TFT 105 – AVATAR with Glenn Kenny and Armond White
posted by
Jett Loe
TFT 105 / 35 mb MP3 / 72 minutes /
SPECIAL GUESTS: GLENN KENNY / ARMOND WHITE
DISCUSSED IN THIS EPISODE:
OPERATION SAVE THE FILM TALK
AVATAR / JAMES CAMERON / SILENT RUNNING / 3D / ROBERT ZEMECKIS / WALL-E USED CARS / XENOGENESIS / SUMMER HOURS / A SERIOUS MAN / STAR TREK / THIS IS IT / CRANK 2: HIGH VOLTAGE / NEVELDINE AND TAYLOR / NEXT DAY AIR / PRECIOUS / LEE DANIELS / BELOVED
This entry was posted on Monday, December 21st, 2009 at 4:31 pm. It is filed under Action, Animation, Blockbusters, Blog, Experimental, Favorite Posts, Gareth Higgins, Gareth Higgins Reviews, Interviews, Jett Loe, Jett Loe Reviews, Podcast, Reviews, The Changing Cinema. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gareth Higgins and Scream Writer, King and Keck. King and Keck said: Check it out! @thefilmtalk’s podcast analysis of Avatar is now online. W/ New York critics Armond White & Glenn Kenny! http://bit.ly/8t2RKE [...]
Good review, though I disagree on a few points with Avatar, mainly with the idea of the just war.
I think you guys missed the points made that the Na'Vi were not all peace loving people. Yes, for the majority they were peaceful and lived in connection with the world around them, but they were also warriors. This point made clearest when they rejected having a scientist in their tribe, but were curious when they were introduced to a warrior. If they were truly all for peace they would have expelled Jake as soon as they learned he was a soldier. So the idea that they were changing themselves when they took the violent route is unfounded. Also remember that Jake at first told them that they couldn't fight, it was the tribe that wished to “lead the war party.” They also wanted to execute Grace and Jake when they learned of the on coming attack. These are not the hippie tree-huggers a lot of the reviewers are trying to paint them as, they are a fierce tribe that will resort to violence if they believe it necessary.
Does that mean that the ending is fully justified and should be glorified? It's hard to say. Was diplomacy an option at that point of the film? Their homes had been burned and their Goddess was about to be blown up. There was little time for a “more creative” solution to be formed. It was not a preemptive strike, but a matter of defense. If your town had been destroyed, friends and family killed, and they were on the move to destroy the one thing that continued to hold everyone together, what would you do? It was a final straw a last resort and a very primal thing. I believe everyone has the right to defend their home. I don't think Cameron wanted us to believe that the expelling of the humans from the planet was the wisest choice and I have no doubt that the sequel will show the consequences and hopefully the series will end with a co-mingling with the Na'Vi keeping their culture.
Wow, I'm rambling…
Oh! I just wanted to add that I think the last guy had read too much Freud. There was a slightly sexual hints to the bond, but I didn't see them as strongly as he. It was a sharing of minds, a physical linking of the brain. The Na'Vi clearly saw a difference between the bond and mating. If one does view the bond as a sexual act than they shouldn't really see the bonding with the Banshee as rape. The Banshee chooses the Na'Vi as well, though it is shown through an act of violence. Immediately associating it with rape is very Psych 101.
Still, I love this show, great review, it made me think of a number of points I didn't before. I think the fact that this is a very familiar story had people shut themselves off to the more clever bits. People forget that this isn't meant to be a stand alone film, even if Cameron can't make sequels there will probably be comic books made to tell the next bit. This is about introducing us to a new world, not a new story.
I think you've got a really valid point Kristi re: folks thinking the Na'vi are peaceful – what I think is happening there is that people are identifying/listening to the hero who at the start of the pic announces it all as tree-hugger crap – so we're with him on that and don't see the natives as violent.
But of course Jake's first sight of native technology is the arrows stuck in the tires of a vehicle crossing his path when he arrives on the moon – all this is a way of saying that though the film is intentionally broad in order to appeal to a world-wide audience, there is a lot going on there!
Great show, lots to digest on Avatar – I think I agreed with a lot of the points begin made.
The thought of this begin the last show is rather ominous! If you stop podcasting will you continue with a blog or on facebook?
Glad ya liked the show :)
+ no, that'll be it for TFT – a big part of my day is the social media work – twitter/facebook, etc. and if we can't get the support we'll have to pull the plug.
