The Hype Monster vs. The Great and Powerful Backlash

Hype is tough to avoid. The dutiful moviegoer and friend that I am, I like to recommend a good movie when I see it. Plus, if a good film does well at the box office, there may be more of its kind down the road and less garbage wasting screens at my local theater. There’s a difference though between a recommendation and hype. A recommendation says, “See this, I liked it and you will too.” Hype builds the anticipation to levels a film could never possibly satisfy. As a result, people who didn’t see the movie the opening weekend and aren’t riding the hype train feel underwhelmed when they finally do get to the movies. Thus, backlash ensues.

This happens with movies of all kinds from summer blockbusters to the Oscar-nominated. It happened with Avatar last year, The Dark Knight two years ago and it’s starting again with Inception right now. All of the above are critically acclaimed and the first two have become megahits with the latter likely to follow suit. I enjoyed all of them too, but it’s important to keep things in perspective.

Critics and moviegoers alike were hailing Avatar as a game-changer. Movies would never be the same, they said. Six months later, Avatar hasn’t had nearly the cultural impact of Star Wars, which the film was repeatedly compared to, or even Cameron’s own Terminator films. For better or worse Avatar has popularized 3D and proved it to be a profitable investment for studios. Yet I’m at a loss to quote a single good line from the movie and I can only think of one memorable scene off the top of my head. (I rather like the scene when he first gets into the avatar and feels the dirt under his feet.) For me, Avatar remains in my mind what it was when I first saw it theaters: A visually stunning and creative but poorly written sci-fi action movie.

When The Dark Knight came out two years ago, there didn’t seem to be any other movie out that summer and were people so wrong to treat it as such? The Dark Knight is the best superhero movie yet (though Spiderman 2 is a close second for me) and I admire the way director Christopher Nolan gave his film the tone, structure and grandeur of a crime epic. Is it a great film though, in the Citizen Kane, Godfather or Fargo sense of the word? Probably not. That didn’t stop me from championing it as such at the time, of course, but I have to be honest and look at the film in perspective. Heath Ledger deserved every bit of hype he got, but Christian Bale’s grunt can be a bit much and I wish the movie didn’t end with such an obvious sequel set-up. (That last shot of Batman on his motorcycle was cool at the time, but it’s more frustrating than anything else now.) Still, I look forward to one day showing Nolan’s Batman movies to my kids the way my father showed me Richard Donner’s Superman movies. As a piece of pop culture, The Dark Knight is a classic. But remember, that’s pop as in popcorn.

Now Nolan is at it again with Inception, a movie that everyone and their grandma have been calling a “mindfuck.” I’m still not sure what that means and how the word qualifies as a recommendation but I think I understand the intentions. Personally, I prefer the way a Charlie Kaufman movie makes sweet love to my mind and doesn’t just leave the next morning but to each their own, I suppose.

Since Inception’s release, some critics have laid out reasonable critiques of the film, mostly arguing that the movie’s action sequences and set pieces lack the mystical and amorphous qualities of real dreaming. This is true. I admire all of the above-linked reviews, particularly the A.O. Scott one, but I think some of these critics are missing the point. Christopher Nolan set out to make an action movie sprinkled with thoughtful ideas, not the other way around. If he did, he would’ve made it more Waking Life than The Matrix. Those are two more movies I like, but for very different reasons.

Movies operate on a sliding scale of ambition and Nolan has succeeded wonderfully in making a brilliant action movie. That little trick about how ten seconds in one dream equates to twenty minutes in another and an hour in a third is ingenious and I’ve never seen anything like it before. It’s an inventive little cheat to give our heroes more time and who cares if it doesn’t hold up to anything resembling logic in the real world?

Those proudly waving the flag of backlash are shouting that the movie is not a visionary masterpiece. Who said it was? Certainly not Nolan. Ah yes, that snow-balling monster of hype did, giving a perfectly entertaining action blockbuster labels it never wanted.

When I searched for a synonym for "hype" in my computer’s thesaurus, I got "ballyhoo" as an option. I like that word more because I think it captures the ridiculousness of people's tendency to overrate. See Inception and see it again but please, let’s try and keep the ballyhoo in check.

