Some comments about cliche and storytelling and Jim Cameron...

I just posted the below excerpt in a Facebook convo and thought my opinion should be more public than a Facebook convo.  So, here it is, with names changed to protect a bit of privacy for the folks I was conversing with (not that I'd think they'd mind--just being safe).  Oh and "friend #1" commented about how there are no truly new stories citing the comparison many are making between "Avatar" and "Dances with Wolves."  Then "friend #2" commented about how "Titanic" had a really wonderful script that made viewers of both genders enjoy the movie.  :) If you know me, you know just how much I disagree with that last sentiment.

friend #1: as someone who's been a writer his entire life, that excuse doesn't hold a lot of water for me.  There's a difference between good cliche and bad cliche.  Compare "Wall-E" to "Avatar."  Neither are original stories, both are riddled with cliche, but one is an emotionally resonant, generally moving (and I'd argue: quite good) movie, the other is "Avatar."

I think of it like a person criticizing a sculpture: "Dude. that's so MARBLE.  I've seen marble done before."

It's not about what's it made of, it's about how it's shaped, formed and executed.  I don't mind "Dances with X" storylines, it's whether the stories, setting, situations and characters are interesting/entertaining.  And even "Dances" had been done before.  "Apocalypse Now" was essentially "Dances with Vietnamese Jungle People" which was based on a book about a guy who rejects his modern life and goes and lives with African natives.  So, in the end, I have no problem with cliche at all.

friend #2: Wow--I couldn't disagree with you more--"Titanic's" script was bad cliche--it took a predictable storybook structure (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, etc) but, as with "Avatar," didn't bother creating actual characters, instead relying solely on archetypes. The "progressive woman," the "handsome rogue," the "rich scoundrel" oh yeah and working actor David Warner as "the 2-D thug."

45 minutes into my only viewing of "Titanic" (on the big screen--I wanted/expected to like it!) my wife leaned over to me and said "so, when's the boat gonna sink?"  We were both bored out of our skulls.

Rose is a progressive woman, she smokes, doesn't want to be chained to a kind of dickish, good looking insanely rich man.  She's progressive like that.  But she'll pose nude for an unstable, fly-by-night, broke artist who she wants to be chained to.  Yes, she's so "progressive" that she forgot to honor that "thou shalt not sleep with dangerous men" part of the 10 Feminist Commandments (I think there's one in there about not objectifying your body, too).

Sorry, man--that's just the tip of the iceberg, no pun intended.  There are a LOT of problems with "Titanic's" script, but it's been so long since I've seen it, that's all that comes to mind.  I want to say I slammed it in a blog post, back in the day, but I'm not sure it survived the various refits I've given my website.

"Titanic," aside, you're right about the comparison to George Lucas--or any filmmaker with lots of success/money under their belt.  Mel Brooks, Stephen Spielberg, I'm sure there are others.  It's Lack-of-Imagination Syndrome brought on by an acute case of Too-Much-Moneyitis.

And I don't call it guts to make the movie you dreamed of when you were 14, I call it foolhardy.  Luc Besson did the same thing with "The Fifth Element" and I thought it was about as crappy as "Avatar," but "Avatar" had way more to live up to, so it feels like a worse film in my mind. 

As for Cameron going lowbrow green on purpose to get Academy votes, I suppose that's possible, but that's still no excuse for not having a decent script.  I don't have a problem with the message of the movie, frankly.  Honestly, on this level, I don't care what the message of the movie is--I just want to be entertained.  There's good cliche and bad cliche.  Good cliche is "Wall-E:" Nerd meets girl. Nerd loses girl. Nerd gets girl back again and saves humanity, and makes us all feel good because his struggle is truly human and universal.

Cameron's earlier films work better as good cliche because, while they're generally predictable, they have loads of basic, simple "everyman" resonance.  Guys just trying to do their job/live their lives, and they get pulled into extreme situations (it's the kind of story I like to write).  But once simple motivations give way to unclear, more complicated motivations, Cameron's abilities to tell a story break down.  Much like Lucas' did in the prequel trilogy.  There's no farmboy simplicity in an ex-slave training to be a warrior-monk only to stumble upon his metaphorical father who happens to run the Republic.

OK, I'll shut up now :)  Sorry if this was obnoxious or holier-than-thou.  One thing I still remember from film school is that there a thousand different kinds of "wrong" and another thousand different kinds of "right."  As such, we can both be both, depending on our POV.

 

So, there my reasoning on why "Avatar" was crap.  Baaaad cliche and no character.  Good stories tend to be cliche--that's OK with me.  Just make them interesting.  Also, you might think about veiling your message a bit more.  A bunch of "white" people exploiting non-white natives so they can exploit the land is reeeeeally obvious and has been done both in fiction and in the real world.  So, either make your movie about Native Americans being exploited (I'd love to see a really good "Dances with Wolves" ;P) or remove humans from the equation and actually make an effort to make your two cultures alien.  I can't speak for all audience members, but I don't enjoy being preached to--especially when I already agree with the message.

Jesus, Jim, you spend TEN years on the movie and you end up with a script like THAT?

"UNOBTAINIUM," JIM?  REALLY?

Why not something REALLY bad, like "McGuffinium" or "Hardtofindium"???

Posted via web from thepete's posterous