I liked the film. And though the white hero trope is everywhere in Hollywood, Avatar reconfigures it through the whole concept of an avatar for a disabled man. Working among Vets with spinal cord injuries, I see this daily with their use of Second Life to establish a new self. This is why I disagree that Sully is a superior human being - he's clearly emasculated and otherized by his own people so that he is not representative of one category. This review of the film hits closer to the target: http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2009/12/23/what_does_avatar_tell_us_about_masculinity_and_disability

Jenn has a good analysis of Avatar at Reappropriate!

Thanks, I enjoyed this. I'm reminded of reading about the Womyn's festivals in the 60s and 70s, and how groups dedicated to native women had to specify, "in this lifetime," because there were so many white women that identified themselves as reincarnated american natives. And sans white guilt, there was the Improved Order of the Red Man, which was a fraternal order for white men wanting to be better-than-noble savages even as colonization was still going on.

But do pardon me if I doubt the gender politics are less than chauvinistic, without having seen the movie. From the trailer I watched, it looked like a typical boy's club Hollywood movie: hundreds of men and a woman or two in the background running a communication device and a token for the love interest, so the male audience can fantasize about getting his exotic China girl/alien. Maybe the female aliens fight alongside the males, but I'd be surprised if any of them had prominent roles, spoke, or, as the picture above shows, appeared other than behind all the males. It's easier to get a "chick" fighting in a Hollywood movie than it is to get one to speak. And even if lipservice is being paid about some egalitarian society, the male film directors betray it with their obsession with men. Harry freakin' Potter's camera somehow manages to only land on the male extras in the background, for heaven's sake.

the race politics in this film are somewhat problematic, but I really liked AVATAR.

However, the gender politics in the story are just awesome. I loved that it was Neytiri who destroyed the military leader and killed him. I was expecting Jack to do that, so imagine my surprise.

The scene of Jack (the human), a crippled Marine, being craddled in Neytiri's arms, at the end of the movie, was VERY powerful, moving, and surreal.

This does make me think more about whether the way we think of "being in touch with nature" is at all rational, since here the people allegedly in touch with nature are being called that in contrast to a civilization so incredibly in touch with what nature is and how it works that they have been able to construct interstellar spacecraft. What kind of sense does that make? How much understanding of nature is required to tame a local predator compared to coaxing a collection of metals and plastics into ferrying one across the incomprehensible void between stars?

I dispute the last paragraph, "Europeans can enjoy Avatar precisely because [...] the likelihood that power dynamics will be reconfigured in any meaningful way is just about zero."

What do you mean by Europeans? And why do you insist on this divide among people? Do you think the encouragement and continuation of this discourse is healthy or beneficial towards working towards and universally compassionate world? I don't.

I'm a Canadian of "European" descent. But I didn't enjoy the film about colonization because its safe for me to feel guilty and because there's no chance I'll loose power in Canadian society. I find no utilitarian purpose in being a self-hating, hand-wringing liberal. I'm a liberal, but not of that kind. I wasn't the one that built residencial schools, and I do not feel guilty for my ancestors doing. Everyone's ancestors have made mistakes. If we want real equality in the world, we need to focus on what we can do today.

Even though I'm a "European" by your archiac label, my ancestors have lived in Canada since 1604, through 16 generations. For the majority of those generations, my family has lived close and in harmony with the Aboringal population known as the Mi'kmaq. I grew up learning equally about Mi'kmaq heritage and the heritage of British and French Canadians, and I have been working towards Aboriginal rights for the last 7 years.

But I don't work for those rights out of ancestral guilt. I work for them because I am Canadian, and they are Canadians and I want to protect my fellow citizens. I loved Avatar, because it showed what I thought was the story of Peace River, which is a current event in Canadian that is happening to the Cree people in Alberta, and I thought the film could be used to race awareness.

I think that message is more beneficial and helpful towards modern society than the message you extracted from it, which was essentially read like we should always feel eternally guilty.

That sums up almost everything I wanted to say about "Avatar". In the end, it's just another cockfight between two white boys for the male alpha throne.

I must only add one important lesson that feminist Mr. Cameron taught us: grab the best and biggest car (oh, wait, dragon) and the girl will jump for a ride with you, no matter how much you had screwed with her.

The movie is what it is because you nice Americans would NEVER watch it, if the story was more realistic.

If the humans who invaded were black, or Asian, or - gasp - Jewish, the movie wouldn't even be made, because it'd be too "controversial". Thousands of critics would rise in contempt that the movie promotes racism, that it portrays other races in a shallow, "white" way of action that is "obviously" not the way those people would naturally behave at all.

If the "noble" Na'vi were filthy, satanic cannibals who skinned babies alive for breakfast, would the audience feel any different about the "We likes your shinies, so we're gunna take 'em, except for Joe, he thinks you're all right" story?

They obviously would.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about what white people did and still do to black people in Africa, because those guys are such bad examples to our kiddies. They keep slaughtering each other and all those pretty noble animals, raping and enslaving their neighbor's daughters, using and selling diamonds and drugs, and worshipping bloodthirsty, satanic gods, so, to the average white American Joe, they DESERVE to be exploited.
Same goes to the Iraqis and Afghans: they're just a bunch of fanatic muslims, look at them, growing dictators like daisies and blowing each other up every day.

All that American liberals ever say is "Lets get our troops back and let those nice people sort themselves out". When asked if America should pay for all the destruction and havoc it caused, not a voice is heard, cause no American Joe wants his hard-earned tax money to work for anybody else's comfort but his. The audience would never buy the idea that someone would actually HELP "evil" natives, the same way they'd never, EVER, admit to ever being "evil" themselves.

And if the Na'vi were, nice or not, to kick humanity's (a.k.a. America's) butt back to Earth by themselves, there would be not one American who wouldn't feel cheated by the movie. Americans can't handle defeat; Vietnam is still an open sore that won't heal. Producers damn well know that.

It's just too easy to criticize Hollywood and its products, with no regard whatsoever to why those products are the way they are. The movies are shallow? Yes, but they're as shallow as the audience that pays to see them.

Finally! I was worried you wouldn't discuss it at all. I love your post and don't have much else to add, other than I don't agree at all with your assessment of great gender politics, as me and others have detailed above. The only difference I see was that the poorly-fleshed out ad much too few female characters got to participate in violence a little more than we're used to in mainstream cinema. But that's something we've seen much more often since the early 90s, I think, and isn't a clear indicator of gender politics in my opinion. Russ Meyer's female characters were often "strong", sometimes violent, but I guess few people would call him a feminist. ;)

To be honest, I was dreading this post. I love this website, but sometimes I feel as if a lot of people who hang out here take more enjoyment out of complaining that out of, well ... enjoyment.

Avatar is a very, very old story. Sometimes it's not what the story is, but how it's told. Yes, it's the old "white man saves the natives"---but, as minority conscious as you are, I'm shocked that the fact that Jake Sully is a paraplegic doesn't have more weight with you.

If the movie was "written for the American Indian population" and had no Jake Sully ... there would be no movie. There would be no growth period. It would be a war movie, and there would be none of this learning to accept people's differences, here. Yes, Jake is integral to the plot. That's what makes it interesting. If not for Jake, the viewers wouldn't learn about the Na'vi, which are the point of the film. That's the reason for every film, book, or video game with a character who's totally foreign to the setting: they ask questions and, like the viewer, need to be taught about the world of the story. They are the perfect recipients for information.

That said? Jake didn't come off as an idiot. Being confused by someone else's culture and language doesn't make him the bumbling white guy. It makes him the guy that knew nothing about a culture and language. The same thing would happen to, say, an American going to France without knowing anything about the language or culture. There's a learning curve. Eventually, you'll get it, but that takes time, and that's the most interesting part to watch.

Yes, he's being helped by a female character. If Neytiri wasn't in the film and he was being taught by a male character, you'd be complaining of the lack of female presence in the story. As far as characters go, Neytiri's doing pretty well. She's a tough, talented warrior who has her femininity firmly in her grasp without being sexualized (except in the scene where she has sex, and even then, it's clear that that scene is meant to be more emotional than it is erotic, and it succeeded). And she, instead of the White Man Main Character, kills the big bad and saves Jake Sully's life. Actually, she saves him more than once, if you're counting.

The problem with analyzing this sort of story is that the requirements of a story like this tend to be ignored. The entire point of being the main character and the hero is that Jake Sully does all the impressive things. He has to find a way to help other people, or he's a totally useless main character.

When he enters the movie, the relationship between Dr. Augustine's scientists and the Na'vi is pretty crappy; if it had been a good relationship that was beneficial for everyone, Jake being taken in wouldn't matter at all. In order for Jake (and the audience) to get an in with the Na'vi, something has to happen: hence, a sign from the Goddess. Anything less would have ended with Jake with an arrow in the brain and no movie. And beside that, if Jake wasn't exceptional or different from the other humans in the movie ... again, we wouldn't care and there would be no movie.

And then he falls in love with the Na'vi. Would you prefer he had stayed indifferent, or firmly on the path of their destruction? Again, that's a shitty hero to be spending 3 hours with. More than that, he falls in love with Neytiri, which, of course, you take issue with, but Neytiri is the character he spends the most time with. Of course that's who he falls in love with. She's assigned to teach him because the village shaman says so. Why? Because when someone new comes to learn about your country/culture, you put them with a person of high rank and who you trust. Namely, her daughter, who is in line to take her position but doesn't have it yet, and so is free to run around and teach this clueless outsider.

Of course, eventually Jake gets kicked out for being a big old liar, even while trying to explain himself. Shit happens. He needs to get back in or, again, shitty main character and no movie. We're told about Toruk earlier in the film, and like Chekov's gun, he needs to be utilized. If another character had already tamed Toruk and brought all the tribes together, they would have done so before Jake even showed up, thereby making him useless and then, again ... no movie. By necessity, it has to be Jake.

And of course Jake is an asset in the final battle. He knows the enemy. If the Na'vi already knew how to beat the humans, they already would have, and then again, no movie. Jake is also ultimately defeated (and nearly killed) by the Big Bad, mind you, and without Neytiri to kill the Colonel, protect Jake's Na'vi body and save his human one, he'd be dead. All powerful, Jake Sully is not. In the end he stays with the Na'vi, and why wouldn't he, after all that? It's made very clear that, by then, Jake is more Na'vi than human. If he wasn't, he wouldn't go to all the trouble of helping them, and then ... again, no movie.

It's not the most complex plot. It's a very common story, but that doesn't make it a bad movie, and as far as cliché plots go, it does a pretty good job. The female characters aren't objectified and overly sexualized, and in fact, they're given all the important roles except for Jake Sully and the Big Bag (whose name I can never spell). Dr. Augustine is the reason the film's premise is even possible, Neytiri is a competent and badass female lead, her mother, Mo'at, on more than one occasion protects the main characters and progresses the film, and Trudy is the only reason Jake, Norm and Grace even get the chance to be in the final battle at all. Yes, Neytiri shows a lot of skin, but she's more covered up than Jake is, and it would be hypocritical to pick on her style of dress and not his. Everyone's mostly naked with the Na'vi, so it's not as if Neytiri is special in that regard. She actually wears more than the other females because of her place in the society.

And as a last note, what I've been noticing here is that the people most aware of white, liberal "supremacy" in film and media, and the most likely to complain about it? Other liberal white people. Food for thought.

@Jen:

"To be honest, I was dreading this post. I love this website, but sometimes I feel as if a lot of people who hang out here take more enjoyment out of complaining that out of, well … enjoyment."

Your _concern_ is duly noted.

Rather than go through all of your points, I'd just suggest reading this: http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar

One thing, though. You say:

"Yes, Neytiri shows a lot of skin, but she’s more covered up than Jake is, and it would be hypocritical to pick on her style of dress and not his."

You might want to read the link someone posted above about how James Cameron really worked to get those 3D breasts just right -- even though the species in question shouldn't have them at all.

I find it interesting that all the discussions here are concerned with the Aliens-Indians allegory (well, and some interesting gender stuff); when I watched the trailer, that definitely stood out a lot (in fact, I found it absolutely hilarious when a newspaper summary said the aliens were blue to avoid any human racial association, but were also this 'primitive'-warrior-in-touch-with-nature culture... I mean, come on!), but it also seemed like a rather heavy-handed allegory about the Iraq invasion. My boyfriend watched the movie, and corroborated that impression: he said that while they basically stole the script of Dances With Wolves, he also felt it was really preachy on the 'US invaded Iraq for the oil' side.

One of the things I really liked about this movie is this simple, easy-to-understand message: invading the land of a foreign people in order to take what they have is wrong. In a movie, it makes you the bad guy.

The movie slipped in words and phrases like "Pre-emptive strike," and "insurgency." The coveted resource (unobtainium) was under the ground of the native people. It was impossible to miss the allusion to our recent acts of unprovoked aggression.

Many people in this country aren't very interested in politics, and such people might watch this movie, and have the thought occur to them: "Hey. Maybe unprovoked aggression really IS wrong..."

This review seems a little lazy. While this was still 'white savior' as hell, there were some mitigating elements to it that are worth noticing.

The alien race was technologically superior in several ways. It still required a white savior to enact, but it was through their massive network that they were able to muster the power necessary to fight off the human beings.

Only two white males in the entire movie were painted in a positive light; Jake Sully and his scientist compatriot (who was largely ineffectual, anyway). Aside from the protagonist, it was women and people of color who did all of the positive work in the film, on the human side.

The protagonist had to be saved multiple times, and each of them were by women.

--

Avatar was still racist and sexist. Most movies are. I don't think it stood out from the pack in any particular way except for the hype it received, but I don't think a unilateral dismissal of it is really the right approach either. Our natural response to a big budget movie like this is to overreact. There's a lot of hype, there's a lot of wankery, and there's a lot of cinematic and critical praise, and those are irritating because they distract from what we're interested in which is to understand the movie and it's racial and gender power dynamics.

I'm glad to see discussion of the tropes in the story, but I would like it if an analysis like this one was done a bit more holistically, because without a fair look at what it did right it's hard to measure progress or lack thereof.

Modern Girl can I suggest that you could become Modern Nation State Girl you could so easily be a white Australian mouthing the same kind of platitudes.

I thought it was interesting that the real strong woman who stood out for me was the human pilot, played by Michelle Rodriguez. I guess she didn't get quite as much play in the fight scenes because she was a human and didn't have an Avatar body, but she was great- not defemenized but not girly, with enough morals to see what was wrong but not as bleeding heart as some of the other characters. I thought she got some good subtle development.

The Sigourney Weaver scientist was good too- Cameron gave her a little bit of a tough edge, and while she was a pretty stereotypical character (who reminded me of Jane Goodall in a few ways I guess) she held her own in the arguments with the other men in the company. I don't know why they kept dressing her avatar in skimpier clothes than the men's avatars (or why they had a Stanford tank top for a 9 foot tall creature, but I digress.)

I don't think the fictional race was totally gender-blind, nor was the human one, but I thought they were better than they usually are in movies which is a little bit of progress.

Yeah this movie was totally sexist.
Didn't anyone notice the scene where they are at the tree thing and she's like 'oh you're part of our tribe now so now you get to choose a woman' and then they have that stupid dialogue about how he doesn't want any of the others and only wants her?

This movie is absolutely terrible. It is unoriginal, the acting is TERRIBLE, and it has nothing going for it but advanced (yet still cheesy-looking) special effects.

But yeah, the sexual politics in this movie were the funniest to me. They are on another planet, yet all of the aliens have nearly identical model-esque bodies. Their mating rituals are identical to human mating rituals (e.g. they kiss with their mouths to show affection) and women are still treated like property and are 'chosen' when a man comes of age. Awesome.

I consider myself a progressive. However, I am a 45 year old white guy who grew up in the most racist part of Missouri, on a farm, with what can only be described as a FASCIST father. I am also a veteran.

My sister has been training me for years to be better than I was raised.

I went to the movie last night and loved it. Afterward, sis explained the issues with the film, which can be summed up by the authors–white-guy-saves-too-perfect-to-live-indigenous-people-from-other-white-guys.

I am not a troll, I am learning how to understand these issues.

I understand the aforementioned issues on their face but can’t see how he could have made the story better.

1. The natives won! They would have been crushed if the “white guy” had not helped. Just like the North American natives were crushed.

2. The corporate bastards left in hand cuffs at the end. They were shown to be ignoring the real wealth of the planet they were EATING ALIVE.

3. When the “white guy” flew in on the red dragon, he deferred command to the real leader of the tribe.

4. The twin towers, preemptive war, military contractors, bunker busters, fighting terror with terror, etc. etc. were addressed in a very meaningful way.

5. Gaia was hailed as our mother! The hero says “we killed our mother”!!

My point here is this: if the heroine was fat and had moles on her face, if the natives ate their kids for religious purposes, if the white guy died in the first few scenes would it have been more palatable?

6. The leaders of the tribe were a couple, who shared the tasks of leadership and the female was actually more of a leader than the father!

IT IS AN EPIC HEROIC TALE OF LOVE AND REDEMPTION and addresses so many issues we face right now in a form people like me, and not like me ATE UP WITH A SPOON.

I cried through half of it. Yes the 45 year old southern veteran wanted to grab a bow and fly with the warriors and kill the evil corporate bastards! WTF more could you want 15 year olds watching!

One of the last scenes is of the heroine standing over the body of her man slamming fence post size arrows into the arch villain’s chest!

School me.

I immediately thought of the Marine character as a "wounded warrior" theme that is increasingly stuffed down our throats in the US. the "heros" we have to like and respect, whatever our political thoughts or senses of morality about our current wars. This is a maudlin tugging at the heartstrings sort of thing that is just so awfully pervasive these days.

Just want to add one thing. Anthropologist David Price (with the Network of Concerned Anthropologists) has written a commentary on Avatar and the Human Terrain System (HTS) - http://bit.ly/5rkGOt. For those who aren't aware, the HTS is essentially military embedded social scientists. There has been a lot of controversy over the ethics and value of the HTS, and David Price is one of its main critics.

Yes, the movie is both sexist and racist. I also noticed that in the finale, the main characters who got to live were all male unless they were a love interest. The female pilot and the scientist -- the two strongest human female characters -- were killed off but the ineffectual white male scientist lived, as did his non-white male scientist peer.

I was willing to forgive the movie for the boobs and "women as helper" plot until that finale. Sully basically was single-handedly responsible for the destruction of the native's home and many of their deaths. He gathered the intel, gave it to the Big Bad, and got so caught up in being a better Noble Savage than anyone else that he forgot to tell them that they were all about to become collateral damage until it was far too late. Basically, he acted like a selfish child, too wrapped up in pride and bravado to do the right thing in the beginning.

I would have accepted it if they had let him back into the tribe and take down the Big Bad and live the rest of his life as just one among the many. But no. He basically masterminded the entire battle strategy, got their goddess (that he didn't fully believe in!) on their side, tamed what no one else could because he was so much better at doing their own culture than them, and nobody protests. Dude, this is the guy who've you've opened your entire world to when you would have been totally justified to cut down where he stands. Then he fucks up, big time, and he still gets to be the hero and the leader.

WTF? In easily trusting Sully again as their leader, Cameroon basically makes the Nav'i look stupid, and Sully look like he gets to be the big hero for way less effort and morality than any one of the Nav'i. Hell, it would be more plausible for a Nav'i to betray their race to the humans and they still let them lead the charge because at least they're still the same race.

Gah. I really really wanted to like this movie because it was so pretty. I really wish that Cameroon would have done this right instead of making it so wrong.

You're just not entitled to be a troll.

While it irritated me that there were so few women in the film and the scientist chick was such a pathetic hard mother figure, I found it more annoying that an Australian guy was used so it was okay that he was dumb & arrogant. And look he's a daredevil and a flirt! I bet he spends his time surfing and goes backpacking and gets drunk and disorderly in German pubs!

Go watch Sam Worthington's other films like Macbeth & Gettin Square and you'll see the kind of strong, intelligent & flawed characters he usually plays. And both of those films show a lot more respect to women.

I'm sure I sound petty, but I really doubt an American would have been as loved as he is in that role.

I have not seen and am not eager to defend the artistic merit of Avatar; if it reaches the literary heights of Cameron's last film, then the viewer might be advised to bring an iPod loaded with Yes and King Crimson and enjoy the pretty pictures. (Poetry for the ages as Rose wades the drowning passageways of the RMS Titanic: "Jack? Jack? Jack! Jack?!" If Shakespeare could only have lived to see it.)

But as for Annalee Newitz--she should really bother to get the material right if she's going to wow us with her close reading.

Dances with Wolves? Paul Dunbar certainly does not become the leader or even remotely the "most awesome member" of the American Indians in that film. He is adopted by them like a lost puppy and, frankly, spends most of his time getting into trouble and obliging his new "family" to come and rescue him. They must have been wondering if it was worth saving his scrawny butt in the first place. A huge portion of his value comes from the fact that he had access to a large cache of Army weaponry and made it available to the Indians, not through his intrinsic "awesomeness." He has a little usefulness in understanding the numbers, capabilities and motivations of the American invaders because, well, he is one of them. So that sort of stands to reason, too.

But really, people, who is willing to support the leap from an analysis of five or six movies to a passage like this: "Avatar and scifi films like it give us the opportunity to answer the question: What do white people fantasize about when they fantasize about racial identity?" Are you _kidding_ me? Shall I be permitted to play you a half dozen Hip Hop tracks, carefully culled from the last three decades of creative expression to best support my pet thesis, and tell you "This is what black people think?" About _anything_? You would drive me from town with torches and pitchforks; I sense many of you casting furtive glances at your garden implements even now. This kind of sloppy generalization is really beyond the pale. I permit myself sixty seconds to pull counter-examples off the shelves of my own library. Clarke's _Childhood's End_. Sagan's _Contact_. Haldeman's _The Forever War_. Brinn's _Earth_. Engh's _Arslan_. So there's a pretty good handful, and all written by reasonably white people. (One more? Seuss's _Butter Battle Book_.) Yet how can this be, when Annalee Newitz has already told us with such certainty, how "white people" "fantasize" about race?

Really though, if the movie was about a female human with broken legs who saved the day, became leader of the Navi (later to give up human body for a Navi body) and fell in love with a male Navi - if ALL gender roles in the film were flipped, you're still be critiquing/complaining. You'd be saying, "Why does the female hero need the support of the male sidekick? Why can't she do it on her own?"

There'll always be something to talk about.

I saw AVATAR opening weekend in IMAX 3D. I thought that the plot was basically DANCES WITH WOLVES meets THE LAST SAMURAI in outer space. I'm not really a fan of those kinds of movies...white guy meets some melanin sufficient people, learns and masters their culture in a short period of time, becomes their greatest warrior, saves the people, gets the girl and gains his humanity.

I also have a problem with sci-fi movies that take place in the future where white people are still the dominant ethnic group. It is believed that white Americans will be officially be a minority by 2050. AVATAR takes place 104 years after. One would hope that things would have changed by then.

I did like that there were so many strong female roles. It reminded me of sci-fi/fantasy works by writers like Octavia Butler, Ursula le Guin, Joanna Russ, Elizabeth Lynn, et al. Hopefully we'll see more sci-fi/fantasy movies that have strong women in them.

It was interesting how the Earthlings' actions stemming from corporate greed backed by military muscle (Bush's OIL...Operation Iraqi Liberation...the original name for the Iraqi invasion) led to a "9-11" in the destruction of that tree. Corporate greed + military backing = terrorism.

The world that Cameron created was fantastic! From the flora and fauna to the hair/USB ports that the Na'vi used to communicate with the creatures they rode on. I was expecting the avatar and the female Na'vi to use them during the lovemaking scene...it would have been interesting.

The visual effects were incredible. Seeing this in IMAX 3D was the way to go. Anyone waiting to see this on DVD will not be seeing this movie the way it was meant to be seen. We're looking forward to getting the DVD, though, to see all of the extras. I want to see how he developed his vision over 15 years and what influenced him.

Some people have remarked that the humans were technologically advanced but still insensitive. 2154 isn't really that far way and I really doubt that humans will have evolved much by then. If anything, if humans have realized that they aren't the only sentient beings in the universe it may unite us as a species but make us even more xenophobic. Scary thought but I see no evidence of greater technological knowledge resulting in enlightenment in human thought and behavior. Just the opposite...we usually look for ways to use technology to create weapons and forms of control.

I'm sad this post didn't have more on the extremely problematic way this movie handled disability. It was better than a lot of stuff out there, but the "heal the cripple" storyline has been done to death.

FWD/Forward has a pretty good post up covering this. Better people than I have covered the Race!fail and Gender!fail, but I'm not seeing whole lot of coverage of anything to do with his disability. Scifi does the healing thing to characters with disabilities all the time. Why can't we have more movies or stories with a kick-ass disabled lead who doesn't get healed by future magitech?

Typical Typical mivie written by an able-bodied hetero white guy for other able-odied hetero white guys. I didn't really expect it to be anything differen.

Is it just me or is there more self-congratulatory defense of this film than usual in the commments in the comments on this post? It seems like every other post is someone agreeing with someone else that everything is totes fine and people are taking things too seriously.

Really, there was too much wrong here to address as a comment, so I made it a blog post. http://weblog.masukomi.org/2009/12/29/stop-applying-your-agenda-to-avatar-and-everything-else

In short, Jake NEVER becomes chief in the film, they went out of their way to make him NOT superior, and he is never shown organizing their strategy, and if he did it only shows how inferior he is because some parts of the strategy suck.

First, let me say that I enjoyed the movie. There are qualities that I really liked. But I think that art reveals, and that this movie reveals some negative things about our culture.

I was uncomfortable with the "noble savage" stereotype as I watched... I felt that ALL of the Na'vi were sexualized... Exotic sexuality... Just the way the camera moved on them, both the males and females.

And I am REALLY surprised that nobody has brought this up yet... but most of the Na'vi (the real na'vi) were played by African Americans! Did that not make anyone else uncomfortable?? The chief was played by a Native American. It's not enough just to let the animation do the othering.... Cameron also chose "other" actors. It felt exploitative.

Pretty useless to post this 125 deep, but I just wanted to say that I am really glad you guys posted Annalee Newitz's article. I read it last week and almost sent it in to SocImages. It really is a thing of beauty.

I was struck by where it showed up: a Sci-Fi site. I don't think we normally think of the Sci-Fi world as a bastion for critical thought. On the other hand, just thinking of some other nerdy sources (like BoingBoing) I'm beginning to think that this perception might be misplaced.

I've only read about half the comments above, because it's quite late here, but thought I'd just chip in my thoughts before going to bed.

First of all, I thought it was a really interesting (and visually spectacular) movie. But there were two scenes in it which seriously disturbed me (and this contains spoilers). The first was the scene where Jake conquers the dragon creature (banshee? the bit on the floating mountains). He basically beats it into submission, pins it down, and forces it to 'make the bond' - i.e. become loyal to him forever. After he sucessfully forces it to bond with him (for life), it's totally submissive to his will. Even as I was watching it, it was horrifying - it was rape. And woohoo, as the victor he is now on his way to being a real man.

The second scene, the one that actually nearly made me cry (well ok it did make me cry) was the scene where the army is attacking the home tree. The flames, the fleeing natives, the utter terror and helplessness it inspired as it was blown up was really really awful. And then this huge, beautiful tree comes crashing down like every environmentalist's worst nightmare...

It's probably more telling of me than the movie that those were the two scenes I thought the worst. I did notice, though, that the spiritual leader was female, and the chieftain male in their tribe. And apparently the roles would continue to be gendered. Thought it might relate to the women sort of being seen as having a deeper, closer connection to nature than men thing (can't think of a better word right now!)

Did anyone else notice the idealised bodies on the indiginous inhabitants? broad-shouldered, slender waisted men and slim but curvy women? Plus you'll notice a number of different human skin tones among the human soldiers, but the aliens were all blue. Even the other tribes from around the planet were blue. Yet all of them had different features, why not skin colours? A case of blanket otherising? Or just easier to programme that way? Or both?

Finally, while I think ostensibly it was about colonisation, exploitation of natives, and the destruction of big trees (and places of cultural value), there was one line -'they want the unobtainium, because it's worth so much money, and will make up any reason to get it' (paraphrased slightly!) - which made me think it might also be a statement on the war in Iraq? Maybe I misread.

Anyhow, that's about it for now. I'll probably go again with other friends who haven't seen it yet some time during the next few weeks, might spot some other stuff then.

I think that it shows western culture to be saavage and the lead character changing and becoming a valued member of their society shows us that we need to change and rewards are there if we move towards a more natural lifestyle. A glimmer of hope in an extreme society that uses up whatever it finds without any thought for the consequences. The messages are there....just listen.

this is so dumb avatar is amazing and isn't putting any thought towards white supremacy. The story is beautiful and the planet they live on is more so.

Some of the people above are right. But some of you didn't see the entire point of the movie. The movie was absolutely and visually amazing. I would give it 5 out of 5 stars.

I have also heard rumors that homosexual people were mad that the movie did not have any homosexual people in it, but really there are not allot of homosexual people in the military, and the ones who are aren't open with it. And with the Na'vi we don't even know if they know what homosexuality is.
(hope this helps)

Leaving the theater I was annoyed by the 'white dude saves the day' theme and the mishmash of co-option of various 'magical primitives.' I was bothered by the orgy of violence ending, where the audience is supposed to be cheering while the 'bad guy' humans are dying by mass suicide of native humanoids and animals. I was really confused that the alien women had breasts but no nipples, while the male aliens had nipples, until later when I saw that in an interview with Playboy Cameron specifically explained. He required breasts be put on the "smokin hot" female aliens even though it biologically made no sense. Then they had to remove the female nipples because even though he had shot scenes to accentuate the alien women's breasts & nipples, he still wanted to maintain a PG-13 rating for the theatrical release.
He expects men to be buying the unrated DVD to see the alien woman nipple, and to masturbate over the alien women in the movie, presumably like National Geographic pictures of naked "native" women of old.

The only "liberal white guilt" around seems to be coming from conservative writers who all share the same gut feeling when viewing the film. How would the story be any different if the main character had been black, hispanic, asian, etc.? Where would the film's supposed "affirmation of white supremacy" go? Would it suddenly be a film about black/hispanic/asian supremacy? No. It is about a human being (regardless of racial identity) choosing to do what they felt is right in the face of evil.

The fact you refer to the Na'vi as "noble savages" is in itself racist. The notion that colonialism even requires a moral re-evaluation is in itself disgusting. Colonialism has, and always will be, an evil thing. The fact that this film presents it as such should not come as a surprise.

