Thoughts on James Cameron’s “Avatar”

I wasn’t going to see “Avatar”, but a bunch of friends invited me along, and I thought, what the heck, I should get out of the house more.

You know that one cheerleader in high school, the one who’s exquisitely beautiful, but turns out to be as dumb as a box of rocks? “Avatar” is kind of like that.

The visuals are stunning. It’s 2010, and we may not have flying cars, moon colonies, or robot servants, (or even a functioning economy), but we can create amazing illusions. No wonder it took years and enormous amounts of money to develop the technology to make the movie.

Alas, all this visual splendor is wasted on a movie with a lame plot. “Avatar” ought to have been titled “Dances With Wolves…In OUTER SPACE!!!” It’s basically 1.) traumatized white guy falls among native peoples, 2.) white guy gains respect of native peoples while overcoming his inner demons, 3.) white guy leads native peoples to victory over some external threat. That used to be a plot of a bunch of films and books, but it’s less popular now, since people tend to decry it as racist.

More troubling is the movie’s notion that nature is sacred, transcendent, and that humanity’s problems could be solved if only we abandoned our destructive technologies and moved closer to nature. But that’s bunk. Ever read about lions? They don’t form prides for more efficient hunting. They form prides to defend against other lions. Evidently, male lions will attack rival prides, kill off all the males, kill off all the cubs, and forcibly mate with the surviving females. That’s what nature is really like; rape and murder, red in tooth and claw, the strong dominating the weak. Not a pleasant world by any means.

Still, the movie was entertaining, and I rather liked the villain. Sure, the movie tried to set up Colonel Evil as the most loathsome villain in the history of man, but he was just so magnificently dogged that it was hard not to root for him.

-JM

Sherlock Holmes

Saw the “Sherlock Holmes” movie this weekend. It’s basically the Victorian Sherlock Holmes reimagined as a 1930s-style pulp hero, and is in no way loyal to the canon of the original stories. Think Sherlock Holmes as if he’d been written not by Arthur Conan Doyle but by Robert E. Howard. This necessarily means that the movie is a bit cruder than the stories, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Robert Downey’s portrayal of Holmes reminded me a lot of Dr. House of “House, MD”.* Which is really kind of funny, because Dr. House was originally based upon Sherlock Holmes, so I suppose the circle of life has come around again. Traditionally, Holmes is portrayed in film as masterful, arrogant, and in control of all situations; Downey’s Holmes is masterful, arrogant, and on the verge of completely losing his mind. Brilliant, but psychologically fragile. While definitely not loyal to the old stories, it is nonetheless an interesting take on the character.

I also liked Jude Law’s portrayal of Watson. The old Basil Rathbone “Sherlock Holmes” movies were good, except they portray Watson as a bumbling incompetent, which is not at all fair to the character. Law’s Watson is Holmes’s competent, cool-headed sidekick, if constantly exasperated by his friend’s antics and lack of social graces.

It’s a modern action flick, so Holmes and Watson are men of action in this adaption; they get into fights on a regular basis. Given that in the Doyle stories, Holmes beat Moriarty in a wrestling match atop a waterfall, and Watson regularly clubbed people over the head with his service revolver, this isn’t strictly out of the spirit of the originals. Between all the fights and all the logic on Holmes’s part, it’s a surprisingly masculine movie, which may explain why male reviewers generally liked it and the female reviewers generally did not.

Some people claimed a gay subtext between Holmes and Watson but I really didn’t see it.  I suspect imputing a gay relationship to Holmes and Watson is a classic case of psychological projection.

I also liked how quotes from the original stories where liberally sprinkled throughout the movie.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, and given the fairly obvious sequel hooks studded throughout, I hope they do indeed make a second one.

-JM

*I enjoy “House, MD” because it reminds me in an oblique way of my own line of work. People come to House with medical mysteries, and people come to me with technological mysteries. Though I don’t have Olivia Wilde working for me, alas. On the other hand, I don’t have a cane, a Vicodin addiction, and two unrequited love interests, so it all balances out.