Now, I love films. I really enjoy the cinematic experience. As a lover of films, I feel like a need to get up on my soapbox and yell, “Expect more! Don’t be satisfied! Think about your cinema!”

Of course, it’s fine to enjoy Avatar. Lots of people did; I didn’t. I think I have good reasons for why I didn’t like that particular film, and I suspect that as time passes and CGI gets cheaper most people will come to agree with me.

Likewise, it’s fine to enjoy a summer blockbuster. There’s nothing wrong with providing “escape to a slightly kinky, environmental utopia.” People will pay for it.

None of this, however, means that “it’s presumptuous to expect anything more [than the experience provided].” First, don’t think that my criticisms and the criticisms of the other people who didn’t enjoy Avatar are somehow disconnected from our experience of the movie. I know the idea of the conceited elitist afraid to own up to his own feelings is popular, but movie critics experience movies in the same way as the rest of us; a critic’s reaction to a film is bound up entirely in his or her experience of the film. When I watched Avatar, I honestly did not enjoy myself. The plot was as see-through as cellophane and the battle sequences were stupid; although the world was quite immersive, I don’t really care much for that sort of stuff (I’m more attached to the verbal and narrative parts of cinema than the visual).

Even though I think Cameron’s romantic environmentalism and shallow post-colonialism are silly, I don’t fault him for making a movie that showcases him. I can’t imagine that summer blockbusters are just “mirrors” to the American pop-culture mind, however. It seems obvious to me that the stories we tell influence our perceptions and actions of the world. In fact, it would be interesting to discuss the purpose and place of narrative and art in our development and lives on this blog.

Kleiner, I think you speak to the more fundamental issue when you reference Platonic aesthetic philosophy, but I wonder if that is really a fair application in regards to blockbuster movies. The primary end of these blockbuster movies are to make a (sizable) profit. People in general react poorly to anything with which the disagree. Having people react poorly to your product is clearly a flawed business model. Thus most all blockbusters seek to be as uncontroversial, while still innovative, as possible. I have a hard time seeing Avatar as an exception to this.

Under the previous logic, it seems to me that rather than attempt to propagate an original message, most blockbusters are more accurately understood as reflections of what is perceived as the dominant mindset of the consuming public. I would thus contend with your classification of movies as societal-shaping mechanisms. I think they are rather useful tools, acting as mirrors, in understanding the current state of the American mindset.

Like in most things, I am much more comfortable faulting the consumer than the producer. If most Americans are willing to pay $9.00 for an escape to a slightly kinky, environmental utopia, why not provide them with one?

Not to further pollute this thread with my presence but I rather enjoy Raiders of the Lost Ark and Exorcist for the same reasons, they both embrace a powerful mysticism in life, through the very deeply personal (exorcist) and the scientific (Raiders). I admire the wonder they embraced, and knowing what I know now of Star Wars I respect it a bit more because that reason too. Except for Jedi, which was a few powerful moments wrapped in nonsense.

I admire films as a great platform for ideas and art, but I agree with Kleiner on this. Too few people are willing to engage, because culture has been substituted for pop culture. I agree there has always been a hierarchy of great works and what is generally watched, I think our problem is that there is no cultural consensus to build around, so instead the common stuff just appeal to cheap emotions and bathroom wall philosophy. Kleiner, in our intro class from years ago, and myself still today, deal more with kids who think the Matrix is a guideline for something. “The Matrix problem”, which is titled as if its something new. I’m not talking about those who don’t have the time to read Plato and Heideggar, and so won’t have the knowledge to call it hack philosophy, but the people who clearly do, and choose not to engage anything else. Aaron of Shaft and philosophy major mentioned this to me once of dealing with kids who’d just discover Foucault and run with it, without ever knowing the conversation.

Unfortunately, the response with movies and art is “its all entertainment, so who cares” when we should care, because it does legislate to our souls. I don’t watch many new movies because there’s just nothing really worth watching. Even “indie” films are trashy a lot of the time. Revolutionary Road was about a married couple who just hated each other. I grew up with parents who split up, why would I want to watch that nonsense on screen? If that’s the message you want to keep showing people, why should we ever expect things to change? Why would people seek to improve if all we ever want to see/show is how broken and pathetic they are? I get it, the 1960s said men were horrible oppressive evil rapist meanies and should be ridiculed constantly as failed fathers and abusive husbands. That makes perfect sense (ugh.) I know the Lord of the Rings movies weren’t as good as the books, but I still loved their desire to look at dynamic, complex and interesting characters in a different lens than our own.

As for that dissertation example by Source (cute :)), that’s a big problem of academia, too much focus on abstract over reality, too much effort to build a career rather than seek truth in education. That’s the kind of thing that gives intellectuals and elitism a bad rap.

Also, I’m pretty sure going to film school qualifies you to be an intellectual, especially since most of those critics wrote dissertations on something like “Lacan’s Mirror Stage Applied to the Post-Feminist Power Structures of ‘Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist.’”

Let’s presume that everyone on this blog is an intellectual. Here is the list of the top ticket selling films of all time (not top grossing, # after film is tix sold). Do any of the intellectuals on this blog want to approve of any of these box office hits?

1 “Gone With the Wind” (1939) 202,044,600
2 “Star Wars” (1977) 178,119,600
3 “The Sound of Music” (1965) 142,415,400
4 “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” (1982) 141,854,300
5 “The Ten Commandments” (1956) 131,000,000
6 “Titanic” (1997) 128,345,900
7 “Jaws” (1975) 128,078,800
8 “Doctor Zhivago” (1965) 124,135,500
9 “The Exorcist” (1973) 110,568,700
10 “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937) 109,000,000
11 “101 Dalmatians” (1961) 99,917,300
12 “The Empire Strikes Back” (1980) 98,180,600
13 “Ben-Hur” (1959) 98,000,000
14 “Return of the Jedi” (1983) 94,059,400
15 “The Sting” (1973) 89,142,900
16 “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981) 88,141,900
17 “Jurassic Park” (1993) 86,205,800
18 “The Graduate” (1967) 85,571,400
19 “Star Wars: Episode I” (1999) 84,825,800
20 “Fantasia” (1941) 83,043,500

I can definitely see why people liked the movie. It just happened to be a perfect storm of all my least favorite movie cliches. I’m pretty confidant that once the immersive CGI used in Avatar loses its novelty, Avatar’s tired story won’t be able to carry it.