Written by Andreas Babiolakis

Since James Cameron’s Avatar is back in theatres, we are revisiting the science fiction blockbuster.

My relationship with James Cameron’s Avatar is a bit of a strange one. When I first saw it in theatres back in 2009, I was fully sucked into the spectacle of it all, and I was fully convinced that it was one of the best films of the year (I was also a naive twenty year old). I instantly bought the film on blu-ray when it was available, got home, grabbed a beer, popped in the film, and sat back. I was completely perplexed: I remembered this film being masterful, and yet I was kind of bored by it this time around (and no one likes being buzzed and lulled to sleep at the same time). As an undergraduate student at the time, Avatar was all the rage at university, since it was an easy film to get a hold of and professors would resort to it in their lectures. Naturally, it made sense that we watched the film in my Science Fiction Cinema class, as well as Film and Technology (we’re at four viewings now), and I was starting to really detest this film. It felt vapid, style-over-substance, and derivative. Then, there was that Film Philosophy class that I had to watch the film a fifth time for, and I had a very strange response this time around: acceptance.

See, Avatar isn’t actually aimless or void of substance like I felt it was those two classes. I think I was just disgruntled that I had watched the same film so many times in such a short time frame. I’ve also had to make peace with the film, because it isn’t really the type of film I typically flock towards. It is true that Avatar is an action oriented film that is meant to be a spectacle before any form of profound storytelling, but what a spectacle it is. I’m not thrilled with the narrative shortcomings and shortcuts (more on that soon), but I cannot deny the concocted digital brilliance of Avatar; there’s no surprise why the film continues to be shown in theatres and sell out cinemas. The film did spark the underwhelming 3-D film craze that dominated the first half of the 2010s, but that’s also because it is one of the best films to ever be shown in such a format (it remains mostly untouched, outside of some major competitors like Life of Pi and Hugo). The reason why the sequels may do well (even if I originally felt otherwise) is not because people care about reuniting with the characters. The main interest is in returning back to Pandora: an ultraviolet utopia that you can get lost in, and now we have the opportunity to learn more about it. One of the original uses for cinema when film was first created was to use the medium as a source of attraction: discovering where we could go with this technology. This is how James Cameron operates, and that doesn’t mean that Avatar is bad. In fact, for this very purpose, it’s spectacular.

As an example of spectacle-oriented cinema, Avatar remains a highlight.

But that’s not what most people have been discussing since Avatar debuted over ten years ago. It’s the story which definitely has its issues. I don’t need to bring up how similar to Dances with Wolves this film is, because that point has been made many times before. What I will do is pluck some of the other bothers I have, which showcase how Avatar is a teensy bit held back by the signs of narrative laziness that really get in the way of the technical excellence of the film, including the mineral of the hour being named unobtanium (Avatar is hardly the only story to use such a term, but come on: take a few seconds to come up with something a little less on-the-nose; it’s like calling a villain “Baddie Bad Guy”), or the fact that scientist Dr. Augustine has a Stafford shirt for her Na’Vi avatar custom made and sent from Earth all the way to the planet (somehow). It’s these major and minor details that are quite distracting in a film that takes pride in its world building otherwise, and so many of these decisions and/or mistakes are completely preventable.

But, again, the reason to stick around is Pandora: the realistic planet that we feel like we can actually visit again and again (every time we put the film on or attend a screening). The story is hinged entirely around this very fact. What’s the threat? That human colonists are mining throughout Pandora for unobtanium and destroying it in the process (thus they are the enemy of this planet). Who are the protagonists? Jake Sully: a Marine veteran that is asked to come to Pandora, who falls in love with the Na’Vi people, particularly Neytiri (who he is connected to romantically). We can dial this point down even further: Avatar is directly about creating avatars of the Na’Vi people, so we can live vicariously — and literarily, in the case of the characters here — as this very species. In a society driven by video games, virtual reality, escapism, venturing to other realities and realms, and the consciousness of our own planet’s safety, Avatar is aware of all of these themes and what makes people engaged with them.

So, yes. Avatar is a little scant as a story. You have your typical hero’s journey, commonplace character archetypes, and other cookie cutter tropes, but they are all at the service of the real priority. Do you remember when you first entered Pandora? I do too. It’s why I was so blown away by the film. Yes, younger me was perhaps a little less concerned with the particularities of a film that matter, but I still saw the work for what it is: a nearly three hour transportation to a new realm, reality, mindset, and existence. Hell, people were having withdrawal symptoms after the film, because they got so immersed in Pandora and they didn’t want to leave (remember that?). This was a real event. We all got to be a part of it.

That’s what makes the film special in its own way. I can’t really fault Avatar for this, because many films cannot pull off what this one did for its time. In fact, Avengers: Endgame needed a myriad of films and years of build up to overtake what Avatar was able to pull out of thin air, and that’s worth remembering (sure, Cameron had the success of Titanic, both initial Terminator films, and Aliens to go off of, but that doesn’t mean that everyone had to turn up to see Avatar; the success of the film and the zeitgeist it created is why it generated its sizeable audience). So, yes. I’ve made my peace with this film. Is it my favourite? No, and The Hurt Locker deserved its win for Best Picture. However, I cherish Avatar for bringing us back to the old ways of old, where you would line up for hours for a film, have to be a part of this major occasion, and be able to share the experience with nearly everyone else in your social and familial circles. The 3-D is unparalleled. The scope is endless. Only franchises are pulling off similar results (keep in mind that Avatar only became a part of a franchise after it was made). The imagination — sans the narrative pitfalls — is inspiring. It still thrives in this way. Case in point: I was questioning why anyone would want to see Avatar: The Way of the Water a few years ago in my previously mentioned article, but I’m not really asking that question anymore. It’s clear that films can make us a part of something, and Avatar is really good at that. Sorry if you were expecting me to excoriate the film: I can admit that it is majorly thin in the writing department, but I must also confess that it has won me over again as a departure from everyday life.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.