Cameron's "Avatar" Insulting to the Armed Forces?

[Dr. C]

Any opinions from SWC about the film Avatar and the portrayal of the Armed Forces, for those of you who have seen James Cameron's latest 3D film?

Ty Burr from The Boston Globe observed in his review of Avatar:

Yes, “Avatar’’ is the latest high-tech entertainment to lecture us that technology is wrong. Human civilization, too. The movie’s cultural politics are childishly two-dimensional, at times insulting (especially if you know anyone in the armed forces). Squint at “Avatar’’ the wrong way and it starts to look like a training film for jihad - not, I’m guessing, what Cameron had in mind.

For those of you who loathe any serious discussion about all things Hollywood, if you saw the film, you probably couldn't help notice how the military is portrayed. I couldn't tell if the armed forces were actually military or hired mercenaries working for the corporation exploring the planet Pandora for a valuable natural resource. The military and the corporation showed open disdain for the scientists on their team, even though they knew they needed the scientists to help with their mission.

Anyway, there was a long National Guard commercial during the previews at the theater where I saw the movie, so I doubt if the film producers had any intention of portraying the military in a negative light. But do they?

[Steve Blair]

Cameron has often had simplistic sub-texts in many of his movies, so I don't tend to take him seriously from that standpoint. That's one of the reasons Avatar hasn't interested me that much.

[Entropy]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but since it's fiction, I don't take it too seriously. We are all used to the stereotypes. I worry more about movies that are or claim to be based on "real events" but even there some of the portrayals become unintentially funny in their ignorant absurdity.

I still think "Three Kings" was one of the best even though it wasn't completely flattering.

[Adam L]

I couldn't tell if the armed forces were actually military or hired mercenaries working for the corporation exploring the planet Pandora for a valuable natural resource.

Take a look at Aliens. The "Colonial Marines" (I think that was what they were called) were basically controlled by "the company." Although, the marines, with the possible exception of Bill Paxton's character, were portrayed as good guys. Don't read to much into any of his movies.

Right now I'm more concerned that the man wants to redo Forbidden Planet!

Cameron has often had simplistic sub-texts in many of his movies, so I don't tend to take him seriously from that standpoint. That's one of the reasons Avatar hasn't interested me that much.

I agree with you one everything except the "sub-texts." Does Cameron ever do anything small enough to be called a "sub-text." I very much enjoyed the "sub-texts" of True Lies!

Adam L

[Steve Blair]

I agree with you one everything except the "sub-texts." Does Cameron ever do anything small enough to be called a "sub-text." I very much enjoyed the "sub-texts" of True Lies!

Adam L

True enough. He's had a couple of good ones, but on the whole he's not a director I go out of my way to see.

[selil]

I would point out that the Marines in Avatar were actually PMC's. They all came from the Marines but they worked for the company. This is very similar (but different) to Alien's where the government hired out the Marines to a corporation. The interesting sub-text (sic) that hasn't been discussed is that the paralyzed veteran could not get treatment, but the company would provide that treatment. NOBODY is looking at that little bit of the story line which has a huge impact on the story arc. I'm going to see it again before I decide if I'll fully review it.

[Adam L]

I should point out that I have not seen Avatar. Since we are talking about it now, I guess I will have to go see it.

Adam L

[Dr. C]

The interesting sub-text (sic) that hasn't been discussed is that the paralyzed veteran could not get treatment, but the company would provide that treatment. NOBODY is looking at that little bit of the story line which has a huge impact on the story arc. I'm going to see it again before I decide if I'll fully review it.

So does this support what Burr wrote in his Boston Globe review of Avatar, that it's insulting to the Armed Forces?

If you have an opportunity to see it an IMAX theater, that would be the way to go.

Most reviewers agree that the technology far surpasses the script and the plot. More "mature" audiences have seen the plot in films like Dances with Wolves. However, for younger audiences the message might be new. Will they view our military in a negative light after seeing this film?

[wm]

So does this support what Burr wrote in his Boston Globe review of Avatar, that it's insulting to the Armed Forces?

If you have an opportunity to see it an IMAX theater, that would be the way to go.

Most reviewers agree that the technology far surpasses the script and the plot. More "mature" audiences have seen the plot in films like Dances with Wolves. However, for younger audiences the message might be new. Will they view our military in a negative light after seeing this film?

I'd say the PMC/military stereotyping runs at about the same level as that found for the Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers. The "colonel" reminded me of characters played (caricatured?)by Robert Duval--the Cav LTC in Apocalypse Now and the Marine aviator in The Great Santini. Having seen it in IMAX 3D with my 12 & 13 year old boys, I can tell you that all they talked about was the "awesome" combat footage. It didn't negatively reframe their view of the military in the least.

By the way, I was less impressed with the similarity to Dances With Wolves and more struck by the affinity with the plot of a 1992 "classic" that starred Tim Curry, Christian Slater, and his former girl friend Samantha Mathis (both also of Pump Up the Volume fame), not to mention Robin Williams, Cheech Marin, and Tommy Chong, among others.

Of course, [forehead slap] you remember now--Ferngully, The Last Rainforest

[Van]

I would point out that the Marines in Avatar were actually PMC's. ... This is very similar (but different) to Alien's where the government hired out the Marines to a corporation.

It wasn't explicit whether the 'marines' were a PMC or government forces, a la Aliens or the Latin American small wars of the 1920s and 1930s (United Fruit, the so-called Banana Wars, and the campaigns that caused the 1940 Marine Small Wars Manual). I saw it as government troops protecting economic interests (consistent with the Left's portrayal of Haliburton and the U.S. mil under Bush/Cheney). On reflection, I could see this as the East India Company combat units in the XXII century.

The interesting sub-text (sic) that hasn't been discussed is that the paralyzed veteran could not get treatment, but the company would provide that treatment. NOBODY is looking at that little bit of the story line which has a huge impact on the story arc.

The reprimand to the USG and the VAs treatment of veterans isn't quite explicit...


I'm surprised the mainstream (or at least those [redacted] Roberto Gonzalez and Max Forte) hasn't started to talk up the depiction of the relationship between social sciences and colonialism or SS and the military. In 'Avatar', the eggheads came across as woefully (or willfully) naive about the corporation's motives, oblivious to realities surrounding them, and sterotypically helpless and hand-wringing until a man of action was thrust into their camp. This goes back to the threads about the conflict between the active and contemplative lives.

The romantization of indigenous sentients was a great fictional device, but again, plays to a number of stereotypes.


Re:

The movie’s cultural politics are childishly two-dimensional, at times insulting (especially if you know anyone in the armed forces).

(source: Boston Globe Review)

It came across as more anti-corporation than anti-military to the AF LTC(sel) that I watched it with and myself. Yeah, they played to the worst liberal violence porn and sterotypes from Viet Nam, but the corporation gave the orders, and it was about the corporation's image ("genocide doesn't play well" or something like that). Although anyone who has been following the coverage of HTS would see this as propaganda against the employment of social scientists by the military.

[Dr. C]

In 'Avatar', the eggheads came across as woefully (or willfully) naive about the corporation's motives, oblivious to realities surrounding them, and sterotypically helpless and hand-wringing until a man of action was thrust into their camp. This goes back to the threads about the conflict between the active and contemplative lives.

I don't want to add any spoilers for those who haven't seen the movie yet. However, the "man of action," the former Marine Jake Sully, played a pivotal role in the work of the scientists when he mistakenly divulges too much information to the military/corporation side about the likelihood of the natives negotiating and leaving their land. He's really the one who comes across as woefully naive and even helpless about the corporation's motives. He believes he will walk again, thanks to the corporation. The lead scientist knows her mission for the corporation is about the minerals worth millions of dollars. She's also onto something else, that's even a bigger discovery for humankind, related to the environment of Pandora.

Some critics argue that the film is even racist, as it plays into the fantasy of the white man becoming a hero and saving the indigenous people from his own race.

I'd say a lot of that criticism is really over-analyzing what is a colorful and highly immersive film. I really didn't even make the connection with "Dances with Wolves" until I read that in a review. I did take note of how the military was portrayed.

[AmericanPride]

I don't think it was insulting. It offered one explanation for the relationships between government, the armed forces, and private corporations. That explanation is neither fully historically inaccurate or insulting.

It should be noted that Weaver's character also sought to teach the locals English (and I'm assuming other human cultural behaviors) while simultaenously disguising herself as the locals. She also knowingly took part in the corporation's endeavor and profited both financially and professionaly from their patronage. What Avatar didn't explore was the the response of humanity (who apparently lived on a dying planet; aren't humans also fighting for survival then? If so, why is the survival of the natives more important than our own?) to being ejected from the planet.

[Dr. C]

It should be noted that Weaver's character also sought to teach the locals English (and I'm assuming other human cultural behaviors) while simultaenously disguising herself as the locals. She also knowingly took part in the corporation's endeavor and profited both financially and professionaly from their patronage.

I thought there were a lot of plot devices in the movie, like the scientists teaching the natives how to speak English, so audiences didn't get frustrated with sub-titles. University of Southern California Professor Frommer, a linguistics expert, created the Na'vi language, a functional language, working with Cameron on it for about four years. I subscribed to the Avatar Facebook fan page, so I'm privy to these things.

So was Weaver's scientist one of the bad guys?

I thought the humans, including the corporate executive and excluding the colonel, were amicable to first trying diplomatic means with the natives. It was really the colonel who was hungry for battle. The youngish corporate exec guy was impatient with diplomacy, but he didn't appear to thirst for battle.

Compared to Star Wars, I didn't think the plot and the characters in Avatar were as deep. Star Wars wasn't as simple a story to understand as Avatar, but I first saw Star Wars at about the age of 8. I understood who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. In Avatar, would an 8-year-old view humans (aliens)= bad guys and Na'vi (natives) = good guys?

[AmericanPride]

Dr. C,

While contrary to what the director attempted to project, I do not think the corporation or any of its employees can be clearly argued to be 'bad guys'. The colonel was tasked with providing for the security of the operation. He had an extensive military background. His early experiences on Pandora (serious injury in his first several days, and having not been seriously injured in any previous operation) may have hardened his view and inflated the risk of the natives. He perceived coercion as the only effective method in removing the natives from the home tree (and he was right).

What undermined the decision-making process of the corporation was ignoring the scientific intelligence provided by Weaver's crew regarding the physical foundations of the local's culture.

The problem therefore is not one between diplomacy and coercion, but of uprooting the natives in the first place and destroying their environent with the follow-on economic exploitation. However, the film only hinted at the context of humanity's operations (calling earth a dying world), which can wildly alter the good/bad boundaries for everyone involved. Essentially, the main character condemned humanity to death.

[Fuchs]

To feel insulted by a sci-fi movie is to me on the same level as feeling insulted in your religious feelings by a caricature from another continent.

[Stan]

To feel insulted by a sci-fi movie is to me on the same level as feeling insulted in your religious feelings by a caricature from another continent.

I would have to agree. My better half and I watched it over the holidays because her 24 year-old son - stuck somewhere in dreamland - recommended seeing what US Military do while on foreign soil

It reminded me of PMCs, but other than some great 3D special effects, overall a poor portrayal.

It requires an imagination to get emotionally involved in a sci-fi and I'm retired and too old to care

[Presley Cannady]

Essentially, the main character condemned humanity to death.

Actually, there was nothing on Pandora that was essential to human survival. The RDA was there to acquire the superconducting unobtanium, and the atmosphere hardly made it suitable for human life. Moreover, while Earth may be a dying planet, Avatar depicts Americans at the very least as having conquered economical nuclear fusion and antimatter (ISV Venture Star is a Valkyrie spacecraft). Presumably, this has to some very interesting implications regarding our home solar systems' development (see Pournelle, J., "Survival with Style," A Step Farther Out).

[Beelzebubalicious]

Just saw the film and read the thread. As a civvie, wanted
to offer a few observations.

- distinction bet PMC and military will be lost on most. They will just think military
- given above, that's another and very widespread and powerful negative message about the military.
- it's not just themiltary but corporate america
- read the anthro blogs. This was wrong in many ways, but the anthro in me was going nuts watching this. Navi is apparently a real language/dialect from Cameroon. David price's analysis (http://www.counterpunch.org/price12232009.html) links this (no way!) to the anthropologists and human terrain system project.
- I see dancing with wolves, but I think the real comparison is star wars. It's trying to be epic, special effects, simple architypical characters, popular spiritualism.
- we never learn our lessons. We keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
- it's always better to be native. Simple, natural, romantic, and morally righteous!

[Boot]

and no being an active duty Marine, I didn't take it that way.
Pure SciFi.

Also in the movie they make it pretty clear that all the military were Mercs hired by the corporation, and were from the Army and probably other services too.

I started to nitpick and a friend reminded me "hey man, it takes place on another world and they are 10 foot blue aliens". Oh yeah thats right its fiction...


Boot

[gute]

First thing that came to my mind was "treason", but after watching the movie it was just the scifi version of Pocahontas. Movie was a disappointment.