Avatar (2009) ***
Titanic (1997) ***
Star Wars (1977) *****
Earlier this month, James Cameron’s ecological epic ‘Avatar’ (2009) got its home cinema release and, predictably for the most hyped movie of the last ten years, the DVD and Blu-Ray sales have been the fastest in history, going against the sharp decline in physical disc sales that has accompanied the age of the download. Whilst this boost will be a temporary one, the more lasting consequence will be how ‘Avatar’s widely publicised ‘immersive experience’ will translate into people’s living rooms. Some movies were made for the big screen and their shortcomings become very obvious on a smaller screen without surround sound. Others can be downsized with their entertainment value and reputation intact. Is ‘Avatar’ another ‘Star Wars’ (1977) or another ‘Titanic’ (1997)?
James Cameron gets to work on the script for the Avatar sequel.
The presence in the queues outside the DVD stores of blue-painted people would appear to hint that science-fiction fans have room in their locker for fanaticism over another movie (and by 2014 its sequel). The almost religious fervour that surrounds 'Star Trek' in all its incarnations, ‘Star Wars’ and fantasy movies such as The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) is a thing of ridicule for most of us but it is also the reason these films make so much money and hang around forever in the multiplexes. There is a famous story that George Lucas knew he would at the very least break even with ‘Star Wars’ as the title alone would attract every sci-fi fan in America into the cinemas. Will ‘Avatar’ inspire the same lasting devotion as Lucas’ movies? Unfortunately for James Cameron even with HD technology and bigger TV screens, ‘Avatar’s multiple messages (treatment of the planet, western powers invading countries with no idea of their indigenous culture, the plight of the native American) are so sober, almost po-faced, that it doesn’t have the same sense of fun as ‘Star Wars’ and its deficiencies in not being rip-roaring entertainment are exposed on the small screen where the films technical brilliance is diminished.
Remember ‘Titanic’? It was huge. It was everywhere. It made money by the boat load and had people queuing around the block for repeat viewings when it hit cinemas back in 1997. The sheer scale of the movie had to be admired as a brilliant technical achievement – the sort of spectacle made for a giant cinema screen. If you missed it at the multiplex then you missed the experience of seeing the film as it was intended to be viewed. The effects weren’t as impressive when seen on a television and by dulling the film’s big impact moments you noticed that the script wasn’t very impressive and some of the performances were dreadful – Billy Zane in particular was bad without being bad enough to be funny. ‘Avatar’ looks certain to follow the same pattern. I would watch it again if it was re-released in the cinema in, say five years time, but I would find it difficult to whip up any enthusiasm for a small screen repeat.
‘Titanic’ obviously wasn’t the first film made with a view to big-screen spectacle. Since D.W. Griffith got his hands on a camera numerous film-makers have undertaken projects that were specifically designed to use the grand scale of a cinema screen. Where Cameron went wrong with both ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’ is that you get the feeling that he believed on both occasions that he was making the greatest movie ever made when he should have been happy to make first class, escapist entertainment, like ‘The Terminator’ (1984) or ‘Aliens’ (1986), that he made his name with in the 1980s. The effects were impressive but they weren’t too big for the home video market whilst the nature of the plot and the movie allowed any script issues to go almost unnoticed. When you went to see ‘Terminator 2: Judgement Day’ (1991) you knew it had nothing to say about the world and it was happy to be a first rate action/ sci-fi movie. ‘True Lies’ (1994) had its tongue firmly in its cheek just like the Bond movies it was clearly influenced by, and was all the better for it in the same way that the humourless Daniel Craig Bond movies seem incredibly dull in comparison to Connery’s or Moore’s. ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’ both follow on from many of the huge historical epics of the 1950s and 60s – huge production, superb technical achievements, perfect for the big screen but when you watch them on television the dull stretches become much more apparent. How many of us have sat through the perennial Easter showing of ‘Ben Hur’ (1959) more than once? How about ‘The Ten Commandments’ (1956) or ‘The English Patient’ (1996)? What Cameron needs to remember is that big doesn’t necessarily mean great. For every ‘Gone with the Wind’ (1939) there is a ‘Heaven’s Gate’ (1980) and for every Lord of the Rings there is a ‘Hawaii’ (1966).
Remember ‘Titanic’? It was huge. It was everywhere. It made money by the boat load and had people queuing around the block for repeat viewings when it hit cinemas back in 1997. The sheer scale of the movie had to be admired as a brilliant technical achievement – the sort of spectacle made for a giant cinema screen. If you missed it at the multiplex then you missed the experience of seeing the film as it was intended to be viewed. The effects weren’t as impressive when seen on a television and by dulling the film’s big impact moments you noticed that the script wasn’t very impressive and some of the performances were dreadful – Billy Zane in particular was bad without being bad enough to be funny. ‘Avatar’ looks certain to follow the same pattern. I would watch it again if it was re-released in the cinema in, say five years time, but I would find it difficult to whip up any enthusiasm for a small screen repeat.
‘Titanic’ obviously wasn’t the first film made with a view to big-screen spectacle. Since D.W. Griffith got his hands on a camera numerous film-makers have undertaken projects that were specifically designed to use the grand scale of a cinema screen. Where Cameron went wrong with both ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’ is that you get the feeling that he believed on both occasions that he was making the greatest movie ever made when he should have been happy to make first class, escapist entertainment, like ‘The Terminator’ (1984) or ‘Aliens’ (1986), that he made his name with in the 1980s. The effects were impressive but they weren’t too big for the home video market whilst the nature of the plot and the movie allowed any script issues to go almost unnoticed. When you went to see ‘Terminator 2: Judgement Day’ (1991) you knew it had nothing to say about the world and it was happy to be a first rate action/ sci-fi movie. ‘True Lies’ (1994) had its tongue firmly in its cheek just like the Bond movies it was clearly influenced by, and was all the better for it in the same way that the humourless Daniel Craig Bond movies seem incredibly dull in comparison to Connery’s or Moore’s. ‘Titanic’ and ‘Avatar’ both follow on from many of the huge historical epics of the 1950s and 60s – huge production, superb technical achievements, perfect for the big screen but when you watch them on television the dull stretches become much more apparent. How many of us have sat through the perennial Easter showing of ‘Ben Hur’ (1959) more than once? How about ‘The Ten Commandments’ (1956) or ‘The English Patient’ (1996)? What Cameron needs to remember is that big doesn’t necessarily mean great. For every ‘Gone with the Wind’ (1939) there is a ‘Heaven’s Gate’ (1980) and for every Lord of the Rings there is a ‘Hawaii’ (1966).
For condensed news and mini reviews of movies mentioned here, click the 'Follow me' button inthe top right corner of the screen and follow the Man in Lincolns Nose on Twitter.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment