot is so similar to Kevin Costner’s Dances With Wolves (a much better film, though I hate to say it) that if you’ve seen that film, then there’s no point in leaving your house to watch Avatar. There are also echoes from Frank Herbert’s Dune. And not only that but he has stolen the dragonriding motif from the novels of Anne McCaffrey.

The plot of Avatar, if you really need to know what it is, concerns a former Marine named Jake Sully who is trapped in a wheelchair and receives his chance at redemption when his brother, who had been taking part in a science experiment involving Avatars, dies. Since Jake is a twin of his dead brother, the military brings him in and sets him up with a sarcophagus-like pod that enables him to incarnate into the genetically engineered physical body of a race of alien beinsg known as a Na’vi. The Na’vi (notice the similarity to “Native Americans”) are the aboriginal inhabitants of a planet called Pandora, which the American military is colonizing for the purpose of obtaining riches in the form of a rare mineral. These Na’vi are giants, roughly twice the size of human beings and are obviously inspired by the four-armed giants from Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter novels, as is the premise of the film generally.

However, the problem with the film is that it is so self-consciously aware of its own moral allegorizing that it leaves no room for the viewer to create his own textile of interpretation. The film is mainly a flat, one level allegory of what happened to the Native Americans on the one hand, and of what American-inspired globalization is presently doing to the indigenous societies of the world right now. And that’s it. There’s nothing else going on. There are no moral ambiguities, no sense of irony, and most of all, no sense of humor. (There aren’t even any fun villains: the bad guys are just the same military dickheads from Cameron’s earlier film The Abyss). The movie takes itself very, very seriously. So seriously that we are hit over the head by Cameron’s self-appointed moral pontificating.Yes, Jim, we are decimating the planet’s ecosystems. Yes, Jim, we did practice ethnic cleansing on the Native Americans. And, yes, there is a connection. But haven’t we already agreed on all that? Now what? How about a fresh idea?

In short, Cameron is more concerned with delivering a message here than he is with telling a story, and that is too bad. He used to be a good storyteller who could care less what his “messages” were. (Such naive directiors–like Spielberg, for instance, make the best storytellers, because they leave it up to the audience to figure out what they’re up to). But Cameron hits the page running here with a morally self-appointed agenda that never lets up with its New Age weightiness.

And that’s the film’s other main problem. It is sickeningly New Agey. Indeed, in terms of its visual look, it is a cross between Heavy Metal magazine and the paintings routinely produced out of Sedona, Arizona. His Na’vi, with their Gaian religion, are nauseating California New Age kitsch, the kind of kitsch that is routinely produced by artists with names like “Silver Bear” or “Sun Wheel.” By the end of the film, I was so disgusted with this New Age tripe that I was ready to throw up.

And while we’re at it, there’s one more problem: visually, the film is made up of a palette of Day-Glo colors that are interesting for about twenty-five minutes. After that, the viewer is so sickened by them that he is ready to go home and dig out some Rembrandt paintings in order to counteract the effect.

This film, in short, is a mess. The 3D effects are neat, for about twenty minutes. Then those get old, too.

You’re better off just waiting for the DVD.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 12:55 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 12 responses to “On Avatar”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On December 20th, 2009, Jacques de Beaufort said:

    I saw the film today…the 3D version…

    I was awaiting your review…

    I have to say I had a different reaction…maybe because lately I find myself decamped into a dreary colorless Minnesota winter after a decade in the hyperreal LA, I found the film moving. With the 3D glasses, the pretty convincingly transported me out of my own headspace. I kept thinking about McKenna’s description of the eschaton, the machine elves from hyperspace, and all those Kurzweilian fantasies of being downloaded into a galactic video game. The experience was pretty vivid.

    Structurally it was really just a standard action adventure movie, and the whole thing was pretty scholcked-out in neon orbs and glowing fun-brite nudibranches, but that didn’t really bother me.

    Cameron is trying to say something…and I don’t think its such a trite message, but the danger is that slick entertainment and moments of cultural self-examination don’t often merge very well.

    its hard for something so escapist and fantastic to have any gravitas, and maybe this is the dissonance that you are pointing out.

  2. 2 On December 21st, 2009, Mike said:

    From reading your book, CHMD, and watching your archived interviews on YouTube, I know you were eagerly anticipating this film. It’s a shame that it disappoints. South Park was right again.

    The action-packed, myth-based blockbuster may be dead. I’m guessing we’ll continue to see more and more realism dominate film.

    My hunch is the video game, if it hasn’t already, will supplant film as the next evolutionary phase in mythical media.

  3. 3 On December 22nd, 2009, John David Ebert said:

    I saw the film a second time: my six year old wanted to see it, so I thought I’d give it another chance, just in case.

    But my initial reaction was, indeed, correct.

    The film is basically built up out of a sequence of cliches recycled from other movies: the displaced Other who finds a dual identity as white man and aboriginal is from Dances With Wolves; the mastery of the unmasterable Beast which is brought back to the aboriginals to impress them with the messiah-like abilities of the new Great Man is from Dune; the armies of the animals that are sent in like cavalry at the end are from Princess Mononoke; the battle scenes are lifted almost wholesale from The Phantom Menace; the mechanical walkers are stolen from Return of the Jedi; and Cameron even robs from himself: the military vehicles look like rejects from Aliens; the sergeant is stolen from The Abyss and / or Aliens; as is the wise-cracking tough Latino woman; and so forth.

    My point here is that Cameron has such a fertile imagination as evident from his other films, I don’t see why he felt the need to create a movie that just robs from everything and everyone to make a tired point about globalization vs. indigenes.

    I think audiences nowadays just have short memories and are easily impressed. After all, there’s nothing much else going on in film. It’s slowly decomposing and turning into a trivial trash heap of old movie cliches and reruns from the 1950s. But history no longer exists. Instead it has been replaced by the 48 Hour mentality in which the only thing anyone ever remembers is what is precisely 48 hours old and no more. Anything beyond that time frame is regarded as ancient history.

    So audiences are coming away from this film feeling like they’ve been lifted into a world they haven’t seen before. They’re lying to themselves: put in a copy of Return of the Jedi and you’ll see what I mean. Lucas was there first and he did a better job.

    I think film is so bad now that our standards have fallen so low and we’re willing to accept almost anything that comes along that makes the slightest impression as the New Big Deal. Avatar ain’t a Big Deal at all. It’s old, old hat.

    I’ve seen it all before and done much better by other filmmakers.

    I hope Cameron has a fresh idea next time around. This one sucks.

  4. 4 On December 24th, 2009, Max said:

    District 9 was a better film.

  5. 5 On January 5th, 2010, Benton said:

    What did you think about district 9 John?

    Agree with the 48 hour mentality…we are slowly making our way into prime culture amnesia, a very dangerous thing indeed.

  6. 6 On January 6th, 2010, John David Ebert said:

    Haven’t seen District 9 yet, but I will post a review as soon as I do.

  7. 7 On January 11th, 2010, Rita said:

    The only redeeming aspect of the film was the character Neytiri.Easily the most physically/sexually attractive alien homonoid in film history(according to some people).Even more attractive than the actress who she is modelled after,ie Zoe Saldana.The facial features of Neytiri look inspired by the works of artist Margaret Keane,who uses ‘big eyes’ and child like faces to invoke an exagerated sense of innocence and infantile beauty.Couple that with a soft feminine allure and a hard tribal attitude and you have one hot giant smurf.

  8. 8 On January 11th, 2010, John David Ebert said:

    Fun comment, Rita. And you’re right.

  9. 9 On February 21st, 2010, Patrick said:

    I agree with your review completely, especially with your points on the new agey spirituality. The group meditation in particular reminded me of similar scenes from the film Baraka, except that the Na’vi lacked any feeling of authentic spirituality. The Ewoks from Return of the Jedi had more convincing ceremonies.

