Posted on 12/26/2009 12:15:26 PM PST by smoothsailing
December 25, 2009
By Phill Kline
The visuals are stunning, the story borrowed and the message shallow and false. John Cameron's new epic Avatar features a jump in animation technology and a throwback of over 1,000 years to pantheism.
Set in 2154, the movie features a U.S. mega-corporation mining the distant planet of Pandora for a rare mineral that suspiciously looks like a carbon spewing lump of coal. The mining is conducted with smoke belching machinery that rape the planet while the human workers are protected by Marine mercenaries from the mind melding sensual native population of 10 foot tall spiritual beings.
The natives are one with their native planet, including their mother-god Eywa. Eywa is the planet, and the natives reach oneness by entwining fibers from their bodies with the fibers of the planet. This representative sexual union allows them to hear their departed ancestors and gain rhythm with the planet — a séance orgy so to speak. All life on the planet is one, with one spirit and one energy.
Avatar's themes represent the new American "apology" at its best. The movie mirrors complaints about U.S. expansionism of the 1800's that drove Native Americans from their sacred grounds and reflects the "new" history that represents modern America as an imperialistic regime willing to do anything for wealth and power.
The movie's villain, the commander of the mercenary Marine force, reinforces this view when speaking with the movie's hero Jake Sully. Sully is a wounded Marine who lost the use of his legs in battle for the U.S. in Venezuela. The commander was also in Venezuela and mentions he also saw action in Nigeria. Both countries, in which the U.S. has never fought, are oil-exporting countries and the movie assumes are places where we will fight and die in the future.
As any student of the "new" history knows, U.S. soldiers are buried on islands in the Pacific, in Europe and in Southeast Asia and Korea in order to protect our polluting ways.
In the movie, these polluting ways have "killed our mother," the Earth, and now we must bring our imperialistic exploitive and destructive ways to the spiritually focused pantheistic cultures of planet Pandora, named after the Greek mythical goddess and which literally means "she who sends up gifts."
Avatar seeks audience cheers for slaughtering the Marines who are portrayed as bent on killing, cash and forwarding the capitalistic matricidal imperialist ways of the United States.
Sully, is on assignment as a mercenary for the megacorp. His assignment places him deep undercover in the native population. Technology allows him to exist in a native body (an Avatar) such that he befriends and then falls in love with the spiritual princess of the natives. While in the avatar he is also able to run and fly and hunt and love.
Over time he predictably identifies with the natives and goes to battle against the Marines. Offering a prayer to Eywa, the Marine, now native, Sully, asks for Eywa's help in repelling the Americans. In the prayer, Sully states "I know you have chosen me for a purpose...."
Such a prayer represents atheistic Hollywood's dilemma. The only way to reconcile a godless Darwinistic worldview with a deeply spiritual American culture is to convert environmentalism into religion. For what greater purpose for man than to save mother earth, or Pandora? And thus, our purpose in a purposeless world.
Further, as a plea for Eywa's assistance Sully asks the planet god to look into his memories to see how there is no green on earth and how his people have "killed our mother."
Sully's soon to be bride, a native princess, hears his prayers and instructs him that Eywa does not choose sides, a bow to the modern definition of tolerance, but only balances the forces of life and death.
All of this builds to the movies epic battle scene. US Marines moving in with carbon belching high tech machines to face the arrow firing natives. The battle looks lost for the good guys (the natives not the Marines) until Eywa chooses sides and she chooses Al Gore environmentalism. Suddenly Pandora's animals join forces and attack the U.S. forces. The attack is led by giant, aggressive, hippo-resembling beasts with giant anvil heads.
Nature prevails and evil capitalism and man is defeated. Eywa thereby expresses the only truth respected by the left, a truth worth choosing sides for — a truth worth killing for, mother earth. China's forced abortion policy as spiritual expression.
But Sully still has one more critical passage. He desires to permanently inhabit a native body, his Avatar. To do this he must join forces with Eywa and possibly be reborn into a native body. He is warned that all is Eywa's choice — he may be reborn as a native or he may not for as all of us know — it is always the mother's choice.
As the natives join in a ritual touching and chanting that has a cultist quality, Jake Sully is laid before Eywa, becomes one with the planet through the intertwining of the fiber of his Avatar and the planet and is reincarnated as a 10 foot dragon subduing arrow flinging environmentalist.
Avatar represents the left's first epic introduction of the new Darwin spiritualism. Since Darwin cannot survive in the West's spiritual culture, Darwin has now become god in the form of mother earth. Every living thing on planet Pandora is a god. And so, the new left has reached back in history to leap ahead of the scientific age. In the new religion, man is not god as in the age of reason and science. Rather, all is god and thereby nothing is god. But at least we're spiritual.
All this provided just in time for Christmas, oops, the Winter Solstice.
At least my theatre audience did not applaud when Sully's eyes came alive in his Avatar body at the "climatic" (predictable) end of the movie. In fact, the movie did not draw cheers or tears at any point. Perhaps we were still fixated on Hollywood's tossing our Marines around in the jaws and claws of Eywa's warriors — Freudian expressions of the left's desire for that all-powerful environmental protecting global police force.
Call me unenlightened, but when I see a Marine battle an anvil headed beast called forth by a planet-god — I root for the U.S. Marine.
© Phill Kline
I saw it....A+++ in my book. The writing worthy of Conan Doyle. Downey gives Holmes a real consumptive edge and feel and the actor that plays Watson has a scrappy attitude towards his associate and played by a younger person. Gone was the traditional portly, phlegmatically played Watson.
Mid late period London sets were astounding!
Having seen Jeremy Brett play Holmes, there's no need for me to see anyone else in the role.
“‘Avatar’ and Boycotts: When the Left Does and Doesn’t Champion Free Speech”
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/fdemartini/2009/12/27/avatar-and-boycotts-when-the-left-does-and-doesnt-champion-free-speech/#more-284370
(snip)”...However, there is one thing about the movie that really upsets me. It is blatant anti-military and less blatant anti-American. Without giving away too much of the plot, the bad guys in the movie are the United States Marines.”
(snip)”The glee with which the American Marines participate in this massacre is appalling and does not show the true feelings and concerns of the real United States Military. James Cameron should apologize to the American Military and should make a statement that he does not truly feel this way about them. He should also apologize to the American public for painting our young men and women that defend this country as cold-blooded killers.”
Did Jack Murtha get paid for advising?
Another piece of Hollywood American hating trash not to view.
More propaganda intent to injure the reputation of our finest.
(See post #83.)
It wouldn't surprise me, he knows all about disparaging Marines.
Murtha also may been paid to pose as the model for the movie's "giant, aggressive, hippo-resembling beasts with giant anvil heads".
Or as Phill Kline says: Call me unenlightened, but when I see a Marine battle an anvil headed beast called forth by a planet-god — I root for the U.S. Marine.
Good for Kline. I guess this movie is not a surprise for Hollywood and the America hating (for the most part) crowd that has the say as to what they produce.
Thanks for posting this. I'm sending a link to this piece to friends and family, maybe it'll help to reduce proceeds.
Murtha could definitely been a technical adviser when it comes to portraying Marines as the bad guys!
At our family’s Christmas dinner my 22-yearold nephew was telling me about this movie. He said the special effects were quite good, but beyond that he didn’t recommend it.
He’s a young conservative and said the movie lasted way too long and the juvenile storyline was anti-capitalism, anti-military, and anti-American treehugging gibberish that was downright boring.
“Murtha also may been paid to pose as the model for the movie’s “giant, aggressive, hippo-resembling beasts with giant anvil heads.”
Ohmagosh LOL! That is good!
Uncle Tom's Cabin was only a book. Ideas matter, even when they are couched in fiction.
Oh my God...they actually called it unobtanium? Really?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh man, all these people on this thread saying “It was such a good movie...”...you poor suckers! Unobtanium! Was it discovered by a guy named MacGuffin? Was he carrying Chekhov’s rifle when he discovered it? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I’ll be passing up on that one as i heard they basically turned watson and holmes into weirdos and gay.
Does it make perfect sense to you that all the main humans are played by whites and all the Na’Vi are played by non-whites? That’s a little too much coincidence to me.
And really...when they revealed that the mineral they were mining was called “unobtanium”...your reaction was?
Some ideas matter, most are cast aside or ignored entirely. I’m not sure movies are a contributor to societal beliefs in the way books were and still are.
Movies reflect the belief of those who produce them. I have yet to see a movie that could alter my beliefs.
Those sins would be the mistreatment of natives. The difference between that and Avatar would be that Avatar is (according to its writer/director) about "creeping imperialism disguised as patriotism," "the way you interact with nature," the way we are "trashing our world and maybe condemning ourselves to a grim future," American conduct of the War on Terror "that cost several hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives," shock and awe and "I think there's a moral responsibility to understand that," and even September 11th.
So, (as I stated) Dances With Wolves is about sins America actually committed, and Avatar is about current American policy that the writer sees as sinful because he is far out on the left wing and eager to propagandize.
Did you see the movie?
No, and I didn't need to sit down and watch Debbie Does Dallas before I was sure there were exposed boobies in it.
So, are you saying that driving natives out of their homes and/or killing them to steal their natural resources is good and right?
No, I'm saying that practicing capitalism and defending ourselves from terrorists is good and right, and Cameron is making them out to be genocide.
Where in Avatar is the message of enslavement?
Leftist politics are about the masses doing what Big Brother tells them to do, or else. Cameron admits he's pushing leftist garbage.
This movie is FernGully: The Last Rainforest for adults. The guy who wrote it, directed it and got a studio to spend somewhere between a quarter and a half a billion dollars making it says so. Somehow, I think he knows more about the themes and what he's trying to accomplish than you do.
Oh...and "unobtanium?" They really called it "unobtanium?" Was there a batlike alien played by Robin Williams in it, too? How about a fairy that defends the rainforest?
This argumant comes up often when people are discussing the effect of TV, you know, the medium that doesn't effect anyone's behavior but is funded by 30 second long film shorts designed to successfully effect behavior.
Seriously, if you think the visual media haven't been as influential as books, consider where sexual mores have gone in the past generation or two.
I have yet to see a movie that could alter my beliefs.
How do you know?
The writer/director says it's about "creeping imperialism disguised as patriotism," "the way you interact with nature," the way we are "trashing our world and maybe condemning ourselves to a grim future," American conduct of the War on Terror "that cost several hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives," shock and awe and "I think there's a moral responsibility to understand that." He even said that it isn't "necessarily a bad thing" that the ash raining down on the Na'Vi after the evil white folks attack resembles the ash coming down on Ground Zero.
Did you plan to donate money to Barack Obama's reelection campaign, or MoveOn.org? Well, you just did! You got your pocket vaccumed by FernGully: The Last Rainforest for adults, dude.
I'm pretty sure the guy who is on the credits as the writer and director has seen the movie. How come the "wrong guff" seems to match exactly what he says his movie is about?
I don’t spend hours on end in front of the TV like many do. I watch movies ocassionally at home and at the theater so I’m not really in the same category.
TV definately has an impact simply because it’s used as a educational tool to our children. Un-attentive parents are primarily to blame for allowing the media to establish such dominance of thought. Adults have already established their beliefs in a way that could hardly be altered by the big screen. But it is obvious to me they can easily be swayed by what is portrayed as reality on the “news”.
This isn't what the Wikipedia page said. First, I'm not a big fan of using Wikipedia as a source, but even when it is used as a source, I'm less of a fan of mis-quoting what was written:
You've combined two different parts into one paragraph.
Here's the full quote from Cameron:
"I have an absolute reverence for men who have a sense of duty, courage, but I’m also a child of the ’60s. There’s a part of me who wants to put a daisy in the end of the gun barrel. I believe in peace through superior firepower, but on the other hand I abhor the abuse of power and creeping imperialism disguised as patriotism. Some of these things you can’t raise without being called unpatriotic, but I think it’s very patriotic to question a system that needs to be corralled, or it becomes Rome." —James Cameron on the film's theme
And, here's the other part. Note that this is not Cameron's own writing, but the opinion of the Wiki's author, who, like you, has cherry-picked the quotes he used.
The film also contains implicit criticism of America's conduct in the War on Terror and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general, as acknowledged by Cameron.[49] Although Cameron had said this was not the main point of Avatar, he did add that Americans had a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military campaigns "that cost several hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives."[49] In reference to the use of the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron stated, "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America. I think there's a moral responsibility to understand that."[49] After the Na'vi homes collapse in flames and the landscape is coated in ash and floating embers in scenes reminiscent of Ground Zero after the September 11 attacks, Cameron said he had been "surprised at how much it did look like September 11. I didn't think that was necessarily a bad thing".
Note that this is quite a bit different from what you insist Cameron says. And, on the point of lost Iraqi lives, I agree with him. Bush used lies and propaganda to justify the invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.
So, (as I stated) Dances With Wolves is about sins America actually committed, and Avatar is about current American policy that the writer sees as sinful because he is far out on the left wing and eager to propagandize.
Your own source says that this was not the main point of the film.
No, I'm saying that practicing capitalism and defending ourselves from terrorists is good and right, and Cameron is making them out to be genocide.
Since you haven't seen the movie, you can't really say what point Cameron is making in the movie. In fact, according to your source, Cameron says that the movie is like Dances with Wolves. Having seen both, I agree with him.
Leftist politics are about the masses doing what Big Brother tells them to do, or else. Cameron admits he's pushing leftist garbage.
Bzzt... Wrong answer. Please show where Cameron said this and please show the full quote this time.
This movie is FernGully: The Last Rainforest for adults. The guy who wrote it, directed it and got a studio to spend somewhere between a quarter and a half a billion dollars making it says so. Somehow, I think he knows more about the themes and what he's trying to accomplish than you do.
No, Cameron didn't say this. Again, you've taken the Wiki page out of context to make your point. Here's the full quote:
In terms of plot, it has been called "the same movie" as Dances with Wolves.[118] In reference to various themes in the plot, parallels have been drawn between the premise of Avatar and that of Poul Anderson's 1957 short story "Call Me Joe", where a paralyzed man uses his mind to remotely control an alien body.[119] Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest[120] and Pocahontas.[121] Cameron has acknowledged that the film is thematically similar to such classic "going-native" films as Dances with Wolves and At Play in the Fields of the Lord.[47]
Let me repeat: "Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest[120] and Pocahontas. Cameron has acknowledged that the film is thematically similar to such classic "going-native" films as Dances with Wolves and At Play in the Fields of the Lord"
Having seen the movie, I think I'm in a stronger position to talk about what message is contained in the movie than someone, like you, who bases his conclusions solely on the opinions of others. Or, worse yet, cherry-picks quotes from Wikipedia.
It was clear from the way my paragraph was constructed that I was quoting from several parts of one work or quoting from multiple works. Moreover, you look silly accusing me of lying about a source I pointed you to in the first place. I stand by what I wrote.
Bush used lies and propaganda to justify the invasion of Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.
Ah, we hear from another Freeper who owns a signed first edition of "Zapp Brannigan's Big Book of War."
What "lies" did Bush tell that just happened to agree with the intelligence assessments of intel agencies in pretty much every country that bothered keeping tabs on Iraq? When did any Bush official say that Saddam Hussein or anyone working for him had been involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Your own source says that this was not the main point of the film.
When I said "current American policy" I was speaking of policy as a whole, not Iraq specifically. This movie is, as Cameron and Sigourney Weaver have both said, about our treatment of the planet. Again, I stand by what I wrote.
Since you haven't seen the movie, you can't really say what point Cameron is making in the movie.
1. Cameron said what his point is, not me.
2. I didn't need to see Debbie Does Dallas to know what the director's goal was with that film.
In fact, according to your source, Cameron says that the movie is like Dances with Wolves.
Yes, but is it like Wolves in the sense that it's a retelling of a story from the Old West, or is it like Wolves in the cinematic sense (beautiful scenery) and some plot similarities (soldier joins primitive tribe). If Cameron is retelling the relocation of Indian tribes, he sure doesn't seem to be saying it anywhere because he's too busy talking about how he's telling a story about 21st Century American policy.
Besides, if he's retelling Wolves, he would have to be retelling it as a revenge fantasy where the Indians rise up and destroy the whites with the help of the buffalo.
Bzzt... Wrong answer. Please show where Cameron said this and please show the full quote this time.
You've already provided it earlier in your post. I hope you didn't think I meant that Cameron actually told some interviewer "I'm pushing leftist garbage" or even "I'm making this movie so people will become Gaia-worshipping progressives" or some such. That would be pretty silly of you.
Let me repeat: "Other reviews have compared it to the films FernGully: The Last Rainforest[120] and Pocahontas.
I never said that Cameron mentioned FernGully. I said it was FernGully for adults. Me. Myself. Not James Cameron.
Having seen the movie, I think I'm in a stronger position to talk about what message is contained in the movie than someone, like you, who bases his conclusions solely on the opinions of others.
I base my opinion on the statements of the person who spent years of his life making the film. If you're too starry-eyed to catch on to the fact that you got your pocket picked by the Lefties, that's on you. Maybe next you can watch the Build-A-Bear webisodes and tell us they're really about Robert Peary going to the North Pole.
Oh, and one last thing: Unobtanium? He actually called it FREAKING UNOBTANIUM? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Truly, this is a cinematic masterpiece!
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.