3-D, CG, and the Future: Avatar

     James Cameron's Avatar came out Thursday night to gain 3.5 million dollars in 2000 theaters, and it could gain much more over the next few days. (Not enough to beat New Moon, though). I believe M has, in his article,  decently analyzed the movie's finer points about humanity and our longing for a fresh start, our fears about destroying something we need, and becoming the very power we so desire to keep at bay. The fresh start would be Pandora, as Jake quickly mentioned that earth is "no longer green" and Pandora is lush with flora and fauna. Our fears of destrying the forests of earth (our life source) and possibly somehow the concept of forgetting the past (destroying our history, since ancient trees hold stories to years past) can be observed in the destruction of the Family Tree and the other Brain-like forests of the world. And lastly, we fear that we ourselves will be the very creature to destroy the world we live in: Jake and Grace and Norm have become Na'vi and their human friends have come to destroy them.
     Having seen 2012, I can't help but compare the two CG experiences derived from both. Both tend to have the "Spectacle" appeal that Michael Allen and Stephen Prince talk about, for, as my father pointed out, "Everything seems to be really big." Unlike 2012 though, the use of humanoid CG characters put the most stress on the film to be accurate. Buildings and their destruction can be easily created compared to realistic humanoid figures strutting around. While both have their fair share of non-referent images (or close enough - we've never seen floating mountains, nor have we ever seen 3,450 square miles of land blow up), Avatar has more free range, while 2012 is forced to rely on physics as it's base in reality. As M said, though, none of the places, things, or activities are completely unknown to us. The large machines, the "horses" and the pterodactyl like Banshee and Toruk, are all objects and creatures we know, taken to a new height. Of course, we all know war, and we all know the joy of being able to run, and these things are taken to new levels in Avatar.

     The most interesting thing about my experience last night was the 3-D image, one I haven't seen since a 3-D movie in IMAX about dinosaurs. It took a little bit of getting used to, but after a while it became a natural part of the movie. Since the movie was actually filmed for the 3-D viewing experience, it tended to work better than movies that don't have the sophisticated technology to capture an image in the third dimension, as seen in the trailers. It's a unique feature to the moviegoing experience that will, supposedly, replace all films in the future.
     The thing about the 3-D is, though, that there tends to be less ability, on the audiences behalf, to choose the focal point of any particular shots. Generally, the film has a focus point: the object near the center of the depth of field, or the figure that appears to be on the movie screen itself. Since each shot has depth, things closer and further away, there is always something in the center of the depth, and that image usually remains on the flat of the movie screen. This allows the audience to know what they're supposed to look at, so that even then the entire depth is in focus, one can choose the most prominent point of interest based on it's location in depth.
     However, in my mind, this gives the audience less creative control over their experience at the film. A realist film would give the audience a great depth of field for them to choose where the wish to focus. Cameron's film may give a great depth of field, but it still chooses for us what we are supposed to look at. In fact, it's difficult to look at something that is not the main focus, because it tends to be blurry or fuzzy, even though it is in focus. For me, I found it difficult to watch sequences of close-up movement, because the 3-D tended to make things blurry, and it really proved true during the first sequence where avatar-Jake is chased by a giant creature.
     This "live-action" film is even less real than 2012, existing entirely in made-up environments, where even the people are often CG replicas. The 3-D didn't really appeal to me, because I would much rather be able to choose what I look at than have it chosen for me. As for movie as a whole (story and all), I'm still not entirely certain I am fond of it or despise it entirely. Perhaps it truly does nothing for me and is just another movie in the long list. As New York Times critic Manohla Dargis claims in his article "Mr. Cameron might like to play with high-tech gadgets, but he’s an old-fashioned filmmaker at heart, and he wants us to get as lost in his fictional paradise as Jake eventually does." We do tend to get caught up in the CG of the world, unable to fathom that it is all generated by a computer, even though we know it is all along.
     The movie is worth a watch, but perhaps not worth the 10.50 it costs to see it in 3-D.  (I also just wanted to mention that James Horner's score often brought Titanic to mind as I sat there watching Avatar.)