Avatar (2009)

Eight and a Half: An Unimpassion’d (but No Less Loving) Defense of Avatar to Those Who Fail to Appreciate It

No one ever accused Avatar of being the best movie ever made. Out of the 750 movies I’ve seen, it is not in the top 20. And talking to other people—most of whom have disliked the movie—I have not registered the highest opinion. However, after seeing it for a third time, I cannot deny that it has merit: its high production value, entertaining storyline, and believable lead performances (Sam Worthington, I love you) deserve at least an 8.5.

The high production value needs very little defense to those who consider James Cameron’s technological development to be revolutionary. Not all people, however, are believers; there are those in the minority who are underwhelmed with his achievement. I find such a critical debate (over the true creativity of the technology) to be analogous to other art forms: some say, “Any filmmaker could’ve done that.” But no other filmmaker did do it. The credit must go to Cameron for putting believable pores on the face of each Na’vi—for making the little soul-spores float in a three-dimensional space not-yet-matched in modern cinema. James Cameron says that if he wanted to, he could make the Dirty Harry sequel out of the same technology. To which I reply, “Prove it, and you will leave no one in doubt of your technological prowess.”

Contrived and familiar as the storyline may be, it is nonetheless entertaining, with its action plot, romance plot, transformation plot, environmental metaphor, and sliver of a parallel to Pocahontas. The romance plot is weak, but it appeals to the saps who yawn at the action (the most well-developed and strongest of the story elements). The transformation plot links the others together, and the environmental metaphor is appealing to tree-huggers and easily ignored by those who get annoyed by such subtexts. Especially interesting to me is a certain similarity between Avatar and Apocalypse Now. Just hear me out: both movies are about one man on a mission for the colonizers who gets sucked in to the world of the colonized, told by first-person narration. Avatar has a happy ending, but the beginning still bears a resemblance which makes it more enjoyable to watch. If Cameron had actually ended the story after the victory of the oppressors, at the blackout following the destruction of Home Tree (second-stupidest name ever, following “Unobtainium”), all of the critics probably would have given it a 10/10.

There is an element of performance required from the unseen actor which critics should not ignore. The Apocalypse Now metaphor would be indiscernible if Jim Carrey had voiced the character of Jake. As it were, I expected his opening line to be “I am still in Saigon.” In his human scenes, Jake is independent and strong—a man who takes orders only because he chose to—not because he is someone’s drone. His Avatar expresses—through a combination of Cameron’s technology and Worthington’s voice, his captured movement—emotions that include wonderment, interest, determination, pain, and love—among others. His vocal expression strongly contributes to the contrast between the physically-restricted man who narrates the story and the free and unbounded member of the Na’vi. In action, he is lively, engaging. As narrator, he is dark and conflicted.

So Avatar is not the best movie of the year. It is not the worst either. I give it six points in production value, an extra point for story line, and two points for its characters (snaps also to Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriquez, Joel Moore, Giovanni Ribisi, and of course, Zoe Saldana). Minus one half of a point (it should be more, but I’m letting him off easy) for the transparent appearances of James Cameron in the script. Next time, please use better names than Unobtanium and Home-Tree. Seriously. All told, it gets a solid 8.5/10. In other words, I liked it; and I thought it was pretty good.

Please do not make me wait another ten years for the sequel.