JAMES CAMERON RECLAIMS THE THRONE WITH “AVATAR”
20 Dec
12 years ago, a man was given the biggest budget in history to make a movie about an event thats ending was already known the world over. The conventional wisdom within the film community was that it had no hope for success, and, as the release date neared, one of the trade papers even began a daily countdown to its failure. Eventually, the movie was released, and, lo and behold, turned out to be unlike anything anyone had ever seen before. The critics united behind it, with the dean of the profession giving it four/four stars and calling it “flawlessly crafted, intelligently constructed, strongly acted and spellbinding.” The public — led by teenage girls, of all people — flocked to see it, propelling it to the #1 spot at the box-office for an unheard of 15 consecutive weeks, with receipts totalling $600.79 million domestically and $1.84 billion worldwide (records that stand to this day). And the Academy, God bless ’em, bestowed upon it a record-tying 14 Oscar nominations and a record-tying 11 Oscars, including three for the man against whom everyone had bet: best film editing, best director, and best picture. As the man concluded his speech accepting the second, with the third clearly only moments away, he finally allowed himself to celebrate, shouting to no one in particular, “I’m the king of the world!”
For the next 12 years, though, James Cameron all but abdicated his throne. It’s not that he wasn’t working; he penned some scripts, shot a few documentaries, produced a couple of TV shows, and tinkered on visual effects technology. But for the masses who had come out for “Titanic” (1997) — not to mention his earlier critical and commercial successes “The Terminator” (1984), “Aliens” (1986), “The Abyss” (1989), “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (1991), and “True Lies” (1994) — there was no follow-up feature to speak of. As other directors’ careers rose and fell and rose again, Cameron’s lay stagnant, and some suspected that it would remain that way forever. And who could blame him? After all, what was left for him to do that he hadn’t already done before?
The answer to that question is, in a word, “Avatar” (20th Century Fox, 12/18, trailer). The film, which I saw at its first New York press screening on the evening of Thursday, December 10, has already been widely hailed as a masterpiece. Here are my reactions – beware of spoilers:
- It is, first and foremost, a stunning visual achievement that will popularize the technology used for its production (e-motion capture) and exhibition (3D viewing) — I wouldn’t be surprised to one day hear people refer to movies as being “Before ‘Avatar’” and “After ‘Avatar’.” In the meantime, it will easily rack up several Oscars — certainly including best visual effects, and possibly best picture, too, largely for reasons that I described in a November 17 post.
- The plot is fairly predictable, blending elements of several earlier films including: “Dances with Wolves” (1990), in which a warrior relocates to a far away land, falls in love with the natives’ way of life (as well as one of their women), and, as war approaches, finds himself caught between his former comrades and his new friends; “Pocahontas” (1995), in which a group travels to another land to pillage its resources, whereupon one of its members falls in love with one of the natives (who receives counsel from a tree of spirits/souls) and learns to look at the world in a different way; “Braveheart” (1995), in which a man inspires a group to take up arms and fight back against an oppressive leader; and “The Last Samurai” (2003), in which a warrior elects to join the cause of the people against whom he was originally fighting, forcing him to take up arms against the people for whom he was originally fighting. One could even describe it — as a friend of mine did — as “The War of the Worlds” (1953), only in reverse!
- There is a strong political undertone to the film, both in words and images — indeed, I have little doubt that the film’s central conflict is actually a metaphor for America’s two ongoing wars in the Middle East. The humans plan to invade Pandora in order to gain access its large reserves of a precious mineral called unobtainium — not unlike Americans invading Iraq in order to gain access to its large reserves of oil, as some believe was the real motive for the invasion. The humans are led by a strutting, tough-talking colonel (Stephen Lang) who sells his mission to his troops by stating, “Our survival relies on pre-emptive action,” announces, “We will fight terror with terror,” and then oversees a “shock-and-awe campaign“ — not unlike George W. Bush and his effort to rally Americans behind a preemptive attack on Iraq by claiming that Iraq posed “a grave and growing danger” to national security, followed by… a “shock-and-awe campaign.” The native Na’Vi eventually realize that although they lack the military might of their invaders, their familiarity with the terrain on which the war is being fought provides them with an even bigger advantage, allowing them to plan and execute insurgent attacks that initially debilitate and ultimately defeat their invaders — which sounds like a rearticulation of the argument for why the Americans (like Alexander the Great, the Russians, and the British before them) may never be able to “win” in Afghanistan. Finally, one can’t help but look at the attack on and eventual collapse of Pandora’s “Hometree,” its tallest structure and one inhabited by large numbers of its people, and not think of the attack on and eventual collapse of the World Trade Center, especially as it thunders to the ground, killing many of its inhabitants and people on the ground, spraying dust and debris everywhere as those on the ground flee for their lives on foot, and leaving its survivors in a state of shock, then grief, then anger, and then a desire for retribution — through this turn of events, we come to identify more with the Na’vi than with the humans of the future, which is why we find ourselves cheering the Na’vi’s efforts to retaliate.
- How does it compare with Cameron’s last film, “Titanic”?
- I’m not sure I’d expect as much of a career-bounce for and/or celebrity obsession over stars Zoe Saldana and Sam Worthington as “Titanic” led to for Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, primarily because Saldana’s face is submerged within a giant blue Na’vi’s for her entire performance, just as Worthington’s is for the majority of his.
- The ending is a little happier this time around, as the bad guy dies (unlike Billy Zane) and the good guy lives (unlike DiCaprio) — ostensibly because Cameron and 20th Century Fox harbor hopes for making sequels if this first installment makes back its money, something that was obviously not an option for “Titanic.”
- The film’s central song, Leona Lewis‘s “I See You” (which plays over the end credits), sounds similar to but is less catchy/memorable than Celine Dion‘s “My Heart Will Go On.”
- Based on last week’s announcements of the Golden Globe and SAG nominees, it seems unlikely that this film will garner any acting nominations, as “Titanic” did for best actress (Kate Winslet) and best supporting actress (Gloria Stuart), but it might snag a nod for best original screenplay, which “Titanic” did not.
- “Avatar” does, however, seem likely to pick up nods in most if not all of the other 12 categories in which “Titanic” was recognized (11 of which it won): picture WON, director WON, art direction WON, cinematography WON, costume design WON, film editing WON, makeup, original score WON, original song WON, sound editing WON, sound mixing WON, and visual effects WON.
Photo: James Cameron, modeling a pair of 3D glasses. Credit: Screen Rant.
Recent Comments