Avatar: Condescending Racism or a Story of Transformation and Struggle?

[Red Heretic]

just posted this (http://thefirecollective.org/Art-Culture/avatar-condescending-racism-or-a-story-of-transformation-and-struggle.html) on the FIRE site (http://thefirecollective.org/) if people are interested:

by Eric Ribellarsi

A debate has recently broken out about the new science fiction film "Avatar." A popular review appeared on io9 (http://io9.com/) by Annalee Newitz titled When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar? (http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar?skyline=true&s=x) I'd like to try to respond to some of the points in that review and give a different view that defends that movie.


I have to strongly disagree with Annalee Newitz's review.


Annalee Newitz wrote:


"Jake is so enchanted that he gives up on carrying out his mission, which is to persuade the Na'vi to relocate from their "home tree," where the humans want to mine the unobtanium. Instead, he focuses on becoming a great warrior who rides giant birds and falls in love with the chief's daughter. When the inevitable happens and the marines arrive to burn down the Na'vi's home tree, Jake switches sides. With the help of a few human renegades, he maintains a link with his avatar body in order to lead the Na'vi against the human invaders. Not only has he been assimilated into the native people's culture, but he has become their leader."

This review misses key aspects of the story, and even distorts the storyline of the movie to make it fit into a rather dogmatic framework. I found the movie to be a nuanced and beautiful film that told the story of an elitist white soldier for imperialism who goes to exploit and oppress an indigenous nation of aliens (the Na’vi), but is instead transformed by them and won to take up armed struggle against imperialism along side them.


I will point out that this is not a story about a white man who goes to lead native people’s as their condescending savior, as it is characterized in the review referenced here. It’s a story about a backward white man who is transformed by the Na'vi, much in the way that Dr. Bethune, an arrogant, elitist, white “communist” was transformed by the Chinese people through the course of the revolution in China. Dr. Bethune was able only to become a communist himself when he was struggled with by China's oppressed masses, and taught to listen and learn from the Chinese people, and became a servant of them. In Avatar, Jake Sully finds himself in a situation where ignorant and arrogant colonist after colonist is exposed for the fools that they are, and unable to infiltrate the Na'vi. Jake is no different, but the Na'vi decide that they will see if he can be changed.


Factually, it is not true that Jake Sully becomes the leader of the indigenous aliens (as this review has stated). In fact, after the death of the chief in the movie, the new chief is the most radical of the Na’vi who wants to fight the imperialist invaders, Jake is second to this more revolutionary Na’vi, and actually asks for permission to speak from his more radical leader.

The way the movie deals with indigenous culture is not the insulting and racist way that this review has characterized it, but rather one in which Jake is first arrogant and elitist to this culture, but instead comes to understand it’s complexity and nuance. The Na’vi’s culture is shown in much more sophistication than the insulting vulgarizations that are normally given to the Native peoples in Western media, especially in terms of the way that these peoples related to the world around them and never viewed it as a commodity to be exploited but a world to contribute to.


But I would like to go back to what seems to be a central thesis of Annalee Newitz’s review:


“Whites need to stop remaking the white guilt story, which is a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white.”

Surely it is true that we need more films from the perspective of the oppressed themselves. There is no question about that. But why make a dogmatic absolute of that? Would it be wrong to make a film about the story of John Brown, a white man who sacrificed his life to side with the Black liberation struggle? What about movies like “Sir! No Sir!” which tell the stories of American GI’s in Vietnam who turned their backs on US imperialism and resisted, many of them even committing mutiny? Isn’t that a story worth telling?


Annalee Newitz said:


“When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?”

Here is where I have my differences with identity politics (and in this instance, a very dogmatic application of identity politics). Do white people really need to stop making movies like this? I think white people need to confront what they are a part of, and be transformed to side with oppressed humanity. I don’t think that is a “guilt story,” and frankly, if white people weren’t appalled by the history of slavery and genocide in the USA, wouldn’t that be more of a problem? Wouldn't it be more of a problem if there was no internationalism, and we were all starting from our own individual identities?

Yes, it is a problem that there are not enough movies which are from the perspective of the oppressed themselves. But why does that mean there is no value to films like these? Is there really no value to the stories of John Brown? of Jews in Israel who side with and defend the Palestinians? Of Germans who refused to go along in Nazi Germany? I think there is great value to those stories, and that we should be able to unite with what is positive in them, even while we do need to point out the complete absence of the perspectives of the oppressed themselves in Hollywood.

[Raúl Duke]

I actually liked the movie and while it makes an allusion of the history of white Anglo-settlers (British, later "American") relations with native Americans it also reminded me of my discussions in Cultural Anthropology course about globalization (or more specifically neo-imperialism but obviously my course isn't going to be straightforward about it) and its effects/relation to the "fourth world" (consisting of indigenous and marginalized groups). I walked out of the theater feeling that the movie told a story that could be seen as an anti-imperialist story.

Actually, it might be more closer to the situation of neo-imperialism and the "fourth world" (since, in the movie, it's a corporation behind all this, there seems to be no effort at human settlement which was the case with the history of the U.S., and the corporation is supported by a government's military forces to do its bidding which enforces the view that the government is only pawns to the interests of the elite. The movie hints that its the profit motive, i.e. in the guise of stock returns/dividends, that drives the inhumanity of the corporation and its government military pawns) but in an intergalactic fictional context.

I disagree with Annalee although I understand where she's coming from, I mean the movie still shows "the human" to be the "saviour" of sorts of this alien race ("the Other") yet as Eric mentions the man still ask for permission, etc and in my view only sees himself as an equal, not above or whatever, to the Na'vi. One could mention Che Guevara, who was an Argentine which fought in the Cuban revolution, in Africa, and in Bolivia among people who were racially (at least in the case of Africa and Bolivia; although there's more meztisos and Afro-Caribbean people in Cuba then white people like Guevara) and culturally (again, Africa and Bolivia) different. Does one consider him a "white guy" (while in the Anglo world he would be seen hispanic, in Latin-America he's white like me) who "chauvinistically" fought for the good of these other nations or as a noble man who fought alongside other revolutionaries/the people as equals?

In a sense, one could construe, with a vast strecht of imagination, that this movie premotes a sense of " egalitarian internationalism" (or whatever it would be term when talking about co-operation between the peoples of different planets and galaxies).

[Yazman]

I loved Avatar. This is the only topic about it in here so I just wanted to put my two cents in. It blew my mind, and I absolutely LOVED it. What an incredible, incredible movie, I loved every second of it. Its one of the best movies I've ever seen in my life :)

On Annalee Newitz' review, it seems like they have deliberately gone ahead and left out details, ignored important parts of the movie and storyline, and just used the "square in a circle" approach and mashed it up into whatever form she could make just to prove a point. One that she fails at and that you can clearly see is wrong when you watch the movie.

[Holden Caulfield]

I've actually already seen 'Dances With Wolves' so I won't bother going to see it against (only this time set in the future and in space). I could be temped along for the 3-D coolness tho, i aint ever seen a 3-D film

[Sean]

I've actually already seen 'Dances With Wolves' so I won't bother going to see it against (only this time set in the future and in space). I could be temped along for the 3-D coolness tho, i aint ever seen a 3-D film
Mate, I tried to watch it earlier. Its feline monkey people skipping around the magical jellyfish forest. If you can see far enough past what is aesthetically the bastard child of Cats and The Little Mermaid to get offended by it, good luck to you, but I just turned it off after the first hour and lamented the bandwidth I'd pissed away on a childrens movie wrapped around ham fisted 'message' so the nerds that go to Anthrocon can pretend they watched a fucking documentary.

Its really that bad.

[Red Saxon]

I absolutely loved the movie, and I loved the references to the American Indian struggles as well as imperialism in general.

[the last donut of the night]

I really liked it, except for the fact that I had to pay $14.75 to see it in 3D (:thumbdown:). I liked it for the anti-imperialist message; something that really struck me was the Na'vi defending their sacred grounds at all costs, and the scene of them crying at the sight of their burned down holy tree. It really reminded me of the countless sacred Native sites that were destroyed or occupied by European forces. However, I fear that only people expecting an anti-imperialistic message got it. I have a feeling that non-leftists just saw it as some struggle for freedom without connecting it to our world.

[Sasha]

I could be temped along for the 3-D coolness tho, i aint ever seen a 3-D film

dude, in that case go see it, i mean even fucking "beowulf" (an absolutly horible shit movie) got watchable in 3D.
And apperently this one is a whole, whole lot better (both the 3D effects, the animation and the story)
i'm so going to get stoned out of my arse, see this movie in 3D AND on IMAX giant screen and whil hapilly dosh out the dough for that.

[KurtFF8]

Excellent post, Red Heretic.


I'm going to have to agree with you that the article you originally posted does follow identity politics to an absolute, but at the same time I'm not 100% ready to reject it.

The idea that this is a story of White Guilt may not be entirely false, and I think that there is some validity in the idea that the main white character is the "savior of the natives" as a bad thing. This is how I felt about District 9 as well (and the author of the article you posted makes this same comparison).

In both films: what really saves the oppressed people's was indeed the main, white, character. D9 was much worse about it in my opinion, as the heroes of that film were few and far between (no real "popular uprising" or anything) and without the help of the main character: they would have not made it so far.

This is the case, to a lesser extent, with Avatar. You correctly point out that the main character, Jake, did not become the actual leader of the natives, but he did become one of the few "chosen ones" who was able to tame the main flying creature that only a few of the natives have been able to do in all of their history. It was his skills (as coming from the oppressors with his training, etc.) that allowed him to not only be one of these said "chosen natives" but in turn to be able to go unite the other tribes, gear people up for war, etc.

Now this, of course, can be seen in two different ways: a story inspired by a history of a "White Man's Burden" philosophy, or as you stated earlier: a conscious revolutionary decision to side with the oppressed. I don't think it's quite cut and dry one or the other. I think the way Avatar progressed has elements of both. There were some problems (as I pointed out) with the way in which Jake went on to join the natives and "lead" them. But at the same time, it was also a show of solidarity, where the antagonists were clearly imperialist (and even more overtly: American imperialists with corporate backing).

But minus these problems, the film was still over all quite "progressive." The anti-Imperialist message was quite clear and in your face. And I also disagree with Newitz about the film being only about the conquest of America. I think it's just as much about the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan: The military forces are private in the film, it's not only a war over resources but a resource that has obvious similarities to oil, and the attitudes by the powers that be of the occupiers represented the popular attitudes of the pro-War camp leading up to the most recent American wars. (There was even a subtle reference to a Western attack on Venezuela earlier on in the film when the Colonel referenced the protagonists "great work in Venezuela" or something along those lines) On top of this, there was a subtle environmentalist message as well: talking about how the colonists had "ruined their world" and how the ruining of Pandora needs to be prevented.

Thus I think Avatar is much less problematic than District 9 in the way it deals with race, while I believe the argument that there were problems is valid, I think that Newitz is being a little absolutist here but does bring up some important points. Even right after I saw the film I looked at a friend and told them that I wasn't sure whether to lean towards the "that was an act of anti-Imperialist solidarity with the natives or the 'White Man's Burden' style of solidarity"

[Sasha]

just saw it, perfect entertainment, nothing more (the "politics" are as deep as those of "wall-E") nothing less (seamless fusion between animation and live-action and this kind of 3D, not as an tirering gimmick but sommething essential, is what is going to save movie theaters and the big studio industry from the downloading)

[Communist Theory]

I'm Native American and I just laughed at this movie because it was Dances with Wolves but only with aliens.
I liked it though.

[al8]

I liked this hoxhaist review (http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/review-of-avatar/).

And I don't think this is a racist story. In the contrary. In Avatar the 'racialist' slander and vilification ("flee bitten savages", targeted satire of their world-view, etc.) of the Navi where clearly shown to spring from economic an economic base - showing realistically how racism is systemic in nature and why it gets promoted to become a dominant view.

[khad]

Thus I think Avatar is much less problematic than District 9 in the way it deals with race, while I believe the argument that there were problems is valid, I think that Newitz is being a little absolutist here but does bring up some important points. Even right after I saw the film I looked at a friend and told them that I wasn't sure whether to lean towards the "that was an act of anti-Imperialist solidarity with the natives or the 'White Man's Burden' style of solidarity"
Of course it's a white man's burden kind of solidarity. It's about a loser white male cog in the machine who rises to lead an entire native people because he can do everything they can and do it better.

It's the great Orientalist fantasy in the style of Lawrence of Arabia. At least Dances with Wolves avoided this somewhat by just making the Costner character an adviser and helper to the tripe, not the fucking leader of a rebellion.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/avat-d23.shtml


Why are the critics lauding Avatar?
By David Walsh
23 December 2009

Written and directed by James Cameron

“I hate a cinema that’s been taken over by special effects. I’ve given up going to almost all of the contemporary action movies. I still enjoy action movies, I like exciting films, but I don’t find the contemporary ones exciting. They’re just boring.” —Film critic Robin Wood (died December 18, 2009), in an interview with the WSWS, September 2000

In March 1998, filmmaker James Cameron received the Academy Award for “Achievement in directing” thanks to his work on the immensely successful Titanic, released the previous year. Over the better part of the next decade, Cameron directed several documentaries, a television special, and an episode of a television series, prior to working directly on Avatar, his newest film, which took some four years to put together.

AvatarAvatar

In other words, after accepting the film industry’s highest official honor for feature film directing, Cameron turned his back on the activity, primarily devoting himself instead to the development of various film technologies. This seems entirely fitting.

A technician and producer of considerable skill and energy, the Canadian-born Cameron (Aliens, True Lies, The Abyss, and the Terminator series) is not, based on the evidence, driven to be a writer or director, and indeed has only a rudimentary—one-sided, organizational—grasp of either activity. His views on society and human relations are extremely limited and stereotyped, and his manner of expressing them is crude and inartistic for the most part.

Cameron’s Avatar takes place in the future, when Earth has become a bleak wasteland. On the planet Pandora, a large corporation is mining for a precious mineral, whose greatest deposits lie beneath a site sacred to the indigenous people, the Na’Vi.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a former US Marine, paralyzed from the waist down, comes to Pandora in place of his twin brother, a scientist who worked in the “Avatar Program” before his death.

The program, directed by Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), involves the creation of human-Na’Vi hybrids. The human being who shares genetic material with the hybrid (as Jake does with his dead twin’s) can link to and guide its activities, while remaining asleep in the laboratory.

Augustine assigns Jake (or Jake’s blue, 9-foot-tall, Na’Vi-like “avatar”) to provide security for the scientists as they explore Pandora, but he becomes separated from the others and ends up stranded overnight in the jungle. He encounters a female Na’vi named Neytiri (Zoë Saldaña), who rescues him from the wildlife and takes him back to her clan. They decide to teach the former Marine their ways.

