David,
I agreed with your take, except I don't accept that a lifetime of film
history should be casually dismissed just because some teens and twenty
something newbies don't yet have that same kind of history. It's called
experience and experience is valuable, despite what the new kids on the
block think. The problem with AVATAR's plot is not that it was the old
calvary vs. injuns story line by way of DANCES WITH WOLVES (or even
LITTLE BIG MAN, if you really want to show your age), but that Cameron
made no attempt to add any original twists to that old plot (which both
DANCES and BIG MAN did). On the other hand, Cameron chose to add plenty
of new and original twists to TITANIC, which is what made it so great.
Offhand, I can think of a dozen ways he could have tweaked the
overly-predictable plot of AVATAR to add a lot of originality and not do
any more work or spend any additional money. He just didn't bother.
I mean, everything else about AVATAR is so great, why couldn't he have
insisted on a better script? It's not just the tired old calvary vs.
indians story arc... it's that the stupid (bumbling) corporate guy in
charge of the whole project who was straight out of a Disney film, as
was the George Custer-like Ultimately Evil head of security dude.
But, having vented about the lost opportunity to make *every* aspect of
AVATAR great, I did acknowledge in my original review that AVATAR really
isn't about the plot. It's about the wild ride... the fully realized
3-dimensional trip to an fantastic alien planet that we get to take for
the price of a theater ticket. I'll stand by that (which shows that I
still "get it", despite being old and out of date). Heck, the plot could
have been about blue aliens rubbing two bricks together and it still
would have been a fantastic cinematic event.
But "Best Picture of the Year"? Nah... not to me, burdened as I am with
my "out of date" 55 years of film watching experience. The unnecessarily
trite plot and characters -- which someone of Cameron's ability and
clout could have easily avoided -- removes AVATAR from the same class as
TITANIC, which *did* deserve best picture. While it's a great ride,
AVATAR is not the "Best Picture of the Year". It's the biggest
commercial success, yes, but that's not the same thing. But of course,
it will get the Oscar. Any movie that broke TITANIC's all-time
box-office score would get Best Picture by default. Hollywood is, after
all, all about the money.
-- JR
David Kusumoto wrote:
*** It's been a while I've written anything* of length to MoPo; write
it off to being too swamped to get into the fights and what-nots
during the past 5-6 months.
*** Meanwhile, you're right, Doug -- "Avatar's" story line* has been
done 1,000 times before, and that's my only objection to it.
"Avatar's" script resembled "Dances With Wolves Meets the Blue Man
Group" -- with the standard theme of "money-grubbing corporations"
raping the natural resources of a planet populated by blue aliens --
whose every utterance is noble and forcefully profound, e.g., like
lines given to every Native American character in Disney's "Pocahontas."
*** Anyway, **I was put in my place by a former colleague* and mother
of two kids who agreed with me -- but who told me -- (and she was
right) -- "you know, you and your historical film references makes you
old and out of date -- it makes everything you see today sound
irrelevant with a "been there and done that" feeling. Well, that's
not true for everything. Zillions of people are paying $15 to see
'Avatar' without your historical references; they don't care about
"Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas." Even if they did, those
pictures were made 15-20 years ago, before today's movie goers were
born; they were made in ways that seem obsolete or less engaging to
kids today. This doesn't mean old films are less important. It just
means they're not important to young people YET. Someday they'll like
them. Like we did. Geezuz, we weren't all born in 1920. Young
people buy WAY more tickets than old people. Remember how you used to
go to every opening night? You don't anymore because you hate long
lines. You're not supporting the industry and you're well past the
'sell-by' date for mass entertainment. So stay at home and watch PBS,
TCM or HBO. 'Avatar" may not be the best picture of the year, but it
is historic and my kids loved it."
*** I thought about this tirade for a moment* and I said, "you know,
you're right. Most people coming out of 'Avatar' are having fun --
and I admit it's astounding that a guy like James Cameron can knock
out hit after monster hit, while having total control of material
that, unlike Spielberg, always seems to strike industry watchers and
the bean counters to have an "iffy" quality -- BEFORE they're
released. Cameron's films never SEEM to feel like they will be
guaranteed box office gold until AFTER word-of-mouth spreads."
*** The box-office receipts of Cameron's last three films* including
"True Lies" -- have blown past everything Spielberg has done since
1993, including "Jurassic Park," a film at the time I thought was a
technological game changer. I just wonder whether "Avatar," even as a
"game changer" -- has a story/script worthy enough to be a Best
Picture. "Titanic" beat back those same obstacles in 1997 with an
old-fashioned, 1940s type love story that had teenage girls returning
in droves.
*** I liked low-budget picture, "The Hurt Locker"* -- and was shocked
that I also enjoyed the true story of Baltimore Ravens tackle Michael
Oher in Sandra Bullock's "The Blind Side" -- but "Avatar" didn't hit
me in the gut. Honestly, the best performances I saw in 2009 came
from Meryl Streep as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" and Christoph
Waltz as the smooth Nazi in "Inglourious Basterds."
*** If I had to root for a single picture, it might be "The Hurt
Locker,"* but only because I think it's the first picture about the
war without a political message; none of the actors "debate" why
they're in Iraq. There's no sledgehammer message. It's a strange
film whereby the emotional centerpiece is the adrenaline of survival;
some soldiers have it and some don't; this adrenaline is all that
matters to the main character played by Best Actor nominee Jeremy
Renner. I also thought "The Hurt Locker" was a giant leap for action
director Kathryn Bigelow, who's never done anything like this. If
anything, its neutral political stance underscores how many soldiers
are ignorant of the politics of anything they're involved in. They
just do their job.
*** But my gut feeling is the 9 films going against "Avatar"* -- all
have the "Gandhi" hex hung around their necks. That is, if any
picture OTHER than "Avatar" wins -- it will be a dubious distinction
akin to "Forrest Gump" beating "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp
Fiction" in 1994; "Shakespeare in Love" beating "Saving Private Ryan"
in 1998; "Chariots of Fire" beating "Reds" and "Raiders of the Lost
Ark" in 1981; "Ordinary People" beating "Raging Bull" in 1980;
"Platoon" beating " Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" in 1986;
"The English Patient" beating "Fargo" in 1996; "Dances with Wolves"
beating "Goodfellas" in 1990 and "Gandhi" beating "E.T" in 1982 and on
and on. I remember being angry when Oliver Stone's "Platoon" beat
Woody Allen's "Hannah" in '86, the latter film much decorated in the
all-important acting and screenplay categories. And last week, I put
on "Shawshank" on the DVD player and my wife and I were in tears all
over again. Still a great picture.
*** I know the Oscars are such bullshit* (and not the original point
of Doug and Kirby's posts below) -- and I know these trophies are
laden with the "politics of their day" -- which have proven time and
again that the Academy's choices do not a classic make. But if
"Avatar" loses, I sense many will feel like they've witnessed the
"crime of the century," further exposing the gulf between the Academy
and popular sentiment (arguably as they should be) -- but over a
picture that is not only a box-office smash, but has also received
good-to-great reviews. I won't mind if "Avatar" wins because I do
know people who think despite its high-school-ish script (esp. the
romance) -- that the picture is a critical and commercial juggernaut
that should NOT be denied the biggest prize on March 7, which has
forced many production companies to re-tool their future releases to
integrate the 3D format in a "non-intrusive" way, which is "Avatar's"
biggest strength.
*
** **Despite 10 Best Picture nominees,* I'm kind of indifferent this
year, not one film screams "stupendous." But I was emotionally
responsive to 5 of the nearly 35 films released in 2009 /*that I
saw,*/ one of which is not even among the 10 nominees: "The Hurt
Locker," "The Blind Side," "Up," "Inglourious Basterds" (despite its
excesses) -- and "The (500) Days of Summer," the latter which I
thought was going to be a stupid, sophomoric young-love beach film --
but turned out to be a new way of telling a story about a broken urban
romance that doesn't get near a beach or a keg-party. Wonderful surprise.
*** A digression *-- I did not object to "Annie Hall" beating "Star
Wars" in 1977. "Annie Hall" was a film I saw in contemporaneous
release and I did feel at the time that it broke new ground for Woody
Allen and for the "urban comedy genre" in a different way that "Star
Wars" broke bigger ground for family entertainment the same year. But
I also vividly remember going to work the next day. My work mates
asked me, with great incredulity, "Star Wars lost to Annie WHAT? Your
movie choices SUCK." I loved both films but I've never forgotten how
that experience exposed me as a high-button, stuck-up,
holier-than-thou snob. -d.
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:31:56 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AVATAR
> To: [email protected]
>
> Much better script than Titanic, although a story line we've seen 1,000
> times the last 90 years.
>
> I've haven't seen anything better this year. I had high hopes for Hurt
> Locker, but it just doesn't pack the punch to compete.
>
> Regards
>
> DBT
> Profile
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MoPo List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Kirby McDaniel
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 11:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [MOPO] AVATAR
>
> Here's my reaction.
>
> I finally saw it.
>
> Spectacularly realized. Doesn't lag much. Screenwriting is a little
> stilted at times while trying to explain things to audience 8 to 80, but
> that's quibbling. Gorgeous in 3D on the full IMAX screen. 3D is
some of the best I've ever
> seen in that it seems to be "of a piece" with the film after a
while. Very beautiful to
> look at. Reminded me at various times of aspects of other films -
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA,
> ALIENS, of course, THE STAR WARS stuff, naturally, although without
the Flash
> Gordon cornball factor, especially RETURN OF THE JEDI with it's
scenes of the ewoks.
> And BAMBI of all things -- I was looking at some of the color in the
Disney
> animation the other day, and some of the same coloration and tone in
AVATAR.
> So huge in its palette that one just simply has to hand it to James
Cameron - he
> must be some kind of superman. The film is laden with messages, but it's
> all stuff I can pretty much get behind. What surprised me was how
touching
> it was at times.
>
> Oh yeah, really cute people. And they're blue. It's not easy being blue.
>
> Kirby McDaniel
> MovieArt Original Film Posters
> P.O. Box 4419
> Austin TX 78765-4419
> 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net
> mobile 512 589 5112
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
