The non-specific time period that was #12

Avatar

According to BoxOfficeMojo Avatar recently became the biggest-grossing film (unadjusted) of all time – and it's been nominated for a few Oscars as well, so I guess I should probably get my opinion of it out there.

It took me a while to get around to seeing it; the plan was to wait for the numbers to die down a bit so that I wasn’t in a cinema full of people. This proved to be slightly poor judgement on my part, since the blasted thing is still so popular that even the smaller of the two cinemas showing it at the Norwood complex was nearly full by the time everyone was in. At least I was sensible enough to get there early and get good seats.

No doubt you’ve probably all heard a) that it features spectacular visual effects, the likes of which have not been seen before - particularly if you see it in the 3D like I did; and b) the other aspects of the film (plot, characterisation and dialogue) are somewhat underwhelming compared to the impact provided by a).

So, I’m not going to describe the film any further than that. What I’m interested in is what’s going to happen now. Last week it won a Golden Globe for Best Film – Drama and James Cameron the award for Best Director; the question now is ‘will it win the Best Picture Oscar?’

It might, but I don’t necessarily think it should. Yes, It’s an amazing, astonishing film because of what they’ve been able to do – I know it’s a cliché, but it’s literally going to change how people look at making film – but is that what should determine what the ‘best’ film of a given year is?

Cameron’s previous box-office-record-holding and trophy-ensnaring work Titanic won the best picture Oscar (as well as a sackful of awards in the other categories¹) back in 1998. While I found that film to be, simultaneously, an awe-inspiring piece of filmmaking² and a gag-inducing pile of overly-contrived, emotionally-manipulative tripe³, I still consider it to be a better film in terms of what I think a best picture award should be judged on.

People went to see Titanic because of how it made them feel⁴ – and the astonishing amount of effort, attention to detail and creativity (in terms of how they came up with mays to make it all work) were appreciated on an unconscious level by the millions of people who saw it, many of them over and over and over again⁵.

Avatar, on the other hand, is dragging in its huge audiences because people are (as far as I can tell) going to see it for the opposite reason – because they are, consciously, aware of the level of special effects being used, rather than because they are appreciating the overall film experience.

Which – to me – is the opposite of what the response of a film audience should be to a truly great film. Yes, Avatar deserves to take home every technical award there is; it’s far and away the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen in that regard – but in ten years time when every second film is in 3D with a similar level of visual effects, Avatar, by virtue of the fact this is its only worthwhile quality, is going to look distinctly run-of-the-mill.

Great films should be great because they transcend the nuts-and-bolts aspects of filmmaking – not simply because they use breakthrough technology. I tweeted this question just after I heard that Avatar had won the Golden Globe:


The answer: very little.

My favourite films aren’t ones where I’ve just gone, ‘damn, that looked awesome; I was really impressed by the technology’ – at least not unless there’ve been other worthwhile elements to them. For example, the first 3D film I saw was Coraline, and I loved the effects - but it would have been a great film sans the extra dimension; I have my doubts Avatar in 2D would have been anywhere near as impressive.

I guess it comes down to this: art should embrace technology, but its greatness shouldn’t be defined by it. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that mantra isn’t going to be the one the Academy voters adhere to the same way I do. Still, I can take some solace in knowing that the awards I tend to take as better indicators of a film’s quality – the acting awards⁶ and the screenplay awards – are unlikely to wind up in James Cameron’s pool room.

That being said, if you haven’t already seen it, go see it. In 3D. It isn’t going to make you a better person, but you need to see it to understand just what all the fuss is about.

¹Including, most disappointingly, the wretched Celine Dion’s feculent, ear-poisoning nightmare My Heart Will Go On winning over Elliott Smith’s Miss Misery from Good Will Hunting – possibly my favourite song of all time.
² Which it is. You can despise the content all you like but it’s a well-crafted film in every way. They didn’t just spend 300 million clams on green screens and Billy Zane’s hairpiece. The sets were about as accurate as sets can be.
³ I don’t care if you loved it and saw it 17 times; it was shallow manipulation and sappier than the run-off from the Hallmark factory.
⁴There isn’t a word – in English at least - to describe the combined effect it had on me – immense respect combined with annoyance at the unsubtle emotional manipulation. There might be one in German.
⁵A friend of mine was made to see it, IIRC, eight times with his girlfriend. Apparently, she went another few times with others. Insane.
⁶Not always, though. Gwyneth Paltrow and Marisa Tomei, I’m looking in your direction. Jack Palance - well, you I’ll forgive ‘cause you’re so damn awesome.

Avenue Q

Wow, two headings staring with ‘Av’ – what are the chances? Perhaps I should have spent more time doing/learning about things that would have made it an all-‘av’ post: average rainfall, Avagadro's Law⁷, avoirdupois weight⁸ or avocados⁹.

Double alliteration¹⁰ aside, I saw Avenue Q at Her Majesty’s Theatre last week. For those who aren’t aware, it’s a recent musical (opened on Broadway in 2003) that draws very heavily on Sesame Street for inspiration – i.e. most of the characters are puppets, but of the glove and arm-controlled variety, i.e. a quite visible person walks around with the puppet character, manipulating them and providing the voice.

In it, Princeton (as the name suggests) has graduated from University and winds up renting an apartment on Avenue Q, where he meets the other residents – the puppet characters Kate Monster, Trekkie Monster (no relation) and Nicky & Rod (two guys who bear more than a passing resemblance to Bert & Ernie); and the human characters Brian, his fiancee Christmas Eve, and the building supervisor Gary Coleman. Technically, it’s the character of Gary Coleman, played by someone who’s not Gary Coleman.

Sorry if that’s confusing. Hey, I didn’t come up with it. I wish I had; it’s an hilarious concept. I’d love to know what the real Gary Coleman thinks of it. He’d probably enjoy any likeness rights money he was getting¹¹.

Though it is, as I mentioned, heavily influenced by Sesame Street, the content is a lot more adult, and that’s the main ‘hook’ to the show – if it didn’t have that it’d just be a musical with puppets. When you throw in songs with titles like It Sucks to be Me, If You Were Gay, Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist, The Internet is for Porn, You Can Be as Loud as the Hell You Want (When You're Makin' Love) and (my favourite) Schadenfreude – you know you’ve got something a little bit different. And oh-so-politically incorrect.

It’s exceptionally well-written, and very well-performed – the puppetry isn’t overly complex, but it’s still important, and the cast do a great job of making them move and react. They’re all good singers – singing in character is different from normal singing – and have great comic timing, too. The guy who played Brian (one of the non-puppet characters) looked familiar; it turns out he was in the great ABC satire of government The Hollowmen.

I'd tell you to go see it, but I think the season’s over – sorry I didn’t get this out sooner! Alternatively, if you’re somewhere and it’s on, go see it.

⁷According to Wikipedia he hypothesised that 'equal volumes of ideal or perfect gases, at the same temperature and pressure, contain the same number of particles, or molecules.' I probably shouldn't have had to look that up.
⁸A system of weights by which coarser commodities are weighed, such as hay, grain, butter, sugar, tea - apparently.
⁹I don't really like avocados, unless they're in guacamole form. Just so you know.
¹⁰I don’t know if that’s a real thing; I’m using it to mean words where it’s not just the first letter repeated but the first two letters.
¹¹Something else I learned from the movies – Chasing Amy to be specific – though how true it is I’ve no idea. I think Gary Coleman probably deserves something for it, but according to the internet he’s getting nothing.

Fringe 2010

The Fringe festival is nearly upon us, and I’m trying to work out my schedule. I’ve been allocated 16 shows to review – half of those in the first week – but there are a lot of shows I’d like to see on top of that. Cutting into my options is the Soundwave festival on Saturday February 27 and the 2010 Global Atheist Conference in Melbourne March 12-14.

But here’s my ‘hit list’ of shows – so far:

Scaramouche Jones*
Bully
My Name is Rachel Corrie*
Weight
The Event
Nikki Aiken Presents
Amanda Palmer
Cole’s Girls*
Under Milk Wood
Austen’s Women
Open Mic
The Snow Queen
The Rap Guide to Evolution
Lady Carol
Almost an Evening
True West
Axis of Awesome: Infinity Rock Explosion
Sound & Fury’s ‘Private Dick’
The Needle and the Damage Done
Last of the Red Hot Mamas
Chronic Ills
The Event
The Sociable Plover

That’s 23. Those with an asterisk I’m lucky enough to be reviewing; one other (Amanda Palmer) is one night only and so I’ve already got a ticket.

All the rest I’ve got to try and fit in – as I noted, I’ve got 16 reviews to do; only three of those are shows I don’t want to miss. A show makes the cut because a) I know people involved; b) I’ve enjoyed other productions involving the performers, the theatre company or the promoters; c) it sounds awesome based on the description in the Fringe Guide (e.g. Almost an Evening, which is written by Joel Coen – yes, that Joel Coen, i.e. brother of Ethan and half of one of the most talented filmmaking teams of all time); or d) the show has a reputation – e.g. True West, which was on in Adelaide last year (and received enormous acclaim) but which I didn’t get a chance to see, or My Name Is Rachel Corrie, co-adapted by (wait for it) Alan Rickman¹².

It’s not, of course, as simple as just picking the shows I want to see. Many of them are on at the same time, or start just after another I want to see is finishing – while being at a venue on the opposite side of town. I’ve also got to factor in the time I’ll need to spend eating, sleeping (on weeknights especially), working, travelling and writing my reviews.

Transport at least, is not such a big deal, since the majority of shows are in and around the city and I live a convenient 15 (or so) minute bike ride from town. This is not only good for getting to shows from home (and back again), but also from those in one part of the city to another – e.g. from the Garden of Unearthly Delights (corner of East Terrace and Rundle Street) to Higher Ground (corner of Morphett and Currie Streets).

If the weather’s good, that is. If it’s not then it’s going to be a little more interesting.

Anyway, I’ll be posting links to the shows I’m reviewing for the ATG, and giving (probably very brief) summaries of the shows I’m seeing for myself – plus any information I come across from other people who’ve seen shows that I haven’t been able to get to.

¹²I suppose it’s possible there are people who don’t know who Alan Rickman is so I’ll go with the three most well-known film roles: Hans Gruber in Die Hard, The Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Professor Snape in the Harry Potter films. But he’s a stage actor as well - hence why he’s so good.