Posted on 02/05/2010 11:00:58 PM PST by nickcarraway
It is difficult to know where to begin when one is considering the insidious nature of the film-award ceremonies. Roughly 82 years in, praising mediocrity and pandering to the white liberal elite are the norm. Still, somehow, this past weekend’s Golden Globes left me feeling particularly distraught and a bit flabbergasted.
Among the many issues I had — from the Christina Hendricks weight comments to the absurdly excessive parade, while hundreds of thousands go days without food or water — I feel compelled to elaborate on the focus of the evening’s events. Avatar, a film that examines white guilt in the least constructive way possible, was given the coveted Best Picture award, along with James Cameron in the Best Director category.
It’s true that, while Kathryn Bigelow as a white action director was the best hope women had in the awards race this year (and probably for the next decade or so), The Hurt Locker didn’t have a chance. As an Iraq war movie (and an incredible one at that), it cannot be expected to garner much mainstream love in a culture that is still too afraid to acknowledge the implications and consequences of that war.
It also looked possible for Inglorious Basterds, with its flawless script and critical darling director, to bring home the big prize. Unfortunately, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association seems to think that four different languages in one film might be too much for the American public to handle (they just won’t get it in the Midwest).
So why so much disdain for Avatar? At base, the film’s main problems involve the dialogue and general lack of narrative imagination. Sure, it looked great. But I shouldn’t need 3-D glasses to feel immersed in the film’s world.
Beyond that, though, Avatar’s core centers on a white man (in a position of privilege by virtue) that assimilates into a totally foreign culture, understands and masters that culture, and comes to be its savior. The title itself, Avatar, refers to the Sanskrit word for earthly incarnation or manifestation of a deity.
It seems that this concept in film has emerged from a very American ideology related to our perception of masculinity. Never give up, work hard, show physical and mental strength, and all things are possible — the Protestant work ethic in all its glory.
In Avatar, Jake Sully moves from privilege and power (physical) in his own culture to privilege and power in a foreign culture without ever having to process or understand the subjugation involved in being oppressed. White men (a.k.a., the Hollywood Foreign Press Association) get to feel as if they have a film about the oppressed overcoming their circumstance, all the while identifying with a character that ends up on top (see Dances with Wolves, Mississippi Burning, or The Last Samurai).
Never mind that he never experiences anything remotely close to what the individuals in the group being eradicated experience (as in District 9, for example).
I’m sick of movies that promote white dominance, patriarchal societies, and the fallacy that anyone is capable of mastering another culture’s traditions, perceptions, and general way of life. Being part of the dominant ideology doesn’t automatically give you super powers of intellect, strength, and comprehension. Give me a film about Pandora; or, if you need a human to identify with, does it have to be white and/or male? This film about the Na’vi (Native Americans, blacks, Iraqis) becomes a film about the oppressors.
Some say Avatar should be enjoyed as entertainment and is not to be taken seriously. Let me know when a bunch of white people get rounded up, stripped of all their resources and dignity, only to be rescued by a black woman on film. I’m sure it would be action-packed and a great ride.
Don’t you want to go see that?
PS: By way of full disclosure, my girlfriend is a beautiful American lady from Texas of African and Mexican decent.
No barf alert?
Oh, I dunno. The article makes it pretty clear that Hollywood lib “elites” are some of the most racist people out there, even when they are preaching their PC garbage. Actually, the “even” probably doesn’t belong: That jaw-dropping level of racism and preaching PC garbage actually go hand-in-hand, as most Freepers know...
But doesn't he, in-between, suffer a period of self-loathing and emotional disorientation because of his immobility / paralysis? Isn't it suggested that THAT somehow prepares him or makes him worthy to understand the "other?"
Disclaimer: I haven't seen - and don't intend to see - the movie.
Regards,
I didn't notice any questions at all.
“I’m sick of movies that promote white dominance, patriarchal societies, and the fallacy that anyone is capable of mastering another culture’s traditions, perceptions, and general way of life. Being part of the dominant ideology doesn’t automatically give you super powers of intellect, strength, and comprehension. Give me a film about Pandora; or, if you need a human to identify with, does it have to be white and/or male?”
Isn’t this a question, or am I missing something?
“What kind of idiot are you?” ... is that a valid question? Am I missing something?
To speak plainly, the questions are simply rhetorical.
Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?
... good question.
“Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?”
Which is an act of will?
I don’t know and I don’t care.
Get it? Get it?
See, since you said, “I could care less” which itself is a rhetorical inversion, please note. Rhetoric! Rhetoric! So please not to blow “valid questions” up my ass. Just come out with it.
The phrase “I could care less” means that your opinion means nothing to me. It’s a statement of fact.
Question: Why do I feel that way?
Answer: Because instead of expressing a difference of opinion, you go for the idiot slur. I see nothing in your response that deserve any effort to contemplate in a serious manner.
Perhaps by convention, it does mean that. This is the rhetorical inversion I spoke of. By the plain meaning of the words, it means the exact opposite. If you could care less, then you care more than the minimum possible. The phrase is the ironic inversion of the circumlocution, "I couldn't care less", which means that I care nothing, since it's impossible to care less than nothing.
So you see, rhetoric pervades all our expressions, and the plain fact is that there were no valid questions posed by the musings of GRETA HAGEN-RICHARDSON, your saying so notwithstanding.
Feel better now?
I saw the movie. It was simply entertainment. Nothing to base your lifes philosophy on. As far as a movie depicting a black woman saving a mostly white mankind, I would suggest S. Kings “The Stand”.
I’ve seen it three (yes that is 3) times in the theater.....and I took most of my kids and grandkids.....I’ll also buy the DVD
If it was such a bad movie.....why is it enjoying the numbers it’s seeing????
There are folks out there that would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.....and for some reason, there are more than a few of these types on line.
;-)
While I disagree with the author’s conclusions, I also think he makes some good points.
In almost all movies the movers and shakers of the story are white guys. The heroes and villains. The “people of color” generally function as victims. They are objects, not subjects. A species of wildlife, if you will, rather than people. I haven’t seen this movie yet, but it sounds like the same story.
A movie that didn’t do this utterly confused the critics. Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto. There were no white guys in it, only Indians. So they were by default both the heroes and the villains. This confused liberals so much they thought it was insulting to Indians.
Liberals aren’t in the least interested in the native victims they cry about. They’re only interested in the stories of their oppression by whitey.
Take “black studies,” for example. It isn’t about black history and culture at all, it’s about the oppression of blacks by whites.
Very good points indeed. I have to agree with your analysis.
I simply looked at the writers last name...Hagen-Richardson...and correctly guessed how the theme of her column would go. Downhill, very fast. Cameron just can’t seem to please all libs. Here he makes a flick condemning that nasty world of white oppressors, and he still offends the people whom he’s trying to impress. You just can’t win with some people. (smirk)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.