Spoilerific means there are spoilers. I hope that’s clear, because now that these films have been out for a while it seems safer to give away more information regarding plot and go into greater detail as to what’s so terribly wrong with them. In the case of “Precious” and “Up in the Air” there was more I wanted to say in the initial review and didn’t. With “Avatar” I just want to address the “Dances With Wolves” comparisons.
Avatar vs. Dances With Wolves
Comparing Kevin Costner’s elegant and moving Oscar-winning Western to the junk that is “Avatar” is unfair. There are similarities in the messaging, but when it comes to the execution and storytelling — the only thing that counts — the juvenile “Avatar” is a Scooby-Doo episode compared to “Wolves.”
In the first twenty-minutes (heck, in the trailer), the ham-fisted James Cameron telegraphs every plot point, character arc and moment, right down to the natives’ trendy spiritualism and insufferable sanctimony, all the way through to the protagonist’s eventual decision to turn on his own people and fight for his nobly dull new friends. The climax of “Titanic” is more surprising than “Avatar,” and there are drivers-ed films with more humor.
“Wolves” is nothing like “Avatar.” Costner’s timeless epic not only gave the Sioux very human and relatable qualities but also a winning sense of humor. The eventual confrontation with the whites in “Wolves” is not telegraphed Avatar-style. Which means that when the Union soldiers do arrive it’s a major shock to our system. Wisely and intentionally, Costner doesn’t give the audience any more information than our protagonist. We are completely with John Dunbar and living in his mindset, and for two majestic hours we forget all about the whites and are just as drawn to and emotionally invested in the Sioux as he is. This is the difference between dull, childish preaching and mature storytelling, the difference between characters reduced to pious symbols of leftism and real living beings.
All the 3D and CGI might make the initial attack on the Na’Vi Home Tree “way cool” for people who like to watch other people play video games, but the actual moment is so preordained that on an emotional level it rates a just below a zero. Compare that to when the Union soldiers first arrive in “Wolves.” The moment is emotionally devastating. Our own harmony and peace is as shattered as the characters in the movie. We’re just as caught off guard as they are.
It’s also worth mentioning that in “Wolves” the first threat to the Sioux’s way of life are not whites but another tribe of Indians; the bloodthirsty Pawnee who are just as “imperialistic” in their goals to steal land and take slaves as any white man.
“Wolves” is a legendary piece of filmmaking and much more complicated and worthy than some of my fellow conservatives give it credit for.
Precious
In my review I called “Precious” pointless and all but said the story was nihilistic. Those who disagree say that’s unfair because the protagonist overcomes her abusive life and heads down a road towards becoming a good mother to her two infant children. Yes, that’s true, but near the end of the film, in one final ugly and pointless twist, we learn that when she was raped by her father, Precious contracted AIDS.
“Precious” is set in the eighties, so the screenplay has just intentionally handed the poor girl a death sentence. Which means that all that escaping abuse and trying to be a good mother stuff is now pointless. Those kids won’t have a chance after their mother’s dead. Where are they going to go?
As the end credits rolled, in my mind I fast-forwarded a few years and realized that in all likelihood the children would either end up in foster care or in the exact same situation Precious escaped from: living with Precious’ mother — their grandmother — a sexually and physically abusive welfare-addict from hell.
Giving Precious AIDS undercut the theme of the film and struck me as reaching for importance at the expense of what would’ve otherwise been a hopeful and uplifting narrative. It was as though someone looked at the story and saw that all the politically correct boxes had been checked except AIDS.
Up in the Air vs. Shampoo
After years of enjoying emotional detachment from the world as he made a healthy living flying around the country firing people, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) predictably meets his match in Alex (Vera Farmiga) and predictably falls in love with her. My review went that far but what was so disappointing about the film I felt I had to leave out.
Once Bingham realizes he loves Alex and needs her to fill his empty life, he dashes through an airport, shows up at her house unannounced, and discovers that she’s happily married. A few minutes later we fade to black basked in the irony of Bingham staring at a list of airplane flights with no idea where to go.
What should’ve been an emotionally devastating turning point for the character (and the audience) is handled with cliches (running through an airport?) and that infuriating detached irony that’s starting to define the adult drama (which is one reason the genre’s failing).
In my review, I compared Jason Reitman’s film to Hal Ashby’s masterpiece “Shampoo,” a similar character study of a womanizer (the fantastic Warren Beatty) who prides himself on his casual emotional detachment and uses his job as a hairdresser to target sexual conquests.
[youtube SXgEQ471jZg nolink]
But watch the last sequence in “Shampoo” (above) when the Beatty character realizes he’s in love with Julie Christie and and begs her to marry him. Suddenly this crude, R-rated and very adult dramedy turns downright sentimental as Beatty’s character completely breaks down as he confesses his love to her. The moment is heartbreaking, poignant and … real. No irony, no too-smart-for-itself reach for an iconic moment.
Detached irony is lazy and takes no courage to execute. If it works on paper it will most likely work on film because it’s only about that particular story beat and requires nothing more from the actor than remaining safely understated. On the other hand, Beatty’s performance took real courage. Scenes like that walk the edge of a cliff where mawkish and over-the-top are a constant threat. And Hal Ashby has to be right there with him making sure no one falls.
Those final redemptive moments of “Shampoo” make you want to see the movie again and again. “Up in the Air” doesn’t have the guts to aim for an emotional target and so it shrugs instead and settles for trying to be “clever.”
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.