See the elephant, Cut up didoes, Crazy as a lion. These are phrases that were widely used in the United States 150 years ago when New York was Gotham and long before it was The Big Apple.
Since then, figures of speech have vanished and been replaced, words have been contracted and terms have evolved.
Avatar is set in the year 2154, 150 years from now. Rockets have developed into spaceships, man can physically become one with machine, and his mind can be king in a foreign body and yet...we speak as we always did. Or should I say, as we do.
It is easy to extrapolate the present into a mechanised future and it is a simple step to imagine earthly beings with a twist of the exotic. In all sorts of ways more attention is lavished on Pandora than on us. Humankind may not have learnt its moral lessons in Avatar but the film-making fails to rise to or acknowledge the challenge of communicating the cultural leap from now to then through the linguistic footprints of an intervening century and a half. A culture exposed to extraterrestrial influence, no less.
Things change, especially in times of war and struggle. Screwing us, Death from Above. The film talks to us in our language throughout with, what should be for them, archaic words and anachronistic references.
Blade Runner unveils a world grown smaller, with the shards of other languages embedded in our own. There is a mix but the ingredients of each language are not altered by the other. New words for new objects and new concepts but no progression and no fruition. New languages for newly discovered peoples in Avatar, Star Trek and hundreds of other films but, all the while, English remains untouched. Perfected and polished.
This is not a criticism of Avatar in particular. I don't think any film has succeeded in this aspect. The vast majority do not try. It is a very difficult task, to subtly and intelligently sculpt a new English. It is an undertaking, no doubt, open to ridicule. But wouldn't it be wonderful to make tangible that we have gone forward in time and not just outward in space? Wouldn't it be rousing to feel how our future is their past, how disease and triumph and invention have shaped them.
Our language is as close a telling of our history as the artefacts in our museums. Why, then, do we never realise the incongruity of a way of communicating locked in a cryo capsule and released at journey's end?
Zoe Saldana deserved an Oscar Nomination for her performance 
A friend of mine once said, after viewing "THX 1138" for the first time, that in science-fiction, the only things that creators never change are the things they can't imagine ever changing. In cinema, I'd broaden this to include things that you can't change due to the technical or physical limitations during the making of the film, but mostly I'd say he's spot on. Orwell's "1984" was written for a world full of typewriters, pneumatic tubes and only the most basic and hypothetical of televisions. Our imaginations can only extend as far as that which surrounds us every day, and not much further.
ReplyDeleteThis includes, of course, language. Verbal communication is a kind of technology, after all-- it is a human invention, and not entirely natural. Words are coined every day to express abstract thoughts that might've been inconcievable centuries ago, and as men like Orwell recognized, there is every bit the power to control mass populations through the manipulation of language as there is through the manipulation of food supplies, stock prices, or through the wages of war.
Therefore, I think you're right to point out this lack of foresight by Cameron here. It might be expecting too much of him to think that along with his 3D hyperreal digitization of Pandora that he'd try and think up a "Blade Runner"-style vernacular to match the far-fetched future onscreen. Are we really going to call Marines "Jarheads" in the future? Will we still use "Wizard of Oz" as a metaphor for being a stranger in a strange place?
Obviously, you don't necessarily want to go too far in the other direction. I've got friends who have tried again and again to get me interested in Joss Whedon's "Firefly" series, and one of the things that keeps getting in the way of my enjoyment is the slang-- a rather ungainly-sounding mixture of 19th century colloquialisms and lots of Chinese and invented gibberish thrown in for good measure. Now, is this what people could sound like in the outer-space territory of the future? Possibly. But it sounds too forced, too self-conscious to really register with the same plausibility that rang in the Nasdat of "A Clockwork Orange" or the "street-speak" of "Blade Runner".
My personal favorites of dialogue that is written to fit the future-spirit of its imagined times are probably "THX 1138", where Lucas and Murch invent an excellent blend of near-robotic sounding technobabble that encapsulates the intellectually castrated nature of their society almost as perfectly as Lucas' images do, and "Alphaville", where Godard puts language front and center as an object of attention, and even a simple declaration of love can become an empowering gesture.
Nice follow up, Stephen. Bladerunner was one great film.
ReplyDeleteBut I think this is what is going to be the reply from the defenders of the film: "Who cares about the language, look at the visual splendor, the inventiveness, Cameron's vision (drools)"
Bob,thanks for the comment.
ReplyDelete"Our imaginations can only extend as far as that which surrounds us every day, and not much further."
I agree.
"Will we still use "Wizard of Oz" as a metaphor for being a stranger in a strange place?
Obviously, you don't necessarily want to go too far in the other direction."
This is indeed the problem and what I was referring to when talking about being 'open to ridicule' or seeming too forced.
I don't think anyone has really succeeded in depicting an organic and plausible future form of a language that hints at its own foundations (though your examples of THX and Alphaville do ring truer than others). Very very hard to do, I know, but something to aim for.
Thank you, JAFB
ReplyDelete"But I think this is what is going to be the reply from the defenders of the film: "Who cares about the language, look at the visual splendor, the inventiveness, Cameron's vision (drools)""
Well, that's actually kind of the way I feel about it(!). The reason I bring it up is because the better a film is the more frustrated I am with the things that keep it from perfection.
Myself, I would have settled for early 21st-century dialogue if it had been delivered plausibly!
ReplyDeleteMore and more, I think the best thing about the movie was Zoe Saldana's "performance" though I'm not sure how much credit goes to her and how much to the technicians. (The character has plenty of weak moments - due in part to the sexual politics confusion of making her warrior-woman one moment, submissive tribal wife the next - but throughout she remains riveting).
Zoe Saldana's Uhura was also the best thing about "Star Trek", a movie I more or less thought was laughably bad. She was able to bring something real to that part, however, enough to do Nichelle Nichols proud.
ReplyDeleteHer "performance" (so much credit really does belong to the WETA animators, I feel) was also easily the second most interesting thing about "Avatar"-- Stephen Lang, however, stole the show in my book (good luck with the sequel without an equally juicy bad guy, Cameron, and remember-- you can't bring this one back to life with a new model like one of your Terminators). Honestly, I didn't find much else all that worth the hoopla after I got over the novelty of the 3D.
MovieMan,
ReplyDelete"Myself, I would have settled for early 21st-century dialogue if it had been delivered plausibly!"
Well, there is that!
It shows how rapturous the visceral, visual experience was for me that I still think the film is excellent despite its weak dialogue, by-the-numbers cliched script and unwillingness to understand, literally, where the humans are coming from.
Bob,
ReplyDelete"Her "performance" (so much credit really does belong to the WETA animators, I feel) was also easily the second most interesting thing about "Avatar"-- Stephen Lang, however, stole the show in my book..."
I think the fact that she makes it look like the animators have lavished more time and attention on Neytiri than on the other CGI characters is a sign of how far she outshone her actor colleagues.
Jake and Grace are plasticine and flat in comparison.
I thought Stephen Lang impressive but maybe a bit too comic-book. Much of the characterisation, simple story mechanics and colour scheme make Avatar feel like a children's film.
"Zoe Saldana's Uhura was also the best thing about "Star Trek", a movie I more or less thought was laughably bad."
ReplyDeleteYes, Bob. I neither liked nor disliked Star Trek but Saldana was able to create a third dimension to her character that the others couldn't. She is a natural.
It felt to me like Pine and Quinto almost felt it enough just to be there and let the iconic status of the ship, the uniform and the roles speak for themselves. I didn't feel they brought enough emotional weight or physical presence.
Actually, language has developed. Jake Sully uses the word 'betrayer'.;)
ReplyDeleteOne reason I think new language can detract from a movie is understandability; I still haven't managed to finish the first page of A Clockwork Orange.
At the other extreme, you have Blade Runner, whose slang I barely even noticed, but that's really hard to do.
Ronak,
ReplyDelete"Jake Sully uses the word 'betrayer'.;)"
Haha!
Yes, it's very hard to do but I think the audience might welcome the film-makers' effort and having to put in a little effort themselves in return.
If this new world were disorienting verbally as well as visually, the effect could end up being even more dizzying and more immersive.
Stephen, you make an interesting point. However, I think that language is a reflection of society and culture.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, given that most futuristic sci-fi is really more interested in current preoccupations and ideas (e.g. Cold War, technology, State control, terrorism, etc.), I would argue that there is nothing especially wrong with the language being reflective of the time when the film is made.
Now, even if you want to make a film that is genuinely grounded in the future, I think that focusing on language is still to put the cart before the horse. In other words, if you have a clear idea as to how we will evolve, what our priorities will be (e.g. financial or spiritual enrichment, mere survival), etc., then the vocabulary is more likely to suggest itself.
As a final thought, the trick is also not to make the film about the language used - unless that is the aim in itself. In other words, the less accessible the dialogue, the more the film needs to be explaining things as it rattles along or end up being more about the visual experience (which obviously would be self-defeating to the point that you make).
"I think the fact that she makes it look like the animators have lavished more time and attention on Neytiri than on the other CGI characters is a sign of how far she outshone her actor colleagues."
ReplyDeleteTrue - but a) she had more to work with as the character, however flawed, was far more developed than any other Na'vi character and b) I think the animators DID lavish more attention on Neytiri as she was kind of their showpiece - whatever they did with the other beings, this one had to stand out.
Ultimately, I think the performance may best be described as a collaboration between the actress and the animators - part of what is so captivating is not only her facial expressions but the way she moves and also the fusion between the two.
Longman,
ReplyDelete"Therefore, given that most futuristic sci-fi is really more interested in current preoccupations and ideas (e.g. Cold War, technology, State control, terrorism, etc.), I would argue that there is nothing especially wrong with the language being reflective of the time when the film is made."
An excellent point but the parallels need not be communicated in the language.
It is obvious in Avatar what the situation can be compared to in real life. It's not like we are going to forget we are early 21st Century beings and what is happening around us just because the language on screen has altered.
MovieMan,
ReplyDelete"True - but a) she had more to work with as the character, however flawed, was far more developed than any other Na'vi character and b) I think the animators DID lavish more attention on Neytiri as she was kind of their showpiece - whatever they did with the other beings, this one had to stand out."
However developed the character is on the page, the actor / actress can always add more. Neytiri is not particularly nuanced as a character in the abstract - she flips between stereotypical warrior woman and stereotypical mother of the land. Saldana gives her more.
Whether the animators did actually spend more time on her or not (I'm sure you're right to an extent) the gulf in expressiveness and subtlety cannot come down to that alone.
I saw Saldana in Neytiri but not Weaver in Grace's avatar or Worthington in Jake's.
"the way she moves"
Absolutely. Putting aside the obvious unknowns - where she ends and the animators begin, which is all surmising and conjecture - I still feel that it is right to praise and acknowledge her performance.
I understand all the issues but it is her voice, her expressions, her movement and I believe it is her talent that makes Neytiri less a blue straitjacket and more a second skin. I think it is obvious that Neytiri would be completely different with a different actress 'at the helm'.
Oscar for me.