I went with some friends to see Avatar on Friday. I had been pretty annoyed that it got so many Academy Award nominations, but I had not actually seen the film, so my annoyance was based on absolutely nothing. I no longer feel that way. It is an absolutely stunning film, in terms of immersive special effects–James Cameron has created a beautiful, convincing world, which, quite frankly, I wouldn’t object to living in. And the film entertains: it’s nearly 3-hours long, but it doesn’t feel that long for a moment. It deserves the nominations for these reasons alone.
Story-wise, however, it’s nothing special. But you’ve probably heard that. You may even have seen this hilarious Avatar Plot Fail:
see more Epic Fails
I’ve never seen Pocahantas, but that sounds about right. I saw a lot of Dances with Wolves (and therefore also The Last Samurai) in the film. I made a prediction based on the Dances with Wolves Connection, but thankfully it did not happen.
(I am now also put in mind of a film I saw as a child, in which a First Nations boy is hustled to the top of a mountain by a group of other boys from his tribe. On the mountaintop, they stick eagle feathers into him–actually piercing his skin–and then he either jumps off the cliff or is pushed off. But instead of falling to his death, he turns into an eagle. Does that sound familiar to anyone? I have no idea what that it could be. But I digress…)
Critiques: “Unobtainium”? Really? We are on this planet to mine for this highly profitable mineral. However, we are not able to get access to the most concentrated stores, due to the presence of the Na’vi people. This mineral, which we are unable to obtaindue to these people, is called…er…”Unobtanium”.
Momentary de-suspension of disbelief: During the final fight scene, when the huge robot operated by the general loses his gun and then HE PULL A BIG KNIFE FROM A SHEATH! Seriously? Am I crazy to think that in the future, knives will not be standard issue for combat robots?
That aside, I heartily suggest that you watch this film in theatres and in 3D. In fact, I’ll go one step further than suggesting: I urge you to see it in theatres and in 3D. But only because of the captiviating 3D world.
After the film I opined to my companions that the solution to violence and oppression in both film and reality is inevitably more violence. Can the Na’vi (essentially a representation of the First Nations people before the arrival of Europeans) ever return to their peaceful, in-tune-with-the-natural-world lifestyle after experiencing a battle of high-tech weapons of if-not-mass-then-still-pretty-big destruction?
I suggested that what was unique about the story of Christ’s efforts against the forces of oppression and suffering was that he did not meet them on their terms, but on entirely different terms. One of my companions was intrigued in a “I’m not sure about that” kind of way. I agreed that there was a lot of violence in the Gospels–the crucifixion being its ultimate example–but suggested that it was one-way. My companion wondered about the wrath of the Father poured out on the Son. And for the first time in my life, I think, I was really hit by the fact that there is not one Theory of the Atonement, but several theories, and that I really have no clue about what they all are.
I started writing something here about why I’m uncomfortable with the penal substitutionary atonement theory, but I quickly realized that if I continued I would be blowing a lot of hot air, because I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about. Happily, I notice that for the next two weeks, we will be discussion atonement–or more accurately, “soteriology”–in my theology class.
The Looking Glass War - John Le Carre
12 responses so far ↓
1 Toni // Feb 8, 2010 at 12:08 pm
We’d like to see it, hopefully soon.
As for the atonement theories, somehow I think they’ll be less entertaining, although maybe a little more useful in the long run. Possibly.
2 Scott // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Couple of comments on your analysis of Avatar. I thought it was a fantastic movie as well. I also like the congruity of the vertebrate organisms on Pandora. The derived characteristics and obvious common origins appealed to my biology nerd side. As for your complaint that the combat “robot” pulled a knife – it was not a robot. It was an exoskeleton that amplifies a persons movements. Thus they can lift heavy loads, carry big guns, and fight 3m tall aliens. Knives are incredibly useful, especially when your opponent has “stone age” technology. As well, if that knife were some future material, and amplified by the walker’s strength… potent weapon. A knife never needs reloading, recharging and it is good for spreading peanut butter on bread…
As for the name of the compound: unobtanium. The earth is apparently in dire straights, ruled by pseudo-government corporations. Corporations love buzzwords: hence a silly name. For all we know, unobtanium is just what RDA (The corporation running the mining venture) calls it. It might have an official name (probably named after a famous scientist of the past – hawkinium???). I think the Na’vi will return to their in-tune existence due to the fact of a certain quirk of the planet’s biosphere, which I will not go into more details here (spoilers and all that)… they are not anti-violence, as they are hunters, just very ecologically oriented… And the reason the story is so familiar is that it is one that we humans relive over and over and are still living…
There – my 33 cents worth…
3 Marc // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Well, it is an age-old story, that’s for sure.
You said, “The derived characteristics and obvious common origins…” I was actually wondering after the movie if the aliens were just a random design (“OK…humanoid, but different looking”) or if they were designed (i.e. by Cameron or whomever) as part of the whole environment. Not being a biologist, I didn’t notice any direct connection between the form of the Na’vi and their planet.
4 Scott // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:54 pm
If you look at the vertebrates (at least what I am assuming are vertebrates) they are all hexapods, with four limbs at the front and two in the rear. This goes for the fliers as well. They also have those breathing orifices at the base of the neck and the cool neural connection tentacles. There also seemed to be a second set of eyes that were smaller and anterior to the main pair of eyes. Perhaps for a different spectrum of life. The Na’vi are definately more of a stretch, but I was thinking about it (as I am a nerd, this is what I do…) and I think it is a matter of them losing the other limbs. The “lemurs” shown near the beginning had only two arms that left from the shoulder, but they split into four at the elbow. One could hypothesis that a brachiating existence (swinging from trees) is more efficient with only four limbs instead of six… They also had the tentacle, but only one, so somewhere in their past, their two tentacles must have fused…
5 Scott // Feb 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I meant “light” when I said different spectrum of “life”
6 Marc // Feb 8, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Maybe the tentacles are braided together along with their hair.
What about the tail. They didn’t seem to have a particular function–that is, they weren’t used (other than for balance, I suppose) to travel from tree-limb to tree-limb.
7 Marc // Feb 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I find our perspectives interesting. At the point where I was sitting saying, “Coooool.” You were saying, “Interesting: they’re all hexapods. And look at that smaller, anterior eye.”
You obviously were able to appreciate the movie at a whole other level.
8 Scott // Feb 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Tail as balance is legit. I had no problems with the tail. I think the navi were definately humaned up as it were… connection with the audience and all of that.
9 Scott // Feb 9, 2010 at 12:51 am
Thank you Marc… I also was going Coooooool…. especially at the starship. It was pretty coooooool too. I am just a major nerd, that is all
10 Greg J // Feb 15, 2010 at 12:44 pm
If you find time in the midst of seminary you should read “Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross” by Hans Boersma. He looks into the main atonement theories and sort of critiques them all, suggesting that maybe we need aspects of them all rather than just one.
11 Tony // Mar 1, 2010 at 12:20 am
LOL – Hey Marc, thought I might throw my thoughts into the mix… with me receiving the dubious distinction of being the “companion” who introduced the concept of multiple theories on atonement – particularly that there is a penal substitutionary theory, I also will be the companion who will express his sincerest condolences that (if your classes are with a particular professor) you will have to study soteriology from a strictly regurgitated Bonhoeffer, Schleiermacher and later Barthian perspective (Christian Universalism).
The Hans Boersma Derrida derivative would be just as enlightening for those from that perspective. (boy that was a mouthful)
As always – good food for thought! Keep chewing! As I always say, “Don’t take mine or anyone else’s word for it, do the noble thing – be Berean” (Acts 17:10-11).
12 Marc // Mar 1, 2010 at 10:44 am
Hi Tony,
“Companion” isn’t a dubious distinction at all!
I should clarify that it’s not that I wasn’t aware that there are multiple theories of atonement (my theology is not limited to what I’ve learned in TF I & II). It was more that I was reminded of it and was surprised to find that it could come up in any sort of context–I didn’t expect to be confronted with the options in a discussion of Avatar. But I am in a seminary setting, so I should get used to that.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t say that prof is a Christian Universalist–he denies it himself, I’m pretty sure. Those theologians are *nearly* Christian Universalists, though it seems not quite (which is why they’re frustrating).
Having said that, I do admit to having a great deal of sympathy and interest in that idea. (And I had it well before I arrived here!
)