Avatar an Aggravation to Left and Right Alike
January 14, 2010 • By Eric La Freniere, Contributing Writer
Print This Post
Email This Post
Political Commentators Miss Critical Messages of Lasting Impact
James Cameron’s “Avatar” opened over the holidays (spoilers follow). At first glance, the immensely popular film might appear to be just another swaggering Hollywood action blockbuster, albeit one whose cutting-edge 3-D technology truly evokes a sense of wonder (“You are not in Kansas anymore”). But interestingly enough, it’s been blasted by commentators at both ends of the political spectrum.
Those on the left — who crave complexity — brand “Avatar” a childish redemption fantasy undermining necessary guilt generated by American imperialism, while those on the right — who crave conformity — denounce it as pernicious anti-American propaganda undermining necessary faith in a transcendent God. Not surprisingly, both sides may have their points, and both may have missed the real point of the movie.
Yes, “Avatar” may offend if it can’t (within two and a half hours) present in sufficient detail an alien race obviously intended to stand in for real-world indigenous peoples threatened by colonial powers. The Na’vi may be a bundle of primitivist stereotypes (as opposed to a racist caricature), just as the movie’s naive protagonist may be a bundle of heroic stereotypes — and the way he quickly jumps the ladder to the top rungs of Na’vi society may both enable the romantic idea of American superiority and undermine the legitimacy of native cultures.
Yes, many of the corporate “hired gun” characters may have originally served in some national military not overly focused on helping its veterans. The American-looking mercenaries (think Blackwater) — whose ultimate job is to forcefully separate the natives from their valuable natural resources – may suffer improbable defeat at the hands of “savages” without advanced weaponry (think Little Big Horn). And Pandora/Eywa may be Gaia by another name, which means the Na’vi — the ultimate tree-huggers — worship an imminent nature goddess.
Still, “Avatar” remains a vital work of art because it is mythic in the presentation of its hypercritical message: We’re ravaging our Earth for the love of money. “There is no green” on “their dying world,” we’re told, because “they’ve killed their Mother.” Myths resurface in times of cultural need. Right now, we’re living in a society that utterly objectifies and commodifies much of nature (for example, the cutely named “unobtainium” is equal to oil and the lands containing deposits thereof). Since humanity is part of nature’s interdependent web, we’re objectifying other people, too — and even ourselves. The greatest evil stalking our world is a cancerous failure of relation (a lack of “I see you”), usually born of stupid greed.
Spiritually, traditional monotheism may be seen as a failure to relate to what theologian Paul Tillich called the “Ground of Being,” which is forever fertile (feminine) and eternal (we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that “all energy is only borrowed”). If humanity isn’t actually the centerpiece of any creation, then we need a more plausible, less exploitive metaphor for the sacred than what amounts to the ego writ large. Backed up by green cyberpunk (and neatly inverting the alien invasion cliché), Cameron turns to pantheism.
Pantheism is the idea that “God” is the entire cosmos, that is, all of nature. So-called “primitive” cultures were typically pantheistic, and scientists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have expressed pantheistic sentiments, so it’s a perspective with both ancient appeal and contemporary caché. Pantheism explains why the gorgeous biosphere of Pandora figures so prominently in Cameron’s film; the living Eywa is his most lovingly (even worshipfully) depicted character.
If “Avatar” has any lasting significance, it will be in terms of its impact on the minds of the viewing public. The left doesn’t need to be convinced that nature needs defending, and the right apparently can’t be convinced. But the vast majority of folks — those somewhere in the middle — want to be convinced. Perhaps Cameron, like some shamanic healer of old, might really make a difference with his high-tech myth-making.
Eric La Freniere is a senior individualized studies major.
Contact Eric La Freniere at atomicdsyn@aol.com
Comments
11 Responses to “Avatar an Aggravation to Left and Right Alike”
Got something to say?
-
-
Check Out the Latest Updates
-
Parking Space Changes
Click on picture -
Are You Smarter than the Duke Dog Game
Click on picture
Best of the 'Burg Supplement
September 2th, 2010 Issue in Print
Leave it to a college newspaper to turn a movie like Avatar into a political stereotyping exercise containing ridiculous and gross over-generalization like people on the left “crave complexity” and people on the right “crave uniformity” and “can’t be convinced” that nature needs defending.
The more the press reinforces these stereotypes the more they exist, which in the end is counter productive to producing the kind of society we all (left and right) desire to live in. Here’s a suggestion to all the writers out there with a conscience; the ones not out there to manipulate minds - stop doing it.
They need to worry about other things than a movie.
Let the people at http://www.Naviblue.com worry about it.
Joe, your choice of words is confusing:
“The more the press reinforces these stereotypes the more they exist, which in the end is counter productive to producing the kind of society we all (left and right) desire to live in.”
Please copy and paste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism#Right_and_left
then scroll down to “right and left”
Given that you dismiss as mere “stereotypes” generally recognized characteristics of both the left (complexity / nuance) and the right (conformity / authority), and that you offer no counter-characterizations, those terms seem to have no meaning for you — so you should probably refrain from using them.
As for your “suggestion to all the writers out there with a conscience; the ones not out there to manipulate minds - stop doing it” — since even honest rhetoric is a fundamentally manipulative exercise (using facts and logic to convince others), you’d leave us with no means of civil discourse.
Joe, perhaps you should just give us your take on the movie and its meaning. That would be more productive, yes?
In regards to pantheism…
“What begins with a subtle departure from the truth by the allurement of self-deification ultimately results in the deification of everyone and everything. Such a world would be destroyed by powers of conflict because every power would claim autonomy….And into the mix of polytheism and pantheism, other divinities are added–rivers, wind, and fire. The world of god-making has begun.” –Ravi Zacharias
Thank goodness pantheism is not true. It may seem postmodernly pleasing on the surface, but can you imagine a world where every creature, living or inanimate, had equal claim to divinity? Good gosh, and we think we have clashes of will right now…
‘Thank goodness pantheism is not true’?
Well, apparently not in your world view. Recognizing the sacredness–or inherent worth, or merely the right to exist peacefully–of the living world we all share would take away your God-given right to exploit and desecrate other parts of nature. How very inconvenient !
Pantheism isn’t ’self-deification’ by any stretch. That is actually the long habit of Abrahamic religions, which seek to elevate man above all but his feudal overlord deity (”made in God’s image”). Egotistical claims of autonomy are the result of separateness from nature based on monotheistic modeling.
Zacharias and others of his mindset willfully oversimplify the pantheistic ideal as making gods of rivers (crude animism). They fail to understand that real pantheism is an an ethic which recognizes humankind as being interdependent with the web of life. Panthiests do not wish to dominate nature or make us superiors of the natural world. The opposite of self-deification, pantheism is actually a far more humble, humane and realistic perspective.
Eric, my take on the movie? My take was that it was excellent. I took it for what it was…a MOVIE! It had stunning special effects, good (enough) acting and a great plot line, a tandem that is rare these days. It will win best picture, in addition, to many other Oscars.
Now, with that being said, what I did not talk about when I left the theater is how to turn it into an exercise for political division; I did not look for an angle to highlight the things that divide us. Our media and politicians do a good enough job at doing that, I do not think I need to aid in that fruitless mission. I did not look for a way to pull plot lines out and stereotype them into right and left based on what wikipedia tells me the left is like or the right is like.
In addition, the terms you mention in your retort do hold plenty of meaning for me. Enough meaning that I know they all cross party lines, so to use them to categorize people and parties is a waste of time. Anyone who doesn’t think that is either naive or ignorant.
As far as the movie’s meaning? I think its message was pretty simple actually. I mean, if I really wanted to waste my time I could come up with the grandiose and pompous way of saying it, but I will check my ego at the door and cut to the chase. I prefer to not waste others time reading something that was designed more to impress them and convince them how intelligent I am, and less to efficiently convey meaning.
The meaning - Their is a hidden cost to everything in life. Mankind can not simply continue to take with no regard to those we take from. The bill will eventually come due, and when it does it will be in the form of significant death and destruction followed by birth and renewal. And the cycle, or “balance” of life as mentioned in the movie, will continue. Period.
I prefer the more philosophical interpretation. It presents a much deeper meaning than the shallow pool of politics this article swims in.
joe said: “I prefer the more philosophical interpretation. It presents a much deeper meaning than the shallow pool of politics this article swims in.”
of course, *politics is a branch of philosophy* (any political stance assumes a philosophical perspective / any philosophical perspective implies a political stance).
i’m gratified, joe, that you seem to be saying essentially the same thing about “avatar,” although in a much simpler / less “gradiose / impressive” way than i.
i’d continue this discussion with you, but since you can’t be bothered to follow a wiki-link to the scientific research (left / right cognitive differences), and are apparently intimidated by my langauge, i’ll leave off.
“Panthiests do not wish to dominate nature or make us superiors of the natural world. The opposite of self-deification, pantheism is actually a far more humble, humane and realistic perspective.”
Okay, cool. Move out of your house made of wood. Stop driving your car made of steel and rubber tires. Don’t eat anything. Ever.
Unless, of course, you want to let the trees chop you and make a house out of you, you want to become food for a plant, let them ride you around town….you know, be “equal.”
You seem to have an extremely twisted view of pantheism and monotheism. “Abrahamic” religions do not elevate themselves to unusually high standards; being made in God’s image explains the fact that a) all humans have inherent worth and b) their God-given worth is what allows them to be stewards of the world around them, which was also created by an all-powerful, perfect God. Are all humans good stewards of God’s wonderful creation? Heck no. Because we’re all sinful. Thus, we need God’s forgiveness and redemption, not the redemption of a cactus or a willow tree.
I challenge you to read Zacharias’ writings. I’m guessing you never have, and you probably never will, but if we’re all “divine” in our own ways then his values are just as truthful as yours. Let’s see you live out your beliefs.
This movie was a complete ripoff. It was Dances With Wolves in the future. The Navi girl first saves him, introduces him to the rest, they teach him their ways, he begins to side with them, he is welcomed into their culture, he sides with them as they defend themselves. Did anyone else not see the similarities. The Navi things even did the indian cry and prayed over the dead animals. Sure the special effects were amazing but that doesnt mean that the story itself was crap. They couldnt even come up with an original name for the *coal* unobtainium. Also when is Hollywood going to stop bashing Marines or the military in general…if it wasnt for them these people wouldnt be able to put this crap out.
Eric, believe me…I am far intimidated by a JMU independent studies? major who opines about Dungeons and Dragons for a grade and contributes nothing but political blather to the Breeze.
With that I’ll bid adieu to this article…it has wasted enough of my time arleady.
“Move out of your house made of wood. Stop driving your car made of steel and rubber tires. Don’t eat anything. Ever.”
Um . . . weird. Being Earth-friendly or a “pantheist” doesn’t mean these things at all. And no one argued them, either! (strawman fallacy)
I ride a bike when i can, avoid meat, and plan to build a energy-efficient / green home with an extensive garden instead of a lawn.
In the movie, the native folk hunted and ate animals, but did that out of necessity and with respect. We typically eat meat cluelessly (Bic Macs and such), even though other protein sources are available to us.
I’ve read some Zacharias; he’s a step up from Pat Robertson, but really just another long-winded apologist for the Xtian bloodcult.
If you want real “redemption,” find it by working to live in harmony with Mother Earth.
As for your “all-powerful, perfect,” personal, Father-God: nice job in Haiti.