Secondly, Annalee Newitz's claim that the white protagonists become their adoptive tribe's "most awesome member" is totally false. Neither Costner nor Cruise's character go on to become tribal leaders in any sense in their respective films. They are only trusted allies, and perhaps advisors that fight alongside, but never lead. That Worthington's character does so in this film should come as no surprise given that it is an action film.

In the final analysis, it appears the film has hit a nerve amongst conservative viewers, who feel (quite rightly) that the film is an attack on their views concerning colonialism and its many guises. American imperialists like yourself should probably stick to movies glorifying American wars.

Hey! Having just seen the film I'd like to touch on a point no one here has yet addressed- y'all are so caught up in the gender/racial points that I haven't heard anyone talk about what else struck me when I watched this movie.

This movie propagates the "Big Bad Atheist" stereotype, which is about as real as the Big Bad Wolf. There are several scenes that made atheists look blatantly wrong, shallow and without moral compassion for other creatures.

The first was when Sigorney Weaver's character had been shot and she said "I'm a scientist- you know I don't believe in fairy tales." This made it seem like atheists do not respect others religious beliefs, because those who believe in them are akin to children believing in tales such as Jack and the Beanstalk.

The second was when Sigorney Weaver was dying and said "I can see her! She's real!" in regards to the Na'vi's earth goddess. This was a good example of the deathbed confession, of a foolish atheist realizing that all their life they had been wrong about religion and even though they thought their beliefs had been superior to believers, it was they who were the fools all along. Also note that we never see a representation of Ewya (sp) through her dying eyes. This could also potentially be subtle validation of near-death experiences as true visions of heaven/afterlife.

The third was the worst and the most obvious. The colonel rounds up all of the humans in a room to go over his plans to destroy the Na'vi's most sacred place, the Tree of Dreams (or whatever it was called). While describing it as their most important religious landmark, he says something along the lines of "Oooh, their special little spirit tree! How precious are those little religious people! Hahahaha! Yeah right, lets explode them all." And of course, all of the other humans in the room echo his laughter like perfect cartoon goons. This is an example of the stereotype that atheists have no respect for others beliefs and also have no moral compass to guide them. The colonel is a bad guy, and his mocking of religion is another reason for us to hate him. Not also that unlike the good, caring scientist, there is no chance for him to redeem himself on his deathbed.

Just wanted to put this out there! I have only been reading this blog for a short time but I haven't seen anything like this being discussed, and I think its darn important to! :)

Is there fault in every bit of culture that is remotely offensive? I really think you'd be hard-pressed to find art that is both interesting and innocuous... thoughts?

as a movie, it's terrible. The plot features zero surprises. The imagery is beautiful, really a pleasure. But why, why, my God, can't they attach these $500m to a worthy storytelling piece?
We start off knowing all about the white guilt, and that's enough to piss me off, but I was thoroughly prepared for it, but even beyond that, it sucks.
There's something about Iraq here too, with the Unobtainium stuff, but something else is missing. What my brother and I were discussing after seeing this movie today is that the whole invasion scenario is just completely unbelievable, because there is no moral justification. Americans invaded Iraq to free up oil reserves to supply Western civilization. But first they came up with a moral justification for it, ridiculous as it was. But the humans in Avatar needed no moral justification for any of it, that's just ridiculous, it would never fly. It's completely absurd. I even feel sorry for the actors that played the evil humans, cuz they just had nothing to act with here! I guess if they did include some justification, say when they did get to meet the Na'vi they were a wife-beating or cannibal society, they would have their full justification for wiping them out for the silly Unobtainium stuff. But then there would have been no movie to make. Secondly, if they conspired to come up with bogus justification for the invasion, it would be too much like the real world Iraq, there would have been no movie. So they decided to do neither, so as a result there was no sense. Blah...
I'm thinking about this other similar movie, but one that is all cartoon, where humans are orphaned and they're thinking about wiping out some race to then move into their planet. There I feel there might be a real interesting moral dillema in that movie, it's the ultimate moral dillema and ethical discussion where the stakes are no less than survival, the ultimate value of life as we know it. Much more interesting storytelling, THAT is the human condition... Avatar is just a bunch of pretty pictures in comparison.

Oh man, I'm SO glad to hear I wasn't the only one who spotted the huge mess of problems in this movie. -_-

Sociopolitical stuff aside, as a writer I found this movie to be very sloppily written. The dialogue was awful. There were plot points that were not sufficiently explored or even dropped entirely. Just... ugh. It drives me nuts that people can praise this as an "amazing movie" purely on the basis of the CG animation. I'm sorry. It just doesn't live up to the hype.

If I want a tree-huggin' flick I'll just watch "Fern Gully". It's the same story, but it's WAY shorter and has cuter animals. : p

This is an interesting article on Avatar

http://www.moneyteachers.org/Deadmanmusings8.htm

Seriously people. It's not JUST about Indians. It's not JUST about Iraq. It's about people destroying in order to gain. No matter WHO you destroyed, the point is THAT YOU DID! In the movie, they were killing an entire lifeforce, sabotaging their way of life, and they weren't even in their own territory. Day by day, we are killing our own planet. And in the movie, OUR RACE, THE HUMAN RACE [not black, white, tan or orange] US AS A WHOLE, went on to destroy someone elses resources! The whole point is to respect each other and what's someone else's, and maybe then we can live amongst each other and stop killing our own kind. It doesn't matter what color you are. Those who are fighting, are fighting a war that can't be one, unless you stop...

i agree. this is why i'm not watching avatar.

Interesting.

I feel no guilt about colonization. I did not colonize anywhere.
I do not believe in collective guilt.
I liked the movie.

It must have been a worthwhile film just to get this darned much controversy going. I liked it and I'm female. I love the female pilot who sacrificed herself knowingly for the cause. I enjoyed meeting the scientist who was only interested in knowing the people -- not in getting their minerals, and I enjoyed the courage of the native woman who fought for the lives of her people and her beloved. For heaven's sake people, it's a film and cannot be everything to everyone. I thought it did a good job of entertaining and of putting forth the point that it's wrong to take a planet and destroy it.

I liked the direct juxtaposition of rights to animals and rights to females of the Na'vi when Jake Sully says before he choses a mate that she must "choose him back" like they do the horse-thingies. Actually it kind of pissed me off because as a women I am not okay with a man choosing me and then giving me permission to refuse him. I feel I do not require permission to refuse him.

