The Bigger Picture: The Game Has Not Changed

Arend Anton January 24, 2010 10

It took me a while to get around to seeing Avatar. One reason for that, also coincidentally one of the reasons I have been a pretty lazy contributor to Popdose lately, is because I have been trying to finish my own film project for well over a year now. As the usher said to us before the showing, “You guys must be the last people in the world who haven’t seen Avatar yet.”

I was cautious going into Avatar. My expectations were very measured; having listened to both the over-the-top praise and the silly criticisms in has received. That morning, I overheard a man complaining that it was “absolutely the stupidest thing” he’d ever seen. Others had told me that the effects were the most amazing movie experience they’d ever made. Well friends, special effects do not a movie make.

I donned my 3D glasses, trying to keep an open mind but expecting to dislike it. And, for the first hour or so, my eyes mostly rolled behind my Spaceman Spiff goggles. Sigourney Weaver, usually so good at the tough gal roles, was astonishingly bad. Much has been made of her character’s constant cigarette smoking and the negative influence it could have on children, because every teenager wants to be just like the lady on the AARP Magazine cover. I scoff at the notion that movie characters should be castrated because of societal concerns, but nonetheless the cigarettes seemed both completely out of place and a forced prop to insist that her character was stressed.

James Cameron is mystifying as a screenwriter. At times, he is capable of fairly poetic dialogue, and he uses Sam Worthington’s video log to mostly good effect. Despite this, he has also written some of the most annoying secondary character dialogue this side of George Lucas. Avatar is rife with this. It’s not necessary such a terrible script as it is uneven. Even Worthington’s dialogue is spotty. Someone needs to tell Cameron that it’s not necessary for his characters to exclaim “shit!” every time they stumble. Nor is it necessary for the word “bitch” to be used in such a juvenile manner. Cameron has always liked the hard-ass Marine characters, but ever since Aliens, he has written them in such a stereotypical manner that they seem to be overflowing not with testosterone, but rather Human Growth Hormone.

The script does get a little better as the movie progresses, and somehow I looked past the very predictable and derivative plot and really did get sucked in. Much of this is due to the extraordinary experience the 3D provides. The technology is very well utilized, and the goggles keep outside distractions away. If you allow your eyes to follow the falling ash, the speck will linger below the screen for a split second. It is truly a beautiful trick of the eye. And while the visual experience is very immersive and beautiful, the actual planet and creature designs are not exactly original or even logical.

This brings me to my point. Many have proclaimed Avatar to be the “game-changer” for Hollywood, often drawing comparisons with Star Wars. Cameron’s budget has been reported as $237 million dollars. Star Wars was made with a remarkably small budget, and many of the special effects it employed were ingenious but ancient tricks finally perfected by a very young ILM. If Avatar truly is a game-changer, then what has it really done for the average filmmaker?

There will almost certainly be a flood of poor knockoffs within the next several years. This happened with Star Wars as well. Most will be conceptually weak, and won’t use the technology correctly. As flawed as Cameron is as a writer, he has the fortune of having a great mind for visual storytelling and can make you feel for his characters with affecting visuals, such as Sam Worthington’s immobilized stick-figure legs.

So where does that leave those of us at the very bottom of the industry, trying to break in? None of us will have the opportunity to utilize said technology for quite some time. As much as Star Wars did for effects, it can also be credited for encouraging independent filmmaking. What Avatar does is give Hollywood the chance to keep their grip on your cash for just a little longer, keeping their old business format for at least a few years.

Imagine if every Hollywood movie were shot in 3D. What chance would that give the independent filmmaker, still working with HD camcorders? It would severely limit the prospect of that occasional breakthrough Indie picture that we have all become accustomed to once or twice a year. I try not to fear this future, as my strength as a storyteller begins with the script. In a world in which anyone can make a decent looking movie now, I am determined that my leg up will come from strength of story.