Jake has an ulterior motive. The head of security for the mining company, Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang), has secretly recruited him to act as his agent among the Na’Vi. Jake has a few months to convince the local population to abandon their mineral-rich home territory, after which time the company will send in bulldozers, accompanied by heavily armed mercenaries. If Jake succeeds in this, he will be rewarded with an operation at the company’s expense restoring the use of his legs.

The film plays out along these lines. Jake learns to respect the Na’Vi, who live in harmony with their extraordinary natural world, and falls in love with Neytiri, the daughter of the tribe’s chief. Meanwhile Quaritch and company representative Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) apply immense pressure on Jake to carry out his mission at the expense of the native population. Eventually, their patience runs out, and the humans attack the Na’Vi stronghold with all their fearful firepower. A fierce conflict unfolds.

Cameron’s technical achievements are real. There are many striking visual elements in the film. They apparently involved the concerted efforts of some 2,000 people.

Popularmechanics.com explains that the “performance-capture stage,” where Cameron and his crew filmed most of Avatar, “was rimmed by 120 stationary video cameras, which could record the movements of all actors at once in 3D, with submillimeter precision.” Data from the cameras were streamed into software that “translates actors’ movements into digital characters in real time within a low-resolution computer-generated environment.” So a scene shot in mockup onstage “instantly translated to CG [computer graphics] footage.…

“To transition from the CG produced on set to the photorealistic world of the finished movie, Cameron sent his rough footage to Weta Digital in New Zealand. There, special-effects programmers used a facial solve program and facial action coding to translate the actors’ every minute muscle movement—blinks, twitches, frowns—to believable expressions on the faces of Pandora’s aliens.”

An astonishing technology, but not necessarily the same thing as important or interesting filmmaking.

The comments we made on Titanic in 1998 seem appropriate to Avatar’s drama: “Nearly every element in the film, including the love story, is presented in a clichéd and predictable manner. Each character exhibits modes of behavior and personality traits, even facial expressions, which are immediately identifiable and remain unchanged throughout the film.”

The rotten Quaritch acts harshly and cruelly “from the first time we see him to the last, without respite”; the cynical, sneering company administrator is “untiringly” cynical and sneering; the spiritual Na’Vi are “unfailingly” at one with nature.

The spunky, newly mobile Jake encounters the slender alien Neytiri. Do we have any doubts that after initially sparring with one another, they will come to a deep understanding, fall in love, make love, endure hardships, be torn apart, triumph over the difficulties, etc., etc.? Everything on Pandora, other than the flora and fauna, can be anticipated, as fully known in advance as the ultimate fate of humanity according to the Christian gospels.

This is a work created from a familiar template. The story of the white man who lands among the natives and learns to admire them and their traditions, and ultimately fights alongside them against his own people, has been depicted (and perhaps even lived) before, with varying degrees of sympathy and authenticity. Here the drama, for the most part, feels like something created at third- or fourth-hand. It becomes tedious in the course of its nearly three hours.

The dialogue is primitive, and patronizing, and often makes one wince. This is from the first scene between Neytiri and Jake (in his avatar form). After she rescues him, by killing one of the jungle creatures, and turns to go, he says: “Where are you going? Hey, slow down. I just want to say thanks for killing those things.” She knocks him down, exclaiming in pidgin English: “Don’t thank. You don’t thank for this. This is sad. Very sad only.” Jake: “Okay, I’m sorry. Whatever I did I’m sorry.” Neytiri: “All this is your fault, they did not need to die.” Jake: “My fault? They attacked me, how am I… ?”

She, angrily: “Your fault! You’re like a baby. Making noise, don’t know what to do!” He: “Fine. If you love your little forest friends, why not let them just kill me? What’s the thinking?” She: “Why save you?” He: “Yeah, why save me?” She: “You have a strong heart. No fear. But stupid! Ignorant like a child.”

On the other hand, one of the elements that carries some power is the presentation of the mercenary armed forces in their attack mode. Some water has flowed under the bridge since 1997. Clearly, Cameron is bringing to bear feelings and images generated by the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. (He reportedly dropped his application for American citizenship after the election of Bush in 2004.) The scenes of the brutal ground and aerial assault on the virtually defenseless Na’Vi are chilling and convincing.

That is not enough, however, to make up for the film’s fatal artistic and psychological weaknesses. A work of art makes a difference to the extent that it brings out what is not obvious, and encourages a critical attitude toward conventional thoughts and emotions.

Cameron downplays the direct Iraq-Afghanistan parallels, contending he had a “broader metaphor” in mind. Human beings, he explains, have “a sense of entitlement—’We’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains, we therefore are entitled to every damn thing on this planet.… That’s not how it works and we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on earth.”

This is pretty limited stuff, and not directed at the political and economic status quo, but at humanity in general. Inordinate claims are being made for the film in some circles, which don’t stand up to serious examination.

We can repeat what we wrote about Titanic, with only minor qualifications: “What Cameron gives his audience with one hand [in this case, the ‘anti-colonial,’ environmental argument]…he more than takes away with the other, by submitting it to his banal and conformist outlook.… How can any of this encourage critical thought?”

The critics, for the most part, are once again enthusiastically praising Cameron’s work. David Denby in the New Yorker writes that Avatar “is the most beautiful film I’ve seen in years,” although he finds the movie’s story “a little trite.” For Roger Ebert, Cameron’s film is not merely “a sensational entertainment.… It’s a technical breakthrough” that “contains such visual detailing that it would reward repeated viewings.” In the Wall Street Journal, Joe Morgenstern notes that most of the time, “you’re transfixed by the beauty of a spectacle that seems all of a piece. Special effects have been abolished, in effect, since the whole thing is so special.”

Even some of the previous skeptics have mended their ways. In December 1997, Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times wrote a review of Titanic sufficiently critical (“Titanic Sinks Again (Spectacularly)”) that Cameron felt obliged to respond to it, publicly and contemptuously. To paraphrase, bombast and box office in Hollywood not only conquer, they convince. Turan has come around.

He now writes: “Perhaps the most surprising thing about Cameron’s visual accomplishments is that they are so powerful we’re barely troubled by the same weakness for flat dialogue and obvious characterization that put such a dent in Titanic.”

Perhaps Mr. Turan should speak for himself.

His contention, that the obvious, hackneyed elements don’t “matter as much” this time because of Avatar’s visual strengths, is echoed by numerous commentators (Denby and others, including Manohla Dargis of the New York Times, who asserts that “the movie’s truer meaning is in the audacity of its filmmaking”). This is a bad argument. Stereotypes and clichés are not neutral, “value-free” phenomena in any artistic context—they falsify life and stunt thinking.

The “left” variant of this argument, and it is one presently circulating, that cartoon characters are permissible as long as they bolster a “progressive” theme, is just as pernicious. This takes for granted that the population could not come to terms with more complex, contradictory movies.

The critics and the media generally are terribly impressed with Cameron and Avatar because of the massive amounts of money involved, both in its production (close to $400 million, including marketing) and now in its worldwide release. They don’t want to be left out. Cameron is powerful in the industry, presumptuous, and tells everyone his film is important. That’s good enough for the various media outlets and the critics. In reality, that line of reasoning is as unconvincing as the film’s story.

[BogdanV]

I personally don't care and don't look after aspects like "the amount of money spend", or "who's acting"/"who's the director". If I enjoyed something, I'll remember it.
Honestly, Avatar impressed me. I wasn't expecting something as good as this to come out of Hollywood. And really, you don't expect revolutionary stuff to come from a corporate background do you ?
I was expecting a lot of cliche's but in the end, you had a classic, traditional evolution for the protagonist. This isn't lame, this is something normal; a age-old formula that doesn't excel, nor does it suck; its just neutral. Stuff like A Space Odyssey or Stalker are the exceptions.
Looking over the typical character evolution, you see the real message of the movie :
a anti-imperialist, anti-racist and internationalist message with a environmentalist tone.
I say its a clear-cut, in-your-face message and I'm no rocket scientist to get this.

As for all the accusations of white "superiority"; that person could've been black, asian, hispanic, just about anything. But then again, you could've said that it takes a "educated civilized man, from a superior world" to help these "savages". This way, you could've interpreted it in any possible way.

Also, look at the character Jake. He doesn't look like the perfect model of the white ubermensch. Actually, he is laughed at by the soldiers because of his infirmity (another proof of the propaganda and brainwashing that goes on in our society).
His careless attitude (joining-in because of boredom/wanting to try something new) is another aspect that steers him away from the ubermensch vision.

Oh and you can really tell that he's suffering because of his paralysis and more so because of the way society looks down at him from the scene where runs away from the ward into some fields expressing immense joy out of this; that is, the joy of being "normal", of breaking free from society's complexes.

Another aspect that minimizes even more the "white superiority" idea is the fact that, even with all his marine training, he's useless. He has to start from scratch. Just look at how he behaves starting from the scene where he first met the giant rhino-like creature and his utter lack of preparation when he is being tested by the tribe.
He himself notes in his video journal that in time he is getting stronger, more able.
Just look at the "sky-diving" scene where he "ungraciously" hits every leaf, branch and liana/vine, compared to Neytiri's flawless landing.
Does Jake look like being "racially superior" to the natives ?

Also, falling in love to Neytiri is not the sole reason for him switching sides. He himself states that the initiation trials he passed have changed his thinking, have made him "see" in the same way that the locals "see" (remember what Neytiri told him when they first met, that his kind lacks this "vision" ?).

Another thing, like others noted is that, contrary to typical western film-making tradition, he doesn't nonchalantly bypass the Na'vi tradition and rulership. He indeed requested permission from Tsu'Tey to speak to the rest of the tribe.
Also, instead of giving up, or breaking their culture, he tries to convince the Omaticaya of his good intentions by taming a Toruk, which is held as a sign of great respect by the clan.
Afterwards, Tsu'Tey is truly impressed by Jake's abilities and in the end, he really befriends him. Yes, he isn't sarcastic when he calls him brother at the end.
Oh and do note that Jake wasn't confident at all that he would succeed at taming the Toruk, judging by his thoughts.
Lack of confidence or vanity doesn't suit a white superman now does it ?
He also shows pity towards his flying companion because he has to leave him for the Toruk, knowing that these creatures bond to one rider for their entire life.

In the last scene, where he becomes one with his avatar, we get the best anti-racist message ever : that equality, peace and understanding transcend any barriers, be it of race, culture, religion or language. That we have the freedom to be whatever we want to; to attach ourselves to whatever group we want as long as we are accepted.

Jake didn't want to rule or dominate the Omaticaya, let alone the entire Na'vi race. He only wanted to be a part of the "People" as mentioned in the initiation scene and afterwards. He was chosen as leader and in the end, he was truly one of them. No trace whatsoever of "whiteness".

And now, as a final word : what's wrong with a outsider helping and even leading a struggle for liberation ? Aren't we all equal after all ? If we are indeed all equal, then stuff like origin and race are irrelevant !
Just because the guy was white doesn't mean he's a complete brainwashed imperialist fucktard or that he is superior to the natives.

Should white people be banned from helping or leading struggles ? Should they stick only to their own race ? Now that's some biased, stiff thinking.

[x359594]

Yesterday I saw Avatar, a film that reminded me of Ursula La Guin's The Word for World is Forest, her allegorical sci-fi novel about Third World struggle against Western imperialism, but without the audience surrogate of the "good white man", a common trope of Hollywood movies about the "Other" (Come See the Paradise, Mississippi Burning come to mind.)

Now, if one were to make a dopey old form/content split, one would waste a lot of time discussing the "themes" of the film - anti-American imperialist, anti-capitalist, pro-environmentalist, and so forth and so on. All of which seems like so much fodder opportunistically gathered and processed to feed the vast machinery of a manufactured "natural" world. The fixation on weaponry is overwhelming, but not as much so as the film's fixation on itself and its own opulence: rarely have I seen a movie so indulgent of its own alleged majesty and power to transfix its audience. As usual, Cameron's energies seemed concentrated in the orchestration of mass mayhem and destruction, and it was a curious feeling to sit there and watch these obsessively fabricated digital versions of imagery we all know from Vietnam era newsreels and fiction films. This supposed hymn to the natural world was really a celebration of technological might.

[Sasha]

this sounds intresting:


A Rough Avatar

Posted by Paul Constant (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/ArticleArchives?author=17693) on Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM


CHUD has a good overview (http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html) of James Cameron's original scriptment (ugh!) for Avatar. Virtually every plot point is more complex and well-thought-out, and there are some nice images, too: This Avatar begins on earth, where the biosphere is collapsing and the last lion dies on a news report at the opening of the movie. There are a bunch more characters, too, including an interesting character who would have more thoroughly established the perils of the movie:
The guy is Hegner, and he used to be a controller - until his Avatar body was killed by a Slinth (a creature I don't believe is in the final movie). And not just killed - eaten alive. The shock of experiencing his own death and then the withdrawl from his Avatar has left Hegner a shell. And it gets better; later in the film it's revealed that Hegner committed Avatar suicice because he had fallen in love with a Na'vi girl and married her - and she was killed in an incident where five Na'vi were shot by human soldiers. This incident caused the rift between Na'vi and humans, and is the reason why the Avatars are no longer working with the Na'vi. You should go read the whole thing (http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html). I would totally read a novelization of this scriptment (ugh!). It sounds like a hugely dense, complex sci-fi novel. I'm not sure if a movie could have been made of it, though: It would probably have to be six or seven hours long.

source: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/12/28/a-rough-avatar#more

[Pawn Power]

I wasn't expecting something as good as this to come out of Hollywood. And really, you don't expect revolutionary stuff to come from a corporate background do you ?

Nobody here seems to be lambasting the film for not being 'revolutionary.' The critique is around the essentializing the indigenous culture, cultural appropriation, white-guilt fantasy, and an overall shitty plit/story line.

You don't need to be a revolutionary or even a communist sympathizer to not include that in a film-- it has been done! :lol:


As for all the accusations of white "superiority"; that person could've been black, asian, hispanic, just about anything.

Umm, the point is that he wasn't. That is the point-- these characters are always white dudes.

Tim: Wow, he sung amazingly!
John: If I had his voice I could too...

or, if you like;

Liz: 'It always seems like men get the job as store manager.'
Mark: 'Well, women could to if they got the job.'

We are talking about what happend and what happeneds, not some 'fantasy' world. Okay, we are talking about a fantasy world but you get my point.



Also, look at the character Jake. He doesn't look like the perfect model of the white ubermensch. Actually, he is laughed at by the soldiers because of his infirmity (another proof of the propaganda and brainwashing that goes on in our society).
His careless attitude (joining-in because of boredom/wanting to try something new) is another aspect that steers him away from the ubermensch vision.


Yes, imperfect white guy marine with charcter flaw enters into a compeltly new society and excells at everything-- how novel!

Actually, its terrible uninteresting and booring.





Another thing, like others noted is that, contrary to typical western film-making tradition, he doesn't nonchalantly bypass the Na'vi tradition and rulership. He indeed requested permission from Tsu'Tey to speak to the rest of the tribe.
Also, instead of giving up, or breaking their culture, he tries to convince the Omaticaya of his good intentions by taming a Toruk, which is held as a sign of great respect by the clan.
Afterwards, Tsu'Tey is truly impressed by Jake's abilities and in the end, he really befriends him. Yes, he isn't sarcastic when he calls him brother at the end.
Oh and do note that Jake wasn't confident at all that he would succeed at taming the Toruk, judging by his thoughts.
Lack of confidence or vanity doesn't suit a white superman now does it ?
He also shows pity towards his flying companion because he has to leave him for the Toruk, knowing that these creatures bond to one rider for their entire life.


All of these things are true to an extent. But we are switching topics here. The point is these things were all written into the film to create a predictable and booring plot line that reinforces typical tropes of a 'white-guilt fantasy'-- that is, entering into a oppressed groups society and not only becoming accepted but become one of their leaders. Booring.

But what would we expect for the creator of The Titanic?



And now, as a final word : what's wrong with a outsider helping and even leading a struggle for liberation ? Aren't we all equal after all ? If we are indeed all equal, then stuff like origin and race are irrelevant !
Just because the guy was white doesn't mean he's a complete brainwashed imperialist fucktard or that he is superior to the natives.

Should white people be banned from helping or leading struggles ? Should they stick only to their own race ? Now that's some biased, stiff thinking


Yeah, I don't think this is what people are saying. You seem to be analyzing the film by assessing the value of the fictional protaganist's actions. The critics are questioning the the narrative of the film's story. Of course, we could pick a part the individual actions of the charcter and ask if they were necessary or venurable-- but the more interesting question is why those are our questions, that is, why was the narrative constructed the way it was and what does that say about the writters and our society?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

To respond to the accusations of "White Man's Burden"-style condescension, I have to point out that before being a movie about imperialism, Avatar is a science fiction movie about aliens. When the victims of imperialism are not human beings, but rather aliens (in this case, "blue cat-like monkey-people"), you can't expect the audience to sympathize with them from the beginning. You have to throw in the human who lives among them and adopts their culture, because you need a plot device to introduce your audience to an entirely fictional society.

Imagine if there was no Jake Sully, and the entire story was told from the perspective of the Na'Vi. It would be almost incomprehensible in the beginning ("Eyowa? Who's Eyowa? What's with those weird tendrils in their ponytails? Who are these creatures, anyway? Why are the humans there? What's going on?"), and it wouldn't get much better later on. The Na'Vi are not a real group of people, that you can expect the audience to be familiar with. They must be introduced to the viewer, from the perspective of a human being.

Having said that, yes, it's true that the story is painfully cliché. And they could have at least made an effort to have the protagonist be something other than a white male. But there was no way to have a Na'Vi protagonist without confusing the audience.

[x359594]

...Imagine if there was no Jake Sully, and the entire story was told from the perspective of the Na'Vi. It would be almost incomprehensible in the beginning...The Na'Vi are not a real group of people, that you can expect the audience to be familiar with. They must be introduced to the viewer, from the perspective of a human being.

And yet Ursula LaGuin wrote a fine novel (The Word for World is Forest) on the same subject without resort to a human mediator. It seems to me that resorting to the "good white man" shows Cameron's lack of creative imagination and his reliance on a typical Hollywood strategy when dealing with the other people and other cultures. On the other hand, the target audience is adolescent males so it maybe the filmmakers thought they need a flattering surrogate figure to identify with. It strikes me as condescending.

[kalu]

I saw Avatar (IMAX 3D), and from a purely uncritical standpoint I enjoyed it. it was "entertaining." Just like I enjoyed District 9, Children of Men, and other movies with "the good white man," essentially stories about white redemption. From a critical standpoint, I was a bit disturbed by the racial subtext. What does it mean to have a bunch of aliens played by people of color, with a sympathetic white man who essentially ends up leading them? Frankly, I don't buy the OP; the film is very explicit about Jake's leadership of the Navi to victory, with a roaring unity speech ("this is our land!" ... hmmm). District 9 in this sense was a bit less problematic because Wikus didn't lead anyone, in fact he was frequently shown to be a self-serving jackass albeit with occasional redemptive characteristics. He was essentially a tragic (rather than romantic) character (I hope the sequel doesn't eliminate these kinds of ambiguities).

Avatar's one interesting hook was the representation of the planet as one giant organism with neuro connections. That said, instead of portraying the Navi as "primitives" with bows and arrows, I think it would be a lot more interesting if the film had displayed, for example, selective technological appropriation. Frantz Fanon and others have discussed Third World guerrilla fighters' appropriation of, for example, the radio. Where Western media stereotypically presents "primitives" in sandals and flip flops, guerrillas have adapted different technological implements. Notice how Iraqi insurgents don't have their own satellites, yet they have used "google maps" to figure out at what time US Air Force planes land. There is no "evolutionary scale" of technology in this sense, but a complex process of appropriation and technological production. Critiquing the Nature/Culture, Technology/Primitive, and other hierarchical oppositions would have been a lot more interesting, instead of uncritically basing the film upon those oppositions ("I learned from Neytiri about the cycle of life..." ie. primitive/person of color/"Nature," BLAH).

Finally, as x35 has noted, the film is essentially presenting its own technological prowess. "The message" is muddled and half-baked, not to mention the especially problematic elements from a critical race perspective.

[Raúl Duke]

That said, instead of portraying the Navi as "primitives" with bows and arrows, I think it would be a lot more interesting if the film had displayed, for example, selective technological appropriation.I agree on this, I was a bit puzzled that this didn't occur to some degree.

While I don't think the Na'vi had, at the moment, the ability to manufacture similar weapons (i.e. guns; I'm just saying this because I'm not even sure if the Na'vi mined and/or manufactured "iron/steel" or a similar metal/alloy...) I figured they could have collected weaponry from dead soldiers and (if possible, although the movie leans tightly to the idea that there's "just one big base") raid weapon depots.

Hell, for a "white savior" (although the line is blurred in the sense that he "becomes" a Na'vi not just in customs but literally) the guy is pretty dumb/bad at it, when Jack leads the last big battle there were a few things I would have co-ordinated differently (i.e. during the land battle I would just have put the majority/all of the foot soldiers on trees and have them fire at them from above after the enemy battalions are right in the middle of the forest and instead of a frontal assault by calvery they should have probably used a different tactic such as a multiple one-after-another small-scale circular hit/run attacks causing the enemy to get the impression that they're being "attacked in all sides" and leading them unable to create a "line of fire" which if you seen the movie was the major cause of infantry causalties) using more guerilla style tactics that would have saved Na'vi lives (as I just described).

[Sasha]

:D @ the military analysis, but yeah, for an ex-marine with inside knowledge of the enemy's tactics his strategy quite sucked.

[Raúl Duke]

I should have been sent to Pandora...!

Also, the scene with the biolumescent forest made me want to just go there and "trip and roll" (candy-flipping) so hard and just roll around that biolumescent forest with the Na'vi; all tripping out.

[Plagueround]

I liked it, but I do think it had a "mighty whitey" feel to it that others have mentioned. I would have much preferred the movie being entirely from the indigenous perspective.

[KurtFF8]

I finally posted about this on my blog:

Source (http://leftisminfilm.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/avatar-2009/)



Director: James Cameron
There’s quite a lot of discussion amongst leftist “film critics” about the nature of the new film Avatar. It’s been described as everything from a great anti-Imperialist adventure in solidarity to the most recent prime example of a White Man’s Guilt story.
http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/avatar-new-image2.jpg?w=300&h=168 (http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/avatar-new-image2.jpg)One recent article that seems to have gained some popularity on the online world titled When will White People Stop Making Movies like Avatar? (http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar?skyline=true&s=x)by Annalee Newitz where the argument revolves around the thesis that Avatar is essentially a story of “white guilt” and a fantasy of how to deal with and alleviate that white guilt. For Newitz, Avatar is more of a story about race and the oppression of a certain race as told by the oppressor’s perspective than it is about a story of Western Imperialism, which of course has historically included race as a specific dynamic/characteristic of that imperialism. A response to this article was posted at The FIRE Collective’s website (http://thefirecollective.org/) titled Avatar: Condescending Racism or a Story of Transformation and Struggle? (http://thefirecollective.org/Art-Culture/avatar-condescending-racism-or-a-story-of-transformation-and-struggle.html) where the author argues that Newitz’s analysis lacks the critical points of the story of Avatar: Imperialism and Resistance.
Both articles agree that the story is one of a white oppressor who decides to join with the oppressed after realizing that Imperialism is wrong. Where they disagree is in what manner that resistance is executed. According to Newitz, the story is full of “white leadership” that was required to save the Na’vi in the film. Their resistance by themselves was not an option and required the oppressor to step in an decide to help. The story being from the perspective of the white main character was for Newitz and example of this sort of fantasy being materialized as a “White Man’s Burden” sort of struggle: where white leadership was required.
The Kasama Project (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/) has also posted various articles on Avatar with similar discussion on whether the story is problematic or not, to what stereotypes are being appealed to throughout the film, etc. The WSWS has also has an article titled Why are Critics Lauding Avatar? (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/avat-d23.shtml) which includes many of the same criticisms about the race dynamics and the shallowness of the story line.http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/james-cameron-avatar-screen-stills-9058.jpg?w=300&h=169 (http://leftisminfilm.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/james-cameron-avatar-screen-stills-9058.jpg)
It seems that there is a major philosophical difference in these various interpretations rooted in identity politics versus a materialist anti-Imperialist interpretation. That’s not to say that those who criticize the potential racism in the film are “just diving into identity politics” or that they are essentializing race over a focus on Imperialism (although I do believe that Newitz’s article does this to some extent), or that those who praise the film for being anti-Imperialist are completely ignoring the major problems with the film.
I would say that to completely dismiss the film or to uncritically praise it are both problematic. There is some importance to having on of the biggest Hollywood productions having an anti-Imperialist message as its plot device (which can be analogous for the original colonial period to our current conflicts). And another plot device used is that of some members of the oppressing group rejecting their role and even violently opposing the oppressed to assure an end to that Imperialism. I do agree, however, that there are significant problems with the way in which this is played out in the film: for example Jake Sully (the main character) does become some mythical savior figure in the film, and the Na’vi are fetishized in an almost orientalist way.
James Cameron himself cited that the story is about the “sins” of humanity itself, not of any particular event or struggle. It’s quite obvious that the various sections of actors in the film are representatives of the current and past struggles that the West has been engaged in, and that of course has inspired his writing. But his story is indeed not a “revolutionary leftist” one, and wasn’t intended to be. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t, as leftists, praise the anti-Imperialism of it but of course we should point out its serious flaws.
Overall, it was a film that achieved major technical achievements in the context of a left-Liberal story. It’s problems seriously undermine it to be something that the revolutionary left should praise, but it can still be a starting point for discussion and discourse for such a popular film.
Further Reading: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/review-of-avatar/

[Dimentio]

I found it quite liberating and radical, not to say extremely beautiful. I had somewhat expected that there would be a negotiated solution, so I got a positive surprise when they actually went into rebellion.

[RedScare]

I liked it. And I think people will see what they want to see in the film, within the undeniable themes of anti-imperialism, pro-environmentalism, and indigenous rights, regardless of what the film actually shows.

And for a White Man's Burden style of solidarity, I just didn't see it. There was no attempt to "civilize" the Na'avi, or to change their lifestyle by the protagonist(after he gives up on trying to make them move). The protagonist also seemed to become more Na'avi and less human as the movie wore on, and by the end he had ceased to be human at all.

[Raúl Duke]

I would like to add however, after hearing from psycho about some "original script" in which the current movies based on, that personally I would like to see the original script (project 880, I think its called) formatted into and published as a novel, for sci-fi I would actually read it.

It has more depth and detail then the movie...

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I really hated Avatar. The story, whilst noble, was handled terribly - go see Dances With Wolves or Pocahontas instead! Also, whilst i appreciate that the technology is ground-breaking stuff, i thought the film looked horrible - like one of those really awful ultra-realist paintings you sometimes see in peoples houses (ive scoured the net for a good example, but cant find one... but i can imagine theyre the sort of paintings that would be enjoyed by the kind of people that buy that "3-wolf" t-shirt on amazon without irony... if you follow).

It reminded me of last year, when Transformers 2 came out, Mark Kermode saying that Michael Bay had a "pornographic sensibility". I think this could be applied to Avatar, too, except that where Transformers 2 is just full on gonzo porn, Avatar is one of those pornos that aspires to be taken seriously as art, but it doesnt matter how many references to Dostoevsky or moments of surrealism you throw in, it is what it is. And Avatar is ultimately James Camerson saying:

"PHWOAR! LOOK AT THAT!!! PHWOOOOAAAAAAARRRRRR!!!!!!!"

I felt this film condescended to me at almost every moment ("unobtanium"? REALLY?!), the script was awful.... i dont think ive ever been so insulted in a cinema.... maybe when i was called a "faggot" for wanting to watch a film with subtitles (i think it may have been "the diving bell and the butterfly").

So... there it is... i dont mean to make enemies so early on in my time on revleft, but personally i thought Avatar sucked the fat one, big time.

each to their own i guess.

[Robocommie]

I should have been sent to Pandora...!


Good to have Marxists who understand asymmetrical warfare. ;)

[Sean]

I really hated Avatar. The story, whilst noble, was handled terribly - go see Dances With Wolves or Pocahontas instead!
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/05/pocohontar.jpg
:)

[Drace]

The movie was awesome, don't mess with it.

[Das war einmal]

Good anti-imperialist movie. Just watched it in 3-d at imax. Maybe a bit too long. Ending was a bit of a let down

[Woyzeck]

Mate, I tried to watch it earlier. Its feline monkey people skipping around the magical jellyfish forest. If you can see far enough past what is aesthetically the bastard child of Cats and The Little Mermaid to get offended by it, good luck to you, but I just turned it off after the first hour and lamented the bandwidth I'd pissed away on a childrens movie wrapped around ham fisted 'message' so the nerds that go to Anthrocon can pretend they watched a fucking documentary.

Its really that bad.

No it isn't.

[Sean]

No it isn't.
I'm sorry I wasn't able to see through the blockbusting special effects to appreciate the beautiful dynamics of the orientalist story.

Sorry, I am a movie snob, I have to admit. Not that I'm a movie goer, I just complain about most and rip them to shreds and call them cliches with a modern twist.

When my movie comes out, I hope you wont object to it as much as I have this one.

You see, this boy robot johnsmithbot meets a girl called robahontas...

[Woyzeck]

I'm sorry I wasn't able to see through the blockbusting special effects to appreciate the beautiful dynamics of the orientalist story.

