A Stunning Visual Experience: Thoughts on James Cameron's Avatar

Yesterday, I finally went to see James Cameron's Avatar in 3D. I had heard a lot of good things about it (primarily about the visuals) as well as a fairly equal amount of criticism concerning the film's lack of originality. Either way, my expectations were fairly high.

And Cameron delivered.

Avatar (in 3D) is one of the most stunning visual experiences of my life. In that regard, Cameron has clearly taken the film medium to a new level. In terms of the story told, I can understand the criticism that it is not original. It simply isn't. Not even by a long shot. If you have seen, say Dances With Wolves and Braveheart, the film is not likely to shock or surprise you with its plot. Nor is Cameron's critique of corporate culture and non-ecological thinking by any means subtle. However, what is all the more fascinating in that respect is that, despite being so unoriginal and unsubtle, it is nevertheless ever so topical and current. And sadly so, I hasten to add. Because it would have been nice if the human race could ever learn something from past mistakes and leave greed (corporate or otherwise) behind.

All of this aside, Avatar tells its story well. Not only in a purely visual sense, but also in terms of storytelling. While it is original neither in terms of themes nor narrative structuring, it nevertheless tells its story in a way I find compelling. Don't get me wrong, the visuals are clearly part of this, but then again, the visuals are also very much a part of telling stories in the medium of film. Cameron's film may not shock or surprise me, but it can still make me invested in the narrative, its world and the characters in it. So, the MacGuffin (of a sort) of the film is neither innovatively nor subtly named (as if all things in real life are), but really, how much of the narrative focuses upon the Unobtainium itself? It is there simply to present the reason for corporate or imperialist greed in whatever form it appears (oil, ivory, diamonds, animal hides, you name it). Would the film really have been so much better if Cameron had come up with a better name for it or invented a more subtle political spectrum for his story? Sure, it might have added dimension to the film, no argument there, but would it necessarily have made it a better story? I'm not so sure. We live in a culture which (sometimes quite paradoxically) puts too much emphasis on originality as if that in and of itself would grant a work artistic or narrative quality.
(In fact, the criticism surrounding Cameron's film has very much reminded me of this particular hobby-horse of mine yet again and as a result I aim to deal with that subject more closely in an upcoming post.)

All in all, Avatar is an enjoyable story and, more than anything else, it is a stunning visual experience. If ever there was a reason to urge people to get out of their sofas and head down to their nearest cinema (and preferably then one with 3D capability), this is it.

A World in 3D – It's RealD!

Okay... so a rather busy week and then to top it off I had planned to write a completely different post than this one. But, for reasons that will become apparent (I hope), I just had to write this one first and postpone the other one until my next update.

See, this Monday I spoke to a friend and colleague who absolutely raved about Coraline 3D. Now, as a big fan of both Neil Gaiman's book and director Henry Selick's previous, wonderful collaboration with Tim Burton (i.e. The Nightmare Before Christmas, in case anyone had missed that), it's almost a wee bit odd that I'd not already seen it, but I do believe the trailer simply didn't catch my interest enough. What I had seen seemed lighter and... fluffier somehow, than the book as I remember it.

As it is, I'm kind of happy that I hadn't already been to see it. Because if I had, it would most likely not have been Coraline 3D I'd gone for but the regular Coraline feature. I mean, why waste extra money on 3D, right? I remember 3D. It became rather fashionable for a while back there in my childhood in the 80s. Red and green glasses on the whole family in the sofa in front of the telly watching Creature From The Black Lagoon and all that. Followed by a wave of other TV stuff (especially directed at kids) as well as a few comics. Fun to be sure, but still... not something I'd spend a bundle of extra cash on, really.

Don't get me wrong. It's not as if I thought the technology hadn't advanced or anything. I simply just didn't figure it was my particular cuppa. Not something that I required, as it were. But my friend's raving was as much about the whole 3D thing as the film itself. How the two worked ever so well to create depth in the fictional world of the piece. And it was the latter that really sold it to me. I simply had to see this film... and in 3D.

The technology is new, to be sure. Gone are the red and green glasses, now replaced by some nifty looking "sunglasses" (though they're not really sunglasses, of course; the caveat on the package made this abundantly clear in about three different languages). RealD is obviously the term for this new 3D technology and it relies on polarized light in some fashion or other, from what I've understood.

Yet, what is most amazing, at least with Coraline 3D (and also seemingly with Ice Age 3, Up and G-Force from what I could tell from the 3D trailers they showed at the cinema; all looking really good to different degrees), was not the great technology in and of itself, but rather how it was used. There has always been an impetus to use 3D to reach out and grab the audience, scare them and figuratively poke them in their eyes (something which Coraline 3D does quite literally at one point, but at least with a very good reason). This is probably why the technology has often been applied to horror films (the aforementioned Creature from the Black Lagoon leaps to mind), and still is to at least some degree. I couldn't help noticing a poster for My Bloody Valentine 3D, a film for which I, despite all my newly found love for the RealD format, couldn't muster even the slightest enthusiasm.

Coraline 3D, on the other hand, uses the technology mostly to, as my friend put it, create depth in the fictional and animated world it projects. And with great effect, at that. The whole world came to life before me in a new way, and part of me think it's telling that it is an animated film that manages to do this so well (note that the trailers mentioned above, that caught my eye as well, are all for animated films as well). It may well be that animation knows, as it were, how to use the technology to help tell the story rather than (as effects of all sorts can be manhandled at times) using a story – any story – to showcase the latest and greatest in terms of effects.

In short, what this film shows is the profound and ages old practice of excellence in storytelling. Of using whatever effects, stylistic or technical, that you have at hand to tell the story, and tell it in the best possible way. This is no mere showcase of a proverbial fireworks display saying look-at-what-we-can-do. It is a sincere case of we're-here-to-tell-you-a-story-and-we-will-use-all-the-tools-available-to-us-in-order-to-tell-it-the-best-way-we-possibly-can. And a very successful case, at that.

It also hints at this being an ongoing option already for animated films. This is, I'll admit, an assumption on my part thus far, but one I'll stick with for the time being, taking the aforementioned 3D trailers into account (and let's remember that trailers are usually keen on showing off effects for effects' sake. So if that's not a burden in a trailer, it seems less likely to be a burden in the finished product).

All in all, I'm gearing up to watch at least two more 3D films before the end of this year: Pixar's Up and Disney's G Force. Worlds in 3D – it's RealD!