Conversely, there are some aspects of Na'vi culture that appear to be very egalitarian. Although Mo'at and later Neytiri (both female) act as shaman for the tribe, it is not indicated that there is a gender specification for the position. Similarly, a number of the warriors and at least one of the chiefs of the neighboring tribes were female. In fact, it seems that the only qualification to become a warrior was the taming of the Ikran.

Sully has the advantage of "third person thinking". He knows there is a backup body. You get more courageous when you know that.
It annoys me as hell when I see people trying to downgrade one of the best movies ever with all kind of silly interpretations.
If this movie is not going to inspire a more conscious economy, nothing ever will. "the day the earth stood still" is just an example of a failure to move the sleepy and confused spirit.

You are a fucking retard. Did I personally colonize non-European nations? Did my Scottish ancestors colonize non-European nations, doubtful! I don't feel a "heavy dose of liberal guilt" and nor should any other person who did not PERSONALLY commit acts of colonization/genocide etc etc.

"We can now pretend that we had deep respect for them all along." Do you honestly know a single white American that would try to pretend that we have always respected the Native Americans? Really do you? I mean REALLY, you fucktard? I think most white Americans, if they have been educated-and that's a big if, would readily admit that we treated the Native American people like dogs.

"Avatar is a fantasy in which the history of colonization is rewritten, but it a fantasy specifically for white people living with a heavy dose of liberal guilt. And it is one that, ultimately, marginalizes indigenous peoples and affirms white supremacy." Again, as in my previous comment, what white people are currently living with a heavy dose of liberal guilt? And what do you suggest one does as a result of this guilt, a guilt that you obviously feel? How about this, if you do feel guilty, go to every single Native American reservation and apologize to them for the actions of your forefathers. And hey, since you believe in feeling guilty about the actions of your ancestors, I suggest you visit the home of every African American family descended from slaves and apologize.

You have over-analyzed this film. Through analyzing it the same way I could come to any sort of nonsensical and blatantly false conclusion.

I sincerely hope you don't actually believe the bullshit that you write.

AVATAR was DANCES WITH WOLVES in outer space...with great special effects. Same story new look.

If anyone suggesting we might have a mass market popular science fiction film in which humans are simply the aggressors and the 'good guys' are an alien race and culture, taking out the outsider (Jake) character, I'm not sure how easily that could be achieved.

The Jake character, as a human sympathetic to their cause, serves a useful function regardless of 'liberal guilt' as someone we already understand who can have the alien world explained to him so that we the audience aren't just thrown in without explanation and have to spend the whole movie figuring out how their society works. It's not simply a matter of needing something familiar that the audience can sympathise with - in Avatar our sympathies are soon with the aliens over the aggressive humans - but simply that the Jake character allows us to get to grips with their world in a relatively short space of time, eliminating the need for either some very stilted explanatory dialogue or the deletion of the interesting alien aspects of the world, and possibly both. In terms of storytelling it's only natural that this character then plays the central role in the further events of the movie; it's very difficult to discard your hero half way through and switch him/her for another.

Of course, there's a way around this: we could switch sides and make the humans the wronged people and the aliens the invaders with advanced technology out to exploit us, but haven't we seen that plot before? Perhaps someone should take a look at classic alien invader stories and evaluate those in colonial terms, too.

Also, I wonder whether this type of story ('outsider joins group and becomes their hero') is restricted to Western culture, or whether it can be found in others too? And if it is found in others whether it is limited only to peoples who have been the colonial aggressor, thereby existing to assuage their 'liberal guilt'? The examples of this story type that I can personally think of all cast the hero as Western, but then they are all stories created by Western culture. I don't know enough about the stories of other cultures to comment on this, but it would be interesting to find out.

What struck me as I watched the movie was how everyone hates/fears the outsider, but the female characters are the first to accept him (as love blossoms) and only after the outsider proves his bravery do the males start to accept him. It struck me because this is the exact same pattern that happened in Dances With Wolves, and Dune, and probably more that I can't think of quite yet. In all cases the females, and specifically romance with the females, are the gateway into full acceptance into the culture.

I've heard a lot of this analysis, on other blogs and such, and to an extent I think it's all true. But I still have lingering questions. I talked with someone who lambasted the movie for portraying the Na'avi as being "mystical," having painted faces and other body decor, etc. as being a "stereotypical" portrayal of "native" peoples. So I wonder - can we NEVER portray exotic types of people/aliens that are more in tune with nature? Is that always offensive?

Also, there's the whole "white supremacy" in that it takes a white guy to lead the Na'avi into battle and that they couldn't do it themselves. But let's break this down. I like the idea of stories where someone was maybe prejudice against other people, but then gets to know them, and learns the error in his ways (I'm using male pronoun here b/c I'm thinking about this specific character). And if you're going to make a movie about that guy, he's probably going to be a hero - that's what main characters usually are. I don't know how compelling a story would be if it were like "Hey, this guy befriended the Na'avi, and learned that they are awesome and we should not kill them, and then there was an epic battle and he was like the first guy to die, whoops that stinks."

So yeah. I SEE the analysis that everyone is making about Avatar. But, I don't feel like I should be offended, because there are so many reasons for this story to exist as it is even outside the scope of "liberal guilt." What is the alternative for a blockbuster film?

---It's 2010. If you're over 21, and you think 'AVATAR'
is anything --anything at all ---you are sufferring from an
acute case of 'screensaver worship while living at mom's'
syndrome.

The five times corrupt and aging fast Cameron -like the
rest of Hollywood, has been shamelessly dishing out PC
enabling fantasies for decades now.

And all this being bankrolled by funds and VAST market
favors from the most awesomely genocidal regime in history
---across the Pacific.

---Don't be so taken in ----you idiots!

Great Post. Does the author think that the same conclusion could be extracted of District 9 Movie?

I thought Avatar was a great movie. Especially because the audience applauded at the end and this was in Red Neck, Christian, love it or leave it Rockford, IL. There is hope for America after all perhaps.

don
2012prophecy.net

Very sad. Everybody needs to get the F__K OVER IT! the movie is groundbreaking and moving. If all these other issues are all you can dwell upon, then save all your ticket money and get your ass into therapy. Pathetic display of over-analyzation. Seen it three times. Got teary-eyed every time. Wished I could live in such a harmonious world. End of story.

