Like most big-budget holiday blockbusters, Avatar had been highly touted in the mainstream press, and it continues to garner rave reviews from a multitude of professional film critics. From the venerable Roger Ebert, to AO Scott (one of Ebert’s replacements on At the Movies) — both of whom likened their Avatar viewing experience to the first time they saw Star Wars in 1977 — to Manohla Dargis, Joe Morgenstern, David Edelstein, Michael Phillips, and many more, nearly everyone seems to dig this movie!

It’s important to note that Avatar was an incredibly expensive film to produce, coming in at just under $240 million officially. It currently ranks as the fourth most expensive film of all time, according to Wikipedia, and still some sources suggest that this exorbitant number falls way short of its true cost. The NY Times, for example, estimated Avatar’s price tag at much closer to $500 million, particularly considering Mr. Cameron’s personal financial contribution and other international marketing expenses.

And yet there is every indication that Avatar will make back all its money and then some. According to Box Office Mojo, in only one week of release Avatar has already raked-in upwards of $160 million domestically and over $255 million from foreign cinemas. With several more weeks in theaters and a slew of future sales in DVDs, books, children’s toys, video games, clothes, etc., there is no doubt that Avatar will be a monumentally commercial success.

So, after the screening, and with all this pop-cultural buzz in mind, Xu Yan returned to her reclusive comfort zone in the back corner of our rental house and I ventured out to a local bar with the rest of our group — my fellow Tucson film nerds — to drink beer and discuss the movie in greater detail. Generally speaking, like everybody else, we were all impressed with Avatar’s motion-capture animation technology and the fantastic art direction. But we also each held serious reservations about a number of the film’s nonsensical plot points and the problematic socio-political message(s) therein. Here’s a very rough overview of our more pointed criticisms:

• One friend wondered why there weren’t more portrayals of color, namely blackness, both within the fictional, blue-skinned race known as the “Na’vi” and the invading human population, and he scoffed at the utter lack of LBGT representations among both their ranks.
• Using a feminist lens, my other friend expressed concern about the long-standing Hollywood habit of perverting reality and distorting images of the female body, particularly evident in the unrealistically slender, muscled and sensuous physical features of the lead female character, “Neytiri.”
• And, finally, in keeping with my own political struggles, I lamented at what seemed to be a complete denial of economic class stratification in the filmmakers’ decision to assign antagonist credentials to a cliche military machine and NOT the greedy, callous, Earth-based corporate interests that were ultimately responsible for initiating both the imperial pursuit on the distant planet Pandora and the genocidal violence against the indigenous people. Argh!

Clearly, Mr. Cameron has much to learn about storytelling if he is to satisfy our little gang of disgruntled Tucson film-buffs. Race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, class… we definitely tried to hit ‘em hard, as it were, and in the end Avatar was left somewhat wanton. The fatal flaw of this film, in my opinion, is its unwillingness to acknowledge and celebrate sentient diversity — a fear of difference.

Let’s get right to the point: the Na’vi people are an incredibly homogeneous species. As one of my friends described it that afternoon in the bar, “no one has an eating disorder,” and he’s exactly right! In some ways, what we don’t see is more telling than the great spectacle (heavily marketed in the media) that we all paid so much to experience in the first place. We don’t see any fatties, no one with a physical or cognitive disability, no one who expresses political dissent against the Na’vi leadership, no variation in skin color, no kinky fetishes, no dialects, no slang, and on and on. In essence, we don’t see any of the things that make civilization simultaneously rich with meaning and also very, very challenging.

Cameron and company have pretty much edited out the complexities of life in a naked attempt to force an emotional bond between the movie-going public and the super-human (by definition) Na’vi people. Avatar’s version of “noble savagery,” as portrayed through the main protagonist’s intimacy with this idyllic, peaceful, and spiritually-connected little nation of stretchy smurfs, might make for compelling (even romantic) fodder for the big screen but it is ultimately a kind of bad anthropology. This film can in no way serve as a poetic allegory — much less a visionary model — for anything we might make manifest in contemporary society, for this day or tomorrow. Though they have been carefully and painstakingly crafted by a contingency of talented artists, writers, and computer technicians, the Na’vi are little more than giant blue puppets, hollow signs for a director that doesn’t want to get his hands dirty trying to flesh-out something “real,” something we can all recognize within ourselves, a common humanity; Cameron ignores all those tedious little differences that distinguish sentient beings from inanimate objects.

