James Cameron's 'Avatar' - The next gen of cinema

[Gustov]

I never entered the cinema to be educated or challenged or to find hidden meaning.

You could write an essay on the role of the audience.

I often describe the likes of Michael Haneke's films as provocative experiences (something you take away with you and are invited to interact with) whereas most Hollywood productions are evocative journeys (form of escapism)

Hollywood's prime goal is to entertain.Whilst Michael Haneke wants to entertain his audience, I can assure you it's not at the top of his priority list. He wants to test the audience, make them think.

Completely depends on the individual watching the film. Personally I like a balance of the two, something that makes you relate the film to your own life whilst entertaining you at the same time.

 

[my_computer]

I went for the ride. A sensory experience.

Thats what I got.

I went for this too. I was still disappointed though.

 

[easyrider]

I went for this too. I was still disappointed though.

Thats to easy to type.

Why not highlight what was dissapointing about it?

 

[Chimerical]

I want to know what they're paying Neil Fawcett.

 

[Gustov]

Thats to easy to type.

Why not highlight what was dissapointing about it?

Asking someone to justify their opinion!

Don't let dmpoole see this

 

[easyrider]

Asking someone to justify their opinion!

Don't let dmpoole see this

Its all to easy to say

Thought the film was crap.

Its harder to explain why.

If one offers an opinion on a public forum for the purpose of that opnion to be read by others. Then you should honour any questions asked about your opinion.

Critics don't just say they though something was bad...They explain the reasons why.

 

[Meridian]

I'm not saying that at all...

I'm saying the film may have been "better" with a few tweaks to the plot/characters, maybe to add a little more depth in there IMHO.

Then why not do it? It's saying that Cameron knows what a good film is, but decided not to make it. Why not?


And I think easyrider may be misunderstanding what exactly is being meant by "depth" here. Or not. I at least mean (for a start): real, rounded characters, not (at best) archetypes. At best, because in this case cliché is closer.

And no, there's nothing wrong with a simple linear plot. Unless of course you've stolen pretty much every aspect of it from other films. There was simply no suspense here because almost every aspect of the plot was so wildly predictable.

A simpler test: if you saw this film without all the SFX, what would think of it?



M

 

[Chimerical]

You could write an essay on the role of the audience.

I often describe the likes of Michael Haneke's films as provocative experiences (something you take away with you and are invited to interact with) whereas most Hollywood productions are evocative journeys (form of escapism)

Hollywood's prime goal is to entertain.Whilst Michael Haneke wants to entertain his audience, I can assure you it's not at the top of his priority list. He wants to test the audience, make them think.

Whilst I like the fact that there are many different types of film out there and I realise you're just pointing out the differences (which I agree with), European cinema just comes across as depressing and condescending to me now. American movies do have a tendency to sweetly wrap everything up within ten tonnes of candy floss and everything is always very glossy but Euro films like Funny Games (well, I've only seen the remake), Dead Man's Shoes, anything Gaspar Noe makes, etc. are just soul destroying.

If I wanted real life to be reflected back at me by a television set, I'd just watch EastEnders for six hours straight whilst injecting heroin and culminating in a gun suicide. Personally, I don't need films to depress me because life does that very well anyway. Although I've never been one for really sickly sweet stuff but escapism is a good way to describe American movies and that's what I look for (particularly Sci-Fi).

 

[Gustov]

Its all to easy to say

Thought the film was crap.

Its harder to explain why.

If one offers an opinion on a public forum for the purpose of that opnion to be read by others. Then you should honour any questions asked about your opinion.

Critics don't just say they though something was bad...They explain the reasons why.

I agree with you....check the Slumdog thread and you'll understand my post.

 

[my_computer]

Thats to easy to type.

Why not highlight what was dissapointing about it?

I was hoping to be thrilled by action packed scenes. The action packed scenes didn't thrill, which left me bored.
That's about it really.

As I said earlier. I was wowed by the first scene because it looked very nice.

Yeah I would say that's my only criticism. I'm fine with and could overlook any other criticism that could be thrown at Avatar, if I found the film exciting. I didn't though which is a shame

 

[Chimerical]

A simpler test: if you saw this film without all the SFX, what would think of it?

That's a pointless question though because its too integral. What would most budget film directors do if they suddenly had access to millions of dollars?

They'd most likely throw out a lot of the riskier plot points in an attempt to sell the film better in order to make a return.

Its easier to add depth to your film and not spoon feed the audience when that audience doesn't consist of as many people.

 

[Gustov]

Whilst I like the fact that there are many different types of film out there and I realise you're just pointing out the differences (which I agree with), European cinema just comes across as depressing and condescending to me now. American movies do have a tendency to sweetly wrap everything up within ten tonnes of candy floss and everything is always very glossy but Euro films like Funny Games (well, I've only seen the remake), Dead Man's Shoes, anything Gaspar Noe makes, etc. are just soul destroying.

If I wanted real life to be reflected back at me by a television set, I'd just watch EastEnders for six hours straight whilst injecting heroin and culminating in a gun suicide. Personally, I don't need films to depress me because life does that very well anyway. Although I've never been one for really sickly sweet stuff but escapism is a good way to describe American movies and that's what I look for (particularly Sci-Fi).

The intention of European cinema is not to depress, it's to make a statement. To many European directors film is more than just an entertainment business, it's an art form.

Take Der Untergang for example, whilst it's very entertaining it's also political. Sure you could argue any American war film has political ties (of course it will) but imo not to the extent the likes of The Lives of Others and Downfall.

My dissertation title is a quote by Michael Haneke

My films are intended as polemical statements against the American 'barrel down' cinema and its dis-empowerment of the spectator. They are an appeal for a cinema of insistent questions instead of false (because too quick) answers, for clarifying distance in place of violating closeness, for provocation and dialogue instead of consumption and consensus."

Watch Amelie as well, far from soul destroying

 

[easyrider]

A simpler test: if you saw this film without all the SFX, what would think of it?

Then it would not be the same film.

So the point is moot.

The film is a SFX pimp fest.

Entertaining and visually interesting.

Its not about the story.

The notion that film has to even have a narrative is arrogant imo.

 

[my_computer]

I'm in agreement with easyrider
I just didn't find it as entertaining as I hoped I would

 

[Gustov]

It's one of the most entertaining films i've ever seen...

For me though, a film has to do more than entertain

 

[easyrider]

It's one of the most entertaining films i've ever seen...

For me though, a film has to do more than entertain

Why?

Why beat yourself up.

Just enjoy life and the media you consume.

Finding meaning in something can be waste of time.

Sometimes ART just is.

You may be looking for something that doesn't exist.

 

[Chimerical]

The intention of European cinema is not to depress, it's to make a statement. To many European directors film is more than just an entertainment business, it's an art form.

I know but it inevitably does depress. No-one watches Irreversible and feels 'happier' at the end of it, if they did then the film has hasn't worked for them. Not all European films are like that obviously but a lot of British movies seem to be obsessed with 'grit' and 'realism'. I can accept that I'm not in the right mood to watch half of these films most of the time but I just finding viewing them to be a chore nowadays.

Watch Amelie as well, far from soul destroying

I tried...switched it off, I did the same with Let The Right One In; ten minutes in I took the disc out. I'll rewatch LTRO at some point but to be honest, I think its more of a case of me seeking out films to simply be entertained by and that just doesn't seem to be catered for by European cinema at the moment.

Having said that I loved District 13 and I liked the Descent as well but really they're just pure entertainment movies, no different to what Hollywood produces.

Although don't get me wrong, I'm still like films that make me think, but even that tends to be more American stuff like Primer and hopefully Ink when I see it.

Why?

Why beat yourself up.

Just enjoy life and the media you consume.

Finding meaning in something can be waste of time.

Sometimes ART just is.

You may be looking for something that doesn't exist.

I agree with this mostly. Whilst its good to watch different types of films at the end of the day you can't forcibly 'change' what you actually like and dislike. Obviously preferences do change with age and circumstance but that's not really intentional.

 

[Gustov]

Why?

I like to leave the cinema with the feeling that I've learnt something. Film means so much more to me than consumption.

Why beat yourself up.

I'm not, I enjoyed Avatar thoroughly, it's just something that I'll soon forget about.

Just enjoy life and the media you consume.

Like above, I enjoyed it but I like a film to touch me on a personal level.

Finding meaning in something can be waste of time.

Depends on how much something means to you

Sometimes ART just is.

Can of worms

You may be looking for something that doesn't exist.

Pandora is as far from reality as I can imagine

Chimercal - Two films for you to go watch at the cinema in the next month or so.

A Prophet - Jacques Audiard

Precious - Can't remember directors name, he's a producer turned director.

 

[Nitefly]

Why?

Why beat yourself up.

Just enjoy life and the media you consume.

Finding meaning in something can be waste of time.

Sometimes ART just is.

You may be looking for something that doesn't exist.

I can to quite some extent agree with this. I loathe it when people come up with complicated reasoning for liking modern art. It's ok to 'just' like it.

On the other hand, if a film makes you reflect on certain issues or on your own life for longer than an hour after you leave the cinema, then it might be regarded as more powerful or meaningful. It that sense, a film can be more than just entertaining.

 

[Chimerical]

Chimercal - Two films for you to go watch at the cinema in the next month or so.

A Prophet - Jacques Audiard

Precious - Can't remember directors name, he's a producer turned director.

Precious does look interesting, saw the trailer a while back, not sure about Mariah Carey though.

Haven't heard of the other film, I'll definitely check it out though. Thanks for the recommendation.