January 14, 2010
- NOW I Want to See Avatar -
I recently expressed an opinion in the comments on Avatar (which, as the post title implies, I haven’t seen yet) saying I wasn’t too excited about it, other than to see the special effects (I hear they’re groundbreaking, yes?). After all, I saw Pocahontas when I was younger, so I wasn’t expecting anything all that new from the story line.
The basic stance most reviewers seem to have taken on it is that this a story about “civilized” man reconnecting with the natural world. The corporation/marines attempts at rape and pillage are foiled by one of their own who “went native”. And yes, there is a racial/colonial subtext going on here as well, but really, just a more divisive take on the same idea. Ran Prieur wrote up a pretty thorough debunking of the whole “White Messiah” aspect of the movie, which I suggest reading if you’re interested in exploring that aspect of it. For the sake of the argument I’m making here though, I just want to focus on the soldiers representing a technological, rationalistic society and the Na’vi representing the natural world (or perhaps “representing being in touch with the natural world” is more precise).
This seems to be the main dichotomy of the movie, the core conflict with which Cameron engages the audience and attempts to get his message across. Not a very complex message, it seems, and certainly one we’ve all come across before elsewhere. After Titanic (and despite its success), Cameron was not a director I expected to really break any new mythological or memetic ground (whatever it we want to call the nourishment that a good story provides).
But then I remembered an article on a movie blog I read regularly, where Cameron was quoted as saying (in regards to Sigourney Weaver’s character):
“Grace doesn’t care about her human body, only her avatar body, which again is a negative comment about people in our real world living too much in their avatars, meaning online and in video games.”
Here, Cameron seems to be exploring a dichotomy that’s the exact opposite of the first. If this is the metaphor being explored here, then the Na’vi become characters in a video game, and, supported by the massive special effects, their world becomes one of those virtual reality playgrounds we were all promised way back in the 90′s. The marines are only downloading themselves into the Na’vi bodies and exploring the digital world, which makes their rather obvious callousness toward the Na’vi people more easily understood.
(plus, where have I heard the phrase “NAVI” before…?)
Granted, this metaphor does seem to break down when we consider that mining a virtual world for resources seems at first rather unreasonable. However, there is one thing that such a highly developed model of reality could offer that would make this virtual reality metaphor more believable: What they have is information, the information created by an entire virtual world made to run as a model of our own, and the need to go into that world in order to collect it while the program is running.
The more I thought about these two opposing metaphors, the more I realized that though each seems to explain the movie well enough, it does so to an unsatisfying degree. It’s already in the top 5 films ever made (or whatever, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) and neither really seems to validate its popularity. Movies don’t have this kind of effect on people unless there’s something really new at the heart of the story, a message that people didn’t know they needed to hear.
It wasn’t until I started overlapping these two metaphors that I really began to understand what I’ve come to think this movie is about (and why I want to go see it). It is the equating of nature with a programmable environment. And it is done in a metaphorical/mythological way that people can grasp on a subconscious level without needing to understand the specifics. To be there to watch those two memes combine into one is something I do not want to miss.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying this is some sort of conspiracy enacted by Cameron (and/or some group of shadowy figures), rather that this could be seen as an important part of our global cultural story, something we had a desperate need to to develop and digest at this point in our history. Maybe if we can learn to stop seeing nature as an enemy, to befriend it, and to understand that we can control it and program it, we’ll stop needing to destroy it so much. Cameron does much here to combat our instinctive pre-historic need to see nature as always “red of tooth and claw”, and I would guess that this is why the movie has proven to be so popular. This, to my mind, makes it a story we all very much want and need to hear right now.
After all, as Marshall McLuhan said way back in 1970, the invention of the satellite “ends ‘Nature’ and turns the globe into a repertory theater to be programmed.” We’re just finally catching up to this now, and I want to be there to watch as it happens. Who knows where this is going to lead to as it unfolds; I just hope we still have a chance to make use of what learn here.
Are God and Nature then at strife,
That Nature lends such evil dreams?
So careful of the type she seems,
So careless of the single life;
That I, considering everywhere
Her secret meaning in her deeds,
And finding that of fifty seeds
She often brings but one to bear,
I falter where I firmly trod,
And falling with my weight of cares
Upon the great world’s altar-stairs
That slope thro’ darkness up to God,
I stretch lame hands of faith, and grope,
And gather dust and chaff, and call
To what I feel is Lord of all,
And faintly trust the larger hope.
Comment by Ian — January 14, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
Yeah, I think you hit upon a theme that will be developed more in the sequels probably.
Because resolution hasn’t been achieved, by the end of the movie. Also, I was thinking, during the movie, if everything is inter-connected, isn’t it kind of like “God” chopped down the tree?
Are the technological conquerors, simply “evil” or is there a larger purpose behind them achieving such an extreme seemingly “unbalanced” level?
The synthesis of nature and technology, centralized power and egalitarianism, was the idea behind my “green market state” blog. But I kind of abandoned it for a while.
But its floating around in the ether and I think that is what the future of humanity will be about.
Comment by Ted — January 14, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
Btw, I sense a little snobbishness on your part. Can it really be THAT good if everyone likes it. Yeas it can. But judge for yourself.
I fall prey to that elitism too.
Comment by Ted — January 14, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
Sorry, no, I actually didn’t mean any kind of elitism here.
My expectations come from Titanic. I saw that, and didn’t like it all that much. Clearly there was something there that a lot of people liked, but I didn’t really get much out of it. The same thing with the Davinci Code. Somethings clearly there, but not something I can access.
There was not meant to be any kind of “and therefore I’m better than everyone” tacked onto the end of that line of thought.
So that was my expectation for Avatar, originally, and I was using this post to work out how my thoughts on it have changed. My intent was to talk about the way ideas fight and combine, the mating battle of the memes, which is something I really derive pleasure from in a good story. But that’s just my personal taste. Nothing elitist about expressing that, I think.
And don’t tell me anything else about the story, I still have to see it, dammit! :)
Comment by Ian — January 14, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Oh, OK, my bad. I didn’t see Titanic. I sensed it would suck because it was so popular :P
Comment by Ted — January 14, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Ok, I just read Ran Prieur’s peice. Here is mytake on that.
I have a dual nature. I am kind of a bleeding heart, but also am fascinated by power.
I really like winners. I give credit to people that win. If there is a war and one side wins, its easier to say that your side is more noble and pure and the other side was evil and that’s why they won.
But its not totally true.
There has been a long history, of the masculine principle, the hierarchical, rational, solar, war-like technological, you know, aspect, or whatever, of things coming to dominate… everything.
You can say its out balance and that the feminine, irrational, earth based, connection based, partnership based, Mythic side needs to be brought in more.
But that only can happen by people in control, consciously choosing it.
We all need to be more in control. Control is good. Mankind needed to rebel against nature, and when that happened the rebels took control of their own nature and when they did that they were easily able to take control of people that just follow nature.
So he’s right, there was no way the indeginous people could win, but that is becauase they needed to learn a lesson. And there are things that were learned from indigenous people.
Mankind is united and we are all developing, all learning. Everything is unfolding as it should
Comment by Ted — January 14, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
by united, I mean “interconnected”
Comment by Ted — January 14, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
I’ve read Prieur’s take now on the notion that Avatar is not about “white guilt” but far more about rejecting toxic technology and the artificial world we live in, remembering that we are meant to be part of the natural world. That we are meant to be actually, really in it. I disagree on his debunking of the idea that the film is about white guilt, as when I saw the movie over Xmas that fact leapt out at me and I wrote about that idea without having read the reports from the media on this. I just read them yesterday.
I think that the film is both about white guilt and an admonition to humanity to get back to natural ways. It’s also clearly a commentary on the twin evils (chiefly perhaps of Western capitalism) of rampant psychopathic corporations and U.S. Imperialism, as you’ve addressed here.
Unfortunately Cameron’s message is rather trite in light of the motif that emerges during the movie. I won’t say what it is, as you haven’t seen the film yet, but the clear symbol he puts in there and what it refers to is irreconciable with his “message.” I’ll be interested to see what you think of the film once you’ve seen it. Will you do a blog post on it?
The main problem is this idea that the film “… is the equating of nature with a programmable environment.” Or that “Maybe if we can learn to stop seeing nature as an enemy, to befriend it, and to understand that we can control it and program it, we’ll stop needing to destroy it so much.” To stop seeing nature as the enemy and to befriend (at least to understand our place in the ecosystem), yes, but the latter part doesn’t work for me. To understand perhaps wouldn’t require programming, certainly not controlling it. Both are pipe dreams I feel and an element of the massive hubris that has always shadowed humankind and coloured our endeavours. I’d say it’s almost certainly more important that the nature we understand is our own and then we can see how we are meant to fit into nature at large.
Comment by Justin Russell — January 14, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
My own take, fwiw:
A lot of commentators seem to have missed the point that this is a /science fiction/ movie of the old school. So any /criticism/ of the ‘resolution’ is a bit moot: the author outlines a difficult premise and then /tries/ to offer the best ‘happy ending’ he can conceive. Is it realistic? Well, if it makes you /think/, it’s done the right job.
Some thoughts in this vein:
1. All through the film most of the characters miss the point that the Earth technology is /actually/ really beautiful and sexy. I mean, come on, it /is/. Cameron makes awesome kit for his guys, a marine’s wet dream. And here they are, using it to rape a world… it’s an absolute travesty.
2. The whole exploration of virtual reality is fascinating and almost certainly ground-breaking, but I think it’s one of those things from which we can draw no conclusions. It’s just a superb examination of the subject, ‘pushing the envelope’ if you will. Good sci-fi doesn’t preach, just runs with an idea.
[more when you've seen it...]
Comment by speedbird — January 15, 2010 @ 3:55 am
Seriously, go and see it. Having read your post again, I think you’ll find it resolves a lot of your speculation.
>> ‘we can control it and program it’
Not a vibe I got at all. More ‘we /are/ it’. F-cking nature up f-cks us up. Seriously and literally, no spiritualist metaphors needed. In fact I think that’s quite an achievement, beginning to get beyond ‘well, it’s just, like, /bad/, man.’ But to say how it works would be to spoil it.
As for Sigourney… well, her character is indeed stuck between two worlds. And though she doesn’t play ‘eye candy’ she does always somehow manage to pull ‘heroic’ out of the bag. :)
Comment by speedbird — January 15, 2010 @ 7:39 am
@Ted:
I wouldn’t say I disagree with you on that, at least not at present. The poem I put in the comments says it pretty nicely: “So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life;” Really, if humanity is not separate from nature, than we ARE nature trying to work out some internal contradictions. When one species somehow manages to rise above the others as we have (however you want to look at it, humanity is a pretty unique animal) but it still has the competitive instincts of competition, what do you do? We have so much instinctual momentum built up that it’s simply going to take a while to overcome it. But the key is, WE’RE the ones that have do the hard work to overcome it. Nature isn’t going to do it for us, rather, it must overcome this AS us.
@Justin:
Yeah, you’re right on that. I got a little sloppy in that part of the post. :)
I think the key is to stop seeing nature as an “other”. The programming part, the control, isn’t really a dominating control, its like riding a horse. A much more symbiotic relationship between “mind” and “nature”, brought about through humanity. It seems to have fallen to us to decide the relationship between “mind” and “nature”, either that of the parasite, or that of the symbiote.
And yes, once I do get around to seeing this, I’ll post a follow up. Seems irresponsible to skip that half of the equation. :)
@speedbird:
Good point on the reminder that this is, after all, sci-fi, and that there are certain aspects of this genre that are simply to be expected.
First, yeah, “control” was ill-put (as I said to Justin) and I think that may be a key issue might be exactly that “saying how it works’ spoils it, but that humanity seems to be pretty intent on saying how everything works. So what to do? Who knows…
It takes a strong person not to use weaponry in a way that’s not a travesty. It is in the nature of the weapon to create travesties.
Anyway, thanks everyone for the kind and thoughtful replies. More to come, once I’ve actually seen the damn thing. :)
Comment by Ian — January 15, 2010 @ 11:31 am
>> not to use weaponry in a way that’s not a travesty
‘A strange game, Professor Falken. The only winning move is not to play’ :)
>> to say how it works would be to spoil it
I mean, to say how the plot of the film works would be to spoil the film :)
>> certain aspects of this genre
Avatar is definitely as deep within this genre as something like ‘Aliens’. But the best sci-fi has general appeal too.
Comment by speedbird — January 15, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
Well, in that case, how about a nice game of chess?
Comment by Ian — January 15, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
Ian,
Yeah, it would be good to see what you think of Avatar once you’ve seen it. Apologies if my post was a little preachy, sometimes a blog post ignites a response to a subject I’ve had smoldering for while, and lo and behold, a rant! :)
@speedbird,
It seems that Cameron fully intended to have the movie relay a message. Though I think he was conscious of not wanting to sound preachy. Have a look at the following video (I disagree now with the title in that thread that Avatar is really global warming propaganda):
To tackle another point you mention, Avatar is clearly in the tradition of many sci-fi films that are a commentary on the present day whilst addressing such concerns in the more creatively fluid, less openly political arena of a time that may never be, and/or a planet that doesn’t exist. Aldous Huxely did this with Brave New World which he chiefly intended as a commentary on what he percived as the soulless, presecription drug popping, comodified hedonism he saw there in the early 50′s or 60′s, I believe. Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-Four was addressing the then absolute living threat of totalitarian regimes epitomized by Fascism and Communism.
There are many such examples, though many speak to a trend alread developing in society and appear, or actually are, prophetic.
Battlestar Galactica is a recent example of this trend despite its AAT ending, which also turned out to be comment on what society is on the cusp of and a warning about: , robotics, transhumanism, cybernetics, and the looming shadow of total enveloping technology. The whole show was a brilliant critique of then current political and social concerns.
Cameron wasn’t able to touch the level of compelling, biting narative that BSG had.
Oops! Just went on a rant again! lol.
Comment by Justin Russell — January 15, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Messed up the thread link with the video I mentioned of Cameron. Here it is:
http://thcforum.ning.com/video/avatar-global-warming
Comment by Justin Russell — January 15, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
>> Well, in that case, how about a nice game of chess?
‘No, let’s play … ‘
:D
Now THAT’s a movie that seriously influenced me at an appropriate age. You do know everything in it is true, right?
*
Justin – BSG was indeed excellent, but personally I felt it lost its way a bit towards the end. [ducks for cover?]
Comment by speedbird — January 15, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
lol.
Comment by Justin Russell — January 15, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Justin, no worries, we all do the rant thing from time to time. Nothing to worry too much about.
Can’t watch that video at work (no speakers) but will check it out when I have a chance (I’m taking a flight to Cali tonight, seeing family for the long weekend). Glad to hear you’re not into the “global warming propaganda” aspect of it though. My take on global warming is something along these lines.
However it may or may not be being used, the idea that we are responsible for taking care of the earth, rather than taking things from it, can only be a good thing. Even if the global warming turns out to be entirely non-man-made, it’s still a good thing for us to think about.
When these things are prophetic, its because a writer or artist is letting the situation speak through their unique viewpoint. The way I look at it, the more a piece of art “rings true” for a lot of people, the more it was something the artist created by trying to look as deeply into a situation as possible without any specific intention, rather than something that they closely manipulated. It is up to us to keep our unique viewpoints and perspectives as clear and positive as possible, so that the feedback we give to reality is a good, true, and beautiful as we can make it.
Comment by Ian — January 15, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
No, seriously? How true?
It’s been a LONG time since I’ve seen it. Perhaps a reviewing is in order…
Comment by Ian — January 15, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
>> How true?
I don’t mean that any of the actual events occurred… that would be my poetic licence getting away from me! It’s kinda hard to explain. Take the scene where Matthew Broderick takes his printout to the two computer geeks and they tell him to steer well clear. Those two guys are /absolutely/ spot on. So is Falken. They all play as if the’ve actually researched the real people. As for the WOPR in the basement and Joshua… these are all things that people in these environments actually /do/. Basically I saw the film and signed up then and there to be a professional Cold warrior, and nothing I’ve seen since has persuaded me that the events at NORAD are hogwash. There’s just too much /right/ about the movie…
Comment by speedbird — January 15, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Right on, thanks for sharing Speedbird. I was a little too young at the time to appreciate it.
Will definitely need to see it again.
From IMDB:
The NORAD command center built for the movie was the most expensive set ever constructed up to that time, built at the cost of one million dollars. The producers were not allowed into the actual NORAD command center, so they had to imagine what it was like. In the DVD commentary, director John Badham notes that the actual NORAD command center isn’t nearly as elaborate as the one in the movie; he refers to the movie set as “NORAD’s wet dream of itself.”
hilarious.
Comment by Ian — January 15, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Patty Boots says: To be honest, I felt bad for Neytiri when she finally sees human Jake Sully. I’d be like, “Oh, you’re… a lot shorter than I expected.” And that’s why you don’t date people you meet on the internet.
Comment by Ian — January 20, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Yeah, like 6 feet shorter. Did you see it yet?
Comment by Ted — January 20, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
No, its gonna be a while. My girlfriend wants to go see it too, but she’s out of town till Feb. I’ll write something up when I do though.
Comment by Ian — January 21, 2010 @ 2:57 pm