Film For The Future

Victor Vasarely outdoor work, Váradi Zsolt, 2005

Despite the hype, I refuse to see Avatar. I can see through it. People keep talking about how amazing it looks, they even admit that the story is hackneyed. I can't quite understand why Avatar is up against The Hurt Locker for awards. No, that's no true. It's pretty obvious Avatar is the big 3D revolution tentpole release - what better way to cement that, than by showering it with psuedo-critical praise. The phrase you are looking for is 'circle jerk'.

Most won't know this by name - L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat. It's the short film with the train coming towards the camera. Cinema goers in 1896 may not have scrambled out of their seats to get out of the way, but they were impressed by the lifelike images on the screen. That's really what Avatar is - a glorified IMAX demo. The Hurt Locker on the other hand concerns its main character and his motivations. Long after the special effects of Pandora are superseded, The Hurt Locker will offer its narrative for continued contemplation.

One of my favourite films, despite what I'm going to say about it, is Jurassic Park - mostly because I saw it at a young age. I've owned it and Jaws for about the same number of years. For a while now I've grown tired of seeing JP. I've watched it to death over the years, so perhaps it's too much of a good thing. Except I've watched Jaws three nights in a row without tiring. Why would one stand up to repeated viewing and not the other?

The action in both films really begins about an hour in, and the big attraction is only hinted at until the turning point; but at the core of Jaws is the dynamic between Brody, Hopper and Quint. In JP the old criticism that it lacks characterisation is clearly seen, the characters being subservient to the special effects. I read and enjoyed the book. I just wish Muldoon survived as in the novel - despite being the first to realise the dangers of the park ("They should all be destroyed"), he's killed off because he's appropriately armed.

Edit: Mark Kermode explains 3D

[376]