I almost did not go to see it. Most of the conservative blogs/websites I follow criticized harshly the movie “Avatar” directed by James Cameron. In a nutshell – that it is a silly and predictable leftist anti-American anti-capitalist rehash of “Dances with Wolves”. But some people I know and respect saw it and loved it. Perhaps I should see it and make up my own mind. But what if I hate it? Will James Cameron give me my money back?
Even the harshest critics acknowledge how impressive the film in terms of visuals and effects. In 3D we are as immersed in Pandora as is the protagonist Jake Sully when he lives among the Na’vi. Normally one sees people get up during a movie to visit the restroom or buy a snack or check the time on their cell phones. During “Avatar” hardly anyone moved. Even to stretch or shift in their seats. About two-thirds through the film I noticed my neck was sore from being held in one position for nearly two hours.
So on one level we can appreciate “Avatar” as a powerful visual and cinematic experience. We can also appreciate the creativity and innovation Cameron demonstrated not only in creating this film but in developing new technologies and techniques that such a film requires.
It is precisely this point – “Avatar” as immersive experience – that represents an important counterpoint to the list of conservative(?) criticisms against the film. Conservative critics of “Avatar” focus on what they discern to be its underlying (social-cultural-political) message. (And I will return to this.) That is they criticize the film as ideology. But what about “Avatar” as science-fiction?
My friend and colleague Joshua Villines has penned an original and thoughtful review of “Avatar”. He writes:
In Avatar, James Cameron has chosen to tell a story by creating a fully-immersive, coherent world. For fans of science fiction, that alone is a huge gift. [emphasis added]
In science-fiction not everything has to add up scientifically. (Most of the time. “Hard” science-fiction which focuses heavily on science would be an exception.) Cameron creates a world and immerses us in it through the visuals cinematography and effects.
Quibble all you like about gravity inconsistencies and weak dialogue, James Cameron has crafted perhaps the most internally-consistent, immersive, extra-terrestrial world ever brought to life on the large screen. In so doing, he has made the atrocities of ethnocentric consumerism real in a way that a cleverly contrived plot alone would not have. For threats of mass destruction or genocide to be real to us, they must threaten our home. This is why the apocalyptic scenes of Terminator are so much more terrifying than the destruction of Alderaan in A New Hope.
Read the whole thing here.
So what about those conservative criticisms?
In a nutshell – they are partly correct. Sorry. In fact they might be more correct than people realize.
This week an article by Patrick Goldstein on the Los Angeles Times website asks “Why do conservatives hate the most popular movie in years?” The article – by someone who is not conservative – understands the situation well.
For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that have precious little resonance with Middle America. They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political advocacy films as “Syriana,” ”Milk,” “W.,” “Religulous,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition” and “Good Night, and Good Luck,” saying that the movies’ poor performance at the box office was a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives.
The dirty little not-so-secret is that Hollywood is not just interested in making money. Because generally the “high-profile liberal political advocacy films” tank at the box office. And generally the conservative(?) themed films – at least those films that do not ridicule the lifestyles and values of “middle America” – do much better. So why does Hollywood continue to churn out films with a (left/liberal) message that lose money? Probably because they care about the message.
The article understands the situation well – but to a point.
Of course, “Avatar” totally turns this theory on its head.
Um… no. Not only because it is silly to think a single exception turns a general rule on its head. Especially when the article goes on to explain precisely if accidentally how “Avatar” may be an exception that proves the rule.
“It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary spectacle,” says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new conservative film “Kalifornistan.” “Jim Cameron didn’t come out nowhere. He came on the heels of all the left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with their point of view would have the resources to finally make a breakthrough political film. But even though ‘Avatar’ has an incredibly disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture people’s attention. The politics are going right over people’s heads. Its audience isn’t reading the New York Times or the National Review.”
Ding. “The politics are going right over people’s heads”. Audiences are captivated by the spectacle and miss the underlying message.
Or do they?
Some of the comments left in response to Goldstein’s piece are instructive:
It is not so much that the people embrace the ideology of the film, which most certainly leans left, but that the message of anti-America, anti big business, and embrace mother earth themes are not really portrayed in the trailers. It’s not until you are sitting in your seat in the theater that this themes are revealed by then it is too late – the money has been spent.Try getting a refund from the theater because it doesn’t agree with your politics. Even my 76 yr old mom, a life long Democrat, came out and the first thing she said was “Why was that movie so Anti- American?” [emphasis added]
Or this comment which directs our attention toward one of the inner contradictions of the film:
Why is everyone who isn’t in love with this movie automatically “a conservative”? I’m a Democrat and I find it a total sop to American fantasies about how much the world requires our presence. The spectacle of the Na’vi needing an outsider to become their spiritual leader is nothing new or groundbreaking. This movie panders to American culture’s greatest wet dreams about itself.
Ah. Okay. So we have (1) these highly industrialized and technological humans who would despoil a beautiful planet and to make a profit also (2) murder the peaceful non-industrialized non-technological natives who must be led and saved by – pay attention now – (3) a human being who is only able to join them because of some highly advanced technology.
Please note that Goldstein at no point denies what conservative critics of “Avatar” claim is the underlying message of the film. Quite the contrary. Note also a recent ABC News piece on “The Politics of ‘Avatar’”:
For his part, Cameron has been unabashedly open about his political intentions.
The movie is about how greed and imperialism tend to destroy the environment, in this case the “pristine” environs of Pandora, Cameron said in an interview with NBC’s Today show. “It’s a way of looking back at ourselves from this other world, seeing what we’re doing here.”
We have a film that appears to criticize imperialist America and its capitalist economy driven by the military-industrial complex…
That cost $300 million to make… $150 million to market it… that required new technologies… that could only have been funded and made in (more capitalist than not) America… a nation that is largely free and safe thanks to the United States military.
There is a word in the English language for that.
9/11 and America-as-terrorist
***WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD***
I am surprised that even conservative critics did not draw attention to the (in my opinion very obvious) parallels between the destruction of the Hometree and the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. [Correction - Apparently they do and they did. I should have read those reviews more carefully.]
Visually the destruction of the Hometree is eerily similar if not identical to footage from those attacks. The tree is attacked from the air not the ground. The billowing smoke rising above the city – I mean forest. The fires out of control. How the tree burns for a while before its horrifying collapse. How the Na’vi run away from the tree as it burns and as it begins to collapse. How when the tree falls it kills/crushes even more Na’vi than died in the initial attack. The angle of the tree after it has fallen – almost identical to photographs taken after the collapse of the towers. The ashes that fill the air and cover everything and everyone.
And if that is not obvious enough we have human soldiers talking about “fighting terror with terror… shock-and-awe” during the attack on Hometree.
So if Cameron invites us to see parallels between the attack on Hometree and (say) the invasion of Iraq and the terrorist attacks of 9/11…
And if – now this is less clear – the humans represent America whose capitalist economy is propped up by the military…
Then it would appear Cameron is – through that one scene – saying America is morally equivalent to the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center.
I could be wrong. Cameron may not have this in mind. But I am struggling to come up with an alternative interpretation.
Spirituality and the interior/exterior life
Another aspect of “Avatar” that I have not seen discussed much is the issue of the interior versus exterior life.
At one point Jake Sully – when he is not living among the Na’vi by means of his avatar body – wonders if he is awake or dreaming. Which is real and which is the dream? His existence as a human being – or his “virtual” existence as a Na’vi?
The distinction between interior versus exterior life is sometimes discussed in Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christian bishops have expressed their concern about video games and massively-multiplayer-online role playing games (MMORPGs).* [RW - I distinctly remember reading this but am unable to find the reference.] Not because participating in them is “evil”. But because they represent a distraction (a word that carries a precise theological meaning in Orthodox spirituality) from the true exterior life we have in relationship with God and with other human beings. (See Meletios Webber, Bread and Water, Wine and Oil, chapter 2. Also the brilliant presentation by Prof Alfred Siewers, “Christianity and Ecology” available online at Ancient Faith Radio.)
Video and online games are a kind of “false” life.
I confess that I do enjoy video and online games. They are one of my main ways to relax(?) during my free time. But sometimes during the rest of the day I am not thinking so much about God or my family or church or my work with internationals – I am wondering what to work on the next time I am playing on the computer. My interior virtual life sometimes occupies my thoughts and attention more than my true exterior life.
And yes it is precisely through his virtual interior life that Jake Sully is able to appreciate the true exterior life of Pandora and the Na’vi. I would not call this a contradiction but an “inner tension” in the film. (And perhaps in defense of Cameron we might say using capitalism/technology to make a film critical of capitalism/technology is not so much a contradiction but a necessary “inner tension”.)
Where conservatives might… uh… “plug in” to “Avatar”
This might be one point at which conservative critics can and should interpret “Avatar” more generously. Are the humans really representative only of “imperialist capitalist militaristic technological and industrial America”?
Is it possible the film is also about humans who have become overwhelmed by their own technology?
Cell phones. Laptops. iPods and iTouches(sp?). Blogs. RSS feeds.
Perhaps the film does oversimplify and overglorify the virtues of the happy indigenes in touch and in harmony with Nature (with a capital N). But does it not also ask, How much has technology become our master rather than our servant? How much does technology destroy rather than foster the true exterior life – relationship with God with others and with creation?
Not the most eloquent or well-formed review. Perhaps rambling half-raw thinking in spots. But in summary:
- I think conservative criticisms of “Avatar” are more correct than not
- The film does appear to convey an anti-American anti-military anti-capitalist message
- Which may represent a (hypocritical?) contradiction on the part of James Cameron
- But it also possesses qualities we should appreciate or at least interpret more generously
- Such as “Avatar” as science-fiction
- How the film wrestles with the tensions between interior and exterior life
- Legitimate questions the film may be asking about the role technology has come to play in modern life