Time and time again, we all know these "monkeys", "savages" and "roaches"

describe us INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF COLOR TRUE NATIVES of just about every
inch of this earth. In the movie, humans use technology to transport
their consciousnesses into home-grown native bodies.Theres no difference
between that and europeans dressing in feathers and in indian clothing to
do the same shyt they did here and thats to learn their ways and then back
stab death to DEATH. I would love to live like the NA'VI tribe and I think
all of us - PEOPLE OF COLOR would be one with the earth like the movie
Avatar if THE WHITE RACE NEVER CAME DOWN FROM THE SKYS TO EARTH.

Thinkingpennies@gmail.com

There is nothing inherently bad about colonisation. Without it the human race would have never become more widespread than the Congo Basin.

OK I'm so tired of people telling me how racist this movie is. It was all together a good movie, and of course you ignorant people are sitting there saying how racist the WHITE MAN is. I'm so tired of being judged because I'm a white man, and damn proud of it. The people trying to destroy the great tree for its resources where also white men I(you would know this if you watched the movie). Now the main character could just as easily been black, or Asian, or anything. The only reason they needed his help to win was because of the gigantic gap in their technologies. Also If anything this movie just goes to say that white people are greedy, because the two main villains were white. So shut up, watch the movie. We as Americans, no as humans will never see eye to eye but can we at least compromise? I could just as easily claim that in the movie "I Am Legend" the whole story line is racist, because Will Smith (a black man) is one of few survivors in this post apocalyptic world, and the vampire like creatures he is killing are all white skinned. But, I liked the movie, I didn't sit there and think ohhhhh how racist. You people need to get a life. The problem is that everyone is to busy figuring out ways to point out racism then trying to figure out ways to fix it. There will always be complaints, we minus well not even have a movie industry or any form of entertainment because something will always be racist, or sexist, or whatever.

I'm a fan of the spoofs that have come out, like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N15ok23x6Rk I can only imagine a bunch of my friends hanging around painted blue.

Four months after the first post... what I find most interesting here is the anger and outrage that this review generated.

The posts and comments on this blog, especially this post, would make an interesting topic for a sociological study. ;)

It's a story that's been told time after time, except this time with lots of pretty computer graphics.

Pochahontas, noble savages, the Gaia myth, Great White Savior who turns against his own, EVIL Big Business, military "intelligence".

All the left wing bullet points rolled into one and troweled over the Pochahontas story.

There were only two characters I cared anything about, the leader of the military and the curly haired guy in charge of the mining. Why? Because I felt they needed some sense beat into them, not because they were "evil", but because they were being stupid. In reality, people that dumb rarely reach such positions in business and the military.

In government... too much of the time the dross floats to the top and gets called pure gold. ;)

A businessperson that stupid would lose tons of money and be tossed out of the company. (And they do get tossed, unfortunately they usually bail out with a ton of money.) A military leader that stupid would never achieve such rank because he'd have failed big time in previous missions, getting too many soldiers killed and generally screwing up by the numbers. Overconfidence meets arrogance plus incompetence. But to the "liberal" mind only *government* is competent and ALL things to do with big business (unless it's them raking in the $$$$) and the military = evil and stupid.

The only "hero character" I can name who has always been a "pure" hero AND a wealthy business tycoon is Bruce Wayne, AKA Batman. He's an anomaly amongst the sea of wealth = evil or the misguided types who do a 180 flip like tony Stark, AKA Iron Man.

The native americans were hardly the 'stewards of the land' they've been retconned into. Their huge trash dumps have been renamed "artifacts" and "sacred mounds", when really they're mostly the convenient spots where the leftover bones and shells and broken pottery got tossed. Their grafitti on the rocks is preserved as historically significant cultural information.

It is interesting stuff and digging through garbage, even trash hundreds or thousands of years old is informative, but at bottom it's grafitti and trash.

I rented "Avatar" tonight on DVD. For the most part I was bored. Happy James Cameron only got a very tiny percentage of what I paid to rent it.

BTW. How much money movies rake in is pointless as a judge of popularity, especially as ticket prices rise ever higher and higher. How many tickets were sold? How many people actually went to a theater to see a movie, no matter how much it cost them?

I bet on first run ticket sales, "Star Wars" still ranks in the top 10.

Avatar had such a terrible story.

Also worth noting in this pile of cliches: the main character is rewarded for his deeds with ... the hand of the princess!

Neytiri could have been a character that wasn't simply a prize; she could have had a character development arc ... in another movie.

As a trained anthropologist, yes, I detected the obvious cultural and racial paradigms at work in Avatar.

Then I remembered it was a MOVIE. Enjoy things for what they are, and more importantly, for what they are intended to be -- refusal to see the artist's work from his perspective is a particularly noxious variety of prejudice. What the zealots are critiquing here is evidence of their own inability to separate their idea of moral ethic from the actual creation itself.

Don't like another's vision? Do one better and realize your own -- if you can.

J Cline, precisely!

The art of the movie is super, no matter what people think of the story!

Wow, im only on here for a report but seriously? J Cline is right, it is a movie not something that has to be analyzed over and over again. Save that for actual documentaries and literature.

We can wallow in guilt about it and, still, the likelihood that power dynamics will be reconfigured in any meaningful way is just about zero.

True.

Of course none of those people wallowing in guilt about it are going to give up the comfortable lifestyles they've grown accustomed to living. You know, like giving the land back, giving their homes up, their cars, food grown mass produced on factory farms. In fact that guilt lets them get out of doing anything actually proactive to change the situation as it exists now. 

So really that guilt is fake guilt. It's in fact a prime reason why I decided long ago to reject guilt. If I was going to continue in the same course of action, what is the point of guilt? And if my actions are going to change, what would the need be of continued guilt? So either do, or don't but ceaselessly feeling guilty, not so much.

dances with wolves part2 , and it does follow holwood cliche hero lines and if this was reality it probably be a member of the tribe that rises up and not and outsider but this is fantasy and symbolism with a message and stroy line, and hes using colonization to drive home and enviremental message, its valid, this is not an historical documentary

Venez découvrir http://www.film-en-lignee.com/ , et retrouvez des milliers de films en streaming gratuit !

Thanks, this is a really helpful article for me!

Nice post, thanks for sharing!