Last night i went to go and see the recent movie Avatar. I had already seen Avatar in the regular theater and didn't really want to watch the whole 3 hours of it again, but my friends persuaded me that it would be worth it to see it in 3d on the imax. It was definitely a much better experience watching it on the large screen in 3d, you felt totally immersed in this new world that they have created for the movie. It really is an incredible spectacle that deserves being watched on the largest screen around. The visual effects in the movie don't really get old for me and it took huge imagination to create an entirely new world that feels entirely real and possible. This movie cost a ridiculous amount to produce (It's rumored at anywhere from 250 to 500(!) million), and has already far exceeded those costs at the box office. More importantly, Avatar has pushed the boundaries of visual technology, setting a very high standard for all animated movies to live up to in the future. It has also fostered more interest in 3d technology. Someone who has always pushed the boundaries of technology, Cameron says “The ideal movie technology is so advanced that it waves a magic wand and makes itself disappear,”. James Cameron used a new kind of 3d camera that is lighter and easier to use than ones of the past and the movie is watched in digital 3d, far superior to wearing red and green cardboard glasses.
May be spoilers!
Apart from the stunning visual playground of Avatar, the movie's plot and ideas fall into a predictable pattern and are less wonderful than the film's appearance. Basically what we have is the story of Europeans coming to America and killing/enslaving the natives for their resources and land transposed onto an alien planet with blue people instead of Indians (or any other story of exploitation for material wealth). This in itself is not a bad thing and maybe is a story we need to be reminded of more, but the characters are very stereotypical and one dimensional (in contrast to the beautiful 3-d of the movie's graphics). The head of the army is your typical huge muscles, guns-first, talk later meat-head who is only interested in his company's business concerns and is always in conflict with the other side of the base which is the science division led by a lady who cares for the environment and scientific discoveries (but neither two sides truly care for or understand the indigenous population). The only character who is somewhat interesting is the lead character Jake Sully who initially works for the army, but then after he spends some time in his blue body he finds out that he has more in common with the blue people than he does with the army's orders, driving him to leave the base and eventually lead an attack against the humans. Despite being a 3 hour movie, it doesn't really discuss why Jake is willing to kill all of his fellow humans to protect an alien species, other than that he feels like he's one of them now. But despite this, Jake was in the army too and knew many of these people. The ultimate solution is to fight fire with fire and kill his former people. The plot and its twists just feel very flat and one-track throughout the film and not much effort is given to working out more creative kingdom building solutions to problems. The good characters are always good and the bad characters are always bad (with limited exceptions). It's not a very accurate portrayal of our world, which is a much more complex blend of good and evil due to the fall and man's brokenness. Despite flaws in the plot and at times boring characters, the film can completely draw you in to its visual splendor and is definitely worth seeing.
Some potential questions might be:
Can violence be justified in the defense of something vitally important to a people?
Is there ever a good reason to go to war?
Can capitalist business interests and kingdom building go hand in hand?
Very good analysis, Nathaniel, both on artistic and ideological levels. I especially appreciate, "...not much effort is given to working out more creative kingdom building solutions to problems. The good characters are always good and the bad characters are always bad (with limited exceptions). It's not a very accurate portrayal of our world, which is a much more complex blend of good and evil due to the fall and man's brokenness." I'm glad you called out the simplistic solution--the myth of redemptive violence--and the stereotypical (and theologically problematic) portrayal of pure good guys and pure bad guys.
ReplyDeleteNice review Nathaniel. While I do look unfavorably upon violence, I do think violence can be justified in self-defense. In Avatar, the Navi weren't just defending physical things ("Hometree" and their "sacred place"). Their kind of "New Age" or primitive religion saw these things as part of their living people. While we shouldn't overcome evil with more evil, I do think it is our responsibility to the Kingdom to speak out against evil and fight against it if absolutely necessary. They went to war only after they were attacked and had no other option. They were defending their way of life.
ReplyDeleteAs for capital business interests and the Kingdom going hand-in-hand, I think they can but only if those interests are in line with the kingdom. So, while a business plan for maximum profit can't follow Kingdom principles, I think a plan for giving many employees fair wages and good working conditions, offering high-quality, important products can. Basically, I think capitalism can be a great thing if we use Kingdom principles to the table.