Some further reviews and commentaries on
Avatar:
•
Nick Mamatas (a silly rant, interesting for the level and bile of its silliness)
•
'Avatar' and the War of Genres (Gerry Canavan)
•
When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"? (Annalee Newitz @ io9)
•
The Blue Future of Video Games (Stephen Totilo @ Kotaku)
•
Intentions be damned, Avatar is racist (SEK @ Acephalous)
•
John Scalzi on the most memorable SF films of 2009
•
The Wertzone
•
SF Signal (Scott Shaffer)
•
Locus (Gary Westfahl)
•
Speculative Horizons
I wrote in my
other post on Avatar that Art functions to challenge and potentially change how we see our world and ourselves, relating this idea to what I think constitutes the central theme of the film: to see differently, to perceive in a new way.
One clear sign that a work of Art has succeeded in this function can be found in the multiplicity of readings, arguments, critiques, reactions, and emotions generated by the film. With
Avatar, the variety and even vehemence of readings of the film are proving most important in this respect. If anything, the film is at least inspiring discussion and debate -- not just about whether it's awesome or sucks, but for its politics and sociocultural meanings.
More specifically, I suggest that a significant part of the film's success resides in its openness to multiple, various interpretations . . . as well as in the way it exposes, or reflects back, the reductiveness or overdetermination or oversimplification of some of those interpretations. Put in a slightly different way,
Avatar, I think, is quickly becoming an excellent example of how people will see in a work of Art what they want, need, desire to see, thereby closing themselves off from, blinding themselves to, or outright distrusting the wider, more universal meanings at play in the film. In other words,
Avatar appears to be generating both insightful commentary and misprisions (i.e., willfull misreadings).
A common critique of
Avatar claims that the story is clichéd, conventional, too simple, unoriginal, boring, vapid, and so on. The standard question goes, "With all the investment in technology and making the film look great, why couldn't Cameron develop a better, more intelligent story?" By extension, the critique of the story involves charges that the script is poor, the dialogue being awkward and overly obvious and "cringe worthy."
On one hand, such a critique assumes (and discounts) that Cameron did not make careful, purposeful choices regarding the plot, characters, setting, and key incidents; on the other hand, such a critique also reveals an inattentiveness to the role of the dialogue in the film, which is to establish and forward plot, character, setting, and incident.