Sorry, I am a movie snob, I have to admit. Not that I'm a movie goer, I just complain about most and rip them to shreds and call them cliches with a modern twist.

When my movie comes out, I hope you wont object to it as much as I have this one.

You see, this boy robot johnsmithbot meets a girl called robahontas...

Granted it's not exactly groundbreaking and the "liberation theme" is a bit simplistic and at times cringe worthy, but on the whole I found it enjoyable. I hated Star Trek XI for what it did to the Star Trek canon and turning the crew of the Enterprise into sexed-up All-American heroes: but I still enjoyed the film. :)

One major drawback of Avatar was the fee of admission. I had to pay 11 euro to see it in 3D. :(

[Dimentio]

I wonder why people are calling racism and orientalism, given that the Na'vi are a non-existent race (though clearly based on Native Americans).

[Das war einmal]

I wonder why people are calling racism and orientalism, given that the Na'vi are a non-existent race (though clearly based on Native Americans).


'Cause some people are stupid and boring

[Vanguard1917]

I haven't seen it yet, but i gather it's a film about how terrible humanity is. At least in Dances With Wolves the good guys were humans themselves (the native Americans), even if the film was thoroughly anti-modernity in theme. Here you seem to have anti-modernity as well as general, blanket misanthropy.

[kalu]

'Cause some people are stupid and boring

The film clearly parallels Native American and other colonized people's struggles. They even replicate the same stereotypes (ie "the primitives who are connected to the earth"). You would have to be terribly dense not to see that James Cameron is trying to make a "real-life" point. My point (and perhaps others) is that his message is muddled, and the racial subtext is disturbing (and yet sadly typical of recent Hollywood ventures about "colored-people-meet-white-people" (Pocahontas, Last Samurai, etc.) Also, the Navi are literally played by people of color actors (interesting choice). I am not going to wholeheartedly condemn Avatar, but I am saddened by the fact that we are unable to produce a big blockbuster movie that doesn't fall into the same tired tropes and stereotypes. This movie is essentially a story about a white man's transformation, a quasi-orientalist story about "going East" (or primitive, in this case) to "find oneself." Can you even imagine a movie about a brown person leading a bunch of white people toward revolution in the middle of simulated Heartland America or "capital of modernity", Paris? For that matter, what was the last Hollywood blockbuster that had a strong person of color as protagonist leading a revolt?

[Das war einmal]

The film clearly parallels Native American and other colonized people's struggles. They even replicate the same stereotypes (ie "the primitives who are connected to the earth"). You would have to be terribly dense not to see that James Cameron is trying to make a "real-life" point. My point (and perhaps others) is that his message is muddled, and the racial subtext is disturbing (and yet sadly typical of recent Hollywood ventures about "colored-people-meet-white-people" (Pocahontas, Last Samurai, etc.) Also, the Navi are literally played by people of color actors (interesting choice). I am not going to wholeheartedly condemn Avatar, but I am saddened by the fact that we are unable to produce a big blockbuster movie that doesn't fall into the same tired tropes and stereotypes. This movie is essentially a story about a white man's transformation, a quasi-orientalist story about "going East" (or primitive, in this case) to "find oneself." Can you even imagine a movie about a brown person leading a bunch of white people toward revolution in the middle of simulated Heartland America or "capital of modernity", Paris? For that matter, what was the last Hollywood blockbuster that had a strong person of color as protagonist leading a revolt?


What was the last Hollywood blockbuster with an anti-imperialist message? You need to keep it simple, the majority does not go to Avatar with the intention to watch an anti-imperialist movie.

[khad]

James Cameron was the same fucking fuckface who gave us the racist extravaganzas of Rambo II and True Lies.

So now he makes a film sympathetic to magical "primitive" cat-people, and here we have the the detritus that constitutes the left fawning over his "impressive" and "monumental" achievement.

As I've explained to other people before through conversation and chat, the noble savage trope accomplishes nothing in the way of anti-racism, because the noble savage is such an ideal type that it offers no insight into any liberation struggle being fought in the world today. The entire film is an exercise in white liberal self-affirmation.

Those "uppity natives" who aren't magical blue fairies (ie Vietnamese, Arabs) can still be killed with impunity. Just look at Cameron's resume.

[Das war einmal]

As they would say in Oblivion: 'blah blah what a bore', what did you people expect. Considering its the most expensive Hollywood blockbuster ever, it's message is quite progressive, no more, no less.

[khad]

As they would say in Oblivion: 'blah blah what a bore', what did you people expect. Considering its the most expensive Hollywood blockbuster ever, it's message is quite progressive, no more, no less.
Wow, you can even channel the right wing currents of populist anti-intellectualism.

Have a cookie, kid!

It may surprise you, but did you know that during the height of Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal, the play Metamora was sweeping the country like a firestorm, with Edwin Forrest starring in the lead role of the noble Indian chieftain resisting British imperialism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamora;_or,_The_Last_of_the_Wampanoags

Yep, I bet if you were living back then, you'd be lauding this as a great anti-imperialist masterpiece, even though Forrest himself was not opposed to Indian Removal, and many Americans applauded his performance even as they washed themselves of ignoble savage blood. As has been pointed out by many an American Indian scholar, the noble savage is just the other side of the genocide coin.


This noble savage shit also reminds me of the IRA-sympathizing media about the Troubles put out in the states. Like that film The Devil's Own, full of singing Irishmen, girls named Bridget, and Brit police dressed like Nazi stormtroopers. While the sentiment is there, this crap does nothing to promote a serious understanding of anti-imperialism, as most Irish Americans remained staunch supporters of Israel. They couldn't sell the Sinn Fein paper Stateside as nearly every issue condemned Israel and Zionism.

[PRC-UTE]

That WSWS review pretty much nailed it. The film doesn't even look decent as mindless entertainment.

[Yazman]

Avatar is an incredibly good movie. I loved every second of it. I think you guys really overanalyse it to be honest.


James Cameron was the same fucking fuckface who gave us the racist extravaganzas of Rambo II and True Lies.

See, while I am willing to entertain the idea of taking Avatar seriously (because it covers serious themes), I am not going to accept this sort of analysis of RAMBO. You have got to be kidding me, you're criticising RAMBO? Come on! Its a SYLVESTER STALLONE MOVIE. Its intended to be a mindless action film with lots of guns, gore, and explosions. THATS THE PURPOSE. The only purpose. You watch Rambo for explosions and guns.

[khad]

See, while I am willing to entertain the idea of taking Avatar seriously (because it covers serious themes), I am not going to accept this sort of analysis of RAMBO. You have got to be kidding me, you're criticising RAMBO? Come on! Its a SYLVESTER STALLONE MOVIE. Its intended to be a mindless action film with lots of guns, gore, and explosions. THATS THE PURPOSE. The only purpose. You watch Rambo for explosions and guns.
Guess who wrote the script with Stallone. I'll give you one guess.

[danny bohy]

i think you kind of missed the point that our societys definition of "intellegence" or selective technological appropriation as you put it. the point is the live in harmony with the planet in a peaceful almost anarchist society without exploiting the planet.
But yea i agree with you about a stupid white marine being their savior.

Id also like to point out how Ironic it is that it was a movie made by millionaires advocating this primitive lifestyle.

[Yazman]

Guess who wrote the script with Stallone. I'll give you one guess.

I already know who it was, and it doesn't matter if James Cameron, Karl Marx or Adam Smith wrote the script. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Its Rambo, jesus dude you're not supposed to take it seriously.