I left Avatar thinking that it was neither as great nor as bad as anyone had ascribed it to be. But with my filmmaker’s mind, I often think about the things I would change or the things I appreciate. Film is so often about distraction, and Avatar owes much of its success to this notion. It dangles shiny things in front of your eyes, that you might overlook the severity of its flaws. For your sake, I hope you can overlook the use of “unobtanium.”

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    I haven't seen it, nor do I expect to see it in a theater, nor do I expect to see it in 3D. I'll wait for DVD and watch it for whatever merits might be there. I'm still very twitchy about this onslaught of 3D movies, primarily for the reason that there should be something to see even without the extra gear.

    I don't have a bias against 3D per se, other than it is a clunky crutch for those who will use it, then throw junk at an audience for two hours. It doesn't have to be but, I expect, it will mostly be so. Some will say that it is a natural step, from silent to sound, from black & white to color, but neither advancement needed gear to draw you in. That was the job of storytelling. You were drawn in anyway, and having debris and detritus flung past your head every five seconds wasn't necessary.

    So I'll wait for Avatar on DVD and, I think, I'll like it. I'm pretty generous when it comes to “big boom” movies and, so long as it's not incredibly, brain-meltingly stupid (Baaaaaaaayyyy!!!) I'll probably go along for the ride – but I'll do it with my regular peepers, thanks.

    Oh, and the Saints are taking the Super Bowl this year. Sorry, Peyton.

  • Arend_Anton

    My column probably comes across less impressed than I actually was. The 3D is spectacularly used in this movie. I really can't overstate that. It's not just stuff getting flung at you. The subtleties are what make it work.

    My basic point is simply that it rings a bit hollow once you look past the pretty things.

  • GMac

    If you are as old as I am, you may be thinking of the use of 3D in movies back in the red/blue cardboard goggles days. This is not that 3D.

    Not only is the 3D so much more immersive than it was in those days, I have to give Cameron credit for not using it in the usual gimmicky way. There's no purposeful running full-tilt at the screen or things being “thrown right at you” just to show off the 3D affect. Cameron utilizes it to fully immerse you into the world he has created.

    Is the movie great? Not really. Is it the most visually stunning movie made to date? Absolutely.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Cameron has always been on top of the technology, and as far as storytelling goes, he's sophisticated enough to not be one of the “pie flingers” in that 3D realm. I think he'll be one of the very few in that respect, and other filmmakers who are suddenly enthralled with the possibilities won't resist the urge.

    And while the advancement of 3D specs is infinitely better than the red & blue cardboard predecessors, I'm still not sold on the notion of going to a theater to put stuff on my face. It seems to me that the screen in and of itself should have to 'pull me in'. Needing glasses to compensate for it is like needing a whole lot of beer to find a prospective mate. Either way, your emotional reaction to what's before you is predicated on the strength of the substance you've placed between you and whatever's in front of you.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • dolph

    James Cameron is no Dr. Tongue.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Bigger Picture: The Game Has Not Changed | Popdose -- Topsy.com

  • GMac

    The movie is a visual marvel, whether it is in 2D or 3D. You agreed Cameron would use it responsibly and he has. It's not a gimmick nor is it required to appreciate the time and effort that has gone into making this movie so stunning on the eyes (if not so much on the ears or brains). It is there to enhance the experience, not completely dominate it. After a half hour, I had completely forgotten I was wearing the glasses in the first place.
    Movies, at their heart, are a visual medium. You go to watch a movie, not just to listen to it. So why trash a technology that takes that visual medium to the next level? Because you have to wear glasses? Did we all get upset when we had to get rid of all our cassette tapes and buy a CD player? Or when we had to ditch the old black and white and buy a colour TV? I know I didn't because it allowed me to appreciate music and Television at a whole new level. This is the newest thing and, based on how good the technology looks, I can't see it going away any time soon.

  • http://robertcashill.blogspot.com BobCashill

    Cameron's the king of the world again….

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentne

  • http://robertcashill.blogspot.com BobCashill

    Cameron's the king of the world again….

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentne