Movie: Avatar
Sargon finally got me to go see Avatar in IMAX 3-D.
The varied reactions I had read around the internet and my f-list had prepared me for the philosophically objectionable elements, so I was not surprised, only exasperated. However, the fits of exasperation lasted no more than a few seconds, until the next awesome thing came on screen.
If you are going to see this movie, see it in 3-D, and if you can possibly do it, see it in IMAX. I have never in my life had an experience like that. I have never seen anything like it. I was completely and utterly blown away. I was in tears, parts of it were so beautiful, and so real. Even if you know you will find the themes offensive -- which I knew, and which I did -- it is worth seeing. It is that amazing.
I hate movie theaters, I hate long movies, I hate sitting next to other people, I hate things on my face, I hate being out of the house for more than a few hours, I hate having to listen to people eat popcorn and candy, I hate waiting for the movie to start, and I hate paying for the "pleasure" of putting up with all that crap.
I did not care about any of these things. I was riveted. I barely moved or blinked. And I will gladly endure all of those things I hate again, just to see it one more time. I would have gone to see it again immediately, except that I was hungry and thirsty and sort of punchy from the sheer spectacle.
I can only assume that most of the people seeing it and saying "meh, it's okay" didn't see it in IMAX 3-D. That's all I can think. Because I just don't see how it's possible to pan something that looks this fantastic.
I have no problem with people raising legitimate concerns about the movie's themes, and in fact I think we should discuss those things, but I do not understand completely dismissing something this groundbreaking and incredible. It should be criticised. Absolutely. There are things very, very wrong with it, and those things should not be overlooked or dismissed just because this is an unparalleled example of what special effects can do when mixed with first-rate art design.
I wish it had handled things better than it did. I wish it had not done many of the things that it attempted to do and failed to pull off. In many ways, I wish it was a different movie. And yet I can't hold any of its deficiencies against it as it exists in the 3-D theater. Once it comes out of the theater, there will be much less to recommend it, so see it while it's there. Dear god, if you are going to see it, see it big, see it in 3-D, even if you have to drive to do it.
I am displeased with how deeply it played on the myths of the "noble savage." I said pretty much everything I want to say about that here on Sargon's post picking apart the Noble Savage thing.
I dislike the way the mercenaries were portrayed. Within the metaphor of the movie, these men were clearly the stand-in for The Military. Not only were their tactics unsound (they had to be or there wouldn't have been a movie, I realize that) but they were portrayed as total bastards. I really dislike hamhanded attacks on the military and on war itself. I know, that is very conservative of me. It's still how I feel. I don't appreciate one-sided hating of the military -- which is how this will be interpreted -- when it was actually big business that was the real villain here.
I am not a big fan of the peaceful, nature-loving angle. Yes. Peace is nice, nature is beautiful, but the extent to which they carried this rapidly became annoying and insulting to my intelligence. I am too acquainted with human nature and with nature itself to have much stomach for that kind of thing. Nature isn't peaceful. Humans aren't peaceful. Closer to nature does not mean closer to moral center. Peaceful does not mean morally superior.
I do not appreciate a physical handicap being used as a metaphor for "life sucks" when that is not how actual disabled people necessarily or even usually feel about their actual disabilities. Jake's individual situation is understandable; yes, for him, this thing has fucked up his life in a major way. It's terrible for him. He is miserable about it, but stoic (a Good Cripple™). It's not that I don't believe that this has made his life worse. However, the fact that this kind of thing is used all the time in movies to represent some other aspect of the human condition is unacceptable, as is the fact that the Miracle Cure™ is almost never far behind. Disability is not a metaphor for precious authors and filmmakers to use to make their point, any more than race is.
And this movie does that with race as well, using a white guy as the identification character and then using race (species) to represent that white person's struggle to find belonging. And once more, a white guy becomes the crux of an interracial conflict, and the plot hinges on his ability to fix everything. What these folks need is a white guy. Human beings have been destroying and conquering for our entire history. That sort of story will always be relevant. But the ways in which we tell that story are often deeply problematic.
