webSalt

Written & Directed by James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriquez & Giovanni Ribisi.
Rated: M for much in the way of violence

Has any film in recent times attracted the absurd level of hype that James Cameron's Avatar has in the last year? After 12 years, the creation of new technology, and $US237+150 million spent in production and advertising, so much rides on the shoulders of the King of the World's latest film. It's been described as a revolution in film-making and a game breaker for 3D movies. But does Avatar live up to the hype? Well, 'yes' … and 'no'.

The plot

In terms of plot, Avatar is hardly revolutionary. In fact, this is a conscious reinvention of classic adventure epics, in Cameron's own words: "a frontier tale written amongst the stars".[1] Less kindly, it's the cinematic offspring of Aliens and Dances With Wolves. Like Wolves, it focuses on a disaffected soldier who is thrown into an alien environment and must adapt to life amongst it's native inhabitants. In Avatar’s case, we follow Jake (Worthington) a paraplegic ex-marine, who must infiltrate the azure-skinned Na’vi on the lush planet of Pandora. He must do so by mentally 'driving' an avatar, a genetically harvested Na'vi-human hybrid, created by the idealistic Dr Augustine (Weaver).

Like Aliens, the intervention is driven exclusively by commerce, with mining chief Selfridge (Ribisi channeling Burke from Aliens) seeking to maximise profit at all costs. The resources of future earth are entirely depleted, and Pandora bears massive deposits of "unobtanium" (I kid you not). Yet the Na'vi stand between the company and the mineral motherload. Therein lies the film's dilemma. What happens when Jake crosses over and falls in love with his Na'vi guide, Neytiri (Saldana)? What steps will Selfridge and his pugnacious Colonel (Lang) take to displace the natives? Will the Na'vi and their way of life survive this incursion?

The spectacle

Despite this imitative plot, Avatar is a truly spectacular film and Cameron certainly deserves much kudos for realising his unique vision, despite noisy protestations from sceptical fanboys. In fact, the experience of walking through this incredible CGI world in state-of-the-art 3D is almost worth the price of admission itself. It is a truly immersive experience, making you feel like you are actually exploring Pandora through the eyes of your own avatar. The colour is striking: verdant green jungles, iridescent blue skies, bioluminescent purple plants. The depth of the landscape is staggering: deep forests, giant waterfalls and floating mountains. The texture is wonderful: from the smooth Na’vi skin to the gnarly bark of the giant trees. Cameron has created a full-orbed world, replete with its own beautiful, yet frightening eco-system: a veritable "Eden with teeth".[2] Though not flawless, the execution of Cameron’s vision comes pretty darn close to reality. Pandora's feast of visual wonder is certainly the true star of the film.

The themes

Nevertheless, Avatar isn't just an impressive, but hollow spectacle. There are some genuine themes at work here that lift the film beyond the average blockbuster. Like both Aliens and Dances With Wolves, this film questions the nature of our humanity, our values and our place in the world. What does it mean to be human? Who is more humane, the indigenous aliens or the 'civilised' humans? What is our relationship to our planet and the life it sustains?

With the symbolic attack on the Na'vi Hometree, Cameron clearly (and unsubtly!) has big business and bullying governments in his sights for their environmental irresponsibility and mercenary incursions, particularly targeting Western failure on climate change and the US-lead wars on Vietnam, Iraq and 'terror'. Though these are easy and obvious targets, the film’s basic thesis is worth hearing again: the life of our planet is indeed interconnected and precious. To this Christians should give a hearty 'amen'.

Yet in attacking an anthropocentric view of the environment, a 'shallow', material ecology where the planet is viewed as a usable resource, Avatar goes to the other extreme. Beyond environmentalism, Cameron's film evidences a geocentric view, a 'deep', spiritual ecology where the planet is viewed as a living network of energy and consciousness. Hence, through the Tree of Souls the Na'vi attain oneness with Mother Eywa, nature and each other. This is clearly pantheism, the view that god is in all things and that all things are part of god.[3] Or to put it another way that 'mother nature' is god.

However, this is light years from the biblical view of God. From the very first page, the God of Scripture is viewed as distinct from his creation, and though humanity is given rule over creation, it's a rule of stewardship under God (Gen 1-2). Hence the Bible’s view of the environment is neither anthropocentric or geocentric, but theocentric.[4] Ultimately, it's God at the centre of this creation (Ps 24:1). Yet by coming into his creation "in the flesh" (not merely as an avatar!), Jesus came to not only redeem his human creatures, but renew his entire creation as well (John 1:1-18; Rom 8:1-4; 19-25; Phil 2:5-11; Rev 21:1-5). As such, both human and environmental life are precious to our Creator and therefore should be precious to us as his image-bearing creatures.

The verdict

Avatar is visually spectacular, but ultimately misguided. On all levels, see it with open eyes.

By Mark Barry

20/12/2009

[1] James Cameron, Empire November 2009, p. 51.
[2] Empire November 2009, p. 50.
[3] It's hard to work out if the theology of Avatar is pantheistic ("God is all") or panentheistic ("God in all"), i.e. is Mother Eywa synonymous with the universe or ultimately bigger than the universe? But in the end it’s pretty academic!
[4] See 'Environment' in A Pocket Guide to Ethical Issues by Andrew Goddard (Lion, 2006), pp. 140-6.