| « Sherlock Holmes Review: Simple, effective, no-sh** Sherlock | Howard Zinn People's History special on the History Channel » |
What I learned about liberals from watching Avatar
12/24/09

FernGully: The Last Rainforest (Family Fun Edition)
If he were to read the IMDB reviews, an astute reader would be able to divide the admirers of Avatar into those who believe in its message and those who like pretty pictures. I'd like to add a new category for myself, who enjoyed Avatar not as a movie, but as an anthropological experiment.
If James Cameron is correct and our planet "dies," and the dude next to me right now at the Norm's counter is right and advanced aliens exist, one can imagine the aliens coming back to earth and wanting to familiarize themselves with our society and its political factions, one of which is made up of those late-twentieth/early-twenty-first century creatures called "progressives."
The databases of Daily Kos and Huffington Post having long been gone, and the pages of the Nation having been burned for warmth after the disappearance of the carbon fuels; the aliens may come to rely solely on a copy of Avatar found in the vault of one of James Cameron's mansions.
What they would learn:
1. It's not good to encroach on other people's territory and change its culture or use its resources. The Earthlings in Avatar have made bad ecological decisions and attempt to steal the Na'vi's supply of unobtanium.
Earthlings shouldn't take unobtanium even if it's their only chance for survival, which seems to go against the natural Eywan law of survival (below). Cameron's going to have to work this one out.
Anyways, humans had their chance to elect Al Gore and they blew it. Now humanity can go lay in its apocalyptic bed.
2. War is justified to protect one's homeland. Similar to the traditional Christian Just War theory.
3. Religion is good, as are priestesses. It's appropriate to appreciate the source of balance on Pandora, the goddess Eywa; therefore, ceremonies are good. It's important to note that Eywa (the "Mother"- in your eye, patriarchists!) may just be some unconscious, material, biological phenomenon, like the microorganisms Midi-chlorians are responsible for the Force in Star Wars. This would seem to make the Eywa dances lively entertainments, but ultimately useless, unless achieving a trance-like state allows one to better "commune with Eywa."
Religion should represent reality so that if there really is a force that balances Pandora, and no authority above the planet, that force should be the one to follow. However, since Cameron made Pandora himself, one may assume that it's the kind of religion he prefers. That kind is a sort of pantheistic spiritual communion amongst bio-entities in which the ultimate good is that living things bother each other as minimally as possible. Gluttony is out, moderation evident in the svelte Na'vi physiques.
Even with that understanding, Pandora is still a pretty dangerous place where one wrong move in the dangerous forest, even in dealings with their fellow creatures, can lead to death for the Na'vi. Viciousness is natural, necessary to "maintain the balance." Eywa approves.
Interestingly, for being such a peaceful people, there sure are a lot of Na'vi warriors. Perhaps the different tribes war against each other.
4. Na'vi don't seem to care about improving their technology. It's implied that Earthlings destroyed their planet pursuing technology. The big robots seem especially grotesque next to the colorful Na'vi dragon steeds.
5. No discernible policy on out-of-wedlock sex. Small Na'vi villages tend to be conservative. Perhaps in the bigger villages, "if this leaf-hammock's a rockin', don't come a knockin'."
6. Gay marriage is out. At the appropriate age, a man chooses a woman, for "mating." That's the imprimatured way on earth.
Mating is for life. Another orthodox belief.
7. It's not necessary to love one's enemies. In fact, Avatar is full of hate. First, Earthlings towards the Na'vi. Then, the Na'vi right back. After stripping Earthlings of their capacity to harm, the Na'vi probably could have worked something out with the defeated remnants. Nope. "Go home to your dead world" (not just Detroit, either- all of Earth).
8. Free health care. It seems like the medicine shaman is on call and doesn't require payment. Could be single-payer, which would make them far superior to us.
9. Fashion should allow for the maximum freedom of movement.
10. Slight Xenophobia. Outsiders are not welcome, unless they're willing to completely assimilate.
11. The Na'vi are the ideal people: perfectly in balance; peaceful, yet retaining the ability to wage war.
If this movie is an allegory, then the most noble population group on earth are either Native Americans or Africans. My friends and I argued about this. I kept an eye out for a loincloth malfunction to decide the matter. Alas, none. Fortunately, Stephen Lang settles the issue. They're "Indians":
12. Americans are bad. When anti-American film-makers want to present a fighting force for good, they either internationalize a group like in GI Joe, downplay its Americanism like in Superman, or make it explicitly anti-American like in the Bourne Identity.

The Bourne Trilogy (The Bourne Identity | The Bourne Supremacy | The Bourne Ultimatum) [Blu-ray]
In Avatar, all of the bad guys are Americans.
(This is a financial decision. Only half of a Hollywood release's revenue comes from within Yankee shores. Studios figure they can more than make up for offended patriots- who probably don't go to movies much anyways- by appealing to foreign anti-Americans while getting a majority of the Huffington Post crowd, keeping in my mind that most Americans probably won't understand what's going on. In its first weekend, Avatar's overseas business was much greater than domestic revenue.)
13. Marines are good on Earth where they fight for freedom (Cameron makes a point of saying this, so it's not really fair to say that he's anti-military), but bad on Pandora because of point #1. Context is everything.
14. Marines are just the muscle for corporations, which makes corporations the real heavies for their pursuit of profit above peaceful peoples.
Tags: anti-christian, avatar theology, theology of avatarPermalinkCategories: Now playing at a theater near you, Five paragraph essay :: 8 comments »
8 comments
It must be horrible living in a world where you can't even enjoy a film without trying to shoehorn it into your own preconceived political notions. I hope that you can one day realize that we're all human, regardless of our political ideologies, and no one is more "right" or "wrong" than anyone else.For some reason, I have a feeling you'll never reach that point. Instead, I foresee a life of cheering on the murder of countless civilians as long as it allows you to spew your idiocy on this abortion of a blog.
It's a political movie. Are we not supposed to notice? If not, then he should have toned the politics down.
It's a philosophical movie, not a political one. Politics doesn't solve anything. There was never going to be a "political" resolution to the plot in Avatar, because the Na'vi have a totally different philosophy of life and nature. The idealism of the movie shows through by the fact that the natives ultimately win, whereas the Native Americans did not (when America sought to expand its dominion of North America).
this whole post is petty, assuming you're being serious.
Recently (01/02/10) Alex wrote A resolution: become a better vim user at Alex Gittens's web. Check it out!
Good analysis. Midwest Moderate, your (apparent) anger belies your point... Art, philosophy and politics all exist in a realm where critique is both acceptable and healthy. How are your accusations any better than the content in the blog? You've made quite a lot of value judgements based on what hasn't even been written here.
Anyway, the film was glaringly political. I thoroughly enjoyed it for its artistic qualities and even the overall tone... but it did have a LOT of shortcomings in character portrayal.
The colonel, for example. He was absolutely nothing but a brute who wanted to kill for "as long as [he was] breathing." That's a HUGE oversimplification of the human mind and unfortunately it encourages people to think that anyone who disagrees with the tenets of eco-greenism or whatever (anyone who isn't liberal/progressive?) is effectively "cheering on the murder of countless civilians."
Yeah, more stereotypes and static characters!
Great way to promote peace and understanding, yeah?
Recently (2010-01-12) Sara wrote A new trail through the woods. at Sara McDonald's web. Check it out!
I don't think there was much talk about 'American'. It was more of an anti-big business/anti-colonizing message. To see a thriving group of people as simply an annoying obsticle to loads of money was developed long before America existed.And it is not discussed about why the do not trust humans. However, they were willing to let researchers to come, set up a school and teach their children. So their dis-trust was not bred from their differences, however from some poor treatment they received from humans before Sculley arrived. If someone came in, forced themselves on my land and attempted to take away my traditions, I wouldn't like them either.
Note that the Na'vi were looking to be left alone and only entered war knowing that it was either fight or die. It's not war-mongering.




Does Cameron want us to take him seriously? 





