I am honestly mystified by the amount of love this film gets... I enjoyed it, it was exceptionally well directed by Cameron and the special effects and 3D were stunning, but the screenplay was incredibly hackneyed and predictable, and often groan inducing.
Don't get me wrong, it's easily the best of the big blockbusters this year and worth seeing for the visual experience alone, but in a year where seriously well written, thoughtful sci-fi films came out (Moon, District 9) it's surprising to see this being called a masterpiece in some quarters.
stardust said: I am honestly mystified by the amount of love this film gets...
Well, I wouldn't say I *loved* it. It was very well made, the CGI was incredible and I was very impressed by the alien ecology of Pandora. Obviously a lot of thought went into that. It was a good - if old - story well told.
Stardust said: the screenplay was incredibly hackneyed and predictable, and often groan inducing.
There was indeed quite a bit of telegraphing of the storyline and few actual surprises. Right from the start - even without seeing the trailers - you knew exactly what you were going to get. The plot was very simple, you could even say simplistic, but I don't think that really mattered. It reflects what we have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future. It romanticised the 'primitive' and demonised the technological but themes such as this have stood the test of time because there is a large element of truth in them. Some of the treatment of these themes was understanably heavy handed but I don't expect Hollywood to be subtle in its rendtion of such things. I found myself not only highly entertained for several hours but also deeply impressed by the life that the alien Navi lived. In reality it probably wouldn't have been half as much fun but then we're not really talking about reality.
Stardust said: in a year where seriously well written, thoughtful sci-fi films came out (Moon, District 9) it's surprising to see this being called a masterpiece in some quarters.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. That's certainly overstating things. It's an awesome experience that really draws you in and its stayed with me since I saw it - only yesterday but I think it'll hover in the back of my mind for some time. It easily made my Gold list - buying the DVD the day it comes out - but it's not my best film of the year. That was 'District 9' which totally blew me away. I saw 'Moon' for the first time earlier in the week and was not that impressed to be honest. It was probably a good idea for a short story back in the 1950's but seemed a little thin for a movie.
Heh, well I wasn't referring only to you, it seems to be a consensus that's quite prevalent on blogs and message boards all over the place!
I'm really getting to that point where I feel that a blockbuster doesn't have to be poorly written with weak characterization - Cameron's earlier movies (Aliens, T1 and T2, the Abyss)themselves were far superior in this regard, with even minor characters having at least a bit of personality instead of being stand ins merely waiting to push the story along. And I'm all for archetypal storytelling, it's just that I see Avatar as a missed opportunity, a chance to add some depth and freshen things up. Plus, some things were just awfully executed, like the way the Navi decide to train Jake in the space of about a minute. Cameron's scripts have always been sketchy, but this is the first time I felt like he was really just going through the motions with the story and characters.
The science aspects were mostly impressive, granted, but the creatures were once again derivative of earth creatures. I can buy this in something like Lord of the Rings, which is faux earth mythology,or Star Wars, which is really space fantasy and not sci-fi, but seeing it on an alien moon in the Alpha Centauri system in a proper sci-fi movie is jarring. Look at the aliens in District 9, now there was design work that actually attempted to make its aliens feel alien!
I would actually argue the opposite about Moon. It is a small film and has to be judged as such, and it really fleshes out its premise and features depth and characterization, particularly the psychological aspects, and the performance from Sam Rockwell was easily one of the best of the year. Compare that to the at best two dimensional characters of Avatar and the charisma black hole that is Sam Worthington (seriously, I dont' get why Hollywood is trying to make a star out of this guy!), and the fact that Avatar's budget is over 50 times that of Moon ($5 vs $300 million), and you can see why I find Avatar to be a missed opportunity. A game changer it ain't.
The worst part is that Cameron's original treatment, Project 880, actually sounds better than what ended up on the screen: http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html There's a lot of world building in there that Cameron left out, to the film's detriment, which is why the universe of Avatar ends up having less verisimilitude than George Lucas's original Star Wars films.
I really feel like writing a review of Avatar, there's a lot that I loved about it and a lot that made me roll my eyes (the awful recycled soundtrack by James Horner, for one). Cameron hasn't lost his touch for handling action scenes and special effects, and in this regard Avatar was superb, no question!
One thing that I can say in its favour is that it has generated considerable discussion on many film and 'geek' sites, which is always a good thing.
