I saw Avatar a couple of days back, at the IMAX in Mumbai. I really enjoyed the film, which is more like a joyride than any other film I can remember. This was also the first time I saw a film in 3D, so maybe that added to the fun quotient. But, as almost everyone else has been saying, you should definitely let the Na'vis seduce you. Chances are you'd want an avatar of your own.
This is also another occasion when I am getting annoyed with some of the critics for seeing the film for what it is not. Of course, Roger Ebert and Raja Sen (I know it's probably heresy to take their names together) have both praised the film wholeheartedly, but there are others like Baradwaj Rangan, who seem to get a little too anal about the story. Do they not realize that everyone even with the least bit of sanity can see that the film's script is as cliched as they come, that the characters are made of cardboard so fine many of our own film-makers would be proud of?
Rangan, in his review, also makes a rather patronizing statement, garnishing it with the obligatory references to classics like Apocalypse Now to display his indisputable film-knowledge - If visual wow is all you seek from the movies, Avatar is a truly religious experience... - well, no, I don't only seek visual wow from movies, but I know when to shut the fuck up and not expect a Fellini from a Cameron.
But, at least, he does acknowledge the good stuff too. There are other two-bit film 'critics' who have jumped at the opportunity to prove that they know about this invisible object called script, and have been crucifying the film for not spending more time and resources on it.
I believe a film like this could not have worked if Cameron had made the story too complicated. As it is, the film jumps headlong into the concept of an Avatar, the reasons for choosing the paraplegic Jake Sully, and everything else about Pandora in the first few minutes. After this, I felt it was only right to let the movie take a predictable route, if only to let the audience settle down in familiar territory and enjoy the visual spectacle playing out on the screen.
For all the hoarse crying about Cameron not giving importance to a story as he did in his earlier opus, Titanic, or the ones before that, I remember very clearly reading reviews, from the time Titanic came out, which decried the loss of a good script to the thrill of breaking down the ship.
There's this well-known aspect of our relationships with the elders in our family where their response to a lot of new experiences is that things were better when they were younger. And in time, we probably will start spouting the same shit to people from our younger generations too. Critics seem to play this same thing out, in much shorter time frames.
Posts
The BC Cup 2024 - Report
11 hours ago
4 comments:
Yeah. It was a very enjoyable movie, don't see why people would want to dissect the story. Although, some elements of the story reminded me of Princess Mononoke...although no one seems to agree with me! :P
the film reminded me of Ferngully as well, just, you know minus the rapping, thankfully :)
To say that we can't expect a Fellini from a Cameron isn't quite right though. It's fair, but not right - why can't we expect everything? Why can't I feel let down by the Na'vi? We should be disappointed that they are presented as a racist's caricature, the proud warrior race who are also tree hugging nature lovers.
I loved the movie, I have nothing against its message and I think that the way he's handled all the setpieces, all the movements, all the trees, is amazing. The scene where our hero is running behind Zoe Saldana to the village, tapping the plants as he runs, is wonderful. I even enjoyed the bit at the end - with the knife? That, right there, is suspension of disbelief :)
But lets just admit that my seven year old cousin writes better characters. Hell. Christopher Paolini writes better characters. Every time the colonel spoke, I sniggered. Every time a Na'vi spoke I giggled. The best joke in the movie? The aforementioned knife. Except they were serious there. Which is kind of sad because Cameron has a sense of humor. I mean, unobtainium? Priceless! He showed a certain sense of humour in his earlier movies. They were certainly not masterpieces of writing, but the humour elevated his characters, and rounded them out, making the movies worth watching again and again.
Avatar can be watched once, and enjoyed greatly, for what is truly a breathtaking visual experience, for what is ultimately a powerful and earnest story, and for some of the most camp writing outside of Plan 9 from Outer Space. More than once though?
Well I'm with this guy.
Completely agree.
Agreed Cameron's films completely ignore the concept of 'cinema as art', but should that make us inveigh the man who has at least dared to have a vision? And what if the vision is a complete antithesis of what Tarkovsky thought. At least he has dared to have a vision in a place where hundreds come and go without doing nothing but churning out more shit. His work definitely deserves a chance. Not many have the balls to keep so much moolah at stake and make something this big.
Post a Comment