Comments on: Cinematism, Realism, and Spectacle part 1: Avatar http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/ writer & film curator Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:19:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Robert http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2393 Robert Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:50:03 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2393 Thanks for this very interesting review (essay?). I guess the part 2 will be even more interesting, since the subject is deeply opened. I didnt see Avatar yet cause I wait next week to go watch it in 3D to really get into it, even if it will make me dizzy and crazy. I'll bring pills just in case. Usually I don't go watch Hollywood movies cause I know that most of the time, its basically the same thing and I don't like to see the same easy thing over and over. Neither, I'm not a big fan of American culture and cinema (I'm french canadian) cause if feel that their movies often pretend to be what they are not. Its lame and... bad, I think. But Avatar is something because, I think it is actually well timed (end of the decade), just as Matrix was, 10 years back. So, while I didn't see it yet, I have already my hypothesis on it, based on my own knowledge and the reviews I've read. There is, I think, 3 subjects related to it which are: 3D (CG and out-of-the-screen illusion), significant side about the modern society (mostly about the decade 2000), and the significant movie hidden behind cliché spectacle brought to the mass (or simply, popular culture). Well, I don't know what to think about all these subjects, even if I already made my mind about them. The fact that a lot of people think different things about what is Avatar and what it will bring to the cinema makes me want to really think a lot before going to see it. Since I heard that the 3D aspect of it is really something, it makes me kind of angry against those who think that because I'm not sure if people really know what is 3D and when did it came on the screen. Think about it, 3D is far to be new and I'm sure people in general don't even know when they saw 3D for the first time. Well, anyway... is it really going to be something important as much as sound and color, in the history of cinema? About the 2 other subjects, we all know about. The avatar is what became the representation of the future during the decade. With the huge phenomenon of World of Warcraft (even if mmorpg already existed before 2000...), it seem people think a lot that future will be self-representation in a virtual world where we will be able do to what we want... Well, my big hypothesis on Avatar is that it would have been an essay instead of a same-as-usual Hollywood movie pretending to be what it is not and to show to the mass what future will be. Can't wait for the part 2. Thanks for this very interesting review (essay?). I guess the part 2 will be even more interesting, since the subject is deeply opened.

I didnt see Avatar yet cause I wait next week to go watch it in 3D to really get into it, even if it will make me dizzy and crazy. I’ll bring pills just in case.

Usually I don’t go watch Hollywood movies cause I know that most of the time, its basically the same thing and I don’t like to see the same easy thing over and over. Neither, I’m not a big fan of American culture and cinema (I’m french canadian) cause if feel that their movies often pretend to be what they are not. Its lame and… bad, I think.

But Avatar is something because, I think it is actually well timed (end of the decade), just as Matrix was, 10 years back. So, while I didn’t see it yet, I have already my hypothesis on it, based on my own knowledge and the reviews I’ve read. There is, I think, 3 subjects related to it which are: 3D (CG and out-of-the-screen illusion), significant side about the modern society (mostly about the decade 2000), and the significant movie hidden behind cliché spectacle brought to the mass (or simply, popular culture).

Well, I don’t know what to think about all these subjects, even if I already made my mind about them. The fact that a lot of people think different things about what is Avatar and what it will bring to the cinema makes me want to really think a lot before going to see it. Since I heard that the 3D aspect of it is really something, it makes me kind of angry against those who think that because I’m not sure if people really know what is 3D and when did it came on the screen. Think about it, 3D is far to be new and I’m sure people in general don’t even know when they saw 3D for the first time. Well, anyway… is it really going to be something important as much as sound and color, in the history of cinema?

About the 2 other subjects, we all know about. The avatar is what became the representation of the future during the decade. With the huge phenomenon of World of Warcraft (even if mmorpg already existed before 2000…), it seem people think a lot that future will be self-representation in a virtual world where we will be able do to what we want…

Well, my big hypothesis on Avatar is that it would have been an essay instead of a same-as-usual Hollywood movie pretending to be what it is not and to show to the mass what future will be.

Can’t wait for the part 2.

]]> By: Madam Miaow http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2392 Madam Miaow Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:42:08 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2392 Yay! You saved me having to review it. The small screen? I weep tears for hoo-man watch such big film on tiny box. No Avatar DVD from Amazon. Waste eyeball. No feed brain jelly anyhow. Big screen go "OOOH!" Little screen go "Aw!" Yay! You saved me having to review it.

The small screen? I weep tears for hoo-man watch such big film on tiny box. No Avatar DVD from Amazon. Waste eyeball. No feed brain jelly anyhow. Big screen go “OOOH!” Little screen go “Aw!”

]]> By: Jasper http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2391 Jasper Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:29:30 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2391 Eric, I think you should see Avatar on the big screen, in 3d, as it was intended, though I don't envy you the journey getting there. I just can't imagine the film playing particularly well in 2d. I think it would look really basic, and its narrative shortcomings would be even more apparent. Ivan, I'll check out Run of the Arrow - sounds interesting. Lukas, you definitely should check out Up. It did use its 3d inventively, but it also had a heart to it - good characters and a strong story. It would work just as well without the 3d. Ditto for Coraline. As for my "part 2" of this thread, its not going to be about Avatar... Eric, I think you should see Avatar on the big screen, in 3d, as it was intended, though I don’t envy you the journey getting there. I just can’t imagine the film playing particularly well in 2d. I think it would look really basic, and its narrative shortcomings would be even more apparent.
Ivan, I’ll check out Run of the Arrow – sounds interesting.
Lukas, you definitely should check out Up. It did use its 3d inventively, but it also had a heart to it – good characters and a strong story. It would work just as well without the 3d. Ditto for Coraline.
As for my “part 2″ of this thread, its not going to be about Avatar…

]]> By: Lukas Brehm http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2390 Lukas Brehm Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:32:32 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2390 This was the first 3D movie I've seen on the big screen, and I'm curious to see what other directors make of this technology. Your title says "part one", so I guess you'll give us some thoughts on the second technological innovation in Avatar as well? The new mo-cap for faces? I couldn't really make out that much of a difference to Andy Serkis' Gollum for example, even though as I understand it, it's a big leap in technology. Ultimately the shift from a human face to an anthropomorph alien wasn't that huge. When some filmmaker starts using this technology to put human emotions on a coffee cup, I might be a little more impressed. This was the first 3D movie I’ve seen on the big screen, and I’m curious to see what other directors make of this technology. Your title says “part one”, so I guess you’ll give us some thoughts on the second technological innovation in Avatar as well? The new mo-cap for faces?
I couldn’t really make out that much of a difference to Andy Serkis’ Gollum for example, even though as I understand it, it’s a big leap in technology. Ultimately the shift from a human face to an anthropomorph alien wasn’t that huge. When some filmmaker starts using this technology to put human emotions on a coffee cup, I might be a little more impressed.

]]> By: Ivan Denisov http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2389 Ivan Denisov Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:25:18 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2389 For me the main problems with 'Avatar" are that the film is too boring, repetitive and takes itself too seriously. I mean, I got bored after 45 minutes and only some action stuff in the final part brought some liveliness. Then, Smauel Fuller explored the same problems much better in his 1957 western 'Run of the arrow" (OK, I see Fuller's influence everywhere, but why not? cinephiles blame Costner for stealing a lot from the same film). And finally - short sequence from "Dances with smurfs" episode from "South park" is much more fun than Cameron's festival of boredom. But again, it's just my thoughts. For me the main problems with ‘Avatar” are that the film is too boring, repetitive and takes itself too seriously. I mean, I got bored after 45 minutes and only some action stuff in the final part brought some liveliness. Then, Smauel Fuller explored the same problems much better in his 1957 western ‘Run of the arrow” (OK, I see Fuller’s influence everywhere, but why not? cinephiles blame Costner for stealing a lot from the same film). And finally – short sequence from “Dances with smurfs” episode from “South park” is much more fun than Cameron’s festival of boredom. But again, it’s just my thoughts.

]]> By: Allan Koay http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2388 Allan Koay Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:14:12 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2388 Mononoke Hime! (Slaps forehead!) no wonder, i thought i'd failed to mention something, and a certain familiarity in Avatar hovered just beyond my braincells. Mononoke Hime! (Slaps forehead!) no wonder, i thought i’d failed to mention something, and a certain familiarity in Avatar hovered just beyond my braincells.

]]> By: Eric http://jaspersharp.com/blog/news/2009/12/cinematism-realism-and-spectacle-part-1-avatar/comment-page-1/#comment-2387 Eric Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:22:59 +0000 http://jaspersharp.com/blog/?p=231#comment-2387 Thanks for the thoughtful write-up. I'll be picking up Lamarre's book as well. Cameron's stock in trade is spectacle, and there are few better at providing sheer visceral thrill in films. But yes, the good-storytelling essentials--dialogue, characterization, plot--all fall by the wayside in the wake of the adrenaline thrust of his steamroller narratives. After Terminators 1 and 2, Aliens (his best), The Abyss (a close second), True Lies, and Titanic, I don't expect anything in the way of believability or character development. I do expect to be dazzled, thrilled, and otherwise removed from reality for 2-3 hours. I don't want that from every movie I see, but now and then it's a relief to turn off the brainbox and submit oneself to pure spectacle. The question for me is, does Cameron do a better job at such than, say, Devlin with 2012 or Guy Ritchie with Sherlock Holmes? I go to the cinema so infrequently that when I DO make the trip, it had better be satisfying. I'm not sure that Avatar will scratch that itch given what you've written, but as I have similar concerns over how it'll play on the small screen, I'll be making the trip. (It's a 3.5 hour drive to the closest first-run quality cinema for me, so if I want to see Avatar or indeed any new release, I have to commit to $50 in petrol, a 7-hour round-trip drive, and possibly a hotel bill. Such is the life of someone living in the red rock desert of the American southwest...) Thanks for the thoughtful write-up. I’ll be picking up Lamarre’s book as well.
Cameron’s stock in trade is spectacle, and there are few better at providing sheer visceral thrill in films. But yes, the good-storytelling essentials–dialogue, characterization, plot–all fall by the wayside in the wake of the adrenaline thrust of his steamroller narratives. After Terminators 1 and 2, Aliens (his best), The Abyss (a close second), True Lies, and Titanic, I don’t expect anything in the way of believability or character development. I do expect to be dazzled, thrilled, and otherwise removed from reality for 2-3 hours. I don’t want that from every movie I see, but now and then it’s a relief to turn off the brainbox and submit oneself to pure spectacle. The question for me is, does Cameron do a better job at such than, say, Devlin with 2012 or Guy Ritchie with Sherlock Holmes? I go to the cinema so infrequently that when I DO make the trip, it had better be satisfying. I’m not sure that Avatar will scratch that itch given what you’ve written, but as I have similar concerns over how it’ll play on the small screen, I’ll be making the trip. (It’s a 3.5 hour drive to the closest first-run quality cinema for me, so if I want to see Avatar or indeed any new release, I have to commit to $50 in petrol, a 7-hour round-trip drive, and possibly a hotel bill. Such is the life of someone living in the red rock desert of the American southwest…)

]]>