![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenIt shouldn't and doesn't really surprise me that a conservative white dude wouldn't have a problem with the "white man saves the ignorant savages" aspect of Avatar. After all, aren't white people the bearers of all that is good? Men especially? (PLEASE NOTE: DEFCON 200 BILLION-LEVEL SARCASM.)
It shouldn't but did surprise me that there would be anything to scream and holler about regarding religion. Seeing how the "all Mother" goddess/nature spirit of the Na'Vi was, sort of, supposed to be somewhat biological, I figured the more likely source of attack on Avatar would be the enviro-nazi angle.
There's also the fact that the movie vilifies mindlessly militaristic macho types, of which most couch-potato conservatives believe they are, secretly, a member. I suppose there's enough of a soldier in the hero--given the major military battle that he basically causes. There's also the excellent point raised over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money that the soldiers are not, in fact, soldiers but mercenaries. Cool as it is to be a mercenary in concept, as screen characters, they are decidedly Not Heroes. I suppose, despite the conservative government that forwarded the aspirations and lined the coffers of outfits like Black Water, most conservatives would still agree with that assessment.
My own problem with Avatar--the racist aspect--is spelled out in that link under the cut to LGM, in addition to this follow up post. You know what that blogger did? Some goddamned relevant research about the kinds of things that are problematic--as in literally fostering ugly ideas about race and civilization--in a major motion picture release that is currently being hailed as the second coming of CGI. What did the NYT columnist do? Picked apart a minor nitpick to whine about how one of, if not the, most powerful religion on this planet wasn't also the major religion of a bunch of 10-foot-tall kitty aliens. No seriously. He watched this movie and all he could think to complain about is how unfair a science-fiction fantasy action film failed to prioritize Christianity on a planet where fully 99% of the sentient beings haven't ever seen a human, much less heard the Good News. Jesus H. Christ himself is going, "What the fuck are you talking about? It's a movie about kitty people. Cats aren't even supposed to go to Heaven anyway. (But PS? They totally run the joint.)"
It shouldn't but did surprise me that there would be anything to scream and holler about regarding religion. Seeing how the "all Mother" goddess/nature spirit of the Na'Vi was, sort of, supposed to be somewhat biological, I figured the more likely source of attack on Avatar would be the enviro-nazi angle.
There's also the fact that the movie vilifies mindlessly militaristic macho types, of which most couch-potato conservatives believe they are, secretly, a member. I suppose there's enough of a soldier in the hero--given the major military battle that he basically causes. There's also the excellent point raised over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money that the soldiers are not, in fact, soldiers but mercenaries. Cool as it is to be a mercenary in concept, as screen characters, they are decidedly Not Heroes. I suppose, despite the conservative government that forwarded the aspirations and lined the coffers of outfits like Black Water, most conservatives would still agree with that assessment.
My own problem with Avatar--the racist aspect--is spelled out in that link under the cut to LGM, in addition to this follow up post. You know what that blogger did? Some goddamned relevant research about the kinds of things that are problematic--as in literally fostering ugly ideas about race and civilization--in a major motion picture release that is currently being hailed as the second coming of CGI. What did the NYT columnist do? Picked apart a minor nitpick to whine about how one of, if not the, most powerful religion on this planet wasn't also the major religion of a bunch of 10-foot-tall kitty aliens. No seriously. He watched this movie and all he could think to complain about is how unfair a science-fiction fantasy action film failed to prioritize Christianity on a planet where fully 99% of the sentient beings haven't ever seen a human, much less heard the Good News. Jesus H. Christ himself is going, "What the fuck are you talking about? It's a movie about kitty people. Cats aren't even supposed to go to Heaven anyway. (But PS? They totally run the joint.)"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 04:56 am (UTC)I'd take the point that the soldiers are mercs more seriously if Cameron hadn't put such transparently Rumsfeldian/Cheneyish rhetoric in their mouths. It's as if, say, Mel Gibson remade Braveheart sticking lines about "Hope", "Change", "We are the ones we've been waiting for", etc. in Edward Longshanks' mouth. We all know who the director's talking about. If Cameron didn't want his mercs to be stand-ins for American soldiers, he should have dropped the talk about "shock and awe", "fighting terror with terror", and "daisycutters".
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 05:08 am (UTC)Step 1) Say they're Mercs and not Marines
Step 2) Put words in their mouths that make them obviously sound like American Soldiers
Step 3) Make them use some of the most laughably useless tactics that Hollywood could dream up so they look like idiots that only win through Tech & Numbers.
Movie's still damned pretty though.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:20 pm (UTC)And you're totally right. Besides James Cameron's apparent love of all things military, beyond that? He has to make the soldiers mercs. It would be a full assault on the military otherwise. Notably, he made the hero a former marine just to make sure the audience knows that the military is awesome, but money and outside influence are bad! Bad!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:18 pm (UTC)I think, then, that you're confusing his contempt for bureaucrats with contempt for soldiers. While you have a point about the Rumsfeldian issue, this demonstrates Cameron's dislike of the men in charge who play games with lives and fuck the consequences. I mean, in really real life, that's what Cheney et al. did, and what's notable about their wars is that they have some of the highest percentages of jobs that used to be done by the military being done by contractors. Contractors that do everything from cook the food to kill the bad guys (see: Black Water). In another word, mercs. Yes, they sent American soldiers out, too, but they also employed mercs and that's what they're being excoriated for in Avatar.
Real soldiers are people who do actually give a shit about what is right/wrong when the chips are down. That would be Sully and Michelle Rodriguez (I'm sure her character had a name, but I don't remember it). There are also the Na'vi warriors who are just as pure soldiers--they only fight because the fight is brought to them. There's no cruelty on their part. (It's an open question as to whether or not cruelty would even be able to survive in their biological system.)
The other guys are all guns for hire, something that is repeatedly stressed by having Giovanni Ribisi (I'm sure his had a name, too) constantly show up and screech about profits he wasn't literally raping out of the Pandoran soil. The colonel/general in charge of the whole thing is a merc, no doubt about it. It's all about money and blowing shit up to him, that's why he never gets to talk about anything besides wanting to kill natives and how killing natives will eventually get Sully his legs back. Notice how there are no speeches about "For God and Country!" or "For Earth!" or "America: FUCK YEAH!"? The guy even looks a little bit like Erik Prince, the president of Black Water.
Yes, Avatar is slicing through a particular conservative ideology where it comes to making war for war's sake and profit. But what he isn't doing is questioning the purity of the soldiers/warriors. I mean, the entire movie is about how becoming a warrior is what makes Sully not a tool any more. You'd have to throw over the entire plot to make your point valid.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 11:04 pm (UTC)Some people will describe him exactly as you just did, a warmongering money-grubbing sadist who loves killing.
Others will peg him as a military man who cares enough for his troops that he leads his men through campaigns that he personally finds distasteful because if he doesn't, he'll be booted and someone less good at keeping people alive than he is.
The movie examples that support this second example are more subtle, but they are still there.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:14 am (UTC)I can think of two scenes, total, that demonstrate that the colonel is possessed at all of human sympathy. One is his opening speech about how his job is to keep people alive and he's going to fail and that sucks balls. The other is his apparently sincere promise to get Sully his legs back. (Whatever his faults, the man is still fairly loyal to those who are loyal to him.)
And that's it. He doesn't strike anyone as a military man looking to protect his troops. He acts like a fucking psycho, frequently and needlessly exposing his men to harm. Like when Sully and the others were escaping. He could have easily sent someone after them. Instead, he threw open the hanger door, exposing the entire control room to the harmful gases that he, himself, promised would knock a person unconscious inside of half a minute and kill a man not long after. He is indifferent to the deaths of his men in battle, too. It's very one-sided character portrayal.
So, yes, you can try to say he's many things to many people, but Cameron's already weighed in and done so heavily, to a point where it's basically contradicting everything else to say he's at all a heroic figure.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:29 am (UTC)Some might argue that him throwing open the entrance and charging out is just as much a "I wont make my men do anything that I won't" thing.
There's also him not really taking any visible pride/delight in destroying HomeTree, it's all "Right, that's done, good work all", with no hint of the manic glee we normally associate with those who enjoy destruction.
Yes, there is plenty stating that he's a monster, and Cameron has stated in interviews that he's "A good guy who has been corrupted by too many bad tours of duty", but still...
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:52 am (UTC)As for Cameron, if the story points out nothing else, it's that his opinion of his characters is biased by being their creator. Moreover, what he knows about the characters may not be what we know. I mean, although he controlled just about the entire movie, he did probably edit himself, meaning that there are bits he knows that didn't make into the movie. In Cameron's complete story, that guy might not have been a total fuckbag. But in Avatar, he pretty much was.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:54 am (UTC)Some background info on first contact, previous military engagements, some more character backstory etc, could have gone a long way.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 02:12 am (UTC)Extrapolate that out further as the Company not being willing to wait until the planet *maybe* allows them to be there without attacking them, and feeling that damaging the planet enough that it can't fight back, and viola, we have a reason for the Company's genocidal (terracidal?) actions.
