Avatar: A Story of Transformation and Struggle
Posted by onehundredflowers on December 22, 2009
This first appeared on the FIRE collective’s blog under the title “Avatar: Condescending Racism or a Story of Transformation and Struggle?”
By Eric Ribellarsi
A debate has recently broken out about the new science fiction film Avatar. A popular review appeared on io9 by Annalee Newitz titled When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar? I’d like to try to respond to some of the points in that review and give a different view that defends that movie.
I have to strongly disagree with Annalee Newitz’s review.
Annalee Newitz wrote:
“Jake is so enchanted that he gives up on carrying out his mission, which is to persuade the Na’vi to relocate from their “home tree,” where the humans want to mine the unobtanium. Instead, he focuses on becoming a great warrior who rides giant birds and falls in love with the chief’s daughter. When the inevitable happens and the marines arrive to burn down the Na’vi’s home tree, Jake switches sides. With the help of a few human renegades, he maintains a link with his avatar body in order to lead the Na’vi against the human invaders. Not only has he been assimilated into the native people’s culture, but he has become their leader.”
This review misses key aspects of the story, and even distorts the storyline of the movie to make it fit into a rather dogmatic framework. I found the movie to be a nuanced and beautiful film that told the story of an elitist white soldier for imperialism who goes to exploit and oppress an indigenous nation of aliens (the Na’vi), but is instead transformed by them and won to take up armed struggle against imperialism alongside them.
I will point out that this is not a story about a white man who goes to lead native people’s as their condescending savior, as it is characterized in the review referenced here. It’s a story about a backward white man who is transformed by the Na’vi, much in the way that Dr. Bethune, an arrogant, elitist, white “communist” was transformed by the Chinese people through the course of the revolution in China. Dr. Bethune was able only to become a communist himself when he was struggled with by China’s oppressed masses, and taught to listen and learn from the Chinese people, and became a servant of them. In Avatar, Jake Sully finds himself in a situation where ignorant and arrogant colonist after colonist is exposed for the fools that they are, and unable to infiltrate the Na’vi. Jake is no different, but the Na’vi decide that they will see if he can be changed.
Factually, it is not true that Jake Sully becomes the leader of the indigenous aliens (as this review has stated). In fact, after the death of the chief in the movie, the new chief is the most radical of the Na’vi who wants to fight the imperialist invaders, Jake is second to this more revolutionary Na’vi, and actually asks for permission to speak from his more radical leader.
The way the movie deals with indigenous culture is not the insulting and racist way that this review has characterized it, but rather one in which Jake is first arrogant and elitist to this culture, but instead comes to understand it’s complexity and nuance. The Na’vi’s culture is shown in much more sophistication than the insulting vulgarizations that are normally given to the Native peoples in Western media, especially in terms of the way that these peoples related to the world around them and never viewed it as a commodity to be exploited but a world to contribute to.
But I would like to go back to what seems to be a central thesis of Annalee Newitz’s review:
“Whites need to stop remaking the white guilt story, which is a sneaky way of turning every story about people of color into a story about being white.”
Surely it is true that we need more films from the perspective of the oppressed themselves. There is no question about that. But why make a dogmatic absolute of that? Would it be wrong to make a film about the story of John Brown, a white man who sacrificed his life to side with the Black liberation struggle? What about movies like Sir! No Sir! which tell the stories of American GI’s in Vietnam who turned their backs on US imperialism and resisted, many of them even committing mutiny? Isn’t that a story worth telling?
Annalee Newitz said:
“When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?”
Here is where I have my differences with identity politics (and in this instance, a very dogmatic application of identity politics). Do white people really need to stop making movies like this? I think white people need to confront what they are a part of, and be transformed to side with oppressed humanity. I don’t think that is a “guilt story,” and frankly, if white people weren’t appalled by the history of slavery and genocide in the USA, wouldn’t that be more of a problem? Wouldn’t it be more of a problem if there was no internationalism, and we were all starting from our own individual identities?
Yes, it is a problem that there are not enough movies which are from the perspective of the oppressed themselves. But why does that mean there is no value to films like these? Is there really no value to the stories of John Brown? of Jews in Israel who side with and defend the Palestinians? Of Germans who refused to go along in Nazi Germany? I think there is great value to those stories, and that we should be able to unite with what is positive in them, even while we do need to point out the complete absence of the perspectives of the oppressed themselves in Hollywood.
ana blic said
I saw this film last Saturday. I didn’t “think race” – at all. I saw the triumph of good over evil – and felt that the movie followed the usual American formula = “must have happy ending” …
I felt the movie was primarily political – showing imperialism for the cruel, base, vulgar activity that it is … and showing the caring, compassionate group who were under attack – at an advantage – highlighting the obvious – that peace and love – is better than war and greed.
I didn’t see “race” at all… One has to look “very hard” to see race in everything. If I wear a sweater of a particular color – instead of another color – is that a racist statement? I think if one is “wearing lenses” where they see race everywhere – they could interpret my wearing of a yellow sweater / or a brown sweater / or a white sweater – as some sort of “statement.”
I think applying “race” to this film – makes about as much sense as applying it to the color of my shirt.
Hegemonik said
I’m inclined to be both applaud and ruthlessly criticize Avatar – and wary that in vacillating, I may be giving the desired effect.
I recall in one of his more illuminating commentaries on film that Zizek observed that the Hays Code produced a strange phenomenon in Hollywood films: sequences dealing with censored topics weren’t merely expunged, nor did they really subvert. Rather, they would be rendered with multiple meanings. The case example being Casablanca and its montage:
In the case of Avatar, aren’t we dealing with the same phenomenon: a film with two very distinct, contradictory meanings? A fairly good film about combating imperialism, that sides overtly with the oppressed (against our own species!) – that, on the other hand, presents a point of view that is ultimately clouded by imperialist tropes (the “noble savage”, their superstitious religiosity, and ultimate dependence upon divine intervention).
The real problem with Avatar, as I see it, is the problem of both science fiction and modern film – it is far too tempting, these days, to simply fabricate an entire planet and species from whole cloth (down to the CGI’d backgrounds). Anything, it seems, that would complicate the Navi, or even the planet Pandora, is never shown. When the protagonist asks, rhetorically, whether the Navi would really want “blue jeans and light beer” in exchange for their treetop dwelling – well, what if there were Navi that actually would want light beer and blue jeans? Certainly, as more than a few communists in the grip of comprador regimes would note, nations have been sold out for far less. The Navi are reduced to simply philistine rejectors of science.
Beyond even this, the whole religiosity of the film is glaring. I won’t spoil the film, but the climactic battle depends on an almost literal deus ex machina that is totally implausible and in the end cheap: if divine forces are going to duke it out with humans, why should the Navi even resist to begin with?
In the end, the film falls far short from presenting something akin to Bethune or John Brown’s internationalism and renunciation of their privilege. Bethune and Brown, in the end, were in the midst of roaring debates even on the side they were with. That complexity is entirely compressed into a fish-out-of-water romance/Faustian bargain plot. The element of conscious choice is robbed even from the human protagonist.
On a side note, not related to politics: I will say that Cameron here really shows how lazy American film can become. Both Michelle Rodriguez and Sigourney Weaver’s characters are retreads from prior Cameron films, and several elements (the nameless “Company” that is behind the evil, the divide between the science and military wings of the military-industrial complex) are elements already seen in the Terminator films, Aliens and the Abyss. I’m now fairly sure Cameron is no longer really making films so much as rearranging Mag-Po tiles on his refrigerator.
Gregory A. Butler said
To be brutally frank, “Avatar” is, basically “Dances With Wolves” in space – White soldier on a genocidal mission against native people is won over by their “simple, back to nature” character, goes over to their side and, quite naturally, becomes their leader (because such “simple” folk are unable to produce their own leaders, of course).
In other words – liberal racism
As for Ana Blic’s comment – it is a mark of White privilege to not be able to think about race.
Since your race runs this country, you never have to think about race because your race runs America and dominates every aspect of life in this nation.
Since my race very much does NOT run this country, I have to think about race every day.
I’ve lost jobs because of my race, I’ve been harassed by cops because of my race, I’ve had White people very pointedly remind me that I’m other and not fully American because of my race – so I don’t have the luxury of pretending that race doesn’t matter!
And every Black and Latino person in this country can say the same thing!
In post civil rights movement America, denying the centrality of race and White supremacy in this country is one of the most common ways to promote racist ideology among liberal Whites.
rowlandkeshena said
I saw Avatar myself last night and I have to disagree with Gregory. I didn’t see the human character as someone who became their leader, but rather someone who was won over to their side, in other words, I agree with the perspective of Eric Ribellarsi on film.
I have big problems with films like Dances With Wolves, more so because the white film makers couldn’t be bothered to go out an actually research the language of the Teton. If they did then they would have realized they that Kevin Costner’s (and it doesn’t help that he was the creative force behind it) dialogue in Teton was incorrect in that he spoke the wrong dialect, making him seem somewhat laughable to those who actually speak the language. But again, this problem is a matter of the sheer laziness on the part of film’s creators to actually research Onkwehonwe culture.
All in all I thought Avatar was a good film, inherent baggage and all from being a product of Hollywood.
Robert Erickson said
I don’t buy your take on “a story of transformation and struggle”. though I still haven’t seen Avatar, the fantasy of the white person taking on indigenous culture and leading them to freedom strikes me as cultural appropriation, and undermines the autonomy of oppressed peoples, and their potential to liberate themselves without the leadership of a sympathetic white person.
If you ask me, I’d say that white boy needs to stick to fundraising for the revolution, not leading it. Unless he is leading white people to overthrow the imperialists at home. ;)
Mike E said
Greg writes:
Sometimes assumptions overwhelm perceptions: Ironically in this case, those criticizing Avatar are having trouble actually seeing what the film is saying. This film doesn’t portray them as “ignorant savagees” or “simple folk” — but as people with a very sophisticated culture (including ways of psychically connecting among humanoids and gathering data from the whole biosphere that are way beyond the earthlings understanding). and they are shown as having a complex leadership and tribal structure.
No Jake doesn’t “naturally” become their leader (they are led throughout by their own war leaders, according to a hierarchy of succession that is explained, and are organized into differetn tribes that rally to the cause.) Jake (as someone knowledgeable about “the enemy”) speaks at a number of rallies (rousing the resistance) sharing a platform with the actual leaders. And in the battle sceen he is shown as having somekind of tactical responsibility in the fight (against high tech ships that only he is familiar with).
Greg writes:
I’m not sure how this film intersects with the question of nationalities WITHIN the U.S. (i.e. what is usually called “race”). But obviously, the film is intended to make people “think about” how the U.S. commits genocide and ecological crimes in the lands of other people.
Rowland writes:
I am aware that DwW doesn’t correctly use the actual languages of the high plains. But how is that an explanation of “big problems with films like Dances with Wolves.” It seems like a small problem — a real problem, true, but quite a small one.
(Does every film have to accurately portray every language and dialect in its screenplay? Why exactly? I have seen tons of war movies that have really awful pseudo-German coming out of actors… it is a bit irritating if you actually speak German, but it is hardly a basis for denouncing the whole movie.)
Another example: When West Side Story came out, it was denounced by some Puerto Rican nationalists as the “quintessentially colonial movie.” Why? In their article at least because the leading female role went to Natalie Wood, not a Puerto Rican actress. (Rita Moreno played the supporting actress role).
Now, it is an indictment of U.S. imperialism that there were so few acting jobs for Black and Latin actors. And it is still an indictment of this society.
But it is hardly a basis for dismissing West Side Story. Here was a major film that (literally for the first time) put the challenges of Puerto Rican life in NYC on the big screen. It was (actually!) a film about gangbangers that treated them as teenagers with hopes and dreams (and that portrayed the cop, Officer Krupke, as a flaming asshole.) It’s theme was to transcend the hatreds between Irish and Puerto Rican gangs in New York. It was written by Leonard Bernstein, the most promient (and certainly most radical) composer ofthe time, who became notorious for hosting fundraising parties for the Black Panther party, and for his persecution by the Nixon administration.
So you had to view this film overall — as a major radical work — that made important statements for the times. And if the funding system of Hollywood demanded one major marque actress in a leading role — then that is a problem (of course) worth exposing. But it is hardly a basis for condemning the whole film as “colonialist.”
Maoists call this a matter of “raising a secondary aspect to negate the principal aspect.”
All works of art (and all human actions) are contradictory, and even the most radical ones have flaws (inevitably) — but our analysis requires a sense of the overall, with context, dialectics and proportion.
* * * * * * * *
On Robert’s remarks:
Mao said “no investigation, no right to speak.” There is something wrong about taking sides without seeing the movie, and making assumptions about what it says and does.
I’m intrigued by the idea that you can “appropriate” an indigenous culture that you in fact invented. Camron has not misrepresented anything (which is why the comparison to languages in DwW is so odd), his writers invented the culture, the language, the religion, the customs.
We can perhaps critique the conventions that guided this creation i.e. it certainly could be patronizing, or dovetail imperialist mythologies like Shangri La fictions did. But then we would have to unravel this in the concrete example. Hegemonik claims it treats this people as “noble savages” and claims that is an imperialist trope. Actually the “noble savage” was a mythology of capitalism’s early, radical and non-imperialist stage (when it was revolutionary and celebrating the right of people, especially individuals, to “free” life.) The main imperialist trope is the discardable savage, the worthless mud people, the tragic-but-inevitably-vanishing Indian, the empty lands waiting for industrious settlers and so on.
Labor Shall Rule said
He did assume leadership by mastering the Toruk. It was said – according to Na’vi folklore – that a ‘chosen one’ can only master the predator in a time of war.
Hegemonik said
I believe Labor Shall Rule is correct on that account on Toruk. Which to me is just this plot device to say the Navi are “spiritual” (read: superstitious) and get the Sully character into the lead of the fight.
Just to throw a swerve of a discussion point here: is there all that much difference between Sully’s character in Avatar and Sir William Walker in the first portion of Queimada? Or T.E. Lawrence (both in real life and in Lawrence of Arabia?
Mike E said
Well, in the case of T.E. Lawrence: he was and remained an agent of British imperialism, and same with William Walker (in Burn/Queimada). Jake Sully starts as such an agent, but he deserts and goes over. This seems to me is a major difference.
Hegemonik:
Explain to me what is so sinister about showing an indigenous people as “spiritual” — is that somehow unfair or inaccurate? On what basis do you say that a disrespectful “superstition” is implied. (In fact, the Nav’i are shown as having powers and connections that the earth scientists can barely understand.)
Hegemonik said
@Mike: I’ll preface this by saying I’m more of an absolutist on atheism and criticism of religion.
As I’ve said earlier, the wonder of both sci-fi and CGI is that you can build things from scratch with little regard for their plausibility or even rationalizing them as plot elements. I’m perhaps of an older school sci-fi fan, but the intrusion of fantastical elements into the plot as anything more than a MacGuffin usually ends up creating bad plot holes. The test is whether you could push the fantastical elements out, whether the underlying story could be true (i.e., much of the original Star Trek series presented true-life scenarios by masking them in makeup), or at least “feel” true in some way (i.e., the Matrix is entirely implausible, but the philosophical elements are true to life).
The problem with Avatar is that the pseudo-spirituality of it all rings false almost precisely because, in the suspended reality, it’s all real. Animals have literal interdependence with the Navi; the shaman is literally talking with spirits; the deity is a literal “essence” in the woods.
Being a bit ruthless here: these fantastical elements – and they are fantastical in and of themselves – are so fundamental to the plot that they can’t be ignored. I recall feeling like the final quarter of the film was totally cheapened by it. Why bother fighting when the Earth Deity will simply send its own version of the Divine Wind at your enemies?
And hence, I find that Cameron – who among other things claims that he’s discovered the literal tomb of Jesus – is following the later George Lucas’s lead here, and presenting a case, if not for “God” then for Belief in a Higher Power®. And I’m not really buying it…
Gregory A. Butler said
I have to agree with Hegemonik here – because we communists are materialists (and therefore atheists), we really have to oppose any efforts to present religious superstition as if it’s actually true and a reflection of real world “spiritual forces”.
We know that all religious beliefs are human-invented myths, dangerous myths that are used to promote exploitation and oppression – so we really shouldn’t be giving aid and comfort to those who would promote a superstition-based idealist view of the world, as Cameron does.
rowlandkeshena said
Mike:
Seeing the linguistic difficulties of DwW as a big or small problem is all a matter of perspective. As an anthropologist I find their lack of descent research on Plains languages to be troubling, as it is not exactly like it is difficult information to find, especially as they went so far as to have Costner be taught several lines in Teton, however as an indigenous person I find it insulting.
Perhaps it is better for me put it more into context. What I should probably say that the way DwW taught Kevin Costner to speak like a Teton woman (there are several enclitics in Teton speech that differ based on the gender of the speaker) is in and of itself rather silly (My Teton friends tell me it makes his dialogue sound ridiculous), reflective of a lack of research on their part, and a smaller part of a much bigger problem with regards to how mainstream films represent Onkwehonwe people.
I also wasn’t actually denouncing DwW, just announcing that I had problems big or small, with it. I personally grew up watching the film with my mom, a proud indigenous woman who’s family worked with AIM, who loved it.
I also do not understand the point about the indigenous people in the film being spiritual and it somehow being an issue. Coming from someone deeply involved in indigenous struggles in North America, while I can’t speak about indigenous people worldwide, I can safely say that many of us, especially here in Canada, are “spiritual” people. I could almost guarantee (because I have researched it) that if I were to poll the members of the Native Youth Movement, American Indian Movement, West Coast Warrior Society, Wasáse Movement, Mohawk Warrior Society, Olympic Resistance Network, or any of the other smaller groups or individuals who are involved in active resistance to the colonial Canadian state, or just in the communities in general, I would find that a significant portion, highly likely to even be the outright majority, would self-identify as spiritual people.
There seems to a perspective here that the presentation of the Avatar’s Native people as spiritual equates them with being a primitive people. Again, I don’t actually make the connection here myself. If one were to watch a documentary film like Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance by Alanis Obomsawin about the 1990 Oka Crisis in Québec and it becomes clear that such resistance movements were driven primarily by the ancient spiritual customs of the Kanien’kehaka and Rotinoshonni people, not European derived, Western materialist philosophies.
So again, I would concur with Mike about what is so sinister about showing indigenous peoples as spiritual in Avatar?
rowlandkeshena said
Gregory:
“We know that all religious beliefs are human-invented myths, dangerous myths that are used to promote exploitation and oppression”
You have the first part of that sentence. I would agree with you that all religious beliefs are human-invented folklore and mythology. However, where I will disagree with you is in the second part. I think what you are doing here is falling into the myth that many Marxists do, which is too frame all analysis of religion and spirituality within the framework of Marx’s original critique of Western religion. I will admit that I am not a fan of institutionalized forms of religion, especially as they cause people to except the doctrine of the virtue of suffering, and hence cause them to look for solutions on a spiritual plane rather than fixing the real world. However, that analysis I have often found falls apart when applied to many other traditions. I could come up with a list, but for space I won’t, but save to say there are a number of times and cases where religious beliefs have stirred people to action to fight for a better world.
I would suggest to you to watch the documentary I just named above (Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance) and note how the Kanien’kehaka and Rotinoshonni struggle for an end to Canadian colonialism and for equality and justice are inspired by their ancient spiritual traditions, rather than having them “promote exploitation and oppression.”
Gregory A. Butler said
Rowland Keshena,
I don’t limit my atheism to criticizing the big three Abrahamic religions or the major religions of the East – I’m against all religious superstitions, because all religions are based on an unrealistic, fantasy-based and idealist view of the world.
Also, all religions – even the “spiritual” ones practiced by some Native Americans – uphold the present oppressive social order.
It is our duty as communists to encourage workers and the oppressed to abandon idealist superstitions and face the real world as it is, because that’s the only way to change the world.
Beyond that, I think it’s patronizing and quite frankly racist to say that we should treat some idealist superstitions with kid gloves and not criticize them, just because those superstitious non reality-based views are held by members of oppressed nationalities.
Most African Americans are religious (granted, they belong to two of the three Abrahamic religions – Christianity or Islam – rather than spirituality) and many participants and leaders in the African American freedom struggle are religious as well (a lot of them are actually religious leaders).
But that does NOT mean that we as communists should avoid criticizing the Black church or Black Islam – especially since the role of religion greatly limits these struggles and gets in the way of the fight for justice.
Hegemonik said
@Rowland:
My own point here (I don’t want this conflated with Greg’s) is that if religion or belief were as simple as literally talking to the plants (as opposed to symbolic gestures) then it wouldn’t be religion or belief – it’d be science. With regard to Avatar, the falseness (as in, does it have some real-world analogue) comes through this simplicity. If it’s that simple, why the need for ritual? Why need shamans? Why all the hushed tones about the deity? Why not just treat the Navi as a technologically advanced culture that happened to luck out, rather than a species that talks in Hollywood Indian?
Taking another example: the difference between the treatment of the Force within the first Star Wars series and then the prequels. The Force in the original series was mysterious, magical, with a Dark and a Light Side – and it was also limited to no more than three characters per film. In the prequel series, it becomes a matter of bacteria, bloodlines, etc. – and it becomes both hopelessly convoluted (as if the bacteria would care whether the Jedi used their powers for good or evil!) and vulgar (gee, legions of Jedi masters? Why not telekinetically destroy any enemy?) It’s easy to see why the second series was the result of a much more religiously inclined Lucas, and yet totally void of the sense of wonder.
rowlandkeshena said
Gregory:
“Also, all religions – even the “spiritual” ones practiced by some Native Americans – uphold the present oppressive social order.”
This just shows that you have no real no knowledge of the subject matter on which you speak. Do tell, if you can, about how spiritual teachings etc. that lead their members to fight against colonialism, racism, capitalism, imperialism, sexism etc., (ass all the new wave of Indian movements do) uphold the present oppressive social order.
I used the believe the same sort of thing you do, and trust me, I am an ardent philosophical materialist and I do think it would be better if people were so credulous about things, but I soon discovered through active participation in liberation struggles of Indian peoples in North America that such positions are intellectually untenable when met with the actual facts on the ground.
I also never advocated treating them with kid gloves just because they are practised by an oppressed nationality (so your insinuation of racism is baseless), what I was pointing out was such views are ridiculously narrow minded and are exactly the reason that most radicalised members of my community could give a shit less about those who uphold Marxism.
Once you have actually studied and participated in the struggles I am involved in then we can talk.
Tell No Lies said
I suspect that if John Brown had been commisioned to write a screenplay about his own involvement in the struggle against slavery that there would have been a powerful, and very Abrahamic, religious element. I’m an unapologetic atheist but I think its just plain wrong to act as if all religions and spiritualities simply “uphold the present oppressive social order.” Shit is just a lot more contradictory than that. This isn’t a matter of treating any set of beliefs with “kid gloves.” Its a matter of actually undertaking the research to determine whether or not what you say is true rather than just asserting it. The role of Liberation Theology in the gestation of the Zapatista rebellion, for example, is both contradictory and overwhelmingly positive. It was the pastoral agents of the Catholic Church informed by Liberation Theology, and not any of the dizzying array of militantly atheistic Marxist groups active in Chiapas at the same time, that facilitated the development of a sophisticated critique of racism against the indigenous peoples of Mexico that in turn birthed a revolutionary people in Chiapas. The Marxist left was deeply unable to develop an analysis of the particular situation facing the indigenous when the Church was not. At a certain point the Church (or at least its leaders) got in the way of the development of the movement, but even here the record is decidedly mixed.
celticfire said
I feel like what some of us is saying is that while it is correct to understand things concretely through a materialist (that is, atheist) understanding of the world, it is not correct to take up this understanding as a stick to beat people over the head with, especially oppressed people.
Hegemonik said
The problem with that analogy, TellNoLies, is that your two examples deal with a Deus, but not a Deus ex Machina – its not as if John Brown prayers instantly struck down slaveholders.
Which is the problematic element in Avatar: the miraculous element of SPOILERS! the beasts overwhelming the humans mechanized infantry simply renders the whole struggle null and void.
And Ill note here with regard to the Navi deity: IMHO part of the problem is making its presence both totally mundane and yet mysterious. The notion of a living planet has been tackled in sci-fi before (off the top of my head, Marvel comics has Ego and DC comics’ Mogo). In both cases, the concept was much better dealt with – as in, why would a living planet necessarily *be good*?
saoirse said
and in fact John Brown might have viewed the ending of slavery purely in theological terms.
In film critic circles it seems the debate over avatar is those who absolutely love the world Cameron has created, his master craft ability to do sweeping crisp action like no other director and his revolutionary use of mo-cap and other film technologies vs. those who think the film is terribly shallow with a retreaded story line done worse than in many of his previous films where the main character’s motivation, transformation and acting skills are all sub par.
On the one hand I don’t think we can cherry pick which parts of avatar we like and discard the other stuff as “hollywood” bs, secondary, etc. And on the other hand as a consumer of art that’s exactly what we often do. Sometimes a movie sings to us and captures something magical and takes us away to a special place and we forgive its plot holes are contradictory politics.
Avatar has sharply divided critics and sci fi nerds but I don’t yet see this film as an event comparative to the Twilight series or Star Wars. It’s still too soon to tell. But its very exciting to have some many of these ideas being throw around the popular culture. And its leading to a lively debate here. So I expect we’re all going to go out and see this thing while the film is still playing and hasn’t been abolished to vod and blockbuster
Gregory A. Butler said
I’m a bit taken aback that, on a communist website, there would be such a controversy about principles as foundational to communism as uncompromising militant atheism and a materialist world outlook especially at a time when atheism has actually become a mainstream idea in this country.
I understand why folks embrace superstition – especially workers and members of oppressed ethnic groups – life can be awful for most folks under capitalism, and belief in a loving God or a world of spirits can make life more bearable in a world where sickness, sadness and premature death are a commonplace for workers and minorities.
With that said, it does us no good to pander to those superstitions, no matter how widely held they are or how unpopular it might make us – as revolutionaries, it’s our job to go against the current – because the mainstream ideas in this or any class society are the ideas of the ruling exploiting classes.
So no, I’m not going to hold back from criticizing Native American spirituality just because it’s the religion of an oppressed people – because to hold back my materialist world outlook would be nothing more than the worst kind of pandering.
Religions of all types are used by the rulers to convince workers and the oppressed that, although there is injustice in this world, there is some mystical otherworld where there is a just afterlife.
This is a profoundly conservative view, and while there are folks who draw revolutionary conclusions from those beliefs, it’s still basically anti revolutionary.
Religions in general encourage passive acceptance of injustice by their followers – in particular their working class and minority followers.
Religious revolutionaries are – generally speaking – shunned by mainstream religious groups – we can just look at the life of Rev Dr Martin Luther King to see that clearly. In life, he was shunned by the mainstream Black church – they only embraced him when he was safely dead. And Malcolm X actually got murdered by mainstream Black Muslim leaders.
We have to deal with the real world as it actually is – there is no heaven, you are not going to see your lost loved ones in the afterlife, the only shot you have at making a better world is here and now.
Hey, I can understand exactly why people believe in these superstitions – life is hard for working class people, especially if you’re a person of color, and it would be nice to believe that there is a just afterlife, where I’d get to see my brother again (he died young because Medicaid does NOT pay for heart transplants) and I could be reunited with my dad (he died thanks to the really bad medical care that US imperialism gives to veterans in the VA hospitals) but, guess what? That’s not gonna happen!
All we have is this life, and nobody is going to save us but us.
Harsh, but true.
On the movie itself, I still stand by the same conclusions I wrote much earlier in this thread – “Avatar” is a space version of “Dances With Wolves” – basically, it’s liberal paternalistic racism.
Beyond that, I think it’s dangerous and foolish to expect revolutionary content from Hollywood movies – these are mainstream movies made by millionaire directors, writers and movie stars and produced and distributed by multibillion dollar corporations.
To expect anything other than entertainment from folks who are so committed to and enriched by the capitalist system is dangerous and foolish.
To close, I would also like to note that I’m somewhat concerned that I’m the only one on this thread who took Ana Blic to task for her “colorblind” liberal racism.
Any serious observer of the world – or, for that matter, anybody who walks out of the house with both eyes open – who would say of an allegorical film about the Native American genocide that “I didn’t see “race” at all” is willfully blind or lives in a fantasyland.
And claim like “One has to look “very hard” to see race in everything” and “I think applying “race” to this film – makes about as much sense as applying it to the color of my shirt.” are the stock in trade of liberal racism – I expect that kind of liberal racist garbage in “The New York Times”, not on a communist website!
Am I the only one here who has a problem with Ana Blic’s liberal racism?
hegemonik said
@Saoirse:
I disagree with
IMHO, understanding the limits of mainstream films under capitalism – however radical – is crucial to understanding where we are both culturally and politically. For instance: why is it that we have seen corporations identified as the enemy (i.e., the Terminator films, the first two Alien series films, etc.), see imperialists and imperialism identified similarly (i.e., Avatar, etc.) – and yet we have yet to see anything approximating a revolution in such films? Note that even that the Matrix – philosophically, one of the most with-it series of films with a Marxist subtext – the ultimate ending isn’t the overthrow of the machines but a sort of peaceful coexistence (the whole series’ finish was a Popular Front against Agent Smith).
I think part of the answer is, if we consider cinema to be a series of fictionalized thought-experiments (as we are here), then dealing with their plot holes, unresolving resolutions, etc. is a part of the necessary critical framework.
hegemonik said
By the way, congrats to Eric on getting a mention at the Washington Post. Soon to be blasted into the superstructure?
Rowland Keshena said
Gregory:
“I’m a bit taken aback that, on a communist website, there would be such a controversy about principles as foundational to communism as uncompromising militant atheism and a materialist world outlook”
Maybe because the world has changed a lot and people have developed quite a bit over the last 166 years since Marx wrote his famous words in the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
Marx and Engels did a lot of amazing work, work that is foundational to a revolutionary outlook, but I do not hold everything of theirs to be holy writ that cannot be questioned, improved upon or demonstrated to be too narrow or just wrong. I personally would put there work on religion in the category of elements of their work I view as incomplete, as my academic study and experiences have shown me that it is fundamentally a narrow perspective on a highly complex issue. There has been incredibly interesting work on religion, both from Marxists and non-Marxists, over the years since the time of Marx and Engels, and by people who I would argue are far more knowledgeable than them on the matter.
Also, none of us are actually arguing against materialism, what we are arguing against is your overly simplistic summation that puts all religion in the same category. To paraphrase Tell No Lies, it would seem to be fundamentally a difference between those of us who have actually sought to understand the material and ideological conditions on the ground, utilizing research to determine whether or not what our positions hold true, and those who just assert what they believe to be true with no evidence. But just like in any case, simply asserting something to be true will not actually, by the force of sheer willpower, determine to truth of a statement.
“As revolutionaries, it’s our job to go against the current – because the mainstream ideas in this or any class society are the ideas of the ruling exploiting classes.” I would agree with that, but again I would make things clear with my own experience.
Going back to the example I use most and is most familiar to me, that of my own work amongst my own people, American Indians, the compradors on the reserves and reservations of North America and the Canadian and American ruling classes that they oppress their own people on behalf off, are almost always overwhelmingly Christian in the religio-spiritual practices. Thus, those in the community who take up a radicalized, critically traditional version of their Nation’s ancient beliefs and customs that allows them to draw anti-capitalist, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist conclusions, are actually going against the grain, especially when one considers that such practices and beliefs were harshly suppressed by the colonial state in North America. They are probably the most psychologically de-colonized people I know and they are leaders and movers in the current anti-colonial struggles in North America.
Again, I will stick by my earlier that claim that it seems like you know real idea about what you are speaking on, and just continue to spout off without evidence.
In the end it comes down to what CelticFire said that “it is correct to understand things concretely through a materialist (that is, atheist) understanding of the world, it is not correct to take up this understanding as a stick to beat people over the head with, especially oppressed people.” You would do well remember that advice.
Vivid Visionary said
Thanks Rowland, for this last post. I deeply agree.
Unfortunately, Gregory has (throughout his posts I’ve seen) shown a commitment to dogmatism that is more hurtful than helpful. His “more revolutionary than thou” posture is arrogant and uncalled for. Nevertheless, he should continue to post here, and we should break down what he says in a principled manner.
Gregory A. Butler said
Vivid Visionary,
What you call “dogmatism” I call having principles – there’s nothing “arrogant” about having views and clearly stating them in the form of a polemic.
And I happen to think that, if you’re a materialist, its necessary to be an atheist.
If it’s good enough for mainstream academics like Richard Dawkins (and he’s not shy about sharply criticizing all religions) then it’s good enough for us communists.
I stand by my previous statements that we should not pander to the religious superstitions of the workers (including working class people who are members of oppressed nationalities) instead, we should be honest with them about the real world – including the part about their being no gods and no spirit world.
I don’t like lying to people – and tiptoeing around people’s religious superstitions when we know for a fact that they are false is a form of lying.
zerohour said
It’s dogmatic to view everything in terms of polar opposites: Ana Blic expresses a liberal view on race, so she’s a racist, calls for understanding the complexity of religion are pandering to superstition. It just further confirms the notion that I hold that religion shouldn’t be defined by its particular objects [deities or spiritual entities], but by a habit of mind, a desire for the transcendental figure that can be used to justify all kinds of abysmal behavior. Atheists are not immune to this at all. People like Sam Harris are stridently anti-religion but when it comes to The American Nation he gets weak at the knees, trading in the cross for the flag. Sadly communists have often succumbed to the temptation to turn historical figures into transcendental ones as well: The Party, The Working Class, The Revolution, not to mention Marx, Lenin, etc.,.
Dawkins is exactly the kind of atheist we should not hold up as an example. He and the other so-called “New Atheists” have an impoverished view of religion, treating it as an irrational counter-point to science. Take away the details and the argument is always the same one based on liberal humanism: science makes logical empirically verifiable claims about reality and the religion doesn’t. End of story. This sort of reductionist materialism is exactly what Marxists should reject, and in fact, constitutes a mystification in and of itself. This represents a failure to understand religions as ideologies with institutions, rituals, and social norms that creates communities and affiliations, which provide meaning, comfort and solace. What can stark atheism offer to replace that? I would venture to guess that for most atheists in the US, the closest thing they have on hand is the commodity fetish. What the New Atheists advocate then is “market atheism.” We need to do better.
Until radicals are able to win people over to a broader social vision that incorporates a vital atheism that is compassionate and rooted in collective struggle and humane affirmation, it is nothing but idealism and moralistic self-righteousness to think we can convince spiritual believers we have a better alternative by assaulting them with smug derision.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t openly express atheism, in fact I believe we should be even more open about it than we are, but I also want to echo Celticfire’s sentiment that we shouldn’t use it as a club against others who disagree.
Gregory A. Butler said
Zerohour,
Let’s table the atheism thing for a minute here and talk about race – specifically, the liberal racism on display in Ana Blic’s “colorblind” comments at the top of this discussion thread.
I really don’t see anything “dogmatic” in blatantly calling a racist on their racism – yes, even a liberal racist, because, quite frankly, they can do the most damage.
Look at the damage done in New York City by liberal racists like Daniel Patrick Moynehan, Ed Koch and Albert Shanker – in fact, for the last 50 years or so, “colorblind” liberal racism has become the dominant form of racism in Blue States like New York, Michigan and California – and in the latter two states, Affirmative Action was destroyed by “colorblind” liberal racist arguments.
So, if it’s “dogmatic” of me to go after the most dangerous and effective of racist arguments – the liberal “colorblind” arguments, then I’m proud to be a dogmatic anti racist!
Mike E said
[moderator note: Please make arguments of substance, rather than making arguments for a politics of hostile labeling. It isn't "dogmatic," its just boring, exhausted and not allowed .]
DR said
EMBRACING AVATAR
Following the discussion here on the movie “Avatar” has been interesting. There are other blog sites where the movie has stirred up passion and controversy. The movie had a deep, profound and gripping effect on me, on my 80 year-old mother whom I took to see it, on my 39-year old son, and evidently on others who are “weighing in” pro and con.
I’m speaking to this from the heart of a communist. Anyone who hates what has become of life on earth and yearns for something entirely different should embrace this movie and hold it close (warts and all). It would be hard, indeed, for a cynic to do this, no matter what variant of cynicism is at work.
This movie is about the future, or even if we might continue to have one at ll, much less one truly worth having. It is about different ways things could be. It is not simply upholding desertion, treason and armed rebellion, though it does just that, and with righteousness.
It indicts the most fundamentally inhumane, grotesque, driving dynamics of the modern world (as they get carried into the 22nd century in this movie). And it raises up the specter of a totally different dynamic, or way of life in total and absolute opposition. Something is being powerfully affirmed here beyond just defeating and sending home an intergalactic imperial death and exploitation machine, righteous though that is.
I think this is what James Cameron has given us. A a communis I find I have to always, in whatever ways I possibly can, keep my heart and vision cast to the very farthest horizons. And hold within a sense of a fundamentally different world. And who might inhabit this future. Who would those people be? James Cameron is not a communist, but he has been seeking in a way that man more should. And he has given us his sense of the possibility of a fundamentally different world and the beings who might live there.
The Na’vi are his “future people”. And much of how he has envisioned them resonates with me. But I also think there is merit to some criticism I’ve seen in other places about some problems with upholding the “noble savage”. It gets idealized. I wouldn’t think we should try to return to “primitive communalism”. With Cameron, this seems to be a fairly strong current of what is advocated, though he has given it some fascinating, imaginative perspectives which are beyond simply primitive communal ways.
It’s as if he has taken some very basic, core features (the better ones) from the earliest forms of human society, and has given new life to them in a future possible.
We should all have that spirit and daring to imagine such things.
But, it likely would look much different. All those vast means and forces, tat are in the clutches and at the behest of the capitalist, imperialist system, call out to be liberated through revolutions, the communist revolution, in fact, so that they will become the common property of humanity as a whole. A humanity which will then be freed up to be a truly conscious collectivity of mutually flourishing beings, who can and do use those means only for the good of all, and of their home, planet earth.
So, who would those people be? I think there are real ways that the Na’vi can help us determine that.
And, for opening this door in the way that he has, James Cameron deserves a very appreciative nod.
Adrienne said
After reading all these reviews and opinions, I finally went and saw Avatar yesterday. I thought it was amazingly beautiful film to look at, and that the story was excellent — even if it was obvious that aspects of this film’s storyline can be said to be similar or derivative of other stories/films.
Like Eric Ribellarsi, I also came away with a completely different perspective than the review written by Annalee Newitz — because I personally didn’t see Jake Sully as The White Guy who is the Hero Of The Film. Instead, the Sully character is a transformational figure who seems to be merely one hero in a film that was bursting heroic and iconic characters.
In fact, if I felt required to pick out the Star Hero of Avatar, it would definitely have to be Neytiri. Because not only is she Sully’s teacher and trainer — who continually saves his bacon throughout the entire film — but she is the Na’vi hero who ultimately takes down the Insane Imperialist Monster at the end. And, the more I think about it (and I’ve been thinking about the themes running through the film since yesterday), every single one of the female characters in Avatar are strong, wise, smart women who are totally capable of seriously kicking ass — truly the equals of the male characters — or in some ways, even superior to them.
It is unique in such a film not to be forced to endure a single “token bimbo” — and to me, that was awesome!
The other themes I see running through the film are (obviously) imperialism and environmentalism, and in my view, Cameron definitely came out on the correct side on each.
So, count me in as standing in full agreement with Eric Riballarsi’s comments, and also with the comments that DR wrote above.
Hegemonik said
@Adrienne:
While there isn’t a token bimbo, it should be mentioned here that while Cameron doesn’t have a Hollywood assortment of stereotypes, he has molded something of his own. That is: the Neytiri character approximates Sarah Connor in T2; Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar is roughly the same as her Ripley in Aliens; Michelle Rodriguez’s Trudy Chacon is a near exact copy of Pvt. Vasquez (also of Aliens).
Given how both of the latter characters (Vasquex and Chacon) are presented as the epitome of the butch dyke, it’s curious how they a) are given very little screentime b) chew up scenery during that little time and c) are disposed of right before the final act begins.
Also notable, Cameron seems to revert to a strange leitmotif for showing that his female characters are “strong”, which is to have her fire off am almost misogynist one-liner. Compare the following:
From Aliens (as Queen Alien approaches Newt):
Ripley: Get away from her you bitch!
From Avatar (as the battle begins):
Chacon: You’re not the only one with a gun, bitch
Eddy Laing said
The back-and-forth in this thread on religion vs atheism grabbed my attention, as specifically did the above comment, which I found especially curious in that it purports to summarize Marx and Engels without detail, except to dismiss them as ‘fundamentally narrow’ — which I must assume means their analysis of idealism, the basis of their critiques of religion. Held up against their body of written work, this claim seems a bit silly.
But beyond that, when one speaks of religion (a world view based on sacred beliefs and worship rites) as a world outlook, as a way of understanding the world, would anyone here point out some of the new, exciting and potentially liberating developments in religious idealism that others should be aware of?
One would do better to draw a distinction between ideologies (religious and otherwise) and the practitioners of religion … (which M&E clearly did).
Adrienne said
Hegemonik
“While there isn’t a token bimbo, it should be mentioned here that while Cameron doesn’t have a Hollywood assortment of stereotypes, he has molded something of his own. That is: the Neytiri character approximates Sarah Connor in T2; Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar is roughly the same as her Ripley in Aliens; Michelle Rodriguez’s Trudy Chacon is a near exact copy of Pvt. Vasquez (also of Aliens).”
Sorry Hegemonik, but I’m afraid I just have to laugh. I mean, do you really expect women to start complaining about the fact that Cameron has spent his film career creating an assortment of heroic female archetypes? That he doesn’t pander to tradition by tossing random bimbos into his films?
For pity’s sake man, you guys have been raised on heroes galore (coming from every culture, and from every era), from Apollo to Zorro! Isn’t it about time that women get to view a few female heroes on the silver screen?
“Given how both of the latter characters (Vasquex and Chacon) are presented as the epitome of the butch dyke, it’s curious how they a) are given very little screentime b) chew up scenery during that little time and c) are disposed of right before the final act begins.”
How do you know they’re butch dykes? I ask, because I don’t remember sexual preference being a feature that was focused on with either character, in either film. And personally, I really don’t have a problem with seeing women (gay or straight) in films die fighting.
In Avatar, Chacon’s character clearly defines what her moral position is, goes over to the opposition, fights with all she’s got and ultimately dies in battle for the cause she had taken up. A battle that could never have been won without her. Is this not the definition of heroism?
I think it is. And I honestly don’t give a rats ass if Chacon was a butch dyke or not, or whether she calls someone, or something (whether female or male) a bitch or not.
saoirse said
Cameron clearly is attracted to and or respects strong and explicitly butch women. Though of all these masculine women only Sarah Conner (and Ripley – not a JC creation) are leading roles they pepper all his films. In Aliens all 3 of the space marines are coded as butch. And in Avatar all the space mercs are similar. These images on butches on screen do nothing but make me smile.
rowlandkeshena said
Eddy:
“The back-and-forth in this thread on religion vs atheism grabbed my attention, as specifically did the above comment, which I found especially curious in that it purports to summarize Marx and Engels without detail, except to dismiss them as ‘fundamentally narrow’ — which I must assume means their analysis of idealism, the basis of their critiques of religion. Held up against their body of written work, this claim seems a bit silly.”
One, I did not dismiss their work, I said I viewed it as incomplete, or as another way of putting it, I do not think it is up to par with the rest of their work. Two, you critique my comment by noting that I did not summarize Marx and Engels’ work on religion, which I would say is a bit silly for two reasons: first, I assume that everyone of the Marxists on here knows the most well summation of the orthodox Marxist position on religion, that it is the opiate of the people; and secondly, to do a more in-depth analysis would require a short essay, which would have taken away from the more back and forth nature of the conversation.
As for the narrowness that I take from Marx and Engels on religion, it is linked to its incompleteness in my view. I note that Marx and Engels were writing in a certain time and place and within a particular context, and as such I think their work is an excellent critique of the established forms of the Christian Church (and other Abrahamic religions for the matter), however I view it is incomplete / narrow because it is something that cannot be universalized, despite attempts by the Marxist left to do exactly that.
You ask, “would anyone here point out some of the new, exciting and potentially liberating developments in religious idealism that others should be aware of?” As I often do, because it is closet to me, and what I know most about, I would point in you in the direction of North American Onkwehonwe (indigenous) resurgence, which is almost universally seen as a spiritual endeavour by it proponents and leading actors. To that end you could to some of the more recent literature in that area coming out of Canada, such as the work of Taiaiake Alfred, especially his book “Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom”.
Mike E said
Rowland writes:
Without addressing the many things raised above… I would just like to note: I don’t believe there is an “orthodox Marxist position” on religion or anything else. It is all contentious — how could subtle analysis of complex matters not be contentious. The historic process of turning Marxism into an orthodoxy (or several competing orthodoxies) has been tied to the process of stripping communist theory of its dynamic, open and creative character.
Put another way: For many of us, the Marxism we encountered or inherited has such elements of codification, orthdoxy and the confusing of quick phrases with the underlying analysis. But should we accept that as valid, and on that basis accuse Marxism itself of crudeness and close-mindedness?
Example: What does “the opium of the people” mean? Or more precisely, what did that metaphor mean to Marx?
After the twentieth century (and the explosion of widespread drug use and addiction, etc.) it has a specific meaning — opium is dope which befuddles the mind of the people. But in the early 1800s, opium had just been introduced in Europe as a painkiller (just as morphine would arrive in the u.S. during the civil war as a palliative).
More significant perhaps, I believe the widely quoted phrase is understood best in context (which we argued for in Letter 5 of the 9 Letters):
They are not saying “religion is dope” as if it is merely some plot by the ruling classes to befuddle our minds. They are saying (among other things) that modern religion arises from the pain and alienation of class society (while religions of hunter-gather societies had different roots).
Hegemonik said
@Adrienne:
Sexuality isn’t the issue here, it’s stereotyped gender roles and character arcs. And while it’s interesting to have Cameron around expanding the realm of what’s acceptable, he is doing precisely that – *expanding* the contours and not *breaking* them. And in this, he’s subtle: he has to balance out the tease with enough material to make sure that it’s all just a tease. ameron’s tough women either go one of three ways in order to resolve the problem of presenting something “too far out” (i.e., something too queer for mainstream film):
1) In the instance of Aliens‘s Vasquez and Avatar‘s Chacon, they’re introduced, then meet their end when their presence threatens to develop into a more fleshed out character.
2) In the instance of Aliens‘s Ripley and the Terminator films’ Sarah Connor, their aggression is explained as an a maternal instinct (the aforementioned scene is Ripley’s defense of her adopted daughter; Sarah Connor is, throughout the Terminator films, a Mary to John Connor’s Jesus). And in this, I think we should be fairly ruthless in critique: Aliens ends up as a compare/contrast between Ripley and motherly instinct as an adoptive parent vs. the Queen Alien and its endless laying of eggs.
3) The case of Neytiri is somewhat unique, though it gets hinted by elements from Titanic’s Rose (the resolving sequence of the battle is Neytiri holding Sully’s human body in a fashion quite reminiscent of the final Jack-and-Rose sequence of Titanic).
So what we have here are a sort of constellation of femininity: butches die before combat really begins, but feminine characters prosper so long as a mother or girlfriend character arc can be tacked on. This isn’t really all that much far removed from the action and horror movie convention of killing the black sidekick first, so that they don’t outshine the more Aryan protagonist.
Adrienne said
Hegemonik:
Well, if sexuality isn’t an issue then why did you automatically assume that Chacon’s character is intended to be the “epitome of a butch dyke?” I didn’t assume this while watching the film at all. Truthfully, I didn’t even think about Chacon’s sexuality, or consider her character to be a well worn sort of stereotype. Maybe because (at least to me) Chacon didn’t seem to be going out of her way to look or act in an overtly “butch dyke” manner.
What I saw was a strong, no-nonsense woman pilot (and btw I think Michelle Rodriguez is a beautiful woman) wearing a flight suit and no make up while doing her job. One who refused to follow orders to shoot the Na’vi because at heart she wasn’t an imperialist or a racist. Therefore, she couldn’t force herself to think of the Na’vi as an “alien enemy”, or assume that humans were superior beings who had a right to kill the Na’vi’s, or destroy their beautiful planet for profit.
But let me be perfectly clear here, I’m not saying that Chacon couldn’t be a gay woman, and that viewers aren’t allowed to speculate on whether she was. But I find myself wondering why you would immediately label Chacon’s character as such? What exactly made you think that? The flight suit and combat boots? The fact that she can be a tough fighter, and shoot at people and things from her plane? What about Grace Augustine (Weaver’s character)? Do you think her character was also a “butch dyke?”
I guess I personally don’t see what you’re talking about here. As I said before, I thought all of the women characters in Avatar were strong, wise, smart, and able to be aggressive when they needed to be — and in my view, none of these things are rare character attributes among women — whether gay or straight. I really appreciate the fact that Cameron is the kind of filmmaker who understands how to put realistic depictions of women up on the screen — and I wish there were a lot more filmmakers interested in doing the same.
To you it might be merely interesting, but to me, Cameron’s creation of heroic female archetypes seems vitally necessary.
By breaking them do you mean you’re hoping that Cameron will one day make a film where we will be left in no doubt whatsoever that the female (or male) hero is a gay woman (man)? If so, I also think that would be absolutely fantastic. Judging by the protagonists in the films that Cameron has made so far, this is probably not out of the realm of possibility.
I think film is definitely a powerful medium when it comes to creating social change — which is why I’m really hoping that many young women (gay or straight) will go out and see Avatar.
I know I’ll never forget what an incredible thrill it was for my older sister and I when we went to see the first Alien film (directed by Ridley Scott, Cameron made the second film of the series). Alien came out in 1979 — my sister was twenty and I was seventeen, and it was the first time either of us had ever seen a film where a woman character emerged as the hero of a science fiction/adventure film. This might seem like no big deal now, but thirty years ago this was really huge.
Yeah, but I think that’s because Neytiri was intended to be the main female hero of the film.
You feel that aggression fueled by maternal instinct is something that should be ruthlessly critiqued and dismissed as an inferior motive? If so, that seems pretty strange to me.
Indeed it has always seemed rather bizarre how the reactionary type loves to enshrine women’s maternal instincts, and sneer at women who don’t choose to have children, while many on the left frequently love to sneer at maternal instinct, and glorify women who choose to reject becoming mothers. Neither viewpoint leads to women’s emancipation, in my opinion. I think what will emancipate us is when women finally get to choose either road for ourselves, without a lot of bullshit repercussions and “ruthless critques” from men over our choices.
“3) The case of Neytiri is somewhat unique, though it gets hinted by elements from Titanic’s Rose (the resolving sequence of the battle is Neytiri holding Sully’s human body in a fashion quite reminiscent of the final Jack-and-Rose sequence of Titanic).”
Actually, I think the Sully character in Avatar has far more in common with Titanic’s Rose than Neytiri does. Because like Rose, Sully decides to leave all that is accustomed and familiar behind him in order to follow his heart, and choose the life he wants (and the people he wants around him) for himself.
The way I see it, Neytiri is a unique and new heroic archetype in Cameron’s female pantheon. Because this is not a woman embarking upon on a journey of self discovery the way that the Sully and Rose characters are. From the first time we see her, she is a strong, wise, smart and fully realized woman who already knows exactly who she is, and exactly what she is capable of — including bravely kicking ass where and when necessary. But that strength and toughness is not all she is comprised of — because she also clearly demonstrates that she is a generous and loving woman.
So to me, she seems a highly developed and nuanced character: Warrior, Lover, and Earth Mother, er, Pandora Mother, fiercely dedicated to her people and the planet, all at same time.
I think Neytiri rocks. :^)
Hegemonik said
@Adrienne:
First, by ruthless critique I mean doing away with some of the pretenses. For instance, in the case of a science fiction story, keep the special effects secondary – what’s first is, what is the film’s message? What is it saying? Is it right? Forget like/dislike (I liked Aliens! And Alien! And Avatar, too!) but get into what assumptions or narrative structures are underneath all the stuff we “just like.”
To me, what’s strangely reactionary in Alien is not Cameron’s exploration of maternal relationships to children, it’s that he clearly ranks the more maternal Ripley as more virtuous than Vasquez’s much more hardened version of womanhood. Moreover, that there’s a clear choice by Cameron to try to make this a meditation on maternal instinct as the driving force for women (almost as if to say, women who don’t possess this are not only less feminine, but in the end less strong).
(Also, I fear that I’ve slanted this discussion badly by using “butch dyke” as the descriptor. I understand in retrospect that it’s a far more loaded term for those of an older generation, where that term is now more neutral or embraced by queer women. Absolutely no moral judgments were meant by it)
Mike E said
I think it is (from beginning to end) “I see you.”
The film starts and finishes with eyes snapping open. It is about seeing “the other” — and not allowing the demonization and ignorant reduction that enables genocide. And it is about seeing the real other (not the imagined) — so that when Jake’s crippled human body is cradled by his new love, she is seeing HIM, as he actually is.
And the irony to me is despite this being the conscious purpose and message of the movie — it is still suspected of embodying the opposite (of not seeing, and of imposing).
saoirse said
On repeated views I agree w. Hegemonik there are some problematic dynamics btwn vasquez and ripley in Aliens. It’s beyond annoying some of the contrived conflict btwn them and by hyper masculinizing Vasquez JC trys to normalize Ripley who is a very strong woman in the film. Interestingly Ripley’s part was written for a man in the original film. Scott like Weaver so much he basically gave her the part w/o only minor re-writes.
I do think Cameron is trying to milk as much drama out of both vasquez and the bill paxton character in the film. JC hired the entire supporting cast from his then wife Kaythrn Bigelow’s (the hurt locker) exceptional vampire film Near Dark and clearly wanted them to go to town in their scenes.
zerohour said
One thing I noticed about the film, which I highly recommend to people by the way, is that the colonizer/indigenous dichotomy is mirrored by technology/nature one as well. A further move is then made to equate technology with “the west.” I want to think more about it, and perhaps see the film again but I think this in itself has larger implications and is worth exploring.
An obvious distinction can be made between the military technology of the US and those of the Na’vi, but it’s expressed throughout the film in other ways. A couple of examples:
The film is framed by the motif of “seeing” which, in the Na’vi culture is characterized as being able to grasp one’s deeper, inner being. Contrast this with Sigourney Weaver’s character, the scientist Grace Augustine who can’t truly understand anything without her instruments to provide data. This created a comic effect when she was near death and brought to the Tree of Souls. Even at that moment, at that sublime place, she still can’t “see” and wants to collect samples.
Jake is promised his legs back if he carries out his mission faithfully and successfully. He can have a fully functional body by having limbs attached. In “that” culture, bodies are assemblages of parts. However, he does not carry out his mission but chooses to fight on the side of interconnectedness and life [Eywa] and in the end, he is able to have a fully intact, integrated body courtesy of the Tree of Souls.
There’s also a critique of the western metaphysic connected with the blurring of technology/technocracy. When Grace pleads with Giovanni Ribisi’s character, Parker, not to destroy Hometree, he says “It’s just a fucking tree!” She insists that it’s part of a larger network but he can’t see this, because he can’t “see” it. He can only see parts not wholes, objects not relations.
As for Jake Sully, the “white man” I think we should recognize this as a shorthand for “western society.” The critical premise here is that indigenous peoples don’t need the west in any form in order to triumph, but I would like to suggest that we think about that. What indigenous or colonized peoples have triumphed over colonialism by relying exclusively on its own internal culture? At the moment I can’t think of any. All the ones that come to mind are those in which either revolutionaries were trained in the west or had access to, and deeply studied western culture. I have not heard of a case where key strategic members of a hostile force defected to the revolutionary side, but if such a thing were to occur does anyone think that people with intimate and detailed knowledge of the enemy would not be considered important? In this respect, I think Cameron’s fantasy is more realistic than those of his critics.
Ironically, even while critiquing Cameron for perpetuating the politics of white guilt, this sort of criticism winds up being a demand for naive wish fulfillment, another ideal that’s quite pervasive in other Hollywood movies: that people, regardless of their material realities, can triumph simply because they have moral righteousness and spiritual purity on their side. The attraction is obvious, but people are already paying too much for that fantasy, in and out of the movie theatre.
Radical-Eyes said
Jake Sully: “I tried to be a warrior for peace…But sooner or later we all wake up.”
This line, which comes immediately following what we might call the “Trail of Tears” segment, carries a powerful message. (One that as far as I can tell–I am still catching up on the discussion here–has not yet been examined closely.) It is a rebuke of the liberal imperialist position, occupied in this film most of all by the “scientists” as well as by Jake Sully himself. These folks would use their enlightened and/or insider knowledge to make possible a smarter, kinder, gentler imperialism.
Avatar clearly breaks with this liberal imperialist outlook, and does some valuable cultural work in the process. It demonstrates, even a bit heavy handedly for my taste, that when push comes to shove that science and technology attached to an imperialist project, remain subordinate to that project, unless and until those scientists rebel outright against it. Scientific investigation here, quite apart from the subjective intentions of its practitioners, which on a certain level are in contradiction with the more overtly authoritarian and militaristic branch of imperialism, functions objectively as a fig leaf for the imperialist project as a whole.
This film explores but then ultimately dispenses with the possibility of building a kinder gentler “scientific” imperialist project.
Incidently, the pervasive theme of sight and opening your eyes appears here as well. Actually I felt that this moment could have been a kind of alternative (unhappy and very unHollywood) ending for the film.
BillytheKidd said
Don’t the Na’vi in a way live the Communist dream? Are they not living almost entirely “unalienated” from their themselves, from their environment from their past. They can directly interface with their flora, fauna, ancestors and presumably themselves. They can become another by downloading their “Bio-symbolic” selves into other bodies. They can share like no other. Are they then contrasted with the Humans who must rely on advanced tools to interact with their surroundings, whose perception is always already mediated.
Even among materialist this remains a hope as transhumanist seek to download their “selves” into vast networks giving them access to endless information devoid of the mortal conditions of physicality. I think this goes beyond religion as symbolic ritual embodiment. Religion is not limited to the supernatural(as several here already pointed out) The natural/supernatural, natural/technology, materialist/spiritualist splits are emblems of an alienated, modernist perspective and don’t really apply in this regard. The Na’vi are both natural and Supernatural as their existence is commiserate with their essence. Likewise, they are not primitive but are in fact very advanced in the sense that they can take near total control of their environment in a way that it becomes just another extension of their neural network. But that also makes them primitive as the process of harnessing energy and making work becomes simplified and streamlined. Isn’t this the fantasy of modern capitalism, to achieve total efficiency?
As far as the materialism/spiritual dichotomy, they transcend that as well as their spirit resides not in the material but as the material. They’re ancestors are there present as the tendrils of a purple tree not in some dream or imaginative maneuver generated by a reverent ritual. And sure they still have those but a materialistic outlook does not preclude ritual, reverence or priestcraft. Look at Soviet Russia, North Korea, etc. endless examples. Even today, some human shamans claim to be able to directly communicate, not with intangible spirits, but with physical plants and animals.
totalizingcritique said
y’all like to ignore the issue of giving fox your money.
correct said
Yeah, I do ignore that just like Totalizingcritique ignores all the dying puppies and goldfish. What about the hamsters!?
totalizingcritique said
i’m just saying, a marxist understanding of avatar would come by analyzing as infrastructure before proceeding to it’s superstructural characteristics. the way it exploits workers and audiences is to understood before the meaning of its story. in fact, its narrative only takes on meaning as the inscription of it’s commodity-being.
Mike E said
Totalizing:
It is important to debate how we should evaluate films. By what standards.
My argument would be that the fact that most culture is produced as commodities within a class society is not their defining characteristic. (I.e. it is pretty empty to dismiss all films because they were made using wage labor, and involved bank loans, etc.) I don’t know what it means to say that a film exploits audences, so I will leave that issue aside.
In fact it is not just the meaning of the story that matters — but its meaning to whom? In other words you can’t just analyze what a piece of work is (literally and textually) saying — but also need to analyze how it impacts and affects diverse audiences. That sense of meaning (an interplay of its textual content and its objective impact) is the real measure of a work.
I suppose there is some ways in which the content (narrative) of a work of art is affected by its “commodity being.” For example, our perception of a film like Avatar is affected by the fact that it is at the center of a shitstorm of crude marketing (MacDonalds, video games, action figures etc.) so that we do experience the film “as consumers.”
So often I hear people responding to culture on a highly subjective and personal level (as if it was a bite of icecream) — i.e. “I liked it,” or “its tropes bother me,” or “I was alienated by this or that of its structure.” On one level, it IS interesting to hear particular personal responses to a work of art — but the social evaluation of a work of art is really social, and has to do with social impact. (One person may be offended or turned off by the sexual attractiveness of the Na’vi — and that is valid in many ways. But for a social evaluation of the work, in context, you have to ask the more difficult and less personal question: how is something like that impacting audiences more generally, and the culture as a whole. Is the strength of the warrior women characters significant, and how significant? Is Cameron’s insistance that the main characters be sexually interesting reactionary (i.e. pulling society and the consciousness of viewers in a backward direction)? And if so, how does that compare in magnitude and severity to its other impacts?
I’m curious, for example, on the impact of a film like this on a whole generation of army age boys and girls — who are the target of so much chauvinist and military marketing. Do they get how deeply radical it is to show soldiers revolting against their invasion force and killing their commanders? Do they sympathize with the rebels in the film? Do they get a glimmer that a film like this is cautioning them about the sdelusions promoted around the U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And if a movie draws in military age youth (in part because of its viewpoint through the eyes of Jake Sully, and because of the appeal of the love story), and brings them into contact with this story of “seeing” the supposedly disposable “enemy”…. how should we evaluate that socially — even if some of the cliches and portrayals appear to us as tiresome or simplistic or politically tainted.
And perhaps it is even worth asking if we need to “evaluate” films in such an overall way — and if that is even possible.
I think we should, precisely because as revolutionaries we need to have common method of understanding what moves forward the needed radical changes, and what does not? And because we need to have deepening understandings (precisely) of how things affect the diverse sections of people (not just ourselves). And i think it is worth struggling this through because the evaluation of all kinds of cultural phenoms is not easy at all — and can’t be done simply on the basis of a personal impact, or on the basis of what such a thing might have meant a few years ago, or on the basis of some personally-favored litmus test.
It is startling to me that such a profoundly radical film is treated with an almost casual distain and dismissal by some very radical people. And it is really worth it to dig up the differences that underlie such evaluations — differences of perception, differences of method, even differences of purpose.
Gregory A. Butler said
“My argument would be that the fact that most culture is produced as commodities within a class society is not their defining characteristic”
Ah, but that’s precisely the point!
Motion pictures are commodities, produced by entertainment corporations to be exhibited for a fee – that’s the essence of what contemporary motion pictures are.
Any materialist discussion of movies that just puts that aside is missing the point in a real and fundamental way.
And because of the fact that the American motion pictures of our day are articles of commerce produced by capitalist corporations for purposes of profit is precisely why NO product of the Hollywood studios can truly be “profoundly radical
We’re kidding ourselves if we think any different.
Beyond that, the ideology that informs most Hollywood pictures – call it “Hollywood liberalism” – is far from radical and anything but revolutionary.
It is paternalist, elitist, sexist and, above all, racist – a vision where the supposedly “enlightened” section of the upper class White elites of imperialist America (which is the self concept that folks like James Cameron have) dole out liberation to the, to use Kipling’s coldly blunt term, “lesser breeds below the law”.
Of course, there is no conception of equality there – it’s charity, like giving a donation to UNICEF or Save the Children so the less fortunate can have a bowl of soup while you, the donor, sit down to a three course meal.
That’s why, while I am an avid consumer of Hollywood cinema, I never allow myself the luxury of having the dangerous illusion that the limousine riding, mansion dwelling decamillionaires who make these movies are.
If the revolution broke out tomorrow, these folks would retreat into their mansions, double lock the gate, have their bodyguards and security guards load their shotguns and give the order to shoot to kill if the Black and Latin working class masses came anywhere near the Hollywood Hills.
[and, on a smaller scale, that's exactly what these folks did during the last major revolutionary upsurge in the Southland of California, the Los Angeles Uprising of 1991]
Generations of communists have paid a high blood debt based on having illusions in the enlightened section of the bourgeoisie – and in Mike’s comments, I see a LOT of those deadly illusions repeated yet again.
So, no, there is nothing revolutionary in this movie – other than the amazing technical effort which Cameron and his crew of 500+ highly skilled unionized technicians spent 4 years preparing for the screen – it’s just yet another film by a Hollywood liberal who pities the victims of imperialism, and genuinely weeps for their suffering but also sees them as mere victims, helpless and incapable of self-emancipation unless a White person takes command of them.
totalizingcritique said
well to stick close to your superstructural/formalist level, your reading misses the fact that the film’s 3′d technology is the allegorical condition of possibility of the soldier/hero (the fictional tech lets him move etc etc) and in a way is the real hero of the film.
the way in which the film makes it into part of the narrative is to fictionally/ideologically have it fulfill the regressive white middle class fantasy of reverse racial passing common in contemporary mega-blockbusters (see the opening of charlies angels). the film really is blue dances with wolves.
the reason you don’t see how the film sells/glorifies technology sold by billionaires who would sell our mothers into slavery if it meant their grandchildren didn’t have to work is that you start with the is radical makes absolutely no historical sense and the reading of the film behind the claim is quite partial and takes the film out of the context of teh films around it.
Mike E said
Greg:
The whole point of your analysis here is to condemn this film without actually “seeing it.”
Just one example (among many above):
Well it may be that “the ideology that informs most hollywood pictures” is far from radicalism. But we are not discussin “most hollywood pictures.” We are discussing THIS ONE. You can’t evaluate a work of art by describing what “most” works of art are like.
Yes, it is true that “most” works of art out of Hollywood (or the culture in general) are not radical (at the moment). But in fact THIS ONE is.
And i particularly like your prediction of what “these folks” would do if the revolution broke out tomorrow. In fact “these folks” would do diverse things. Some might well support the shooting down of people, but (if the past and present are any guide) a significant number would be on the side of the revolution.
In fact, a quick look at our own list of favorite radical movies reveals that the creation of films (even in Hollywood) is far from limited to liberalism.
Or take the upsurge of the 1960s: When Lil Bobby Hutton was murdered by the police in Oakland, Marlon Brando put on a black leather jacket, went on TV and told Johnny Carson that he didn’t want to talk about celebrity bullshit, but had come to talk about the Black Panther Party. That is what some of “those folks” will do.
Or the actress Jean Seberg who became a supporter of the Black Panther Party and was pursued (literally to her death) by the FBI’s cointelpro. (And we can list many other creative figures who have taken radical and even dangerous stands — like Leonard Bernstein, or Donald Sutherland, or Vanessa Redgrave, or Gillo Pontecorvo, or Mario Van Peebles, or Spike Lee etc. etc.)
Or take the real history of the 1992 LA rebellion — where (in a remarkable development) the bourgeoisie’s own polls said that in its opening days the rebellion had broad majority support across the country (including among white people). That was chipped away once the media attacks started (with their constant replay of the Reginald Denny moments and more)…. but it was hardly the case that in some mechanical and inevitable way, wealthy people in hollywood were (in some monolithic way) supportive of massacres.
This is not (as you suggest) a matter of “illusions in the enlightened section of the bourgeoisie.” I don’t think “Hollywood” actors and producers and directors are “the ruling class” in any major way. There is a monopoly capitalist class that rules an empire — it does not have any “enlightened section” that can be expected (as a block) to be allies of a radical revolution. But that doesn’t mean that wealthy filmmakers can’t have radical politics — or produce rather radical art.
* * * * * * *
In fact, part of what we are dealing with in the larger discussion is various forms of reductionism. To you, you can tell what someone is saying without hearing them — you can just look at their class identity. To some others, you can tell that a director is making a racist movie without analyzing the film or its actual impact on millions of people, you can just look at his national identity or one-or-two litmus tests.
The work of art itself disappears (its particularities are seen as irrelevant) — because the verdict is in before the work appears. And I see little difference (in method) between your workerist identity politics and other forms of identity-fixation that are in operation.
Luckily for us, reality doesn’t work that way — it is far more complex and mixed up and surprising. A sour sectarianism toward progressive culture is not justified.
* * * * * *
There is an issue of different possible polarizations raised:
It is possible that, in revolutionary times, key upsurges of the people won’t have broad support among “these people” in Hollywood.
But that would be an unfortunate polarization, and a sign that the upsurge had not reached as widely as it needed — if the hollywood creative community did not have a lot of sympathy for our revolution.
It is not a given that our revolutionary attempts will have such broad support (among progressive artists, middle strata, etc.) — but certainly we can already see evidence that such support is possible, and that many different kinds of people are working hard to chip away at our scoundrel times and its death culture.
Radical-Eyes said
It is important to note that Jake is presented from the start as a kind of insider/outsider within the Pandora colonization project. Not only is he disabled, but he is replacing his dead brother; thus, he himself has not gone through the disciplined training that usually would be requisite for his special and privileged semi-autonomous position. Interestingly, his quick insertion into front-line duty is explained through the bottom-line orientation of the colonial project. He is saving them money by plugging into their expensive, and otherwise wasted, Avatar.
It is interesting that we learn very little about Jake’s past. Only at the end of the film does he speak a bit to us (and the Na’vi) about what earth looks like in this imagined future. “There is no green there” I think he says. But what exactly this wasteland has done to Jake remains fairly opaque to us.
Nonetheless, this insider/outsider perspective is represented as being essential to Jake’s later potentiality for transformation as soon as he is placed in his Avatar: he disobeys orders and nearly tears the lab apart; then wanders off without permission in the forest. His spirit of adventure is presented as one of the reasons that he is capable of transformation.
Jake _was_ apparently trained as a marine–he served ia tour in Venezuela, we are told–yet this aspect of his character is not very much developed. Certainly he seems tough and brave, but is he depicted as a socialized soldier really? Jake the (undercover) marine, remains a loner; we do not really get a sense of him having bonded with his fellow marines and what not, do we?…
By positioning him as a brave loner of sorts, the film is able to duck some of the messy issues that would inevitably be involved in any honest account of what goes into turning (race) “traitor” to an imperialist project.
Similarly his education at the hands of the Na’vi is almost entirely, as I recall, (I’ve only seen it once), mediated by the love interest, Neytri. Such tidiness tends to allow viewers to read the film through more or less typical Hollywood narrative channels (clear good vs. evil; romance plot, etc.). But whether viewers read it along these narrow lines, thus skirting the rather explicit anti-imperialist allegorical-political message of the film, will, I think, as Mike has noted, have much to do with what sort of consciousness and experiences viewers bring _to_ the film, and also what kind of interpretive discourse follows their viewing.
And here we are back to the necessarily social horizon of political analysis of culture.
I for one am very curious what the reactions of my veteran-students will be to this film, not because I think that this film will _radicalize_ them, but rather because I think at the very least this film provides a cultural terrain that presents us with opportunities for engaging soldiers about issues of imperialism and resistance. It also provides us with a potent set of symbols to be struggled over as well as deployed in more immediately political ways. I think we need to deepen our understanding of what we see as the relationship between 1) films like these 2) radical or marxist or revolutionary interpretation and criticism of films like these, and 3) radical revolutionary praxis itself.
I for one would have appreciated some more exploration and working through of such messy material. (The idea mentioned in a previous post, of Cameron presenting us with Na’vi who _are_ enticed and/or ensnared in commodity fetishism and other earthling/invader cultural practices, would be another example of this.)
Along a similar line, it is interesting to note that we never see Jake involved in any aggression against the Na’vi. He is not himself implicated in any attacks on them; and indeed we are for the most part spared the sight on him being asked to betray his newfound friends, at least until he has had a chance to cement his bonds with them on the deepest of levels. (We do get one brief glimpse of Jake giving a report on the structural integrity of the tree-city, but this really seems peripheral to Jake’s main interest.)
Jake’s only militaristic outburst is directed against nature, after he wanders away from the scientists during his very first (!?) trek into the forest.
Nor is he ever properly speaking attacked by one of them. Neytri decides not to skewer him with an arrow–because (somehow she knows that) he has a brave heart, as she later tells him. She then goes on to protect him from the beasts of the forest, whom he has provoked. I must admit that this moment in the film did immediately conjure up the story of Pocahontas throwing herself in harm’s way to protect John Smith…yet there is a twist in Avatar: Neytri refuses Jake’s thank you, and insists that her dispatching of the animals is cause for mourning.
P.S. My wife came up with the formulation that “Avatar is a mix of Braveheart, Dances with Wolves, and [the Endore portion of] Return of the Jedi”
Radical-Eyes said
To follow-up on Mike’s recent note about the actuality of and potential for ideological cracks and fissures to emerge within the Hollywood creative community: see the recent History Channel documentary THE PEOPLE SPEAK, based on excerpts from Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States. Here we see a whole bunch of Hollywood “liberals” (or are they… radicals?) speaking up, literally…and on the History Channel of all places! Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, David Straitharn (sp?), Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Bob Dylan, and many others were involved in this one…This new documentary no doubt deserves a discussion thread of its own.
Eddy Laing said
Following on your earlier pronouncement that Marx’s critique of religious idealism is ‘narrow’, this second pronouncement now leads me to conclude that you are not simply unaware of the expansive Marxist critique of idealism.
In regard to the snippet that is regularly mis-cited, or cited in truncated fashion as you have, Marx wrote, (in 1844!) in a large essay that was part of an analysis of Hegelian idealism, the following:
This is by no means the extent of Marx’s critique of religion or of idealism, as even a cursory review of M&E’s collected works clearly indicates. Enough of the misrepresentations…
boris said
Just wanted to second Radical-Eyes’s point (#54) on discussing the recent documentary on the History channel by Zinn and Arnove. But, I’m not so sure it was an ideological crack. From the inclusion of the Declaration of Independence to the absence of red politics (whether of the 20s-30s or the long 60s) to the particular voices included (and those not included), I think this documentary showed that the dominant ideologies are actually very much in place.
Mike E said
I have not seen the Zinn/Arnove documentary, the People Speak — and so naturally I won’t comment on that. Plus, I’m not wanting to put words in Boris’ mouth. I suspect he and I may well have significant agreement.
But i do want to bounce off of a turn of phrase Boris expressed, when he wrote:
I want to urge some dialectics in examining ideologies and worldviews.
It is true that the Declaration of Independence was an expression of the situation, complaints and worldview of the exploiting classes in the U.S. (mainly slave owners, merchants and land speculators). It is true that this document gives both shape and mythology to the current system (200 plus years later) of imperialism (with its rather different exploiting class of modern monopoly capitalists).
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that when two historicans make a documentary that praises that Declaration (and avoids mention of reds) that they are simply expressing the outlook of the ruling class.
The world is not so binary.
[I need to say that i am using the word "ideology" here in the more typically communist definition: that ideology simply means any coherent body or system of ideas. I am not using ideology as a name for false consciousness (that exists in opposition to relatively true or scientific insights) -- the usage more common among academic writers.]
There are many people who seek to expose and de-legitimize the imperialists by mocking them with their own founding documents. There are many people who seek to exploit the respect given to the Declaration (and its passionate defense of the right to revolution) in order to justify a future radical change (toward a “democratized” economy or toward some form of socialism).
This view (which seeks to connect with broad popular sentiments) is not my view. I don’t think it is radical enough in many ways. But I don’t think it is simply an expression of the “dominant ideologies” (if we were to mean by that the ideologies OF THE SYSTEM AND ITS RULING CLASSES).
Zinn is no communist. He has always been a fervent antiracist and radical democrat. He has powerful pulls toward pacifism. And he conceives of a revolutionary process that brings the masses of people agency by capturing the “better spirits” of the American democratic mythology and ideology. But he is, for all that and through all that, quite radical — and quite deeply opposed to the dominant system and ruling class.
But I just want to point out that we need to understand much better ways in which some radical people try to articulate their radicalism and their reluctance to stand on ideas and language that gets little quick recognition among people in the U.S. There are elements here of what communists call “tailing” (i.e. adapting to the illusions, not just the consciousness of people broadly). And, as a communist, i believe there are often elements of self-delusion in believing that the problems of imperialism can be solved merely by deepening democracy in all directions.
But the view of such radical democrats like Zinn is (imho) not simply reducible to “the dominant ideologies that are very much in place.”
* * * * * * * *
To put my point another way: Some communists have said there are many classes in the field, but only two ideologies. They believe that the ruling class puts forward its political programs (both for defending the status quo and for changing it), various forces from middle strata put forward their own programs (again for how society should move), and the most bitterly oppressed have (under some conditions) expressed their own (and often more radical) approaches to social change. But it is simultaneously claimed that there are only two kinds of ideology at play in the U.S. (bourgeois vs. proletarian), plus feudal ideology in many parts of the world where feudal relations or remnants still exist.
I am less inclined toward embracing that second thesis: that ideology just comes in two binary kinds — i think that leads to a reductionist underestimation of the diversity of ideas and implies a very linear connection between ideas and class.
Ana Blic said
I posted the first comment here. I was shocked to read the many accusations of “racist” hurled at me and the subsequent discussion. As a person who has spend all of my married life in multi-racial / multi-cultural marriage … it made no sense.
In my reading this morning – I came across this quote by Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:
“Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: ‘How can you be sure that you are not a racist?’ My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it’s not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game – ‘Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are’ – this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting.”
— methinks that thou dost protest too much …. re hurling labels of rascism at others…
I spoke truth. My truth. When I saw the movie – to me – the main theme was the defeat of imperialism. I agree with the comment that the indigneous people lived almost as communists – in that they embraced community etc.
I don’t have the time to engage in intellectual attack and defense type arguments. But when I came across this Zizek comment this morning – I was reminded of the “discussion” here – and thought I would toss this in….
Mike E said
Ana, none of us here are engaged in “intellectual attack and defense type arguments.” And if you have the time to look over this detailed thread of discussion, I think you will see that.
What we do believe is that even if each of us expresses “my truth” — that there is a basis and a space for others to engage and disagree. Did you find any of the other comments made insightful?
Gregory A. Butler said
Ana,
In America, a very deeply racist country, the only folks who get the luxury of saying they “don’t care about race” are members of the dominant race – that is to say, White folks.
African Americans, Latinos, American Indians, Asians and other people of color very much do not have that luxury of “colorblindless” – because America reminds us every day that we are other and not fully American.
For example, as an African American man, I’m a hell of a lot more likely to be stopped on the road by the police than you are, even if you are driving more unsafely than I am.
You get to drive down the highway and be “colorblind” – I don’t.
As an African American man who – because of my complexion – “looks Arab” I’m a whole lot more likely to be “randomly selected” for a more extensive search than you are.
And if I say or do the wrong thing at the airport, I could end up getting machinegunned to death as a “terrorist suspect” (that actually happened to an Ecuadorian-American man at Miami International Airport – he “looked suspicious” so the cops just shot him, rather than questioning him).
Again, you get to take a “colorblind” plane trip – I do not.
In other words, being “colorblind” in America is a form of racial privilege.
Ignoring that racially privileged reality is regarded as a form of racism by many Americans of color – myself included.
Also, citing the fact that you have been in relationships with people of color does not immunize you from being accused of racism.
Lots of White folks – from Thomas Jefferson on down – have had domestic partners of color, and it didn’t make them any less racist.
So yeah, in an American context, the whole claim of being “colorblind” comes off to some as clueless at best, racist at worst.
Ana Blic said
Mike E — Read the responses from Mr. Butler.
He NAMES me and was very condescending and attacking….
My POINT was — its a good film – for the masses to perhaps pick up the notion that WAR and imperialism might not be the best way to go….
and I was the recipient of disdain and attack for the next several posts.
Again – Zizek makes a good point — on how most individuals “mishandle” their views of race. I would say that Mr. Butler is among these….
MLW said
Avatar: An Anarcho-Primitivist Picture of the History of the World
http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/10380
Radical-Eyes said
I appreciate Boris’ seconding my call for a discussion thread on Zinn’s The People Speak. I do think that this documentary–and Zinn’s work more generally– has significant radical aspects, though it is true that there are also patriotic/nationalist elements of the film’s framing of American people’s resistance. I would argue however–in another thread, I recognize that I am now a bit “off topic” here– that these aspects are not so prominent in Zinn’s PHUSA as they are in his more recent Progressive columns and political speeches which seem to me to slide back into a kind of radical liberalism, calling for the US to become a “humanitarian superpower” (!?)etc. This History Channel documentary is it seems to me a mix of the old Zinn and the more recent Zinn. Nonetheless, I feel that it is one of the best films of its kind ot get national airtime in quite a long time.
All of that to one side, however, Boris, my point in referencing The People Speak in the context of this Avatar discussion–which has grown into a discussion of “Hollywood” and US mass culture’s relationship to radical and revolutionary tendencies and possibilities–was simply to point to the film as an example of a text that alerts us, as I wrote above, to the “actuality of and potential for ideological cracks and fissures to emerge within the Hollywood creative community.” To what extent this film constitutes itself a radical break we can and should debate. (I for one would at least argue that the quotes from Eugene Debs, John Brown, the GI resisters and others retain a radical force today.) That this film shows us that there are people “even in” Hollywood who are open to ideas and, for lack of a better term, spirits that challenge the ruling order, however, seems to me to be clear enough.
Mike E said
Ana writes:
Ana: Greg Butler does call people out in a hostile and condescending way — and he is repeatedly removed from this site for that reason. He has been repeatedly warned to obey the rules (and culture) of this discussion, or stay away. And he has been repeatedly removed from the discussion for gross violations.
However, our main method for dealing with such problems is to discuss them, as part of our overall work. Let us know if you think that is not enough.
We have a special thread for discussing issues of moderation. Feel free to post any criticisms or suggestions there.
On the other hand, Ana, politics is about struggle, often harsh and relentless conflict. Our goal here is to create a civil and serious debate over important matters — but that can’t mean eliminating all conflict or imposing our own standards rigidly on everyone who walks in.
saoirse said
while I am not a fan of avatar I have enjoyed many of Cameron’s early films. News is Cameron may be following up the success of Avatar with a adaptation of the soon coming novel about the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is very interesting. With Cameron’s boxoffice power he can more or less do whatever he wants w. this film. I am hopeful.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013500.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
Ana Blic said
@ Saoirse — You are right. Cameron is in a position to be able to do much good, rather than just make “a nice movie.” Avatar was – in a simple description – a movie in favor of peace. That in itself is a GREAT step in the right direction! Look how many movies are made glorifying war and violence. It is a pleasant change to see a film with such influence, in favor of PEACE. I too hope he will do much with his future movie that you referenced.
BobH said
I’d like to make a few points about Avatar after reading the interesting discussions on this site.
I think the discussion between Mike E and Gregory B., about whether to view the movie as a politicized artistic statement or a capitalist commodity illustrates a point Bertell Olmann makes in his book Dialectical Investigations. After outlining various modes of abstraction that Marx uses in his analyses, and his tendency to rapidly switch between modes of abstraction to take different perspectives on the same historical phenomena, Olmann suggests that some famous debates among Marxists have basically been people counterpoising one abstract view of society to another as if each were the full picture, when in reality we need to look at things in a totality of abstractions. This is not an “all opinions are equally valid” type argument, but a way of resolving contradictions between different abstractions that are valid within their own framework but seemingly at odds with another framework.
So Greg is viewing Avatar, and all mass culture, from the viewpoint of commodity production as the primary aspect of capitalism. In this framework, if we carry it to its logical conclusion, the only revolutionary role a movie can play is if it gets pirated, because that would serve to undermine, in a small way, commodity production per se. It’s impact on human consciousness is irrelevant. That’s a perfectly valid abstraction about capitalism, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
If we look at movies and TV as an arena of ideological conflict that reflects the class struggle in capitalist society, we can of course see that it’s dominated by the bourgeoisie but that there will always be some progressive or rebellious ideas that break out of that milieu, and we should recognize that as politically useful.
That being said, while I agree with Mike and others’ view that Avatar has a generally anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-imperialist message, and this is a good thing, I’m not at sure that this is terribly important. American society has reached a level of passivity and cultural overstimulation where Hollywood can churn out all kinds of vaguely anti-corporate stuff (think of all the movies and TV shows where the villains are big, greedy corporations, gov’t conspiracies, etc.) without it having any impact on people’s actual political behavior. I find grim amusement in how much profit Hollywood can squeeze out of vaguely anti-capitalist feel-good movies.
Another point I’d like to make is by the left/cultural critics of Avatar who point out all the flaws in the story about “white messiahs” (even Reaganite David Brooks from the New York Times is making that criticism), etc. I fully expected bad writing in this movie and was not disappointed. It is the nature of the Hollywood blockbuster to work with well-worn cliches and archetypes to peddle a kind of modern mythology to a mass audience. Putting too much depth and complexity into a blockbuster is a recipe for financial disaster and Cameron obviously knows this. This is a movie aimed at 14-year boys of all ages so what does anyone expect? If you want depth in movies, that’s what independent film is for, but don’t expect to reach a big audience in the current context of cultural production.
It would have been pretty easy to make a much more politically sophisticated movie — add in a layer of “comprador” Na’vi who actually want the light beer and jeans, add some organized, disgruntled workers among the humans, make Jake a well-intentioned fool who leads the Na’vi into disaster (think of the movie The Mission), etc. That would have been much more interesting movie, but I bet it would have been a big flop, too.
I think CLR James was right that it’s important to follow mass culture, to know what’s impinging on people’s consciousness, etc. but I think it’s a mistake to think that winning “culture wars” without actually winning political and economic struggles is much of a victory at all. The Right may have lost the culture wars of the 80s, but capitalism seems to win either way.
brian said
Excellent review, Eric.Thanks very much..You are quite right…
Pity i cant say the same for the wretched Hegemonik, one of those whose cup is full, and for who Na’vi spirituality (or any spirituality) is ‘superstition(= not true).
This was the same view as scientist Grace Augustine(who labelled their spirituality: voodoo(ultimiate western putdown)
jake, being no scientist, doesnt have this habit to unlearn.
By the end has had his insanity cured, and Neytiri had won over Quaritch in ‘control’ of Jakes allegience.This is why its she who kills Quaritch.He is now Na’vi.
Cameron manages also to get Grace to change her mind as at end personal experience of EYWA convinces her she is real…
And yes, jake has valuable inside info useful for the Na;vi.
Incidentally, there is a book called White Indians, on white americans who joined the native peoples in pre-reviolutionary america.
brian said
greg…and all the other scientific materialists…Youre attitide smacks of the very same absolutism we adn see in the Big 3 abrahamanic religions…for what are ideologies like marxism but athiestic versions of these.You have the same demand that others believe what you believe in, and the result is often the same: persecution…ask any russian christian!
This attitude is a good reason these ideologies are in decline,..where rhey survive they do due to their being social struggles in progress, to which they attach themselves
nando said
China’s culture is notoriously “insensitive” to “barbarians” — and (despite the militant anti-imperialist and anticolonialist legacy of Maoism) there has always been a sense in China of “civilization’s superiority” over the tribal peoples.
This was even true (and popped out) among some people during the socialist period. (I remember one communist who visited China wearing large loopy ear-rings. One of their Chinese staff people remarked on the earrings. The American asked “Are your ears pieced too?” And the woman replied “Me, no. Of course not, we are not barbarians.” We had thought the modesty around jewelry was simply a matter of socialist culture etc., but there was also strains of traditional Sino-centrism floating around).
I mention this because someone showed me an article (which may or may not be accurate) about some responses to Avatar in China:
The Avatar Effect
China’s moviegoers see a story about private property, not race.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574651764117659286.html
Hollywood blockbusters aren’t usually notable for their artistic or political
subtlety. And James Cameron’s latest sci-fi hit, “Avatar,” would seem to be no
exception, going by the lament of some critics that the film’s impressive
special effects are undercut by a skimpy story line and flat dialogue.
That, however, is not how many Chinese see the film, which tells the story of
rapacious humans trying to evict the blue-skinned natives of the planet Pandora
in order to extract some exceedingly valuable mineral. This is standard
politically correct fare for a Western audience, conveying a message of racial
sensitivity and environmental awareness. In China, however, it has more
rebellious undertones.
That’s because Chinese local governments in cahoots with developers have become
infamous for forcibly seeking to evict residents from their homes with little
compensation and often without their consent. The holdouts are known as “nail
households,” since their homes are sometimes left stranded in the middle of busy
construction sites. More often, however, they are driven away by paid thugs.
Private property is one of the most sensitive issues in the country today, and
“Avatar” has given the resisters a shot in the arm.
Even in Hong Kong, the “Avatar” banner has been taken up by antigovernment
activists trying to defeat a plan to demolish a village to make way for a new
high-speed railway line. One mysterious benefactor reportedly donated movie
tickets to the villagers to stoke their enthusiasm for protests.
We suspect that neither Mr. Cameron nor 20th Century Fox (a sister company to
this newspaper) had any idea of the effect their movie would have on the other
side of the world. But then such flukes are one of the wonderful things about
globalization, confounding those who lament its supposedly homogenizing effects
on culture.
gary said
This has just come to my attention—Palestinians relating to the message of the film and using it creatively, politically:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/02/a-couple-weeks-ago-babylon-beyond-reported-on-controversial-comparison-between-the-plight-of-palestinians-living-under-isra.html
I think it’s very interesting
Barry said
Having seen this great film and being Native American, as I watched I was not able to separate feelings of identity with those of the lessening but continued struggle of the Native American People and the dominate society. I am too close to it. But after it was over I was able to better reflect on the broader story being told. Everywhere in the world there exists is struggle of power on one side are those that steal power from others in order to get more of the same, like some addictive drug. These people will do anything to get more of their fix, well beyond that which they could reasonably consume themselves, hoarding it. Using fear and force they attempt to control others. Initially this works but there comes a point where the people being thrust upon will stand and oppose the forces of such evils. One with open eyes can see these scenarios being played out everywhere from our own households, to business, to societies, to countries, and in this case “planets”. To try to force the meaning of this film into such a narrow view as “white guilt” is narrow minded. It is also worth mentioning that we see those things in others we would most like or need to change in ourselves. A “knee-jerk” comment liken to that of the original authors comment may indicate they have subconscious guilt about their treatment of others and abuse of power.