The Use Of Archetype In Avatar Versus Star Wars
As James Cameron’s $500 million dollar CGI spectacular Avatar rolls across theaters this week, many have labeled it a bland cross between Dances With Wolves and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. While there are similarities to both of those examples in terms of storyline and tone, Avatar bears a striking similarity to another massive blockbuster in its use of archetype to tell and sell its story.
When Star Wars hit theaters in 1977, many critics quickly pointed out the canny use of archetypal characters and situations employed by Lucas to build his story. Lucas, a thoughtful student of the writing of mythologist Joseph Campbell, crafted a soaring space opera around easily-identifiable archetypes, which allowed his fairly bizarre world to translate to modern audiences around the world.
Until now, Cameron has rarely used archetypes to manage his stories, relying instead on stunning, character-driven set pieces and action sequences to drive his films. But in Avatar, Cameron has attempted to create an archetypal story much like Star Wars, perhaps in the hope that his very expensive film would resonate with audiences in the same way that Star Wars did thirty years earlier. The failures of Cameron to properly utilize these archetypes goes a long way in explaining why Avatar does not leave the same impression as Lucas’ fantasy blockbuster.
First, let’s look at the Cambell-esque archetypes used by both filmmakers in the crafting of their individual stories:
Lucas followed Campbell’s outline to the letter, while Cameron made some slight deviations from it. One of the great strengths of Star Wars is its use of the hero and shapeshifter characters to create terrific amounts of tension and friction. Han Solo’s motivations throughout the film make the main threesome of Luke, Leia, and Han a potent dramatic force that pays off handsomely in the final minutes in the attack on the Death Star.
In Avatar, Cameron attempts to use Pandora as the shapeshifter, even down to the last-minute rescue of the heroes by this “character” that directly mimics Han’s last-minute change of heart. But what was a thrilling key moment in Star Wars lacked the same dramatic thrust in Avatar primarily because this key character was not really a character at all, and not one that an audience can really know in any meaningful way. Therefore, Pandora’s sudden rescue of the heroes carries little dramatic weight.
In Star Wars, Lucas wisely inserted C3PO and Artoo Detoo as trickster characters, which then inserted a lot of gentle humor into the film. Cameron’s Avatar sorely lacks a prominent trickster character. This robs the film of much warmth and humor, leaving the film somewhat leaden and stoic and preventing the film from attaining any dramatic altitude.
The script for Avatar also mishandles the mentor character, which again robs the film of dramatic weight. Dr. Grace Augustine, played by Sigourney Weaver, introduces Jake to the Avatar program and guides him into the world of Pandora. Her presence after the first half hour is severely limited, however, and so her character is never able to gain any dramatic momentum by the time she is sacrificed. This is in stark contrast to the Obi Wan Kenobi character, who is a strong constant throughout. His interactions with both Luke and Han establish him as a wise, strong, but gentle leader. The script forces us to consider Obi Wan from Luke’s respectful perspective. When Obi Wan is killed by Vader, the shock resonates through Luke to the audience.
In addition to the misuse of character archetypes, Cameron also fails to provide situational archetypes in the structure of his screenplay. In Star Wars, Lucas created an archetypal battle station/fortress in the Death Star; the attack on the Death Star figures as the place of the dramatic showdown between good and evil. Its destruction at the end provides catharsis as the hero archetype fulfills his destiny. By comparison, Avatardoes not provide a specific delineation between good and evil forces. The “hometree” of the Na’vi is destroyed in the opening segment of the battle, but it is not even the most sacred place for this alien race. Therefore, its destruction carries no discernible weight, since it is not the primary goal. This failure on the part of Cameron serves to dramatically confuse audiences, since the objects being fought over do not have any specific meaning or importance.
The very principles used by Lucas to give his simple space opera drama, tension, and emotional lift are the very ones missing from Avatar, and it ultimately shows in the lifelessness onscreen. Very little that occurs in Avatar feels impactful or important, despite the constant exposition about the meaning of life. The characters in Avatar, though loosely designed around the same template as those in Star Wars, never achieve any measurable connection to the audience the way the primary characters in Star Wars do. This is primarily due to Cameron’s failure to provide the necessary archetypes, or to give the audience identifiable markers for each archetype so that they will resonate subconsciously.
Though Avatar is a good film with impressive special effects, its lack of easily identifiable archetypes prevents it from achieving the universal emotional appeal that Star Wars enjoyed during its transformation from simple space opera to cultural milestone.
Great post, Ray, with a terrific perspective not seen in any other AVATAR discussion I’ve seen.
I pretty much loved AVATAR, although I can’t argue with most of what you’re saying. In my mind, I know I’m being easier on the movie than it probably deserves, but I’m just so tickled to the core to see a James Cameron action movie that breaks cinematic barriers that I’m more willing than usual to forgive its shortcomings. Cameron understands composition, pace, tension, physics, hardware, setup and payoff better than pretty much any other action director, and after a near-decade of Bay and all of his unholy spawn, this movie felt like a cold cold fresh glass of water.
The only real point I have to make about your archetype critique, though, is that you’re right except for one thing. The archetypes ARE very much the same; what the two filmmakers do with them is SOMEWHAT different.
But the true difference is YOU. Those simple archetypes in 1977 impacted you in an entirely different, impossible-to-replicate way. You and me and millions of others like us can never divorce ourselves from the dream-like quality of our cinematic sense memories. You had no recognition of archetypes back then, no awareness. In 2009, we tend to compare everything to everything else – which is certainly fair – but there are simply elements to AVATAR that must stand on their own as extraordinary, as true game-changers, just as there were for STAR WARS. That’s not to say that AVATAR’s reach and impact will be the same; it likely won’t, because of many of its obvious problems (that I’m ignoring).
But it is still a pretty amazing spectacle and experience, delivered by a man who understands both.
The subjective perspective that you mention is probably the reason why I perceive the archetypes to be different … although I’m fairly certain that the Jake Sully character is not written or performed with the same verve and oomph that Luke was in ‘77, and that’s a serious problem with this film. The film doesn’t feel ALIVE the way Star Wars did, and I don’t think I’m imagining that.
I will say it’s interesting that everyone who praises this film ALWAYS mentions either the spectacle or the special effects. I have never heard anyone praise this film based on its characters, plot, or drama. Isn’t that weird? Shouldn’t that say something about what’s going on here?
Yes, the film is wondrous to look at, and is composed by a true master of visuals as opposed to Bay, etc. But that by itself doesn’t make this a great film, nor does it make it a resonant film.
That’s an interesting comparison, Ray, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. The plot and the lead actor are both weak, but this film has “cultural milestone” written all over it. Just like Star Wars, seeing this film in the theater is a memorable experience. So much so that even someone as stingy as me will probably see it more than once.
@ ryk – OMG please tell me you didn’t fall all over yourself because of this movie!! You … you … you have a BRAIN!!! This is DEVASTATING news …
I mean, the film is fine enough. But I wholeheartedly disagree about the idea of it being a “masterpiece” or a “cultural milestone.” I almost choked just writing those words in reference to this film.
I just watched STAR WARS again last night on Spike TV … the damned thing is FUN, has a lot of personality, and is a perfect example of film editing. AVATAR has none of that at all.
I think once people get away from the effect of the effetcs, they’ll see this film a bit more clearly.
Thanks for the comparison Ray – great work. There is no doubt that the film visuals do wash over some of the films other problems. I do have to disagree with you on two things: regardi the trickster elements – while Pandora is not a person per se I did feel that Cameron handled the surprise well and there is a true sense of the planet making balance. I also thought that the destruction of the tree was made to be a serious bash against the Na’vi at the end of Act II – not the most scared but there home! You could equate that more with the destruction of Alderaan.
Dr Augustine is not set up properly however – why is she accepted at his initiation into the Na’vi? Every sense we get from the Na’vi are the demon bodies are not welcome. There does not seem to be any real connection or friendship with Sully. It did bug me.
thanks again!
@sheepnoir – Very good analysis! It’s interesting that you brought up Alderaan, because its destruction in STAR WARS had zero emotional weight as well; we never know anything about Leia or her world at this point, so why would it matter? However, the destruction of Alderaan is a minor plot point, while the Pandorian revolt is a major one.
Yeah, Grace’s acceptance into Na’vi culture is a little baffling, and is one of many examples of sloppy screenwriting in this film.
Remember that Campbell’s structure is not a guideline to build stories, but a tool for the literal analysis of existing myths. It’s not like a checklist to follow through the writing process… remember how spectacularly the Matrix sequels failed to work? And a lot of our great myths and stories deviate a lot from the common template anyway, skipping some steps or concentrating on just one.
And of course it’s also subject to interpretation, for example with Star Wars you could also say that episodes IV to VI form the complete story of Luke’s journey, or I to VI are Anakin’s journey. Then there’s Han Solo who actually has his own journey, from refusal of the call through death and resurrection to ascension.
So, with Avatar, there can be other interpretations as well. I’ve happened to look at it a few days ago myself, so here’s an alternate analysis
I’ve used the simplified template from Leeming found on wikipedia, and since the title is ‘Avatar’, I’ve tried to view it less as the na’vi’s fight for their planet and more as the journey of Jake.
Miraculous Birth
Jake’s born as his avatar, with his ability to walk miraculously restored.
Initiation
Jake enters the Avatar program and the science team.
Or you could say it’s his entering of the magical forest on Pandora.
Withdrawal
Jake’s separated from the human world as he spends most of his days under the link, among the na’vi.
Trial and Quest
Jake learns the ways of the na’vi and has to tame his own banshee.
Death
Descent into the underworld
Resurrection and rebirth
These actually have two different appearances in the story.
First, when Quaritch pulls the plug, Jake’s avatar is left to die. But as they escape its resurrected; the underworld could either be the human world, or the destroyed jungle around the Hometree.
Second, Jake literally dies at the end of the movie and Eywa resurrects him in his avatar.
Ascension, apotheosis, and atonement
Jake’s taming of the leonopteryx elevates him into a mythical hero who saves the na’vi and Pandora from the invading humans, leading to his atonement with Neytiri and the tribe.
Some other elements included are:
- Neytiri is obviously the Goddess, but you could also say that Jake meets Eywa when he starts to hear the voices of the na’vi living within her
- by taming the leonopteryx, and using human guns and knowing human weaknesses, Jake becomes the Master of two worlds
- Quaritch is not the villain, but the main defender of both Selfridge and the RDA; so he is the “Dragon” that Jake has to fight. Cameron also has a “dragon” defending the colonel, which is the Dragon gunship.
(note: other well-known dragons are Darth Vader, or Agent Smith – they were the martial challenge and the actual evils were the spiritual challenge that came later: the Emperor, and the Machines. Avatar doesn’t really have one like this though.)
Of course Jake’s journey is probably far from over. Looking at the box office reports, the movie is almost guaranteed to make at least a billion dollars, so a sequel is certain to come. So, judging the movie’s cultural impact and comparing it to that of Star Wars may be quite premature at this point.
It’s also good to know that Avatar’s original scriptment had a lot more depth and complexity, more and better developed characters and some better set-ups for most events. Comparing the first draft with the final movie is an interesting exercise, so I suggest to find that old pdf using google.
In my opinion Cameron has been successful enough in his first real application of the monomyth, based on the reviews and box office performance of the movie. It has helped him to reshape a much more hardcore science-fiction story into a popular blockbuster and the probable starting point of a larger myth. Sure it’s not exactly like Star Wars, but I think it’s better to get something different.
I think you’re missing the point of the movie. Cameron specifically said he made the story simple and easy to follow because he didn’t want people focusing too much on the story and to focus more on the 3D. Story is important, but in an instance like this, it’s about how it was shot and the revolutionary way of shooting it that’s important, and the story itself is not bad and easy to follow allowing us to appreciate Cameron’s genius.
@vargatom- breathtaking interpretation, man. I particularly like your ideas about the goddess being Eywa. I don’t think Cameron is quite as successful at this application as you suggest, but it’s thought provoking nonetheless.
@Errol- so this film is supposed to only be a 3D special effects reel?? Bullshit… Cameron wants this to be a heady statement about environmentalism, etc. It just turns out that the story and characters are so limp that all we have left to enthrall us ARE the special effects.
I enjoyed your article and I felt an emotional dissconnect to the characters that you put into words better than I could.
Cameron is successful in crafting a movie that seems to be on track to become one of the top 5 grossing movies of all time. It’s already at $615 million and is almost guaranteed to make a billion, probably more.
Yes, it’s not without problems, many things about it disappoint me too – but it seems to resonate with the audience. I do believe that the results justify Cameron’s decisions and that a more cerebral movie would not have been such a hit.
The big question is, which direction the sequel will take – can it become a new Empire or Dark Knight, or will it be more like Revenge of the Fallen? I still trust Cameron and hope that he’ll deliver an even better, though maybe not as successful, movie.
@frelling_cute – Thanks a lot for the nice comment!
@ vargatom – Massive grosses have nothing at all to do with a film’s artistic merits. Films like Transformers demonstrate that better than I ever could. And like Transformers, I think audiences are snapping this up because (a) it was massively hyped, (b) because it has the very latest special effects technology, and (c) because it has a canny marketing plan that centers the film release around a holiday, thereby drastically increasing revenue.
