Friday, December 18, 2009

Avatar

In my lifetime, I don't think a film has gotten nearly as much hype as Avatar has. Maybe The Phantom Menace can equal it, but that was more for it being a return to a beloved franchise than for the film itself. With Avatar, James Cameron has repeatedly stated that this was a game changer. This film would singlehandedly thrust film into an exciting new direction, giving filmmakers new tools with which to play. For this film to be anything less then a 4-star masterpiece would be a failure, by Cameron's own definition. Being a devout Cameron fan, I can't help but admit that I was expecting the most from Avatar. Could he really live up to this hype he had built? Well, obviously, no, he couldn't. Not even close, actually. It seems unfair to hold high expectations against a film, but when a film is built and sold very specifically on those expectations, they must be taken into account. Avatar is not a failure, but it sure isn't a game changer, either.

It takes a lot of balls to say that your imagination is so great that film technology will need to catch up before you will return to film making, but that is essentially what James Cameron did in the wake of Titanic 12 years ago. Not content to just wait, though, Cameron has been actively pursuing advances in technology in order to bring his vision for Avatar to the screen. I can tell you that, yes, the visuals are quite stunning. The time and money spent to make motion capture technology make things look lifelike has paid off. It is simply amazing to look at this blue creature on the screen and instantly say "Whoa, that's Sigourney Weaver!" Robert Zemeckis has dedicated the better part of this decade to making motion capture a legitimate form of storytelling, and with a shrug he has said that these pictures aren't going to be perfect, but he has to keep making them until they do reach the level of perfection in his imagination. James Cameron wisely avoided this folly and just perfected the technology first, then made his movie. Perhaps the smartest aspect of this decision was that he wasn't trying to create human characters, like Zemeckis, but instead a whole new race of creatures that didn't have to look human.

Now, before I get ahead of myself, I do not think that the technology here is as groundbreaking as it should have been. Aside from facial features, the rest of the CGI is pretty cartoony. No one would mistake a crowd of animated Na'vi for real living creatures. I think that motion capture is also very dependant on the actors underneath the special effects. I find Gollum in Lord of the Rings more believable than anything in this film simply because the acting on display is more honest and true than that of the actors here. Sam Worthington was supposed to be the new big thing in 2009, but between Terminator Salvation and this, it is clear he is nothing special. His line delivery is depressingly monotone and one note, and I never for a second cared about his character. Zoe Saldana, as a Princess of the Na'vi, is actually quite good, but the problem is she just helps to shine a light on how bad her screen partner is by comparison. The rest of the cast doesn't exactly stand out (how does a Sigourney Weaver performance in a James Cameron film fail to stand out?!), but it is hard to discredit actors when the material they are working with is awful.

Now, you can change the game all you want, but if you don't have a great story to back it up with, it's all for nothing. James Cameron has never been accused of being a great dialog writer, but he knew how to string together a gripping, powerful story. That is never the case here, with what is easily his dullest story. In the future, we have depleted the resources on our planet, so we have made our way to Pandora. Pandora is a lush planet, but the native Na'vi do not appreciate our presence. Through a breakthrough in technology, we are able to create Na'vi avatars for people to infiltrate their society and either befriend them, or force them out. From this basic premise, the film hits all the expected notes: outsider infiltrates the Na'vi, begins to fall in love with one of them, decides to unite the Na'vi and save them from the invading forces. Now, I do like how much detail Cameron put into shaping this world, but if he had just spent as much effort on the characters and the story, this could have really been something. Instead, it is dreadfully dull, clearly telegraphed experience for most of the run time.

The other hyped aspect of this film is how it is supposed to legitimize the use of 3-D in films. Perhaps what surprised me most about this film was how unnecessary the 3-D actually was. A film like Coraline actually uses 3-D in artistic and emotional ways, trying to achieve something new. This film simply uses it to make things feel bigger and more expansive. Not all together an ignoble thing, but not something that really made me enjoy the film any more. While this film should be seen on the big screen if it is ever to be seen, seeing it in 3-D is not exactly a deal breaker. When the film finally gets to some action set pieces about 2 hours into the film, the 3-D makes it a bit more immersing, but I would also argue that by that point you will be a bit dulled to its existence.

I grew up on James Cameron films, and I love everything he has made. When he took a 12 year break, it was sad, but I was hopeful he would come back with something special. Instead, he seems to have lost a bit of his storytelling prowess. Considering what he stated he wanted to achieve with Avatar, the end results are dispiritingly lifeless. Yes, motion capture technology has upped its game in a big way, but without the great actors underneath it all, its just empty spectacle. I expect more from Cameron than that.