    I’d also like to say that I think there are two pieces of unintentional irony in the film.

    One being that the savior of the indigenous people is another arrogant white guy, just like Dances With Wolves. He bests the Na’vi champion, steals his bride-to-be, tames the unconquerable dragon and then rallies the people to victory. The destroyers are also the saviors. They hold all the power. That to me seems to subvert the theme of honoring the culture and wisdom of native people. This white savior is meant to assuage white guilt by doing what no one is history ever actually did. It seems to me that saviors more often come from within the ranks of the oppressed. I think the idea is handled better in District 9 since the hero is a reluctant hero and his transformation, physically, mentally and spiritually, are more gradual and believable. He never actually tries to usurp leadership, and throughout most of the movie his motivations are selfish. He has to be forced to change through his trials and tribulations and in the end he disappears into anonymity among the aliens.

    The other unintended irony to me is that while the theme is meant to be the imperialists versus the natives, or the machine versus the soul, or even left brain versus right brain, you could connect that to commerce versus art. And the film loses that battle despite itself. Commerce wins here, and art loses. And as you point out John, this seems to be the trend of the last decade. Avatar tries to connect to the soul through artificial means, just like the main character, and it fails.

  10. 10 On March 18th, 2010, Rachmael said:

    In spite of Avatar’s spectacular visual experience, I would have to agree that the screenplay leaves much to be desired. It doesn’t hold a candle to Dances With Wolves, a deeply moving film, that has no need of dazzling multimillion dollar, special effects. The theme of ambiguous or shifting allegiances has always been with us, Charles Lindbergh and the Nazis, Remarque’s Night in Lisbon, Kim Philby and a whole slew of Cold War moles and double agents and more recently, the the phenomena of white Talibans.

    In the realm of film making, Richard Brooks’s Lord Jim, is the sine qua non of this genre, with a screenplay that is a gem of cinematic compression. More recently, Schindler’s List is perhaps the most striking example, but by far, David Lean has provided the best treatment of the “race traitor” theme, with movies like The Bridge Over the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Ryan’s Daughter. These films offer a sensitive and nuanced treatment of the subject, not to mention, superb dialogue, that James Cameron can never hope to approach. David Lean also has a stunning visual sense, chancing upon magnificent landscapes, with color tones that mirror the mood of the subject, with the delicacy of a post impressionist landscape painter. All of this is achieved without resorting to expensive special effects. I find it all together ironic that Cameron’s neo-pagan worship of pristine nature must employ artifice on a level yet to be surpassed, in order to convey his “Noble Savage living in harmony with Nature” message.

    And while we’re on the subject of Noble Savage vs Colonialist Exploiter, the Enlightenment era myth of the noble savage was exploded ages ago. Inter-tribal warfare depleted the ranks of North American Indians, long before the white man arrived on the coasts of America and the brutal torture of prisoners was the order of the day. Human sacrifice on a massive scale was practiced in Central America.We revere the Indian for living in harmony with nature, yet perhaps this is because they lacked the technology to do otherwise. On the other hand, I think it is somewhat unfair to dismiss Avatar as yet another treatment of a hackneyed cliche. When someone breathes new life into old cliche and radically recontextualizes it in a surprisingly new way, it no longer functions as a mere cliche. Therefore, James Cameron deserves some credit for bold and adventurous film making, even if his allegorical sermonizing is enough to make us cringe.

    By far, the most intriguing aspect of this film is the quasi-mystical, neo-pagan subtext of Pandorian nature religion, which hints at something deeper than the exploiting White Man cliche. The Nature of planet Pandora, like the Pandorians themselves, is unfallen, nurturing and benevolent. There is only enough danger and adversity to provide the Pandorians with a sense of excitement, adventure and fulfillment, by overcoming trail by ordeal type situations. Thus, all are content, living happily in prelapsarian harmony with the Gian Mother Matrix, until the corrupt humans intrude and nearly throw everything out of balance. At this point, Mother Nature rallies her minions to an apocalyptic battle to overthrow the invader, and restore the balance. No doubt, the substance of this deeper myth, will be explored adnauseum in sequals and spinoffs of this unprecidented blockbuster.

