Avatar and the question of escapism

A Mind On The Brink Of Collapse

Note on the movie 'Avatar' - Why is it still so much ahead of other films, despite inflation and competition; even the last decade smashes ? Is Avatar really an escapist movie ?

Avatar was a one of a kind movie, made by a director who had built a cult-following for decades. Almost all of James Cameron films have displayed countless times on tv and almost all of them are classics. He has also made one of the most successful film of all time (Titanic, which added a complementary audience to his resume; an audience caring more about history than horror and syfy). Back in 2008, the trailers of Avatar didn't impress (to say the least) and the marketing went ahead on Jim's persona only. He's a perfectionist, he's the best etc etc. There was no other way to sell the film that to remind the audience how much they loved his past films. Plus, 3D was not exhibitable on tv. It was on James Cameron's word.

That's for the marketing aspect.

About the film's achievements, it has a lot going for him : firstly, it was the godfather of 3D; the technology having been put in place for the film. It was eventful and it was on a need-to-be-there basis. Secondly, Avatar is an ecological film in a landscape of releases that is not investing in ecology - and ecology is one of the audience biggest preoccupation. There is an unconscious anxiety linked to the death of our world, as explained by Lars von Trier in ‘Melancholia', but you have to find a way to address it. Jim did it with a salvational twist.

Intelligently, it didn't make the mistake of making an ecological statement from the opposition, from the fatality; a-la Wall-E. Wall-E is ecological but spends 90% of its time in a desert or in a spaceship. There is a clear opposition between the message and the image, so much that it works only on an anxious level. Only cinephiles go to movies to get anxious.

Symbolically, nature is made of trees, and nature is perceived as a forest (although Avatar 2 will deal with the oceans). Instead of relying on the desert analogy, James Cameron made the most developed biome he could. It was holistic in its attempt, but also colorful, pleasant, entertaining. People were not turned off, they were living the ecological statement in an immersive manner, not through the moral eye of a statement depicting the only thing absent from the screen.

By being state-of-the-art regarding the creation of a natural environment (becoming the statement), it gave the audience what it was coming for; there was no trap or treason - you came for something : you got it (treason is the desert except if you explain why a desert is also a fascinating biome, using for example the Singing sand ;something Frank Hebert did in an unconventional way, by starting from Caladan, a water-world, to Arrakis, and driving the reader through a new world he did not suspect).

In a very mainstream fashion, Avatar is not moral, it is emotional. It is a first-degree movie where there are no direct use of symbolism, except in the structure and the method of the narrative itself. It is an emotional journey through visible nature (we are literally in nature, in one of its most graspable metonymic spot). Avatar didn't show you something that you didn't have but something you had that is wonderful (the Forest) and for which you gonna have to take side (against Col. Quaritch who's like daddy who tries to hurt mom).

Comes the destruction of World-Tree, and at its feet the peaceful victims hurt by it (one might also take into consideration that the World-Tree is a symbol as old as recorded humanity, it is therefore a strong archetype in human history which may resonate deeply). When Jake Sully fights and wins against the military, he cathartically avenges the Forest against humanity; but most importantly, because he is humanity, he is taking sides (it is salvational); an action requiring only change. Of course, he's not defending a Tree, but a living organism called a Na'vi, who is in a symbiotic relation with it. Saving the Navi' is saving the World-Tree, is enrolling yourself into nature's army (it is choosing, because Jake Sully is making a choice). The kiss of Jake Sully and Neytiri is the kiss of man towards nature, and is followed by Man deciding to get rid of his old identity and take part in the conflict. The movie includes a nostalgic view of nature and is salvational, but with a twist, the twist of changing skin. This is an act against purity, in a world where color can create apartheid; and it is pretty rare to root for a hero who's leaving his human body for another specie, as if we would decide to become the alien.

Emotionally, this is a strong film which works in a shamanic way, with the transformation and the killing of the disease.

Therefore it is not escapism, it is grounded in reality, it is a fantasy film concerned about being realistic, while on the verge of unbelievable. One might understand why technological realism was contingent for the movie to work as it needed to elevate itself beyond the boundaries of escapism. Human and alien interactions (from a Cgi world) needed to work at the same level, echoing a paradoxical need for fantasy to reach complete believability. Without those predicaments matching, Neytiri as Holli Would, the form of Avatar would have messed with suspension of disbelief, and developed as a primary trait : the adventurous, the galaxy far and away.

The vehicle and the tenor of Avatar are of significance, especially for an audience that don't connect nor projects into abstracts. It then has two audiences : people who dislike fantasy because it is unrealistic but like Avatar because it talks about something which is wired to real-life, and people who love fantasy and find in Avatar a state-of-the-art fantasy film. Commentators have observed that there was no pop-cultural references following Avatar, because what they are used to see as successful is Star Wars and its domination of pop-culture. But most probably, seeing how The Force Awakens barely scratches Avatar, you'd think that this is not paramount. Obviously, Star Wars brings the nerds, the fans and those who like Leia and Harrison Ford, but is still missing millions of ticket sales to even pass Avatar's numbers (although by seat's numbering more people went to see Force Awakens). Maybe because Avatar's audience is not reacting by investor's playbook. People will see Avatar 1, 2, 3 but will never feel the need to dress as a Na'vi - although they might plant trees and change their habits. From taking a leap from pop-culture, it gets closer to real politics of life. It is possible to see a path through 2020 where Marvel's monopoly of tent-poles movies will drift into abstract themes that will make the summer thematic big-crunch itself into an unrecognizable oblivion, a self-referential pool, a cult of fictional personalities negating the problems at hand, as if life was not allowed in theater attendance. Which will leave a shining spot for highly-technical fantasy blockbusters concerned about politics to conquer all on its path.

It is important to note that since 2009, no other films have developed such high regards to nature (you had to have a big budget for it and Jim is using is star-power for a high ecological purpose), so Avatar is the only film in its market. If you have the need for that experience, there can be only this one. Others competitors are documentaries and are no rivals from a ticket perspective.

I do believe kids who were too young in 2009 will be quick to jump into Avatar 2, as anxiety and awareness about climate change increases. They will watch it before the sequel, they will plant trees, they will be extremely aware of the threat, and touched by the anxiety of our world being destroyed - and all of them will come see Avatar 2 to engage themselves, to live a catharsis collectively. By that time, Avatar will still be the only dominant film of its marketplace : a 3D - ecological film about Earth and its survival which is not escapism, because it is almost made by scientists.

A similar occurrence happened with ‘The Mermaid' by Stephen Chow. While it didn't try to recreate or reproduce nature, it is a moral fable - although nowhere near as encompassing as Avatar since Avatar created real biomes and environments. Because of a dire need to address ecological preocuppation, The Mermaid made 550 millions (by 2020, double it for Avatar 2 for the same market). As a madarin-cantonese film, it has limited international markets to count on.  Escapism is over-budgeted in regards of Avatar, and it will be fascinating to see how far the sequel blows the lid off the first one.

Signaler ce texte