[Dimentio]

The film clearly parallels Native American and other colonized people's struggles. They even replicate the same stereotypes (ie "the primitives who are connected to the earth"). You would have to be terribly dense not to see that James Cameron is trying to make a "real-life" point. My point (and perhaps others) is that his message is muddled, and the racial subtext is disturbing (and yet sadly typical of recent Hollywood ventures about "colored-people-meet-white-people" (Pocahontas, Last Samurai, etc.) Also, the Navi are literally played by people of color actors (interesting choice). I am not going to wholeheartedly condemn Avatar, but I am saddened by the fact that we are unable to produce a big blockbuster movie that doesn't fall into the same tired tropes and stereotypes. This movie is essentially a story about a white man's transformation, a quasi-orientalist story about "going East" (or primitive, in this case) to "find oneself." Can you even imagine a movie about a brown person leading a bunch of white people toward revolution in the middle of simulated Heartland America or "capital of modernity", Paris? For that matter, what was the last Hollywood blockbuster that had a strong person of color as protagonist leading a revolt?

I could imagine such a story. Since I am writing one.

[desperadoy]

It's dumb to put race into everything. This was more than race. To me, this was a story of a man who realized he was fighting for the wrong side, that he was fighting for an empire, and that he dared to join the righteous.

[kalu]

I could imagine such a story. Since I am writing one.

I hope you get $300 million and the fawning support of every single movie critic in the country.

Also, I saw http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/01/11/is-avatar-racist/?icid=main|compaq-laptop|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Finsidemovies.moviefo ne.com%2F2010%2F01%2F11%2Fis-avatar-racist%2F today and couldn't believe it. Even the mainstream press is getting tired of the noble savage trope.

[cska]

This movie is not racist. It is about culture, not race. It is contrasting the tribal culture of the Navi with the imperialist culture of the humans. If anything, it is culturist. I didn't see any white guilt here. Jake didn't feel guilty about what the humans were doing to the Navi. He felt angry, because he had become a part of the Navi culture. Now, I noticed someone complaining that the main protagonist was white. If you haven't noticed already, most of the people in the United States are white. So there isn't anything racist about making the main character of an American movie white...

[RadioRaheem84]

Racist, imperialist or not, the movie sucked. It had such a weak story and script that I thought James Cameron was mocking his audience. Everything was so predictable and he Deus Ex Machina at the end was something out of a pre-Pixar Disney flick.

It was pure Ferngully cheese. I cannot believe so many people actually thought it was good cinema.

[freakazoid]

And they could have at least made an effort to have the protagonist be something other than a white male.

So simply have the main character be something other than white merely for the sake of being other than white? Wow. And there was a pretty bad ass female.


Racist, imperialist or not, the movie sucked. It had such a weak story and script that I thought James Cameron was mocking his audience. Everything was so predictable and he Deus Ex Machina at the end was something out of a pre-Pixar Disney flick.

Oh teh noes, a movie with a "predictable plot". It's not like everything hasn't already been covered in ancient plays already. And if they somehow didn't do it then the Simpsons and South Park has already done it.

And to all the people he see it as nothing but "white guilt" or racism,
Sayeth Hamlet: "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

[RadioRaheem84]

No but I mean a film that advertised itself as being such a cinematic feat, it was a major disappointment. The story was simpleton! I mean the dialogue was cliche, the characters were one dimensional, etc. It ruined the movie. The message wasn't even subtle, he drove it down the audiences throat.

[Revy]

The main themes of Avatar are environmentalism and anti-imperialism.

The story from a sci-fi standpoint is obviously the reverse of the classic alien invasion. Here you have humans being the oppressors of alien beings, invading their planet, for their resources, in the year 2154.

And the American accented Halo-esque soldiers are handily defeated. Not by Jake Sully, but by Eywa. Eywa is confirmed to be real, not a mythical mother goddess, but a planetary neural network, through which all indigenous life can be connected.

[kalu]

After reading several more reviews, I do have to say this. Avatar does a good job when it comes to challenging gender and body stereotypes, because Cameron has cast, for example, strong female characters (Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez). But in terms of the master trope of the film ("when races clash!"), the story definitely fails. I don't think we can easily separate the allegedly anti-imperialist "content" of the story from its racialized "form" (and in particular, the racial subtext that I and others have illuminated*). These elements are inextricably linked. I would expect more of us to realize that. I mean, aren't most people here usually keen to emphasize the difference, for example, between "bourgeois" national liberation and "revolutionary" national liberation struggles? So, how's it any different to say that Cameron is promoting a problematic form of anti-imperialism that ultimately shouldn't be indulged, or at least must be thought in relation to alternatives?

The movie unjustifiably relies on the noble savage trope, which as khad has insightfully pointed out, is just one side of the "genocide coin." I think we just have to accept that the film's message is muted by this fatal flaw, instead of finding new ways to apologize for the attempt to bring anti-imperialism and other "Left-friendly themes" to a wider audience. What defines "anti-imperialism" anyways? As x35 has already brought up in this thread, albeit to make another point, the form/content distinction can be unhelpful, and obscure rather than inform critical analysis. The single name we are using to describe Cameron's film ("anti-imperialism") actually covers over profound differences between anti-imperialisms (in the plural). And just as there are different ways of advocating against war (the liberal variety and the more keen radical varieties that place "war" in socio-historical context), so there are more and less useful anti-imperialisms, some of which I would venture to say barely warrant our attention. Perhaps it may appear some of us are asking "too much", but I see no reason why we can't make legitimate critiques and demand more, especially from rich and powerful film directors. Isn't that the whole point of the revolutionary left?

*"White redemption"; "primitive/civilized", "nature/culture", "masculine industrial/feminine ecological" tropes (even if they are overturned so that, for example, "primitive" is now "good"--done in a very uncritical way I might add); "noble savage"; etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

$20 Million a kilo? They gave up too easily. The hippy-primmos had flying monsters and sticks for weapons...We've got thermo-nuclear weapons for pity sake!!

[Tatarin]

After seeing it I think they pressed the whole "new technology" thing a little too far. If I remember correctly, a similar thing was done in Final Fantasy (the movie with Ben Affleck) some time ago, and even FF was much more philosophical and had more intriguing ideas. And I'm a little bit shake about the whole "waiting for 15 years to do it" (Cameron claims he waited for the "right technology" to make this film). After seeing it, it really feels like the propaganda has stuck to people's minds.

Yes, the story was very predictable, and had been done before. The graphics were fine and beautiful, but still graphics. Nothing really felt "real", no matter if it was alien or not. I'm a little bit rotten on animation after seeing the billions of animated movies from the last decade.

The message? A guy infiltrates the aliens, fall in love with the alien lady, and makes a revolt against his masters. Although it is interesting - maybe that was the point of the movie - to question the stuff about being oneself. I mean, the main character's mind goes to his alien body; is that his real body because of his decision, or do the technology (when he sleep he awakens in his human body) draw the line?

The sad part is that with all the money spent on this hyped up movie, and the revenues it gets back, imagine what could be done in many poor countries. This is probably the worst part of it.

[Dimentio]

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/12/russian_communists_ban_avatar

This must be the most bizarre review ever.

[Kléber]

The KPLO also claim the the planet Pandora was ripped off from a 1960s Soviet science-fiction novel.
I knew it!

[farleft]

This film was a big pile of shite, the storyline was predictable and boring, typical holywood money spiner.

[Pawn Power]

Still think the movie was crap but it provides a good performance art piece for Palestinian protesters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/palestinian-protesters-po_n_460560.html).