Also, check out this article for an interesting perspective on some of the racial themes in Avatar - http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Ooops... *Sorry* AM - I thought the comments you posted where from someone else! My apologies!!
AM said: Heh, well I wasn't referring only to you, it seems to be a consensus that's quite prevalent on blogs and message boards all over the place!
That's OK. I wasn't taking anything you said personally...
AM said: Cameron's scripts have always been sketchy, but this is the first time I felt like he was really just going through the motions with the story and characters.
I didn't feel that way at all....
AM said: The science aspects were mostly impressive, granted, but the creatures were once again derivative of earth creatures.
To an extent yes... But I can see why for several reasons - similar ecological niches for one thing as well as the need to have something recognisable for the audience to relate to.
AM said: the charisma black hole that is Sam Worthington...
Oh? I like him. I thought he was probaably the best thing in T4 and was disapointed to see him 'die' at the end. I thought he was pretty good in Avatar.
AM said: There's a lot of world building in there that Cameron left out, to the film's detriment, which is why the universe of Avatar ends up having less verisimilitude than George Lucas's original Star Wars films.
Maybe they'll put more of that in Avatar 2: The Evil Corporation Fights Back.
AM said: Also, check out this article for an interesting perspective on some of the racial themes in Avatar - http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Yes.. I read that [rolls eyes]. I could see the glimmer of a point being made but that and another article mentioned above by Laura just made me laugh at people making racial mountains out of movie molehills. Would the film have been any different if the marine had been played by Denzil Washington or if Worthington had swopped roles with Michelle Rodriguez? I think not.
Avatar - at least in my mind - was definitely *not* a white-guilt film. It was a film about Western rapacity and how the dominant view of our world is as a resource to be used and used up in the name of so-called progress and the illusion of profit. It is a wake-up call to those who think that our highest attainment is to be a good consumer and nothing more. Any minor racial aspects have, I think, been blown out of all proportion and simply cloud any message this movie was attempting to get across. The movie is, in essence, an *environmental* film rather than a crude comment on race.
Heh, yeah I was wondering why you were calling me stardust! :D
I agree with your point about Avatar not overtly being a film about race, no more than the Last Samurai was a film about race. But both movies ultimately promulgate the same inherently racist and condescending attitudes towards the 'primitives' who need an outsider to lead them. The aliens in this are, without question, representing Native Americans, and Jake Sully is essentially a Kevin Costner surrogate.
Regarding Sully's race, even swapping him around with Denzel Washington wouldn't have changed the allegory of what is being reperesented. As you yourself said 'it reflects what we have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future'. Clearly this association exists; Denzel playing Jake Sully would not have changed what humans in the film represent, no more than the fact that the Navi are blue skinned cat like people instead of brown skinned humans!
That the racism isn't overt doesn't mean that it isn't still racism. This doesn't mean that the film has a racial agenda, just that it holds on to storytelling mechanics and symbolism that is racist. It may be a molehill as you say, but the fact that it's there and is disregarded as being unimportant because the film has loftier ambitions about getting across a different message is symptomatic of the mountainous problem of unspoken racist undercurrents that still exist today.
I think the author of that piece does have a point, and this (unintentional) aspect of the film is actually far more interesting to me than its obvious environmental/political/economic themes. If the movie's message is getting clouded by this, I would lay the blame for that at the feet of James Cameron! :D
That aside, I too would buy the blu-ray as soon as it comes out, because as I said there's a lot about the film I actually liked, and I think it'll reward multiple viewings.
AM said: Heh, yeah I was wondering why you were calling me stardust! :D
I saw your 'avatar' picture and thought it was someone else's - they're very similar. Apologies for not paying attention.
I actually think that any race issues with the film are minor or even insignificant. The movie most certainly isn't racist - at least such an idea didn't even appear on my radar until I read some of the postings that have been pointed out. I actually think people are confusing race with power. The humans are powerful because of their technological and military might. The Na'vi are weak both technologically and in consequence militarily.
The reason that Sully ended up leading one of the clans and organised the revolt is because in my line of work he'd be called a "subject matter expert". He know's human ways and he knows the military mind. He is the logical choice to lead them to victory. The indigenous leader would have most likely failed in his attempt to fight back because he didn't fully grasp what he was up against. Sully did.