    All said, I enjoyed this film on a sensory, visceral level. It must me rememberded that James Cameron is a gifted film maker, but a creature of his time and in a postlitarate age of sound bites and textmessaging, it’s not fair to expect highbrow literary concepts, such as meaningful dialogue and nuanced plot development in a mass medium. After all, how can movies like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland hope to pay for themselves, with thier hyper inflated budgets for CGI and special effects, other than by my marketing themselves to the lowest common denomiator? Thankfully, for the rest of us, who can still cocentrate after all that sensory overload, there are always books.

  11. 11 On March 18th, 2010, Rachmael said:

    In spite of Avatar’s spectacular visual experience, I would have to agree that the screenplay leaves much to be desired. It doesn’t hold a candle to Dances With Wolves, a deeply moving film, that has no need of dazzling multimillion dollar, special effects. The theme of ambiguous or shifting allegiances has always been with us, Charles Lindbergh and the Nazis, Remarque’s Night in Lisbon, Kim Philby and a whole slew of Cold War moles and double agents and more recently, the the phenomena of white Talibans.

    In the realm of film making, Richard Brooks’s Lord Jim, is the sine qua non of this genre, with a screenplay that is a gem of cinematic compression. More recently, Schindler’s List is perhaps the most striking example, but by far, David Lean has provided the best treatment of the “race traitor” theme, with movies like The Bridge Over the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Ryan’s Daughter. These films offer a sensitive and nuanced treatment of the subject, not to mention, superb dialogue, that James Cameron can never hope to approach. David Lean also has a stunning visual sense, chancing upon magnificent landscapes, with color tones that mirror the mood of the subject, with the delicacy of a post impressionist landscape painter. All of this is achieved without resorting to expensive special effects. I find it all together ironic that Cameron’s neopagan worship of pristine nature must employ artifice on a level yet to be surpassed, in order to convey his “Noble Savage living in harmony with Nature” message.

    And while we’re on the subject of Noble Savage vs Colonialist Exploiter, the Enlightenment era myth of the noble savage was exploded ages ago. Inter-tribal warfare depleted the ranks of North American Indians, long before the white man arrived on the coasts of America and the brutal torture of prisoners was the order of the day. Human sacrifice on a massive scale was practiced in Central America.We revere the Indian for living in harmony with nature, yet perhaps this is because they lacked the technology to do otherwise. On the other hand, I think it is somewhat unfair to dismiss Avatar as yet another treatment of a hackneyed cliche. When someone breathes new life into old cliche and radically recontextualizes it in a surprisingly new way, it no longer functions as a mere cliche. Therefore, James Cameron deserves some credit for bold and adventurous film making, even if his allegorical sermonizing is enough to make us cringe.

    By far, the most intriguing aspect of this film is the quasi-mystical, neopagan subtext of Pandorian nature religion, which hints at something deeper than the exploiting White Man cliche. The Nature of planet Pandora, like the Pandorians themselves, is un-fallen, nurturing and benevolent. There is only enough danger and adversity to provide the Pandorians with a sense of excitement, adventure and fulfillment, by overcoming trail by ordeal type situations. Thus, all are content, living happily in prelapsarian harmony with the Gian Mother Matrix, until the corrupt humans intrude and nearly throw everything out of balance. At this point, Mother Nature rallies her minions to an apocalyptic battle to overthrow the invader, and restore the balance. No doubt, the substance of this deeper myth, will be explored ad nauseum in sequels and spin-offs of this unprecedented blockbuster.

