CONSERVATIVES MOCKING CONSERVATIVES
The Politics of Avatar
Most of the millions who have seen and universally enjoyed the blockbuster sci-fi drama Avatar probably think it was just a fantastic, feel-good movie where the good guys win. Wrong. It's actually a political commentary that has Conservative America's shorts pulled up tight.By Bill Schneider, 1-20-10
 |
|
 | |
|
I might as well disclose my little problem right upfront. I’m a sci-fi nut. That’s even worse than being a gun nut and fishing nut, but I’ve learned to cope with my problem. Along the way, though, I’ve had to go to almost every sci-fi flick ever made, even some really bad ones, and I think Avatar is a fascinating showpiece of ground-breaking technology and no doubt the best 3D film ever. Not the best sci-fi movie ever, though, but close. I’d rank it as the fourth best.
What makes Avatar even more fascinating is the ironic political battle raging in the background.
In Avatar, for those few who haven’t seen it, the Na’vi, a primitive race of nine-foot, blue-skinned humanoids on the distant moon Pandora live in perfect harmony with their environment and just want to be left alone. Enter the greedy, mean-spirited, American corporation with the U.S. Marine Corps in tow to ravage their beloved forest and strip mine a rare metal that makes the interstellar conglomerate more money.
Flashback the history of Earth. Sound familiar?
Director James Cameron even admits that the film is in intended as “a mirror to our own blighted history, where we have a culturally advanced civilization supplanting more ‘primitive’ civilizations.”
And very recent history, too. I do believe we’re over in the Middle East right now trying to transform their civilization to be more like ours. I sure the Na’vi could relate with our Three Trillion Dollar War.
Anyway, the Avatar storyline is hardly unique. We’ve all heard it before. A more “advanced” civilization coming along to conquer the aboriginals and exploit their natural resources--and then convert and reform them into the society we think they should be.
But alas, this time, primitives on flying dragons, with the help of a turncoat former marine, defeat our mighty military with bows and arrows. Along the way, U.S. Military and Corporate America take a real beating in the image department. At the end of the movie audiences cheer the yellow-eyed aliens as they defeat of our troops.
All of these things, critics insist, will anger and alienate moviegoers. Ha! Quite to the contrary, it seems like the only people who don’t like Avatar are the critics themselves. To me, it’s a shame they’re so obsessed with their ideologies that can’t see the harmless but remarkable artistry of such a movie instead of focusing on the political subtext that most people hardly notice.
I’d sure like to know how many conservative mouthpieces actually went to the movie and can truthfully say they didn’t like it. That’s what bugs them. Everybody likes a great sci-fi flick and could care less about the director’s personal politics, which is going right over the audience’s head. We’ve had our fill of politics, right? Can’t forget about politics for 180 minutes and just enjoy a great movie?
For years, right-handed pundits and bloggers have incessantly condemned Hollywood for being out of touch most Americans. But now, can they say: I have to eat my words? Face it, Avatar is a real crowd pleaser, and it’s outstanding success seems to tell us Hollywood is in touch with most Americans.
Nonetheless, Conservative America is still aflame over Avatar, calling the movie and Cameron anti-America, pro-tree hugger, anti-Imperialist, anti-military, sacrilegious, anti-capitalist, and in league with those who hate the Western World. In other words, the film is pretty much everything opposite of what many would describe as the conservative agenda.
The religious right is also feeling burned by a “Godless Hollywood.” Pagans winning the day? The Gospel according to James (Cameron) and pantheism, a faith equating God with Nature? Eywr, the Na’vi Mother Goddess, doing her Tarzan thing and rallying all the forest’s creatures to help the tree-worshippers smack around the Marine Corps? OMG!
And miners, big business, and those intent on conquering every wilderness? Ouch! They really get pasted in this movie. The plot embodies the all-things-are-connected mantra of the greenest environmental groups that champion biodiversity. The Na’vi’s entire world is linked through the sacred Tree of Souls. Not unlike, incidentally, the culture of Native Americans who viewed the earth as their mother instead of something that needs developing.
If you think I’m making this up or exaggerating it, do your own web search. You’ll soon agree.
Conservative critics weren’t surprised to get this type of political subplot from the same Hollywood that has produced a steady stream of liberal-agenda films like Brokeback Mountain, Religulous, Lions for Lambs, Milk, and W. But they were very unpleasantly surprised that this liberal blast came from none other than their own icon of conservatism, Rupert Murdoch, who owns 20th Century Fox, producer of Avatar, along with Fox News, Fox Cable Network, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, HarperCollins, publisher and promoter of Sarah Palin’s best-selling book, and much more, all part of his NewsCorp media empire.
That’s really cool irony, don’t you agree? One of those circular firing squad moments.
But don’t get the idea Rupert has had a change of heart and is out in his backyard hugging a tree and writing checks to MoveOn.Org.
Nope, for Rupert, it’s all about a little catchphrase you might have heard before: Money talks.
Avatar has already grossed over $1 billion in its first three weeks and is on tract to be the biggest money-maker ever. It just won a Golden Globe for best drama, and the Hollywood grapevine considers it a shoo-in for an Oscar--or more likely, Oscars. (And if I might add a personal note, we sci-fi nuts have been starved for another good flick, so that also contributes to Rupert’s fortune.)
I doubt Rupert is feeling blue about this criticism from his conservative brethren. In fact, I bet those blue-skinned primitives are mighty popular in his mansion. He’d probably like a few of them on his servant staff. They’d make great gardeners.
Nope, Rupert is not seeing blue; he’s seeing green--not Sierra Club green, but the same old green he’s been seeing his entire life. One little ding in his conservative armor in exchange for something north of $1 billion in revenue? I’m guessing he can deal with it. Conservatives are all about the right to make a lot of money, so James Cameron, back at you. I guess that’s what you call reverse irony because Avatar also fits nicely into the conservative agenda.
P.S. The top three are Aliens, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
So I went again after digesting it a few days. The second time I was struck by the sharp parallel to certain narratives from the sordid history of the American West in the late 1800's. Specifically I was thinking of Custer's 7th Cav trying to subdue the natives on the high plains to clear the way for the emerging gold rush into the Black Hills, and getting defeated by the aboriginals or " noble savages" or whatever. Then I latched onto other Indian Wars incidents and corporate/military exploitations of native people in the name of manifest destiny and greed for resources. It isn't difficult at all to take mental trips around the globe through history and see many more of these parallels...the Boer War, Southern and Eastern Africa in general ; the Belgians in the Congo ; the West Indies spice trade; slaveships; Conquistadores ravaging Latin America for gold ; the Amazon basin ; Australia. Ad absurdum.
I did not see Avatar as a metaphor for environmentalism so much as a cinematic narrative on Manifest Destiny and severe corporate exploitation and subjugation. Don't be dazzled by the incredible lush world Cameron created and how symbiotic the Na'Vi lived in their habitat. The movie's undercurrent is more in the channel of "Chinatown " , "The Emerald Forest " and "Dances With Wolves" than an environmental thesis. The private mercenary army is the giveaway.
-----
By the way , Mickey , they were blue weenies.
ignoring the weaker tribes ethics and harvesting practices. The Noble Savages in Avatar had evolved harvesting practices and weapons that didn't have a large impact on Pandora up to that point but they definitely were not weenies of any kind. Avatar can be seen as a metaphor for a lot of things including Manifest Destiny, Environmentalism, The Noble Savage, The Gaia Hypothesis, etc. all of them interconnected. But after all the intellectual analysis the emotional impact of the flick is what really determines its popularity.
There's a great article on this same ' perceptions of Avatar" theme at the New York Times today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html?hpw
Among other viewpoints the article explores the repercussions of Avatar on the Chinese government , the Vatican and other Christian waypoints, and even feminists. Yikes!--- it's just a movie, folks. Then again...
