Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Water Tribes

Film: Avatar: The Way of Water
Format: Streaming video from Disney Plus on rockin’ flatscreen.

Well, I knew I was going to have to watch this eventually. I very much didn’t want to watch Avatar: The Way of Water, and had it not been for my personal commitment to watch every Best Picture nominee that I can, I would not have watched it. For starters, I don’t have that much interest in it, nor any real desire to remember the mythology from 2009. Second, and importantly, this thing clocks in at 196 minutes. If ever there was a poster child for runtime bloat, it’s this.

We’re going back to the planet of Pandora, and thankfully this time we won’t be dealing with the ridiculousness of looking for a mineral called unobtanium. We’re going to spend the start reintroducing ourselves to our main characters. On the one side, this is going to mean getting reacquainted with Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his wife Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). It’s years later, though and now they have kids. These are sons Neteyam (Jamie Flatters) and Lo’ak (Britain Dalton), and daughter Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss). It also includes adopted daughter Kiri (Sigourney Weaver), born from the inert avatar of Dr. Grace Augustine (also Weaver) from the first film. Also in the mix is Miles “Spider” Socorro (Jack Champion), a human child who we learn is the son of Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang),the bad guy from the first film.

On the bad guy side, Quaritch and the rest of his crew are back, this time as the giant blue-skinned Na’vi. Yep, they’ve had their recorded memories permanently implanted into Avatars. Quaritch is the only one who has any real personality—the others are distinguishable only by things like “wears sunglasses” or “has a mohawk.” Also on the bad guy side is the new military commander, General Frances Ardmore (Edie Falco).

Anyway, for the last however long, the Na’vi have been living their lives while the “sky people” have left them alone. But no longer—humanity is back on Pandora with a hankering for conquest and revenge and for a new chemical found in the brain of giant whale-like creatures. The chemical stops aging in humans, making it the most valuable substance in the universe, at least for the humans.

But a lot of this is about Quaritch trying to settle a score with Jake Sully. To that end, he and his team are sent into the forest, and this is precisely the moment where I checked out on this being anything like a movie that was going to try to be smart. As they go off, General Ardmore tells them that they hope they will be taken as natives. And then they proceed to gear up in military equipment, use human weapons and materials, move in human military fashion, and speak English. They’re even wearing combat boots. Naturally, though, they temporarily capture of few of the Sullys’ kids and much fighting commences. Wanting to keep their people safe, Jake and Neytiri leave the forest with their kids and go to the reef people called the Metkayina, who are a greener version of the Na’vi with webbed fingers and a flat tail. We get a little mild racism happening here, both because of the skin color difference/tail difference and because Sully’s kids have human hands rather than Na’vi hands. Oh, and Spider remains trapped by the humans and has an awkward meeting with his father.

A surprising amount of this movie is essentially hazing of the Sully kids by the water tribe. They are also not particularly welcome by the chief’s wife Ronal (Kate Winslet), but the chief of the tribe, Tonowari (Cliff Curtis) accepts them on a tentative basis. Because we have to have a love interest that actually works (because the obvious Kiri/Spider love affair ain’t happening) we’re going to have sparks between Lo’ak and the daughter of the chief, Tsirea (Bailey Bass).

Here's the thing. I’m not going to dive too far into the plot here. If you liked the first Avatar, you’ve probably already seen this, and if you didn’t, a plot rundown isn’t going to make this more attractive. So let’s talk about what works and what doesn’t.

What works is that it’s pretty. I don’t know that it carries the same graphic weight that it did a decade and a half ago, but it does look good. Except, that is, for the Na’vi themselves. I think they fall very much into uncanny valley territory, and I find them kind of disturbing. Still, the animation is good, and I won’t take that away from the film.

There are, I think, two significant problems with Avatar: The Way of Water. The first is that it is unbelievably predictable. As with the first film, there were moments that I predicted with disturbing accuracy, not merely in terms of what would happen, but at times the exact moment things would happen and lengths of shots. It’s also very derivative of Avatar: The Last Airbender in the sense that we end up traveling across the planet to meet up with the water tribes. There are three more Avatar movies planned. It wouldn’t shock me a great deal if the next two involved an Earth Kingdom and a Fire Nation.

It also feels very racist. I don’t mean in the sense that the Sullys are treated like outsiders by the Metkayina, but in a very real sense that it feels really racist in the “Mickey Rooney playing a Japanese guy” sense. The Metkayina are at least in part modeled after the Maori. So why the hell is Kate Winslet playing one of them and speaking in a Maori-like accent?

As I said above, there are three more Avatar films planned over the next eight years, which means I will probably have to watch another 9-10 hours of this over the next almost decade. Look, I know people like these, but I just can’t roll my eyes hard enough.

Why to watch Avatar: The Way of Water: It’s pretty.
Why not to watch: It’s also pretty vapid,

13 comments:

  1. I've always liked the first one, and appreciated the technological wizardry behind it even more; my mom was a big fan of the first, and has watched it several times since it came out (we have a bit of history with the first, as it came out in theaters on the same day I graduated from film school, so we all went and saw it that same afternoon). Naturally, she had to see this one in theaters, and we went together to a 3D showing. I liked it for basically the same reasons as the first, she loved it for the same reasons as well as how much the 3D added to the whole experience. I saw that this got added to Max (formerly HBO Max) and let her know in case she felt the need to watch it again; she did a few days ago, and said that while she still liked it, it's just not the same experience as watching it in a theater with 3D.

