I saw it in 3D. I was tempted to walk out after an hour but stuck it out due to the $10 matinee tab.
It got more lively in the second half.
I call it Dances with Avatar. It's a much worn plot...the white guy goes to save the tribe and sure enough..the white guy ends up being better at tribe stuff than anyone else.
I saw some racist overtones.
Animation alone doesn't thrill me. i need a plot and acting. very little of it this film. I'll never watch it again.
The plot is at the level of a child's fantasy book by Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman. The world-building is hokey in an Anne McCaffrey sort of way. Very effective strategy. The winged beasts did make me relive some long forgotten fantasy reading moments.
The way the Americans were handled was interesting. Total caricature of a commander, brute force, greed and ignorance. But what didn't work for me at all was the fact that the blue people won. Native uprisings are meant to fail heroically, not succeed. That's the pattern of history -- until the natives get technology and usually, too, a sponsor ideologically opposed to their oppressor. So I offer this reading: Avatar is an exercise in collective wish fulfilment: the collective guilt of the American people is shifted onto the 'bad guys' (but they are just following good capitalist logic, so they can't really be bad); by identifying with the blue people (how many of you were gunning for the troops instead of the gooks? ), viewers can be on the side of the virtuous and true in a setting that has the virtue of being totally unreal.
An Arthur C. Clarke or even Asimov type plot would be stunning with those effects.
I can see why the film attracts criticism, but what I struggle to understand is why people pay (a lot of money in 3D) to go see it when the film clearly only does what it sets out to do in the marketing blurb and trailers.
If I thought I was not going to enjoy it, either because I would find it entertainingly inadequate or intellectually disappointing, then I wouldn't pay to go. I set my expectations low, and the film exceeded them quite well actually. I was nicely entertained for a couple of hours; I expected nothing more.
Originally posted by divegeester I can see why the film attracts criticism, but what I struggle to understand is why people pay (a lot of money in 3D) to go see it when the film clearly only does what it sets out to do in the marketing blurb and trailers.
If I thought I was not going to enjoy it, either because I would find it entertainingly inadequate or intellectually disappoint ...[text shortened]... m quite well actually. I was nicely entertained for a couple of hours; I expected nothing more.
I wasn't expecting Eisenstein.
Here is an article that collects various critical and political viewpoints (including an anticipation of my two-cent piece) directed at Avatar:
http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/12/23/in-which-we-teach-james-cameron-a-thing-or-two.html
But the more blatant lesson of Avatar is not that American imperialism is bad, but that in fact it’s necessary. Sure there are some bad Americans—the ones with tanks ready to mercilessly kill the Na’vi population, but Jake is set up as the real embodiment of the American spirit. He learns Na’vi fighting tactics better than the Na’vi themselves, he takes the King’s daughter for his own, he becomes the only Na’vi warrior in centuries to tame this wild dragon bird thing. Even in someone else’s society the American is the chosen one. He’s going to come in, lead your army, *censored* your princesses, and just generally save the day for you. Got it? This is how we do it.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I wasn't expecting Eisenstein.
Here is an article that collects various critical and political viewpoints (including an anticipation of my two-cent piece) directed at Avatar:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5177
Thanks for the article BDN, but i do wonder if people are giving this film too much credit.
I actually laughed out load at the "shock and awe" stuff; it's left wing anti-american war stance was so oblique and caricatured that to take it as a serious attempt at political messaging was like accepting Bambi as an effective argument against hunting.
Maybe it's the new face of politics for the great unwashed, but it was wasted on me.
Originally posted by divegeester I can see why the film attracts criticism, but what I struggle to understand is why people pay (a lot of money in 3D) to go see it when the film clearly only does what it sets out to do in the marketing blurb and trailers.
If I thought I was not going to enjoy it, either because I would find it entertainingly inadequate or intellectually disappoint ...[text shortened]... m quite well actually. I was nicely entertained for a couple of hours; I expected nothing more.
Movies are like sports; they have their claws in our social lives. One needs to know about these things to make small talk, which is an important social skill.
I do have to say though that I did not go see this, so I am safe from your confusion.
http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/12/23/in-which-we-teach-james-cameron-a-thing-or-two.html
But the more blatant lesson of Avatar is not that American imperialism is bad, but that in fact it’s necessary. Sure there are some bad Americans—the ones with tanks ready to mercilessly kill the Na’vi population, but Jake is set up as the real embo ...[text shortened]... our princesses, and just generally save the day for you. Got it? This is how we do it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Movies are like sports; they have their claws in our social lives. One needs to know about these things to make small talk, which is an important social skill.
I do have to say though that I did not go see this, so I am safe from your confusion.
Originally posted by divegeester but what I struggle to understand is why people pay (a lot of money in 3D) to go see it when the film clearly only does what it sets out to do in the marketing blurb and trailers.
Avatar
27 Jan '10 23:21
Back to Top