Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Political Reactions to Avatar: From Thoughtful to Insanely Comic

Posted on Wednesday, December 30th, 2009 by Russ Fischer

avatar-jc

There is almost no circumstance under which I would dispense the ridiculous “just turn your brain off” advice with respect to enjoying a movie. As Devin Faraci at CHUD recently discussed, the process of thinking about a film typically gives me far more lasting enjoyment than the act of watching it. The films I can’t think about are the ones that seem dull and pointless. Avatar has its problems, but being dull and pointless aren’t among them.

Equally valuable are the divergent opinions and readings. Avatar has provoked quite a few political readings, from Hunter’s wide-ranging review to the utter right-wing lunacy of the Movie Guide’s take. Check out some blue-skinned provocation after the break.

Big Hollywood has a piece which bluntly concludes that “the bad guys in the movie are the United States Marines,” broadly missing the point that the characters in the film are ex-Marines who have been employed by a private company. Reading the film as a screed against the Bush administration doesn’t take any analytical leap, and the anger it has generated in some quarters is extreme, but with respect to the soldiers I’d read the film as targeted towards a private military company like Blackwater. Yet Big Hollywood prints:

The glee with which the American Marines participate in this massacre is appalling and does not show the true feelings and concerns of the real United States Military.  James Cameron should apologize to the American Military and should make a statement that he does not truly feel this way about them.  He should also apologize to the American public for painting our young men and women that defend this country as cold-blooded killers.

Much more entertaining, however, is the MovieGuide (”A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment”) review of the film. The quotes in this one come fast and furious  but I think we can start here:

AVATAR has an abhorrent New Age, pagan, anti-capitalist worldview that promotes goddess worship and the destruction of the human race.

Movie Guide, a rigidly dogmatic site that frequently takes well-meaning criticism to absurd extremes, also calls the film “anti-human”, insists that “the spiritual concepts presented in the movie are fiction,” assumes that “the humans in AVATAR are all presented as unbelievers,” and broadly lambastes the presumed ethos behind Cameron’s work:

For hundreds of years, the pagan, communist ideas expressed in this movie circulated among a threadbare group of outcasts with dirty fingernails and greasy hair, who shared their obtuse, occult ideas amongst themselves with manic, alienated glee. Now James Cameron has made these insane views the major bulwark of a very spectacular movie, but the spectacle does not make the views any more coherent, rational, or uplifting.

There are other high-profile political readings that are less incensed, and even approving. The AV Club writes:

The movie’s most seditious act is to evoke the specter of September 11, only with the terms reversed…Cameron’s willingness to question the sacred trauma of 9/11 is audacious, and his ability to do so in a $300 million tentpole movie is nothing short of shocking. If Avatar has a claim to revolution, that is where it lies.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

3D, Action/Adventure, Gossip/Controversy, Sci-Fi, ,

  • Ian
    The true persona of the US killing machine has surfaced in Cameron's AVATAR. The blue people could be any culture where Americans (or other invading nations ie old Spain) have gone in under the guise of 'assistance' and taken what they wanted. What a wonderful story this was, so obviously reminscent of how early settlers and the military stole land and culture from the North American Indians, our indigenous people. I think this movie is waking up people to what is really happening in the name of resources, profit and power. The mineral depeicted in the film is the same as oil and the devastation of the people who hold rights to the precious commodity is very similar. Is Obama watching? Way to go Cameron!
  • Brisco County
    Hey Ian, can you name one sovereign nation that wasn't established by a war or by taking a land in spite of its tribal inhabitants? Can you name one country whose resources have been plundered by invading Americans? Keep in mind that all the Iraqi oil contracts went to China, not the US.

    Liberals are so Americentric. They think the world's problem begin and end with America.
  • Ugh.. everyone is an expert. Did I even watch teh same movie you guys did?
  • barclaybass
    So let me get this straight to see if I am understanding a lot of you here........it's ok to rush into an area, murder and displace the indiginous population that have been living in harmony with their surroundings for a long time, just to take what is needed because one can, and is stronger than they are?
    Making a movie that shows a point of view against that sort of thing is upsetting so many of you, because the "Bad Guys" are portraid as Americans?
    Wow, I cannot express how insane that is.
    That is as Crazy as all of the idiots who were up in arms over Italian Americans being portraid as Gangsters on The Sopranos.....forgetting for a moment that many Gangsters Were Italian Americans, ESPECIALLY here in New Jersey.
    Setting aside the fact that it is an AMERICAN MADE MOVIE, and OF COURSE most of the main characters would be White and speak english because that is the pool of actors that they had to choose from ,and the movie would be shown in America, so having the Marines all speaking Chinese would not make very much sense at all..............I think that this movie very much shows the correct "American" ideal these days of might makes right, take what you want and screw anyone who is different than yourself, as long as "our" kind persists and comes out the "winner" no matter what the cost to others......this is why much of the world regards us as a less than savory bunch, and I can't really disagree.
    Can ANYONE say that we aren't completely screwing this planet up beyond repair? Really? Because if ya don't think so, go ahead and take a drink from the Passaic river behind my house? I doubt anyone would.
    I think you are missing the point anyway, what I think we should be taking away from this movie is not to let OUR planet get to the point where we would have to do something like this to another race to obtain something we need to try and fix it........we are so selfish and have to have all of our modern conviences that it does not matter to us how toxic we make our world to manufacture these things, and drive our SUV's, and use 3 times the water that a European does per year, and drive a vehicle that gets one third of the milage of the average european car. It's ridiculous how arrogant and smug we are about what we think we "Deserve" to have as opposed to the rest of the world.
    But OH MY GOD, don't make Americans look like any less than the saviors of the universe because that upsets our delicate sensibilities.....give me a break.
  • Brisco County
    The thematic interpretation by the right could possibly be overreaction if not for the fact that James Cameron himself acknowledges it as a politically left allegory of American imperialism and conquest. He said himself that this movie's theme is a political message he has wanted to express for a very long time. He said this WAY before the movie was finished. In the movie, he overtly conveys this with phrases of dialogue like "shock and awe" and "fight terror with terror." He alludes to it when the evil white humans destroy the sacred tree, which happens to resemble a WTC tower collapsing. It's not some ultrasensitive conservative prism that yields this interpretation; It's Cameron himself. It's not even subtle.

    The backlash isn't about Cameron expressing an opinion conservatives disagree with. We're used to that. Hollywood does it routinely. It's the way that liberals choose to misunderstand and misrepresent the people they disagree with. In this case, it's the message that capitalists and the military are morally equal to terrorists and conquistadors, and the only way to find enlightenment is to shed our jingoistic American identity and commune with the earth and tribal folk. Barf.

    That reminds me, I'm still waiting for all that free oil from Iraq.
  • These people are F***ING INSAIN!! It's halarious!
  • Hampton
    It doesn't try to be anything other than based on those movies. Character development - you don't even see the actors for the majority of the movie - of course there will be little development. Nearly all movies are cliché. The CGI was revolutionary when linked with the 3D. It was a lot of hype for a visually stunning movie, which it turned out to be, not one with an amasing plot, something it never tried to be.
  • juanv
    The movie sucked!
  • Hampton
    How so, because it was a sci fi action set on an alien planet where there was lots of CGI? Because you did pay to see that after all...
  • juanv
    Because the story was a rip off of Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Delgo, and Battle for Terra. Because the movie was boring. Because it was predictable and cliché. Because there was no real character development. Because there was plot holes. Because it was too long and dragged out.

    The CG was awesome I give it that. But there was nothing "revolutionary" or really amazing about it that hasn't been done already.

    It was a lot of hype for a boring movie.

    The trailer to Clash of the Titans was more entertaining than the entire Avatar film.
  • barclaybass
    You are an idiot!
  • juanv
    Because the story was a rip off of Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Delgo, and Battle for Terra. Because the movie was boring. Because it was predictable and cliché. Because there was no real character development. Because there was plot holes. Because it was too long and dragged out.

    The CG was awesome I give it that. But there was nothing "revolutionary" or really amazing about it that hasn't been done already.

    It was a lot of hype for a boring movie.

