Review: Avatar (2009)
Mark Leeper
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: AVATAR is very much a DANCES WITH WOLVES
set on an alien world. It brings to the screen some
great imaginative sequences and some great lapses
in imagination. It is about great evils in our
past, but becomes a simplistic and self-righteous
polemic. Like James Cameron's previous film,
TITANIC, there are enough good bits to make a really
great film and enough bad bits to make a real
stinker. Go for what is good and ignore the bad.
Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10
Spoiler warning: There are some spoilers in this review.
When I was growing up in the 1960s, what I considered the most
beautiful science fiction images would show up on the cover of the
science fiction magazine ANALOG. An artist named Jack Schoenherr
painted many of these covers. To me science fiction worlds and
alien species looked exactly like Jack Schoenherr painted them.
Science fiction films always fell a little short of creating that
imagery, though I felt his influence in STAR WARS, DUNE, and LOST
IN SPACE. (Admittedly this art was not all by Schoenherr, but it
still showed his influence.) James Cameron is the first director
to create a world in a science fiction film that reminds me of
Analog. AVATAR has the most fully visually realized science
fiction world I can remember in a science fiction film. Cameron
has envisioned a beautiful alien world complete with only semi-
Earthlike creatures. Some of his images could be from ANALOG and
some from Cameron's own film THE ABYSS. There are dragons and
forest predators. There are horses and flying reptiles. The film
is a joy to look at. But it is not an unalloyed joy. The visuals
still had their problems. But I am getting ahead of myself.
The year is 2154 and Earth humans have a mining operation on the
alien world Pandora. Huge machines move the earth operated by men
who must wear masks in this atmosphere. The goal of the mining is
to get even miniscule amounts of the valuable mineral unobtanium.
The mining operation is running into trouble from the local
population, the Na'vi, who are so-called "savages". They are on
about the level of sophistication that the Native Americans were
when the Europeans came to the New World. The natives want the
mining operation to stay out of their sacred lands. To study the
local people Dr. Grace Augustine (played by Sigourney Weaver) uses
Avatars. These are alien-like bodies that humans when asleep, can
project their minds into. The humans basically created alien
bodies for themselves. One human who does this is Jake Sully (Sam
Worthington), a former Marine and now a paraplegic. He no longer
can have a good life as a human so after some coercion he agrees to
project his sleeping mind into an alien avatar. But being able to
put himself in the place of the Na'vi things go much the way they
did in DANCES WITH WOLVES or THE WILBY CONSPIRACY or DISTRICT 9.
He begins to appreciate them as people and to respect their
culture. Each film goes much the same way and makes the same
statement. There never is any doubt that that is what Cameron, who
wrote AVATAR as well as directed, is going to do with this story.
What surprised me was how heavily and pretentiously he lays on this
message.
Now what did I dislike about the visuals? Well, the aliens are
basically human-like with faces and tails like big cats. This goes
back to the imagery described by Edgar Rice Burroughs whose alien
creatures on Mars were chimera-like combinations of Earth
creatures. How likely is it that something would evolve with human
bodies and cat faces? How much different would the story have been
had the combination been pigs with cat faces? We have that "Star
Trek" conceit working for us that almost all aliens look like us.
The females all had luscious bodies that were only minimally
covered. It is convenient that in their culture they have chosen
to cover the same anatomical bits that we do. And there seem to be
loose-hanging bits of their harem-like costumes. Somehow they are
not all scratched up. It makes for enjoyable images, but it does
not take much thinking. The animals of the planet come in shapes
and much like variations on Earth creatures. When we see a native
horse, there is no doubt in our mind that it is a horse even if its
lines are somewhat different. It has six legs, but it still is
obviously a horse. Cameron does not stray too far from Earth
animals on Pandora.
The story is very much like the history of what happened to Native
Americans in our own country, very likely the Lakota of the Black
Hills of South Dakota. The had their sacred lands, and they were
sitting on the their own version of "unobtanium", namely gold. But
there is in the film no one who asks if the situation is not a lot
like how the Native Americans were treated in the Americas and
isn't history's verdict that that was a terrible injustice? It is
possible that a supremely irresponsible government might ignore the
rights of the indigenous population, but that nobody even notices
the parallels needed some serious explanation in the script and it
is just not there. Cameron takes shots at the American military
(or the government) from the Indian Wars up to the Iraq War. He
makes a comment about how we find some resource we want and then
declare the people who have it "the enemy". I may sometimes feel
that was the reason, but it is a bit of an oversimplification.
Even if I agree with Cameron, I respect the alternative view and
not think this particular piece of politics belongs in this film.
Ironically, the same corporation that brings you Fox News produced
the film. The Fox Corporation is so big occasionally pieces it try
to sue other pieces and have to be reminded that a company should
not sue itself.
