A Review of Relevance
Avatar (2009) was, at its release, considered to be one of the most awe-inspiring visual productions the film industry had ever produced. A masterpiece. Its director, James Cameron, wrote, directed, produced, and co-edited the 2 hour and 41-minute spectacle himself: one vision dictating the entire project. This paid off (quite literally), given that Avatar holds the #1 spot for highest lifetime grosses of any film to date—beating the likes of Avengers: Endgame (2019) and the ever-classic Titanic (1997)—garnering a total of $2,922,058,950 USD. And sure, numbers are not everything, but would so many have gone to see it (spending their own time and money) if they didn't think it was worth it?
It has been nearly 13 years since its initial premiere in London, and with the times goes the culture. Its sequel, Avatar: The Way of Water, is slated for show on the 16th of December this year. Yet do people even care? Over a decade is a long time to wait for the second addition to a franchise, especially one as niche as Avatar. Sure, it had traction, but interests change. Have the themes of the original persisted through to today, or has the one-renown film lost its relevance with contemporary media and its consumers?
Well, the answer is fairly simple; it depends entirely on what you consider to be of importance in film today.
After refreshing my memory of Avatar with a rewatch, I’ve formed my own thoughts on the matter. So, without further ado, here is my review of the original Avatar—evaluating how much resonance I believe it to have retained.
First, its visual presence. Approximately 60% of the film is made either mostly or entirely with computer-generated imagery (otherwise known as CGI), and given that this was the
technology of 2009, I anticipated that the graphics I recalled as authentic years ago would look plastic; fake. While some CGI pre-Avatar did serve extraordinarily well for its purpose and time, such as Gollum or the Fell-Dragons in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003), I also remember with painful clarity the ugly clunkiness of the CGI infused within George Lucas’ Star Wars Prequel Trilogy (1999-2005). Really, it was a gamble. But to my delight and great surprise, the film’s visuals hold up beautifully.
While some creatures, such as Thanators (large, feline-like creatures) or Viperwolves, look a bit under-textured and unnaturally smooth, most of the CG-built environments, species, and characters look phenomenal. The Na’vi, blue-skinned humanoids and Avatar’s far most recognizable feature, are the best example of this. Aside from a few particular shots, the Na’vi simultaneously remain stunningly ethereal yet grounded to boot. They’re unlike anything seen in reality, yet perfectly believable, and all thanks to the wonderful motion capture and CGI technology utilized in tandem. Still, I’d argue the most impressive visual feat of the film is its environmental elements, as everything from the sky to the trees looks real—apart from the gravity-defying earth formations and all that, but that’s beside the point. Pandora, as a planet, looks alive and natural, which is more than I can say from many modern CGI creations of the past few years (Marvel’s Cinematic Universe springing to mind).
Next, regarding the plot.
To give a brief, mostly spoiler-free synopsis of the story, a collective of humans (mostly consisting of soldiers, scientists, and a large mining corporation) have come from Earth and commenced their exploration (soon to be exploitation) of a bountiful planet known as Pandora. In the year 2154, Jake Sully (a former marine), is tasked with the role his late twin brother was to play in an operation focused on gleaming greater insight into Pandora and its inhabitants, specifically the Na’vi. Part of Jake’s assignment is to have his neurological functions infused into the body of an artificially created Na’vi (an Avatar) so he can interact with them and their territory more easily. On one such excursion into the Padoran wilderness, Jake had a run-in with some of the area’s indigenous wildlife and became separated from his team, having to make do in the forest alone for the night. During that time, he was saved by a Na’vi named Neytiri, a warrior within her tribe and daughter of her clan’s leader. For the remaining runtime, Jake would have to deliberate with himself whether to help those who sent him here, his fellow humans, thus destroying the home and habitat of the Na’vi for mining purposes, or to help the Na’vi, a people who he comes to know well, and Neytiri, for whom he has developed feelings.
Now, while even back in 2009 I doubt many people can relate to this plot in its specifics (have you ever heard of someone fusing their brain to a body of a blue, 10-foot, super-humanoid-type creature?) the themes it highlights are still frequently argued today. Indigenous autonomy, environmentalism, military corruption, racism, and religious/spiritual rights have been especially hot topics recently, all of which are handled within the film (albeit some better than others). Thematically, Avatar successfully hits all the criteria for current social-message-based films. The story flows smoothly, with no contrivances, with its themes furthering the plot rather than being forced into it; a testament to James Cameron’s excellent vision and plot execution. There’s a reason the sequel took 13 years to get here.
Finally, characters. This is where I’d say Avatar’s weakest point lies.
Jake, the protagonist, isn’t overly likable or well-written for most of the film’s duration. He starts as a stereotypical military man, headstrong, dedicated to serve his uppers and only that, with not much ambition other than to succeed at whatever task he’s presented with.
Slowly, as he gets to know Neytiri and the Na’vi, he starts to have a greater respect for the world around him, showing a more empathetic side. But still, he’s steeped in lies that could very well be reconciled had he not waited until only a half-hour before the credits roll to come clean, and even by the end he is arguably still selfish in his motivations. He keeps his pride until the end, which might not be bad in all cases, but makes him seem arrogant in the context of the film.
Neytiri, the secondary protagonist, is not much better. While certainly more likeable, she suffers from a writing habit which plagues movies of all eras, that being her one-dimensionality. She seems wary of Jake until she abruptly isn’t, without much there to prompt the shift (it’s honestly quite jarring how sudden her demeanor shifted, given that all we see is an incredibly brief montage of her teaching him to hunt and maneuver as one of her clan), and by the end has little-to-no character development apart from her new feelings for the human.
You could argue that the antagonist is an individual, such as Colonel Quaritch, the head of the human’s military base on Pandora, but he’s even more bland than the protagonists. Instead, I prefer to think of the antagonist in broader terms, i.e. deforestation, human greed, and corruption. This works quite well as the driving opposition to the lead characters, as it raises the stakes on all the film’s conflicts—be they internal or external—and is easier to sympathize against. Plus, as previously stated, these are issues we deal with every day; the film is far more relatable because of it.
Overall, I stand with the opinion that James Cameron’s Avatar has certainly managed to retain its appeal this past decade, so long as you believe that themes are what keep a movie relevant. It’s an expertly produced film (principle characters aside), with a fitting score and engaging world, whose graphics haven’t aged nearly as much as one might think. It’s remarkable, really.
With Avatar: The Way of Water in theatres less than 2 months from now, I dearly hope all those interested will put aside some time to watch its exemplary predecessor. They certainly won’t regret it.
Comments