This movie has the cult following of Star Wars in 1978. It looks like people are going to see it multiple times. It is visually fascinating. But I’m less concerned about the technology and more concerned about the plot and theme. It has all the earmarks of … a movie produced the the DNC. It has …
1. Scenes resembling Viet Nam footage. (As though we were in Nam for the purpose of conquest.)
2. The “bad guys” as primarily European, gung-ho types, bent on conquest and exploitation …
3. … with an American flag in the background.
4. The natives practicing a pantheism representative of native American religion.
5. No place for Christianity.
6. A naive “noble savage” view of life without profit and exploitation.
7. In the end, the Americans were forced to leave. Like Nam.
8. The people were “communal.” If they represent the opposite of imperialism, this becomes a push toward socialism/communalism (idealized communism) as the alternative to imperialism.
But to answer one of the thematic foundations of the film: Was there exploitation and evil done by imperialism? Yes. That’s history. But that is not us today. If James Cameron, the producer, thinks that European imperalists should leave and give the land back to the native Americans, I will let him be first. Let the rest of his production crew follow. At least then we will know that he has the courage of his convictions. His sentiment is otherwise empty.
January 19th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #1
Ironic, don’t you think, how Cameron’s success comes in the so-called capitalist cesspool of America, from which he has mined billions of dollars in profits, much of which pays for his mansion(s) and his fleet of naval vessels and helicopters. But such irony would most certainly be lost on him.
Worse yet, check out his most recent gaffe: “I believe in eco-terrorism,” says Cameron to Entertainment Weekly. (See this link: http://bit.ly/7HDKoR.)
Radicalism, communism, pantheism, misanthropism… Any other -isms worthy to throw in here?
January 19th, 2010 | 5:40 pm | #2
Collin – I haven’t seen the film yet, though I will hopefully this weekend. That being said, the dismissive, glib way you dismiss the film – after already doing so in a previous post – merely reinforces stereotypes about Christians that do great harm to the advancement of the Gospel. I haven’t seen a good Jared Wilson post here in awhile, but if he won’t say it, I will: If posts like this are part of a blog named after the Gospel… no wonder Christianity appears so unattractive to so many. (Check out Unchristian, and rather than responding defensively, have enough love and respect for the authors to doubt your own certainties and consider that maybe they might be right.)
January 21st, 2010 | 3:49 pm | #3
Oh, come on.
Every John Wayne Western I can recall showed nearly all the same plot points you mention here, though you have to substitute “desert” for “jungle.”
Drama is about conflict. One conflict is the clash of cultures. In Avatar, there are actually several layers of cultural conflict. As others have pointed out, the crippled ex-Marine, Jake, doesn’t simply “go native.” He becomes in his dual nature as human and alien something new, and brings that disruptive newness into both the human and native camps.
As one FirstThings blogger in “Evangel” pointed out shortly after the film was released, one of Cameron’s most striking themes is the completely irreligious nature of the corporate-military tribe. So it’s not a surprise that there’s “no place” for Christianity. If Cameron was as hostile to religion and Christianity as you imply, he’d have set up the usual Religious Right caricature.
Far from being anti-capitalist, Cameron seems (to me at any rate) to portray more of an anti-mercantilist bias, that unhealthy and indeed unholy symbiosis between government and very big business.
The “gung ho” types are clearly identified not as soldiers but as mercenaries. That contrast is shown in the female mercenary who decides to help Jake and dies fighting with him.
Personally, as generalized and vague as the natives’ religion is in its presentation, I found elements of it compelling as a Christian and Roman Catholic: the intimate connection of all Creation, the appeal of and longing for the restoration of Eden, and the greeting that’s so much more than a greeting: “I see you.”
January 21st, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #4
Colin,
I relucantly broke down and saw it last week, partly after I read the previous review here calling out the “longing for Eden” aspect of the film.
After seeing, that’s a perspective I definitely can see and personally appreciated, even if that wasn’t Cameron’s intent.
I can also see the perspective that it’s a bit of a typical liberal love letter to nature worship and screed against the military-industrial complex. I think that was Cameron’s intent, and to be honest, I think if he’d been less subtle about it, he would have been more successful. But subtlety isn’t always Hollywood’s strong suit…
But I found myself wondering why some Christians are having such a knee-jerk antagonism to Avatar (not at all arguing that you are, but I certainly know folks who are piously refusing to see it, just like folks did with Star Wars), yet so many thousands flocked to see the Lord of the Rings trilogy,
when both of them appear at first light to have a lot of exactly the same themes.
i’d love to read some of the fine mind’s here talk through the differences between two seemingly similar worldviews.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact