emphasis on plot/character

ive heard some interesting remarks that i place too much emphasis on plot/dialogue/character development . granted, however there is a time and a place for texts which lack or are very subtle in the previously listed aspects; look at any of Kubrick's work, minimal plot, or one that is very subtly managed. however in saying that Kubrick was not directing for the masses, he could take huge liberties with his screenplay/script.

this brings me to movies for the masses. mainstream movies using the classic 'three-act-structure' are only enhanced by plot and/or character development, plot and characters go hand in hand with soundtrack, special effects, camera movement etc, basically everything that makes up what we know as 'film'.

in 2009 we saw Spike Jones release his much anticipated 'Where the Wild Things Are'. this movie was a huge achievement for adaptation, taking a 13-lined picture book and transforming it into a 100minute spectacular. this movie maintained the simple plot structure of the picture book, but fleshed itself out with its intricate lattice of symbolism and dialogue, and attributing each of the 'wild things' with various aspects of Max's personality and emotions. this movie was trashed for being too 'complex' for many to follow, and too scary for some children. however, this was a remarkable movie, due to the characters being driven by various pure emotions (rage, spite, loneliness, calm), it creates an array of characters which the audience can automatically relate to. although more importantly it told a story which addressed many of the issues faced by children and their parents in the 21st century. it did this within such a delicate framework that though it brings up some darker themes, they were so brilliantly disguised that children may not be fully aware of them, all the while creating a story which doesnt talk down to them. for its minimalist plot 'wtwta' gives us a great story, intimately linked to its central character, and held in perfect balance with its soundtrack, special effects and dialogue.

which brings me onto 'avatar'. james cameron makes no excuses for copying other works; from Pocahontas (1995), Dances with Wolves (1990), Ferngully (1992) 'Battle for Terra' (2007) and 'Call me Joe' (1957) to name a few, thus it became ABSOLUTELY necessary for him to include a set of convincing characters, and compelling dialogue to make the story appealing. he didnt. this is a quote from Robert McKee, basically screenwriting Einstein, "God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you! That's flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character.”, not a good start for Avatar then, taking 15 minutes of excruciating voice-over before any of he real story begins, i mean seriously terrible it sounds like a six year old having their 1st reading lesson. what we are left with is a marine who the audience really particularity like nor car about, he has nothing to loose, his actions are not heroic, he sells out his own race, an i dont know about you guys but i rather like being human, he will get his legs back either way, by being human or becoming na'vi, how the hell are we meant to side with him at all?

leaving character and onto soundtrack, hmm this one was a a head-scratcher, it was confused at the best of times, not really knowing weather it wanted to be a grand orchestral piece or a bombastic tribal sounding choir piece, it didnt work well at all with the mis-en-scene, sounded sloppy and pretentious.

judging by these two movies, one has to ask the question, why is cameron's movie a romping success for the wrong reasons completely? saying that plot and/or character development is arbitrary in this movie because of its special effects is a poor excuse on the movies behalf, its a little bit like saying that 'although this band has crappy songs they are good because they have cool music videos', it doest take a genius to figure out where the music industry would be if people thought like that...

if all the actors just shut the fuck up and this movie had none or very little but will thought out dialogue it could have been great. getting a well thought out orchestral piece to play over the top of its grand visuals would have eliminated all the problems in this movie; it would have challenged the wider audience as to their expectations of what a movie should be (think 2001: A Space Odyssey), it would have covered up cameron's inability as a screenwriter, and it would have been 'poetic'. its a shame that james thinks that he is the new Shakespeare...