When I said that the film "reflects what we have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future" I meant that when power meet weakness it is the powerful that set the agenda. The powerful take what they want and the weak suffer the consequences. If the film revolved around the Na'vi showing up in starships and strip mining our planet over our weak protests (like in Independence Day but more sucessfully) would that have been racist too? Of course not. It might have more accurately be seen as (just as in Well's War of the Worlds) the humans getting a taste of what it feels like to be on the reciving end of a colonial struggle.
The alien Na'vi are certainly metaphors for indigenous peoples everywhere and the Evil corporation forcing them off their land to mine it for unobtainium is clearly a metaphor for western style capitalism but that said doesn't mean that race is a central issue here. If the Na'vi had been more technologically advanced they couldn't have been disregarded as easily or treated as condesendingly as they were. They were treated as primitive 'savages' because of the disparity in power between the opposing forces. They were treated as inferior because they were perceived to be inferior - regardless of species or colour. In the final analysis the film - at least in my opinion - was about power and not race (especially if the race or gender of the Sully character was irrelevant as you maintain).
If Sully represents white humanity - even if he was played by a black actor - that just emphasises my point about mountains and molehills. The movie could just as easily - and much more accurately - be a devestating critique of how America treats our world with the rest of us painted blue and firing arrows at passing Apache helicopters.
My initial reaction was also that there wasn't anything race related in Avatar. But having thought about I started asking myself if this wasn't the type of subtle racism that we take for granted by writing it off as imagined or minor. Even if it is minor, shouldn't it be called out?
CK: "The reason that Sully ended up leading one of the clans and organised the revolt is because in my line of work he'd be called a "subject matter expert"." <- you could argue this, it's just that:
a) Sully learns their ways and becomes an adept native in a very short period of time (a better native than the natives, one could argue)
b) He manages to capture and tame a giant flying beast using the ingenious tactic of flying above it, thereby impressing the Navi and once again demonstrating his superiority to them in matters where THEY ought to be the subject matter experts.
c) His position as a "subject matter expert" would only have required him to direct the battle. NOT give them rousing speeches and rally them together to effect their uprising.
d) The planet 'selects' him as being special for reasons that are unclear, since his expertise ultimately amounts to nought and the planet has to bail them all out by sending in the animal cavalry. Again, the outsider is presented as special to the Navi, just because!
I'd like to reiterate again that I'm not suggesting that race is an overt or major theme in the film. What I'm arguing is that the film promulogates the kind of 'harmless' racism that is all too common in cinema, to such an extent that we automatically dismiss the notion that there is any racism in what is being depicted.
Ask yourself this question - if the director of this film were not James Cameron, but instead was a person of an ethnic minority such as the Native Americans, a group that experienced colonization, subjugation, massacres - would such a director have made the film in this way, where one of the invaders joins them, becomes one of them, becomes one of their leaders? I contend that he/she would not have.
CK: "If the film revolved around the Na'vi showing up in starships and strip mining our planet over our weak protests (like in Independence Day but more sucessfully) would that have been racist too? Of course not." Of course not indeed, since in this scenario mankind, unlike the Navi, are not thinly disguised representations of Native Americans in circumstances that draws obvious parallels to the colonization of the Americas! That's a disingenuous argument since Avatar makes those parallels explicit. I didn't think it was racist when I was watching it, but I certainly thought the Navi were a hell of a lot like Native Americans (or at least, the popular depiction of Native Americans).
Anyway, I suspect we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. Oh, and btw, happy new year! :) Completely slipped my mind!
I go back and forth with pop culture analysis - as you'd see if you were on the debate I sparked on facebook :p
On the one hand, yes - it is "just a popcorn movie" and not meant to have any real deep meaning. HOWEVER - it's often the pop culture stuff that isn't MEANT to have that kind of meaning that are, in fact, the vehicles that maintain the status quo points of view held by the majority of society. That's why it took a movement to convince mainstream society that things like Amos and Andy or minstrel shows (for an extreme example) were NOT merely just entertainment. The both reflected and promoted negative stereotypes held about blacks within the larger society.
The fact is, like it or not, the creations of any artist (movies, music, art, ect) always reflect the ideals, attitudes, and stereotypes of the artist and the society in which s/he lives. So while it is just a popcorn movie, it is also important to question why it is the way it is and what that means in a larger context.