Some problems could have been fixed. Apparently cigarettes and
attack helicopters will be a lot the same in 2154 as they are
today. So will be phrases like "in *this* economy" and "shock and
awe" that are more from our time than of 2154.
AVATAR is what I call a film of high standard deviation. Parts and
aspects of the film are a lot better than other parts. So with
some ambivalence I give AVATAR a middling rating of high +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/>
What others are saying:
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/>
Mark R. Leeper
mle...@optonline.net
Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper
Al
> When I was growing up in the 1960s, what I considered the most
> beautiful science fiction images would show up on the cover of the
> science fiction magazine ANALOG. An artist named Jack Schoenherr
> painted many of these covers. To me science fiction worlds and
> alien species looked exactly like Jack Schoenherr painted them.
> Science fiction films always fell a little short of creating that
> imagery, though I felt his influence in STAR WARS, DUNE, and LOST
> IN SPACE.
I think you meant John Schoenherr. He was a great artist of SF
illustration.
Many remember John W Campbell as the editor who changed the face of
modern SF prose,
from 1938 on he demanded good stories with either real science or
believable extrapolated science.
He pretty much got it from Heinlein , Asimov and Clarke and a host of
others. (Alas psi powers where , at that time,
considered possibly connected to real science , one area where he kind
of ran off the tracks.)
One aspect that people forget is that Campbell banished BEMs and
brass bras from the covers of ASF.
Campbell always had an eye for art that melded with the new
sophistication in science fiction he was striving for.
First there was Rogers (alas a forgotten fine SF artist) , the great
Kelly Freas and Ed Emshwiller (EMSH). Freas and
EMSH (who worked more for Galaxy) were wondrous visualizers of
verisimilitude. Especially the 'lived-in' future fiction SF
that the writers were evoking with their prose. (Another great SF
artists for ASF was Van Dongen , who along with Schoenherr
extended the ASF magic into the 60's.)
One should be mindful that other magazines ,Galaxy and F&SF were doing
great SF art , for their covers (F&SF did not do interior illos).
Though in Galaxy and F&SF's case the prose move was now to
'sociological science fiction' so to speak, sometimes even when the
science was
as 'hard' as it was in ASF.
To get OT, the final realization of combining sophisticated science
fiction with imagery was Kubrick's 2001 : A Space Odyssey (with
Clarke's help of course).
2001 is an oddity , a real BIG THINKS SF story in the spirit of modern
SF prose. Hollywood would never touch such a project today!
Well... in present time big budget films are all about being a thrill
ride by way of CGI technology ... at least Avatar had a better story
than 2010 (was there a story there?!), but as a science fiction
narrative ... to me, as a nearly 55 year reader of modern SF prose...
I would rank Cameron's story as pretty second rate (compared to great
SF prose.... not supposed to do that? Well I am going to, so there!)
Hollywood finally came around to PC Westerns , what?, with John Ford's
last film ,so so many years ago.
Translating an American Western into science fiction is an old ploy
done in prose before film. Star Trek did it 40 years ago.
The bigger question is , how long will E-ticket film technology
dominate BIG MOVIES story wise?
Recently I can't think of a CGI dominated film that had an engaging
well integrated story..
Even The Dark Knight , not as CGI dominated as Avatar really only had
the performance of Heath Ledger ... I like the darker edged comic book
story but one leaves the theater thinking 'Is that all there is?
'Fraid felt the same way about Avatar... yes the 3D CGI FX work is the
best I have ever seen but I don't plan to soon go back and see the
film, which is my criteria for a film that made an impression on me.
Maybe we are stuck forever with empty behemoths ... no one in
Hollywood is going to put up money for an FX laden film that makes you
think.*
(*I think I must qualify , I loved LTOR , and consider Tolkien's
ripping yarn a thoughtful fantasy , but not that deep. No Country for
Old Men made me think more than LTOR. I suppose Guillermo del Toro
will be making some good fantasy films in the future that lean of big
CGI ... it remains a mystery if he or someone else can make a big FX
film with thoughtful engagement.
Adaptation of prose to film form is , to me an almost impossible
undertaking.... but I have seen it done!
No better example than John Huston, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure
of the Sierra Madre , The African Queen, Moby Dick (yeah I am one of
those who think this an unjustly overlooked masterpiece, and I think
Ray Bradbury contributed more to the screenplay than Huston), what a
gem is The Man Who Would Be King with Huston even improving and
expanding on Rudyard Kipling!, and who in their right mind would have
tackled Flannery O'Connor! by making Wise Blood.
There is a long list of great adaptions and bad adaptations, why has
Richard Matheson's outstanding classic I AM Legend been sized upon , 3
times, with such indifference!?
Two high art directors have good films (Tarkovsky edging out
Soderbergh) out of Solaris, but my view Solaris is un-filmable. I love
the novel , but consider it not cinematic.
Figuring out what prose SF would make good cinema is a problem , ....
