- Stay Connected
Avatar: The Real Problem
By Aaron Wildavsky
Academy Award-winning director James Cameron’s release several months ago of Avatar — a 200 million dollar plus blockbuster that promised epic, dazzling special effects created using groundbreaking technology — was met with an unprecedented amount of media hype. Crowds flocked to screenings of Avatar in droves, and most gave it rave reviews. Many even went so far as to call it the greatest movie of all time. Not surprisingly, Avatar quickly became the highest grossing movie in America, and eventually went on to top Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster, Titanic, as the highest grossing movie ever.
Avatar will be released on DVD on Earth Day, April 22nd. Needless to say, this will be met with much fanfare and excitement. But I won’t be celebrating, and neither should anybody who cares one bit about America and the condition of the world. After sitting through two and a half hours of Avatar, I left the theater feeling utterly disgusted at the lack of appreciation; the lack even of respect that Cameron has for the very system that gave him the freedom to create this movie and to pursue the life he has pursued.
First of all, let me get a few things straight. I love action movies. I love special effects. Avatar delivered stunning action and truly groundbreaking special effects, not to mention an incredible soundtrack. Possibly the most amazing thing about the movie was the fact that Cameron, being the exceptionally talented director that he is, was able to take an entirely predictable, bland, and unoriginal plot and create a highly captivating movie. But neither these nor any other elements of the movie, no matter how outstanding they may have been, could outweigh its immoral message.
Avatar tells the story of a paraplegic former Marine named Jake Sully. When his brother is killed, Jake decides to take his place on a mission for a mining corporation that is attempting to obtain a precious metal from the far-off planet of Pandora. However, the humanoid natives of the planet, the Na’vi, live throughout the areas where the metal, Unobtanium, is found. Sully is given the task of gathering intelligence for the soldiers stationed there, who are planning to forcibly remove the Na’vi from the areas they desire. He does so by essentially hiding in a Na’vi body called an “avatar.” However, while living among the Na’vi, he begins to become attached to them. When he falls in love with a Na’vi named Neytiri, Sully finds his loyalties beginning to shift. When the humans launch their attack on the Na’vi, Jake must choose sides.
Of course, I’m not the first person to condemn Avatar. Even before its release, conservative critics were mocking and denouncing its politically charged plot, with many even regarding watching it as a waste of time and money. While I, a conservative myself, realized early on how political it would be, I still wanted very much to see it. I was excited about the special effects and action and I wanted to know what all the hype was about. The fact that it was liberal didn’t bother me much. I had already seen a million movies with the exact same liberal message as Avatar’s. I could deal with this one. However, upon finally seeing the movie, I realized that its not-so-subtle message that America is a greedy, imperialistic nation isn’t even its worst problem. The main problem with Avatar is that it portrays U.S. soldiers as evil, heartless, murderers.
America has improved a lot since the 1970s. One of the major areas in which we have improved is in showing respect to our armed forces. Rioting, antiwar college students no longer burn down ROTC buildings. Especially since 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, both antiwar liberals and hawkish conservatives have advocated support of our troops. Most Americans, it seems, show an impressive amount of respect towards the military.
Clearly, though, James Cameron is an unfortunate exception. In Avatar, American soldiers are depicted ruthlessly attempting to uproot natives from their homes and even destroying their most sacred sites. It is true that American soldiers did do this to Native Americans, but it has not happened in many, many years. Because Cameron sets the movie in the year 2154, he is obviously not implying that this is something we no longer do. He is implying that we are moving towards a state in which we will do this again.
That is entirely insulting to every single U.S. soldier, as well as to every proud American. Our military, as well as our country as a whole, has been progressing ever more rapidly away from the harsh treatment of minorities, and to imply that the opposite is true is completely, utterly offensive. What makes Cameron’s message doubly appalling is that he sends this message while the exact same soldiers he attacks are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to protect him, as well as every other American. That kind of ungratefulness is intolerable. Many Americans disapprove of one or both of the wars we are fighting, but hardly anybody shows such gross disrespect for the men and women fighting them. Why should Cameron make millions for doing so?
There is one fact about the movie that I should point out. The earthling military force in the movie is not the U.S. military. It is a private security force working for the mining corporation. But that doesn’t make Cameron’s message any better. If anything, it makes it even worse, because he is comparing the U.S. military to a mercenary force. Also, the viewer can easily get the impression that the mercenaries are American soldiers. I, for one, did not even realize that the soldiers were mercenaries until after I had seen the movie. Jake Sully, the main character, is a former U.S. Marine. Another one of the more important humans, a helicopter pilot, is a former Marine. Colonel Quaritch, the villain of the movie, is a former Marine. Those three characters are the only mercenaries that the viewer really gets to know. By not clearly establishing much of a difference between the Marines and the mercenaries, Cameron implies that the two are similar.
In a way, it’s especially disappointing that Avatar, of all movies, had to have such an immoral message, because it really was a terrific movie in almost every other respect. Sure, the dialogue was cheesy and the plot was entirely predictable, but Cameron, with his tremendous gift for filmmaking, was able to make it wholly engrossing. Avatar truly was an epic movie. But it was also a morally disgusting movie, and no other aspect of any movie can redeem an immoral message. If only its creators had had a different political agenda, it could have been one of the greatest movies of all time.
Aaron Wildebeest
June 8, 2010 at 3:11 pm
And by the way, the new admin changed my name, in case anybody was wondering.
Devin Doherty
June 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Oh, come on, Mr. Wildebeest. You’ve always had that name
Devin Doherty
May 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm
I wonder how many people around the world would die in one day if the USA cut off all foreign aid.
Thousands? Millions? Perhaps more?
It would be sickening.
dimitri halikias
May 29, 2010 at 10:38 pm
That may be true, but you provide a very myopic view of the effects of American foreign policy. America also supports severe sanctions on many countries because we disagree with their government. These sanctions often end up in massive famines and starvation that kill millions. Just look at what happened in Iraq and Cuba.
Devin Doherty
May 29, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Umm. Okay.
Well no need to dish out more death at our little morbid buffet.
dimitri halikias
May 29, 2010 at 11:41 pm
i don’t really know how to respond to that
Aaron W.
May 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Doron: Would you justify attacking another country if their actions, while not outright acts of war, appeared to threaten our national security? Think of the Six-Day War.
Also, giving aid to other countries often helps our own citizens indirectly. Giving aid to a country that is fighting a guerilla group trying to overthrow the government that may become hostile towards the U.S. if it gains power is certainly in the best interests of our citizens.
Dimitri: Just because a president is democratically elected does not make them a democratic leader. Think of Chavez. Of course, I’m not saying that Pinochet was any better than Allende. He was likely even worse. I don’t agree with all of our actions in that era. But the negative aspects of them are exaggerated greatly.
Justin: It’s entirely probable that, were the communists to take over many of the countries we aided, they would have set up oppressive governments, as they did in Cuba. Which is worse? An oppressive capitalist system or an oppressive communist system?
dimitri halikias
May 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm
“just because a president is democratically elected does not make them a democratic leader.” then what does qualify a president as democratic? Is it if they are friendly to American business interests, or shares similar ideology? And what we did in Peru and Cuba and Nicaragua made things much worse. You forget that Castro revolted against the Batista regime, an extremely corrupt and brutal right wing regime put in power and supported by the United States. Also, the governments we set up were not at all capitalistic, that is a totally inaccurate characterization. We set up governments that served completely as puppet governments, often used fascist means to control the people, and often ended up reducing the peasants to a status close to slavery.
dimitri halikias
May 26, 2010 at 5:54 pm
You speak as if a people have no right to choose for themselves their form of government. Many people genuinely believe in a socialist or communist form of government, if a nation elects a president or a government that believes in leftist policies like redistribution the US has no reason to interfere in that government’s affairs. Not all socialist governments are oppressive, and unless the government begins violating human rights or poses a legitimate threat to America or its allies, we have no responsibility to interfere. As for your claim that the negative aspects were “exaggerated,” I find it difficult to believe that Pinochet’s torture, murder, and elimination of 40,000 political prisoners really “wasn’t that bad.” America has an unfortunate tendency to impose right wing dictators to replace mildly leftist governments.
Aaron Wildebeest
June 8, 2010 at 3:09 pm
In a democratic system, basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, the press, and religion, are all guaranteed. The government is not above the law. Elections are fair. The democratically elected government of Juan Peron did not fit these criteria. The democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez did not fit these criteria. And furthermore, fascist governments were capitalistic. The people may not have had the chance to voice their opinions, but they could make money. The Pinochet regime is an example.
dimitri halikias
June 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Capitalism in theory is an economic system that allows individual achievement and advancement. That was not at all the case under the Pinochet regime. Under Pinochet a small elite benefited tremendously while reducing the average man to a status little better than serfdom. That is not capitalism, that is plutocracy.
I take issue with your definition of a democratic system, I believe that democracy refers to self determination. Constitutional democracy refers to the protection of fundamental freedoms. You speak as if a people have no right to choose for themselves their form of government. Many people genuinely believe in a socialist or communist form of government, if a nation elects a president or a government that believes in leftist policies like redistribution the US has no reason to interfere in that government’s affairs. Not all socialist governments are oppressive, and unless the government begins violating human rights or poses a legitimate threat to America or its allies, we have no responsibility to interfere. As for your claim that the negative aspects were “exaggerated,” I find it difficult to believe that Pinochet’s torture, murder, and elimination of 40,000 political prisoners really “wasn’t that bad.” America has an unfortunate tendency to impose right wing dictators to replace mildly leftist governments.
Aaron W.
May 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm
The purpose of the attacks was to turn Japanese opinion against the war, but not to kill civilians just for the purpose of killing them. It was to cause as much damage as possible to Japan.
About present-day American imperialist actions: What are some examples of countries that we aid?
Cameron absolutely cares about the message. He has spoken about it repeatedly in the public sphere, especially the environmentalist message.
dimitri halikias
May 12, 2010 at 5:44 pm
In the 1980s and 90s the government actively supported Pinochet in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua, Suharto in Indonesia, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and many other right-wingers. We also helped organize a coup in Haiti to overthrow the democratically elected president and tried to bring about regime change in Georgia with the Rose Revolution. We currently aid oppressive, violent regimes in Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Also, the purpose of the attacks in Avatar wasn’t just to kill Na’vi for the purpose of killing them either, it was to convince them to leave their home tree. It was to cause as much damage as possible so that the miners could get the unobtanium.
The main point of this movie was not to push a political message, but rather to showcase the most advanced cutting-edge special effects. I think the message is much more about American actions with Native Americans in the past as opposed to America’s present day foreign policy.
Devin Doherty
May 14, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Well we just got to support Saudi Arabia!
Cuz, oil is the life blood of Amerrrrrrica!
WE NEEDS IT! *GOLLUM* *GOLLUM*
Aaron W.
May 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Nuclear is the way to go.
Aaron W.
May 21, 2010 at 3:00 pm
The U.S. only aids oppressive governments when it comes down to supporting the lesser of two evils. I don’t always agree with this aid, but one cannot claim aiding such governments is a cornerstone of our foreign policy.
As to whether it is supposed to reflect current or past foreign policy, to me, it reeks of a twisted allegory for the Iraq war under the Bush administration.
Justin
May 21, 2010 at 4:23 pm
>supporting the lesser of two evils
This, sir, is a completely false statement. Unless you consider communism to be an absolute evil and can somehow justify installing oppressive governments which commit atrocities in its place. Which is worse? You be the judge.
dimitri halikias
May 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm
There may be a totally legitimate reason for supporting these regimes. I am personally very sympathetic to the government’s reasoning quite often. But some of the examples I listed are totally ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is one thing, but I don’t really see why Belize was so important in the 80s. And another point, how can we claim to “spread democracy” while at the same time overthrowing democratically elected leaders like Allende? I am neoconservative on a lot of issues, and remain a very strong supporter of American actions in the Middle East, but American imperialism of the 70s and 80s will always be a stain on American history. And I still think that the movie had a lot more to do with native americans than it did with Iraqis
Doron Tauber
May 22, 2010 at 1:20 am
I don’t support the United States getting involved in any foreign government. We have no right to invade on how another country functions, unless they outright attack us.
I also don’t think we should give foreign aid to anybody, no matter what kind of a government they have. The function of this country is to exist for the sake of its citizens, not the citizens of countries around the globe. We are too much of a nanny state for our own people, why do we have to force our morals on others?
June
May 4, 2010 at 9:23 pm
You misunderstand, Aaron. I don’t think that Americans are evil and greedy is the exactly the MESSAGE that Cameron is trying to send. Sure, you get the impression that the Americans are evil, but not quite. You get the impression that the one captain and that scientist guy were “evil” whereas everyone else were just following orders. The point is not to point out the faulty actions of the soldiers in particular, but to point out the actions of those who ruin environments for gain (i.e. constructors, builders, factories). I think, after watching it, people’s beliefs about American soldiers for the most part haven’t changed. What did change, however, is the drive to respect other organisms’ homes. Anyway, it’s all a hypothetical situation, just like WALL-E. Did people, after watching WALL-E, change their opinion of the American public? No, (they are still giant, lazy eaters) but they had more incentive to preserve and protect the Earth.
Aaron W.
May 4, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Anybody who follows orders when the orders are to kill innocents for no just reason is evil. The soldiers in that movie are evil. That’s not good, because they’re meant to represent American soldiers.
It’s true that Cameron is making a point about environmentalism as well; that anybody who uses any natural resources is evil. The only problem is, the people trying to obtain the resources represent American soldiers kicking natives off their land. if the movie simply portrayed a mining company digging in an uninhabited forest somewhere for precious materials as the evildoers, then I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it, because that doesn’t include an Americans-are-imperialists aspect.
That said, you can’t say that all mining, construction, and industry, whether or not it pollutes the environment, is bad. We couldn’t get along without much of it.
dimitri halikias
May 6, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I disagree completely with that definition of evil. Not all soldiers who kill innocents on orders are evil. There was absolutely no strategic or military value in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. We just decided that dropping the atomic bomb was quicker than invasion and would save American lives. That may very well have been the case. But I disagree with anyone who would call those soldiers “evil.” Similarly, I wouldn’t call the American soldiers sending the drones into Afghanistan “evil” when in fact one in every three deaths is civilian.
Also, many of the criticisms in Avatar are accurate. American DID engage in wide-spread ethnic cleansing against the Native Americans. American DID conduct a brutal occupation of the Philippines in which thousands were killed. American DID support bloodthirsty dictators who massacred thousands in return for support of American business.
I obviously disagree with any criticisms the movie was making towards current American policy, but you can’t pick and choose which part of American history you want to look at. America has in its past been extraordinarily imperialistic, and Cameron has every right to express that reality through any venue he sees fit. I felt Avatar was much more a depiction of America’s treatment of the Native Americans than it was about Iraq or Afghanistan.
Aaron W.
May 6, 2010 at 8:18 pm
In all the cases you mentioned of soldiers killing innocents, they were not specifically attacking the civilians. They were not the targets. But in Avatar, the civilians are the targets.
It’s true that America does have an imperialistic past, but if that’s the case, then why does Cameron set the movie in the future?
dimitri halikias
May 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Attacking two largely civilian cities with atomic bombs was clearly for the purpose of causing mass destruction and death, and to turn Japanese opinion against the war. It was a strategic move that intended to kill tens of thousands of innocents. Also, you shouldn’t forget how recently America has engaged in imperialistic practices. We even now continue to support oppressive, violent governments that are friendly to American business. However, I think Cameron’s decision to set the film in the future is just an artistic decision. The plot line mirrors Dancing With Wolves, but setting a Native American movie in 19th century Idaho isn’t particularly original. Also, as most people admit, the main reason for seeing this movie is the special effects. Honestly Cameron cares a lot more about the cool graphics than he does about making a political statement, and a futuristic war with aliens seems pretty much like the best way to do it.
Aaron W.
April 30, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Devin: The only problem with his recycling the plot of Pocohontas is that the plot of Pocohontas is not at all relevant in a modern or futuristic setting. By comparing the modern soldiers to the colonizers in Pocohontas, Cameron is making a statement about today’s military.
Olivia: It’s true that he is sending a positive message about doing the right thing even in the face of danger, but the message he sends that the rest of the soldiers are doing the wrong thing is so overwhelmingly bad that it completely shadows the positive message.
I agree completely with your second point.
Devin Doherty
April 29, 2010 at 5:41 pm
WHAT’S THIS??????
I ALREADY WROTE THIS
PLAGIARISM
Nah, just kidding. I like your article.
But you know, I don’t think Cameron was making a point about today’s marines.
All he did was recycle the plot of Pocahontas. So yeah.
Olivia Robinson
April 28, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I do see the mercenary message, and I think Cameron could have done a better job of distancing the mercenaries from our armed forces, who should be recognized as heroes no matter your political affiliation. With that said, two of the three marines are actually good, moral characters. Sully, the protagonist helps the Na’vi people,and the pilot deserts mid-mission to fight for the other side. So Cameron’s message could also be construed as anti-complacency. He is advocating doing the right thing, even in the face of danger.
Additionally, Avatar was an extraordinary achievement for film making. Excellence can be an end unto itself and Avatar’s skill and beauty should be commended.
Jackson Fritz
April 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Whatever the message that James Cameron wants to send about violence of minorities (I agree with John), the military isn’t entirely without fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
(explicit language)
To see an interview about the video
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange
John Benson
April 25, 2010 at 8:34 pm
James Cameron isn’t saying anything about Americans, or about soldiers. He’s saying something about humanity, and history is fraught with evidence to back him up.
And as is the case with many films, our protagonist is not the only one who realizes something is wrong. He is simply placed in a unique situation to actually do something about it.
Aaron W.
April 27, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Your second point is correct, but regarding your first point, what exactly do you think Cameron is saying about humanity?
Aaron W.
April 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm
It’s because Americans are evil, soulless human beings. Or at least that’s the message Cameron wants to send.
That’s really cool about your family, especially your brother!
Amy Heaton
April 22, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I didn’t see Avatar, so I am waiting untill I do before I bash it, but hearing about the horrible depiction of the armed forces really does make me sad. I come from a military family. Both my parents were in the Navy, my grandfather was in the Army, and my older brother is a green beret. Needless to say, I appreciate all of the hard work our soldiers put towards keeping us safe. They are not hard, cruel people. They have families who they love, and they sacrifice a lot.
This is seeming to be more a comment about the military than the movie, but I’m just saying I appreciate your point. Also, from what I do know about the movie, I have to ask one question: why is there only one guy in the movie who actually has enough of a conscience to realize that what they were doing was wrong? Just saying…
Doron Tauber
April 21, 2010 at 8:43 pm
people only liked it because “ooh shiny. pretty colors.”
that’s not what makes a great movie. it had no plotline, no depth, no real character development. really it was a merge of Smurfs and Dances with Wolves. The golden era of Hollywood is over, and he can’t even bother to do anything that isn’t mostly computer generated. where are the days of ACTING?!
Aaron W.
April 21, 2010 at 10:07 pm
” ‘ooh shiny. pretty colors’ ” isn’t that bad a reason to like it. “Shiny, pretty colors” can make it fun to watch.
The fact that the plot and the characters had no depth only made it all the more impressive that it was so captivating. Cameron was able to take something completely boring and elementary and keep audiences on the edge of their seats.
Doron Tauber
April 22, 2010 at 6:07 am
only because audiences fall prey to the pretty colors. remember black and white movies (I watch a lot of them)? they didn’t have that same “awe” factor, so they actually had to have a PLOT. watch Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte or All About Eve or Johnny Guitar. I could see the ending of Avatar a mile away, and it most certainly did not keep me on the edge of my seat. people nowadays aren’t used to the epic and timeless movies of the past, so they measure everything they see on how pretty it is. for it to be a great movie, you have to be able to close your eyes and still enjoy it. you have to be able to understand it, which most people didn’t. you have to know what it is you’re watching. a slideshow of colors in Paint is pretty, and people would rave about that too if it came out in theaters. they’d want to feel superior and hip, so much that they could enjoy something that was obviously moronic. people like to feel that way about things, because they’ve grown up without real movies.
Aaron W.
April 22, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I didn’t say black and white movies couldn’t be just as good or better.
But whatever. The quality of the movie isn’t really the point of my article.