Avatar

Part of an email from my friend

 

“I saw avatar yesterday. I have always admired James Cameron for three reasons. Firstly, he is an inventor. He invented stories like no other. Alien 2 and Terminator all delivered stories never told before. Secondly, he is a great story teller. When he tells a story, even the most boring story becomes innovative. Look at Titanic. It has the most conventional love story but he made it deceptively new. Thirdly, his use of CG image and special effects compliments, not dominate, the story. He is not like other directors who use his movies to show CGI. Being a massive fan of James Cameron, I expected these three characteristics would continue in Avatar. However, Avatar is a massive failure.

How many times have you seen a story where the attempt of greedy people/corporations to wipe out other people/natives/the poor is defeated by one good guy from that very corporation. From the beginning the story is entire predictable - the guy will help the native fight back against the skypeople. Of course, there is nothing new under the sun and one story will always look like another. What often matters is how the story is told. In Avatar, the characters often deliver lectures to you - they just explain things to you. He obvious had no time to create scenes that deliver necessary information. It is true that any movies have to deliver some information to you but if you feel the characters are telling stories to you, the scenario is wrong.

His mind was into other things - CGI and special effects. I cannot but feel that the 3D was unnecessary. It did not add anything to the movie. I often took the 3D glasses off to check if they make any differences. They didn't. It is well known that the 3D is the industry's answer to the movie pirates and the illegal internet downloading. The industry wanted to create a content that they claim can only be enjoyed in cinemas. In Sydney the cheapest ticket for avatar was $20, which I think was a rip-off. Essentially, the movie became a lifeless and characterless CGI junk. I did not feel any connection with any of the characters.”

”

 

 

Part of My Reply

 

"Well, I think we have some different view on the film. First of all, I did not expect anything about seeing Avatar, as I have ignored the existence of J. Cameron. I don’t like nor regard any Hollywood-entertainment film director. Well, it might be due to the fact that I did not expect anything from the moment of entering into the cinema that I could enjoy it; it was more than expected! I felt awkward to watch it wearing the glasses as the screen looked as if it is in front of my naked eye; I always prefer less technology or the technology that creates the similar environment to that God gave us to more technology, as you might know.

 

However, I got used to watch it and could enjoy some of scene which was spectacular. I agree with you that the story of the film is so predictable that it gets viewers bored and that it is basically didactic; it is very didactic like 2012. But you should know that predictability does not undermine the quality of a narrative work. Think about “Chunhyang Story” as a Pansory version. We all know how it will go when the story starts, yet if the performer of Pansori is great, we are greatly moved. Why? The banality of story has nothing to do with the greatness of a work; what matters is how it is presented. This How is everything. We call this “form”. Well, I do not know Cameron is a great storyteller, but his How in Avatar is, I suppose, not as bad as you said. At least some of scene was more than expected (again, I expected nothing!), and I enjoyed those as if I was a child. Maybe you should see this film again without any expectation but with dis-interest as if you did not know the film director.

 

Next, about the didactic character of the film. I have read an article by a Korean with pro-eco-friendly philosophy about this film. He really admired this in praise of the film’s message; well, I do not think his point is right at all. Cameron’s message was too clear to the point that we can say it is a bit like a primary school level of understanding of nature-care VS nature-destruction. Moreover, there was a scene that reminded us of a Shamanic world; the film associated it with the eco-friendly philosophy of the Indigenous people; I do not think it was a good idea. The eco-friendliness needed today should have nothing to do with Shamanism, rather it should be associated with more progressed vision of the world and cosmos. His too strong and plain demonstration of what he thinks perhaps bothered you as it bothered me.

 

Anyway, it is just a film and if people come to believe that nature-care may be important in a sense watching this, it would be good, but it seems it is taken as a simple entertainment by many. Well, entertaining is truly needed one, but thinking is as important as this. Yet can this film be classified into the film that makes us think? Perhaps not, it is too plain requiring too low level of thinking. But I have no intention to blame this, as I took it only as a simple entertainment from the outset. It is an entertainment rather than an artwork."