Thanks for posting your article “The Master of Consensual Manipulation.” I respect what Spielberg does and also what Cameron provides his audience but want something more when I personally “go to the movies.” Avatar did make a strong modern-day statement about the US Military and how those with one-dimensional business interests proceed forward at the expense of great civilizations and intellectual research. That and the entertainment value are worth something.

You’ve probably just heard the term so much in movies nowadays that it seems cheesy now. That doesn’t mean it’s not still a valid (and used) term.

I think it’s a bit disingenuous to demean Cameron and to assume the worst in relation to his motivations. He’s a film director, an artist of sorts and he aims to make films that entertain people. He also has a history of innovation (Terminator 2 remains one of my favourite science fiction films), and Avatar is notable for its pushing the boundaries of technology.

Sure, the “shock and awe” comments are pretty dumb and much of the dialogue is kitsch. But no more so than Star Wars.

In response to the points you raise in your last post, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head about why there is such a backlash against Avatar and that has a lot to do with various thoughts about why James Cameron made the film. I honestly don’t have any opinion of whether it is a personal and artistic expression for Cameron or whether it was just a coldly calculated exercise in making a film that would generate big bucks at the box office. For me the only thing that counts is the film itself and in this case I kind of liked it.

Many years ago I wrote a piece titled “The Master of Consensual Manipulation” about Steven Spielberg. I argued that what made so many of Spielberg’s films great is that although his films are manipulative, he engages with the audience to the point where they consent to his manipulation. I feel a similar way about Cameron with Avatar.

To summarise that link (and it is a comedy review as I stated above) he simply points out the mechanisms and manipulations used by James Cameron in both Titanic and Avatar to appeal to the masses. It’s those deliberately manufactured things that really get under my skin with these movies – The same goes for the last few Star Wars films actually.

The original Star Wars was made by a relatively new film maker at the time and it wasnt made with the agenda of being a blockbuster. Those differences are the very reason why Star Wars is held in such high esteem… And the overwhelming nostalgia factor of course.

Sorry to see you taking criticisms of this movie so personally.

I’ll sign off here.

Thomas, you’ve exactly articulated what I was thinking.

Getting back to the Star Wars/Avatar comparison: I really struggle to understand how anybody can embrace one but not the other. Both are based on (and I know I’m repeating myself) popular culture archetypes and basic morality adventure tales that are derived more from Hollywood Westerns than any serious science fiction texts. Now I love Star Wars but the dialogue is naff and the characters are simple, and that’s part of its charm (for those who can embrace such things). After all, George Lucas developed Star Wars as a sort of homage to the B-grade serials that he used to watch as a kid.

I suspect we are more forgiving of the simplicity and naff factor in Star Wars because a lot of us saw it as kids, when we were less critical, and it holds a strong nostalgia factor.

Anyway, since we are resorting to insulting the intelligence of people who liked Avatar and posting links to other sources, have a look at the article “Five Ways to Read Avatar” by author Henry Jenkins. His arguments are far stronger and more informed than any of the counter arguments that I’ve come across. Then again, maybe it’s just a matter of taste and we’d all be a lot better off channelling our energies into celebrating films we like rather than endlessly ridiculing ones we don’t like.

A good tongue-in-cheek review can be found here which covers a lot of what you bring up.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation and I like where you are coming from. I think the plot is simple but by no means does that mean it is stupid. The plot follows a fairly classic hero’s journey narrative and there is nothing wrong with that, especially when its primary function is to support the immersive spectacle of the film.

Your comments about Sam Worthington’s acting are really interesting and I like the way you’ve contrasted his withdrawn performance in his own body with his expressive performance in the avatar body. It reminds me of RoboCop where Murphy as RoboCop becomes far more emotive than Murphy as the human policemen. I think both films are commenting on how artificial bodies liberate their inhabitants from the dehumanising corporate and militarised ‘real’ worlds that they have come from.

Cheers
Thomas

This is so off-base! When he’s a human ex-Marine, he’s suitably withdrawn into himself. Clearly these critics haven’t ever been around an on-duty Marine — taciturn says it all. As a paraplegic thrust into a foreign land as well as the unfamiliar world of Science, he would be keeping his head down to fit in and scope things out, which is how Worthington executes that facet of his persona.

When he’s in avatar-mode, his face says it all, and it’s quite effective since we audience members root for him most vigorously, even when he ends up fighting against most of the other Humans.

Nay-sayer critics remind me of the mid-60′s when The Beatles grew and grew in impact on the culture: critics were sniping that their haircut was effeminate, that they couldn’t read music, etc etc etc.

But really, for me it’s all about the journey, not the destination and how we get there. The ‘how’ is really the amazing visuals. Of course, there’s other elements that enhance the experience, but the overwhelming experience for me is the sublime nature of the visuals and how well they work in tandem with the other elements.

In essence, I’m agreeing with you, Thomas.

Many people don’t understand that cinema is a visual art-form and even those that do are frequently biased against visual effects. It’s a naive attitude that doesn’t take into account cinema’s origins as a visual attraction that was deeply immersed in trends surrounding modernity. Storytelling came later. I think you are absolutely right about people being impressed by the visuals but feeling the need to find more to say as if appreciating the truly outstanding visuals is not a worthy enough reason to celebrate such a film.

Your comparison to Star Wars is apt as both Avatar and Star Wars are ground-breaking event films with a strong emphasis on immersive spectacle. They are also both based on archetypal characters and popularist mythology, making them so accessible and entertaining. Having now seen Avatar a second time I was actually very impressed with how well structured the story was and how cleverly exposition and characterisation were integrated into the action. So, I actually think the screenplay is very strong for the type of film that this is. I reckon Avatar has a really strong chance of going down in film history the same way that Star Wars has.

Cheers
Thomas