RoR: Forum

Subject: My Rethinking of 'Avatar'

After thinking more about it, I want to revise my previous post "Disagreement on Avatar; Wider Esthetic Issues".

I was so irritated at (1) Ed's article's disregard for the property rights of the natives of the planet and his allied oversimplification of primitive people as all brutal, aggressive savages and (2) the equating of the corrupt businessmen or 'corporatist' types in the movie as capitalists, or as intended to represent American free enterprise -- that I did not give proper weight to the fact that it was gung-ho -American- soldiers who were portrayed as the equivalent of Nazi stormtroopers.

I was so offended and intent on rebutting what was very much a -mistaken- reason to resent or dislike the movie, that I didn't stop to fully integrate the other, -valid- reason.

My general point about 'willing suspension of disbelief' and not letting politics trump art -would- apply to a movie like "China Syndrome" and "Erin Brockovich" for the reasons I gave in that post. But using "Avatar" as an example of this is a poor choice. It's not the mystical, tree-hugging Na'vi that undercut this movie. For the reasons I gave in my post. But the view of the American military as in the hands of rights-violators and killers and of the space program + government as in the hands of fascist type 'corporatists' in not only false, but stomach-turningly false.

Not only that, but this blame-America-first idea is rife in movies coming out of Hollywood decade after decade. (I'm not quite sure why this didn't sink about this movie in in my mind before) But I retain my point - which should be obvious, I would think - that the movie had a -good- ending in terms of the conflict between the fascists and the natives who defended their property righs in a way that an Objectivist ought to root for.

(As an aside, for me personally the thing that I liked least about this movie has nothing to do with politics or environmentalism. It is the "dumb teenager" level of the two young leads in green - Jake the avatar and the young woman: "Hey dude, what's happening" when he walks into a group of natives. "You're stupid, stupid." Dumb, callow high school kids. As someone who's seen real adult heroes on screen, especially in the classic old movies of old Hollywood, the "wassup" California surf dude as role model is simply nauseating. Especially in a future that has mastered travel to the stars.)

Post 101

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 8:29pm

AVATAR ANALYSIS: Not Just For Anal Objectivists Anymore...

The latest EW magazine has a cover story on Avatar, and an interview with James Cameron. A couple of interesting quotes that relate to my prog-revival review and the other discussions (and retorts against those who take the movie too seriously.) It's easy to scapegoat Objectivists as being too anal about this stuff, but what happens when it comes from Entertainment Weekly?

Q: "Where did Cameron get the idea for the floating mountains? Was that from a Yes album cover?"

JC: "It might have been,' the director says with a laugh. 'Back in my pot-smoking days."

[Might? Liar. See my side-by-side comparison.]

Review: "Sure, there have been grumblings from angry conservatives about the film's arguably anti-military, pro-environment message. ('It's not an Oliver Stone style bludgeon-you-over-the-head political film,' Cameron says, 'but it does have a political subtext. I am a tree-hugger.')"

Review: "There was that bad review from the Vatican: 'Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship.'

There's a sidebar where Cameron "answers his harshest critics-and his biggest fans":

Comment:
"This movie in all aspects was the best movie ever, the Holy Spirit spoke to me all the way through...I am convinced this was of God."

JC: "Well, that's nice. Forget about the divine or the mystical. I think it's really about being in touch with the unconscious. I can't tell you right now why I felt it was important to Jake to carry Grace in her human form. WHy is that inversion of the mother figure with the son-why is that important? I don't know. But the more you are in touch with that kind of unconscious dream state, the more you're in touch with the audience..."

Comment: [This one similar to the criticism of prog rock like Brain Salad Surgery]
"Cameron fashionable denounces the same economic and military systems that make his technological extravaganzas possible. It's like condemning NASA yet joyriding on the Mars Exploration Rover."

JC:"Yeah. Theres' an interesting irony that we use all this technology to create what people interpret as an antitechnology sentiment. But the reality is that we're a technological civilization, and we have to grapple with what that means."

Comment:
"Avatar is the prefect eco-terrorism recruiting tool."

JC: "Good, Good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in ecoterrorism."

[Storm warning: There was nothing omitted by me re the last comment, no (lauging), no "hehe's.") Still, I'm guessing it was meant ironically...(shudders.)]

