Assignment #8
After reading reviews from Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and Peter Travers, I was able to record several expectations I had regarding Avatar:
- The visual effects in Avatar will be beautiful and impressive. They will contribute substance rather than pure spectacle.
- The characters will be interesting enough to carry the intense action.
- Dialogue will be clunky at times but not unbearably so.
In all three reviews I read, the visual effects were given the most consideration. The three reviewers voiced minor qualms with the quality of character and plot in the film, but they unanimously recommended Avatar based solely on the quality of special effects. Ebert compared the experience to watching the original Star Wars when it was released in 1977–a great deal of buzz around special effects and, ultimately, a successful delivery.
I both agree and disagree with these three critics. On one hand, I would agree that the visual effects are amazing, and perhaps even unprecedented in their quality. It is not just the technology, either–as Ebert says, there is a certain appeal to the aesthetic of the Na’vi people and their environment that is rooted in conscious artistic decision. I also found myself agreeing with their qualms regarding the quality of acting and the somewhat cliche Pocahontas-inspired premise.
After weighing both pros and cons, I did not, however, come to the same conclusion as these reviewers. I don’t believe it is possible for a film to be successful solely on a visual basis unless it is operating within a more formalistic framework. Because Avatar falls into classicism–for the most part–it must have successful characters, dialogue, and story to be successful as a complete work. Ebert’s Star Wars analogy is flawed. George Lucas’s science-fiction classic, though largely carried by the quality of its special effects at the time of its release, also includes a host of the most memorable characters in film history, an iconic score, and a story that is deeply and consciously rooted in myth and tradition.
Perhaps James Cameron should have created a formalistic visual collage or a simple tech demo if he was purely interested in spectacle. Ultimately, he chose to create a classicist film, and thus he has no excuse for the awkward dialogue, static characters, and uninspired premise of Avatar.