Should 'Avatar' be considered exemplary of what Hollywood should regularly strive to create?

Much has been made about James Cameron’s newest cinematic juggernaut Avatar. With the film’s production said to exceed a record-setting $400 million, it has made back roughly 75% of that cost just 5 days after its release (domestic + foreign). The vast majority of that price tag is due to the groundbreaking special effects and 3D presentation (as I’m sure you’ve all heard), which required the kind of technology and personnel that only the likes of a Hollywood studio can provide. Many like to deride Hollywood because of its “gross” financing for projects intended for mass consumption, however on occasion (such as with Avatar) we are reminded that Hollywood is capable of delivering us something truly striking and amazing. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is another example that can be referenced from this decade. Big name studios love cashing in on such films, and audiences love paying to see them. When done right (unlike with, say, Waterworld) big budget extravaganzas have the ability, and by all accounts likelihood, to be very notable and even pivotal artifacts within the world of movies. So, then, what could all of this mean? What could the tremendous success of Avatar lead to?

What if, say, the success of Avatar turned a light on for big Hollywood studios that prompted them to begin investing more and more money into movie projects? And before some of you get too disgusted with the idea, hear me out. Many people (both supporters and detractors) consider big budget Hollywood movies to be the cinematic equivalent to fast food – tasty and sometimes satisfying, but nothing of real substance that’s best to be had in moderation. Defenders would argue that from a business standpoint such a result is inevitable due to such projects’ obligation to appeal to as many different audiences as possible. After all, you can’t please everyone all the time. However, films like Avatar and The Lord of the Rings trilogy prove that sometimes it is possible for one story to please many, many people. Certain films enjoy the pedigree of being cultural staples of the American public; movies which we offer readily to other countries as if to say “look what we’re capable of making.” Movies like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Titanic, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Singin’ in the Rain, The Wizard of Oz, and Ben-Hur come to mind. Only time will tell if Avatar will join such a prestigious fraternity, but as of now we cannot deny its potential to do so. This brings me to the point at hand: Why is it that Hollywood can’t resign itself to doing what it does best – spending lots of money, and doing it as wisely as possible?

If it became customary for Hollywood to spend its money on gargantuan projects like Avatar, budgeting $300-$500 million per movie, they would be forced to finance only a handful of movies per year, if not less. And if this were to happen, they would be forced to make painstakingly calculated decisions on which projects to give such heavy financing to – meaning that in order for them to make back the kind of money that they would invest they would have to be sure to make those movies of the highest quality possible. What I mean by high quality is simply the best possible competence in production value (from acting to special effects), directing, and writing. Literary critics could better define what we might universally call “good” writing, but suffice it to say that most people recognize high-caliber pacing, characterization, and dialogue when they see it; and that good directors are able to bring out these qualities when transforming a script into a feature film (All of this is not to say that those who work on independent films are necessarily of a lower caliber. On the contrary, they can of course be just as good, if not better. However, independent films generally aim towards niche audiences, which is the opposite goal of Hollywood). If most people could not be depended on to recognize these things, then I would argue that the films listed above would not be so widely considered to be such indispensable cultural relics.

If Hollywood (or the big name studios which we most readily identify as a symbolization of Hollywood) were to focus on creating primarily big-budget projects meant to be films of the highest possible quality, then that would leave countless theaters open on the exhibition level for more foreign and independently financed films. This would result in more exposure for a higher number of films whose aim it is to create the best possible product for the money (for Hollywood the most money, independents the least – relatively). Thus, as one result, everyone would be able to have access to a much more eclectic selection of films on a much more regular basis. The cultural implications of such an incredible level of exposure to so many potentially high-quality films can only be speculated, but the attractiveness of such a possibility has to be thought of as nothing less than exciting.

I do not presume to the think that all of this ultimately is either pragmatic or plausible…

…but what if?

One Response to “What if… ‘Avatar’ Really is a New Beginning?”