in 1953, this Biblical epic introduced CinemaScope, a widescreen format that wowed audiences and changed the movies forever. Now it's the answer to a trivia question.
I know it's always perilous to try to presume intent on behalf of writers, but do you think the "no cultural impact" takes persist because of the bubble effect? People thinking the reactions of their circle of friends is representative of the average person? "No one in my Twitter feed is obsessing about Avatar so it has no cultural impact." Even though something like only 20% of Americans are on Twitter and an even smaller percentage post regularly, and an even smaller percentage than that post about movies. But journalists are MUCH more present and active on Twitter than the average person.
The flip side of this are articles I've read bemoaning how some films revered in online film circles flop even though they're clearly pretty audience unfriendly.
Literally not a single person I know has seen or even mentioned the new Avatar movie.
This is completely different from the previous Avatar movie, where almost everyone I know was at least discussing it, and I would wager most had gone to check it out.
So if I accept that this Avatar is a big success.... where is that success coming from, and why am I suddenly in a bubble that excludes it?
the original seemed to have broad cultural discussion. I've only seen this discussed (favorably!) by film critics
My grandmother adored this movie. She owned it on VHS, and watched it often. In pan-and-scan, of course, but that didn't matter to her. It was just as powerful as it would have been in widescreen.
I thought it was boring. I'm sure it would give me a rush of nostalgia now.
Came here to post almost these exact words. Grandmother was a Bible Belt Methodist, and her shelf was lined with chunky double-VHS sleeves of the Robe, Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, and all of their various knockoffs. Bored me to tears as a kid, but I could see them being cheesy fun now.
As someone who buys the “no cultural impact” for Avatar 1 and thinks it’s far too early to tell if Avatar 2 will reverse that trend, I just want to point out that this feels like a rewrite of history to some degree:
>the original left no “cultural footprint,” it had been tremendously successful but slid from the collective memory, and its sequels would be both unwanted and unsuccessful.
That last clause (“sequels would be unwanted and unsuccessful”) was never, imo, part of what many of us meant when we said it was fascinating that such a financially successful fantasy movie hadn’t created a bigger splash in terms of culture. I still felt sure there was a big chance the sequels, if ever completed, would make tons of money and be technologically and visually lauded much as the first one was.
What was a fun thought experiment for many of us got co-opted by more aggressive internet dwellers as a way to sh*t on Avatar overall.
For me, my dislike of both Avatar films is separate from my belief that 1 left a surprisingly small footprint and my acceptance that these movies are likely going to break the box office every time. :D
Not directed at me, but I’ll take a stab: does anyone ever quote it? Does anyone ever use its characters or scenes as metaphors. Unlike Star Wars, Star Trek, or Marvel, Avatar hasn’t spawned a cottage industry around conventions and cosplay.
There’s plenty of discourse among the less film-savvy that Avatar was a weird choice for a sequel.
I don't know, the argument always seemed goofy beyond how obviously it's been disproven by the sequel's success. What other films from 2009 that didn't spawn sequels (until last month) have continued to have "cultural impact?" And what does that nebulous term even mean? I work with teenagers, and I overhear and participate in conversations about the Way of Water a few times a week. That's anecdotal, but no more than the so-called "evidence" forwarded by the "no cultural impact" crowd.
I find it's actually pretty broadly popular among my students, too. Kids that never talk about movies won't shut up about it (as well as the usual movie/nerd crowd).
The Way of Water is currently in theaters. Of course it’s being talked about now. The original conversation happened years after Avatar 1 left theaters.
Beyond my admiration for the first film, it's actually my students who convinced me this whole thing was a silly canard. Many of them bring it up with me when they find out I like movies all the time and have for many years now. The argument is almost always forwarded by people who don't like the movie. Fair enough. That doesn't mean millions of people all over the world do. I don't like most Marvel movies. I would never claim they had no cultural impact.
“Culturally relevant” is a subjective, silly, unprovable thing. You can’t use it to prove Avatar 1 was “objectively bad” or to argue that Avatar 2 proved all the haters wrong.
I will give you that "Avatar's cultural impact was on those who saw it as kids" is an argument that I haven't come across before. That's possible! and as I am nowhere close to that group I would have no interaction with them.
it's like the "weird" fondness for Hocus Pocus that's recently popped up, apparently nostalgia-driven, by people who remember it fondly from childhood
It’s fascinating that this mode of Christian movie fell out of favor to be replaced by cheap pandering Shlock like everything Kirk Cameron makes and...slightly more expensive schlock like BREAKTHROUGH or that movie where Jennifer Garner’s kid falls down a tree.
I bet you anything that if someone tried to make a film with the same approach to Jesus as The Robe--I.e. not really showing him at all--it’d be vilified by the pureflix crowd
It's not just this type of movie that's out of favor now. The films of Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, and Woody Allen have all thoughtfully examined questions of faith, religion, and existence in ways that I don't really see among more recent filmmakers. It seems like the movies addressing religion now tend to be all designed to comfort regular church-goers (not counting something like First Reformed since it was made by one of the filmmakers I just cited).
I'm not saying there should be no place for more church-friendly movies, but I do miss films made by filmmakers who were shaped enough by religion in their formative years that they take matters of faith, existence, and meaning seriously but they're also not beholden to toeing the company line either.
You have a point. I think critical circles have long wielded terms like "sentimental" as if it's an insult in and of itself. Just because something is sentimental or romantic doesn't make it bad, and just because something is gritty and unsparing does not make it good.
That’s very true!!! Paul Schrader grew up in the same denomination I did (even went to the same college as me) and even not having engaged with his work, I can tell exactly where his mind is coming from.
I recently read Jonathan Franzen's Crossroads (excellent, by the way) and it really made me long for more serious films about faith and religion in America. I know it's possible to find a middle ground between sneering contempt and uncritical proselytizing. The entire history of popular art through th 70s or so proves it!
I wonder if some of that is a reflection of more people being religiously unaffiliated, either in adulthood or while growing up, so it's not as large of a part of how they process or think about the world and their surroundings.
Yeah, over $100M domestic, but I'd still say this kind of film is very much an exception compared to the past. Someone could also make an argument for "Signs" as a 21st century example as well I suppose.
Oh it was! (The fact that it was the first post-HP project of Emma Watson didn’t hurt.) while I haven’t seen that either, I remember loads of ppl I know being mad on Facebook (where else?) because it wasn’t sticking exactly to the Bible.
Speaking of Scorsese and out of favor, The Last Temptation of Christ was met with a lot of protests, wasn't it? I was too young to know the world around me when it came out, but that was my understanding at least.
It was! Like if you Google Campus Crusades for Christ the first thing you learn about them is they boycotted that movie. They even tried to buy the negatives from the studio to burn them!
I wasn't allowed to buy tickets for Universal Studios' releases from roughly holiday season 1988 until like the end of 1990 because my Catholic church's pastor told the parish to boycott Universal and my parents went along with it (but any time my brother and I got a hold of free passes you could rest assured we'd save them for a Universal movie that we wanted to see).
And my comment wasn't meant to imply that the works of those filmmakers met with no protests, they most definitely did. My point was that it was more common to see movies that seriously tackled faith/belief/questions of meaning and existence in ways that neither sneered at religion nor sucked up to religion.
I caught Babylon recently, which was, hoo boy, REALLY not my thing. I did find it hilarious that the big, jazzy montage at the end showed the Glorious March of Film Progress leading to Avatar. Like literally everything else in that movie, that was a choice.
I'd be interested in learning how quickly theaters were able to refresh their screens to accommodate the new aspect ratio. I'm assuming most (all?) theaters at this time were still using 4:3 screens.
This is a film that, like Gone With the Wind, was sometimes revived in local theaters in the Salt Lake City area as late, iirc, as the early ‘80s. We might have had to watch it in my LDS seminary class, too, toward the end of the school year. It’s one of those films where I feel like I’ve seen pieces of it but have no clear memory of watching it straight through. I did not know about its place in CinemaScope history.
I think I’ve seen this movie! My dad is a big Burton fan and my mom liked historical/biblical epics (esp. back in the 80s/90s) and so I’m pretty sure I saw this as an adolescent / young teen. Of course this would’ve been in some godawful pan-and-scan VHS transfer and the movie left basically no impression on me.
In any case, excellent piece! So much fun to read.
Also, I would just like to note that “cultural impact” debates are an order of magnitude more annoying than even pure popularity metrics. I do not understand why anyone who cares about film gives a fuck.
I know it's always perilous to try to presume intent on behalf of writers, but do you think the "no cultural impact" takes persist because of the bubble effect? People thinking the reactions of their circle of friends is representative of the average person? "No one in my Twitter feed is obsessing about Avatar so it has no cultural impact." Even though something like only 20% of Americans are on Twitter and an even smaller percentage post regularly, and an even smaller percentage than that post about movies. But journalists are MUCH more present and active on Twitter than the average person.
The flip side of this are articles I've read bemoaning how some films revered in online film circles flop even though they're clearly pretty audience unfriendly.
Everyone is Pauline Kael now: "Well none of MY friends are talking about Avatar!"
I mean.. yes, and?
Literally not a single person I know has seen or even mentioned the new Avatar movie.
This is completely different from the previous Avatar movie, where almost everyone I know was at least discussing it, and I would wager most had gone to check it out.
So if I accept that this Avatar is a big success.... where is that success coming from, and why am I suddenly in a bubble that excludes it?
the original seemed to have broad cultural discussion. I've only seen this discussed (favorably!) by film critics
My grandmother adored this movie. She owned it on VHS, and watched it often. In pan-and-scan, of course, but that didn't matter to her. It was just as powerful as it would have been in widescreen.
I thought it was boring. I'm sure it would give me a rush of nostalgia now.
Came here to post almost these exact words. Grandmother was a Bible Belt Methodist, and her shelf was lined with chunky double-VHS sleeves of the Robe, Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, and all of their various knockoffs. Bored me to tears as a kid, but I could see them being cheesy fun now.
As someone who buys the “no cultural impact” for Avatar 1 and thinks it’s far too early to tell if Avatar 2 will reverse that trend, I just want to point out that this feels like a rewrite of history to some degree:
>the original left no “cultural footprint,” it had been tremendously successful but slid from the collective memory, and its sequels would be both unwanted and unsuccessful.
That last clause (“sequels would be unwanted and unsuccessful”) was never, imo, part of what many of us meant when we said it was fascinating that such a financially successful fantasy movie hadn’t created a bigger splash in terms of culture. I still felt sure there was a big chance the sequels, if ever completed, would make tons of money and be technologically and visually lauded much as the first one was.
What was a fun thought experiment for many of us got co-opted by more aggressive internet dwellers as a way to sh*t on Avatar overall.
For me, my dislike of both Avatar films is separate from my belief that 1 left a surprisingly small footprint and my acceptance that these movies are likely going to break the box office every time. :D
How do you define cultural impact and footprint?
Not directed at me, but I’ll take a stab: does anyone ever quote it? Does anyone ever use its characters or scenes as metaphors. Unlike Star Wars, Star Trek, or Marvel, Avatar hasn’t spawned a cottage industry around conventions and cosplay.
There’s plenty of discourse among the less film-savvy that Avatar was a weird choice for a sequel.
People think it's weird that the highest grossing movie of all time, one which is set in an interesting world, would get a sequel?
FWIW https://thereveal.substack.com/p/the-robe-the-most-influential-movie/comment/12395229?r=6con6&utm_medium=ios
I don't know, the argument always seemed goofy beyond how obviously it's been disproven by the sequel's success. What other films from 2009 that didn't spawn sequels (until last month) have continued to have "cultural impact?" And what does that nebulous term even mean? I work with teenagers, and I overhear and participate in conversations about the Way of Water a few times a week. That's anecdotal, but no more than the so-called "evidence" forwarded by the "no cultural impact" crowd.
Ha! I wrote and then deleted my own "I am a teacher and my students are, and have long been, familiar with Avatar" line so I totally agree with you.
I find it's actually pretty broadly popular among my students, too. Kids that never talk about movies won't shut up about it (as well as the usual movie/nerd crowd).
The Way of Water is currently in theaters. Of course it’s being talked about now. The original conversation happened years after Avatar 1 left theaters.
Beyond my admiration for the first film, it's actually my students who convinced me this whole thing was a silly canard. Many of them bring it up with me when they find out I like movies all the time and have for many years now. The argument is almost always forwarded by people who don't like the movie. Fair enough. That doesn't mean millions of people all over the world do. I don't like most Marvel movies. I would never claim they had no cultural impact.
“Culturally relevant” is a subjective, silly, unprovable thing. You can’t use it to prove Avatar 1 was “objectively bad” or to argue that Avatar 2 proved all the haters wrong.
I will give you that "Avatar's cultural impact was on those who saw it as kids" is an argument that I haven't come across before. That's possible! and as I am nowhere close to that group I would have no interaction with them.
it's like the "weird" fondness for Hocus Pocus that's recently popped up, apparently nostalgia-driven, by people who remember it fondly from childhood
I have great fondness for this era of biblical epics, especially Ben-Hur, but I never fully fell for The Robe. It might be time to revisit it.
It’s fascinating that this mode of Christian movie fell out of favor to be replaced by cheap pandering Shlock like everything Kirk Cameron makes and...slightly more expensive schlock like BREAKTHROUGH or that movie where Jennifer Garner’s kid falls down a tree.
I bet you anything that if someone tried to make a film with the same approach to Jesus as The Robe--I.e. not really showing him at all--it’d be vilified by the pureflix crowd
It's not just this type of movie that's out of favor now. The films of Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, and Woody Allen have all thoughtfully examined questions of faith, religion, and existence in ways that I don't really see among more recent filmmakers. It seems like the movies addressing religion now tend to be all designed to comfort regular church-goers (not counting something like First Reformed since it was made by one of the filmmakers I just cited).
I'm not saying there should be no place for more church-friendly movies, but I do miss films made by filmmakers who were shaped enough by religion in their formative years that they take matters of faith, existence, and meaning seriously but they're also not beholden to toeing the company line either.
You have a point. I think critical circles have long wielded terms like "sentimental" as if it's an insult in and of itself. Just because something is sentimental or romantic doesn't make it bad, and just because something is gritty and unsparing does not make it good.
That’s very true!!! Paul Schrader grew up in the same denomination I did (even went to the same college as me) and even not having engaged with his work, I can tell exactly where his mind is coming from.
I recently read Jonathan Franzen's Crossroads (excellent, by the way) and it really made me long for more serious films about faith and religion in America. I know it's possible to find a middle ground between sneering contempt and uncritical proselytizing. The entire history of popular art through th 70s or so proves it!
I wonder if some of that is a reflection of more people being religiously unaffiliated, either in adulthood or while growing up, so it's not as large of a part of how they process or think about the world and their surroundings.
That is plausible, sure.
Aronofsky's Noah was s pretty earnest (and pretty weird) stab at this, and was reasonably successful as I recall.
Yeah, over $100M domestic, but I'd still say this kind of film is very much an exception compared to the past. Someone could also make an argument for "Signs" as a 21st century example as well I suppose.
Oh it was! (The fact that it was the first post-HP project of Emma Watson didn’t hurt.) while I haven’t seen that either, I remember loads of ppl I know being mad on Facebook (where else?) because it wasn’t sticking exactly to the Bible.
Speaking of Scorsese and out of favor, The Last Temptation of Christ was met with a lot of protests, wasn't it? I was too young to know the world around me when it came out, but that was my understanding at least.
It was! Like if you Google Campus Crusades for Christ the first thing you learn about them is they boycotted that movie. They even tried to buy the negatives from the studio to burn them!
I wasn't allowed to buy tickets for Universal Studios' releases from roughly holiday season 1988 until like the end of 1990 because my Catholic church's pastor told the parish to boycott Universal and my parents went along with it (but any time my brother and I got a hold of free passes you could rest assured we'd save them for a Universal movie that we wanted to see).
And my comment wasn't meant to imply that the works of those filmmakers met with no protests, they most definitely did. My point was that it was more common to see movies that seriously tackled faith/belief/questions of meaning and existence in ways that neither sneered at religion nor sucked up to religion.
Oh I understood you there, no problems!
I caught Babylon recently, which was, hoo boy, REALLY not my thing. I did find it hilarious that the big, jazzy montage at the end showed the Glorious March of Film Progress leading to Avatar. Like literally everything else in that movie, that was a choice.
I've never even heard of this movie!
I'd be interested in learning how quickly theaters were able to refresh their screens to accommodate the new aspect ratio. I'm assuming most (all?) theaters at this time were still using 4:3 screens.
This is a film that, like Gone With the Wind, was sometimes revived in local theaters in the Salt Lake City area as late, iirc, as the early ‘80s. We might have had to watch it in my LDS seminary class, too, toward the end of the school year. It’s one of those films where I feel like I’ve seen pieces of it but have no clear memory of watching it straight through. I did not know about its place in CinemaScope history.
I think I’ve seen this movie! My dad is a big Burton fan and my mom liked historical/biblical epics (esp. back in the 80s/90s) and so I’m pretty sure I saw this as an adolescent / young teen. Of course this would’ve been in some godawful pan-and-scan VHS transfer and the movie left basically no impression on me.
In any case, excellent piece! So much fun to read.
Also, I would just like to note that “cultural impact” debates are an order of magnitude more annoying than even pure popularity metrics. I do not understand why anyone who cares about film gives a fuck.
Nice shout-out for this essay - "a really smart piece" - on The Ringer's Rewatchables pod today (the Catch Me If You Can ep).