Stumbling out of the Imax theatre, $35 poorer and eyes feeling like candy had been poured into them for two-and-a-half hours, we spotted a colleague who had also been seeing large blue people. Whadya think we asked? Ahh they replied, liberal Hollywood stuff – you know, Dances with Wolves and all that. Ya, I said, but what a visual ride.
What a visual ride indeed. Not many have dared decry Avatar for its effects extravaganza, and I certainly immersed myself in James Cameron’s CGI world for the entire experience. But corny and tragically simplistic dialogue aside, there is something else about Avatar that was nagging at me, and the Dances with Wolves comment nailed it: it’s the white American hetero-male saves the helpless indigenous people all over again.
The fact that the alien peoples (Na’vi) can’t get their shit together until a white American military man in a blue person avatar rides in to save the day is the principle thing wrong with this uber-spectacle. One can walk away from the film conflicted: it’s a critique of military culture and a valorization of the environment and human connection to ecology, but wait, while their forests burn and missiles fly, the Na’vi gather round a tree to sing? No damnit! That’s not how AMERICANS do it! And then the speeches about “our land” and our struggle and all that, led by of course the white American guy whose macho might and military mind save the day for these tree-loving aboriginals.
So there it is, that’s why Avatar is the new, more expensive, 3-D version of Dances with Wolves. Sure I wasn’t bored and for sure I was dazzled – the aesthetic and technical achievements were well worth the millions they spent on it and the talent that poured into the project. But couldn’t a new world have included a new Hollywood narrative? Not all the money in the world can apparently produce that.
I was thinking along these lines when I suddenly stumbled on Hamish Ford’s excellent article in Australia’s National Times, just published today (well, tomorrow if you’re in the Western hemisphere). Ford nails it. No one likes a killjoy, but the film’s made over a billion already – there’s room for criticism in the sea of adoring film critics. And Ford brings it:
Avatar’s rendering of the Na’vi is not only textbook Romanticism, these very handsome “noble savages” go beyond even Rousseau’s fantasies, but its truly patronising account of indigenous culture is crucially revealed when we witness its lack of intellectual and creative agency at the moment of truth: in the face of imperial human power. Towing the familiar liberal line, for the “other” to be “good” they must need one of us to save them. When it comes to facing the destruction of their idyllic habitat by the marauding invaders, the Na’vi have no answer. For that they need US soldier Jake Sully (Sam Worthington).
Yep, Dances with Avatar – nice on the eyes but damn lacklustre on the culture and politics.
Subscribe to Art Threat via RSS
Become a fan on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Don't forget 'Fern Gully'
Or Thunderheart with Val Kilmer I suppose…
Are you kidding me? Did you do your research in the comments section of every other blog on the planet? I doubt the combined tally of the thousands of artists over the course of the last 1500+ years of Art History received 1/1000 of a percent worth of criticism for rehashing the Bible ad infinitum. The film is by no means perfect, but this is beyond ridiculous already.
Hi Peter,
Of course I'm aware of comments on other blogs – I think exploring the rescue narrative as it's told and retold in Hollywood is pretty damn fascinating and worth every ounce of "research" anyone interested in politics, art and culture can muster. I think I'll see Avatar a second time come to think of it…
There is something far more interesting happening here as well – the American savior "inhabits" the actual skin of the Na'vi…which is something far deeper and more nuanced than Costner painting his face. I am wondering if you are selling Cameron's critique short in some fashion or another. It seems to be a play on the role of technology – stealth to the max you might say – and imperialism. He has a history (Terminator) of playing with the idea of embedded technology in the human experience. Like you said though overall a good film, even if it falls somewhat short in fully exploring the numerous critiques you outline above.
Hey Avatar Fan,
I think this is by far Cameron's best work to date, and it's even a little surprising he abandoned his usual tendency to lead with a female (Terminator, Alien) in the sci-fi realm. And after Titanic, well, I was expecting the writing to be MUCH worse than it was. The technology and stealth aspect you bring up is super interesting as well…the fighter pilot painting her face for the big battle was perhaps a nod back to the less complicated ways of "becoming the other" (a la Dances with Wolves), in juxtaposition to our 21st century (2154 to be precise) protagonist's super-teched up approach. There's so much to be said about this film, I only wonder who will come out with the first book….
I am sure the marketing agency (ies) will have books aplenty lined up to support the movie, if you mean a more critical approach, well time will tell. I think what Peter is referring to is the seemingly knee-jerk reaction to rant about American imperialism without delving into how the film portrays this. Keeping with your and Harnish's interpretation of rescuer – "America" in effect, becomes one of the "other" .
Through technological supremacy, the invaders inhabit the very skin of the other in their attempt to win hearts and minds, which seems to have some resemblance to current US foreign policy goals (deficiencies perhaps is a better word). However, in the end the imperialists (at least until Avatar 2) fail, and I think t that is where the analysis should be taken up, perhaps by the future author of the book you mention. Personal Humble Opinion and all, but I think the film is slightly more complicated, even given the rather uninspiring dialogue.
And still another perspective, speaking of marketing:
"During the month and into January, product packaging in the U.S. for Big Macs will feature an AR “Thrill Card” on the side of each box, delivering an up-close experience with the rich environments of Pandora, and revealing insights into the characters, fauna and flora from the movie. Displayed before a webcam, the perforated “Thrill Card” becomes a portal into three unique, immersive Pandora environments – the Pandoran Rainforest, the Hallelujah Mountains and the Tree of Souls"
- http://thomaskcarpenter.com/2009/12/17/total-imme...
Hmmm, I seem to remember something about McDonald's and the rainforest that pre-dates Avatar.
A take on racial fantasy and white guilt in Avatar and other films:
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-sto...
Ezra, you're only the 5,000th person to write this, except they all did it two weeks ago. And DWW was derivative of a dozen other films, which were all derivative of a dozen others.
Joe: Yes, I noticed that once I started following the trails. Better late than never I suppose. But I'd say more like the 50th or 500th – there's not THAT many people out there pooping on AVATAR.
I still can't fathom why the Na'vi + the human 'traitors' would just let the military go back home; that's just a recipe for a sequel.They should have totally taken away all their technology and let them to try and survive on their own in the wilderness.
I agree with what you wrote Ezra. But what about post-colonialism? It is one thing that the film fails to adress. It remains an Hollywoood film. Anti-imperialism, pro-natives, counscious of the environment, etc, has become a new trend I’m afraid. But what really this movie is about is a white male american hero that assimilates with the indigenious population and not only saves them, but decides for them. Post-colonialism.
Hi Ez. Thank you for writing this.
I saw the film in Columbia before Christmas, and infused by the South American experience as I am these days, I couldn't help but feel this was actually a film about American Foreign Policy. The noble savage point is of course relevant; but from what I have seen in all these countries, the simplistic depiction is nonetheless tragically accurate. My point is that the natives, unable to conceive of white man's greed, succumb to his tyranny, not out of pathetic weakness but out of sheer disbelief. I saw it in Vanuatu a few years ago, and again in Bolivia, and here in the Kuna communities of Panama: in a world without money, one cannot possibly fathom let alone contend with the impulses of brute force and insatiable want. It is a value system against another, and like a virus, the conquistadores almost always succeed.
Except, actually, when the natives are lead in rebellion – by a white military man. It’s true: in Latin America, it was the European-blooded generals who became libertadores: Simon Bolívar and the General San Martín. Even today, Morales, Chavez and Castro, although native (or partially), have a solid (and apparently indispensable) background in the military. Disappointing, it’s true. But noteworthy.
+++These were my little thoughts after seeing Avatar: http://www.justsostories.org/blog.html
Hey Samara,
“Accurate” is hardly true if Avatar is emblematic of indigenous struggles against colonial and imperial powers, won and lost. Bolivar, born in Caracs, San Martin born in Argentina, Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican mestizo…and still more leaders who stood up to invading values systems and who did not open their arms to the two options offered by the conquistadors: the sword or the cross.
And of course I’m aware that military minds are important when fighting military battles…it’s not where my criticism lies.
This is one of the most simplistic, shallow reviews ever, and I'm disappointed to see it on ArtThreat of all places.
Furthermore, all Hollywood ever is results in rehashing the same myths and stories within our psyche, and the audiences respond to that. That's why James Cameron didn't take a Masai or Yanomami
Absolutely it was a mixture of Dances With Wolves, and Fern Gully, but it's bigger than those movies as well. This isn't a matter of noble savage, although that is an image deep seated in our culture. In the vast majority of cases, we're well beyond having globalized and all but eliminated indigenous cultures, and the core of the movie addresses that. It's a lament for wisdom and balance that have been lost, and the costs that that will have on generations to come.
What this movie is about, is our failures in the western world, and how absolutely crucial it will be to save these last bits of knowledge, and correct our ways of life before it's too late. For me, with this happening shortly after COP15, is telling. I see this much more as lamenting the lost wisdoms and knowledge of balance.
What of the crippled marine in the arms of the powerful independent warrior woman? That gender role reversal wasn't worth mentioning in your review? What about the criticism of America's military and foreign policy and the blindness, as well as the greed of capitalist exploitation of people and resources? This movie is saying "We're doing it ALL wrong," and it used the Hollywood marketing machine to do it, and I'm okay with that.
Yes, it's predictable storytelling, because that gets the attention of the people, as do the special effects, but the message is so much bigger, and it's a movie that finally points the finger at the VIEWER, and I'm sorry that you missed it.
Hi Kevan,
You write rather pessimistically that "In the vast majority of cases, we're well beyond having globalized and all but eliminated indigenous cultures…". Not true, not true. Indigenous cultures are struggling around the world for survival against the destructive capacity of global economic efficiency. It may be a lament, but it is also news, and reports of the demise of indigenous cultures, as the saying goes, are greatly exaggerated. An urge to save the "last bits of wisdom" stems from the relevance of perhaps two things: the first, the existence of and need for a savior; the second, culture without life. The "jesus" narrative has been well hashed above. A culture without life is the suggestion of bits of wisdom privileged over the human lives they express – an "avatar" culture, say, where meaning persists beyond the narratives of those whose lives it describes. Save the culture not the bodies, or something similar. In any event, it seems unlikely that "their" wisdom would arrive intact in "our" culture. One might even provocatively suggest that "their" wisdom is already here in bits and pieces, and rather than integrating human experience into a complicated web of life and balance and respect, it now serves something different altogether, maybe something to do with efficiencies of pleasure.
Hi Kevan,
It’s the first time I’ve been accused of being shallow, which is exciting, but misguided: I put thought and reflection into my reactions and criticisms of popular culture and Avatar is no exception to this process. My only regret is that I didn’t have more time to gather up the countless other critiques that are already out there discussing similar issues as to what I was highlighting by bringing up the rescue narrative and Hamish Ford’s article.
If you want to read appraisals of Avatar that glow with contentment for supposed gender-bending and the Hollywood eco-message (complete with rainforest-destroying co-sponsors like McDonald’s) than I suggest you go to a more mainstream blog.
I think Avatar is a fantastic film – a truly amazing feat of storytelling and visual wizardry. Is there room for criticism? Certainly. Is much of this criticism rightly focused in on race, representation and colonialism? Certainly. Is it shallow? I would venture the initial critical engagement and subsequent discussion is anything but shallow. However, a reluctance or inability to critically engage with that which you value, appreciate, love, etc – that might not be shallow, but it’s certainly boring.
Ummm … anyone else feel a little queasy watching the film?
Above and beyond the political arrogance (and perhaps empire building) of making a US Marine the only entity capable of effective action, of making the pseudo-indigenous folks dependent on that daring-do, of rendering indigenous culture in noble, cartoonish and strangely uniformly lithe and desirable stereotypes … Above and beyond the disappointingly predictable and cliche storyline (long before Dances With Wolves was Tarzan of the Apes, the original colonizer turned noble savage environmentalist), its typically sexist heroics and insipid heteronormative romance … there is the question of the aesthetics of human suffering.
There really are indigenous people being murdered for oil, copper, selenium, gold – a variety of unobtainiums – in Africa, South America, Asia, arguably in Australia and North America. Did anyone else feel uncomfortable deriving so much pleasure from watching Cameron's rendering of this in 3D?
The pleasure of human suffering goes hand-in-hand with the aestheticization of politics, what someone once described as a logical outcome of facism. I don't mean to brand Avatar with fascist tendencies … just couldn't finish my popcorn …
Avatar Plot Fail: http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
(I know, I know Joe: everyone already knows about this, of course they do – it's on the internet…)
It's just a movie
Mark: Ahem, JUST a movie? Are you for real sir? I'd suggest the biggest cinematic event in recent years and one of the biggest in the history of cinema, drawing billions of dollars, millions of viewers, hundreds of translations, thousands and thousands of discussions…I'd hardly call that JUST a movie.
Media is NEVER just its product – it is always much more – as the engagement on this site with this cultural artefact has proven.
Yes it draws parallels to things happening in the world. Which is what a lot of art does. The message was morally sound in my opinion and all these race issues people are having with the film are completely ridiculous. Greed and ignorance = Bad (not hard to understand)
So instead of creating MORE divisions between people by writing intellectually wankering diatribes, sit back and enjoy the film for what it is.
I challenge any one on the internet to write an ORIGINAL story. There are only a few types of stories and they have all been told a million times over. It's all about how one chooses to tell it.
Acknowledging all the comments about Avatar's rehashing of Hollywood colonial narratives, etc. I'd like to point out one thing about the plot that I think complicates the film's position in that discourse (if only momentarily, but it's a moment that is quite significant, in my opinion) and that is the fact that in the ultimate battle, it is in fact the planet itself (Nature, the "system," whatever we want to call it) that wins, and rectifies the balance of power. It was neither the human's technology, nor Jake Sully 'gone native' with his band of noble savages. The film gives nature itself agency in the conflict, and in doing so subverts the traditional Hollywood treatment of the colonizer/colonized conflict. The film can be read in so many ways, and should be given due credit for the complexity that it achieves (for a 3D blockbuster, no less…)
Keep the dialogue going!
You are all being way too respectful of a terrible, terrible movie. Yes, it's painful hippie smurf trash, and painfully racist in the patronizing way only liberals can be, but more than that it just utterly fails as a film.
In the first act that sets up the rest of the film, the screenplay takes (at least) four mortal wounds:
Remember Jake's brother? The film opens with our hero's brother having been gruesomely murdered. This is never mentioned or developed in any way.
Remember Norm? This throwaway character was the brother's best friend. He becomes jealous of Jake's ability, then is promptly forgotten after the first mission. It's like if Cypher's character was written out of the Matrix right after the steak scene.
The whole point of the Avatars is to not scare the Na'Vi, and let them see that humans are okay. What's less scary than showing them that Americans can grow them in vats and control them with their minds from miles away? If aliens tried that on us it would be the most horrific thing ever.
Jake is lost in the forest on the first mission. The team leaves him because apparently they have no idea where they are beaming the signal, and can't just wake him up and ask where he is.
That pretty much sums up the Act 1 failures. All these are essential plot setups, and show how utilitarian and stupid it all is.
Why have a brother and kill him off immediately? Only to give Jake an avatar, at which point the brother need never be mentioned again.
Why have avatars at all? Never adequately explained other than to have a movie.
Why have Norm? To demonstrate that Jake is especially determined or skilled or lucky. He is immediately forgotten after this utility is performed.
How could Jake possibly get lost? Because the plot needed that to be possible.
This movie utterly, utterly fails as any sort of coherent narrative.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/27/avatar_director_james_cameron_follows_box
Hey Samara,
“Accurate” is hardly true if Avatar is emblematic of indigenous struggles against colonial and imperial powers, won and lost. Bolivar, born in Caracs, San Martin born in Argentina, Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican mestizo…and still more leaders who stood up to invading values systems and who did not open their arms to the two options offered by the conquistadors: the sword or the cross.
And of course I’m aware that military minds are important when fighting military battles…it’s not where my criticism lies.