All of this is standard movie fare, so typical we don't often stop to think about how not okay it is to take someone's identity and use it as a symbol in some other metaphor, instead of treating things evenhandedly and respectfully. This is the thing I most expect people to tell me I'm wrong about or am misunderstanding, which is largely going to be because I'm not really expressing myself very well on this point, but I suppose that's a chance I will have to take. It just rubbed me the wrong way.
Like Brokeback Mountain, which I maintain was a gay movie for straight people, this is a movie about race for white people. Only it doesn't do this as well as Brokeback Mountain did. It's possible to tell this sort of story well, it is. I don't even hate this kind of story. I love John Carter of Mars, and dread the day that that movie comes out and people start tearing into it just for being what it is. The thing is, this story has been done a million times. No one movie is the offender, this movie is not the offender, it's all of them together. I would like to see a movie that did things differently, I would like to see this story and also lots of other stories. I would like to see stories that focused on the experiences of disabled people and people of color as characters instead of focusing on them as visible symbols of difference.
It was a beautiful movie, beyond beautiful. It was heartbreakingly pretty. I can't overlook that, nor do I think it should be overlooked. But I don't think its deficiencies should be overlooked either.
I could go on for hours about the amazing, beautiful parts of it. All the moments I jumped and shied because I had forgotten that what I was seeing was not real. How beautiful -- calculatedly so -- the Na'vi were, how real, and how if they hadn't been ten feet tall, they would have been unbearably fucking adorable, what with their little ears and cute their noses. The landscape, so Roger Dean meets Gilbert Williams, more beautiful than anything I had ever imagined, which is really saying something because I spend about 3/4 of my time imagining beautiful things. That this was all done in the service of a plot that was not groundbreaking or challenging in any way is unfortunate.
It's really a mixed blessing. I think it'll change things about the movies, change how they are made. And so it's my hope that because this has proven so popular, this technology and this level of skill and artistry will eventually be used in the service of a story that is worthy of it.
ETA: To address two things.
First, yes, I do think it sucks that some people aren't able to see the 3-D, or cope with the side effects, so that basically, this movie is accessible in its intended format only to those who are not only sighted, but have a certain kind of sightedness, and furthermore, a certain kind of visual processing that doesn't make them seasick just watching it. I wish this weren't an issue. That I am recommending people see this in the theater in 3-D doesn't mean I am disrespecting people for whom that won't work, and it doesn't mean that I think that nothing needs to be done to make entertainment more accessible. There's a huge discussion to be had about art and technology and accessibility, but I'm not having it here, now. It's just too big.
Second, I realize that some of my wording doesn't really hold up. Rather than go back and change it, which I never like doing because I don't like hiding my fuckups, I will just say that if you personally don't want to see it because you cannot overlook the major issues this movie has, I respect that. I don't mean to imply that such objections aren't important, or that I think one should overlook them. What I said above, however, was more or less the opposite; it came across as privileged in a way I did not intend, and I apologize for that. I do not believe that one should put aside one's feelings about the negative elements entirely, simply for the sake of something that is pretty. That is not what my actual words said above, though, because I put my foot in my mouth. So, if I offended you by saying something stupid, I apologize for expressing myself poorly and basically saying something that contradicts my own values. It is often a manifestation of privilege to be able to ignore the problematic elements of something. While everyone has different basic tolerances for that sort of thing, it's a thing that's made easier the less of it you have to deal with -- and that means privileged folks usually don't have as hard a time with it. I have a combination of high basic tolerance and privilege. I apologize for speaking from that place. I can't apologize for thinking the movie is visually amazing, and I can't apologize for the fact that for me personally the visuals outweighed the negatives of basically the entire plot. I confess I can't come up with much of a reason to see it without the IMAX 3-D, however, and that is because I find the content largely unsupportable.
The varied reactions I had read around the internet and my f-list had prepared me for the philosophically objectionable elements, so I was not surprised, only exasperated. However, the fits of exasperation lasted no more than a few seconds, until the next awesome thing came on screen.
If you are going to see this movie, see it in 3-D, and if you can possibly do it, see it in IMAX. I have never in my life had an experience like that. I have never seen anything like it. I was completely and utterly blown away. I was in tears, parts of it were so beautiful, and so real. Even if you know you will find the themes offensive -- which I knew, and which I did -- it is worth seeing. It is that amazing.
I hate movie theaters, I hate long movies, I hate sitting next to other people, I hate things on my face, I hate being out of the house for more than a few hours, I hate having to listen to people eat popcorn and candy, I hate waiting for the movie to start, and I hate paying for the "pleasure" of putting up with all that crap.
I did not care about any of these things. I was riveted. I barely moved or blinked. And I will gladly endure all of those things I hate again, just to see it one more time. I would have gone to see it again immediately, except that I was hungry and thirsty and sort of punchy from the sheer spectacle.
I can only assume that most of the people seeing it and saying "meh, it's okay" didn't see it in IMAX 3-D. That's all I can think. Because I just don't see how it's possible to pan something that looks this fantastic.
I have no problem with people raising legitimate concerns about the movie's themes, and in fact I think we should discuss those things, but I do not understand completely dismissing something this groundbreaking and incredible. It should be criticised. Absolutely. There are things very, very wrong with it, and those things should not be overlooked or dismissed just because this is an unparalleled example of what special effects can do when mixed with first-rate art design.
I wish it had handled things better than it did. I wish it had not done many of the things that it attempted to do and failed to pull off. In many ways, I wish it was a different movie. And yet I can't hold any of its deficiencies against it as it exists in the 3-D theater. Once it comes out of the theater, there will be much less to recommend it, so see it while it's there. Dear god, if you are going to see it, see it big, see it in 3-D, even if you have to drive to do it.
I am displeased with how deeply it played on the myths of the "noble savage." I said pretty much everything I want to say about that here on Sargon's post picking apart the Noble Savage thing.
I dislike the way the mercenaries were portrayed. Within the metaphor of the movie, these men were clearly the stand-in for The Military. Not only were their tactics unsound (they had to be or there wouldn't have been a movie, I realize that) but they were portrayed as total bastards. I really dislike hamhanded attacks on the military and on war itself. I know, that is very conservative of me. It's still how I feel. I don't appreciate one-sided hating of the military -- which is how this will be interpreted -- when it was actually big business that was the real villain here.
I am not a big fan of the peaceful, nature-loving angle. Yes. Peace is nice, nature is beautiful, but the extent to which they carried this rapidly became annoying and insulting to my intelligence. I am too acquainted with human nature and with nature itself to have much stomach for that kind of thing. Nature isn't peaceful. Humans aren't peaceful. Closer to nature does not mean closer to moral center. Peaceful does not mean morally superior.
I do not appreciate a physical handicap being used as a metaphor for "life sucks" when that is not how actual disabled people necessarily or even usually feel about their actual disabilities. Jake's individual situation is understandable; yes, for him, this thing has fucked up his life in a major way. It's terrible for him. He is miserable about it, but stoic (a Good Cripple™). It's not that I don't believe that this has made his life worse. However, the fact that this kind of thing is used all the time in movies to represent some other aspect of the human condition is unacceptable, as is the fact that the Miracle Cure™ is almost never far behind. Disability is not a metaphor for precious authors and filmmakers to use to make their point, any more than race is.
And this movie does that with race as well, using a white guy as the identification character and then using race (species) to represent that white person's struggle to find belonging. And once more, a white guy becomes the crux of an interracial conflict, and the plot hinges on his ability to fix everything. What these folks need is a white guy. Human beings have been destroying and conquering for our entire history. That sort of story will always be relevant. But the ways in which we tell that story are often deeply problematic.