I just want to comment on an aspect of Avatar that I haven't heard anyone speak about. Superficial morality play and heavy-handed politics aside, the film is being submitted by Cameron as an update to Rear Window as the new metaphor for cinema. The similarities are there. Both films have a protagonist that has been made impotent by the loss of functionality of his legs. But where Jimmy Stewart's character, Jeff had to assert his vitality through his telephoto lens, and get caught in the spectacle of the lives of others through perfectly framed window scenes, Jake Sully is given the opportunity to actually become immersed in another world via a cutting edge technology where the line between observing and interacting is blurred. I think this is meant to usher a paradigm shift in cinema and how we think of it. Jimmy Stewart was much more passive as his role of observer, as was the pre-photorealistic CGI/3D audience of the cinema. What Cameron is trying to say is that with this new technology we can become much more involved in the story that is being played out before us. Whether or not this is true is yet to be determined and in this way Avatar works more as a proof-of-concept, but I think Cameron is very aware of this and sees Avatar as nothing short of the first new movie of the millennium and, as Jett said, is easing us through the transition by using a very recognizable story. This is just something that struck me as I watched this movie through goofy 3D glasses.
Just listened to the first half of the episode and something Gareth said got me so worked up that I had to stop and write.
First, let me preface this by saying that I am morally opposed to war and guns and I strongly dislike real violence. That said, Gareth, the truth of the matter is that in most cases, order can only be achieved by violence. Any nation's border became that way through bloodshed. Dynasties that last 1000 years were formed through war and violence. Villages and tribes ensure their safety through the use of extreme force. While people like you and I may prefer peace, we live in it only under the threat of extreme violence to any enemy that tries to oppose us. Apart from the final conflict between the Na'Vi and the encroaching humans, violence is hinted at with the first rider of that big dino-bird “uniting the tribes”. I guarantee they didn't see that fierce beast and think “Wow. What a pretty dino-bird! Okay, your fashion-sense in aerial mounts is what is has inspired me to join peacefully together with you.”
***WARNING: Minor Spoiler below, but not a movie-ruining one***
Avatar truly disappointed me from a story perspective, and thus, overall, as a movie. Yeah, it looked great, but that's not enough for me. That's probably why I can't find Megan Fox attractive. She looks great, but there's no substantively keen wit to go along with the package. I'm sick and tired of the “savage people” with the “hearts of gold” who teach the white man to live as they do, subverting him to their side and inadvertantly creating in him a messiah for their people. The story would be far more interesting as a tragedy than a comedy (which is basically what it was by the end). Maybe they could make it to be like an Aztec/Conquistador theme where the savage people see the white people as their gods, ensuring their doom. Also, what was with the “unobtainium”? The highest concentration was below the tree inhabited by the cat-smurf people? Did anyone stop to think that maybe it was just cat-smurf poop? I mean, our cat does her business and buries it, so why wouldn't they? Lastly, this was a tribe of warriors and hunters, right? Yet, you never see them eating and there was only one hunted animal the entire movie. The rest of the time, the tribe's warriors just seem to walk around a lot.
The story was so terrible that I didn't care about the special effects of the movie. Maybe it was truly ground-breaking from a technology perspective, but illusions are useless if you can't sell to the audience that they're real. In my opinion, I think this movie was just too big for Cameron, or for anyone. I think we need to evolve to a style of film-making where there's an extra director for every $100 million spent. One can work with the story and actors, putting the kind of precise detail that Cameron devoted to the visual aspect. The other director works only with the visual aspect, weaving it into the story-line so that you're keeping pace with what's been created instead of overreaching and surpassing it. That's what happened here. But, I'm not a director and I don't understand the hierarchy involved with film-making, so maybe that all exists and they just did a poor job of execution.
I almost forgot about the bonding thing. I'm surprised they didn't “link in” to each other when making cat-smurf love. I guess the point wasn't necessarily “sharing a bond” with nature, but exerting dominance over your environment. Didn't they say something about “what you feel, they feel” at one point in reference to the link? That's an arrogant human trait, personifying human characteristics into animals and assuming that it makes you a more sensitive, empathetical creature because of it. Just because I think my cat (named Lindsay Lohan) got lonely and ran away doesn't mean she actually “feels” a connection with me and was emotionally distraught of my inattention to petting her dirty hide. The Na'Vi were enslaving creatures for their own benefit. That's not “tree-hugging”, that's just how it goes in nature sometime.
Well Baron, you seem to be forgetting big parts of the movie. The link isn't a one sided thing. The Na'Vi feel the creature as well, as shown when the creatures are hurt and their riders feel the pain. The Banshee also choose their riders. Remember that Jake's stayed at Home Tree long after its destruction, any normal animal would have long fled. These creatures are clearly different than the ones on Earth and you are show human arrogance by assuming that they are similar to Earth's in any way. The bond is real and one of equality.
Great insight! This is a point I didn't think about at all.
Wow, some of your comments made me giggle.
I can tell you went into this film with a close mind to begin with.
First off, you do see the Na'Vi eating, when Jake is first allowed to sit with them, they are shown eating as a group around the fire. Also they are shown hunting multiple times, they only show one kill because it would get boring to show it over an over again. They assume you're intelligent enough to make the conclusion that the other Na'Vi are hunting as well.
And unobitanium as poop? Really? I think it's safe to say that since they know enough about the Na'Vi biology to make Avatars then they would know what their waste is. They know exactly what unobitanium is, and its a naturally occurring mineral in Pandora's soil. Ever think that maybe that not only is it a good fuel that the humans need, but that it also acts as a form of fertilizer? If that was true it would only make sense that a giant tree would grow above its largest deposit.
I would also hardly call the Na'Vi a people with a “heart of gold.” They are very quick to jump to executions. They are by no means “tree huggers” they have a literal connection with the world around them that translates into a spiritual.
There is a lot more going on in this film than you give it credit. You clearly walked into it already forming an opinion and wanted to go against the majority by picking out made up flaws. It's a familiar story, but despite a few cheesy lines, it was very well told. I'm a cynic that normally hates spectacle over story movies, but I went in with an open mind and saw the heart and complexities that people quick to judge would miss.
Also multiple directors is almost always a bad idea. Instead of getting one fluid idea you get a fragmented film where you can usually point out what was created by either director.
I just want to comment on an aspect of Avatar that I haven't heard anyone speak about. Superficial morality play and heavy-handed politics aside, the film is being submitted by Cameron as an update to Rear Window as the new metaphor for cinema. The similarities are there. Both films have a protagonist that has been made impotent by the loss of functionality of his legs. But where Jimmy Stewart's character, Jeff had to assert his vitality through his telephoto lens, and get caught in the spectacle of the lives of others through perfectly framed window scenes, Jake Sully is given the opportunity to actually become immersed in another world via a cutting edge technology where the line between observing and interacting is blurred. I think this is meant to usher a paradigm shift in cinema and how we think of it. Jimmy Stewart was much more passive as his role of observer, as was the pre-photorealistic CGI/3D audience of the cinema. What Cameron is trying to say is that with this new technology we can become much more involved in the story that is being played out before us. Whether or not this is true is yet to be determined and in this way Avatar works more as a proof-of-concept, but I think Cameron is very aware of this and sees Avatar as nothing short of the first new movie of the millennium and, as Jett said, is easing us through the transition by using a very recognizable story. This is just something that struck me as I watched this movie through goofy 3D glasses.
Just listened to the first half of the episode and something Gareth said got me so worked up that I had to stop and write.
First, let me preface this by saying that I am morally opposed to war and guns and I strongly dislike real violence. That said, Gareth, the truth of the matter is that in most cases, order can only be achieved by violence. Any nation's border became that way through bloodshed. Dynasties that last 1000 years were formed through war and violence. Villages and tribes ensure their safety through the use of extreme force. While people like you and I may prefer peace, we live in it only under the threat of extreme violence to any enemy that tries to oppose us. Apart from the final conflict between the Na'Vi and the encroaching humans, violence is hinted at with the first rider of that big dino-bird “uniting the tribes”. I guarantee they didn't see that fierce beast and think “Wow. What a pretty dino-bird! Okay, your fashion-sense in aerial mounts is what is has inspired me to join peacefully together with you.”
***WARNING: Minor Spoiler below, but not a movie-ruining one***
Avatar truly disappointed me from a story perspective, and thus, overall, as a movie. Yeah, it looked great, but that's not enough for me. That's probably why I can't find Megan Fox attractive. She looks great, but there's no substantively keen wit to go along with the package. I'm sick and tired of the “savage people” with the “hearts of gold” who teach the white man to live as they do, subverting him to their side and inadvertantly creating in him a messiah for their people. The story would be far more interesting as a tragedy than a comedy (which is basically what it was by the end). Maybe they could make it to be like an Aztec/Conquistador theme where the savage people see the white people as their gods, ensuring their doom. Also, what was with the “unobtainium”? The highest concentration was below the tree inhabited by the cat-smurf people? Did anyone stop to think that maybe it was just cat-smurf poop? I mean, our cat does her business and buries it, so why wouldn't they? Lastly, this was a tribe of warriors and hunters, right? Yet, you never see them eating and there was only one hunted animal the entire movie. The rest of the time, the tribe's warriors just seem to walk around a lot.
The story was so terrible that I didn't care about the special effects of the movie. Maybe it was truly ground-breaking from a technology perspective, but illusions are useless if you can't sell to the audience that they're real. In my opinion, I think this movie was just too big for Cameron, or for anyone. I think we need to evolve to a style of film-making where there's an extra director for every $100 million spent. One can work with the story and actors, putting the kind of precise detail that Cameron devoted to the visual aspect. The other director works only with the visual aspect, weaving it into the story-line so that you're keeping pace with what's been created instead of overreaching and surpassing it. That's what happened here. But, I'm not a director and I don't understand the hierarchy involved with film-making, so maybe that all exists and they just did a poor job of execution.
I almost forgot about the bonding thing. I'm surprised they didn't “link in” to each other when making cat-smurf love. I guess the point wasn't necessarily “sharing a bond” with nature, but exerting dominance over your environment. Didn't they say something about “what you feel, they feel” at one point in reference to the link? That's an arrogant human trait, personifying human characteristics into animals and assuming that it makes you a more sensitive, empathetical creature because of it. Just because I think my cat (named Lindsay Lohan) got lonely and ran away doesn't mean she actually “feels” a connection with me and was emotionally distraught of my inattention to petting her dirty hide. The Na'Vi were enslaving creatures for their own benefit. That's not “tree-hugging”, that's just how it goes in nature sometime.
Well Baron, you seem to be forgetting big parts of the movie. The link isn't a one sided thing. The Na'Vi feel the creature as well, as shown when the creatures are hurt and their riders feel the pain. The Banshee also choose their riders. Remember that Jake's stayed at Home Tree long after its destruction, any normal animal would have long fled. These creatures are clearly different than the ones on Earth and you are show human arrogance by assuming that they are similar to Earth's in any way. The bond is real and one of equality.
Great insight! This is a point I didn't think about at all.
Wow, some of your comments made me giggle.
I can tell you went into this film with a close mind to begin with.
First off, you do see the Na'Vi eating, when Jake is first allowed to sit with them, they are shown eating as a group around the fire. Also they are shown hunting multiple times, they only show one kill because it would get boring to show it over an over again. They assume you're intelligent enough to make the conclusion that the other Na'Vi are hunting as well.
And unobitanium as poop? Really? I think it's safe to say that since they know enough about the Na'Vi biology to make Avatars then they would know what their waste is. They know exactly what unobitanium is, and its a naturally occurring mineral in Pandora's soil. Ever think that maybe that not only is it a good fuel that the humans need, but that it also acts as a form of fertilizer? If that was true it would only make sense that a giant tree would grow above its largest deposit.
I would also hardly call the Na'Vi a people with a “heart of gold.” They are very quick to jump to executions. They are by no means “tree huggers” they have a literal connection with the world around them that translates into a spiritual.
There is a lot more going on in this film than you give it credit. You clearly walked into it already forming an opinion and wanted to go against the majority by picking out made up flaws. It's a familiar story, but despite a few cheesy lines, it was very well told. I'm a cynic that normally hates spectacle over story movies, but I went in with an open mind and saw the heart and complexities that people quick to judge would miss.
Also multiple directors is almost always a bad idea. Instead of getting one fluid idea you get a fragmented film where you can usually point out what was created by either director.
[...] TFT 105 – AVATAR with Glenn Kenny and Armond White [...]
[...] …The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus would be as popular as Avatar. [...]
[...] TFT 105 – AVATAR with Glenn Kenny and Armond White [...]
these are interesting 2 interviews with james cameron about avatar.
here with elvis mitchell about his intentions for the movie, its meaning and its impact
http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt100305ava…
here with anne thompson focusing intensively on the technical aspects of the film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc&feat…
the first one is more relevant to some of the points discussed on your episode 105; about the obvious environmental message, the politics in the movie and its clear references … cameron seems even clearer!
the second one its just fascinating…
hope you might find them interesting or just fun
[...] a sense of space and place that was far more of three-dimensions than popcorn/corn syrup waterer AVATAR – and its investigation and documentation of the sacred is so rare in traditional filmmaking [...]