This failure to appreciate the importance of diversity is certainly disappointing.  However, to Cameron’s credit, Avatar is not merely a character study in interpersonal dynamics.  Regardless of any imperfections three dudes in a bar might find to beef on, Avatar still stands-out as a coherent, beautiful, entertaining, and sometimes even awe-inspiring cinematic achievement precisely because the filmmaker has bigger goals in mind. Beyond the sexy bells-and-whistles of how it was produced, not to mention two surprisingly effective performances from young actors Zoe Saldana (“Neytiri”) and Sam Worthington (“Jake Sully”), Avatar ultimately serves as a vehicle from which to advocate for a grander and more complex understanding of our global network systems, be they ecological, cultural or even technological.  In other words, we are not-so-subtly asked to remember that everything is connected.

There is one scene in particular that fully articulates the praise-worthy underlying ethic of Avatar.  During the final third of the film, Sigourney Weaver’s “Grace,” the rugged and passionate botanist in charge of the Avatar science program, implores Giovanni Ribisi’s “Parker,” a sarcastic, upper-level corporate lackey and the top-dog behind the mining effort on Pandora, to reconsider his insistence on removing the Na’vi and destroying the land.  The dialogue proceeds in rapid-fire [SPOILER ALERT]:

JAKE:  You say you want to keep your people alive?  You start by listening to her.
GRACE: Those trees were sacred to the Omaticaya in a way that you can’t imagine.
PARKER: You know what?!  You throw a stick in the air around here and it’s gonna land on some sacred fern, for Christ’s sake!!
GRACE: I’m not talking about some kind of pagan voodoo here.  I’m talking about something real, something measurable in the biology of the forest.
PARKER: Which is what exactly?
GRACE: What we think we know is that there is some kind of electro-chemical communication between the roots of the trees, like the synapses between neurons.  And each tree has ten to the fourth connections to the trees around it, and there are ten to the twelfth trees on Pandora.
PARKER: Which is a lot, I’m guessing.
GRACE: It’s more connections than the human brain. Get it?!  It’s a network.  It’s a global network and the Na’vi can access it!  They can upload and download data — memories at sites like the one you just destroyed.  Yes!
PARKER: (beat) What the hell have you people been smoking out there? They’re just goddamn trees!
GRACE: You need to wake up, Parker.
PARKER: No, you need to wake up!
GRACE: The wealth of this world isn’t in the ground, it’s all around us!  The Na’vi know that and they are fighting to defend it…

In this dark era of slash-and-burn disaster capitalism, environmental degradation, and a plague of massive disinformation campaigns from a handful of elite economic entities hell-bent on maintaining their power and turning a profit at the expense of the natural world, Avatar offers a timely, grand, and much-appreciated word to the wise. I sincerely hope the audience is paying attention.

LINKS:
Wikipedia: Avatar
Review: At The Movies

Beyond simply calling into question the legitimacy of the final tally, Fadiman and company (including usual leftist suspect Peter Coyote as narrator) call for widespread reform of the national democratic system. On the website for the film viewers are encouraged to “become part of the solution” and “…get active in the fight for our democracy” by registering to vote, writing letters to persons of interest, making phone calls, wearing stickers and/or buttons, and a whole slew of other tasks. In other words, exactly what you might expect from a director that recently published a book entitled, Producing with Passion: Making Films that Make a Difference.

In that I haven’t yet seen this film (or read Fadiman’s book) I won’t comment on the strength of its message. I suspect that in my case, irregardless of craft, it will be just another case of preaching to the choir. I mean, is this really still in doubt? Aren’t we already aware of the problem? And, more importantly, will placing a microscope over the many flaws of the electoral system be enough to elicit a response from what appears to be a fairly disaffected American citizenry?

God, I sure hope so…

The artist is a British guy named Mike Stimpson, and on his redbubble profile page he has published (and apparently adopted) this telling quote attributed to American ’street photographer’ Garry Winogrand:

“I photograph to see what something will look like photographed” 

Not to whine too much about it, but my initial response is annoyance. Admittedly, I’m a little sore on all these ironic ‘art projects’ that rely on retroactive repurposing of an original form. Didn’t Warhol kill that metaphor a few decades ago?  I mean, is this high art, or just more posturing witticism from my iconoclastic, millennial cohorts?

That being said, I appreciate Stimpson’s interest in so-called ‘macro lighting.’ He really did put quite a bit of effort into setting up and reproducing these tiny snippets of global culture. I admire the dedication to an aesthetic… even if that’s all that’s there.

Good question. I’m probably not the person to answer it. But I do admire any doc that tries to tackle the complex issues of consumer culture, digital technology, and amateur media. For one thing, nobody really agrees on what’s gonna happen. The technocrats see a bright, remediated future. But others see merely a recasting of characters in the same old movie. Reconciling these perspectives will be tough.

Important questions I would like to see addressed:

1. If the ‘masses’ simply imitate older, corrupt narratives from the mainstream culture, but do so through fancy new tools, can we really call it a ‘revolution?’
2. For that matter, can a technological revolution ever really precede a structural (ie, socio-political) revolution?
3. And what’s gonna happen to sci-fi if the dumb kid down the street shares equal footing with small-screen genius, Joss Whedon?  I mean, dude, come on!

Okay, so maybe that last one’s a bit of a straw man. But you get my point.

The full title of the upcoming doc is ‘Flip the Media: A Media (r)Evolution,’ and the trailer can be found on the MCDM website. Interestingly, the word ‘Flip’ in ‘Flip the Media’ is a bit of a play on words in that it not-so-subtly references the Flip Video Camera. I’m a big fan of this little device (more on that in another post someday), and so I’m curious to see how the filmmakers use it, or not, as a jumping off point for what I can only assume will be wide-eyed tribute to participatory media.

In any case, and from what I gather on the website, the four-minute trailer was cut together by a student named Kirk Mastin. A photographer by trade, Mastin is an accomplished media-maker in his own right, and he’s got a beautiful professional website where you can view some of his imagery. I am particularly fond of his ‘Utah’ series, having visited that part of the country myself.

I’ll be watching for the finished piece. Rest assured, I’ll post an update shortly after it comes out. Stay tuned…

One of my favorites is TRAX, a youth media organization that is currently working on a “Market Value” project in the Preston Market, a series of inexpensive stalls in an open-air bazaar located just north of Melbourne. The goal is to create a multimedia exhibit featuring the work of local youth and others that addresses the changes happening at the markets themselves. It’s especially impressive given the challenges youth-made media projects face in the context of ‘economic development’.

I encourage folks to check it out. Bring your kid to the market or something! Download this flier and tell your friends. I think we really need to support these kinds of grass-roots, DIY media initiatives. A true community-led arts program!

Hopefully, someday soon, I can post an interview or two with the organizers of TRAX. It’ll inevitably show-up on the vlog half of the site. Be looking out for those in the future.

This week’s episode had an interesting interview with musician and filmmaker, Vincent Lamberti (no website available), a former Melbournian who now lives and work in Alice Springs, which is way out in the desert lands of the iconic Northern Territories. Among other things, Lamberti works with InCite, a youth arts organization, and he is somehow affiliated with an Aboriginal Media group called CAAMA.

Acording to the interview, Lamberti is directly involved in a film program specifically designed for indigenous youth (also no website available). I don’t know much more about this program, naturally, as I neither live in Alice Springs nor am I familiar with the organizations metioned in the show. Actually, I don’t know much of anything about the Australian youth media environment as a whole. A fact I hope to remedy soon enough.

But from what I can garner from the Jumpcut interview, Lamberti and his colleagues are particularly concerned about the economic realities surrounding their media initiatives in Aboriginal communities. At one point, Lamberti said:

“The whole idea of economic, sort of, empowerment is paramount, I believe, in trying to solve some of the social problems that are present in Alice Springs. Particularly in the town camps. Because people are basically struggling for survival…And so money and where your next meal is going to come from is paramount.” 

This unfortunate sentiment I can appreciate whole-heartedly. On top of the everyday burdens of the program participants, I am especially mindful of the economics of creating media itself. It is what I refer to as a ‘multi-tiered’ barrier. For media programs among marginal individuals, there are many constraints. Even if one is able to overcome the great obstacles of covering rent, bills, transportation, food, education, etc., then he/she is met with the challenge of obtaining technology and training. All of this costs money.   

I will be following InCite and CAAMA from afar, and hopefully someday I can keep up with the professional endeavors of Mr. Vincent Lamberti (assuming he gets a web presence). I’m even considering trying to contact the Alice Springs folks to see if they need a Winter (american Summer) volunteer or something. It would undoubtedly be informative to see life as it’s really lived in the famous Australian Outback, and even more so if I could get involved, maybe engage with a progressive youth media program.