What does it mean that movies like this, Dances with Wolves, Last Samauri, etc, keep capturing our imaginations? Why are people so drawn to them? It's no accident that this formula works - so why does it work?
In this genre what appeals to me is someone learning respect for indigenous people and their beliefs.
In Dances With Wolves we saw one of the first big films to use all Native American actors for the Native American roles. The Lakota Sioux who worked on that project were very proud of their work, yet it still received criticism for racial reasons.
I guess the real message is, you can't please everyone.
There are two movies that are coming out, also action flicks, that have some troubling racial issues in casting. Prince Of Persia and it's clearly non-Persian prince, Jake Gyllenhaal and Avatar - The Last Airbender which replaced all the Asian characters with white actors.
Because movies draw people in, hence all the propaganda films of ages past. If a movie or TV show portrays a certain type of person in a positive, likable light, it has the potential to either consciously or subconsciously rethink their position.
It takes a movie for some people because of the emotional impact.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be entirely wrong.
I think that part of the appeal of the Jake Sully character - and other characters in the movies already mentioned - is that they're pretty much 'outsiders' in their own communities who find themselves (eventually) accepted in a new community often for the very reasons they are rejected by their own kind. There is also a 'healing' taking place - either physical or emotional - partially at least because they have become accepted. Sometimes it takes an alien - or a foreigner - to see qualities in us that even we were unaware of. That, I think, is one of the major themes of Avatar. Because Jake is an outsider he is looking for acceptence somewhere else. He finds it on Pandora. The fact that he is a white human and they are blue Na'vi is IMO totally irrelevant.
Avatar. Awesome. See it.
25 comments:
Saw it. Loved it! Will see it again, and again, and again.
I see it's already paid for itself - in 12 days!
I've also expanded my possible love interests to 10 foot tall blue women [laughs]
My Dad says he wants to move there. :-)
Oh, definitely. I mean.... who wouldn't!
People who are terrified of ferocious wildlife? ;-)
They apparently only get ferocious if you annoy them with machine guns [grin].
Ahh, well in that case, I'll pack my bags.
I'll have to wait until I get back to england... will it still be in cinemas next week?
TF said: I'll have to wait until I get back to england... will it still be in cinemas next week?
Oh, highly likely I think. It'll probably be out all through January I'd guess.
I am honestly mystified by the amount of love this film gets... I enjoyed it, it was exceptionally well directed by Cameron and the special effects and 3D were stunning, but the screenplay was incredibly hackneyed and predictable, and often groan inducing.
Don't get me wrong, it's easily the best of the big blockbusters this year and worth seeing for the visual experience alone, but in a year where seriously well written, thoughtful sci-fi films came out (Moon, District 9) it's surprising to see this being called a masterpiece in some quarters.
stardust said: I am honestly mystified by the amount of love this film gets...
Well, I wouldn't say I *loved* it. It was very well made, the CGI was incredible and I was very impressed by the alien ecology of Pandora. Obviously a lot of thought went into that. It was a good - if old - story well told.
Stardust said: the screenplay was incredibly hackneyed and predictable, and often groan inducing.
There was indeed quite a bit of telegraphing of the storyline and few actual surprises. Right from the start - even without seeing the trailers - you knew exactly what you were going to get. The plot was very simple, you could even say simplistic, but I don't think that really mattered. It reflects what we have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future. It romanticised the 'primitive' and demonised the technological but themes such as this have stood the test of time because there is a large element of truth in them. Some of the treatment of these themes was understanably heavy handed but I don't expect Hollywood to be subtle in its rendtion of such things. I found myself not only highly entertained for several hours but also deeply impressed by the life that the alien Navi lived. In reality it probably wouldn't have been half as much fun but then we're not really talking about reality.
Stardust said: in a year where seriously well written, thoughtful sci-fi films came out (Moon, District 9) it's surprising to see this being called a masterpiece in some quarters.
I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. That's certainly overstating things. It's an awesome experience that really draws you in and its stayed with me since I saw it - only yesterday but I think it'll hover in the back of my mind for some time. It easily made my Gold list - buying the DVD the day it comes out - but it's not my best film of the year. That was 'District 9' which totally blew me away. I saw 'Moon' for the first time earlier in the week and was not that impressed to be honest. It was probably a good idea for a short story back in the 1950's but seemed a little thin for a movie.
Heh, well I wasn't referring only to you, it seems to be a consensus that's quite prevalent on blogs and message boards all over the place!
I'm really getting to that point where I feel that a blockbuster doesn't have to be poorly written with weak characterization - Cameron's earlier movies (Aliens, T1 and T2, the Abyss)themselves were far superior in this regard, with even minor characters having at least a bit of personality instead of being stand ins merely waiting to push the story along. And I'm all for archetypal storytelling, it's just that I see Avatar as a missed opportunity, a chance to add some depth and freshen things up. Plus, some things were just awfully executed, like the way the Navi decide to train Jake in the space of about a minute. Cameron's scripts have always been sketchy, but this is the first time I felt like he was really just going through the motions with the story and characters.
The science aspects were mostly impressive, granted, but the creatures were once again derivative of earth creatures. I can buy this in something like Lord of the Rings, which is faux earth mythology,or Star Wars, which is really space fantasy and not sci-fi, but seeing it on an alien moon in the Alpha Centauri system in a proper sci-fi movie is jarring. Look at the aliens in District 9, now there was design work that actually attempted to make its aliens feel alien!
I would actually argue the opposite about Moon. It is a small film and has to be judged as such, and it really fleshes out its premise and features depth and characterization, particularly the psychological aspects, and the performance from Sam Rockwell was easily one of the best of the year. Compare that to the at best two dimensional characters of Avatar and the charisma black hole that is Sam Worthington (seriously, I dont' get why Hollywood is trying to make a star out of this guy!), and the fact that Avatar's budget is over 50 times that of Moon ($5 vs $300 million), and you can see why I find Avatar to be a missed opportunity. A game changer it ain't.
The worst part is that Cameron's original treatment, Project 880, actually sounds better than what ended up on the screen: http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html There's a lot of world building in there that Cameron left out, to the film's detriment, which is why the universe of Avatar ends up having less verisimilitude than George Lucas's original Star Wars films.
I really feel like writing a review of Avatar, there's a lot that I loved about it and a lot that made me roll my eyes (the awful recycled soundtrack by James Horner, for one). Cameron hasn't lost his touch for handling action scenes and special effects, and in this regard Avatar was superb, no question!
One thing that I can say in its favour is that it has generated considerable discussion on many film and 'geek' sites, which is always a good thing.
Also, check out this article for an interesting perspective on some of the racial themes in Avatar - http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Ooops... *Sorry* AM - I thought the comments you posted where from someone else! My apologies!!
AM said: Heh, well I wasn't referring only to you, it seems to be a consensus that's quite prevalent on blogs and message boards all over the place!
That's OK. I wasn't taking
anything you said personally...
AM said: Cameron's scripts have always been sketchy, but this is the first time I felt like he was really just going through the motions with the story and characters.
I didn't feel that way at all....
AM said: The science aspects were mostly impressive, granted, but the creatures were once again derivative of earth creatures.
To an extent yes... But I can see why for several reasons - similar ecological niches for one thing as well as the need to have something recognisable for the audience to relate to.
AM said: the charisma black hole that is Sam Worthington...
Oh? I like him. I thought he was probaably the best thing in T4 and was disapointed to see him 'die' at the end. I thought he was pretty good in Avatar.
AM said: There's a lot of world building in there that Cameron left out, to the film's detriment, which is why the universe of Avatar ends up having less verisimilitude than George Lucas's original Star Wars films.
Maybe they'll put more of that in Avatar 2: The Evil Corporation Fights Back.
AM said: Also, check out this article for an interesting perspective on some of the racial themes in Avatar - http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar
Yes.. I read that [rolls eyes]. I could see the glimmer of a point being made but that and another article mentioned above by Laura just made me laugh at people making racial mountains out of movie molehills. Would the film have been any different if the marine had been played by Denzil Washington or if Worthington had swopped roles with Michelle Rodriguez? I think not.
Avatar - at least in my mind - was definitely *not* a white-guilt film. It was a film about Western rapacity and how the dominant view of our world is as a resource to be used and used up in the name of so-called progress and the illusion of profit. It is a wake-up call to those who think that our highest attainment is to be a good consumer and nothing more. Any minor racial aspects have, I think, been blown out of all proportion and simply cloud any message this movie was attempting to get across. The movie is, in essence, an *environmental* film rather than a crude comment on race.
Heh, yeah I was wondering why you were calling me stardust! :D
I agree with your point about Avatar not overtly being a film about race, no more than the Last Samurai was a film about race. But both movies ultimately promulgate the same inherently racist and condescending attitudes towards the 'primitives' who need an outsider to lead them. The aliens in this are, without question, representing Native Americans, and Jake Sully is essentially a Kevin Costner surrogate.
Regarding Sully's race, even swapping him around with Denzel Washington wouldn't have changed the allegory of what is being reperesented. As you yourself said 'it reflects what we have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future'. Clearly this association exists; Denzel playing Jake Sully would not have changed what humans in the film represent, no more than the fact that the Navi are blue skinned cat like people instead of brown skinned humans!
That the racism isn't overt doesn't mean that it isn't still racism. This doesn't mean that the film has a racial agenda, just that it holds on to storytelling mechanics and symbolism that is racist. It may be a molehill as you say, but the fact that it's there and is disregarded as being unimportant because the film has loftier ambitions about getting across a different message is symptomatic of the mountainous problem of unspoken racist undercurrents that still exist today.
I think the author of that piece does have a point, and this (unintentional) aspect of the film is actually far more interesting to me than its obvious environmental/political/economic themes. If the movie's message is getting clouded by this, I would lay the blame for that at the feet of James Cameron! :D
That aside, I too would buy the blu-ray as soon as it comes out, because as I said there's a lot about the film I actually liked, and I think it'll reward multiple viewings.
AM said: Heh, yeah I was wondering why you were calling me stardust! :D
I saw your 'avatar' picture and thought it was someone else's - they're very similar. Apologies for not paying attention.
I actually think that any race issues with the film are minor or even insignificant. The movie most certainly isn't racist - at least such an idea didn't even appear on my radar until I read some of the postings that have been pointed out. I actually think people are confusing race with power. The humans are powerful because of their technological and military might. The Na'vi are weak both technologically and in consequence militarily.
The reason that Sully ended up leading one of the clans and organised the revolt is because in my line of work he'd be called a "subject matter expert". He know's human ways and he knows the military mind. He is the logical choice to lead them to victory. The indigenous leader would have most likely failed in his attempt to fight back because he didn't fully grasp what he was up against. Sully did.
When I said that the film "reflects what we have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do in the future" I meant that when power meet weakness it is the powerful that set the agenda. The powerful take what they want and the weak suffer the consequences. If the film revolved around the Na'vi showing up in starships and strip mining our planet over our weak protests (like in Independence Day but more sucessfully) would that have been racist too? Of course not. It might have more accurately be seen as (just as in Well's War of the Worlds) the humans getting a taste of what it feels like to be on the reciving end of a colonial struggle.
The alien Na'vi are certainly metaphors for indigenous peoples everywhere and the Evil corporation forcing them off their land to mine it for unobtainium is clearly a metaphor for western style capitalism but that said doesn't mean that race is a central issue here. If the Na'vi had been more technologically advanced they couldn't have been disregarded as easily or treated as condesendingly as they were. They were treated as primitive 'savages' because of the disparity in power between the opposing forces. They were treated as inferior because they were perceived to be inferior - regardless of species or colour. In the final analysis the film - at least in my opinion - was about power and not race (especially if the race or gender of the Sully character was irrelevant as you maintain).
If Sully represents white humanity - even if he was played by a black actor - that just emphasises my point about mountains and molehills. The movie could just as easily - and much more accurately - be a devestating critique of how America treats our world with the rest of us painted blue and firing arrows at passing Apache helicopters.
waaaaaaahhhh - I didn't get to see it 'cos of this stupid flu....
You wanna see it again, ck? Maybe next week? :-)
cq
CQ said: You wanna see it again, ck? Maybe next week? :-)
Maybe........
My initial reaction was also that there wasn't anything race related in Avatar. But having thought about I started asking myself if this wasn't the type of subtle racism that we take for granted by writing it off as imagined or minor. Even if it is minor, shouldn't it be called out?
CK: "The reason that Sully ended up leading one of the clans and organised the revolt is because in my line of work he'd be called a "subject matter expert"." <- you could argue this, it's just that:
a) Sully learns their ways and becomes an adept native in a very short period of time (a better native than the natives, one could argue)
b) He manages to capture and tame a giant flying beast using the ingenious tactic of flying above it, thereby impressing the Navi and once again demonstrating his superiority to them in matters where THEY ought to be the subject matter experts.
c) His position as a "subject matter expert" would only have required him to direct the battle. NOT give them rousing speeches and rally them together to effect their uprising.
d) The planet 'selects' him as being special for reasons that are unclear, since his expertise ultimately amounts to nought and the planet has to bail them all out by sending in the animal cavalry. Again, the outsider is presented as special to the Navi, just because!
I'd like to reiterate again that I'm not suggesting that race is an overt or major theme in the film. What I'm arguing is that the film promulogates the kind of 'harmless' racism that is all too common in cinema, to such an extent that we automatically dismiss the notion that there is any racism in what is being depicted.
Ask yourself this question - if the director of this film were not James Cameron, but instead was a person of an ethnic minority such as the Native Americans, a group that experienced colonization, subjugation, massacres - would such a director have made the film in this way, where one of the invaders joins them, becomes one of them, becomes one of their leaders? I contend that he/she would not have.
CK: "If the film revolved around the Na'vi showing up in starships and strip mining our planet over our weak protests (like in Independence Day but more sucessfully) would that have been racist too? Of course not." Of course not indeed, since in this scenario mankind, unlike the Navi, are not thinly disguised representations of Native Americans in circumstances that draws obvious parallels to the colonization of the Americas! That's a disingenuous argument since Avatar makes those parallels explicit. I didn't think it was racist when I was watching it, but I certainly thought the Navi were a hell of a lot like Native Americans (or at least, the popular depiction of Native Americans).
Anyway, I suspect we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. Oh, and btw, happy new year! :) Completely slipped my mind!
Let me just say how nice it is to just enjoy a film without worrying about all that stuff. ;-)
I go back and forth with pop culture analysis - as you'd see if you were on the debate I sparked on facebook :p
On the one hand, yes - it is "just a popcorn movie" and not meant to have any real deep meaning. HOWEVER - it's often the pop culture stuff that isn't MEANT to have that kind of meaning that are, in fact, the vehicles that maintain the status quo points of view held by the majority of society. That's why it took a movement to convince mainstream society that things like Amos and Andy or minstrel shows (for an extreme example) were NOT merely just entertainment. The both reflected and promoted negative stereotypes held about blacks within the larger society.
The fact is, like it or not, the creations of any artist (movies, music, art, ect) always reflect the ideals, attitudes, and stereotypes of the artist and the society in which s/he lives. So while it is just a popcorn movie, it is also important to question why it is the way it is and what that means in a larger context.
What does it mean that movies like this, Dances with Wolves, Last Samauri, etc, keep capturing our imaginations? Why are people so drawn to them? It's no accident that this formula works - so why does it work?
In this genre what appeals to me is someone learning respect for indigenous people and their beliefs.
In Dances With Wolves we saw one of the first big films to use all Native American actors for the Native American roles. The Lakota Sioux who worked on that project were very proud of their work, yet it still received criticism for racial reasons.
I guess the real message is, you can't please everyone.
There are two movies that are coming out, also action flicks, that have some troubling racial issues in casting. Prince Of Persia and it's clearly non-Persian prince, Jake Gyllenhaal and Avatar - The Last Airbender which replaced all the Asian characters with white actors.
"In this genre what appeals to me is someone learning respect for indigenous people and their beliefs."
I guess to me, the larger question is: why is that something that takes a movie to learn?
Because movies draw people in, hence all the propaganda films of ages past. If a movie or TV show portrays a certain type of person in a positive, likable light, it has the potential to either consciously or subconsciously rethink their position.
It takes a movie for some people because of the emotional impact.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be entirely wrong.
I think that part of the appeal of the Jake Sully character - and other characters in the movies already mentioned - is that they're pretty much 'outsiders' in their own communities who find themselves (eventually) accepted in a new community often for the very reasons they are rejected by their own kind. There is also a 'healing' taking place - either physical or emotional - partially at least because they have become accepted. Sometimes it takes an alien - or a foreigner - to see qualities in us that even we were unaware of. That, I think, is one of the major themes of Avatar. Because Jake is an outsider he is looking for acceptence somewhere else. He finds it on Pandora. The fact that he is a white human and they are blue Na'vi is IMO totally irrelevant.
Post a Comment