Avatard
God bless James Cameron, then, for continuing to fight the good fight, for believing the investment of massive amounts of money and time might eventually close this irreconcilable gap between realism and reality—that a film might actually peer into other futures or other worlds even as the very act of locking down its final edit immediately consigns it to the compost heap of fading verisimilitude. When other genres become obsolescent, they at least have the possibility of creating their own hermetic worlds—“realities” like John Ford’s west, Freed-unit musicals, or noir’s post-war cityscape. In those cases, at least, the individual titles echo the look and logic of one another to produce a viable or at least internally consistent universe. The lone science-fiction title, on the other hand, is destined to be the orphan on the playground—isolated, alone, and tragically vulnerable to withering ridicule (another explanation of Star Wars' continuing success, perhaps, is the ability of each installment—no matter how terrible—to nevertheless bolster the overall logic of the entire franchise).

As a basic good v. evil shoot-em-up in space (or more accurately, in a terrarium illuminated by black-lights), Avatar isn’t all that bad—certainly not deserving of much of the wrath it has incurred (which, to be honest, is simply displaced disgust with the entire blockbuster mentality of Hollywood). I certainly enjoyed Avatar more than Titanic (1997), a three-hour ordeal that had me hoping there would be NO survivors.
If only Cameron could have left well enough alone.
Unfortunately, unlike Castle and other cine-hucksters of old, Cameron clearly intends to say something of import in Avatar—and thus begins the great unraveling. Perhaps this stems from a sense of guilt—if someone is going to spend this much money on a film, it should do more than simply grind Cool Ranch Doritos into the spectator's eyes for two hours. And so we enter the truly dangerous Pandora of the Hollywood allegory.
No surprise, I guess, but as a “lesson” about American foreign policy, Avatar is just flat out insulting. Pandora?! Unobtanium?! Surrogate jarhead converted to a path of peace, Priuses, and NPR? The movie revels in a brand of politics that probably only makes sense over mimosas at the Ivy. One can almost imagine the series of meetings on the Universal lot to see if the script was sufficiently obvious enough so that all those Bush voters out there would “get it.” Perhaps the fantasy was that America’s unwashed dumbasses would emerge from the multiplex and into the bright light of the mall to toss their newly purchased copies of Going Rogue into the fountain, eager to hurry home and begin work on a new solar array for the barn. Thank you Hollywood for showing me that Arabs are people too, with their own strange traditions and primitive wisdom, and that all of the world is one living organism interconnected by fiber optic trees.
But for an allegory to be effective, there must remain some sense that it is actually an allegory. Before racing the hare, the tortoise does not stop to opine, “By participating in this unlikely contest, I hope to teach you some important lessons about hubris, determination, complacency and the work ethic.” We used to give 6-year-old children more credit at storytime than Avatar currently ascribes to its saturation release audience. Without some room for the viewers—no matter how stupid one imagines them to be—to make a few connections on their own, an allegory becomes a tedious lecture, which Avatar most assuredly is.

Will the final battles of Revelations feature dueling scores between Enya and Gustav Holst? Avatar suggests yes, they will.
No, as far as noble savage narratives go, there’s nothing going on in Avatar that wasn’t done better and more subtly by The Searchers (1956) a half century ago—or even earlier (odd, isn’t it, that A.C. Doyle would end up this Christmas on one screen with Sherlock Holmes and on the other, in more distorted form, with this echo of The Lost World?)
Utterly predictable in its plot and politics, Avatar is slightly more interesting as an allegory of the cinema. In fact, I can’t remember a film so uniquely positioned for one of Zizek’s patented “return-of-the-real” analyses—not necessarily through the film’s conventional metaphysics of digital disembodiment—but in the warring production paradigms the film so conveniently spatializes within its diegesis.

But here too Avatar is ultimately doomed. The mistake is in thinking that total control will someday equal total realism, as if the Real were a thing that might eventually be conquered by extremely determined and expensive forms of representation (as Letterman riffed in the weeks preceding Avatar’s release, “The film is so amazing, you will actually believe there are actors on the screen.”) But as “realism” is not a scientific/technological challenge that might be solved but instead an ever-shifting alliance of historical protocols, there is little doubt all of these sfx heavy spectacles will one day take their rightful place next to Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959), or in Avatar’s case perhaps, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (the old animated one, not the new Nick Cagey one).
