Defusing Avatar (without footnotes, for now)

If the past is any indication – and it almost always is – then “Avatar” shouldn’t be bringing home the Oscar for Best Picture this year. While “Avatar” deserves praise for its impressive computer graphics, costume design, and cinematic innovation, it plainly falls short of what we’ve come to expect out of a Best Picture winner. The reasons for this may be manifold, but for now I want to focus on the one quality that is the film’s most telling foible, at least in the eyes of those in the Academy, metaphor.

Beyond its import in “Avatar,” metaphor has become the primary reason why science fiction has lasted as a successful and veritable film genre. Science fiction/fantasy filmmakers usually project society’s current problems onto a future representation where these problems are usually exaggerated. Add a few special effects, some compelling drama, a fabricated language and voila, you’ve created an imagined world that almost everyone can relate to. Audiences (myself included) time and again eat this formula up and everything else we buy into is just added bonus – like masks, toys, conventions, or anything the studio can dream up to make up for the astronomical budget it used to depict humans living in an alternate universe.

For this reason, Academy voters generally prefer authentic, lifelike portrayals to their metaphorical, fantasy counterparts, though this isn’t to say that the latter have gone unrecognized. “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” received the 2003 award for Best Picture despite it clearly being in the fantasy category. Even the 1999 winner “American Beauty” is a highly metaphorical and implausible depiction of society, though it carries a markedly poignant and novel message.

Clearly the past doesn’t provide a precise rubric for how the Academy votes, but it does make one thing quite clear: as beautiful as it might look, idealistic filmmaking isn’t rewarded unless it’s a wholly unique achievement. And that’s where “Avatar” runs into trouble. For all its glamour and technological progression, it doesn’t really tell us anything new about the human condition (or the Na’vi, for that matter). While not all award-winning movies can do this – it’s in fact rare that any movie in a given year can – expectations increase enormously for a science fiction contender like “Avatar.” To be taken seriously, the movie must approach perfection in almost every aspect that it can be judged.

Yet James Cameron’s vision for what his characters would do on Pandora frankly pales in comparison to his vision for Pandora itself. His stunning creation remained the only payoff in the midst of a predictable and derivative storyline. Cameron himself even acknowledged that the story draws upon the “Indian removal” theme from movies like 1990 Best Picture winner “Dances With Wolves.” Though they might make me eat my words, for now I’ll give the Academy more credit than to reward a plot that’s already been done.

What’s even more interesting about that storyline is what it’s intended to mean. Remember what I was saying before about how all science fiction films are metaphoric representations of society’s imperfections? Well let’s quickly think about what aspects of society Cameron is commenting on. The film’s primary target areas are American imperialism/militarism, capitalism, and environmentalism. While important, these are also issues that probably don’t necessitate a $237 million budget to represent (making it that much more ironic for doing so). Yet another contender for this year’s award tackles many of these concepts just as effectively, and without the excessive spending or disillusionment.

“The Hurt Locker,” directed, ironically, by Cameron’s ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow, tells the riveting tale of three soldiers in the army’s venerable EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) squad in Iraq. Unlike “Avatar,” Bigelow’s flick doesn’t hit you over the head with political statements about the army’s occupation and depravity; this serves only as the pretext. The director understands the audience’s knowledge of the situation’s severity and is only out to expose the humanity (or inhumanity) within it. What we are left with are characters that aren’t entirely heroic like Jake Sully or entirely villainous like Colonel Miles Quaritch. Despite their unmatched talents in defusing bombs and resisting threats on the battlefield, the soldiers also exhibit tangible human traits. They drink, they curse, they smoke, some are even racist, but in the end are a relatable, albeit contemptible, bunch. As viewers we can’t help from being drawn into the tension and raw unpredictability that surround their lives and, subsequently, the lives of the thousands who serve in the Middle East.

Though “The Hurt Locker” merits accolades on a number of different levels, the one I hope it’s recognized for most is its authenticity. In an age where everything is meant to have more than one meaning and stories unfold just the way we expect them to, the film is refreshing in that we never know what’s coming next. Unlike almost anything else I’ve seen, it actually gives you the experience of being at war, from its handheld camera work, to the rattling of a dilapidated car frame during an explosion, to the volatile, genuine human emotions elicited by characters you seem to truly know and care for.

Academy Award voters – along with all movie critics – typically differ in their beliefs about cinema’s capacity to capture reality versus its ability to create something new and magical. While in the past they have recognized both, this year they have the unique opportunity to choose between them. If it comes down to it, this choice will be the difference between a hopeful, less than subtle message in a future that will never exist and an actual manifestation of that message in a world that for some is all too real (the parallel between the military’s incursion into Iraq and that of Pandora should be more than obvious, though I’ll include it parenthetically just in case).

Although budget allowances, camera innovations, and swanky computer graphics are hard to ignore, they can’t make up for obvious platitude and naive expectancy. Like I have, I hope voters will look past the glitz and finally reward something that’s real.