Left Hand of Darkness seemingly would take an other worldly genius to
make, ... but a 'doctored' Stars My Destination seems to lend itself
to a sophisticated baroque space opera such as no one has ever seen.
One could go on and on ... however be careful .... it is up to the
writer and director to master the spirit of modern SF prose, maybe
only Kubrick has done this.
Al
> AVATAR
> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
> When I was growing up in the 1960s, what I considered the most
> beautiful science fiction images would show up on the cover of the
> science fiction magazine ANALOG. An artist named Jack Schoenherr
> painted many of these covers. To me science fiction worlds and
> alien species looked exactly like Jack Schoenherr painted them.
I think you mean John Schoenherr , who indeed was Analog's great
artist of the 1960's, not only his paintings for the covers but also
his interior illos.
However it was John W Campbell who had the biggest impact on the cover
and interior illustration art for science fiction magazines.
In a way that is an odd thing to say.... because John Campbell is
better remembered for hauling modern science fiction prose into a
realm of sophistication that it had slipped from (that is back to it
roots in H.G. Wells).(Not that intelligent SF had disappeared, it was
just sparse in 1938. When Campbell took over editing Astounding (later
Analog) (ASF) he demanded first good stories and good science or good
extrapolated science , whence he found Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke ,
and a host of others.
Campbell had an eye for illustration art, his writers were infusing
their prose with verisimilitude and a 'lived-in' feel, especially in
'future fiction' SF that he wanted to capture in art (he banished BEMs
and brass bras!). That is why one sees all the wonderful covers by
first Rogers in the late 30's through the 40's, then he really hit
artistic pay dirt with Kelly Freas and Ed Emshwiller (alas EMSH is not
as well known as Freas tho he was that artist's peer, EMSH appeared
more often on Galaxy and F&SF), later John Schoenheer in the 1960s.
Campbell was not the only SF magazine editor with an eye for making a
junction between stylish enlightened prose appearing in modern SF and
art but he was one of the best.
It was not until Kubrick's eye fell on SF as a cinema form did we get
a movie to match visual and intellectual level of modern SF prose.
Evelyn Leeper
> On Dec 22, 9:19 pm, Mark Leeper <mlee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> AVATAR
>> (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
>
>> When I was growing up in the 1960s, what I considered the most
>> beautiful science fiction images would show up on the cover of the
>> science fiction magazine ANALOG. An artist named Jack Schoenherr
>> painted many of these covers. To me science fiction worlds and
>> alien species looked exactly like Jack Schoenherr painted them.
>
>
>
> I think you mean John Schoenherr , who indeed was Analog's great
> artist of the 1960's, not only his paintings for the covers but also
> his interior illos.
Yes--he was known as "Jack" at conventions and such.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem
which he has to solve. -Erich Fromm
Rich T
> Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper
Are we ready for an attempt at "The Mote in God's Eye"?
Greg Goss
>When I was growing up in the 1960s, what I considered the most
>beautiful science fiction images would show up on the cover of the
>science fiction magazine ANALOG. An artist named Jack Schoenherr
>painted many of these covers. To me science fiction worlds and
>alien species looked exactly like Jack Schoenherr painted them.
>Science fiction films always fell a little short of creating that
>imagery, though I felt his influence in STAR WARS, DUNE, and LOST
>IN SPACE. (Admittedly this art was not all by Schoenherr, but it
>still showed his influence.) James Cameron is the first director
>to create a world in a science fiction film that reminds me of
>Analog.
A couple of decades before Schoenherr, the best planetary paintings
were by Bonestell. I was thinking of Bonestell a few times through
this movie.
Schoenherr was never a big name to me. But I'll agree with you about
the Analog covers so long as we change the artist's name.
>The humans basically created alien
>bodies for themselves. One human who does this is Jake Sully (Sam
>Worthington), a former Marine and now a paraplegic. He no longer
>can have a good life as a human so after some coercion he agrees to
>project his sleeping mind into an alien avatar.
Nobody really wanted him. His twin brother had two years training for
this mission, then got killed in a mugging just before the mission
departed. Each avatar is built around the operator's DNA, so the
large amount of money invested in growing the "matched" alien would be
wasted unless they can convince the dead guy's twin brother to take
his place.
>How likely is it that something would evolve with human
>bodies and cat faces?
Especially when the standard vertebrate layout in this ecosystem is
four forelimbs and two hind limbs. We see the Pandoran equivalent of
a lemur for a second or so early on in the film with four arms.
So why only two forelimbs in the dominant species?
And why does every animal have a comm port for riders to plug into?
>Some problems could have been fixed. Apparently cigarettes and
>attack helicopters will be a lot the same in 2154 as they are
>today. So will be phrases like "in *this* economy" and "shock and
>awe" that are more from our time than of 2154.
The helicopters are supposedly from 2080 or 2100. They're using
obsolete equipment because the newer stuff can't handle the magnetic
fields etc.
Why are there double rotors in each "wing" of the helicopters? With
two "wings", the torques would cancel even with one blade, and there
would be much less complexity.
>AVATAR is what I call a film of high standard deviation. Parts and
>aspects of the film are a lot better than other parts. So with
>some ambivalence I give AVATAR a middling rating of high +1 on the
>-4 to +4 scale or 6/10.
I'd say 8/10. Perhaps higher if there's a backstory novel that
explains the USB ports or why the people lost their extra forearms.
I mainly downcheck it because the head bad guy is too much of a
caricature.
And because I can't buy it that the "white guy" with three months
training can accomplish a trick that only five guys in the history of
the planet have done with training from birth on similar tricks.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Mbruno
> Mark Leeper <mlee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >How likely is it that something would evolve with human
> >bodies and cat faces?
>
> Especially when the standard vertebrate layout in this ecosystem is
> four forelimbs and two hind limbs. We see the Pandoran equivalent of
> a lemur for a second or so early on in the film with four arms.
In fact, if you look carefully at the Pandoran lemurs, the four
forelimbs are partially fused together, i.e they have four forearms
and four hands, but only two arms actually. Probably the lemurs are to
the Na'vi as apes are to Humans on Earth. At some point in their
evolutionary history, the two species diverged and the forearms of the
Na'vi ancestors were also fused together. Na'vi anatomy (e.g. bone
configuration) should however show vestigial evidence of six-limbed
ancestry.
Another point I find odd is that, as far as I can tell, no Pandoran
animals seem to have body hair. How come the Na'vi have it then ?
>
> So why only two forelimbs in the dominant species?
>
> And why does every animal have a comm port for riders to plug into?
As I understand it, the "comm ports" are actually external neuro
synaptic conduits that grow from the animals' cortexes. In most
animals, they are found in two antenna-like structures on the head
(whch may even have remote communication capabilities. e.g. with the
organic neural net). The Na'vi on the other hand have their external
neuro conduits under a single pony tail like structure. As intelligent
beings, the Na'vi must have learned over time to use those "mind-
melding" capabilities in a conscious way, e.g. to tame the animals
they ride or to access the database in the willow trees. Other animals
probably also engage in some degree of "mind bonding" among
themselves, but not consciously or at the same level of sophistication
as the Na'vi can do it.
Now, going back to your question, how likely would it be for such a
fairly sophisticated ecology to arise from Darwinian evolution as we
know it ? I have no idea, but asuming the nervous system of all
animals is the result of a common evolutionary thread, it is not
entirely implausible that similar external appendages (the "comm
ports") would show up in different species. A trickier question would
be how communication per se ("bonding") would be possible given that
the different animals probably have very different electrochemical
brain patterns (i.e different "protocols"). Maybe Jim Cameron
discussed that with expert neuroscientists.
>
> And because I can't buy it that the "white guy" with three months
> training can accomplish a trick that only five guys in the history of
> the planet have done with training from birth on similar tricks.
That's actually the "human chauvinism" part of the script (how
ironic !). A body with mixed Human/Na'vi genetic information,
operated remotely by a fearless and creative human mind is capable of
doing things no "pure" Na'vi mind or body could do. Jake's avatar
starts out "like a baby" (to use Neytiri's words), but, in the end,
not only does he become the Na'vi's greatest leader, but also the
"chosen one", capable even of riding the mighty "Toruk". Apparently,
even the sentient organic bio-net foresaw Jake's "potential for
greatness", after the woodsprites scanned him early in the movie.
JohnSmith
"Mbruno" <br...@ele.ita.br> wrote in message
news:26d5d89c-2190-4eeb...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On 31 dez 2009, 12:52, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Mark Leeper <mlee...@optonline.net> wrote:
As I understand it, the "comm ports" are actually external neuro
synaptic conduits that grow from the animals' cortexes. In most
animals, they are found in two antenna-like structures on the head
**********************************
why wouldn't the usb ports be part of the mating ritual (i.e. there is
actually an 'inserting of apendage into another creature' that
occurs very often). seems like the best place to put the port.
"chosen one", capable even of riding the mighty "Toruk". Apparently,
even the sentient organic bio-net foresaw Jake's "potential for
greatness", after the woodsprites scanned him early in the movie.
***************************
perhaps (wild speculation, fan wankery) the bio-net knew that to
save itself, it had to put the avatar on the toruk (to get the clans
together). if it can email all the space-hippos to charge the
marines, it can email the toruk to let the avatar ride it.
jim beam
<snip>
have you seen district 9 yet? i like your review style and am
interested in your opinion.
Mark Leeper
Thank you. I appreciate that.
The DISRICT 9 review can be found at <http://leepers.us/
district9.htm>.
--Mark