All of this is standard movie fare, so typical we don't often stop to think about how not okay it is to take someone's identity and use it as a symbol in some other metaphor, instead of treating things evenhandedly and respectfully. This is the thing I most expect people to tell me I'm wrong about or am misunderstanding, which is largely going to be because I'm not really expressing myself very well on this point, but I suppose that's a chance I will have to take. It just rubbed me the wrong way.
Like Brokeback Mountain, which I maintain was a gay movie for straight people, this is a movie about race for white people. Only it doesn't do this as well as Brokeback Mountain did. It's possible to tell this sort of story well, it is. I don't even hate this kind of story. I love John Carter of Mars, and dread the day that that movie comes out and people start tearing into it just for being what it is. The thing is, this story has been done a million times. No one movie is the offender, this movie is not the offender, it's all of them together. I would like to see a movie that did things differently, I would like to see this story and also lots of other stories. I would like to see stories that focused on the experiences of disabled people and people of color as characters instead of focusing on them as visible symbols of difference.
It was a beautiful movie, beyond beautiful. It was heartbreakingly pretty. I can't overlook that, nor do I think it should be overlooked. But I don't think its deficiencies should be overlooked either.
I could go on for hours about the amazing, beautiful parts of it. All the moments I jumped and shied because I had forgotten that what I was seeing was not real. How beautiful -- calculatedly so -- the Na'vi were, how real, and how if they hadn't been ten feet tall, they would have been unbearably fucking adorable, what with their little ears and cute their noses. The landscape, so Roger Dean meets Gilbert Williams, more beautiful than anything I had ever imagined, which is really saying something because I spend about 3/4 of my time imagining beautiful things. That this was all done in the service of a plot that was not groundbreaking or challenging in any way is unfortunate.
It's really a mixed blessing. I think it'll change things about the movies, change how they are made. And so it's my hope that because this has proven so popular, this technology and this level of skill and artistry will eventually be used in the service of a story that is worthy of it.
ETA: To address two things.
First, yes, I do think it sucks that some people aren't able to see the 3-D, or cope with the side effects, so that basically, this movie is accessible in its intended format only to those who are not only sighted, but have a certain kind of sightedness, and furthermore, a certain kind of visual processing that doesn't make them seasick just watching it. I wish this weren't an issue. That I am recommending people see this in the theater in 3-D doesn't mean I am disrespecting people for whom that won't work, and it doesn't mean that I think that nothing needs to be done to make entertainment more accessible. There's a huge discussion to be had about art and technology and accessibility, but I'm not having it here, now. It's just too big.
Second, I realize that some of my wording doesn't really hold up. Rather than go back and change it, which I never like doing because I don't like hiding my fuckups, I will just say that if you personally don't want to see it because you cannot overlook the major issues this movie has, I respect that. I don't mean to imply that such objections aren't important, or that I think one should overlook them. What I said above, however, was more or less the opposite; it came across as privileged in a way I did not intend, and I apologize for that. I do not believe that one should put aside one's feelings about the negative elements entirely, simply for the sake of something that is pretty. That is not what my actual words said above, though, because I put my foot in my mouth. So, if I offended you by saying something stupid, I apologize for expressing myself poorly and basically saying something that contradicts my own values. It is often a manifestation of privilege to be able to ignore the problematic elements of something. While everyone has different basic tolerances for that sort of thing, it's a thing that's made easier the less of it you have to deal with -- and that means privileged folks usually don't have as hard a time with it. I have a combination of high basic tolerance and privilege. I apologize for speaking from that place. I can't apologize for thinking the movie is visually amazing, and I can't apologize for the fact that for me personally the visuals outweighed the negatives of basically the entire plot. I confess I can't come up with much of a reason to see it without the IMAX 3-D, however, and that is because I find the content largely unsupportable.