About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 7:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Your English and your execution, Michel, were perfect. Please continue to contribute to this forum.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/22, 7:46pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am currently studying 3D animation and was excited when I saw some of the pictures of this movie as it was slowly released and developed. I was incredibly disappointed when I finally saw a trailer for the movie - yet another stereotypical attack just as you point out.

However, as I have learned in some of my classes, there needs to be some antagonism within that drives it. Unfortunately its just too easy today to play on the general feeling that the capitalist system is evil and hungry for power, loot, and control.

I have not seen the movie but given the amount of time and energy Cameron has put into Avatar it would seem that he could have, if he wanted to, created some internal antagonism by contrasting honest value traders with the authoritarian parasites. For instance, perhaps a group of people are already shown to be trading with the natives and they help fight the real looters. (Again, not seeing the movie perhaps this just wouldn't work with his plot.) Instead he opts - correct me if I am wrong - for the idea that a bunch of earthy communal nature lover type beings had the perfect society and are now being threatened by a group of warmongering imperialistic looters.

Sounds familiar - white Europeans hitting the shores of North America plundering wealth bringing death to the natives.

I was thinking about seeing this movie but alas, I cannot bring myself to spend the money on it.

Post 2

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will see the movie anyway, but my excitement to do so has now been dramatically reduced.

Ed

Post 3

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Same here...

Post 4

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The essence of a movie is its plot.

This movie is full of evil plot cliches from the opening scene.

A visual spectacle? So was Birth of a Nation.

This movie is pure Soviet propaganda. Who is worse, a movie tycoon who actually believes such leftist nonsense, or a movie tycoon who is happy to smear capitalism as corruption, the military as murderers, and the nation that made him rich because he knows it will get him in good with the Oscar crowd?

If you "have to" see this film, at least have the decency not to pay for it.

Pardon my vulgarity, but you can say no worse and no more telling thing about James Cameron than that he has the soul of a Canadian.


Post 5

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Capital idea - it just got put up on Project Free TV,,,











Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Did malovent-universe goggles go on holiday sale? Here's a more positive spin. I saw the movie. I thought it was visually stunning. It probably didn't hurt that I saw it in 3-D in an Imax theater. Yes, the plot was a bit obvious: Dances With Wolves meets Fern Gully. But why paint it as anti-capitalist? The villains were thugs who wanted to plunder someone else's land. It's a mistake to connect that with capitalism, isn't it? The hero was pushing voluntary trade, and when that failed, he took to defending the victims. If anything, that is the capitalism Objectivists advocate. 

Jordan


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would highly recommend the movie. I liked the technology and the challenges the characters face and work through. It was no where near the most common "Things happen to the characters" type of movie. In this movie, the intelligent entities are in full control of their own destinies and fight for their property vs the thieving murdering foe.

I didn't consider the attacking company as "capitalist". There were a few negative claims that the company was just "Doing it for the money", but that really was the case... and the company leadership was short sighted and foolish.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Paraphrasing Barbara Branden from the chapter "Efficient Thinking" in The Vision of Ayn Rand:
Suppose you're watching a movie in which the hero seems to be an individualist, and you have been starved for such a movie. In the first chapter, the hero turns down a very good job, rather than conform to the ideas of others. You feel a strong emotion of admiration and pleasure, and this emotion, quite validly, is important to you. It's the kind of emotion you do want to feel.

Well, at this point, you can do one of two things. You can continue to perceive, to see what the movie is about, to judge what you're viewing — or you can lose yourself in the pleasure you feel, focus only on it, look only for ways to maintain it, ignoring and evading any evidence that might contradict it.

Then, as you continue watching, the hero is shown establishing an socialist [environmentalist] cooperative, which, he says, will once and for all solve the problem of jobs [preserving nature] for everyone. Well, if your mind is functioning rationally, you will perceive that you have made a mistake — that is, that whatever this movie is preaching it isn't individualism. But, if you've focused on maintaining your emotion at any price, then you'll rationalize it by any means possible. You'll tell yourself that the hero really believes in his ideal, and this makes him an individualist; or that he's fighting for his idea, and this makes him an individualist, so that he's still a hero, et cetera, etc., etc. And you can watch the whole movie this way, reading into it what you want to see, explaining away what doesn't fit your desires, blinding yourself, destroying your perception for the sake of your emotion. A year later you might see the same movie in a different mood and ask yourself, in helpless amazement: "Why did I think what I thought?"

Deciding to like a movie in spite of its obvious flaws is what philosophers technically call "rationalization." It's common. I do it. Dean does it. Ed and Robert plan to do it. There are so many flawed and so few perfect movies (African Queen is one) that Objectivists do it out of despair. But to choose to say that a movie that attacks people who are out to "make money" isn't attacking capitalism because we happen to know that real capitalists don't steal is to rationalize.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/23, 5:09pm)


Post 9

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So anyone who finds Avatar, or parts of it, concordant with Objectivism, is rationalizing?

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 12/23, 4:29pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 5:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"So anyone who finds Avatar, or parts of it, concordant with Objectivism, is rationalizing? "

As if the parts of it cannot be judged separately, and each judged rationally? Concordant in what way? Aesthetically, as in having a good plot? Or ethically, as in having an evil theme? Your question, Jordan, is dishonest, it drops the context and it relies implicitly on the argument from intimidation. Your implied question is, "You wouldn't dare call a person a rationalizer to his face?" Well, the answer is yes I would.

But my post was educational enough that each person can make his own judgments. Every adult here is quite capable of understanding the difference between someone who perceives that something is what it actually is, regardless of his emotions, or who decides to believe that something is what he wants it to be, regardless of its obvious nature.

A movie is properly judged by the execution of its plot theme. It is quite possible to say that Avatar masterfully executes a plot them that happens to be evil. That doesn't make it bad art. It makes it an evil theme. Objectivism doesn't require that we pretend of something we like an out of context perfection that it does not really have.

To explore these principles further, see Barbara Branden's chapter "Efficient Thinking" in Vision of Ayn Rand as well as the chapter on Aesthetics in Ayn Rand Answers and the appropriate chapters in Rand's Romantic Manifesto and The Art of Fiction

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I haven't seen the movie, I suspect Michel Hulmann's sentiments are correct. The clips that I've seen don't exactly show these blue natives (whatever they are) as some kind of industrialized society. We see the protagonists in clips from the movie with technology no more advanced than the bow and arrow. From a cursory glance it appears the industrialists are the antagonists, portrayed as evil, greedy capitalists that steal land and resources. Where have we heard that song and dance?

For once I'd like to see the opposite. Or even something that is far more accurate of stone age societies with their relation to the environment.




(Edited by John Armaos on 12/23, 5:30pm)


Post 12

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 6:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From what have seen [the first half], is a lot like the Dances With Wolves mindset...
[and do not consider that as a rationalization]

and this just in -
http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2009/12/21/avatar-political-messages-environmental-issues/?icid=main|search2|dl2|link3|http%3A%2F%2Finsidemovies.moviefone.com%2F2009%2F12%2F21%2Favatar-political-messages-environmental-issues%2F
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/23, 6:26pm)


Post 13

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I didn't spend 20 minutes looking for and then hand-typing the quote of Barbara Branden simply as the elaborate setup for an insult, Robert. It was meant to educate. I have to assume that you are comparing the movie with Dances With Wolves because there actually are objective resemblances. That wouldn't be rationalization. (I haven't seen Dances With Wolves.)

As far as I am concerned, the proper way to enjoy any form of art is to find every single thing to appreciate in it that you can rationally enjoy. If you can enjoy the beauty on a perceptual level and the fact that it at least has a supenseful well-executed plot, assuming it does, then, by all means, please do so. Doing so certainly shouldn't require denying that it is anti-business and anti-(U.S.)-military.

But just don't pay that pink Canadian hypocrite-capitalist bastard Cameron a dime if you can help it..

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ted,

I kept the context: You posted right after Dean and I posted; we were the only two not to malign the movie; your post focused on rationalizing, on "deciding to like a movie despite its obvious flaws." And you outright accused Dean of rationalizing.

Such an accusation is a nasty smear, very much akin to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. My response had no appeal to moral self-doubt or reliance on fears or ignorance (pre-requisites for an argument from intimidation). Rather, my response was an honest and modest effort to reflect and deflect the aspersion.

Jordan


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Deciding to like a movie in spite of its obvious flaws is what philosophers technically call "rationalization." It's common. I do it. Dean does it. Ed and Robert plan to do it.
................

Insults?? 'Tis you who does that, in spades... what movie now am I supposed to pre-like?

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Guys, if you're wondering where Cameron was coming from with his themes, he's pretty much explicitly stated what they are.




James Cameron himself hasn't been shy in publicly proclaiming the fact that he's an environmental activist who believes that humans and "industrial society" are "causing a global climate change" and "destroying species faster than we can classify them." In a recent interview with PBS' Tavis Smiley, Cameron admitted that he made "obvious" references in the film to Iraq, Vietnam and the American colonial period to emphasize the fact that humans have a "terrible history" of "entitlement" in which we "take what we need" from nature and indigenous peoples "and don't give back."


There you have it. Not exactly Objectivist themes.

Post 17

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"But why paint it as anti-capitalist?
"

Because it is?

There is no "painting" necessary. The inability to separate liking the visuals and that the movie has a plot from the fact that its also leftist tripe is rationalization. I didn't say child-rape and murder. I said rationalization.

Wikipedia:

In 2154, a corporation is mining Pandora, the lush, Earthlike moon of the gas giant planet Polyphemus, in the Alpha Centauri system. The humans are exploiting the unobtanium reserves. Parker Selfridge [i.e., SELFISH] (Giovanni Ribisi), the administrator, employs former marines as mercenaries.

The indigenous are the Na'vi, a paleolithic [Stone Age] species of sapient humanoids. Standing 9 feet (2.7 m) tall, with tails, bones reinforced with carbon fiber, and bioluminescent blue skin, they live in harmony with Nature and worship a mother goddess called Eywa. Humans cannot breathe Pandora's atmosphere. Humans have created human-Na'vi hybrid bodies, Avatars, that are used to explore Pandora. Humans who share genetic material with an avatar can control it while their own body sleeps.

Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) orders Jake to gain the trust of the Na'vi so as to get them to abandon Hometree, which covers a large unobtanium deposit. As part of his Omaticaya initiation, Jake tames a flying creature known as a Banshee.

Neytiri and Jake choose each other as mates, much to the jealousy of Tsu'Tey (Laz Alonso). Meanwhile, a bulldozer almost runs them over, however, Jake is able to disable it but at a cost: the Tree of Voices is destroyed. Quaritch reveals a vlog where Jake says the Na'vi will never leave; Selfridge orders the destruction of Hometree.
 
With the assistance of Neytiri and Tsu'Tey, Jake vows defiance against the humans and assembles thousands of Na'vi from other tribes. Quaritch, seeing the Na'vi's strength, orders a preemptive strike to destroy the Tree of Souls, the center of Na'vi religion and culture. Its destruction would leave the Na'vi too demoralized to continue resisting the humans. Jake prays to Eywa to intercede on behalf of the Na'vi in the forthcoming battle.

The Na'vi fight bravely but suffer heavy casualties, including Tsu'Tey, Trudy, and Norm's avatar. When all hope seems lost, the Pandoran wildlife launch a mass attack, overwhelming the humans. Neytiri interprets this as Eywa answering Jake's prayer. Quaritch orders the bombing of the Tree of Souls but Jake destroys the bomber before it can drop its payload.

The humans are expelled from Pandora, while Jake and his friends remain. Jake is seen wearing the insignia of the Omaticaya clan leader suggesting that he has become the new leader after Tsu'Tey. The film ends with Jake's soul being transplanted into his Na'vi avatar.

Avatar is centered around the themes of imperialism and biodiversity.[45] Cameron has said that Avatar shares themes with At Play in the Fields of the Lord, and The Emerald Forest, which feature clashes between cultures and civilizations, and acknowledged the film's connection with Dances With Wolves, where a battered soldier finds himself drawn to the tribal culture he was initially fighting against.[46]
At Comic Con 2009, Cameron told attendees that he wanted to make "something that has this spoonful of sugar of all the action and the adventure and all that". He wanted this to thrill him "as a fan" but also have a conscience "that maybe in the enjoying of it makes you think a little bit about the way you interact with nature and your fellow man".[47] He added that "the Na'vi represent something that is our higher selves, or our aspirational selves, what we would like to think we are" and that even though there are good humans within the film, the humans "represent what we know to be the parts of ourselves that are trashing our world and maybe condemning ourselves to a grim future".[47]

Limited disapproval of the film has been focused not on the technical production, but on some alleged underlying political themes. For instance, Armond White of the New York Press disliked what he perceived to be the film's sociopolitical messages,[109] while The Christian Post lamented that "the American military was pure evil while the Pandoran tribespeople were nature-loving, eco-harmonious, wise Braveheart smurf warriors".[110] Similar sentiments were voiced on Michelle Malkin's conservative themed Hot Air blog, which decried the film as "ardently left", "pro-indigenous native", "anti-corporate", "anti-imperialist", "anti-U.S. Iraq War effort", "anti-U.S.-in-Afghanistan", "anti-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld" and politically "pure Che Guevara".[111]

Telling you this is not a smear or an insult.

Telling Dean that his enjoyment of the visuals and the plot is not a reason to rationalize that the theme is not what it is is not a personal insult.

What next, Jordan, will you be calling me a fascist?

And Robert, did you even read that I said that I rationalize movies like this too? Insult you? I am not trying to beat you like a cur with the irrevocably-repudiate-the-evil judge-and-be-judged stick. You don't need to bite me when I'm trying, once again, to be friendly.

I don't think the notion that a movie can have an evil theme yet be artistically well executed is either incomprehensible or a personal affront. You don't have to be an Objectivist to understand this. But I am an Objectivist and what I have been trying to explain at the cost of yours, Jordan, and your, Robert's, insulting and childish indignation is supported at length by Rand and Branden in the books I suggested above. Read the texts. Your argument is with Objectivism, not me.

Merry Christmas.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/23, 9:38pm)


Post 18

Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 11:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I take no issue with the notion that an artistically excellent movie might have an evil theme. I take issue with the notion that Dean and my views of the movie were dismissed out of hand as mere rationalizing. We saw the movie. We defended our views of it. There's room for disagreement, no doubt. After all, it's no African Queen. But if we disagree, discussion should focus on evidence for or against the claims, not on dismissive claims about one's psyche.

Here again is what I wrote:

*****
The villains were thugs who wanted to plunder someone else's land. It's a mistake to connect that with capitalism, isn't it? The hero was pushing voluntary trade, and when that failed, he took to defending the victims. If anything, *that* is the capitalism Objectivists advocate.
*****

I'd like an answer to the question I posed. And where do we disagree?

Jordan

Post 19

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 5:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, I think the main issue is that the movie attempts to brand the behavior of the company in Avatar as Capitalism. Which makes the movie deplorable in that aspect.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.