- Steve Avigliano, 7/19/10

Do We Need 3D?

I don’t fully understand the technical reasons why watching a movie in 3D is worse than a normal viewing, but I do know these things: 1) The picture is dimmer in a 3D movie. 2) The 3D effect is distracting. 3) It adds a surcharge to an already expensive ticket.

There are technical reasons why 3D gives us a dimmer picture, but you don’t need to be an expert on film projection to notice the difference. Should you see Toy Story 3 in 3D, consider for a moment past Pixar movies. The studio’s films have always been vibrant and colorful and yet here (and when Up came out in 3D last year), everything is a shade too dim, as though the entire film were taking place at dusk. Why is this? Something about the 3D process makes the image dimmer, but those glasses don’t make it any better. Granted, they’re a marked improvement from those red/blue glasses that used to be the standard, but they’re still a discomfort. And if you already wear glasses, they’re even worse, having to awkwardly place them over your prescription lenses.

But this gets more into my second problem with 3D – that it’s a distraction. When Avatar came out, the buzzword everybody used was “immersive.” James Cameron’s innovations in 3D technology were supposed to pull the viewer in and make them a part of the experience. For many, the effect worked. For me, it was frequently distracting. Yes, those sweeping shots of oceans and flying mountains looked pretty spectacular in 3D (though I suspect they’d have been just as memorable without it), but what about the dramatic scenes in between the sweeping effects shots and action sequences? Did you notice the way the image blurs a little when two people are just sitting and talking to each other, or walking? Some call the effect “ghosting” and it was all over the place when I saw Avatar. The 3D blends nicely in action scenes, but for those quieter moments, it became very noticeable that I was watching a 3D movie, pulling me out of the experience rather than into it.

3D is being touted as the next great innovation in movies, as if 2D movies are suddenly inferior and outdated. Even using the term 2D is a misnomer. Were you ever unsatisfied with how “flat” movies used to be? No, of course not. That’s because since birth, our eyes and brain have worked together to interpret pictures and film as representations of depth and movement. Adding the artificial third dimension only calls attention to the fact that we’re watching a movie.

And then there’s the price. We’re paying extra money for an inferior product. I’m dazzled enough by Pixar’s animation, or the latest CG effects, why do we need 3D? The simple answer is that we don’t. Studios like it because they can make money off it, and they are. Avatar is the highest-grossing movie of all-time, largely thanks to the 3D surcharges. Then there’s the IMAX surcharge that, in an AMC theater, charges you for putting a faux-IMAX screen in front of the regular screen.

These scams will exist as long as people are paying for them. Christopher Nolan spoke out recently against 3D in response to questions about how the third Batman will be filmed. He explains that the choice is not up to him. Audience members speak through ticket sales and studios listen by looking at box office receipts.

So ask yourself: Do you need to see Toy Story 3 in 3D? Or Harry Potter? Or (God help us) the new Jackass movie? You can voice your opinion one way or the other with a ticket purchase.

Further reading: Roger Ebert’s “Why I Hate 3D (And You Should Too)”

- Steve Avigliano, 7/01/10

REVIEW: Avatar

Avatar (2009): Written and Directed by James Cameron. Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Joel David Moore, Michelle Rodriguez. Rated PG-13 (intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality and language). Running time: 161 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

** Note: I saw the film in its IMAX 3D version at an AMC theater.

James Cameron has been a pioneer of computer effects since 1989’s The Abyss and each of his successive films, including Terminator 2 and Titanic, has brought the technology to new heights. Avatar is the next great leap forward, featuring the most sophisticated use of computer animation and motion-capture technology yet, the result of a labor of love that dates back to 1994. Unlike previous Cameron outings, however, the movie lacks a strong script. The consistently impressive visuals are not quite enough to keep the story from becoming underwhelming in its familiarity.

In Avatar’s distant future, the people of Earth have found their way to the forest moon of Pandora, where a mining operation is underway in pursuit of the unimaginatively titled mineral, unobtanium. Dr. Grace Augustine, played by Cameron-vet Sigourney Weaver, leads a research team to explore the world and communicate with the natives, big blue humanoids called the Na’vi. Her team remotely controls genetically created Na’vi imitations called Avatars to establish better relations with the alien race, but their peaceful efforts are continuously hindered by a military presence led by Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang). The Colonel’s brutal pep talk to his Marines consists of reminding them of their perpetual risk of death on Pandora. Caught between the two is disabled Marine, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who flies to Pandora after his deceased brother leaves a vacancy in the Avatar program. Sully’s recruitment is twofold, using his Avatar to learn about Na’vi culture, while also acquiring information regarding the location of unobtanium fields for Quaritch. It’s not long before Sully falls for Na’vi life and a Na’vi female (Zoe Saldaña), and suffers the moral conflict that comes with double agency.

The film’s plot, boiled down to its essentials is a familiar one, placing the emotional conflict of Dances With Wolves into a setting not unlike Return of the Jedi’s Endor, while preaching an environmental message much like that of Fern Gully. Though Cameron’s visual imagination in creating the alien world keeps the film from feeling stale, his script too often uses these borrowed elements as a crutch. One gets the impression that Cameron focused all his energy on the look of Pandora, leaving the story an assortment of used parts. The film’s most narratively interesting moments come in its midsection as Jake Sully struggles with issues of identity switching between his human body and Avatar counterpart. Worthington, who was a lifeless statue earlier this year in Terminator: Salvation, brings a compelling everyman quality to Sully in a heartfelt performance. Once Sully’s assimilation into the Na’vi tribe is complete, however, the script shifts onto the usual track, ending with a climatic battle against the humans for Pandora.

Aside from Sully, all of Avatar’s characters are archetypes except perhaps for Dr. Augustine, but Sigourney Weaver never manages to fully sell her character’s tougher side. Michelle Rodriguez appears as a Marine pilot, a strangely underdeveloped character considering the pivotal role she plays near the film’s end. Though the film runs long at 161 minutes, the narrative moves quickly, relying heavily on montages and condensed exposition. Cameron’s original cut of the film is said to have been well over 3 hours, and one wonders if the cut scenes would have strengthened its characters and pacing. While an extended running time might help, it would not rectify all of Avatar’s problems. Much of the film’s dialogue is clichéd and the ending features a deus ex machina bigger (in more ways than one) than Return of the King’s eagle saviors.

All of these concerns become moot, however, in Avatar’s visual presentation. More than once I was wowed by breathtaking panoramic shots, and the motion capture animation is thoroughly convincing at all times. Cameron crafts moments of sheer awe without ever flaunting his technology simply because he has the capability to. Like the Star Wars films, the visual effects stem from endless creativity in the shaping of a colorful, fully realized world. Avatar’s divergences into the life and culture of Pandora make up its most thrilling moments. Cameron provides several memorable action sequences, not the least of which is the final battle – both absorbing and gleefully over-the-top. Where other action films get queasy in their kinetic editing, Avatar features crisp cuts and remembers to engage the audience in the fun. That this is Cameron’s first non-documentary film since 1997 is a shame considering the multitude of disappointing action flicks that have passed through theaters in the last twelve years.

But the delay was not in vein, and Cameron has supposedly developed new types of digital cameras and 3D technology in preparation for Avatar’s release. As far as the 3D presentation of Avatar goes, I’m still not convinced that the trend is much more than a gimmick. While the gimmick is expertly used here, the uncomfortable glasses and the frequent jerkiness of the picture onscreen – most noticeable in dialogue scenes – remain distracting. The 3D experience attempts to immerse the audience in the action, but I found the extra dimension kept me at a distance from the film. I’m impressed enough by computer animation in two dimensions and, for me, using my two eyes alone remains the definitive way to watch a movie.

Nevertheless, Avatar is the result of supreme craftsmanship and, at the very least, will be remembered for its innovative and seamless use of computer animation. In this regard, Avatar earns placement next to other effects-laden epic films such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but the film lacks the characters and story that make those films timeless. Then again, maybe Avatar will prove itself to be a worthy first installment of a longer franchise. Only time and another $300 million dollars will tell.

- Steve Avigliano, 12/27/09