Olie Martin's Blog.

A little clarity please. | February 2, 2010

This car may look sporty, but it is a Renault 5

Could somebody tell me why Avatar is higher than District 9 in the IMDB top 250?

I am aware of the fact that the IMDB top 250 is not anything to go by really, but the point still stands. Why is it higher than District 9? I must confess that I haven’t yet seen Avatar, I avoided paying to see it at the cinema, even after countless invitations to see it. For that, I am proud. But some might say that I should watch it before I start spurting out subjective nonsense about why Avatar is not a good movie. Do I really need to see it to form that opinion though?

I have heard people defending Avatar on the basis that it is the “future” of cinema. For me, the most brilliant aspects of cinema are the fundamental practicalities of making a film. The practicality of using a decent lens to create a desired effect; the practicality of acting, and the practicality of script-writing. These are the things that make a film great,  and have ever since dialogue was introduced to the movie medium. My tutor, a defender of Avatar, recently lent me Glengarry Glen Ross. I loved the film; Al Pacino’s performance was just superb. What made this film great? Two important things: cast and dialogue. Plain and simple; the film relied on two basic fundamental aspects of cinema, it incorporated those aspects, and it was fantastic. Another film I (re-)watched recently was Pulp Fiction, one of the greatest movies of all time. Cast, dialogue and directing made this film what it is. There were no fancy special effects, just a brilliant script, a cast that was second to none, and a world-class director. If Avatar is the future of cinema, then the films mentioned above are the history. That, for me, is quite a haunting thought.

Will the future of cinema really be dominated by big, sparkly, overproduced polished turds? What happened to storytelling? Such a powerful tool that has made cinema great; why does the future of cinema have to disregard it? Avatar is a rusty 1989 Ford Fiesta that could barely reach a top speed of 70mph. It has a Ferrari Enzo body-kit on it. It struggles to even start, but has an impressive plastic body-kit to make it look good. It also has a large exhaust to make it sound like a sports car. The thing is, it is just a rusty old bucket of a car, made to look good, and made to sound good, but if you take off the body kit and the exhaust, you are left with this:

Avatar without the body kit.

Avatar is a rusty, sub-par story with $half a billion worth of CGI painted over it. Strip away the gloss and what do you have? A below average story. This is not the future of cinema, I think that anyone who believes that is simply buying into the hype. Give me Glengarry Glen Ross any day. Call me a purist, or a stuckist, or whatever; I just know when I see a Vauxhall Nova trying to look like a Ferrari. Some people might believe it’s a Ferrari, but I don’t!

Back to District 9, yes it did have a lot of CGI, but the script is what made it one of my favourite sci-fi movies ever made. Maybe I overrate it, but even if you strip away the CGI, you still have a powerful script, a great cast and some brilliant messages. Think of it this way: Avatar and District 9 as novels, which one is better?

I leave you with a clip from another one of my personal favourite sci-fi films of all time; Stalker, by Andrei Tarkovsky. It is a Russian film, and to know what it’s about, you must watch it. Notice the lack of special effects, but watch the scene and be moved by it. Appreciate film for what it is meant to be, a work of art.