Political Science

email this story
read comments (15)
post a comment

As I pointed out in my 12.11 piece called "Not Right-Wing Friendly," And The Winner Is blogger Scott Feinberg has stated in a 12.20 posting that "there is a strong political undertone to Avatar, both in words and images." Feinberg doesn't give it a name (Avatar is ardently left-leaning) but he does a fine job of describing the currents.

"I have little doubt that the film's central conflict is actually a metaphor for America's two ongoing wars in the Middle East," he writes. "The humans plan to invade Pandora in order to gain access its large reserves of a precious mineral called unobtainium -- not unlike Americans invading Iraq in order to gain access to its large reserves of oil, as some believe was the real motive for the invasion.

"The humans are led by a strutting, tough-talking colonel (Stephen Lang) who sells his mission to his troops by stating, 'Our survival relies on pre-emptive action,' announces, 'We will fight terror with terror,' and then oversees a 'shock-and-awe campaign' -- not unlike George W. Bush and his effort to rally Americans behind a preemptive attack on Iraq by claiming that Iraq posed 'a grave and growing danger' to national security, followed by... a shock-and-awe campaign.'

"The native Na'vi eventually realize that although they lack the military might of their invaders, their familiarity with the terrain on which the war is being fought provides them with an even bigger advantage, allowing them to plan and execute insurgent attacks that initially debilitate and ultimately defeat their invaders -- which sounds like a rearticulation of the argument for why the Americans (like Alexander the Great, the Russians, and the British before them) will never be able to win in Afghanistan.

"Finally, one can't help but look at the attack on and eventual collapse of Pandora's Hometree, its tallest structure and one inhabited by large numbers of its people, and not think of the attack on and eventual collapse of the World Trade Center, especially as it thunders to the ground, killing many of its inhabitants and people on the ground, spraying dust and debris everywhere as those on the ground flee for their lives on foot, and leaving its survivors in a state of shock, then grief, then anger, and then a desire for retribution -- through this turn of events, we come to identify more with the Na'vi than with the humans of the future, which is why we find ourselves cheering the Na'vi's efforts to retaliate."

The way I put it: "The political import of Avatar is pro-indigenous native, anti-corporate, anti-imperialist, anti-U.S. Iraq War effort, anti-U.S.-in-Afghanistan (and anti-troop-surge-in-that-country, or strongly against the thinking of President Barack Obama and Gen. Stanley McChrystal). It's a political tract that cost Rupert Murdoch God knows how many hundreds of millions to make and yet is totally pro-loincloth, despise-the-greedy, hug-the-earth, down with the soulless short-end, down with the us-first, masters-of-the-universe thinking behind the Goldman Sachs/Timothy Geithner culture and up with the eternal/spiritual in all cultures and all corners of the globe. The tragedy of the Vietnam War echoes all through this film. Somewhere Ho Chi Minh is smiling."

Snowblind<< previous | next >>Meet The Stinkies

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 20, 2009 at 5:08 AM

comment #1

Brendan says ...

The beauty of this film right now is that we are talking about the story and the politics and not about if the effects worked or not. That was most surprising to me when I came out of the movie yesterday. (The effects are seemless, Lucas and Zemeckis must feel broken on a day like today.) The story was like a decades worth of Iraq/anti-corportation docus rolled into one. Avatar speaks more about what it is like to live in America the 00s (via the year 2154) then any other film this decade.

Posted by Brendan at December 20, 2009 6:04 AM

comment #2

Freddie Mertz says ...

Isn't there a throwaway line in the film where it is said that getting the unobtainium is critical to the survival of the human race?

Posted by Freddie Mertz at December 20, 2009 6:18 AM

comment #3

drbob says ...

"The humans plan to invade Pandora in order to gain access its large reserves of a precious mineral called unobtainium -- not unlike Americans invading Iraq in order to gain access to its large reserves of oil."

Thank god I read this post. James Cameron is so subtle, I would have completely missed this if I didn't come here.

Posted by drbob at December 20, 2009 6:27 AM

comment #4

markj says ...

Cameron has said that the film is not specifically based on the US wars of this decade, but rather all instances in history where invading forces have staked a claim on something that is not theirs. Remember Cameron wrote Avatar back in '95, so the storyline is not based on the current situation in the middle east, though no doubt he embellished his original treatment with US military terminology such as 'shock and awe'.

Having said that I think it is hilarious that Cameron got Fox to back this movie. Nicely played.

Posted by markj at December 20, 2009 6:34 AM

comment #5

Howlingman says ...

The funny thing about allegory is that the motivated can find anything to support/attack their views. Feinberg has his interpretation, as does Jeff. Cameron has said it's an ages old story -- imperialism dates back to Europe's conquest of America at the expense of its indiginous population. I'm sure Sarah Palin could see Avatar as a metaphor for Washington and Obama trying to conqour middle-america, New Yorkers could see it as a 9/11 metaphor (foreign power attacking the defenseless). The list goes on.

I actually have Cameron's Avatar treatment around my office somewhere -- should dig it up.

Posted by Howlingman at December 20, 2009 6:43 AM

comment #6

mutinyco says ...

Avatar is a metaphor for all the big directors with unlimited control and resources who claim 2001: A Space Odyssey as their greatest inspiration yet completely lack the balls or ability to ever attempt a movie like that.

Posted by mutinyco at December 20, 2009 6:55 AM

comment #7

pozzo says ...

Yeah, I've been thrashing around all weekend trying to decipher the hidden messages in the film. I'm glad someone explained them to me. Now that they have I see it's an understated work of genius.

Posted by pozzo at December 20, 2009 6:56 AM

comment #8

pozzo says ...

Yeah, I've been thrashing around all weekend trying to decipher the hidden messages in the film. I'm glad someone explained them to me. Now that they have I see it's an understated work of genius.

Posted by pozzo at December 20, 2009 7:05 AM

comment #9

Jonathan Spuij says ...

There was a respected Dutch newspaper that wrote that the movie is much more a metaphor and perhaps even a critique of the current Web 2.0 environment. Something much more interesting, especially in the future.
Anyhow, the movie's story is something to be discusses for years to come for there are many interesting viewpoints and parallels to be found.

Posted by Jonathan Spuij at December 20, 2009 7:28 AM

comment #10

Atticus Grinch says ...

I'm surprised I haven't read more about the box-office consequences Cameron and Fox should expect, given the extremity of the film's lefty metaphors and message. If the film is "not right-wing friendly", that means the most expensive movie ever made is not friendly to about half of the American public. That's quite a thing. The Saturday falloff is already being blamed on bad weather, but I'd love to see the numbers for how it's playing in Blind Side territory compared to the big cities.

Posted by Atticus Grinch at December 20, 2009 7:29 AM

comment #11

Glenn Kenny says ...

I like Scott, but come on: "I have little doubt that the film's central conflict is actually a metaphor for America's two ongoing wars in the Middle East?" Really, man, nobody's gonna accuse you of going out on a limb here.

And if there's still any doubt, go check out how hysterical Big Hollywood has gotten over the picture. QED, as they say.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at December 20, 2009 7:33 AM

comment #12

Howlingman says ...

The Big Hollywood gang doesn't like movies -- they like propaganda, and anything that doesn't fit perfectly into their world-view is automatically labelled an attack on it. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If this internet thing was around in '77 they'd be ripping into Star Wars for being "Pro VC / Anti Nixon."

Posted by Howlingman at December 20, 2009 8:48 AM

comment #13