Movies are made for a variety of different reasons. Some of them are made to tell a story, promote a cause, entertain, create a movement... and on and on. Personally, I feel that Avatar was made to do two things: entertain & tell a story. Yes, it was a basic story. Yes, it had few (if any) twists and turns. Yes, James Cameron could have done with a better of a script. However, what was said was hardly the point of the movie.
Anyone can be a film critic. My problem with critics is they do not actually make the movies. How can you critique something you do not understand the process of? Everyone seems to expect all movies to be these huge psychological masterpieces. There was a ton of hype around Avatar, but the hype was not about it's compelling storyline; it was all about the technology that went into the movie. There IS a story in Avatar, and that story is in the mind-blowing beauty and detail of everything in every scene of the movie. Sure, I felt like this was a grown up version of Pocahontas at heart, but all that was forgiven when I found myself engrossed in the story of the world James Cameron created. This film was a sort of experiment and a platform upon which others can further develop and expand.
Avatar was about being entertained. It was about being transported to another world. The 3D element of the film was used not to throw things in your face and shock the audience; it was used to pull you into the world of Pandora. At times it was hardly used except to emphasize depth of field. Other times you simply felt like the world was not simply in front of you on a screen, but that you were somehow there with the characters in the foreign place. Considering the struggle to create a 3D environment within a 2D artform that in itself should be enough to make Avatar an advancement and not just another gimmick movie. James Cameron did not just use 3D technology; he used it correctly.
It is easy to hate James Cameron because he took a mediocre story and made loads of money off of that story. However, I hardly think this man is overrated. For that matter, the movie itself was not overrated. Honestly, hate the man because he is smart, not because his movie 'sucks'. Avatar does not suck. I am fairly positive that if the Lord of the Rings trilogy had not been a respected set of books before the movie was made it would have received the same set of criticism. Peter Jackson distracted the audience with cutting edge technology from the weak spots in his scripts, and no one seemed to really mind then. So then why is this any different?
James Cameron took the technology that was used to create creatures like Gollum in LotR and expanded upon that to make the Na'vi incredibly believable as another species. There was motion capture, and layers and layers of work in order to create the finished product. James Cameron was able to actually direct all of the CGI work by a camera that allowed him to see his world in a low-resolution real time rendering of the environment his characters would actually be seen in on the screen. This was all done with his actors on green screen. He was able to generate the shots in a more organic way as any other director might. He could move the camera how he wanted and get the shots he wanted instead of trying to convey this to someone who would then have to generate it solely on a computer.
In my opinion, James Cameron was not tackling the challenges of story-telling. He was focused on an entirely different aspect of filmmaking. There are plenty movies that have compelling story lines that keep you on the edge of your seat, but they were not dabbling in experimental filmmaking either. Eventually, someone will take this technology and move it to the next level, but I hardly feel this movie fell short of where it should have been. It is amazing for what it is, not what it is not.
I generally try to avoid reviews and hype about a movie before I go see it. I am starting to find that most people are more willing to tear something apart before they are willing to look at it for what it is. Furthermore, I would like to see all these nay-sayers in James Cameron's position. Take on a project that huge and tread in waters that may or may not swallow you. Then it is okay to throw stones. Everyone needs criticism, but criticism without considering all factors of a project is not really useful for anyone. This is especially true if the criticism is coming from someone who has not even seen the movie. Just because you want to sound like you are some sort of film connoisseur does not mean you have the foresight to hate something before you have even set eyes on it. (This is a general 'you' of course. I have heard this from many different sources.) There are many different genres of movies in the world. There is a reason I rarely give my opinion about horror movies: I tend to not enjoy them regardless of how well made they are. Therefore, I feel like I could contribute little in the way of constructive criticism. Avatar is a 'western' of sorts. It is an 'epic'. The story is going to be predictable. It is supposed to be predictable. If viewed in this light, Avatar far surpassed anything I could have hoped for, and I am excited to see the avenues it has opened for filmmakers of any genre.
No comments:
Post a Comment