Avatar

I'd like to add that I hope my opponent does not take it as a slight if my arguments should seem, peripheral or eccentric, as debating a film's ‘ranking in art quality' doesn't often lend itself to much empirical data through 4 rounds. Nonetheless I wish I had more words. My opponent refutes my comparisons to The Mona Lisa, and Venus De Milo. He points out that based on the standards that I have for those pieces my analysis would be inconsistent. My opponent would be correct about this in general, however his interpretation of my argument is wrong. Our agreement of the 2 pieces of art being ‘awesome' is because of their existence today and not when they were created. Both of these creations are considered ‘awesome', in part, due to the passing of time, and the ‘mystique' it has created. It would be unfair of me to compare Avatar to these works then, being that it is just 2 years old. But in only 50 years when we look at the ‘awesome' films, a plot lacking in subtlety (which I hope to prove by the end of this round), and special effects that are no longer special, can only lose its ‘mystique'. --"Avatar did create something tangible: Avatar reels, discs, and assorted memorabilia. " "The "nothing tangible" criticism is not very relevant, anyway, because much awesome artwork (music, stories) is intangible. " -- This is the response from my opponent's comparison of Avatar to the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project advanced something, while Avatar advanced the film industry. To this extant my opponent and I agree. However, unless my opponent is calling the Manhattan Project "An awesome work of art", the comparison is irrelevant. The Manhattan project affected science in a way that would change our lives forever. Avatar may have changed movies like many other films have, but in 50 years its advancements will be forgotten, and it will be relegated to just another quality film from history with an interesting footnote. My opponent is correct that predictability and lack of plot twists do not in themselves detract from quality. In the case of Avatar however, it's by the numbers plot, characters and unsubtle atmosphere, remove much of the chances for greater analysis, an aspect which my opponent places much of his contention. I feel therefore that comparing Avatar to one of its contemporaries may provide an adequate description of subtlety that creates opportunities for ‘greater analysis'. District 9 came out the same year and exemplifies some of the plot subtlety I'm referring to: (Spoilers ahead) Plot Avatar: Corporatist militants want the Alien's resources. D9: Unwanted extra-terrestrial refugees seek shelter in Johannesburg. The plot in Avatar portrays a very simple black and white case of good and bad, unless you always root for the bad guys in movies it was pretty clear who gained audiences sympathies. So naturally, all of the subtlety is found in our archetype characters: The idealistic scientist needs more time, so our hero can find some way to end the conflict without violence. Naturally, the militant general type can't wait any longer and it's up to a ramshackle group of idealist humans, against superior weaponry, to save the good side. The aliens win but at what cost? As our hero seeking redemption, naturally sacrifices something by the end. We all can cheer that good once against triumphs against evil. And it looked freaking awesome. District 9 portrayed a scenario in which the audience's initial reaction is dependent on their views regarding what to do about a million aliens being camped in their neighborhood, as opposed to, ‘should we kill a billion sexy aliens and their children to get fuel'. By the end of District 9 the last thing we see is the protagonist alone and changed into ‘what he once was meant to destroy', a theme similar to Avatars ending. The camera pans away and the credits roll. There is no triumphant victory, or moment of loss. Not really even any broader conflict resolution. It is just an ending to a story about a conflict with no easy answers. Just the premise of this movie initiates genuine critical thinking, providing a much greater and realistic look at the human condition. I thought Avatar was a well made and entertaining movie, which is all you can ever ask from a film. It was a beautiful and fun ride through an interesting world, like many other big budget summer blockbusters (though it was released in Dec). My opponent concludes with an analysis of the interesting topics the film can inspire. I believe the following touches on many of the greater themes my opponent has pointed out, but trivializes them easily, due to the films lack of subtlety. For your consideration: By the year 2154 it appears total egalitarianism has been reached. Human society has completely eliminated racism, sexism, and religious bias, and the only pejoratives seem to be from the ‘militant general type' towards the aliens. Otherwise humans seem to be united in their quest for fuel and a willingness to kill a bunch of aliens. As a civilized nation of the universe, we would find it abhorrent that some civilization would be doing such things to dragons. We'd be forced to tell them that our galactic empire does not allow such things. They'd tell us your galactic empire means nothing to us. We'd tell them it matters or we will sanction you. They'd expel our diplomat, and we'd accuse them of having weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. One way or another, their evil archaic ways of victimization must come to an end. I'd like to add that I assume that this is partly how the human race became egalitarian in the first place, by the natural order of the strongest group with a set of values, killing everyone else until those values were the only acceptable and surviving ones. Naturally then, moral Darwinism demands the destruction of the Na'vi civilization. The Na'vi's entire social structure and belief system surrounds itself with the oneness of the environment. The core knowledge that every being consists of a divine aura is crucial to understanding their entire way of life. The people, the animals, the plants, and the trees are all connected to the network of life, and a big tree. And who wouldn't believe it if they saw it? The trees and plants glow and move and react to their surroundings. It's a wondrous mixture of colors, lighting and motion creating a truly awe inspiring, and religiously undeniable circumstance. If anyone were to watch the more complex activities of these ‘Aliens', they would know their fundamental beliefs are not a hoax, or quirky ritualism. Thus, the violation of dragons by the Na'vi is even more unforgivable. The sporting nature of a group of people standing around watching a creature be dominated is not unlike the hyper masculinity seen at something like a rodeo, in which a cowboy ties up some cow, or something. However, the difference in these two scenarios is that the Na'vi literally ‘merge' with the animal, and the human race at this point in history believes that merging should only be done with the consent of both parties. So it looks like the Na'vi need to be reeducated and the humans refueled. Win-Win. There are other ways to analyze this movie in less farcical (and borderline perverted) ways. But is it really necessary? Avatar offers an altruistic alien group to associate with whatever oppressed group one desires, while District 9 offers genuine depth to a scenario looking at the gray areas between a ‘right and wrong', in a situation that doesn't actually require a detailed sci-fi story background. Perhaps the 2 Avatar sequels will paint in the rest of the picture and allow us to analyze the work of art in full, but until 2015 we will remain with simply an awesome film, or an ‘excellent work of art', that lacks the extra substance to be considered ‘an awesome work of art'.