    The trailer to Clash of the Titans was more entertaining than the entire Avatar film.
  • Hampton
    It seems that people are wanting to find arguments in anything, now a movie has sparked huge rows over anti-humanitarian views. People were livid that it was implied that the US army was committing the atrocities. A PMC is not a governmentally run army, the fact that it is all white males is that a. most military forces are male only and b. Cameron was filming it in the US, a high percentage of people in the US are Caucasian and not Hispanic. To create a unified group of people such as this, it is often easier to make them the same race, that does not imply any racism.
    Linking the tree being blown up by a bomber is absurd. The film was planned in 1994, true ideas can change in 15 years but for a major part like that, Cameron would have defiantly planned in before 9/11. This was tragic event, but people need to stop comparing any other terrible event to it.
    Many people have viewed it as anti-capitalist because the mining corporation were implied as cruel and faceless. Were this to happen on Earth, which it has, they would and have been, viewed negatively. One of the reasons people invaded the middle east was for oil, does anyone else think this draws parallels with the search for unobtanium?
    Finally the ending, Jake Sulley prefers to live in a topical paradise with the woman he loves, the people he cares for in a fully functioning body rather than be shuttle home for a painful operation, facing his brothers death and hatred by the whole corporation. Does anyone blame him? All that will happen is the mining corporation will be back in a few years, nuke the Na'vi as they now will have the peoples support for a massacre due to the terrible loss of PMC lives, a parallel to our modern world.
    Sorry for such a long post, I think this whole thing just had to be cleared up!
  • Frankenpc
    I think everyone is missing the whole point. It's balance. The techno-extremophiles (us) threatened the balance of Pandora as a whole.

    Forget spirituality, politics, bad storyline. It was a simple message about how far out of balance we have become through the art of storytelling.

    By contrasting the lush nature of Pandora against our ever increasing cement jungle, Cameron is shoving a message in our face about balance.
  • agree
    correct - proof is the name of the ore: un-obtain-ium
    ..its a joke, and infers an inevitably lost-cause

    (Hell trunks transporting to Hell's Gate - how obvious can you get..?!!)
  • Katie
    OMG. It's a FREAKING movie, people! Seriously! WHY take these things SO seriously and ruin the fun of it all!? Yeah, don't get me wrong, my dad used to be in the military and so are some of my guy friends. HOWEVER, this is JUST a MOVIE!! A work of FICTION! Repeat: JUST A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!! Argh! >:^0
  • Gandalf
    Guys...the movie sucked ass. It looked like a cartoon. There was terrible character development. It was predictable the whole way through. It's unrealistic that only 3 humans were against the operations. They thought they were being edgy by using the word "bitch" all the time. Horrible acting. Especially the blue chicks voice. Go see Lord of the Rings and take notes.
  • Ezra
    If you knew Big Hollywood, you would know that John Nolte's reviews are the unofficially "official" reviews of Big Hollywood (he's one of the webmasters). You ought to link to his review instead of that article.
  • silverosprey
    Its a shame we can't simply escape to the movies sometimes, to avoid all political agenda and simply see a film for its entertainment value. Some may say its 'stupid' of me to simply look past the moral messages and hidden meanings in a film and that simply ignoring such things means a lack of understanding, but then I suppose some people like to wilfully misunderstand others.
    Avatar, it must be admitted whether you are left wing, right wing, atheist etc, is great for entertainment I mean I personally was blown away by it and I thought it was beautiful to watch. Coming from the UK it is perhaps possible I feel less strongly about American politics than others of you may, after all many in the UK seem to feel you all take it a bit too seriously when it comes to religion, politics and conspiracies; that a side however I see where you are all comign from.
    I don't think it is anti-humanist of the film to point out that humans have within history, a propensity to take what they like and sort it out later. Not to mention calling this film anti-human suggests that murderers are anti-human which theyre not - murderers never say they killed someone because they 'hate people'. I can understand why some people would think it a slight to US service men and women but of course you need to understand it comes with the territory; you dont hear the German armed forces complaining about the way they're portrayed in war films do you? It is after all a matter of perspective.

    As such magazines and reviewers should never tell people what not to go and see based on their own persepctives; films are supposed to not only entertain but question and provoke, just because I disagree with an author's view on life doesnt mean I wouldn't read their book, it should be the same with a film, no one likes to be told what to think.
    I also dont think Jake's transferral to the Na'vi is anti-human or indeed immoral, he did what he believed in, just as any of us would. He liked being a Na'vi he felt at home among them, and you protect what you love, again, just as any of us would. Did it occur to any one that as a Na'vi he could be with the woman he loved and the people he cared for?

    Although Im all for a good debate and even upon occasion an argument and I have absolutely no doubt someone will take issue with what I have said, either because they disagree or because they simply like to argue, I might wonder if any of you have read anything by the director, the actors or even the producers on what they are trying to convey; I have, and they make an interesting read!
  • Plan9
    What I find most fascinating about this whole ordeal (and I haven't seen the film yet) is watching the scores of people trying to figure out how they can make the point of the film about themselves.
  • matthew a
    after reading this thread I can only conclude that if we are to survive then we must kill all people like gaiuss(read conservative, republican, anti-darwin, pro-corporate, baby killing, school bombing, fascist bastards that would let millions die to save a few bucks) or we are doomed.
  • All of the adverse political reactions to Avatar stem from those bestowed with an over abundance of stupidity and/or guilt where both of those extremes are powered and exacerbated by their reality delusion.
  • JKW3000
    IT'S A GODDAMN MOVIE ABOUT MEN AND ROBOTS AND SMURFS FIGHTING. No need to get your knickers in a bunch (or, for that matter, think it needs to be anything more than spectacle).
  • Hibiscus
    A lot of people in this discussion have made the offense of referring to "Native American Culture" or "The Native Americans". If you want your words to mean anything, talk about specific tribes. Native American culture ran the gamut from imperial bullies like the Aztecs to pillaging barbarians like the Apache to thousands of agricultural peoples with their own quirks. A Gaia-worshiping monoculture of innocent hunter gatherers is fantasy. The society represented in Avatar is fantasy, too, or at least fantasy as far as it pertains to us. The first thing human beings did when they migrated into Canada from Russia was help kill off every big land animal on the South and North American continents.
  • Frankenpc
    Interesting point.
  • George
    i myself am an atheist a conservative and against the current war but i think that the story in Avatar is pure shit and the only reason it exists and is liked is because of special effects. it made me sad for people that the military was portrayed as cold blooded bastards who love killing, the military is not just used for war, also for times of national crisis like weather disasters. and provides global aid to 3rd world countries.
  • COLFUD
    LMAO! I love the fact that we live in a world of people that take everything way too personal. If I was to make a future scifi movie, that peronally had nothing to do with me, but I could relate on EMOTIONAL LEVEL. I would make it my goal to piss everyone off. Politically, personally, spiritially, and even morally. I wouldn't be able to wait til i read what people like this say/ typed about my movie. I would need an Defibrillator or else I would laugh my self to death. Thank you ideats of the world for thinking to much about about a movie that is ment to entertain the viewing public.
  • Frankenpc
    Agree. I wish people would just go to the freakin movie and enjoy it for what it is. Avatar wasn't designed to go head to head with superbly written scripts like Moon. It's an ACTION FLICK!
  • RickJM
    Movieguide went a little over the top and I haven't read AV Club in full but Big Hollywood is dead on.

    In the U.S. (and probably a large part of the world) when someone hears 'Marine' they think of the United States Marine Corps. James Cameron know this yet he still chose to call members of the private army 'Marines'. He knew that people would equate that with the USMC even if he made it a private army in the movie.

    James Cameron is an ultra-liberal wingnut and he made this movie as liberal as he could. He's even said as much in interviews. So please don't try to defend this movies as not having an ultra-liberal point of view. You can tell me that you don't how liberal it is or that he taking a shot at the U.S. military. If Cameron is not afraid to admit what this movie is then why feel the need to defend it?

    And this is off topic: But I wonder what kind of reception this movie would have had if it were the same exact movie except only Michael Bay made it? I mean it is essentially a Michael Bay movie. It relies on looking pretty and cool CGI and explosions coupled with a shittly plot/script/acting. Only difference is that Bay like our military.
  • The difference is that the plot - although swallow and unoriginal - makes sense, the characters aren't racial stereotypes and the action scenes are well made and not a cut-fest. The other difference is that Bay is a Jingoism douche and Cameron is not.
  • Frankenpc
    Agree. Bay relies on chaos to mask the utter crappyness of his movies. Cameron isn't afraid to focus in on the long shot to let your eyes dig in.
  • Frankenpc
    The numbers don't lie. People are seeing this movie more than once. That's a sign of a very entertaining movie. Granted, if you try and tear it apart, it rapidly disintegrates in your hand. I think the point here is to NOT tear it apart and enjoy it for what it really is: pure entertainment.

    How many people walk out of a circus thinking, wow, I've seen this a million times?
  • RickJM
    I wonder how much more money it would have made it Cameron had played it more down the middle politically. I don't mean do pose questions, just don't be so heavy handed.

    Breitbart's got a large following. Don't underestimate the number of people who aren't going to see the movie because it was torn apart on his website.

    I bet if this had been more down the middle, it could have opened to 100 million.
  • Frankenpc
    Interesting point. It seems to me nearly all of Cameron's work is political. This one was racial. It involved dredging up atrocities American citizens committed against the native Indians (genocide). Maybe the theme is to harsh for some people to watch? IDK.
  • Dysthymia83
    I do find it funny that Fox spent $300 million to make an anti-capitalist film.
  • RickJM
    Actually, I find it hypocrital that Cameron would take Foxes money and then make an anti-capitalism film. And then partner with McDonalds.

    I wonder how much money Cameron is making on this and how much he is going to give away?
  • The Colonel
    Christ! It is not anti-capitalist! It is merely against a certain type of imperialistic, destructive capitalism that has become rampant in the era of shock and awe. You can be a capitalist and not worry about quarterly statements. Do you think Cameron is against kids with lemonade stands or people who open their own stores? He is clearly not against venture capitalists and entrepreneurs who spearhead the creation of new technologies. Cameron himself is the very embodiment of the capitalist, do-it-yourself spirit, and there is nothing--NOTHING--in Avatar that constitutes a blanket denunciation of all aspects of capitalism.
  • RickJM
    You're right. It should probably be anti-corporation rather than anti-capitalism. I think Cameron wants the type of capitalism that China has. Enought small and medium size businesses to create a middle class (to see his films naturally) but he wants large corporations to be overseen by the goverment (kind of like GM or Fannie and Freddie).

    I also think your "imperialistic, destructive capitalism " isn't quite correct. The last time I checked, GE, Siemens, Coke, Exon, isn't sending private armies into differnt countries to take them over.
  • China has Capitalism? Guess i must have missed something.
  • Also, Cameron's brother is a former Marine. I seriously doubt he would make something that would be so...I'm not even going to finish this thought. It's not anti-marine corp, it's anti-PMCs that operate without any morals. Duh.
  • I find it so ironic that for a film people call shallow and simple, people can get so on deep with it.
  • You can over-interpret the shit out of everything. Starting with Colour.
  • J.D.
    Exactly. They were BLUE because they represented the UN. Obviously.
  • David
    Avatar is not taking a stand, it's bringing up issues.
    I wouldn't say it's anti-humanistic at all. You really think that the bipedal wide eyed creatures were that far removed from humans? So much so they had humans for the voices? They were anti-destroying the whole planet for something that you can do without. You don't have to kill ecosystems to create culture or capitalism.
    District 9 is not Anti-Human, it's against intolerance, very similar to what happened during apartheid. It's a metaphor.
    You cannot hide behind the ignorance of the past. There's a LOT of internet, there's a LOT of libraries.
    Sorry for the blunt force trauma.
  • mutantediez
    When a movie has such a mish-mash of random political and environmental messages that never go anywhere, and is as simplistic and one sided as Avatar is, you can't blame people for reacting strongly. The problem with this movie is that the two contrivances which make the humans not capable of negotiating with the na'avi, that their entire planet is a brain and that brain keeps them safe from harm and provides everything they need, make the events of the film completely different from anything that has ever happened on Earth. The only thing worth looking at were the environmental themes, which, though I completely disagreed with them, were not meant as proofs of Cameron's viewpoints but were merely supposed to resonate with people. I can't blame anyone for calling this movie anti-human, paganist, communist, anti-military, and anti-US, because Cameron doesn't give the right context to explain any of the human beings' actions, which makes the Na'avi right in everything they do. I only hope that the ending of the film, where Jake Sully is sending "the aliens back to there dying planet" by herding them onto the shuttle (which was destroyed) with a gun was meant to be disturbing and not triumphant.
  • silverosprey
    perhaps you are right, perhaps people object so strongly to this because its appears quite one sided. People who feel this way may prefer Battle for Terra which is far more eaqually sided
  • Wait, what? I thought that this film was written long time ago. Like waaay back before 9/11 and Bush.
  • hailstate
    What? You think dialog (shock and awe, fight terror with terror) and visuals (home tree destruction) can't be changed once a story is written? Seriously?
  • Oh my god, James Cameron knew it!
  • BTaylor
    Just addressing the environmental angle (partially in response to the dude that had a big problem with the end of Wall-E).

    It's a little scary to think that having an environmental view is now being associated almost exclusively with Left Wing in some people's minds. That somehow now being concerned that the Earth has finite resources that need to be used carefully is like Lenin breaking out of his tomb saying "Must crush Capitalism."

    Aren't there bigger thing, like the environment and religion, that go beyond politics?
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.