Guilty pleasures aside, my favorite thing about Star Trek is its originality.  After watching the first episode of Star Trek again last week after 30+ years, I finally understood why the show has such an enormous and resilient cult following. From the score to the costumes, Star Trek is a unique work of art in every sense of the word, and unique works of art (as well as unique people, in the case of Jesus, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, et al)  generally have “cult” followings. It seems the greater the original symbolism, the greater the following. As crazy as it sounds, this is why Chuck Norris has such a massive following now; that is, there is no one like him.

Of course I believe this is all by design. Man has been in awe of symbolism and art and one another (as works of art–take Marilyn Monroe, for example) since the beginning of time. From Times Square to the jungles of the Amazon, a human being is at this moment looking upon an artifact of some sort appreciatively. In my estimation, our appreciation, our fond and nostalgic admiration and respect for things, is one of the virtues that set us apart from the beasts [for me this natural and irresistible compulsion to worship points to the existence of God, but that is another book].

That innate spirit of respect for things and people was demonstratively apparent at all times in the altruistic and culture-observant dispositions of the SS Enterprise’s crew members. Wherever the crew went, they were always seeking to understand before they sought to be understood. They were always looking for ways to lend a helping hand to our galactic neighbors. In many episodes, many crew members risk their lives for extraterrestrials.

In stark contrast, the humans in the blockbuster smash film Avatar have no such universal respect for things or people–accept those which offer personal gain. They are all about pillaging and profiteering. Where the crew of the SS Enterprise was committed to going where no man had gone before to extend an olive branch, the humans in Avatar are committed to going where no man has gone before in an act of allegorical rape. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth.

Conservative critics are calling Avatar’s mastermind, James Cameron, a pinko. Ross Douthat of the New York times says the film is “..a long  apologia for pantheism – a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.”  He goes on to say, “Like the holiday season itself, the science fiction epic is a crass embodiment of capitalistic excess wrapped around a deeply felt religious message..”

But is this fair criticism ? Is Cameron’s portrayal of human beings as power-mad monsters bent on steamrolling the customs, traditions, and culture of those inhabiting Pandora that far removed from reality? Seems to me humans have been raping and  pillaging since the beginning of time. Even here in peace-lovin’ America our early settlers raped and pillaged Africa so we could then rape and pillage Native Americans. Sure, we can sit around and sing the Star Spangled Banner together and tear up as our favorite athletes reflect on their freedom momentarily before the big game, but under all that pomp and circumstance is centuries of war, blood, pain and yes, barbarism. How quickly we forget.

Not that I wish to dwell on the harsh reality of this country’s genesis. I do not. My days of pessimism are by and large behind me,  thank God. What I wish to point out is that while Star Trek is arguably my favorite show of all time, and while I adore the portrayal of human beings as philanthropic peacemakers who would nobly take a bullet for an extraterrestrial friend at the drop of a hat, the truth is, James Cameron’s portrayal of the human spirit is far more accurate than Gene Rodenberry’s (particularly from the standpoint of the Bible, that clearly states man is deceitful and selfish by his very nature). I suspect that is partly why many capitalist conservatives are decrying Avatar.. perhaps it hits too close to home.

So will Avatar become a cult classic like Star Wars and Star Trek? It’s hard to say. But one thing’s for sure: if FANTASY is a major criteria for cult status, Avatar will not make the cut. Cameron’s portrayal of humans as greedy, pride drunk, barbaric soldiers bent on achieving their material objectives at any cost (as opposed to philanthropic starship captains and jedi knights bent on saving the universe from the forces of evil) is anything but fantasy.

In closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t address a statement about the film made by director  James Cameron. He recently described the film to Good Morning America:  “The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora.. it’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”

Wow! Here Cameron is readily admitting to doing the same exact thing his greedy humans do in his film. But instead of pillaging a planet to achieve corporate and political objectives, Cameron has pillaged a movie genre (science fiction fantasy) to achieve his corporate and political objectives, and that will surely be perceived as  an act of artistic treason in the minds of many.. this artist included.

After thoroughly enjoying the excellent post apocalyptic novel “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy, I was excited when a friend told me a movie was in the works. I was even more excited when I stumbled upon a link in Google a few nights ago stating “The Road” had been released and was playing exclusively at Tower Theater! I immediately called my wife and asked if we could go.. that night.  We did. I was not disappointed…mostly.

If you’re not familiar, McCarthy is a gifted writer who also penned  “No Country for Old Men”–the Oscar winning film starring Tommy Lee Jones (one of my favorite actors) and directed by the uber talented sibling tandem, Joel and Ethan Coen. The Road follows the plight of a father and his adolescent son as they make their trek across a burnt out ashen America after what we can presume was a meteor hit or something of comparable magnitude.

I thought the movie was very true to the book. That’s a rare thing. Most movies fall well short. Not so with The Road. This film is truly the pixel equivalent of the book. The casting was superb. The main characters were eerily similar in both appearance and disposition to how I had envisioned them. The screenwriter also made some excellent choices as to what scenes to keep and what scenes to discard, without butchering the cohesion of the story in the process. Notable achievement!

My sole beef is with the soundtrack. The recurring clarinet motif  drove me up the wall, and I felt the abundance of dramatic music was overkill for the story– not to mention intrusive on the viewing experience.  The thing I loved most about the BOOK version of The Road was the vivid prose and minimalist dialog. When combined, those two literary devices succeeded in conveying the profound sense of loss and solitude one would feel if facing the deserted world as the main character must.

Since the director of this film didn’t have a lot of dialog to work with, he compensated by using an abundance of adjectival music to fill in the blanks. It didn’t work. By soundtracking the “blanks”  he killed  the crucial sense of destitution that could have catapulted this film into Oscar territory. Then again, in all fairness, The Road’s director John Hilcoat is no Robert Zemekis (“Castaway”). While Hilcoat has truly mastered the visual and storytelling aspects of filmmaking,  in this musician’s opinion he still lacks the skills to leverage sound as a cinematic device in films with little dialog. He would do well to study Paul Anderson (“There will be blood”) to understand that sound needn’t be melodic to invoke emotion.  In other words, a violin needn’t play lullabies to convey tragedy.

I realize the soundtrack is not composed by the director, but a great director has the musical ear to direct the composer, too–and that doesn’t appear to have happened on Hilcoat’s ‘ road’ to the theater in this case.

Overall, it’s still a very good film and I give it a strong 3.5 stars.