“Avatar” Puts an Interesting Twist on an Old, Old Tale

December 29th, 2009 · 11 Comments

Do you ever feel obliged to see a movie? Like, everyone’s talking about it, so whether you want to see it or not, you make yourself go, just so you can participate in the conversation?

I often feel that way, but then again, it’s my job to talk about the culture.

Anyway… my point is that I’ve used this holiday season to see several “hot topic” films that I wasn’t interested in, like District 9, Avatar, and The Blind Side. (I may even see Invictus before the week is out, and you know I don’t want to see that mess.)

So far, I’ve been pleasantly reminded that I can’t always trust my responses to trailers. I liked District 9, for instance, even if I don’t think it’s quite a masterpiece, and while I was right to predict that The Blind Side would be paternalistic, it also delivered unexpected food for thought (which I’ll talk about tomorrow.)

And Avatar? You guys… it was fascinating. It tackled one of the oldest storytelling tropes in a surprising, unusual way. Let’s discuss!

(Many spoilers ahead!)

At it’s core, Avatar is the latest piece of art to yearn for a simpler time… to exploit the developed world’s bone-deep fear that our modern age has pulled us away from what really matters. That’s the fear that says our computers and iPods and suburban grids have robbed us of a vital connection to the earth and to each other. It’s the fear that says we have too much power, and we don’t know what to do with it.

When I was dissing The Soloist, I wrote that when art assumes we were “better before,” it often becomes primitivist. In its quest for a life that’s more “authentic” or “connected,” it fetishizes “primitive” people who live outside the Western majority. Think of all the stories in which Native Americans are wiser than their European tormentors, or simple black folk are happier than the white Southerners who oppress them, or the mentally handicapped are the only decent people in the room.

The prejudice in those stories is insidious because it’s dressed up as praise. It’s just as dehumanizing to say “all Native Americans are wise” as it is to say “all Native Americans are stupid,” because both statements treat a group of complex people like a uniform object.

But as damaging as it can be, this type of story clearly serves a purpose. Otherwise, it wouldn’t survive.

Part of the appeal, I’d say, is that there’s hope in watching modern people learn from “the primitives.” When Jodie Foster’s Nell uses her simple mountain ways to teach a citified doctor about the true meaning of family, the lesson isn’t just, “Mountain folk are deep.” It’s also, “Modern people still have the capacity to live meaningful lives. We just need a reminder how to do it.” That’s a soothing message that lets us feel better about ourselves.

Then there’s Avatar.

In this movie, set in the year 2154, human beings have screwed up so royally that there is “no green” left on our planet. What’s more, we barely seem to care. We’ve sent our ships to an earthlike planet called Pandora, but not because we want to start over in a world that still has trees. No, we just want to steal a precious element called unobtanium out of Pandora’s core and then be on our way, even if it means destroying the alien planet in the process.

Clearly, the humans in this movie need to get more primitive. But instead of finding a “back to basics” answer in, oh, a group of Caribbean islanders, writer-director James Cameron finds hope in an alien race. Dubbed the Na’vi, they are tall, blue creatures who are humanoid, but who certainly aren’t human. In fact, they are so different from the uncaring humans in the film that they literally connect with the the earth, using the tentacles inside their hair to create physical bonds with animals and trees. When the Na’vi link up to the world this way, they feel the life force of nature beating inside them. The beasts and the trees and the Na’vi are part of a literal circle of life.

The film’s major plot arc follows a human soldier, Jake Sully, who awakens to the beauty of this connection. From an early scene, where a female Na’vi takes him on a tour of the forest (and does everything but sing “Colors of the Wind”) to a climactic moment where Sully decides to defend Pandora against the humans who want to tear it up, it’s clear that the Na’vi are supposed to teach humanity what it’s lost.

Or rather, the Na’vi are supposed to teach a handful of humans and get rid of the rest. In Avatar, Cameron suggests that humans are so hopelessly blind to what matters—are so ignorant to the fact that they must respect the universe, not just try to control it—that any person trying to elevate herself to higher plane cannot find role models among her own people. Instead, she must to turn to an alien race. In the movie’s morality tale of right and wrong, humans are the black-hatted baddies, twirling their mustaches and shooting aliens in the back.

To drive that point home, Cameron creates the conceit of an avatar program that lets human beings enter and control Na’vi bodies that have been grown in a laboratory. Crucially, Jake Sully is inside his Na’vi body when he realizes humanity’s flaws. Again, Cameron says people are so effed up that in order to live meaningfully, people must actually abandon their humanity and become aliens. Hell, in the last moment of the film, after he has helped destroy or banish almost every human character in the film, Jake gets to become a Na’vi full time. The Na’vi goddess transfers his life force from his human body into his avatar body. Now that he’s in the circle of life, he’s given the blessing of not being human anymore.

Does Cameron really see us this way? His vision is awfully pessimistic.

It’s also audacious, entertaining, and successful. It’s no small feat that Cameron makes it easy to cheer against human beings. His storytelling is strong enough to make rooting for the Na’vi feel like the right thing to do.

Of course, if we end the movie as anti-humanists, it’s partially because we see so many scenes of Jake Sully in his human body. Since we connect to him as a person, we can still identity with him, even when he’s in his Na’vi body.

In that way, the movie provides hope. Instead of nasty unobtanium miners, we can fancy ourselves to be Jake Sullys, ready to become enlightened Na’vi when the time comes.

But still… there’s something boldly cynical about throwing in the towel on the entire human race. Though it’s got the familiar peaks and valleys of a feel-good hero’s jounrey, Cameron’s film is slyly apocalyptic. It destroys humanity while we’re off cheering for other things.

I respect Cameron for surprising me and for pushing an archetypal story in such an unexpected direction.

Tags: Movies

11 responses so far ↓

1 Jo Sentell-Perez // Dec 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm

To those of us who grew up on Star Trek, and really thought we would live to travel to unknown worlds (that could just be me, there, granted); who preferred animals to humans as a child, who are cynics when it comes to humanity and what can be expected; and who have been called “tree-huggers” and “granola moms,” this is just a culmination of a life-long fantasy. Oh, and for adrenaline junkies too – I mean really, this is my perfect world! Who would have thought I’d be crushing on a big blue thing w/a tail?
2 Michael // Dec 29, 2009 at 3:28 pm

(I want to write an essay on the perseverance of the Pocahontas myth in American drama and film–it’s been staged since the Colonial days. The feminizing of nature, national guilt over genocide, it’s all there from the start . . .)

I have to admit–having seen the film in 3-D from the second row–I was exhausted by what I felt were the endless cliches of the story, and the overstimulation of my eyes–I speculated that Cameron made a deliberately derivative screenplay so that we could let the story coast and focus on the luxurious CGI.

Was Cameron even aware of the ironies of his conception? To beat the humans, bring arrows, dragons, AND GRENADES. And to conceive nature as a kind of internet that you can literally plug into as if by a computer cable . . . ?

(In regard to the brave vilification of humans you refer to, Mark, there were a minority of humans who got it and valued the Navi all through. It’s not a total statement. Susan Sarandon dies beatified.)
3 Mark Blankenship // Dec 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Hey Michael… I think you mean Sigourney Weaver. Susan Sarandon is currently enduring CGI in “The Lovely Bones.”

And yeah, there are a few humans who make it, but I got the impression that like Sully, the Doctor and that other scientist were awakened by the Na’vi.

Regardless of where their enlightenment came from, though, I’d still argue that the thrust of the dominant thrust of the narrative is that humans are evil, and that the locus for primitive saintliness can only be found in alien forms. They tried to turn Weaver into a Na’vi, after all, and it’s awfully significant that Jake becomes a Na’vi in the end. To me, that says that even those few humans who are enlightened are really more Na’vi than human. Or more broadly, that in the world of the film, “goodness” is associated with being alien and “evil” is associated with being human.
4 Avner Kam // Dec 29, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Dahhhling — you write that “Cameron’s film is slyly apocalyptic. It destroys humanity while we’re off cheering for other things.” — that is way too literal. Not humanity, but the militaristic approach is destroyed.

Considering there are no real aliens that we know of and that only we are watching this flick, we are also the Na’vi, and proof is that we were moved when the blue couple got it on. The film major emotional impact is this cross-species union, and just like in the case of race, it teaches that we belong with those that think like us, not look like us.

Let the A-holes die — their death is not the end of humanity; vice versa.
5 Jesse M // Dec 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm

I’m in the thin ranks of Avatar skeptics, and I think it’s important to test these praises of Avatar. In particular, you suggest that it’s revolutionary for the humans to be completely villified in favor of the Other… yet, almost all “going native” stories tend to do this. Tarzan, Dances With Wolves, etc: the “modern culture” that we’re initially expected to identify with is ultimately rejected and completely exiled. The flaw in these stories is that we’re never prompted to really identify with these familiar cultures anyway. Like the “wise native” culture, they’re portrayed in a one-dimensional light.

Further, it’s a bit far-fetched that Sully is not only fully initiated into this supposedly inhuman culture… he actually becomes a leader there, in less than a year of integration; the only biological feature that makes the Pandoran species genuinely unique — their nerve-center connectivity to other native species — is something that Sully masters immediately, apparently without even thinking.

The movie is really actually divided into three groups, not just two. There’s the “brute human” type, exemplified by the Colonel and Giovanni Rabisi… there’s the “noble savage” exemplified by the actual Nav’i characters.. and then there’s the “human apologist” characters, found in Sully and Sigourney Weaver, who ultimately redeem the human race and prove themselves spiritually equal to the Nav’i, and somehow, more intellectually and militarily capable.

I had a lot of fun watching the movie, but I haven’t been able to cast aside my nagging discontent with its storyline. I assume you’ve read the criticisms at io9 and Cinematical? They do a fair job of summing up my misgivings.

http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/12/22/the-geek-beat-bury-my-heart-on-pandora/
6 Michael // Dec 30, 2009 at 2:27 am

What Jesse said.
7 ferretrick // Dec 30, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Returning to your opening paragraph, Mark, the answer is yes. I really had zero interest in seeing Avatar, and I haven’t yet…but some friends have, and raved, and apparently its going to be A Big Thing.

(To me, it just sounds like Titanic in Space-Jake Sully is Kate Winslet, the humans are her mom and all the other shallow, suffocating Rich Bitches who just wanted Rose to shut up and marry Billy Zane, the Navi gal is Leonardo DiCaprio and the Navi people are the fun loving, free lower classes that seduce Rose away to their world of fun like spitting off the side of boats and pounding beers).

Anyway, point being, I now feel compelled to go see what all the hype is about, even though the movie looks incredibly tiresome to me. And its NOT my job to talk about culture, I see movies for enjoyment.
8 Mark Blankenship // Dec 30, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Even if it weren’t my job, I’d probably be seeing all these movies, too. Lord knows I hauled myself to everything well before I had a place to write about my reactions. I guess I’ve kind of always felt obliged to see everything, and then one day I started working on turning that impulse into a profession. (For those who don’t, by the way, the Michael who comments here also did a lot to help me figure out how to make that career possible.)
9 katy // Dec 30, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Oh man. Like Ferretrick, I’m groaning realizing that I’m going to have to see this freaking movie, which has just never looked remotely interesting to me. The Best Picture buzz alone makes me feel duty-bound. How can I whine about its undeserving nomination if I haven’t seen it? Mercy, what I’ll do for the right to complain!

I thought the “Will White People Ever Stop Making Films Like Avatar” link Jesse posted was thought provoking, even not having seen the film. Do you disagree with that take, Mark?

And another pressing question I have: will the 3D and the effects make me sick? I’d hate to have to toss my cookies just to be able to complain about the film getting nominated, but again, I’ll do what it takes.
10 Ron // Dec 31, 2009 at 3:18 am

Thanks, Jesse, for the article links–they do a nice job of distilling some of the feelings I had watching the movie. I went expecting pretty much what I got–a roller coaster ride (that’s why I think a lot of kids saw TITANIC multiple times and, to be honest, while I probably will go see AVATAR a second time). On top of what’s been said above and elsewhere, the thing that really bothers me, plot-wise, is that after Jake makes a full commitment to the Na’vi and assembles the clans, he basically lets the horse-analog warriors ride into a deathtrap, primarily as a distracting element for the aerial warriors. Maybe it “had to be that way,” but I think, given Jake is already responsible for the destruction of the hometree/death of the chief et al. he’d be a little less willing to allow Na’vi to be cannon-fodder. A friend was telling me about her experience of watching GLORY as a white viewer in a largely black audience; she said the regimental massacre scene was a lot less-GLORY-ous in that context.

My other thought on exiting the movie was that Sigourney Weaver has managed to find a role that combines her previous turns in GORILLAS IN THE MIST and ALIENS.
11 Jon Herzog // Dec 31, 2009 at 4:46 am

I just saw the movie tonight and didn’t see it as an indictment of the human race or even of technology per se. I thought more that the message of the movie was one of hybridization triumphing over single-mindedness. You must remember that Jake’s Avatar is not full Na’vi — it’s constructed from human and Na’vi DNA samples. And the same with the final battle at the end. The Na’vi were only able to defeat the humans with both human and Na’vi technology (communication and grenades/flying dragons, Eywa and neurotoxins) and both human and Na’vi fighters. To me, the mere fact that the military-industrial complex was human wasn’t what made them evil. What made them evil is that they were single-minded and willfully ignorant. Giovanni Ribisi’s character cares only about greed and the bottom line at his company (and the negative effects that wiping out an indigenous population would do to the public image of the company). And he willfully remains ignorant of the natural surroundings, calls the Na’vi “those blue monkeys” and completely ignores the biological/cultural experts. The General believes that the military solution is the only solution. He gives lip service to the diplomacy solution only because he knows that it may give him valuable information for the eventual strike that he plans on doing. And while he engages with the natural surroundings on Pandora, he cannot evolve his understanding beyond mere survival skills and knowledge. (I actually think the general is a great case-study in trauma. His first day on Pandora, he was literally scarred. Someone who was so self-assured of his ability to survive anything–as he had survived unknown war atrocities that are vaguely mentioned–lost all self-confidence in those skills on Pandora. To me, the General’s journey over the course of the film is one of revenge. It’s never explicitly stated in his dialogue, but it’s almost as if his sole purpose is to wipe out as much life as possible in an attempt to restore what had been lost to him.) Let’s also remember that one of the other main antagonists is Tse-tuy, the next-in-line chief. Also, single-minded in believing the superiority of the pure Na’vi, wanting to respond to everything violently, and also remaining willfully ignorant of the technology the humans possess. In the immediate run-up to the destruction of the hometree, he’s about to lead a flying Pickett’s Charge at the human planes but is too slow in getting his air force to their flying dragons. He redeems himself somewhat after Jake becomes the 6th person ever to tame the big dragon, but still gets mowed down by a gun and gets the “Disney villain death from on high” treatment. Getting back to my main point, the film is more a message of hybridization. The Na’vi are at their strongest when they mindmerge with the world around them — horses, dragons, ancestors & memories. It is this willingness to literally connect and engage with their surroundings, to foster and respect the land that provides them with the means to survive, that ultimately saves them. And hybridization applies to the behind the scenes stuff as well. James Cameron is a tech-wizard and certainly did not make a technologically brilliant movie whose sole purpose was to indict technology as evil. Let’s remember that the 3-D tech for this was developed as he made documentaries about preserving life on the ocean floor and preserving the history of the Titanic. He’s about (and for me the movie is also about) finding the balance of developing and using technology responsibly and with respect for nature. I’d say the same thing about the message for commercialism/greed. The man who has made the single most profitable movie of all time is not anti-capitalism, but rather is about making/using that money responsibly. He hasn’t made a wide-release picture since 1997. After winning every Oscar imaginable, he could have spent the last 12 years making crappy summer tent-pole movies or crappy Oscar-bait films (cough Spielberg cough Indiana Jones 4 cough The Terminal cough) but instead spent his blood, sweat and tears (and money I’m sure, too) into passion projects that made little money in the service of developing a technology that will hopefully draw more people back to theaters.

Featured Reviews

Archives

Buzz

Admin