Trackbacks & Pings

1. Links of Great Interest 1/8/10 | The Hathor Legacy on 07 Jan 2010 at 7:46 pm

   [...] People, I’m starting to think Avatar might be, like, problematic or something. Just a thought. Also, some of its fans might be dumb. Anyways, I wonder if Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series would be any better? As I recall, it gets massively fail as it progresses. [...]

Comments

1. abbkr wrote:

   It’s a wish to lead people of color from the inside rather than from the (oppressive, white) outside.

   ^

   i’m not even so sure that its a wish to lead people of color as much as it is simply a wish to lead. period. to be on both sides of the righteousness debate and to command the direction of the entire ethical war, so to speak. to turn the colonizer v. colonized into an allegory for internal struggle ( primarily that of “the white man”), the natives are little more than fodder for this battle.

   one plot detail that is worth pointing out is that Sully was not merely a leader of the people, he was in fact, according to tribal lore, the 5th incarnation of a messiah. He has arrived to take their “nativity” their spiritual realization to the next level- the internal human struggle- which is a far more sinister and degrading premise imo.

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:01 am ¶

2. MoonCat wrote:

   i’m so glad you posted this from io9, i thought it was a very thoughtful essay.
   i’d stay away from the comments on this one though.

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:31 am ¶

3. CDF wrote:

   They did their best to mask and cloud their intentions, but it’s the same ol’ H-wood smell!

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:48 am ¶

4. Ansel wrote:

   This piece put into words what I felt immediately upon reading a summary of Avatar’s plot a few months ago. I have zero interest in seeing this movie.

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 9:54 am ¶

5. Dzifa wrote:

   Such an interesting article. Thank you for posting.

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:08 am ¶

6. GENQ10 wrote:

   Thank goodness someone wrote about this. There was another article about this here: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/12/intentions-be-damned-avatar-is-racist.html

   I don’t agree with his whole argument, but he did make the interesting point that

   “This is not a vision of a racially harmonious social politic: it is an inversion of the logic of passing that seems acceptable only because it imagines the experience of becoming a person of color as necessarily ennobling. The film argues that once a white person truly and deeply understands the non-white experience, he becomes an unstoppable combination of non-white primitivism and white rationalism which is exactly what happens. In order for the audience to support the transformation of Jake Sully into Braveheart Smurf, it must accept the essentialist assumptions that make such a combination possible … and those assumptions are racist. In football terms, this is a variation of the black quarterback “problem.”

   For decades, coaches and scouts wished they could find a black body with a white brain in it. (”If only someone could find a way to stuff Peyton Manning’s brain into JaMarcus Russell’s body!”) The essentialist logic at play there is obvious: black people are more athletic than white, and white people are smarter than black.”

   I thought that was very true, especially since Cameron admitted in an interview that the “blue” of his characters allowed him to address race. And is anyone creeped out by the “furry” factor? He said in another interview (see the link at http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/archive/2009/12/16/on-na-vi-biology.aspx) that he wanted the female alien character to have tits.

   The worse thing about all this is how insidiously this “save the noble savages” trope is promoted. This is such a glaring example of “liberal” racism that it makes my mind boggle.

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:22 am ¶

7. jpl wrote:

   GENQ10’s “Braveheart Smurf” line cracked me up. I have yet to see it, but have been referring to it as “Dances with JarJar Binks.”

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:12 am ¶

8. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

   I loved AVATAR and I’m gonna see it again next weekend. I definitely agree that there are racial connotations within the story, though.

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:20 am ¶

9. Seegz wrote:

   Did anyone notice that during Sergent Scarface’s “we gotta flush out them blue savages” pep-rally, it was a person of color who verbally rooted in appreciation of it?

   Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:50 am ¶

10. A.D. Nix wrote:

    Beyond the actual content of ‘Avatar’ (cough – beyond problematic – cough) – I’m a little disturbed that the only blockbuster in recent history to have that many powerhouse dramatic actors of color (Wes Studi and CCH Pounder? At the same time?!) required that a bulk of them be aliens. Painted blue.

    @ GENQ10
    Thank you for that excerpt. It summed up a point I just fumbled (on pun intended?) while discussing the film with a coworker. Check and mate.

    Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 1:24 pm ¶

11. GENQ10 wrote:

    “Braveheart smurf” wasn’t my line. I was quoting from the article. But yeah, it’s a good one.

    Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶

12. Jha wrote:

    Braveheart Smurf? Dances with Jar Jar Binks? And they say we activists have no sense of humour, omg. I’m so using those. It may may discussing the movie a bit more palatable.

    Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶

13. Brooke wrote:

    I’m glad you posted this! I’d enjoyed reading the article on i09 and sort of wished that it was here, instead, since many of the people commenting on io9 just didn’t get it (although a surprising number did, I was happy to see).

    Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 2:15 pm ¶

14. April wrote:

    @GENQ10:

    That’s a quite interesting argument. I had no intention of seeing this movie and had no idea what the fuss was about, but now I’m almost inclined to see it because of all the discussion around the controversy. I suppose that’s a bit perverse…oh well.

    Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:58 pm ¶

15. Bcbgrl33 wrote:

    All I could think while watching this movie was no wonder none of the Black or minority scientists got an Avatar, cuz I know if i had one, I would’ve taught at that “Natives” School. The required reading would be “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”, “Roots”, and “Trail of Tears” Hell any american history book just to warn them. Don’t get me started on how Sully kept talking about “our” land and “Listen to me brother, I’m one of you” I really wanted to yell at the screen for someone to kill this privileged fool. I’m glad Ny’teri’s ex tackled Sully when he started calling him “brother” I know I wasn’t the only one thinking BS and don’t trust him.

    @A.D. You weren’t the only one wondering why most of the actors of color portrayed the Na’vi. That was the first thing I told my parents.

    I also just can’t believe that not only did Sully become a magical negro, the Deus Ex Machina was brought on by Mother “Earth” listening to HIS prayers even though Ny’teri said she didn’t take sides. Well I guess she never took sides if you weren’t a magical white man in “blue face” Ugh Thanks for this post

    Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 11:15 pm ¶

16. Westerly wrote:

    abbkr wrote:

    “i’m not even so sure that its a wish to lead people of color as much as it is simply a wish to lead. period. to be on both sides of the righteousness debate and to command the direction of the entire ethical war, so to speak. to turn the colonizer v. colonized into an allegory for internal struggle ( primarily that of “the white man”), the natives are little more than fodder for this battle.”

    …And *that* is the underlying problem with so many white narratives that purport to speak of and ‘for’ “natives”.

    I thought that the main article and this comment was completely on-point.

    This whole issue of being ‘both the oppressor and the oppressed’ (Jamaica Kincaid refers to this in her novel “Lucy”) is the ultimate expression of the white conceit that they are central to everything, that they can (and indeed, should) play and occupy all meaningful, agentic roles in any narrative (which is why they’re the colonisers AND the saviours all in one fell swoop while the natives stand around waiting for directions), and that they and they alone are qualified to establish the parameters of any given debate.

    As you say akkbr, it is all about white narative and ethical control. These films trot out various strategies to uphold it, all the while purportedly subverting an old narrative trope while presenting something shiny and new. (Look! Special effects and blue people! The natives actually win this time!)

    Whatever.

    I think the thing that tends to make these films near unwatchable for me though is the very point that you elucidate: these films routinely and deliberately take the systems, processes, ideology, and institutions of racism then lazily and sentimentally individuate and personalise these dynamics.

    What you end up with is the usual obfuscating, dishonest, boring, predicatable evangelical arc of the super-special-different-white-guy-and-his-amazingly-’interesting’-inner-journey. This is followed by his road-to-Jericho pit-stop on his way to being the chosen hero/saviour (while ‘the saved’ just stand there or take orders…)

    Because racism isn’t a system that affects bodies and lives of colour; instead it’s *really* about some white guy’s special snowflake feelings, views and his precious ‘journey’ and conversion to the side of good. (Having seen this stupid trope play out so often that I could almost recite the plot points by heart everytime it rears its ugly head, I know I can’t be the only person who finds it as boring as hell.)

    It’s a mushy, escapist depoliticisation that reduces everything down to the level of the personal and the individual which is an approach which is incredbily dear to the heart of Western audiences. Hence the ridiculous insistence from some viewers/readers that protagonists in fiction function as representative avatars that they can self-insert into or identify with, or that he or she be [ugh] ‘relatable’. This goes along with the notion of that whiteness somehow has this magical meditating lens for its audience.

    All the while Hollywood and popular culture scrambles around in order to cater to this solipsistic navel-gazing never thinking about the consequences of any of this.)

    The good-white-guy/saviour trope reproduces the very racisim that it supposedly aims to ‘critique’ and in my view at least, it’s clumsy, painfully bad story-telling that attempts to keep an incredibly boring, repetitive trope alive.

    And it gets in the way o fthe possibility of stories that might actually be interesting or god forbid, discomforting.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 7:40 am ¶

17. RCHOUDH wrote:

    Annalee’s piece is spot on! I remember going on IMDB and seeing some posters there say that this movie reminded them alot of Disney’s Pocahontas. After reading Annalee’s piece I can now see why those posters saw similarities. I’m also tired of the old white-guy-going native-to-act-as-savior trope which I believe started with the telling of TE Lawrence’s story by Hollywood. I don’t care about how one of the “oppressors” feels about his and his people’s actions. I want to see how the “natives” feel about having their land and way of life encroached upon by outsiders. And abbkr said it best with the statement about whites wanting to lead period. It’s all too obvious how much Western nations want to tell other nations how to “develop, become democratic, and become environmentally conscious” in today’s day and age. Movies like this just like to reinforce that devious message of Westerners being “natural leaders” of the world.

    Posted 22 Dec 2009 at 1:03 pm ¶

18. Iggles wrote:

    I wrote a longer response to this yesterday, which I don’t see here. I saw Avatar and I think it’s a great movie. I do not agree with criticism of racism raised so far.

    To me Cameron’s movie is science fiction at it’s best — an allegory for human behavior. It critiques Western Civilization and how it has displaced and destroyed other so-called “inferior” cultures its quest for greed and dominance.

    The aliens are the indigenous population and humans are the Europeans/Conquistadors. However, of course reading race in a movie with aliens are more complex than white/black. For example, Americans are Westerners and we come in every color. Yes you can be a person of color and be an oppressor, so it doesn’t quite work in the context of the movie to read the Na’vi as POC and humans as whites.

    Now, when it comes to casting the roles. Yes, it would have been nice to see some more POC. We had a few humans, however overall there wasn’t a large cast of humans as the movie focused was more on the Na’vi. The Na’vi were the heart of the movie. They weren’t depicted as unintelligent or shady (like the District 9 aliens). But to call them noble savages misses a major theme of the movie — how we view cultures is relative. It’s easy to label someone a “savage” when you view yourself as superior to them. It’s easier to justify your wars and stealing natural resources too.

    I also disagree with the notion that this movie was “white man’s burden” in space. Sully wasn’t motivated by guilt. He was motivated by loyalty and the fact that he rather be one of the Na’vi then one of the mercenaries. The race of the character was irrelevant — the species of the character is what was relevant.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 11:30 am ¶

19. Bao wrote:

    Thanks for posting – an interesting read.

    Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶

20. CK wrote:

    Just saw the movie with my family tonight. It’s also interesting, and definitely pertinent, to note that–and forgive me if this has already been said, but I just skimmed through the comments and don’t think it has–that Jake Sully is disabled in his human body; he’s a paraplegic and goes around in a wheelchair and the other marines make fun of him, whereas in his avatar he has full use of all four (powerful) limbs again. So even while using the trope of “going native” as ennobling…they still had to include that extra “incentive”, as if implying a fully able-bodied person wouldn’t have done that.

    Posted 26 Dec 2009 at 3:34 am ¶

21. T. B. wrote:

    Shouldn’t members of relatively powerful groups feel guilty — in one way or another ?
    I don’t think that their guilt necessarily is a problem. I mean, without the guilt, wouldn’t there be complacency, or even glee? Maybe guilt is an early starting point to be built on, but… again… I don’t see how it’s a problem.

    The whole narrative of the powerful (e.g. ‘white’) saviour certainly is a major problem; so if guilt takes people in that direction, then it’s the wrong sort of reservations or concerns about the power system.

    At the same time, in response to that article I’ve got to say -
    I also think that more powerful people *should* be encouraged to side with more oppressed people — but in productive, helpful ways that wouldn’t involve more of the same dominance. In other words, an identity politics type view — in which oppressed people always-already can count on one another, and only one another — isn’t ideal either.

    Posted 31 Dec 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶

22. Slush wrote:

    Heh, I saw Avatar last week, and I’m glad I didn’t read this whole thread until now, because I managed to turn off my inner social critic and just enjoy the people flying around on those awesome kite-dragon creatures.

    However, I agree with many folks above, especially Westerly’s comment.

    When you think about it, Jake Sully’s character is not actually necessary to the main story in any way. The corporation of whatsit could be getting feisty with the Na’vi and get beat back by them all on their own, without the great white man Jake Sully ever having anything to do with it at all.

    Which would have made a better movie. There could still have been a love story, and awesome visual effects. There could still have been battles, and dramatic tension, and growth of characters. Hey, maybe one of the Na’vi people could have been the one to show personal development! And we would have gotten rid of the whole damn white man goes and saves helpless native people drivel. Damn, that would have been a lot better if Jake Sully just didn’t get written in at all.

    Posted 03 Jan 2010 at 1:28 am ¶

23. Alex K. wrote:

    I just saw the movie today, and the story pretty much played out all i had feared it would. it was bad enough that it ruined the movie for me.
    i am really bothered by the arguments that the Na’vi are aliens and therefore it is ridiculous to say that its a race issue. how could you deny any of the correlations between the Na’vi and the american indians? they were blaringly obvious. cameron was pretty much smacking us in the face with them. “taming” wild animals, appreciation for nature, etc…
    now a foreigner comes in and “becomes” one of them, and “saves” them all? and gets the chief’s daughter (prized native woman who is betrothed to a native man who she doesn’t love). better directors have tried and failed to make this story interesting to me.
    don’t get me wrong, i got the anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-technology, and pro-green overtones of the movie. but those were clearly NOT the main focus on the plot. Lang’s character even calls Worthington’s character a traitor to his race. practically all of the video diaries are talking about Jake’s growing fascination with the Na’vi, and how he wishes to be one of them.
    i understood that he had a really crappy situation prior to the movie. being disabled is tough and i understand the desire become “normal” again. but the message there is pretty much that if your life sucks, you can just go join another culture and quickly rise to be revered by them as their leader.
    at least when they had the nature vs. technology bit in star wars, the ewoks didn’t need any help from the rebels. the ewoks set their own traps and THEY were the ones who saved the rebel’s butts.
    i even accepted the whole “love transcends race/species” thing they were trying to push at the end.

    but overall, while i appreciated the visuals, i have played video games with at least equally impressive visuals and more engaging stories. way overrated.

    Posted 06 Jan 2010 at 3:35 am ¶

24. Lyonside wrote:

    >I’m a little disturbed that the only blockbuster in recent history to have that many powerhouse dramatic actors of color (Wes Studi and CCH Pounder? At the same time?!) required that a bulk of them be aliens. Painted blue.

    THIS. Where’s Jason Sperber? We have a meeting of the mind-melds over this every time it comes up – the default “human” in sci-fi, especially if male, will be white.

    The “alien/other” can be played by an actor of color, bonus points if they’re marked or masked in some way (ST:TNG’s Tenagra episode, and Worf, as well as the fact that almost every “mixed” alien/human character has a white human parent – again, white is default human); Battlestar’s singular and severely underused male cylon of color; Enemy Mine’s Louis Gossett Jr, Stargate’s Teal’C, Teyla, and Ronon, and many many many more.

    One of the reasons I liked Pitch Black is that the survivors had more characters/actors of color than white characters. For once. And possibly only.

    Posted 06 Jan 2010 at 8:20 pm ¶

25. Phil wrote:

    I thought Avatar was totally derivative. I don’t understand why people think making a movie look like a video game is a good thing. It looked like a mix between the video games World of Warcraft and City of Heroes mixed with the dark rides at Disneyland with their glowing mushrooms.
    Aliens was a much better Cameron movie.
    As for the theme and plot, let’s just say that bigger budgets have not meant better movies when it comes to sci-fi. Compare Avatar to the 1968 Planet of the Apes for social commentary.

    Posted 06 Jan 2010 at 10:46 pm ¶

26. Aliya wrote:

    *Iggles.. maybe I’m confused, but if you can combine the dna of a human and a N’avi to make the Avatars, then how are they different species rather than different races? I could be wrong, but I thought different species couldn’t reproduce together..

    Posted 17 Jan 2010 at 8:17 pm ¶