| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Sinomania | Main | Aleksandar Hemon in Conversation with Colum McCann »

January 22, 2010

Don't Play With That, Or You'll Go Blind

Avatar_JamesCameron-thumb-400x601-11525.img_assist_custom Caleb Crain in n+1:

James Cameron's 3-D movie Avatar [is]...a finished corruptness. The easiest way I can think of to describe it is by comparison with The Matrix, a movie which is merely disingenuous, and to some extent struggling with its disingenuousness. The moral lesson that The Matrix purports to offer is that the glossy magic of life inside a simulation distracts from painful truth. But the moral problem faced by the Matrix is that this lesson is betrayed by the fun that the movie has in playing inside the simulation. A viewer enjoys the scenes of jumping over buildings, and of freezing explosions and fistfights in midair and then rotoscoping through them. In fact, the viewer enjoys them much more than the scenes of what, within the conceit of the movie, is considered reality. There may be a brief yucky thrill to learning that in reality people are grown in pods so their energy can be harvested by robots, but as a matter of aesthetics, reality in The Matrix turns out to be drab and constricted by gravity and other laws of physics. The closing sequence, where Neo (Keanu Reeves) plugs back in to the matrix and runs a sort of special-effects victory lap, makes no sense, in terms of the moral victory he is supposed to have won. If he has really joined the blue-pill team, he ought to be sitting down to another bowl of bacterial gruel with his ragged, unshowered friends, and recommitting himself to the struggle. Instead he's leaping around in a Prada suit. So the viewer departs from the movie with a slightly queasy feeling, a suspicion that visual pleasures aren't to be trusted. That queasiness is the trace of the movie's attenuated honesty.

And such queasiness and honesty are completely absent from Avatar. Some might protest: But what about Avatar's anti-imperialism and anti-corporate attitudinizing? They're red herrings, in my opinion, planted by Cameron with the cynical intention of distracting the viewer from the movie's more serious ideological work: convincing you to love your simulation—convincing you to surrender your queasiness. The audacity of Cameron's movie is to make believe that the artificial world of computer-generated graphics offers a truer realm of nature than our own.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 01:00 AM | Permalink

Comments

With all due respect....what a load of judgmental pish.

Posted by: Z Fohrman | Jan 22, 2010 9:08:48 AM

Perhaps.
But no more judgmental than the transparently Aesop quality of the film.
One man's didacticism is another man's judgment.

My problem with the film is the perpetuation of the Myth of Redemptive Violence so my sympathy for the reviewer is already tilted. Once I realized what was happening all that remained was admiring special effects as the last third of the film unwound.

Posted by: John Ballard | Jan 22, 2010 11:51:05 AM

You missed the foundational essence of the Matrix: the world we think we live in is largely generated by media propaganda owned by military industrial complex interests.

Avatar advances the notion that one's dwelling place is the one place one can't ruin without ruining one's life in the process.

Posted by: Dredd | Jan 22, 2010 12:04:56 PM

A recent NYTimes article informed us that young people are now spending nearly every waking moment in a virtual world - TV, iphones, the internet and video games. Avatar sends the message that this virtual world is better than the real physical world. Far from being radical, it merely enforces established habits and panders to them. It is a reactionary movie, and therefore highly successful. How sad that children no longer climb trees.

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Jan 22, 2010 12:19:42 PM

To sum up the article, it wasn't Kidulthood, so the author got a little cheesed-off.

Avatar is fundamentally a parable -- which admittedly carries certain storytelling baggage -- one not about denying reality but about choosing an uninsulated reality over a safer and less consequential one. The jungle is far more "real" in the story's world than the air-conditioned artificial bubble the humans have made for themselves. It's a movie about making decisions, placing one party who can grasp the philosophical against others who are content to let the momentum of past miscalculations unfold. It's not a perfect film, but it is a remarkably good one.

It's too bad if the imagery was a bit distracting for the old men here, but if it's any consolation, yes, children still climb trees here in the real world.

Posted by: Space Toast | Jan 22, 2010 3:01:02 PM

@Space Toast:
I believe your conception of 'reality' in Avatar is inverted. While the Na'vi conceit (indeed, the ostensible pretense of the film) is that their world is the more natural, and, as you say, "uninsulated," quite the opposite turns out to be true. In a childish deus ex, we discover that the wildlife of Pandora unites in a fantastic alliance against the evil humans, who face more hardship in their quite exposed existence than the Na'vi, who live a life quite free from danger. It seems as if you're confusing the necessity of an air supply in a poisonous atmosphere with metaphorical insulation.

Posted by: Dale | Jan 22, 2010 4:12:08 PM

Pretty cool read.

There's certainly a fair bit of hypocrisy in the film's anti-corporate, anti technology agenda given how much it cost to make.

But isn't all fiction a fantasy?

I honestly fail to see how Avatar is any less 'real' than Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or for matter Abbas Kirostami's A Taste of Cherry.

Whether it's crafted with pixels or actors every film is a carefully crafted illusion.

Posted by: Lyndon | Jan 22, 2010 6:15:14 PM

Lyndon, you need to think what a living actor brings to a performance. It's the same thing a real person brings to an interaction with you. Mystery, depth, otherness -- humanity that you don't control, and that no one else does either. It has nothing to do with entertainment, carefully crafted or otherwise. It is instead about the fathomless reach into your soul that an actor -- a fellow human -- can have. Please reconsider, please let it happen -- don't settle.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 23, 2010 12:16:09 AM

This post reeks of the ejaculate of intellectual masturbation. Way to go 3QD guys for letting this one slide in.

Posted by: rememberpersonalinfo | Jan 24, 2010 5:18:16 AM

(*lights up*) So how was it for you?

Posted by: John Ballard | Jan 24, 2010 4:52:44 PM

This review was profoundly silly. Other than the queasiness the movie apparently provoked in the author, I don't really understand his objections to the movie.

Posted by: blah | Jan 25, 2010 3:44:42 AM

I saw the film with my wife (who is not a sci-fi fan) and we both quite enjoyed it...

OK..its a morality play with a somewhat dubious scientific basis and an anti-corporate, violent flavor to it...but its aesthetic qualities put it well above the usual drivel that spews forth from Hollywood USA..

Can anyone here just enjoy a film? C'mon! It's a fable, not a documentary! Stop the wanking, pleez...Somebody has clean up the mess!

Posted by: Bill | Jan 25, 2010 10:13:44 AM

Sophisticated and expensive technological effects may dazzle while you are watching them, but 10 minutes after leaving Avatar, I had forgotten it completely. The film has all the substance of cotton candy. Even my 9 year old preferred Ironman because of Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. A real actor with humanity and wit beats a video game any time.

Posted by: J.H. | Jan 25, 2010 10:44:46 AM

I just read on the BBC website that much of Pandora's scenery is based on the mountains in the Wulingyuan Scenic Area of China's Hunan province. I have been there and it is probably one of the most beautiful and stunning places in the world. Go if you get a chance.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8480954.stm

Posted by: J.H. | Jan 26, 2010 11:20:07 AM

The movie sweeps you up for sure. I think that Crain definitely has a point, that its main message stems from the way it was made, not what it says about Vietnam or Iraq. The world of computer animation, where each pixel is controlled by an object, which is controlled by a graphic sub-function, which is controlled by the main program, is a direct analog of hierachical medieval view, in which every grain of sand was controlled by an angel, which was controlled by an archangel, which was ordered around by God. It is no coincidence that the Nawi heroes of this movie are animists, because that is how they were made.
I expect this movie to be called as a main witness for the defense in the trial of the Fort Hood killer psychiatrist. Just replace Planet Pandora with Heaven + 74 virgins, and you're there.

Posted by: aguy109 | Jan 31, 2010 12:45:03 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Al on Franzen, Wallace and the Question of Realism

aguy109 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

aguy109 on The Pathology of Stabilisation in Complex Adaptive Systems

Ken Pidcock on How to win a fight against twenty children

Erich on How to win a fight against twenty children

reader on How to win a fight against twenty children

Carlos on Franzen, Wallace and the Question of Realism

Janet Kerr on Olivia Chaney -Aupres de ma Blonde

omar on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

j_93 on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

droog on How to win a fight against twenty children

Mike Cope on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

Dredd on Sanctions Don’t Promote Democratic Change

Louise Gordon on How to win a fight against twenty children

Seyma on Snowboarding at Night

aguy109 on Whitney Houston: Didn't we almost have it all

aguy109 on Matzo ball memories

j_93 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Mike H. on Whitney Houston: Didn't we almost have it all

Jim on the tyrant's wife

Evert Cilliers on Why Is the Amazing Movie Directed by Angelina Jolie not on the Oscar List?

modernguy(NeanderthalGuy) on Why Is the Amazing Movie Directed by Angelina Jolie not on the Oscar List?

aguy109 on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Orla Schantz on Bubbles: Spheres, Volume I: Microspherology

Kabir on Reacting to Reactionary Muslims

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed