REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

AVATAR, Anarchy, Narrative and Perception

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2661
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:15 PM

HKCAVALIER


Recent discussions of the movie AVATAR around the board and elsewhere have clarified something extremely troubling to me about our discourse. In the arena of politics, everyone has an opinion and everyone can site sources to back those opinions up. We can play the "I'm Right/You're Wrong Game" as long as we can stay awake and keep typing. But with a narrative "text" before us, opinions SHOULD be--at least a LITTLE--less varied, as there is a single record of the "events" upon which to base our interpretations. But with AVATAR I've observed that this is not at all the case. Indeed, people are basing their interpretations of the movie on narratives that they've wholly imported to the experience of the film and imposed upon the existing narrative. What's more, they seem merely to "scan" the existing film for a few key characteristics and once they've isolated these, they can impose their cherished narrative upon the film and, really, stop perceiving, stop taking in any new information.

The Curious Case of Kevin Costner, the Would-be Hero

A lot of people think that Kevin Costner's character in Dances with Wolves became a hero to the Sioux Indians he befriended, but it's not there. It's just not. He was merely ALLOWED to participate in their way of life, JOIN in their struggles, and he contributed what he could. He had to prove himself just to be trusted. His heroic actions? He gave the Sioux tribe a heads-up about the buffalo coming back, allowing the Sioux, I'll be generous, an extra day for their buffalo hunt. They celebrated him as the bearer of good news. He also prolly saved a little boy's life in the hunt, but he was just in the right place at the right time. Nothing extraordinary about his actions, really--not in the Great White Hero Saves the Day sense, at least. But y'know, the community was happy that things worked out for the best and gave him some credit there (wouldn't you?). If you look at the actual events of the story, Dunbar is continually aided by the Sioux, not so much the other way 'round. One example of his genuine aide to the Sioux was when he opened up his fort's arsenal to them, supplying them with guns to fend off an attack--the Heroic Gun Supplier! In the white world from which he came, he was a suicide, but in the Sioux world he finds love and he finds a place among the people. Nevertheless, at the end of the film, it's decided that he and the white woman should leave the tribe because they pose a danger to the others as now known fugitives from the European Nation steamrolling across the continent.

A Hero is a Hero Except When She's Not

So where does this idea that Lt. Dunbar is the Great White Hero come from? Firstly, I think it stems from a conflation of two meanings of the word "hero" and the power of certain narrative devices which, for a lot of people, stand in for meaning. We call the "main" character of a story, its "hero," but his actions and his story may or may not have anything to do with virtue or "heroism." At the same time, in a purely narrative sense, he is set up to be the most "important" character, at least to us; they are his actions, feelings, intentions of which we will be most cognizant; he is set up by the structure of the narrative as the character with which we, as the audience, will most strongly identify.

So, if you are not thinking critically about the character's experiences, merely riding along in the narrative vehicle, as it were, you'll tend to see the "main character" of the story as the "hero" of the story.

Now we come to the second and principal source of the Great White Hero gloss: political correctness. There's a prejudice amongst a lot of progressively minded folk against white character narratives, per se, particularly when that white person's story is set in an overtly multi-cultural context. So even if the main character's actions are ignoble, selfish, confused, a certain progressive "reading" of the story will IMAGINE that OTHER, LESS ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE are seeing the main character as a virtuous "hero" and get upset about that. In the case of Dances with Wolves and AVATAR, the progressive critic will further presume that the kindness shown the White Hero by the indigenous people is some form of hero-worship as well (this is particularly problematic, as it undermines the progressive's presumed "respect" for indigenous culture, as they self-servingly project childish, imaginary impulses upon them).

And there's the rub: these progressive thinkers do not realize that they see the indigenous people as childish, but it's obvious to someone not blinded by their overbearing internalized narratives. They'll blame the film maker for portraying the natives as childish but that only shows that they're blind to the subtleties of the indigenous culture as presented. The people of Pandora are shown to have the most sophisticated storehouse of knowledge, collective memory and history imaginable but because they don't wear lab-coats or drive devastatingly toxic vehicles around, they must be "primitive." Westerners continually have a problem valuing other cultures that don't defer to our Great Twin Values of Innovation and Alienation!

Lemme Give Ya a For-instance

In the Politics of 'Avatar' thread, SignyM imposes extensively on the film:
Quote:
Natives that look like humans, act like idealized patriarchal American Indians and dress like Masai. 'C'mon, where's your imagination, folks??? I kept tripping over lost opportunities and stupid mistakes. For example, tribes generally don't marry within tribes... its a recipe for inbreeding. Patriarchal tribal cultures either steal women from other tribes or otherwise arrange marriages outside of the tribe.

White man changes alliegances and saves the day. Where have I seen this before? Dances with Wolves and about a hundred other movies?

The everlasting myth of "the hero". As long as people keep waiting for one, nothing will change.

The "charge of the light brigade". Not much good leadership there! Inferior numbers win by guerrila tactics and sabotage.

The natives "win". C'mon, you know that if there is something as precious as Unobtainium, the imperialists will keep coming... and coming... and coming. Better have a backup plan to handle their superior numbers.

Two examples of politically motivated misprision leap out at once: the notion that the Na'vi were "patriarchal" and the wholly inaccurate reference to "inferior numbers."

With the patriarchal gloss, of course, Signy is in good company as European ethnographers have been making the same assumption about shamanistic cultural power structures since they first presumed to "discover" them. To someone actually watching the film, the power of the female tribal leader as the spiritual head of the tribe is obvious. When her husband is killed it is she who gives White Hero his marching orders, not the presumptive next patriarch. Some western observers have noted that shamanistic cultures have a partnership model of leadership, but even then tend to impose western value judgements on the observed "division of labor."

And the "inferior numbers" thing is just an elegant example of how a person imposes their own cherished narratives upon an existing story. The inferior numbers in AVATAR were manifestly that of the corporatists, not the Na'vi. We're not watching "guerrilla tactics," we're watching Custer's Last Stand. The "leadership" in both cases was not that of the tactician on the battle field, but that of the diplomat as the Na'vi in AVATAR and the Sioux-Cheyenne in our own history won these battles by uniting tribes against a common enemy.

Worse, the imposed narrative of White supremacy, however sneeringly disowned by SignyM, is loud and clear. The "natives" would never have a chance, the Whites are an unstoppable power, and any deviation from Signy's presumed narrative of White hegemony are only to be laughed at. What good is imagining a better world, if we devalue imagination itself?

What Does All This Have to Do with Anarchy?

Which brings me, finally, to anarchism and the debate we've been having on the subject for years now. All along, various folks have been trying to make the case for anarchism based on the assumption that people just needed more information to understand what anarchism is about, but this little conversational quagmire around a "simplistic" movie has made some things disturbingly clear. The narratives people impose upon "anarchy" and "anarchism" may simply be too strong, too unavailable to discussion, to be countered.

Politics in general, even among the impressive minds of our own RWED, may simply amount to endless, mutual shadow-boxing, as people attack imaginary points of view based on entirely fictive presumptions. But hey, if that's really true, my precious cynical cyber-playmates, then the fascists are RIGHT. They win. There is no power in the world now other than the gun. Language is an inferior weapon, useful, but only to a point. And we are hopeless to change anything for the better.

But, I don't believe that. I think people can wake up and notice the trances we've been stuck in and change. People can let go of the conflicts we've been nursing and look at the world with forgiveness and empathy. People can choose to do the right thing because it makes them most happy and not because someone or something or some idea seemingly forced them to it. I think anarchism is not only possible, I think--taking the VERY long view here--it's inevitable. If we survive long enough in the meanwhile.

Anarchy, in its simplest terms, is any social order where the social norms are maintained by some process other than force. To the Anarchist, even to the Libertarian, all laws have the implicit use of force to back them up. Anarchism grows from an understanding that that is not the only narrative going. Mental health is preferable to mental disorder, not because someone says so, but because it is felt/known to be so. People anarchistically do what they believe to be right because that's how they themselves have worked it out. An anarchist social order is built upon mutual respect, but before we can create a society based on mutual respect, we must have self respect. We must find a power greater than the gun to rule us.

What I'm saying is: the greatest impediment to Anarchism as a movement for positive change in the world, are the self-created narratives that tell us it is untenable and the de facto support of oppression by progressive thinkers who lack the ability to see their cynical complicity in the established order.

What's the difference between a world where evil men rule over the rest of us and we applaud them, and a world where evil men rule over the rest of us and we simply don't believe that it could be any other way?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 10, 2010 1:47 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:


Anarchy, in its simplest terms, is any social order where the social norms are maintained by some process other than force. To the Anarchist, even to the Libertarian, all laws have the implicit use of force to back them up. Anarchism grows from an understanding that that is not the only narrative going. Mental health is preferable to mental disorder, not because someone says so, but because it is felt/known to be so. People anarchistically do what they believe to be right because that's how they themselves have worked it out. An anarchist social order is built upon mutual respect, but before we can create a society based on mutual respect, we must have self respect. We must find a power greater than the gun to rule us.

Thanks HK, that was one of the best things I've read this year.
Or last year, for that matter.

I still hate "The Last Samurai," though.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA



This is why I have taken the long view, HKcav - preferring to intervene before kids are emotionally demolished and stripped of the very self-respect that is vital to developing the mutual respect which Anarchism requires in order to function.

By assaulting the roots of the problem instead of hacking the branches, one can accomplish even the impossible, it just takes longer - now that Pathway has been crushed, and the Sudbury school model has started to take off, we're reversing a trend long set in motion to enable the disastrous status quo.

More to say, but my work schedule isn't cooperative with that idea at the moment...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:11 PM

CHRISISALL


Frem, you rock.
Not as much as Chuck or Ash, but, like, for a real dude... awesome.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 4:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, Chris, here's the bit I didn't have time for last night...


People like to speculate about what mighta happened if someone popped a cap on Hitler before he rose to power, or what have you, but they never turn it around and look at the other, ugly side of that coin.

What if we had murdered the Dali Lama while he was a kid, strangled Ghandi in his crib, sent Mother Theresa to a mental ward and locked her up ?

What then, would the world be like ?

Think about it, Chris, our educational system is entirely dehumanising, and the folk who were MOST empathetic, MOST humane, and thus resistant to it's message, we either medicated them into compliance, or sent them off to the hellcamps, either way we destroyed them and their potential.

Cause we *DID* that shit, and we're paying the grevious cost of it now, by eliminating the most humane amongst us, penalizing and scorning the very idea of empathy, we took all those potential visionaries and just...
Wiped them out, so that they never WOULD exist.

I cannot fully express in words the horror that whole concept embodies, and while it cannot be undone, we can damned sure STOP doing it, and I mean to try, if it's the last thing I do, I *will* help turn that tide or die tryin, and being that I have a whole damn lotta good people ready and able to pick up the torch and run it forward, as I picked it up from those "damn dirty hippies" (that for YOU, Niki, and everyone of that generation who even thinks for a moment that they failed) in my own time, and as such intend to leave a legacy of belief rather than arrogance.


But it's the little things too, all the tiny little HUMAN things we do.
Last night one of our residents, a nice old lady, twisted her foot trying to unload groceries from her car - sure, I coulda said not my job, not my problem, but I humped it over there, got her to her unit and brought her groceries in, along with the quick improvisation of a ziplock bag of snow for an ice pack (and snow we got plenty of!) so it didn't swell up too bad on her - our "mission objective" is to see to the safety and comfort of these people, and trying to unload groceries in the cold, snowy darkness on a twisted ankle ain't safe nor comfortable, to my mind.


Thing is, for whatever reason, to act like that, to be like that, is on whim alone for me, not out of social expectation, or desire for acceptance in a society I can't stand or by people I don't really know, not because of any requirement and often in spite of potential penalties, but for NO OTHER REASON than it damned well pleases me to do it.

Sheriff Bourne: "You were truthful back in town. These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice."

Mal: "I don't believe he does."

That's always what I identified with about Mal, it's one thing to be decent when the law is on your side, when it meets social expectations, when it's easy and convenient - but to be decent when it's illegal, dangerous, often enough when you are DESPISED, even hunted for it, not out of revenge or malice to anyone, but for no other reason then your own desire to do things that way irrespective of what anyone else happens to think about it...

That is the essence of what makes a person humane, and we're born with that, all but the tiniest fraction of us - who only stay in charge of the rest by driving the efforts of everyone previously "processed" by their social machinery into preserving a disastrous status quo - but that's a large and vulnerable machine, especially to a sideways thinking trickster with a lot of sand up his sleeves, and every kid who slips through the ground down gears is one more potential monkeywrencher, accellerating the process.

And yet, on a longterm view, this *IS* inevitable, you cannot effectively suppress the humanity of an entire culture, not forever, it's like paving over a tree root, the tree is GOING to win - like HKCav here is saying, that social, mental and emotional evolution is all but inevitable provided we do not destroy ourselves and our biosphere in the meantime.

To be honest, I think that is where the Na'Vi came from, cause that whole system seems engineered, it's too clean and efficient for a natural development, and there's certain other subtle tells that indicate to me they were a high tech society that took it in a different direction than ours, and intentionally so - as Jake Sully pointed out "We have nothing they would want" - because they created a system that had no external NEEDS.

And to take another step into this (and slightly into mysticism and personal belief), I do believe earth has something much like Eiwa, many Japanese apparently also do, as is apparent in much of the Final Fantasy in-game mythos - but weaker, less potent or defined, something of a subconscious, for lack of a better word...

It's REALLY difficult to explain, like when you're swimming and a fish passes right next to you, you can't see it, only the barest trace of it's passage, ok - when I "reach out" to animals on that level, there's something THERE, like a smoke covered sheet of slick glass that you just cannot quite touch, something MORE than just emotional connection and understanding, a gestalt of some kind, more ephemeral than a handful of smoke, and gone just as quickly.

Nothin I can describe better than that, but I surmise many theological beliefs have interpreted/re-interpreted/mis-interpreted similar experiences in their own time - and I ain't exactly comfy discussin it, but reason I bring it up is this.

(SPOILER STUFF COMIN)





It's because Eiwa *chose* that dumbass in the first place, someone without the preconceptions that would prevent them from understanding, someone who could actually BE sympathetic and potentially useful.

Do you think that big jaguar thing cutting him off and herding him towards the hometree was coincidence ?
Especially when it could have gulped him down as easy as a frog does a fly had it ever really wanted to ?

Do you really think that pack of whatever they were wouldn't have ripped him to shreds if there had not been a will behind them with another purpose ?

What, do you think it just randomly picked that moment to give the chick who resuced him a sign like that ?
No, Eiwa had "plans" for him, at least in potential, the moment he entered an environ she had any control over, look how quick it happened, and how efficiently ?
(which also further convinces me that it's at least a partially engineered environment to begin with.)

And bonehead that he might have been, at some point during this, Jake starts PLAYING ALONG, he knew from the moment he was made aware it was possible to bond the Turok, how things were going to play out, that he would be required to prove the Na'Vi (which I do not believe were originally native to that planet) were willing to defend Eiwa with the same selflessness, that they would give all, before she would support them.

And Eiwa gives back, too, that jaguar critter showing up again wasn't coincidence either, that was Eiwas payback in helping save Jakes dumb ass because he *understood* on a lower level BECAUSE he was an outsider, he could see clearly things that the Na'Vi were so immersed in that they never looked at or questioned, which in combination with his understanding of their opponents, made him vital to Eiwas own defense against a foreign organism, almost like a human body subverting a cancer into white blood cells.

That's why I never saw the whole mighty-whitey thing in it there, cause it wasn't Jake who was the motivating force, it was Eiwa, who *needed* an outsider to put his hands on the wheels she was turning, because a Na'Vi could not overcome their OWN selves in order to do it, because they lacked certain critical understandings of their opponents, which an outsider from that culture WOULD have an understanding of.

And mind you, I realized this about three seconds after his "escape" from the Jaguar critter and noting that it was just too damned easy, just too convenient, to be coincidence.

It's Eiwa playing the hero myth to the Na'Vi to make her will understood to them, is what it is - but you need a *really* broad understanding to see it, otherwise you wind up like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant by touch, yes ?

Anyhow, outta time, stuff to do.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:06 AM

BYTEMITE


Don't have much to say on this topic. I see Avatar as a distraction, helpful warnings about corporations and defending our environment being undermined by messages about waiting for something else to repel the bad mojo away. It doesn't matter which element removes or ends the danger, the new convert or nature itself, simply having an outside intercessor resolve the problem doesn't call any of the audience to action against the danger.

Most movies are just opiates for the masses. At best, they're three hours wasted in a dark room that could have been spent thinking, experiencing, or helping.

Serenity is one of the few movies that has made any meaningful impact on me, and that was only after I watched the series, almost three years later.

That said, I've enjoyed this argument, because there's a very clear-cut breakdown here. I'm not for or against either side, I dislike movies in general, and I don't dislike Avatar for any different, new reason, beyond that I think it's unoriginal, poorly written, and anthropocentric.

It's mostly the ladies who are arguing that the hero of Avatar is the "great white hero" trope, and mostly the guys arguing no he ain't. So for wanting to establish an argument about anarchy, and people holding fast to their old battles, this is the oldest one of all. Gender warfare.

The arguments about racism inherent in the "Great WHITE hero" is just an umbrella because women want to identify with the other oppressed not-white-straight-male groups, but as stated what they find most offensive is that the man can do everything and fix everything. Which is not necessarily an invalid complaint. But the movie was written by a man, for men who would identify better with a male hero. I don't fault guys for wanting a male hero any more than I fault women for wanting a female hero.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:16 AM

JKIDDO


HK, my hubby and I talked about the presumed patriarchy of the movie. I'm well aware that white men would approach a culture and say "Take me to your leader", and keep repeating the question until they were taken to a man. And thus contact with western culture bestowed a power to some men: the power of being the conduit to a potentially superior and dangerous other power. But in Avatar, White Man is not just implicitly the hero of the story by being the focus of the narrative, he is overtly the hero because he rode the Last Shadow and became the Toruk Makto, a great leader in a time of sorrow who united all the tribes.

AFA inferior/ superior numbers and Custer's Last Stand: What happened after Custer's Last Stand? Did white men go away and leave the natives in peace? As great a victory as it was, in the end the West was "won" and the natives were herded off to concentration camps... er, reservations. If I were to look for an example of natives winning against imperialism, it would be Vietnam or Afghanistan.

The superior numbers are on Earth's home world, a presumed trillion or so people with advanced technology. Now, the people of Pandora have several huge advantages over the aggressors: the tremendous distance between Earth and Pandora, and the toxicity of the planet to human life, not to mention the hostility of Eywa. If whites had NOT been able to "settle" the Americas- live and breed here- the outcome would have been vastly different: all people and materials would have to be shipped, the distance across the ocean would make the prospect of permanent colonization/ acqusition very dim, and the only reason to even show up would be the presence of a highly treasured resource: gold, or (in this case) unobtainium. In my mind it's something of a tossup as to whether the Corporation would make the same attempt, or simply turn its resources to synthesizing unobtainium in the lab.

Anyway, I realize the narrative constraints imposed by trying to make a popular movie. There is the constraint of having a main character, who has to be someone the audience identifies with. Being an "action" movie, that character is likely male. Once the audience identifies with the character, the character has to undergo a change that the audience will be pulled along with. The counterposing identity has to be sympathetic to the audience as well: It wouldn't do to make them non-humaniform, or ugly, or nasty in any major way.

But I guess I've seen movies and read books that have done this so much better: The Left Hand of Darkness for sexual identity, My Dinner with Andre for reversal of identification, several other books for narrative boldness (one book has a sympathetic group literally disappear a quarter of the way into the story, never to be heard from again). When I read books like the Helliconia series, or Neutron Star ... the authors have dreamed up a setting as different as could possibly be from earth. And yet the natives behave like the stereotypical Benighted African Tribes (two sexes, aggressive and authoritarian patriarchal structure, primitive technology, superstition) and I just want to bang my head against a wall for lack of imagination. I would have liked the movie a whole lot better if they had introduced at least one element that wasn't totally expected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Ironic, since imho, the "hero" of the story (Eiwa) is to my perception, female... your mileage may vary.

I will say, y'all remember what I said about the courage to not act - usually in reference to the nameless tank driver in Tiananmen square, right ?

The dropship pilot in line and ready to fire who goes "oh fuck this" and pulls out - deserves a mention for that, she judged her own sides actions from her own perspective and made the tough call.

And remember, she did put her neck on the line as well, despite not having any real connection to the Na'Vi, but rather soley because she judged the actions of her own side to be reprehensible.


Also, some times I think men only THINK they run things... my buddy two star went and added an extra runabout to one of our triangle trades a while ago which cost about twenty percent of the profit and when I finally cornered him and got him to admit why...

Cause his granddaughter wanted a freakin super dollfie and he could get it cheaper and easier if the transaction went through Tokyo.

And then she throws that revoltingly cute smile with both front teeth missing at ME, and my iron will melts like candlewax in a fusion reactor and I wind up buying her enough ice cream to give ME a bellyache.


Ergo I am not entirely sure whether men actually run things, not when a small child or pet can derail even the best of plans on a whim...

Trust me, the best and quickest way to screw up ANY plan is to add children or cats, your plan is hosed on the spot, I guarantee it.

I am grateful enough only one of those two has opposable thumbs, or we'd be in real trouble.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:14 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Once the audience identifies with the character, the character has to undergo a change that the audience will be pulled along with. The counterposing identity has to be sympathetic to the audience as well: It wouldn't do to make them non-humaniform, or ugly, or nasty in any major way.


I can only assume you haven't seen District 9 yet. :)

See it, you'll get that joke.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:31 AM

JKIDDO


No, I haven't. But I heard it's good.

ETA: Frem, that's another part of the narrative that bugs me. Why did Eywa wait so long to intervene? Did it take Grace Augustine's persona time to convince the world's consciousness/ memory? And if Eywa could have swatted the humans down so easily, what does that say about the efforts of the various heroes and heroines of the story?

And that last scene: the final showdown between our hero Jake Sully and Colonel Quaritch... eh, REALLY could have done without it. Anyway, I'll give the movie some more thought.

BTW, despite my criticisms, I enjoyed the movie immensely. And anything that makes imperialists uncomfortable in a good thing in my book. They're only whining bc they DO see the movie as successful.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 8:54 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


By the way, HK, I think you're conflating the "hero" of a given story with the "protagonist". In many, many stories, the main character is NOT "the hero" of the story, only the main character, the main actor. Often, his words, views, and deeds are NOT heroic, often just the opposite, but we're given to pay attention to them simply because they're the main focus of the story.

"Fight Club", for instance, has no "heroes" - it has a protagonist. Nobody ever tried to argue that Henry Hill as portrayed in the movie "Goodfellas" was a "hero".

Anyhow, you take my point, I think; you CAN tell a story without making bad people doing lamentable things the "heroes" of that story. It might help clarify your argument if you refer to them as protagonists instead of heroes.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 10:02 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
No, I haven't. But I heard it's good.


Not to jack the thread or get on a soapbox, but I was a bit astonished by District 9. Not so much in the sense that it was a great actioner or great sci-fi, but more because it is astonishing that this film could have been made in South Africa. Twenty years ago, it could not have been. It's pure allegory, a fable of apartheid and how we treat those who are "Other". And it's beautiful, sad, joyous, and shocking, ugly and desperate yet hopeful and inspiring.


I still haven't gotten to the theatre to see Avatar, but I definitely plan to do so. As with most James Cameron movies, I don't expect a fantastic story, but I *do* expect fantastic MOVIE-MAKING, and I've rarely been disappointed by his work. I didn't love Titanic, but it was a sight to behold...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 10:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I started a thread about the same kind of "subjective" opinions people get about movies, and another interpretation that's been put on it, and this relates to it well. I haven't seen Avatar, as I usually wait for things to come out in DVD, but I've gotten enough bits and snatches to understand the points made.

I don't think what you postulated holds true for ALL viewers...as Frem found the "hero" to be the female and Mike made note of the difference between "hero" and "protagonist" (which I would have made, too). I didn't find Costner's character the hero at all, in fact I didn't find a "hero" in there at all, just a story about people; I appreciated a movie wherein the natives didn't have to be the way they were treated in earlier movies, I thought it was beautifully written, scored, directed, etc., but I never got the things you pointed out; in fact quite the opposite. I got that they were telling the story from the Indians' point of view, but felt it was as one-sided as the old John Wayne movies were on the other side.

I just find it interesting all the different things--from diametrically different opinions--people read into movies.

I happen to love movies (for an opposing opinion); I love them for pure entertainment (sure, they're "opiate for the masses", but they're a helluvalot better than any number of other "opiates" the masses engage in!). I appreciate the acting, the directing, the writing, and all the things that go into making a movie. For me, they can educate me about the inner workings of human beings, and yes, sometimes I get the message and either appreciate or don't appreciate it. In fact I often enjoy the "special features" on a DVD as much, or more, than the movie. I give movie-makers my respect for their efforts when they're successful.

And some things are so obviously intended as to be not worth discussing. Star Trek was truly obvious. District 9 was too. I hated that movie, mostly for all the violence and ugliness; I got the corollary right off, but they had advertised it as something completely different than what I found it to be (or maybe I saw the ads through my own "veil" and expected something different).

I'll be interested in seeing Avatar, but from what I've heard I think I'll find it a simplistic, obvious message and rather enjoy it as a sci-fi movie than ponder the message.

Mostly I find it intriguing that people read so much into a movie, dissect it and seem to "get" a message which many interpret differetly. We've already heard how many Conservatives are interpreting it; the other post I put up relates to some finding it racist, and the discussions about it here have been fascinating; for me, more for what it says about the judgments people have made as for the movie itself.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 5:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Jkid - Actually, THAT part I think I understand, about not intervening before that, lemme explain...

My ex hates doin the dishes, this was kind of a point of contention off and on, I don't at all mind and will do them twenty times or more, IF, and only if... she does them once - but I gotta have the one, I ain't your mommy, show me the token effort, show me you care enough to try, even badly.

To Eiwa, the human incursion is nothing but a tiny little pinprick on her scale of things, and even the loss of a hometree, while devastating to the Na'Vi was likely little more than a bee sting to Eiwa, so it's a question of scale and perception, as well.

I'll give you that there were places the story was weak, that whole "epic confrontation" thing was pretty contrived in my opinion as well, and came across as padding and a narrative tool that seemed a bit ham-fisted, not to mention the Colonel and the Company man came across as terribly flat and one dimensional, stuff like that, but this is Cameron we're talkin about, who prolly spent a little too much time hanging out with the SFX crew and not enough on the story, I found the 3D aspect a little overused and jarring in places it really wasn't necessary (like the mission briefing) even if it was pretty fantastic in the actual jungle scenes.

But still, I'll take Camerons work over say, Michael Bay, or *shudder* Uwe Boll, ugh, at least he tried, yanno ?

It kinda does strike me a bit amusing in retrospect that Eiwa more or less offers Jake the same "bribe" that the company did - only without four more years in the cold box, a long and likely only partial rehabilitation, and dependance on the notoriously untrustworthy good will of a military/corporate enterprise - once it's made clear to him that the soul transfer is actually possible it's a no-brainer even for him which side HIS bread is buttered on, isn't it ?

While not perfect in storytelling and a little too dependant on SFX, I give credit where it's due in that Cameron actually tried to push beyond his own perceptions even if the story wobbles here and there because of it - I found it immensely entertaining and enjoyable.

Funny thing is, since I do not watch TV and initially had no interest in a hollywood product, I kept thinkin people we're talking about THIS impending piece of go-se.

The Other Avatar Movie



Which happens to be done by someone I consider little better than Uwe Boll, and so I was completely NOT interested, up till my favorite online-shooter frenemy (Michelle) smacked me in the head and made me aware it was a whole different movie and I better go see it cause she was *IN* it, especially since her little moment of glory was right outta my bag of M-gear tricks from Air Rivals, which it kinda was, heh heh.

So I didn't have any real idea what it was "about" coming in, and being shoved by Mitch and dragged by my ex to see yet-another-piece-of-hollywood-tripe, I didn't have real high expectations, but being that the last time my ex got excited enough to practically DRAG me to the theatre it was over Pan's Labyrinth, which is also an excellent flick, I gave it an a chance to impress me, and it certainly did.

I guess maybe going into it with fewer preconceptions gave me a different perspective, maybe, but I did find it well worth the price of admission, even if I know they're gonna sequelise it into the ground like they do everything else that makes a buck, alas.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 5:59 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Niki and Mike,

I'm so confused. The point about "hero" vs. "protagonist" was a point I thought I was making! Might have used the inelegant phrase "main character" instead of the lovely word "protagonist" but it's the same point. I was attempting to account for why folk would think Lt. Dunbar in Dances with Wolves would be the "White Hero Who Saves the Day" and I supposed that people could be conflating two meanings of the word hero, one being an heroic (virtuous) person and the other being simply the protagonist (or "hero") of the narrative. Chaos and confusion, 1; HK, zero.

And Niki, I was not suggesting that I saw Kevin Costner's character as an heroic figure, I was presenting that idea as something OTHER FOLKS are putting forth without any, y'know, evidence in the movie to back it up. It strikes me as completely fabricated. And my reading of AVATAR is pretty much in complete accord with Frem that Eywa was really "the" major player in the story, but to my way of thinking Eywa is kind of an all encompassing Being--everyone who was working for the good of the planet would be a part of Eywa.

As an artist myself, whether people "read" all kinds of erroneous stuff into a story or not is kind of a big deal. I'm not talking about ambiguity. Plenty of great works of art incorporate a great deal of ambiguity. You see the movie Dead Man Walking? That was something of a masterpiece of ambiguity. Because it showed all the people involved in the story so empathetically, a lot of folks saw that film as a profound condemnations of capital punishment and yet other folks saw it as an equally forceful justification of capital punishment. Me, I saw it as resoundingly "anti" but I can see how folks saw it as "pro." The movie gave the "pro" crowd a very respectful hearing, I just disagree with 'em and admire Tim Robbins for being able to encompass such differing ways of thinking in one film.

Shakespeare, o' course, is anther artist who works magnificently with ambiguity. People have been writing about his works and what they "truly mean" for 400 years and still haven't exhausted the many meanings he offers us.

But, y'know, Cameron ain't no Shakespeare! He ain't a master of ambiguity. I think he's a fine storyteller, but his stories are much more simple. So when folks find such different meanings in his work I'm not thinking, "Wow, what fascinating ambiguity!" I'm thinking, "Where the heck did they get THAT idea?" And I come to the conclusion, "Oh, they supplied it themselves."

I think some movies deal with such politically incendiary subject matter that people read all manner of stuff into 'em. Back when Thelma and Louise came out there was all this noise in the culture about it being a "male bashing" film. That "all" the men in that movie were depicted as monsters, blah blah blah, etc. But in order for one to believe that, one would have had to totally ignore the performances of Harvey Keitel and (to a lest spectacular degree) Michael Madsen.

What I'm saying is: sure there's room for interpretation in art, but some interpretations require that you ignore large portions of the actual story to hold them. And I evaluate such interpretations as, simply, y'know, inaccurate.

Your comment, Niki, that you saw Dances with Wolves as a kind of reversal of the John Wayne stereotype takes me back to when the film came out, as there were a lot of folks back then who saw it thataway. But now, particularly in the context of AVATAR, it's being held up as a "typical" example of some "White Guy Saves the Day" genre and I think you have to ignore pretty much everything that actually happens in that movie other than "Kevin Costner is a big movie-star" to see the film in that way (not that such films don't exist, either! The Last Samurai is a splendid example!).

To my mind AVATAR is much closer to a District 9 than a Dances with Wolves. Some folk on the web have been comparing it to Dune and I can see merit in that as well. I just think the resemblance to Dances with Wolves is woefully superficial.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 6:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
to my way of thinking Eywa is kind of an all encompassing Being--everyone who was working for the good of the planet would be a part of Eywa.

I kinda disagree a little bit over that, in respect to Michelles character, cause while some folk clearly had a "side" they had chosen to be on, her actions were based only upon her own conscience.

I identify very strongly with that, as does she, especially since following the demands of her conscience has so often led the lady into trouble, which given her notoriety gets plastered everywhere and causes all manner of emotional distress for her which she ain't all that good at coping with.
(At least gunning folk down in games is a better release valve than some.)

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 11, 2010 7:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Posted by HKC:


Hey Niki and Mike,

I'm so confused. The point about "hero" vs. "protagonist" was a point I thought I was making!


In that case, I misread and misinterpreted your take on it, and you have my sincerest apologies. Carry on! :)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:48 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


This just out today :

'...The Vatican's newspaper and its radio station have given a lukewarm reception to the film Avatar, criticizing it for its "spiritualism linked to the worship of nature."

A red-carpet preview of Canadian James Cameron's 3-D blockbuster was held in Rome ahead of its wide release Friday in Italy.

The film is set on the fictional planet of Pandora, where humans are creating an environmentally destructive mining colony.

Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano devoted three articles to Avatar in its Sunday editions but said Cameron's plot was "bland" and unoriginal.

"He tells the story without going deep into it, and ends up falling into sappiness," it said.

The newspaper had praise for the film's visual effects, but said the story failed to touch the heart.

Pope fights neopaganism

Vatican Radio said Avatar "cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium."

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken of the need to protect the environment, but warned against "neopaganism" and the danger of turning nature into a "new divinity."

In Avatar, "nature is no longer a creation to defend but a divinity to worship," the radio reviewer said.

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said the reviews reflect the Pope's views on confusing nature and spirituality. However, they are independent film reviews with no input from the pontiff, he added.

The Vatican newspaper recently had praise for the long-running TV show, The Simpsons.But it was famously dismissive of the film version of The Da Vinci Code, a criticism that made very little difference to the film's box office.

Avatar has earned more than $1 billion US at the box office so far and looks set to become the highest-grossing film of all time, beating Cameron's previous record with Titanic.


Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, says he enjoyed Avatar’s message of saving the environment from exploitation.

The president, an Aymara Indian who was formerly head of the coca grower’s union, commented Tuesday to Bolivia's official news agency ABI.

"There is a lot of fiction in the movie, but at the same time it makes a perfect model for the struggle against capitalism and efforts to protect nature," Morales said.
"So much stupefying, enchanting technology, but few genuine emotions," the reviewer wrote.'

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/01/12/avatar-vatican.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:15 PM

BYTEMITE


Gino, I think your information about the Pope's response is particularly interesting, especially this:

Quote:
The Vatican newspaper recently had praise for the long-running TV show, The Simpsons.But it was famously dismissive of the film version of The Da Vinci Code, a criticism that made very little difference to the film's box office.


I don't know why the Vatican would be talking about The Simpsons television show, isn't that old news? But in regards to the movie, I seem to recall that the USEPA was the antagonist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh, I just thought I'd throw this into the mix - what lunacy !

From Drudge

Chicago Alderman Declares War On 'AVATAR' .... Makes Marines Look Like 'Lunatics'...

Vatican says no masterpiece...

Audiences experience 'AVATAR' blues; depression and suicidal thoughts...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:57 PM

BYTEMITE


Now that last one catches my eye. This is a movie where most of the humans portrayed are villains, that could make some moviegoers depressed about being human.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:59 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

'...The Vatican's newspaper and its radio station have given a lukewarm reception to the film Avatar, criticizing it for its "spiritualism linked to the worship of nature."

Predictably self-serving.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:22 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I haven't seen Avatar yet.

Does this fit?

Quote:

The Hero's Journey
A. Departure
-The Call to Adventure
The call to adventure is the point in a person's life when they are first given notice that everything is going to change, whether they know it or not.
-Refusal of the Call
Often when the call is given, the future hero refuses to heed it. This may be from a sense of duty or obligation, fear, insecurity, a sense of inadequacy, or any of a range of reasons that work to hold the person in his or her current circumstances.
-Supernatural Aid
Once the hero has committed to the quest, consciously or unconsciously, his or her guide and magical helper appears, or becomes known.
-The Crossing of the First Threshold
This is the point where the person actually crosses into the field of adventure, leaving the known limits of his or her world and venturing into an unknown and dangerous realm where the rules and limits are not known.
-The Belly of the Whale
The belly of the whale represents the final separation from the hero's known world and self. It is sometimes described as the person's lowest point, but it is actually the point when the person is between or transitioning between worlds and selves. The separation has been made, or is being made, or being fully recognized between the old world and old self and the potential for a new world/self. The experiences that will shape the new world and self will begin shortly, or may be beginning with this experience which is often symbolized by something dark, unknown and frightening. By entering this stage, the person shows their willingness to undergo a metamorphosis, to die to him or herself.

B. Inititation
-The Road of Trials
The road of trials is a series of tests, tasks, or ordeals that the person must undergo to begin the transformation. Often the person fails one or more of these tests, which often occur in threes.
-The Meeting with the Goddess
The meeting with the goddess represents the point in the adventure when the person experiences a love that has the power and significance of the all-powerful, all encompassing, unconditional love that a fortunate infant may experience with his or her mother. It is also known as the "hieros gamos", or sacred marriage, the union of opposites, and may take place entirely within the person. In other words, the person begins to see him or herself in a non-dualistic way. This is a very important step in the process and is often represented by the person finding the other person that he or she loves most completely. Although Campbell symbolizes this step as a meeting with a goddess, unconditional love and /or self unification does not have to be represented by a woman.
-Woman as the Temptress
At one level, this step is about those temptations that may lead the hero to abandon or stray from his or her quest, which as with the Meeting with the Goddess does not necessarily have to be represented by a woman. For Campbell, however, this step is about the revulsion that the usually male hero may feel about his own fleshy/earthy nature, and the subsequent attachment or projection of that revulsion to women. Woman is a metaphor for the physical or material temptations of life, since the hero-knight was often tempted by lust from his spiritual journey.
-Atonement with the Father
In this step the person must confront and be initiated by whatever holds the ultimate power in his or her life. In many myths and stories this is the father, or a father figure who has life and death power. This is the center point of the journey. All the previous steps have been moving in to this place, all that follow will move out from it. Although this step is most frequently symbolized by an encounter with a male entity, it does not have to be a male; just someone or thing with incredible power. For the transformation to take place, the person as he or she has been must be "killed" so that the new self can come into being. Sometime this killing is literal, and the earthly journey for that character is either over or moves into a different realm.
-Apotheosis
To apotheosize is to deify. When someone dies a physical death, or dies to the self to live in spirit, he or she moves beyond the pairs of opposites to a state of divine knowledge, love, compassion and bliss. This is a god-like state; the person is in heaven and beyond all strife. A more mundane way of looking at this step is that it is a period of rest, peace and fulfillment before the hero begins the return.
-The Ultimate Boon
The ultimate boon is the achievement of the goal of the quest. It is what the person went on the journey to get. All the previous steps serve to prepare and purify the person for this step, since in many myths the boon is something transcendent like the elixir of life itself, or a plant that supplies immortality, or the holy grail.

C.Return
-Refusal of the Return
So why, when all has been achieved, the ambrosia has been drunk, and we have conversed with the gods, why come back to normal life with all its cares and woes?
-The Magic Flight
Sometimes the hero must escape with the boon, if it is something that the gods have been jealously guarding. It can be just as adventurous and dangerous returning from the journey as it was to go on it.
-Rescue from Without
Just as the hero may need guides and assistants to set out on the quest, often times he or she must have powerful guides and rescuers to bring them back to everyday life, especially if the person has been wounded or weakened by the experience. Or perhaps the person doesn't realize that it is time to return, that they can return, or that others need their boon.
-The Crossing of the Return Threshold
The trick in returning is to retain the wisdom gained on the quest, to integrate that wisdom into a human life, and then maybe figure out how to share the wisdom with the rest of the world. This is usually extremely difficult.
-Master of the Two Worlds
In myth, this step is usually represented by a transcendental hero like Jesus or Buddha. For a human hero, it may mean achieving a balance between the material and spiritual. The person has become comfortable and competent in both the inner and outer worlds.
-Freedom to Live
Mastery leads to freedom from the fear of death, which in turn is the freedom to live. This is sometimes referred to as living in the moment, neither anticipating the future nor regretting the past.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, I just thought I'd throw this into the mix - what lunacy !

From Drudge

Chicago Alderman Declares War On 'AVATAR' .... Makes Marines Look Like 'Lunatics'...

Vatican says no masterpiece...

Audiences experience 'AVATAR' blues; depression and suicidal thoughts...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.



Yeah, it's AVATAR that makes Marines look like lunatics...

... not Charles Whitman or Lee Harvey Oswald. ;)


In fact, if you go through a list of famous serial killers, you'd be surprised to see just how many of them are hoo-rah well-trained, disciplined Marines. Semper Fi, fellas. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:14 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Semper Fi, fellas. ;)

You actually ARE the angriest guy on the internet...

I thought I was...


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Semper Fi, fellas. ;)

You actually ARE the angriest guy on the internet...

I thought I was...


The laughing Chrisisall


Oh, just pointing out some uncomfortable facts...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:
one being an heroic (virtuous) person and the other being simply the protagonist (or "hero") of the narrative
Okay, now I understand what you’re saying. Using “hero” for protagonist had me confused…like you said, “main character” or something, because obviously the main character isn’t always the “hero” of the film.

Remember I haven’t seen Avatar yet, so I’m not going to understand a lot of this until it comes out on DVD, which is months away! So I can’t come up with my own opinion on it until I do, I’m just gleaning this and that from what others are saying. So I wasn’t comparing it to Dances, or didn’t intend it to come out that way, except to say I found it interesting how so many people found something in it that reinforces their own subjective beliefs.

Maybe I’m lucky in that I’m not around a lot of people, so I don’t hear the kind of stuff you have. To call Thelma and Louise a “male-bashing” movie is to laugh, in MY opinion. And yes, the ambiguity of Dead Man Walking was a perfect example of there not BEING a hero, and even there being a question of who’s the protagonist, Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon? Most people would say Robbins, but I’m kinda on the fence.

As to Dances, I’m afraid I see it with a much broader view, in that I appreciate not just the movie and story, but the acting, directing, and all the stuff that goes into “making” a movie. I saw some wonderful camera work, I thought Mary McDonnel did a magnificent job and presented a character we don’t often see in movies. I see all the obviousness of it, but I still appreciate it for its own sake and can let Costner be. I happen to be very anti-Costner, and anti that nutbag Tom Cruise to the extent that I never saw Last Samurai. There are some people I just can’t get past enough to enjoy the movie. Costner is one NOW, too, but I enjoyed his performances for a few years, up until that Waterworld idiocy, and then his politics. Put those together with his ego, and I don’t want to see him anymore. Just my prejudice against some movie stars (some of which have no talent to speak of anyway).

Quote:
And Niki, I was not suggesting that I saw Kevin Costner's character as an heroic figure, I was presenting that idea as something OTHER FOLKS are putting forth without any, y'know, evidence in the movie to back it up.
I’m glad to hear that—I heard all the stuff about it being a romantic portrayal of the Indians, I didn’t hear a lot about Costner being considered a “hero” At the time I thought Dances was interesting in that it gave us a different view of Native Americans, and I still appreciate it for that…tho’ the obviousness was a put-off, admittedly. I just compared it to a reverse of John Wayne in that the sympathy was completely with the Indians and against the White men, reversal of what we had for decades.

Quote:
"Oh, they supplied it themselves."
I happen to think EVERYONE supplies their own “veil” through which to interpret movies. I don’t know how one cannot, as everything is subjective. On that, I can’t even TALK about Dune, I was so pissed off at it. I’ve been a huge fan of the book and a couple of the sequels, and in my view, they screwed the movie up something fierce, for which I’ve never forgiven “them”! I know I DO take movies too personally, but I don’t care.

I giggled at the different interpretations of Avatar are amusing, especially the new ones OTB and Rue brought us. People get head up about the strangest things, and have such STRONG prejudices. Mine may be about the actors themselves—and I admit to a prejudice against a couple of directors as well, whose movies are typically so violent I don’t want to see them, but political and religious prejudice put ON a film makes me laugh—it’s so typical of humans! The interpretation by the Vatican is pretty predictable; the one of how it makes Marines look makes me smile. People are incredibly subjective and put so much “on” films; mostly I enjoy them for themselves, tho’ admittedly at least half of them I bother to “interpret” by my own standards.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Niki, did you see the tv series of Dune made a few years ago (by SciFi channel I think). I've been watching it again, and it's pretty good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 15, 2010 11:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mmm, now I want to look THAT up! The movie sucked little green apples, in my opinion. But I must have missed what you suggested, and will look for it!

Ooo, found it on Netflix! Makes me hopeful, given it got four of five stars, while the movie Dune got only one star... THANKS Magon!! I'd adore to see Dune done right!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 15, 2010 10:43 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I just saw it. Awesome.

Okay the plot is nothing new, but there only seven or so stories in the universe anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 16, 2010 5:10 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Avatar or Dune?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 16, 2010 11:38 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Avatar!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:38 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Maybe I’m lucky in that I’m not around a lot of people, so I don’t hear the kind of stuff you have. To call Thelma and Louise a “male-bashing” movie is to laugh, in MY opinion. And yes, the ambiguity of Dead Man Walking was a perfect example of there not BEING a hero, and even there being a question of who’s the protagonist, Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon? Most people would say Robbins, but I’m kinda on the fence.
You're meaning Sean Penn here, not Tim Robbins, yes?

Yes. They were both such thoroughly realized characters. Trying to decide which of them was "the real hero" seems such an empty exercise, don'it? Narratively, structurally, I'd say the prisoner perhaps has the more extensive character arc, but the nun also changed deeply over the course of the story--though her transformation was perhaps smoother as the kind of spiritual growth she experienced was something she was seeking all along, whereas, the criminal's transformation was unlooked for and therefore, more "dramatic." Interesting how violence of one kind or another--even if it's only the spiritually "violent" shifting in a man's character--can tip the scales, from a story point of view, to making that character "more important," or "more heroic" than the person who experiences "less conflict" or at least is better prepared to handle the shifts and changes.

Similarly, Lt. Dunbar in Dances and Jake Sully in AVATAR have the more "dramatic" transformations, the more extensive character arcs than the indigenous cultures that embrace them.

I don't see that as a problem, fundamentally. On the deepest level, all stories seem to be "about" conflict and "trouble" more than harmony and ease--but that makes sense as art is, in its most fundamental nature IMO, a modality of healing.
Quote:
As to Dances, I’m afraid I see it with a much broader view, in that I appreciate not just the movie and story, but the acting, directing, and all the stuff that goes into “making” a movie. I saw some wonderful camera work, I thought Mary McDonnel did a magnificent job and presented a character we don’t often see in movies. I see all the obviousness of it, but I still appreciate it for its own sake and can let Costner be. I happen to be very anti-Costner, and anti that nutbag Tom Cruise to the extent that I never saw Last Samurai. There are some people I just can’t get past enough to enjoy the movie. Costner is one NOW, too, but I enjoyed his performances for a few years, up until that Waterworld idiocy, and then his politics. Put those together with his ego, and I don’t want to see him anymore. Just my prejudice against some movie stars (some of which have no talent to speak of anyway).
Yeah, I'm kinda having a real problem with George Clooney these days, owing to a story I heard from a friend of mine who's li'l brother works in Vegas. Seems Clooney rather violently groped and pretty much dry-humped this waitress on security camera and when the Hotel management got wind of things, they ended up firing the waitress when she wanted to press charges.

Kinda takes all the "charming" out of the guy, y'know? So every time I see him in the Up in the Air ad on tv these days, I just kinda cringe and don't look. I think he's a gifted actor and all, it's just the guy himself bothers me now, and I want him to seek some help rather than continue doing this kinda shit to random hotel employees around the globe.
Quote:
I’m glad to hear that—I heard all the stuff about it being a romantic portrayal of the Indians, I didn’t hear a lot about Costner being considered a “hero” At the time I thought Dances was interesting in that it gave us a different view of Native Americans, and I still appreciate it for that…tho’ the obviousness was a put-off, admittedly. I just compared it to a reverse of John Wayne in that the sympathy was completely with the Indians and against the White men, reversal of what we had for decades.
Yeah, I don't know that this "mighty whitey" thing was applied to Dances with Wolves back in the day. I still find it UTTERLY bizarre that folk don't seem to notice--or presume that some imagined less-perceptive audience just wouldn't notice--that in both Dances and AVATAR, this white character is INSTRUMENTAL in bringing tremendous suffering upon the native population, that in both cases they participate in a genocidal policy until they have their change of heart--in both cases, due to the generosity and the beauty of the indigenous way of life. Both white men in these stories are cast-offs from their own cultures, and both of them benefit far, far more from their association with the new culture than the native people do from them.

With Dances, I do recall the complaint of why there always had to be some white main character for the white audience to identify with, but this idea that he "saved the Indians" has been completely imported for the sake of the current argument.
Quote:
I happen to think EVERYONE supplies their own “veil” through which to interpret movies. I don’t know how one cannot, as everything is subjective. On that, I can’t even TALK about Dune, I was so pissed off at it. I’ve been a huge fan of the book and a couple of the sequels, and in my view, they screwed the movie up something fierce, for which I’ve never forgiven “them”! I know I DO take movies too personally, but I don’t care.
In casual terms and in terms of enjoying art, I think you're quite right--there are matters of taste that come from deep inarticulate places in us that respond to art. And much of the time, that's as far as anyone need take it. Anyone can appreciate art, with or without bringing a lot of critical thinking to bear, or having a thorough background in critical theory.

But to say "everything is subjective" is, I believe, going too far. The way I see it is this: as long as one is primarily talking about what one loves about a particular work of art, or simply saying, "I'm just not into it" or "I just don't get it" I think subjectivity is perfectly appropriate. Problems really only arise when one decides to criticize a work of art and condemn an artist--that's when critical thinking and credible theory need to come in.

If we look at the current controversy surrounding AVATAR, it's only the outrageous critical attack upon the film, the bizarre hatchet jobs from both left and right, that are problematic. Racist? How, exactly? Promoting of suicide? Really, how?

I've often observed that arguments in the RWED amount to people saying "I don't like you" and getting "I don't like you, either" back. All the verbiage and rhetoric in a lot of cases really boils down to this basic emotional transaction. And so with art, we dress up our feelings in big politically active terms to bolster our not always rational convictions.

But to say that "everything is subjective" takes us to a place where all argument is pointless and every opinion is "valid." It takes us to that Fox News "fair and balanced" place where the most penetrating insight is judged equal to the most absurd lies and obfuscation.

There's a fair way to argue and there's a valid way to criticize art. We criticize the soundness of each others' arguments and our understanding of the subject is deepened. A good, reasoned and grounded criticism of art sharpens our mind and increases our appreciation of art as a whole. I think there's a fair analogy to be found here between attacking a person instead of their argument and attacking a film for its subject matter rather than its methods and point of view. Criticizing AVATAR because it shows nasty mercenaries, hostility between different races, or because some folk find the movie so beautiful that it depresses 'em, is not the fault of the movie, it's just their reaction to the subject matter. It's all just blaming the messenger for the message. Are there nasty mercenaries in the world??? Do people from different backgrounds sometimes come into violent conflict over their differences??? Do we all sometimes wake up from particularly beautiful dreams feeling disappointed to be returned to our mundane lives??? Of course! To blame a work of art for showing us these realities is to advocate censorship and enthrone propaganda as the only real purpose of art.
Quote:
I giggled at the different interpretations of Avatar are amusing, especially the new ones OTB and Rue brought us. People get head up about the strangest things, and have such STRONG prejudices. Mine may be about the actors themselves—and I admit to a prejudice against a couple of directors as well, whose movies are typically so violent I don’t want to see them, but political and religious prejudice put ON a film makes me laugh—it’s so typical of humans! The interpretation by the Vatican is pretty predictable; the one of how it makes Marines look makes me smile. People are incredibly subjective and put so much “on” films; mostly I enjoy them for themselves, tho’ admittedly at least half of them I bother to “interpret” by my own standards.
The thing that bothers me most about these politically charged glosses on AVATAR is that in each case, in order to fit these criticisms on the work of art, one has to ignore the work of art to some degree.

To me this idea that the movie promotes "worship" of nature is particularly disturbing. In the film, Cameron goes to great lengths to describe the actual relationship the Na'vi people have with their "goddess" Eywa. Eywa is a living, biological, scientifically verifiable super-computer of information encoded in all the living creatures of Pandora. It's physical and real. So, in the most important sense, the natives there are in no way "worshipping" nature. No one is debasing themselves before some all powerful absolute ruler of reality as the Christian does in the "worship" of his god. It is a fundamentally different relationship. And in my experience, the earthly equivalent found in shamanistic practice is equally antithetical to western christian notions of "worship." Really pisses me off when folks judge an alien culture for things that don't even exist in that culture. It's exactly like the Christians condemning other cultures for "devil worship" when "devils" are principally a christian notion to begin with. Such criticisms are not only inaccurate, but they promote ignorance and marginalization.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 17, 2010 11:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, Cavalier, that was just plain beautiful! How articulate, and what a pleasure to read. Okay, I'll stop now.

By saying "everything is subjective", I don't mean it's WRONG to be subjective, it's just that I believe virtually everything we think is colored by our own personal experience, childhood messages, observations, likes and dislikes, etc. I don't find it wrong, just that it "is".

Oops, yes, Sean Penn. Duhhh...And ditto Clooney. I liked the way Hugh Grant dealt with his "indiscretion", that he took complete responsibility for it and then laughed at himself. I THINK it may be a fair representation of who the man himself is. I'm not fond of those who get big egos and think theirs is the only way to believe, a la Tom and Kevin.
Quote:
there are matters of taste that come from deep inarticulate places in us that respond to art. And much of the time, that's as far as anyone need take it. Anyone can appreciate art, with or without bringing a lot of critical thinking to bear, or having a thorough background in critical theory.
Very well said, and what I was trying to say.
Quote:
But to say that "everything is subjective" takes us to a place where all argument is pointless and every opinion is "valid."
Not at all, in my book. I believe that ever opinion IS valid--sometimes misguided maybe. But it's like we say in the mental health community: "ANY thoughts are valid; it's what you do with them that counts." To me, all opinions are valid to the person, and it definitely doesn't make argument pointless--by sharing those opinions, we help others see things beyond THEIR own subjectivitym and equally we can learn to see things outside OUR own subjectivity.
Quote:
To blame a work of art for showing us these realities is to advocate censorship and enthrone propaganda as the only real purpose of art.
Ahh, but you see, the people who seriously condemn a work of art or a film or something DO want censorship--they want whatever they are criticizing to be ignored, changed, or censored. That's usually the effect of most dogged and serious complaints about stuff.

I agree with what you said about worship, and what you said about disagreements here; I think DEBATES are fascinating, but when it degenerates into calling names, yes, I think it's as you said.

All in all, thank YOU for a very clear, concise post making good points. Those are treasures, to me.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:06 - 7511 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL