alexanderlight

Alexander Light's blog is a thing made out of words, pictures and digital stuffs. It is not a thing specifically about Alexander Light. However, by virtue of acting as a receptacle for things Alexander Light regards as interesting or of value, it therefore must be a representative artifact of Alexander Light's current interests or state of mind. alexanderlight used to be a blog at http://alexanderlight.blogspot.com/ which is still there, should you feel the need to go deep. (p.s. I've not started routinely talking about myself in the 3rd person, I'm just trying to sort out my SEO rankings). Still here? Here's a list of people who I like and that I occasionally steal things from:

Test page  
“

”
Why Avatar is Monstrous I went to see Avatar last night. I feel dirty and I need to share. Here’s some thoughts: **SPOILERS** 1. If you’re going to cover topics like the forced relocation of minorities or environmental distruction in a film, a blockbuster sci-fi action movie doesn’t feel like the best way to do it. To be honest, the whole thing felt seriously reductive and crass. Would you re-shoot Schindler’s List as a Disney cartoon with fairies? No, you wouldn’t. Although I’d quite like to see that. Hmmmm. 2. It’s borderline racist. It suffers from a big dose of the Jar Jar Binks with it’s crude stereotyping of the Na’vi “savages”. I didn’t like the fact that they all had to have cod “African” accents that oscillated between Jamaican, Kenyan, Nigerian and then off in to some middle eastern oddness. What’s up with this Hollywood? Are we going to end up with a generic accent for “foreign” in movies, will that be enough? 3. The morality of the piece is so heavy handed it drifts towards the ridiculous. The humans are evil slavering environmental rapists, itching to kill anything in their path during the onslaught for natural resources. The Na’vi are innocent, elegant creatures in tune with their environment, muttering prayers if they have to kill for food. A 12 year old would find this a little crude. 4. The plot undermines itself constantly. One of the main plot points self-defeats when the lead, Jake Sully, captures a sacred animal and brings the Na’vi together to fight the humans. Why couldn’t one of the Na’vi have done this? Despite all of Cameron’s proletizing about the value of the Na’vi, he then totally undermines his own plot by having a human come and save them from the mean old bad men. This is almost sinister. 5. Although the film is executed beautifully, it’s conceptually weak with a hoary collection of sci-fi & fantasy cliches bound together with sometimes painful dialogue. The plot has been done so many times before and in so many better films (Dancing with Wolves for one) it was boring and predictable. I pretty much guessed the whole story arc from the trailer and that’s never a good start. Also, some of the motivation is just dead stale. Evil mega-corps who only care about profit might have felt fresh in 1999 but in 2010 we’re aware of who our real Weyland-Yutani’s are and consumers are forcing them to change. It’s an argument that doesn’t need to be made all over again. And again. And again. 6. There’s some genuinely naff elements to the fiction too. A giant rhino with a hammerhead shark’s head. Yeah! Glow in the dark dogs? Sweet. Ripley’s loader exoskeleton and the dropship from Aliens? Bring it on! Surely James, that didn’t take 15 years to come up with? 7.The Na’vi language is unmemorable and interferes with the storytelling. The best part of the entire film is the lead female Na’vi and I didn’t manage to catch her name at any point. Its like a 10 year old heard Klingon and thought it was the coolest thing in the world and had a go on his own. It’s piss weak. 8. 3D is a total gimmick. I also resent it in that I have to look directly at the 10% of the screen that the director wants me to, otherwise it’s not in focus and starts to vibrate my eyeballs. In a film like this, I’d expect the circumspect detail in shots to be important. 3D totally removes viewing that as an option. There were a few things I didn’t mind. 1. The main female lead is great. Bearing in mind she’s 100% CG, she feels like a real actor in terms of the emotional range shown. I couldn’t help rooting for her…once I got over the accents. I think out of everything, this is Avatars one real achievement. 2. Technically, the CG is definitely better than anything else out there. If you’re turned on by that sort of thing, it’s pretty. They have also managed to integrate live action and full CG in a way that doesn’t feel totally incongruous. Transformers this is not. 3. Sigourney Weaver as an Avatar is cool. There’s no way anyone can knock that. Lastly, and I think the thing that disturbs me about this film most, is the way it’s being billed as this even that is going to save cinema. Save. Cinema. Ooof. As a technology showcase it’s got some chops, but as a film it’s depressingly weak. If this is the sort of film that is going to save movies then I’m really worried about the direction of the industry. I didn’t think I could get any more worried about the direction of the industry. It’s all the wrongness of Hollywood triple distilled. But, it’s got me to the cinema right? Oh shit.

Why Avatar is Monstrous

I went to see Avatar last night. I feel dirty and I need to share. Here’s some thoughts:

**SPOILERS**

1. If you’re going to cover topics like the forced relocation of minorities or environmental distruction in a film, a blockbuster sci-fi action movie doesn’t feel like the best way to do it. To be honest, the whole thing felt seriously reductive and crass. Would you re-shoot Schindler’s List as a Disney cartoon with fairies? No, you wouldn’t. Although I’d quite like to see that. Hmmmm.

2. It’s borderline racist. It suffers from a big dose of the Jar Jar Binks with it’s crude stereotyping of the Na’vi “savages”. I didn’t like the fact that they all had to have cod “African” accents that oscillated between Jamaican, Kenyan, Nigerian and then off in to some middle eastern oddness. What’s up with this Hollywood? Are we going to end up with a generic accent for “foreign” in movies, will that be enough?

3. The morality of the piece is so heavy handed it drifts towards the ridiculous. The humans are evil slavering environmental rapists, itching to kill anything in their path during the onslaught for natural resources. The Na’vi are innocent, elegant creatures in tune with their environment, muttering prayers if they have to kill for food. A 12 year old would find this a little crude.

4. The plot undermines itself constantly. One of the main plot points self-defeats when the lead, Jake Sully, captures a sacred animal and brings the Na’vi together to fight the humans. Why couldn’t one of the Na’vi have done this? Despite all of Cameron’s proletizing about the value of the Na’vi, he then totally undermines his own plot by having a human come and save them from the mean old bad men. This is almost sinister.

5. Although the film is executed beautifully, it’s conceptually weak with a hoary collection of sci-fi & fantasy cliches bound together with sometimes painful dialogue. The plot has been done so many times before and in so many better films (Dancing with Wolves for one) it was boring and predictable. I pretty much guessed the whole story arc from the trailer and that’s never a good start. Also, some of the motivation is just dead stale. Evil mega-corps who only care about profit might have felt fresh in 1999 but in 2010 we’re aware of who our real Weyland-Yutani’s are and consumers are forcing them to change. It’s an argument that doesn’t need to be made all over again. And again. And again.

6. There’s some genuinely naff elements to the fiction too. A giant rhino with a hammerhead shark’s head. Yeah! Glow in the dark dogs? Sweet. Ripley’s loader exoskeleton and the dropship from Aliens? Bring it on! Surely James, that didn’t take 15 years to come up with?

7.The Na’vi language is unmemorable and interferes with the storytelling. The best part of the entire film is the lead female Na’vi and I didn’t manage to catch her name at any point. Its like a 10 year old heard Klingon and thought it was the coolest thing in the world and had a go on his own. It’s piss weak.

8. 3D is a total gimmick. I also resent it in that I have to look directly at the 10% of the screen that the director wants me to, otherwise it’s not in focus and starts to vibrate my eyeballs. In a film like this, I’d expect the circumspect detail in shots to be important. 3D totally removes viewing that as an option.

There were a few things I didn’t mind.

1. The main female lead is great. Bearing in mind she’s 100% CG, she feels like a real actor in terms of the emotional range shown. I couldn’t help rooting for her…once I got over the accents. I think out of everything, this is Avatars one real achievement.

2. Technically, the CG is definitely better than anything else out there. If you’re turned on by that sort of thing, it’s pretty. They have also managed to integrate live action and full CG in a way that doesn’t feel totally incongruous. Transformers this is not.

3. Sigourney Weaver as an Avatar is cool. There’s no way anyone can knock that.

Lastly, and I think the thing that disturbs me about this film most, is the way it’s being billed as this even that is going to save cinema.

Save. Cinema.

Ooof. As a technology showcase it’s got some chops, but as a film it’s depressingly weak. If this is the sort of film that is going to save movies then I’m really worried about the direction of the industry. I didn’t think I could get any more worried about the direction of the industry. It’s all the wrongness of Hollywood triple distilled.

But, it’s got me to the cinema right? Oh shit.

More Information