It is quite telling that almost every positive review I’ve read or positive comment I’ve heard almost always revolves around the special effects. They gush and rave on and on about revolutionary CGI and 3D … very few people I’ve heard – none, actually – rave about the thrilling story or deep, involving characters.
And that’s not true of a film like STAR WARS, for instance. People LOVED those characters and they thrilled to the story … the special effects were the icing on the cake, not the entire cake.
Grace’s acceptance into Na’vi culture was not baffling, but there is a good reason why you think that. The movie is too big for its own good and doesn’t have time to spend on a bunch of interesting things.
In the case of Grace, about two shots and just 10 seconds explicitly show how she ran a school for the natives for years, loved them and was loved by them, was friends with the lead native girl, etc.
PS: the movie also spent about 10 seconds on a very good portrayal of scientists in the field. one of the many thoughtful bits barely touched on, for lack of time I think.
The box office success is relevant in that it was a must for a movie with Avatar’s budget. A more complex, more hardcore scifi version would obviously be even better, but would scare away the mainstream audience that enjoyed Transformers 2 and Ice Age 3, current BO leaders this year. Cameron had to make this movie profitable, it was a necessary sacrifice.
Also realize that a domestic gross above ~$200 million, and a worldwide above 6-700 million can only be reached if a lot of people see the movie multiple times. Which obviously requires them to like the damn thing and has nothing to do with PR and advertisement.
Star Wars nowadays is judged as the entire trilogy; I’d give Avatar the chance to further explore its characters in two sequels before I make my final judgment. New Hope did have some interesting characters but I’d suggest reconsidering how much awesomeness Empire has actually added to Vader, Han, Wedge and the others.
@ ikasd – I know that Grace was established as a teacher in the school. However, it makes no sense, then, that the entire drama surrounding Jake Sully’s acceptance is that the Na’vi do not accept “demon” avatars into their midst … yet here is Grace, easily accepted.
@ vargatom – Well, you claim that Cameron had to cater to the masses by dumbing down his movie in order to recoup his costs … fine … except that Lucas made a truly weird movie that was fairly expensive for its time, yet STAR WARS became a box offfice monster because it was shot and edited well, the performances were winning, and the effects were spectacular.
As for the effect of EMPIRE on things, it doesn’t really color my judgement. I don’t look at the trilogy as a whole unit, primarily because JEDI is so damn bad.
Star Wars was cheap, even in its own time, at about $9 million. And it did receive serious criticism about its acting
Anyway, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I still expect the eventual Avatar trilogy to become something nearly as big as Star Wars has been.
maybe the failure you see it’s because Cameron is not using that archetype
shapeshifter pandora? sure, I guess you needed something on every space of that chart and you didn’t care if there wasn’t anything that could fit
@ doa766 – oh it fits.
That’s some very interesting ideas on the film, and while I agree with most of what you’re saying, I don’t think that Avatar is a bad film at all. It’s not great, it’s no masterpiece, and it’s definitely no Star Wars, but it’s a damn fine film.
The problem with comparing it to Star Wars is that that film was almost an accident borne out of one stroke of brilliance. Lucas used archetype to his advantage in essentially making a space age version of the Hero’s Journey. In theory and in practice, it appealed to the masses successfully.
With Avatar, Cameron is trying to emulate that success in that he wants to create a story for the masses, but I don’t think he turned to archetype for his method of execution. Rather, in creating a story simple enough to have broad appeal, what he has created is a parable. Cameron’s message and his metaphors are ridiculously simple, and I do think he has done that quite intentionally. He seeks to entertain with his story more than anything, and at least at that he seems to be suceeding. At the end of the day, that’s all Avatar is – a two and a half hour long parable imbued with action and imagination.
While I do agree that there could be more of an emotional connection with the characters, that was the only major flaw in the film that detracted from its entertainment value, IMO. Many of the characters could have been exploited to make the film a bit more wholesome; Cameron did well at invoking the imagination and awe of his audience but he definitely could have made the ride a bit more fun.
While it is great to compare and contrast the storylines of the two movies, I’m not sure I care about the differences.
I am not sure of the ages and the education of the participants in these posts, but maybe Cameron was trying to reach the masses of audiences that do not consciously understand Archetypes with a story and visuals that they can relate to and at the same time use those unconscious Archtypes to communicate various journeys and the connected state of the world.
Yes there were some things he could have done better, but overall he did a great job.