We can even further reason this by adding in a bit about "Unobtainium halves the travel time for space flight. Do you have any idea how many people we could save by getting more resources, faster medical treatment to them?".
It wouldn't have taken much to really improve the feel of it as well as the look.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 04:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 04:58 am (UTC)Any chance you could give the cliff notes?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:29 pm (UTC)That second blog post points out that the casting of the humans and Na'vi betrays a racialized agenda. You can question whether or not Cameron and his casting agents were aware that they cast the majority of the lead Na'vi roles among minorities and the lead human roles went mostly to whites. (The exceptions being two humans, an Indian scientist and a Latina tough--both of which are themselves stereotypes.) However, whether he intended it or not, the casting makes the Na'vi not-white, the humans predominantly white. It's racially icky, to say the least. The fact that a white guy then learns the not-white people's ways better than they do and saves them is even more icky.
I also cringed at the accented English the Na'vi had. Part of this is cultural byproduct--minority actors are no more immune to this subconscious idea that native people sound like Tonto, or other same such "ignorant savage" types. Yes, it's possible that the Na'vi, in having to speak English, make translation mistakes that make them sound less intelligent. You know who else doesn't speak English but doesn't sound like a white person writing a "bush baby"? Yoda. You can convey aliens speaking English as a foreign language without accenting it and throwing in errors that bring us back to the "You heap big, white man!" era of movies. It's just...ugh.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 11:21 pm (UTC)Of course that may just be my usual habit of ignoring casting and paying attention to "In Universe" rather than the Meta Movie.
True point on the 'non fluent English doesn't have to sound like baby speak' thing, which is even more disappointing since they got a proper linguist to create the Na'Vi language. Logically anyone not fluent in the language should be occidentally throwing in similar sounding but incorrect words, or slipping into "Grammatically correct formal speech" rather than baby speak.
However. There is one possible explanation, and I'm sorry but you're probably going to be insulted, along with most of the others reading this.
Most movies are written with Americans as the primary audience. General perception of Americans is that they are dumb & uncultured and will be unable to connect with any character/movie that is unfamiliar. Hence white people in any role that's not a stereotype, "Native American" locals who speak like the old "how white man" stereotypes, Ex-Marine swoops in and saves the day, corrupt corporate execs, etc.
Same reasoning that made them change Harry Potter from Philosopher to Sorcerer - They didn't think Americans would know what a Philosopher was.
And unfortunately, stereotypes about what *audiences* are like will drastically affect stereotypes within the movie itself.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:30 am (UTC)There is a problem, particularly grievous in science-fiction where "peoples" are in fact species from entire planets, are presented as being homogenous. For example, the Klingons. They're entirely war-like, to a man or woman. They have one religion, one credo, one code despite having several billion of them spread out over a planet and several colonies.
Fact is, people aren't homogenous, no matter who they are. (Aside from those who are like, say, the Borg, and literally have one mind.) It's lazy, but it's also racist to a degree. I mean, some alien race being universally ignorant, fundamentalist, etc. etc. isn't necessarily a problem (aside from being lazy). Where it gets to be a problem is when aliens are obvious stand-ins for other races. Klingons were, and with the Na'vi being cast with minorities and the humans not, well. It looks bad to say the least.
As for the issue of American audiences, well, I can't really object, though I do think it's far too forgiving of the filmmakers' errors to put the blame on the audience. The audience will respond to stupid shit--until Avatar, the highest-grossing movie of the year was Transformers 2. At the same time, this is James Cameron's decision again because this movie was his baby. His name is all over this movie, in just about every capacity--sole screenwriting credit, direction, probably editing even. If anyone specifically made the decision that audiences were too stupid to enjoy his movies, it was him. So I don't think that this has anything to do with general perceptions of American ignorance. Instead, I think it's a very definite example of one American's ignorance, specifically as regards race.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:39 am (UTC)And very true on it being one American's perception of his audience, I didn't realise how much 'solo clout' he had over everything.
Please note that I'm not attempting to defend the Movie's shortcomings, it had the potential to be as amazing as the visuals and it's disappointing that it's not, I'm just trying to say why it probably happened.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:59 am (UTC)And in James Cameron's defense, his estimation of his audience's intelligence probably isn't too far off the mark. His white (male) privilege is definitely showing. If it's only an error of privilege, it's not an attack to point it out (he no more than we is responsible for the existence of privilege). It just becomes harder to defend as oversight the more you get into it, unfortunately. I am still willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Doesn't excuse the work, but doesn't damn the creator either.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:33 pm (UTC)That said, while I would say the 3D is impressive and the CGI worth seeing, the fact is that I left the movie and those things? Got left with it. Those things won't be there for you in a DVD release. I have a feeling that Avatar will play extremely poorly at home. For that reason, I advocate seeing in the theater once all the more, especially if you think the racist aspects will drive you mad. You're less likely to have it bother you in the theater. I know I was the only one who went, "Um, icky?" when I went out with a group of six to see it.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:40 pm (UTC)That's a good point. I'll have to see it in theaters then, and then just rage about the racism on lj to make myself feel better.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 03:48 pm (UTC)Then again? The story's real crime is in not being very original as much as anything else. I mean, yes, lovely visuals, but it's about as predictable as many of Cameron's other, better movies weren't. That's a shame.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 05:07 pm (UTC)I definitely agree that the story wasn't at all original, though. Both the larger arc AND nearly all the details have been done before, which is still quite a feat, even in this era of remakes and unoriginality.
And yet, it did look good enough to be enjoyable, at least for me. The Day After Tomorrow was like that, too.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 05:11 pm (UTC)But, okay, good. If the wife noticed, and she generally doesn't let that stuff bother her overly, then it's not just me.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 12:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 10:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 10:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-06 05:49 am (UTC)Throughout the movie, I could never shake that Jake Sully was an infiltrator of dubious intent. We never find out what the unobtanium is FOR (I've heard speculation that it make be required for space flight, since it levitates) or what JAKE thinks about strip mining Pandora for it. That's Jake's major flaw - he doesn't think. Period. He's all warrior from the Jarhead Clan. He reports dutifully to both of his superiors without wondering what will be done with his findings. He spends THREE MONTHS seducing the Navi, and them seducing him in turn, and not once does it occur to him that the bulldozers are coming, and perhaps he should mention that to his adopted people.
I was fine with the lack of backstory about Navi hostility, since the Navi has no reason at all to friendly to the humans. I would have liked to have seen Pandora as a whole regularly attack the invaders. I think that was implied in the beginning, during the debriefing to new recruits. It would have been better if someone realized the environment *was* actively out to get them.
I am not satisfied with the mega-contrived ending. Jake easily redeems himself by catching the epic flying mount? Why didn't it occur to any of the Navi to do that themselves? That was the most thinking Jake did in the entire movie. Aren't they bothered that Jake may have set them up for the destruction of their Yggdrassil? And he conveniently gets to permanently download into his Navi body instead? I was hoping the movie would have the balls to NOT permit him to continue as a Navi, that he would have to wake up and live in the reality of his broken body. And as I said to a friend, I don't think his human/Navi construct body would be sexually compatible, or fertile, anyway ...
no subject
Date: 2010-01-06 02:35 pm (UTC)Part of James Cameron's hard-on for military types is that they're small-picture thinkers. He almost never makes anyone with any big-picture authority his hero. Looks at Hicks in Aliens: he's a smart grunt, who's adaptable and all that, but he's still a grunt. He keeps his eyes and his thoughts on the situation ahead, and deals with it. Cameron finds that kind of purity of thought worth writing about. See, even though he was informing the military colonel about what he was learning, he really just treated it like another mission: go to the blue kitty people, learn about them, tell the colonel. It wasn't about betrayal, that was the mission. It was up to the brass to decide what to do with it. Only when he realizes that the little picture is worth preserving does he start to question the big picture that threatens it.
I would have liked to have seen Pandora as a whole regularly attack the invaders. I think that was implied in the beginning, during the debriefing to new recruits.
Yes, it was. I mean, it's obvious that Pandora's dangerous, but the way that was communicated was poorly done. Not to mention? The evidence of it was exactly two-fold before Jake got lost in the jungle. You have the colonel saying Pandora is like Hell, only less nice. Yeah, 'cause he is a reliable narrator. The other is the arrows shot into the tires of some tank that Sully sees go by. Didn't stop the tank. Looks like a pathetic attack, really, hardly worth fussing over. (We don't see how fucking huge those arrows are until later.) Even when some of the fauna do attack Sully, well, they're animals. Animals do that. It doesn't prove that the entirety of the natives should and would be hostile just because of the environment. (It's all tell, not show, too.)
Jake easily redeems himself by catching the epic flying mount? Why didn't it occur to any of the Navi to do that themselves?
Part of "The White Man Will Save Us All" narrative is this idea that an outsider comes in and is better at everything the new host society teaches him than they are. Ever see The Pathfinder? Basically, Karl Urban is adopted by natives in Canada or something back in the dark ages and he's the only one who can recognize the native style of trap and escapes it. (The natives? All go headlong into it.) It's just part of why this narrative is deceptively racist. It may seem that the Na'vi are great, but you know who's REALLY great? The white guy who gets to lead them.
And he conveniently gets to permanently download into his Navi body instead? I was hoping the movie would have the balls to NOT permit him to continue as a Navi, that he would have to wake up and live in the reality of his broken body. And as I said to a friend, I don't think his human/Navi construct body would be sexually compatible, or fertile, anyway ...
If you look above in this post, a friend of mine linked to a leaked treatment Cameron had done ages ago for what was obviously meant to be Avatar. I think it addresses at least some of your frustration in that the old story did address how difficult it was to make humans solely into their avatars and that anyone who stayed behind pretty much stayed pilots (i.e. they didn't merge). As for sex, well, Cameron is a tad shy on these things, not least because he's making a PG-13 movie, though apparently we're going to get to see the sex scene that got tastefully omitted when Jake and Neytiri spent their night in the forest.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 11:06 pm (UTC)I wish Cameron had made that movie instead.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 06:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 06:29 am (UTC)Two of the most interesting reads about film that I spotted this year.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 06:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 05:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 05:43 pm (UTC)And yes, the movie was far too predictable and didn't play up the planet as organism idea enough (cat people culture enforced by planet-mind? controlled evolution of universal mind plugs?). Although I did still enjoy it, and I thought that pulling off the "evil aliens" plot with humans as the evil aliens and getting the intended visceral emotional response, while not really a new idea, was still impressive.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-05 06:44 pm (UTC)Your theory is also backed up by the decisions of the movie. I've long argued that while a movie might present something as being up to the viewer to decide, the bias of the writer is evident in how he treats the people who fall out on different sides of the decision to be made. Notably, there are few humans who are at all defensive of a) the idea of life being precious in the abstract, and b) the Na'vi being worth respecting in the particular. Of those, say five people (the three Avatar pilots--Grace, Jake, and the other guy; Michelle Rodriguez; and the Indian scientist), two are killed, two barely rise above "Background Character with a Conscience" level, and Jake renounces humanity entirely. So, yeah, it definitely adds to the "all humans are dicks, throw arrows and rocks at them" judgment that Cameron is definitely making.
This is the other side of the problem with the "noble savage" narrative that comes from titling any one species the "best" or "most pure." It's bullshit. Social Darwinism is bullshit for the same reason that Intelligent Design is bullshit: it relies on an English major's, not a scientist's, understanding of a word. In Social Darwinism, that word is "fittest." It becomes "best," which is Cameron's mistake. The Na'vi might be fittest on Pandora; they evolved there and have a connection to the planet's neural network that inherently protects them.
While it's hardly flattering to say that humanity is a virus or pathogen, it's a non-judgmental thing to demonstrate--Pandora is hostile to humanity because it cannot recognize humanity as "self," as belonging. This is a fascinating construct, one in which humanity would be uniquely challenged to prove itself benign first, beneficial second. It's not humanity's fault that they don't scan, but with work, they can. The problem is that nobody tries that. Instead, the two human groups try to manipulate the body that is Pandora and get around it instead of being neutral with it. Grace and the Avatars are just bacteria disguising themselves as being one of the world when in fact they're not. They're the HIV to the Pandoran T-Cells (the Na'vi). The other humans are much more reactive viruses--ebola and hanta and the like. There is no way to relate to Pandora as equals for humanity, so the humans don't try. They go to the Na'vi and ignore the trees which are clearly running the whole show (since they can command the flora and fauna at will in time of need).
So instead of this being an awesome movie about humanity being forced to contend with a planet-body and its keepers (the Na'vi), it was Dances with Wolves in space, and everyone looked like assholes.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-06 05:55 am (UTC)>They're the HIV to the Pandoran T-Cells (the Na'vi).
Brilliant analogy
no subject
Date: 2010-01-06 02:37 pm (UTC)