Comment:
"Avatar made me want to hurl abusive insults at my cat and go outside and punch a tree."

JC: [Laughing] "I can't help that person. I don't make movies for that guy. And you know what? He probably wasn't on my Christmas list anyway. The movie does seem to sort people into those whose hearts are closed-whose views of the worlds are fucked up-and those whose aren't. But then that's me speaking, and I made the movie."

Post 102

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 8:36pm

Very refreshing, Phil.

Two brief comments.

I happen to love the work of such directors as Stanley Kubrick and Pedro Almodovar. Each has an incredible handle on style, for example. But this doesn't mean that I can't honestly identify their flaws, flaws such as malevolence, or have to rationalize away the flaws in their works in order to justify my opinions. Rand, for instance, identifies Anna Karenina as both a great work of art and as evil. Her comments in Ayn Rand Answers and The Art of Fiction are well worth exploring. Does anyone consider Avatar great art?

The second is to remark that of course Cameron has to portray his protagonists as the victims of real crimes. You wouldn't root for the savages against the Americans otherwise. The problem is the context and the theme. As I argued earlier, you can't separate acts from the entities that are their agents. You can't say your going to focus on the aggression and the self defense, but not identify who is supposedly the aggressor and who are supposedly the defenders. That contradiction is the director's, it was intentionally chosen, and you shouldn't be happy to find yourself trying to rectify it for him.

Post 103

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:30am

I came to a few conclusions last night, after getting home from the movies.

First, that James Cameron remains what I've long believed him to be: one of the goddamn best storytellers in the history of cinema.

Second, that this particular creation of his is a visual, technical, and anti-authoritarian masterpiece.

Third, that I'm tired, beyond being bone-weary, of encountering over thirty years of "Objectivist Correctness" about art � a variety that's just as bad as what is thrown at us from any other corner of our civilization.

Fourth, that I'm truly ashamed, in the court of my own conscience, for letting that "O.C." too often trump my own esthetic responses.

And finally, that I'm fed up, to the point of intellectual nausea, at seeing Objectivist venues being filled with Arguments from Intimidation that are used as a substitute for genuine discussion.

So, goodbye � at least for now � and good luck.

Post 104

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:46am

Goodbye, Uncle Tom.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 1/17, 11:52am)

Post 105

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 11:59am

I came to a few conclusions last night, after getting home from the movies.

Yes!

First, that James Cameron remains what I've long believed him to be: one of the goddamn best storytellers in the history of cinema.

Victory!

Second, that this particular creation of his is a visual, technical, and anti-authoritarian masterpiece.

Score another one for me!

Third, that I'm tired, beyond being bone-weary, of encountering over thirty years of "Objectivist Correctness" about art � a variety that's just as bad as what is thrown at us from any other corner of our civilization.

King of the Website!

Fourth, that I'm truly ashamed, in the court of my own conscience, for letting that "O.C." too often trump my own esthetic responses.

Who's Ur Daddy?

And finally, that I'm fed up, to the point of intellectual nausea, at seeing Objectivist venues being filled with Arguments from Intimidation that are used as a substitute for genuine discussion.

It's mah Birthday!

So, goodbye � at least for now � and good luck.

Who's Ur Daddy?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/17, 12:08pm)

Post 106

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 2:09pm

Thank you, Steve.

But I hope that you will be back.

I could cite, at this point, a whole host of misleading or totally false claims about works of art, such as a certain novel with which readers may be familiar.

While the intent and philosophy of the artist has some weight in the social context in which such a work appears, and one would wish that some of Cameron's stated political beliefs were not attached to the credibility of the movie itself, imagine for a moment that it wasn't James Cameron who produced "Avatar," but someone of a slightly different flavor, say Tibor Machan... I could think of others probably more artistically and cinematographicaly talented, but none comes quickly to mind who are coherent advocates of objectivism as such.

Assume that the movie itself is identical. My prediction in such a case would be that so-called Objectivists would be going through all kinds of contortions in order to justify Tibor's use of what appear to be U.S. marines - even though the movie makes it quite clear that they are former U.S. military, now taking orders from a corporation operating in a legal vacume where might makes right is the operating principle.

As an aside, note that there is nothing actually mystical in the scientific/philosophical assumptions of the movie. The planetary mind of Pandora is not some aetherial notion of other dimensional superstition, but a very concrete living entity composed of a physical planetary nervous system.

While some would be stretching the bounds of PC Objectivism to defend Tibor, others - the Purists - would be slamming him into a lunar orbit of traitorous, anti-man, anti-life non-personhood. How COULD YOU, Tibor???

The fact is that "Avatar" is a splendid work of art with some flaws in the messages that will be read into it. As Cameron stated and the movie portrays, technology and reason are not the enemy. The bad guys are criminals operating outside of moral constraints. The good guys win precisely because they use the technology against those who wished to use it for corrupt, evil ends. The movie is a celebration of the good, the true and the beautiful. The Director nor the actors nor set designers nor financiers can alter half a line, nor all your fears erase a word of it...

Better yet, instead of Tibor, imagine ME as the director. And thank you for the Awards.

Applause, Standing Ovation, Bowing, Catching flowers.... ;->

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 1/17, 2:13pm)

Post 107

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 2:32pm

"with some flaws in the messages that will be read into it"

Entertainment Weekly: ��Avatar� is the perfect eco-terrorism recruiting tool.�
JC: �Good, good. I like that one. I consider that a positive review. I believe in eco-terrorism.�

Post 108

Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 10:57pm

A quote upon your passing:

"So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie."

Post 109

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 2:48pm

Regarding the story, this interview quote from Cameron says it all in a nutshell (with my emphasis added in bold):

Q: What was the first thing that made you decide that this is the film you wanted to make?

Cameron: This thing has been generating in fragments, for a long time, ever since the mid-'70's, when I first started my hand at screenwriting. I was creating stories with spacecrafts and other worlds and some of these creatures actually are distant descendants through a long Darwinian process of the creatures that I was creating then. I wrote a script called Xeno Genesis in '76 or '77. It never got made, but it had a bio-luminescent force in it. I don't even remember the transition point from being a fan, a reader of science fiction and an artist drawing spacecraft and aliens to actually putting them into scenes.

When I sat down, honestly, as the CEO of Digital Domain in �95, to package a story that would push us ahead in 3-D character development, I took all these floating fragments. I did the same thing on Aliens. I had already written story fragments prior and, when I got the gig to write Alien II, I just grabbed all the stuff that I'd already been thinking about and slammed it together. It felt very mercenary, at the time. I was just throwing crap at it. What happens is that, over time, you rewrite it, you massage it and you improve the storyline. So, I don't know if there was a single spark.

As an engineer and cinema buff, I am grateful to Cameron for pushing the envelope to bring this revolutionary technology to market and appreciate the many hurdles he had to overcome to bring it to fruition. That said, my wife and I finally saw Avatar during the last matinee yesterday (and even that was expensive) in glorious 3D just for the visual experience about which I had read and heard so many raves. My four word review:

Effects: Stunning.
Story: Awful.

Hopefully, future filmmakers will be able to develop better stories to make much better use of this awesome new cinematic technology.

Reasons for disliking this movie's story have already been elucidated on this thread so I will not repeat them though I do want to add that I found it well beyond the bounds of even a "willing suspension of disbelief."

One last note: The visual projection of the characters and settings was 3D but their actual depth as characters and settings was 2D and the plot even shallower.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/25, 11:14am)

Post 110

Friday, February 12, 2010 - 2:50pm

Now, rather than force young people caught in transversive sex to blow themselves up, Hezbollah is encouraging them to flaunt their lifestyle.

Post 111

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 2:26pm

Funny, you don't look Navi.

I've been thinking about this movie, especially, what 'Unobtanium' was used for, and my three favorite possibilities are still:

1] Shipped back to earth and used as the only form of payment accepted by Native Americans for reparation payments...who used it to make stunning turquoise jewelry.

2] Shipped back to earth and used as the secret ingredient in a very effective anti-toe fungus treatment. People in 2154 on earth really, really hate toe fungus.

3] Shipped back to earth and used to manufacture floating "Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards (Non-Blue) Men Doves" religious icons for the Catholic Church.

Don't get excited. It's 2154. In 2154, twenty million $/kilo comes out to about .13c/kilo in today's money.

Post 112

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 5:46pm