I have to ask you , Mickey--- what would you say to the storyline and cinematic message of "District 9 " , now out on DVD? What was D9 a cosmic metaphor for , besides blatant multiworld Apartheid ?
Second, one interesting concept in the "film" was the idea that a cable could make a living organism more attuned to the natural world. I leave it to the reader to judge whether pulling the plug and walking outside is a better way to experience and appreciate nature than staring at an electronic device connected to a grid.
Third, the joke is on the greens if they think this film advances their cause. As Mr. Murdoch pockets the proceeds, what agenda do you suppose he might advance with his newfound wealth?
Fourth, anybody else nostalgic for Star Trek after suffering through this half-baked mish-mash of Cameron's adolescent fantasies? Maybe he can cast himself as the anthropologist in the sequel, to take over where Sigourney Weaver's doppelganger in the midriff-exposing tank top and jungle shorts left off. Why not? People are paying to see this one.
Predictive Programming - The power of suggestion using the media of fiction to create a desired outcome.
Monkey see monkey do, it's called cognitive modeling..
Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders. If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as 'natural progressions', thus lessening any possible public resistance and commotion.
So when they kill off people like me you'll agree..
Sometimes folks, the truth of our humankind exploits and selfish indulgences, of which we are all guilty, are a hard pill to swallow. For those who already haven't, it wouldn't hurt to wake up one morning and care about something more than making money, screwing the system or taking advantage of the situation. Despite what the right wing nut jobs think, this earth wasn't created for the exploits of man. If I remember correctly, that wasn't what I learned about Chrisitanity in Catholic School. But, to each his own.
If some think the movie is a waste, that's their right, however if it makes people question or ponder just one issue we humans deal with, whatever that is (i.e. politics, health care, war, environmentalism, reintroduction of wolves, you choose), then its worthy in my opinion.
My question. Did the humans identify themselves are being Americans?
Did the military identify themselves as US Marines?
The story takes place in 2154, I took it to mean humans, not Americans.
US Marines? British Royal Marines? Australian Marines? Dutch Marines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_military
The term Marine is pretty well ubiquitous.
The point is, if this is the world in 2154, approx. 144 year into the future. The writers may or may not have meant that any of this had to do with any given country or fighting force belonging to the USA.
Another reason the crazies go crazy. The mere thought of a one nation world.
You're the second person who has asked that question, and of course, I can't remember (happens a lot at my age) the word "America" being used in the movie. The word "marine" was used several times, though, and the script managed to clearly imply that it was an American corporation. I don't think anybody thought otherwise.
Bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlr0qf0eTHU&feature=related
The soldiers of fortune were the 22nd century equivalent of Blackwater/Xe. I saw quite a few ethnic varieties in the ranks, and women in full combat gear. All were of the Special Forces persuasion
I don't recall seeing any real military ID on the combat equipment...tail numbers, flag stripes, etc. If you saw the movie at an IMAX and had a quick eye, you'd probably see an infinite amount of grit and note once and for all it was all mercenary, coming and going. It's been said as much in the online discussions.
The mercenary military force shown in the film was not the U.S. Marine Corp, as this article states, it was a corporate Blackwater Xe type unit that answered to a corporate chain of command. Nations, other than Israel, seldom engage in this type of manifest destiny conquest. It's corporations that do the real dirty work with their mercenary forces using false flag attacks to justify their depredations for profit.
Sully wasn't picked by the corporation for his former Recon Marine prowess, but rather for his genetic profile which allowed him to be easily spliced into his brother's avatar.
I see that the Vatican, the Marine Corp,and the government of China have all condemned it. I'll be surprised if the ADL doesn't come out and claim it's anti-Israel.
China, in it's new Bourgeoisie hypocrisy, has banned the 2D version that the coolies can afford to view, while allowing the 3D version, which is booked for months by the elites, to remain. I wonder if it's playing in those former Buddhist temples that the Party has converted into cultural theaters in Tibet?
The movie was a variant of Pocohantas on steroids. The effects were spectacular and the story was troubling to the guilty.
From a special effect point of view, the most ridiculous scene in the movie was when Jake throws his loaded seabag on his back and takes off down the embark ramp of the transport plane -a sure way to end up on your numb ass, I don't care if it is 2154. He would have put the bag on his feet for balance.
Are you trying to be funny, with that line about the ADL and Israel, or what?
And- "it's" is a contraction of "it is" while "its" is the possessive.
And- "Corps" as in "Marine Corps"
And Bill-
Number four? I hope you're grading heavy on the visuals, and low on plot and originality.
Enter The World pt1 - A Review of the Preview for the Ignorant Profane Part 1.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTe3cMkf-OI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1xZGDK_coI
you call anyone who supports roadless/wilderness a greenie weenie extremist. What would a middleground enviro look like to you? It certainly is'nt you mick becuase your really more of an right wing extremists when it comes to public lands management.
It occured to me that the storyline of the Avatar we saw was somewhere in the middle of a longer arc. I'm thinking "trilogy" here and Avatar is the middle film. The mining company had already been on Pandora for quite some time, obviously. I presume travelling to the Alpha Centauri system was humanity's first venture at interstellar travel, and it was noted it took six years to get there one way. AC is 4.6 light years away , so the ships travelled at very near the speed of light, no easy feat.
Since Avatar takes place only 140 years from now, it is also presumed that several round trips explorations from Earth to A-B Centauri have already been accomplished. Exploration has given way to exploitation. Textbooks of the Na'Vi language are shown in the film , and some snapshots of schools and " missions". The interaction between Man and Na'Vi appears to have been going on for, say , 75 years or so ( 5 round trips plus stay time and intermediary time between " expeditions".)
A possible first film begs the question : What was mankind's reaction to the initial discovery of the Na'Vi ? ---a race not unlike them? I'm sure the Pope and the Grand Ayatollah and other monoteists would've shown a keen interest in any religious or spiritual characteristics of the Na'Vi culture, since it bets the scriptual farm. But Hindhus and Bhuddists might find a great affinity and affirmation of their beleif system in the Na'Vi. Uh oh.
To stay with the American West historic parallel, what were the incidents of the Centauri Lewis and Clark , the mountain men and the Jedediah Smiths and Father deSmets ? Or was it more like MesoAmerica with Columbus followed by Cortez ?
That's the first movie.
The third movie might revolve around: revenge and retribution, or reconciliation and interstellar renaissance. The mining company comes back to Pandora with a vengeance, and this time they bring the real military with them, since the magic metal Unobtainium ( which appears to be a naturally occuring room temperature superconductor) is just too valuable for saving the depleted and ravaged Earth; the temptation too great to restrain with mere wisdom and a spirit of live and let live .
So---do humans do return to Pandora , do they return as a conciliatory cooperative respectful coexisting race willing to negotiate for Unobtainium after getting evicted from the planet by the planet ? Or do they come back to Pandora as vengeful barbarian conquistadores and colonial empirialists?
I see the American West metaphor all over again. Do we get it right this time around ? Cameron has job security. I beleive he's good for two more films, at least.
-------
My only real regret about the Avatar movie is that Rupert Murdoch and his merry men gets 45 percent of the world profit on this film. Fox, Inc. already mining offworld riches to feed the nefarious empire back home...
A movie as large (figuratively) as Avatar can be all these things. And I'd say in that sense it has worked. We're all discussing it, aren't we?
Oh yeah, Mr R. Keith, if you think you're the first commenter to correct somebody on their use of contractions, conjunctions or whatever other grammar, think again. Putting on airs and putting an initial in front of your name doesn't impress anybody.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233068