worship the glitch

rainblog:

Yesterday, my fun-loving employers took us all out to see James Cameron’s “Avatar”. Afterwards, opinion was sharply divided: some of my colleagues adored it, others felt it was “just awful”.

Criticism mainly centered on the story. I can’t decide if that’s a fair criticism or not. If you go to see an adventure film, you can pretty much expect that the hero will refuse the Faustian bargain, get the (giant, blue-skinned) girl, and overthrow the tyrants. (I hope I haven’t just spoiled the movie for you, but if you’ve actually been to more than two films in the past twenty years, you should have been able to predict all that for yourself). This is the basic plot of every action movie you’ve ever seen. More than that, it’s the basic plot of the Hero’s Quest, which is a tale much older than Hollywood. It’s Joseph Campbell 101. Yes, it’s predictable, but it’s also satisfying. We like to believe that people will do the right thing and win, when so much of our experience constantly tells us the opposite.

Given that basic vehicle, Cameron makes it move right along. The story may be built off-the-shelf from the same stock components used in every other big-budget action movie, but he rolls them out fairly fluidly. If you ever have to tell that particular story, you could take a tip or two from the efficiency with which Cameron gets through the necessary exposition, drops in the required number of interim victories and reversals, and roughs-out the standard characters. The plotline or the dialog aren’t going to win any prizes for style or originality, at least it’s not the kind of jarringly preposterous bullshit you get from, say, George Lucas. It does what it needs to do.

It’s fair to say that he passes up plenty of opportunities to do something more interesting. The ‘resource conflict’ plot is a lazy man’s excuse for a story while as science-fiction “Avatar” is not particularly inspired. The alien Na’vi are not merely humanoid, but mammalian enough that the alien princess is straight-up sexy by anyone’s standards (I’d like to think that they considered “Planet of the Giant Blue Supermodels” as a working title for at least a little while before going for “Avatar”). And while the alien ecosphere is lush and lovely to look at, it’s pretty much just terrestrial rainforest turned up to 11.

You can wade through the psychological and moral depths of the movie without even getting the tops of your feet wet. The hero’s ethical dilemma - side with the humans and get rewarded, or do what he knows to be right at the cost of betraying his own race and condemning himself to exile - could have been the basis for a story with real depth. Sam Worthington does a creditable job of trying to convey Jake’s inner struggle as far as he’s allowed to, but ultimately the choice is too clear-cut. The Na’vi, prototypical noble savages out of Rousseau via central casting, are too good and virtuous (not to mention hot), the humans too cynical and greedy. There’s no real question which side we’re supposed to be on.

Cameron can do subtlety. A fleeting shot of an unnamed soldier weeping as she watches the destruction her comrades have wrought is more powerful and telling than the stock antics of the film’s designated heroes and villains. The first encounter between the hero and heroine has a nice ‘everything you know is wrong’ flavor to it. But overall, he is unwilling to risk confusing the audience with any gray areas and the result is unsatisfying. Even the film’s ecological message is driven home so relentlessly that it ends up feeling merely formal.

Despite all this, and despite the fact that I’m usually the first to be contemptuous of lazy story-telling, I enjoyed the film. I enjoyed it largely for one simple reason, which is that the computer-generated visuals are nearly flawless. They are, quite simply, jaw-droppingly good. They are better than anything you’ve ever seen before in the theatre. I have trouble watching computer-animated films because I find that it only takes a momentary awkwardness, a movement that isn’t quite right or a texture that didn’t quite fit, to break the suspension of disbelief. “Avatar” kept my disbelief suspended for close to three hours.

It’s difficult to overstate what a technical achievement this is. “Avatar” doesn’t ever take the easy way out. It is massively, absurdly ambitious. Anyone can animate a space battle, where all the objects are sharply-defined, but “Avatar” seeks to render a lush living world, where plants bend and water flows or falls and animals run and fly and scurry and climb. The sheer complexity of every scene in the film is stunning. If there was an Oscar for Attention to Detail, no other film would even need to be nominated.

The awe-inspiring thing about “Avatar” is that it pulls it off, not once or twice, but almost continuously. At times, you feel as if you’re watching a nature documentary. Moreover, it’s not only the scenery that works. The bulk of the action involves computer-animated figures (using motion-capture acting from human actors). Maybe using alien faces helped Cameron’s team to skirt the uncanny valley, but it’s still an amazing accomplishment. Three hours of watching poorly animated characters is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, but the Na’vi feel real. Their movements are fluid and natural, their facial expressions are minutely detailed and convincing. You have to keep reminding yourself that you aren’t watching large blue actors, but digital creatures, born entirely inside a computer.

With all that time to work on the project, maybe Cameron could also have spent a little time coming up with a better story. But if your frustration with the conventional story keeps you from seeing what a truly amazing visual achievement “Avatar” is, you’ve missed part of the point. Cameron has broken new ground: when someone comes along who has a really good story to tell, they’re going to have a kick-ass set of tools to do it with.