James Cameron's new movie Avatar has stirred up a lot of popular buzz. So is Avatar really the movie that will "change the way films are made?"
I haven't personally seen Avatar, but I find the additional political buzz surrounding the film intriguing. So what is it? Is Avatar a bunch of left-wing propaganda? Or as others suggest, is Avatar at its core, libertarian?
Stephan Kinsella says,
Avatar is Great and Libertarian
And at its core it was very libertarian: it was about a group of people (the Na'vi) defending their property rights on the world Pandora from aggressors (the human invaders), and about one of the humans (a soldier named Jake Sully) deciding to join and help the right side. Sure, the movie has some stilted dialogue in parts, and a few cliched scenes (I liked how the evil military commander referred to their outrageous assaults on the Na'vi as "shock and awe," but his telling the troops that they would "fight terror with terror"--when the Na'vi had not really been shown to have done anything characterizable as terrorism--was a bit of a stretch in its attempt to dig at the current American "war on terror"), but overall it was great and fun, and libertarian. And the passion and vision and craft that has gone into this movie is amazing to behold. Cameron is to be commended for this great work of art.
Ignore the cynics--such as Peter Suderman on Reason's Hit & Run blog who accuses Avatar of "anti-corporate clichés and quasi-mystical eco-nonsense". Nonsense. Libertarians are not anti-environmentalism, for one; property rights are the only way to protect the environment. As for "quasi-mystical"--I can't say much without spoiling, but the various beliefs of the Na'vi are perfectly grounded in reason and reality, as the movie shows. As for anti-corporate--nonsense.
And the "corporation" here is basically a mini-state, or an arm of a state--it has an army going around killing and destroying (Lester Hunt makes this point here). In fact, in the review of the leftish Mark Kermode of the BBC, he just calls the bad guys the military; even he is not taken in by the corporate facade. And the libertarian hosts of Free Talk Live (12/19/09 episode) get it right too: the plot is about property rights. In particular, the property rights of the Na'vi, in an established tree-city that they have clearly homesteaded. The Na'vi are not just some uncivilized savages as some curmudgeonly reviewers imply; they live they way they do because of the wondrous bounty of their strange world and some unique features it has--which, again, I can say little of without spoiling, but suffice to say it's grounded in reality and extrapolative science fiction, not some quasi-mystical nonsense. They even have a sophisticated homesteading technique worked out for ownership of the wild, pterodactyl-like creatures known as Banshee or ikran. In addition, the main Na'vi character, Neytiri, although she is betrothed to another Na'vi, is permitted to change her mind and choose someone else--respect for individual choice and autonomy.
Debbie Schlussel says,
Don’t Believe the Hype: “Avatar” Stinks (Long, Boring, Unoriginal, Uber-Left)
Clocking in at nearly three hours, “Avatar” is an incredible waste of time. It’s essentially a remake of “Dances With Wolves” and every other movie where we evil Americans terrorize the indigenous natives, kill them, take their land, and are just all around imperialistically wicked and inhumane. Oh, and we’re destroying the environment, clearing precious giant trees and natural landscapes and killing rare animals and their habitats, in order to invade and harvest valuable substances under the ground. Sound familiar? Yup, just like a million diatribes from Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and every other far-left outlet about how we invaded Iraq for oil.
Yes, “Avatar” is cinema for the hate America crowd.
And, like “Dances With Wolves,” there is, of course, the standard stock White male and/or human character who “becomes one of them” and sympathizes with their plight, begging the evil humans–or evil Americans, take your pick–to stop the invasion, destruction, and wholesale theft. It’s been in a million movies you’ve seen, including this summer’s far superior if equally heavy-handed and manipulative, “District 9″ (read my review).
The story: Sam Worthington (who was fantastic in “Terminator: Salvation” – read my review) plays Jake Sully, a paraplegic U.S. Marine, who was injured while at war. His twin brother, who died under other circumstances, was a scientist and part of a government project developing “avatars” for interaction with the native race of the planet Pandora (wow, what an original planet name). He’s not actually working for “the government” or “the military,” but a contractor a la Blackwater. Yes, the propaganda is that thinly-veiled.
The scientists are headed up by Susan “Sigourney” Weaver who plays her typical indignant, bitchy liberal self. Weaver is mad that the military people don’t want to understand and interact with the natives and instead want to harvest minerals instead of keeping the ancient trees that interact like computers with the other beings on the planet. But Jake is secretly working for the Marine General who wants to ship in, destroy the trees and the natives, and ship out, so we can save the dying earth, where “they’ve destroyed the mother” (meaning, Mother Earth).
Ultimately, though, Jake falls in love with one of the most prominent natives, the chief’s daughter, and learns to fly his flying dragon. He begins to oppose the Marine General. But it is too late. The soldiers are ordered in to start destroying Pandora’s nature and people.
Why drive to the movies, pay for tickets, and spend hours in a dark room, when you can just as easily read Noam Chomsky or the speeches of Hugo Chavez in the comfort of your own home and couch?
Same difference.
Interesting ... As Stacy McCain says,"no sane man would argue with Debbie Schlussel," but I gotta wonder ... Have you seen Avatar? Do you agree with either review above?
Anyways, the left (per usual) is claiming that the movie Avatar is raaaaacist!
How Not to Review a Movie
Why bother deconstructing the racial subtext of a crappy 3-D sci-fi movie? It's like pondering the cultural significance of Scooby-Doo, or doing your Ph.D. dissertation on feminist themes as embodied by Veronica and Betty in "Archie" comics.
Don't you people have lives?
Right. It's just a movie for crying out loud.
I think the movie could contain a libertarian flair if by libertarian we mean ‘libertarian socialism’ or ‘left libertarianism.’ Sure the indigenous people were defending their land from invasion, but that’s the thing: they were defending THEIR world. From the glimpses we got in the movie, their societal structure was such that everyone lived and shared all things in common. No one had his own house with this own piece of land. They were intricately connected to the world; it wasn’t so much that they owned the land, but rather they were part of it. To say that Avatar fits the description of individualistic rightward American Libertarian philosophy is deny the collectivist society that is portrayed.
I saw it as more primitive and consensual than collectivist. And their connection to nature was a part of their being (or species), not political.
I’ve argued in my blog review that Avatar is essentially ‘Triumph of the Will II’: which is to say a hymn of praise to fascism, idolatry and fetishism:
http://austeritygrub.blogspot.com/2010/03/avatar-triumph-of-will-2.html
Avatar and the Principles of Libertarianism: http://bit.ly/cCCAtT
This is an interesting article on Avatar
http://www.moneyteachers.org/Deadmanmusings8.htm
Why must you inject politics into what has to be the most sensuous movie ever made.
Whatever your political views – park them at the door – and simply wrap yourself in the visual beauty of a world without reps or dems. It is called entertainment, imagination, …..
Must you take all the joyfulness, creativity, color from the world. A movie is a movie – enjoy bathing your soul in the colors, textures, sensuousness of a truly fabulous piece of entertainment.
It is impossible to not see the political subtext of the movie so while you may think you check it at the door you’ll realize you still have your carry on political luggage soon enough. The message in this movie is about as subtle as a brick thrown at your face.
I would say it has a good deal of Libertarian subtext like the first review says but the critique of the prior US administration is also very evident. I liked the look of the movie but rolling my eyes during the big bad military/corporate cliches while wearing 3D glasses did start to give me a headache.
I have seen the movie, several times now. Part of the reasoning for such is my utter awe with the tech put into its development, partially to try to decipher the politics as I was too blown away by the special effects the first time around to do anything other than respond viscerally to it. I admit the emotionalism was very raw, and while this movie incorporates several tried and true devices, they are no less effective. I lament the death of Joseph Campbell, he’d have a field day with this one.
Having said that, when deciphering the politics on this, despite the green face of the film, I found it very, very libertarian in its politics. The all powerful state against the property rights of the Na’vi inhabitants, the individual as the force against the state. Jake Sully even goes on simpler version of a Francisco D’Anconia type speech, with his simple message about teaching those who think that they can take what they want as to how wrong they really are. This message should resonate with every man who has chafed under government assertions, always arrogantly stated and backed by guns. Rand would stand with Jake Sully in this. Again, people get lost in the corporate greed theme, which risks being mistaken for being anti-corporate. But again, why should a company win out in a battle for resources over a group that owns the land on which they are found just because they are bigger? I can not think of one, and I too would shoot at whomever was driving a tractor across my land, hell bent on nothing further than it’s destruction and plunder. I think Debbie Schussel would as well. Unobtanium (I know, stupid name but 10 seconds worth of dialogue could have made it a practical joke between scientists or some such) is all over the planet. If the richest deposit happens to be on my land, and I don’t want to sell to you. Sorry chum. Sure James Cameron is no Heinlein with his naked assertions of sci fi libertarian righteousness (as a side note, he does seem to have borrowed generously from Poule Anderson’s “Call Me Joe”), but I doubt Debbie Schlussel would stand behind Time Enough For Love or Stranger in a Strange Land either.
The Planet as a sentient being is no more of a reach than most articles of faith asked by us of any of the world’s ancient religions. And the planet was the technology. You did not need a computer, all data was stored in the planet’s network. Want to ask an ancestor, plug in. Need to learn to ride a horse or fly, plug in. When you have the ability at hand, development of such utilizing other labor and resources is kind of a waste of both, isn’t it? So why not go green, it’s all there anyway. Cameron spares his characters the tough choices that we humans have to make everyday in terms of shelter (mother tree), transportation (horses and banshees provided, not too much training needed), food readily available, climate permitting a light clothing load, bioluminescence to light the night. While not quite Eden, it’s a pretty close commute from Pandora, once you learn the basic tricks of the trade. Cameron’s world provides, so ask any economist where the utility is to be found in modifying the system? Anyone who looks at this and says, “we must go green, to the exclusion of all else” is living in a fantasy world, not the real one. But anyone who looks beyond such will plainly see the libertarian message plainly, the justice inherent in the observation of property rights. It remains interesting to me to see how many in the Hollywood left lionize the individual, and the evils of big government, in their films, while seeming to stand directly opposite such in their stated politics.
I apologize for being a little all over the place in this essay, too many thoughts to organize in one brief response. And Mr. Cameron, thank you, I did love it so.