The Avatar Message
I saw Avatar last night with my two sons, and after hearing everyone who's seen it offer up the quite elaborate response of "Wow," I can see why they say that. I could go into great detail of every item of note regarding this groundbreaking picture, but I just want to briefly touch on two things. One is about the production itself, and the other is about something in the story.
First, the production. The 3-D effect has certainly come quite a long way. It has become so advanced that many more films, particularly those with the kinds of special effects that were in this one, will be adopting this format.
The key thought I had regarded the boundary of our vision, that is, the 3-D effect was limited within that rectangular box. In some sense I felt I was watching a motion dynorama, you know, like those scenes you'd create in the second grade with the cut-out shoebox containing little plastic figures and cotton and pipe-cleaners. Avatar was just like that except everything moved around within it.
My point has to do with this question: When are they going to make the screen big enough, yes even bigger than the IMAX screen, to encompass our complete field of vision? With the inevitable march of progress, that has to be coming down the pike in a few years. When it does, I think also about the extent to which filmakers can further blur the line between reality and fantasy.
The second point had to do with a theme within the story of the film, which I've read from more than a few commenters that it was just a more elaborate Pochahontas or Dances With Wolves. Yeah, yeah, got that. In fact it was more like James Cameron 1986 Aliens as far as the look goes, but I really liked Aliens so, that's cool.
But here's the point regarding the whole environmental thing. In the film the natives are really in touch with the environment, the trees, all that. A scientist even hypothesizes that the flora on this planet employ a special undiscovered network of sublimely ethereal communication among them.
Intriguing, but the more mundane aspect is merely that the enviroment is a resource. Indeed the battle between the conceptions of how to use the resources is a feature of the story. On the one hand you've got the invaders, the earth people with their big machines bent on exploiting the mineral riches underneath the natives' land, and on the other hand you've got the natives who have a keen sense of the power within the flora, and part of their livelihood is their connection to it. Yeah, yeah, cowboys and Indians, been done. I'm not here saying who's right and who's wrong.
All I want to do is point out the much more significant truth that
Someone must manage what's done with the resource.
It must be someone, and a whole bunch of people will line up behind that someone.
The film clearly takes the very politically correct side of the natives, and I'm not arguing against that position necessarily. The point is they are still dogmatically making a claim of their prerogative to manage resources. And if they get together to do that, they must form some turgid organization to govern that management. And if they have a government there must be laws to mitigate the effects of what is done by those who disagree with them. And if there is great enough conflict about that...
Then you have war.
And as the gratuitous war in the film got heated up, I could only think about how savage each group was -- yes, including the natives. They were just as savage as the invaders. (Hmm, this was the thread of my last webzine home page piece...)
No matter how righteous their cause seemed to be, they were just as virulently belligerent as the more technologically advanced exploiters. Darn it all, as it has been said bazillions of times before...
There are no good guys.
Well, at least among those bonking their heads on one another out there in the World anyway...
I've written all of this merely to direct you to my most recent home page piece, about the reality of resource management. Who does it, and who do the resource managers listen to regarding the arrangement of who gets what resources? Somebody is managing your resources. Do you know who that is? Take a look, I'd love to know what you think.
(A few years ago I blogged on the ramifications of more real looking CGI in film. That's here.)
_
First, the production. The 3-D effect has certainly come quite a long way. It has become so advanced that many more films, particularly those with the kinds of special effects that were in this one, will be adopting this format.
The key thought I had regarded the boundary of our vision, that is, the 3-D effect was limited within that rectangular box. In some sense I felt I was watching a motion dynorama, you know, like those scenes you'd create in the second grade with the cut-out shoebox containing little plastic figures and cotton and pipe-cleaners. Avatar was just like that except everything moved around within it.
My point has to do with this question: When are they going to make the screen big enough, yes even bigger than the IMAX screen, to encompass our complete field of vision? With the inevitable march of progress, that has to be coming down the pike in a few years. When it does, I think also about the extent to which filmakers can further blur the line between reality and fantasy.
The second point had to do with a theme within the story of the film, which I've read from more than a few commenters that it was just a more elaborate Pochahontas or Dances With Wolves. Yeah, yeah, got that. In fact it was more like James Cameron 1986 Aliens as far as the look goes, but I really liked Aliens so, that's cool.
But here's the point regarding the whole environmental thing. In the film the natives are really in touch with the environment, the trees, all that. A scientist even hypothesizes that the flora on this planet employ a special undiscovered network of sublimely ethereal communication among them.
Intriguing, but the more mundane aspect is merely that the enviroment is a resource. Indeed the battle between the conceptions of how to use the resources is a feature of the story. On the one hand you've got the invaders, the earth people with their big machines bent on exploiting the mineral riches underneath the natives' land, and on the other hand you've got the natives who have a keen sense of the power within the flora, and part of their livelihood is their connection to it. Yeah, yeah, cowboys and Indians, been done. I'm not here saying who's right and who's wrong.
All I want to do is point out the much more significant truth that
Someone must manage what's done with the resource.
It must be someone, and a whole bunch of people will line up behind that someone.
The film clearly takes the very politically correct side of the natives, and I'm not arguing against that position necessarily. The point is they are still dogmatically making a claim of their prerogative to manage resources. And if they get together to do that, they must form some turgid organization to govern that management. And if they have a government there must be laws to mitigate the effects of what is done by those who disagree with them. And if there is great enough conflict about that...
Then you have war.
And as the gratuitous war in the film got heated up, I could only think about how savage each group was -- yes, including the natives. They were just as savage as the invaders. (Hmm, this was the thread of my last webzine home page piece...)
No matter how righteous their cause seemed to be, they were just as virulently belligerent as the more technologically advanced exploiters. Darn it all, as it has been said bazillions of times before...
There are no good guys.
Well, at least among those bonking their heads on one another out there in the World anyway...
I've written all of this merely to direct you to my most recent home page piece, about the reality of resource management. Who does it, and who do the resource managers listen to regarding the arrangement of who gets what resources? Somebody is managing your resources. Do you know who that is? Take a look, I'd love to know what you think.
(A few years ago I blogged on the ramifications of more real looking CGI in film. That's here.)
_
Comments
Post a Comment