    I think her reaction to her home viewing is very indicative of both how this film works and especially how it can not work. As much as I roll my eyes at certain purists in the industry who insist that the theatrical experience is the only true, best, correct, & unsurpassable way to experience a movie, it's when a notion like that from certain people on the production side of films gets taken to its absolute extreme & leads to the production of films like this that prove both sides of that coin correct: this film is an absolute wonder when experienced the way Cameron wants you to experience it - in a full, 3D, IMAX, Dolby Atmos equipped theater - but viewing the film in anything less than that setting, like at home on a regular television flat-screen, regardless of the general audience's intention of viewing or availability/pricing of the technology required to get the full effect of the actual film... it becomes impossible to even appreciate the film for what Cameron and the production were going for when they made it. Even something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, if one is forced to watch it on a black-and-white, standard resolution pan-and-scan VHS tape, would probably be an underwhelming experience; and if that viewer can only watch it that way through either technological or financial limitations (like in today's age, where not everybody may be able to afford a full QLED, HDR television with a Dolby Atmos equipped home theater sound system, where 3D TVs & Blu-ray players have become a niche & outmoded market instead of something like a standard available to anyone), then to how far a length can filmmakers reasonably go with the films they're making & the way they want them to be seen before they've left a very large majority of their audience behind and refuse to realize it?

    It's this sort of mistake that I see filmmakers like Cameron and Nolan increasingly heading toward, and I'm really not sure what could potentially throw the brakes on that accelerating speed that wouldn't also come across as possibly stifling creativity. You want the audience to have an amazing experience watching your film, of course, but how far can you reasonably go with trying to do that before it becomes an impossible return on your investment in terms of sheer capability of your audience to get what they need to out of it; especially if you focus so hard on the amazing experience and end up lagging behind on other aspects of your film, like a good story & dialogue or a solid message behind the narrative, that wouldn't be nearly as handicapped for your audience no matter how they watch your film? This is the crux of how Avatar (this one, the first, and probably the sequels) both works and doesn't work, and I feel it's only a matter of time before the response to these films becomes so weighted by the lessening percentage of "full experience" viewings that the money-handlers behind Cameron start to question how much this sort of thing is really worth it. And that in itself is a rather sad thing to consider for filmmaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goddamn, this ended up long; sorry about that. Hell, it almost turned into a full review of my own; and now if this gets added to the 1001 list, I'm gonna have to figure out other things to say about it that I didn't cover here. :D

      Delete
    2. I genuinely don't mind the length.

      You bring up some really interesting points. A million years ago (three decades, actually), I had similar conversations about the computer game industry. People were doing new things that were exciting and ground-breaking, but that required a huge investment from the end user. You had to have the latest system. You had to upgrade your sound card. It stated to become cost-prohibitive for all but the most dedicated (or wealthy) fan.

      I will say in my defense that I saw the first Avatar in theater, and I was suitably impressed with the visuals. It's the story that has always lacked for me--this is just Ferngully or Dances with Wolves with a lot of glitz and CGI. So much of this is so predictable--I was calling out beats to scenes or specific actions throughout the runtime not because they were telegraphed, but because they were in lockstep with tropes I've seen 100 times in the past.

      I have to think, though, that I'm out of step. I want the movie to do something new, to give me an angle on the story that leads in a different direction than I am expecting--but what sells sells. For me, this culminates in the last few minutes of the film with what happens to Quaritch--it feels plot-motivated and not character motivated, so it feels like a cheat, like they should have spent another couple of hours in the writers' room to give us something there that isn't so obvious. Same is true of other moments in the film that I don't want to go into because they track hard into spoiler territory--and in one case, what I think is going to be spoiler territory for one of the sequels.

      I know I'm in the minority here--people love this franchise. I just...don't.

      Delete
    3. Honestly, you're not wrong with your criticisms of the story. It's a criticism that even fans of the first one found impossible to argue against, and it's the same with this one too. At this point (for me), you watch the Avatar movies to experience the world of Pandora, to live as fully as you can in that different, Edenic environment for two or three hours. It's to how far to that point, in terms of the money needed to be thrown at it and how many times over for however many sequels we're gonna get, until the diminishing return on the audience's investment in both redundancy in a franchise as well as inability to keep up with the full experience outside of a fully-equipped theater setting, that seems more and more concerning to me the more I try and think about it.

      It's really amusing you liken the franchise to the animated Avatar show and its elemental nations; Cameron has confirmed that there are tribes on Pandora that live near volcanoes and the like, colloquially called the "ash tribes", that he'd like to explore in a future film, so your Fire Nation remark is already panning out. :D

      Delete
    4. I get it--the general praise of the movie is that it's gorgeous, and I can imagein that in a theater, it would be.

      I struggle with 3D movies in general, so that experience tends to be lost on me.

      Delete
  2. I still can't bring myself to watch this, and the only reason I feel like I need to is beause I've seen every BP nominee for the past several years running.
    *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm reluctant about seeing this as I liked the last one but I didn't think it was that great. I'm glad it's on Disney+ as I can see it at any time but I'm not in a rush to see this and I'm unsure about wanting to see the next parts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a story that I genuinely don't care about at this point, but if they keep getting nominated, I guess I'm stuck watching them.

      Delete
  4. This movie committed two big sins in my eyes. It absolutely tracks the first movie almost beat for beat, and it completely wastes Zoe Saldana. It's hard to remember that she was even in this. It was beautiful, technically amazing, and I love how it reminded me of Flight of Passage at Disney's Animal Kingdom, but no, it was not good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a really good point about Zoe Saldana. I forgot completely that she was in this at all.

      Delete
  5. This was a chore to watch for me. Admittedly, I hated the first Avatar and went into this with a pretty bad attitude but I was hoping something would grab my attention and it just doesn't. I felt like I was watching a video game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. I think that sums it up. It would have been a chore at half this length, but to extend over three hours? That's self-indulgent for no purpose other than ego stroking. The audience deserves better.

      Get this down to a tight 120 minutes and I still wouldn't love it, but I wouldn't be so disappointed in it.

      Delete