    All said, I enjoyed this film on a sensory, visceral level. It must me remembered that James Cameron is a gifted film maker, but a creature of his time and in a post literate age of sound bites and text messaging, it’s not fair to expect highbrow literary concepts, such as meaningful dialogue and nuanced plot development in a mass medium. After all, how can movies like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland hope to pay for themselves, with their hyper inflated budgets for special effects, other than by my marketing themselves to the lowest common denominator? Thankfully, for the rest of us, who can still concentrate after all that sensory overload, there are always books.

  12. 12 On March 18th, 2010, Rachmael said:

    In spite of Avatar’s spectacular visual experience, I would have to agree that the screenplay leaves much to be desired. It doesn’t hold a candle to Dances With Wolves, a deeply moving film, that has no need of dazzling multimillion dollar, special effects. The theme of ambiguous or shifting allegiances has always been with us, Charles Lindbergh and the Nazis, Remarque’s Night in Lisbon, Kim Philby and a whole slew of Cold War moles and double agents and more recently, the the phenomena of white Talibans.

    In the realm of film making, Richard Brooks’s Lord Jim, is the sine qua non of this genre, with a screenplay that is a gem of cinematic compression. More recently, Schindler’s List is perhaps the most striking example, but by far, David Lean has provided the best treatment of the “race traitor” theme, with movies like The Bridge Over the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia and Ryan’s Daughter. These films offer a sensitive and nuanced treatment of the subject, not to mention, superb dialogue, that James Cameron can never hope to approach. David Lean also has a stunning visual sense, chancing upon magnificent landscapes, with color tones that mirror the mood of the subject, with the delicacy of a post impressionist landscape painter. All of this is achieved without resorting to expensive special effects. I find it all together ironic that Cameron’s neopagan worship of pristine nature must employ artifice on a level yet to be surpassed, in order to convey his “Noble Savage living in harmony with Nature” message.

    And while we’re on the subject of Noble Savage vs Colonialist Exploiter, the Enlightenment era myth of the noble savage was exploded ages ago. Inter-tribal warfare depleted the ranks of North American Indians, long before the white man arrived on the coasts of America and the brutal torture of prisoners was the order of the day. Human sacrifice on a massive scale was practiced in Central America. We revere the Indian for living in harmony with nature, yet perhaps this is because they lacked the technology to do otherwise. On the other hand, I think it is somewhat unfair to dismiss Avatar as yet another treatment of a hackneyed cliche. When someone breathes new life into old cliche and radically recontextualizes it in a surprisingly new way, it no longer functions as a mere cliche. Therefore, James Cameron deserves some credit for bold and adventurous film making, even if his allegorical sermonizing is enough to make us cringe.

    By far, the most intriguing aspect of this film is the quasi-mystical, neopagan subtext of Pandorian nature religion, which hints at something deeper than the Exploiting White Man cliche. The Nature of planet Pandora, like the Pandorians themselves, is un-fallen, nurturing and benevolent. There is only enough danger and adversity to provide the Pandorians with a sense of excitement, adventure and fulfillment, by overcoming trail by ordeal type situations. Thus, all are content, living happily in prelapsarian harmony with the Gian Mother Matrix, until the corrupt humans intrude and nearly throw everything out of balance. At this point, Mother Nature rallies her minions to an apocalyptic battle to overthrow the invader, and restore the balance. No doubt, the substance of this deeper myth, will be explored ad nauseum in sequels and spin-offs of this unprecedented blockbuster.

    All said, I enjoyed this film on a sensory, visceral level. It must me remembered that James Cameron is a gifted film maker, but a creature of his time and in a post literate age of sound bites and text messaging, it’s not fair to expect highbrow literary concepts, such as meaningful dialogue and nuanced plot development in a mass medium. After all, how can movies like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland hope to pay for themselves, with their hyper inflated budgets for special effects, other than by my marketing themselves to the lowest common denominator? Thankfully, for the rest of us, who can still concentrate after all that sensory overload, there are always books.

Leave a Reply

     

    CLICK-FOR-CULTURAL-DISCOURSE

     

    CELEBS-ICONS-book

     

    Ebert books
  • Archives