Picture Perfect, Plot Poor

Why Avatar makes a case for presentation over premise

Avatar is perhaps one of the most entertaining cinematic spectacles to grace the silver screen in years, and the enormous wave of positive sentiment from critics and community alike resounds with the same awestruck wonder.  I've said it before, though I may have not written it, but I'm a firm believer in knowing your director and trusting what they produce rather than making book-cover judgements about a film based on its subject or trailer.  If James Cameron wasn't already in your list of directors whose movies you see regardless of content, this film is reason enough to earn him your Cameron-brand loyalty as a "Danny-Boyle-do-no-wrong" director.  So if you are reading this and looking for a verdict on the blue-cat people's adventure in Ferngully, it's a resounding "Must See."  Oh, and in 3D, no other way.

That said, I think the dialogue of conversation for this film will NOT be its best in the context of "is it good or not."  Clearly it's at least a good film for most, and likely a great film for many, including myself.  What makes it so interesting is that it's a great film despite being a truly mediocre film at the same time.  The kind of arguments the few hard core cynics will bring to the table as their justification for standing alone in the haters circle are actually quite valid.  The film has a flimsy, cliché plot, one dimensional characters, often with stilted delivery (with notable exceptions to Miss Saldana), and an almost laughably blunt political message.  However, lacking these things, despite seeming necessary to the concept of a "great" work of film, does nothing to drag down or even trip-up the success that Cameron manages to conjure.  I would normally argue that without a great story, great characters, and a stand-out premise, it wouldn't matter how big a film's effects budget is, but Avatar has managed to take that concept and flip it completely on its head.  Does Avatar finally prove that a big enough spectacle trumps substance?

Maybe.  Well, ok, no, there are clearly examples to the contrary, and one need only toss a stone to hit a Michael Bay film proving the opposite.  So why does Avatar succeed where films like The Phantom Menace, and Transformers failed so miserably (excluding their lucrative success at the box office...)?

I think you could argue that the technical achievement, the reality and fully fleshed out nature of Avatar's forest moon of Pandora, or even the stunning work within the 3D medium were simply so new and so perfected that they just drowned out the mediocre bits, however I think that's only part of the reason.  While it's every bit as true that the three dimensional characters of Avatar are the most lifelike beings ever conceived on screen, I think what allowed the technical achievements to carry the film is that unlike George Lucas or Michael Bay, James Cameron is a master at the art of "first, do no offense."

What I mean by "no offense" is that despite the "par" nature of the core story and characters, there was nothing offensively, or memorably horrible about them in a way that stood out amongst the visual spectacle.  Whereas when people speak ill about Phantom Menace it is always in terms of Jar Jar Binks or Jake Lloyd's atrocious acting, Cameron knows better than to blatantly annoy his audience.  In fact, the most outrageously annoying thing that he allowed to slip into this film was its ham-fisted political tone, which is why I expect a far greater majority of conservative pundits and audiences to reject the film.  But despite winning no good will with the RNC, no character is too dumb, and no line delivery is too awful, and it is in this masterful art of unobtrusive mediocrity that Cameron manages to keep the audience fixated on the eye-popping quality of the visuals.  In fact, if you think back over Cameron's other films, you will see that this is not a new trick for the film maker, as anything from The Abyss to Aliens to (yes, I'm going there) Titanic suffered from the same stale characters and wonky plots.  Like a talented magician, James Cameron keeps you focused on what he wants you see, and deftly makes the rest vanish behind his swiftly fluttering hands.

To quote Alfred Hitchcock on a discussion of technique vs content, "When a painter paints a tree, a landscape, or even a bowl of fruit, I'm sure he is not interested in the tree or apples alone, but in the technique of his work that stimulates the emotion of the viewer of his picture."  James Cameron has forged no new roads in storytelling, no new concepts in science fiction, has coaxed no Oscar winning performances out of his actors.  Quite simply, he painted a bowl fruit, and a fairly mundane bowl at that,  No exotic mangos or passion fruit, just apple, banana, and orange.  But it is within the strokes of his brush that the genius lies, and takes this "Dances with Wolves in SPACE" and turns it into not only one of James Cameron's best films, but one of the best films of the year.

The Hurt Locker may have drama, and Up in the Air may have charm, but Avatar has 300 million dollars worth of James Cameron movie magic.

Comments

[Chris B.]

Well said. Avatar is the most stunning bowl of fruit I have ever seen! :-)