Wherein Robin discusses Avatar
[Forewarning: no spoilers in this post, although the article linked to within the post is extremely spoiler-heavy.]
I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D last night. It was... well, there really aren't any words. Frolic and I sat there silently for about five minutes afterward, and then I said, "Holy fuck." Yeah, I'm coherent when I'm awed.
For two and a half hours, nobody in that theater visibly moved, nobody coughed, nobody made noise, nobody got up to use the bathroom. Everyone was mesmerized by the movie. I don't even know when I last felt that sense of pure wonder. It is beautiful, and thrilling, and deeply emotional. There were times when I cried (yes, me, the woman who never cries) and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Once the movie ended, I tried to stand up and my legs were numb, and I realized that I hadn't even moved my body once during the entire time.
I can't recommend it highly enough. Everybody should go see it in 3D. If available, IMAX 3D. (I've had some friends mention that they tried to get tickets and it was sold out - you are NOT going to be able to get tickets by showing up at the theater, because the shows are selling out in advance. Buy your tickets online, or go into the movie theater a couple days before the show. We bought ours online ten days before.)
And now, because I've already seen it posted three times on my FL, I'd like to discuss Annalee Newitz's When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar "analysis". I don't usually use quotes to show derision, but I'm going to in this case because of one very basic fact: she hasn't seen the movie and she's drawing her conclusions based on what she's read from others. She isn't even analyzing the source material! She makes some major factual errors about the movie, and some major parts of her analysis are flawed or incorrect as a result.
In the comments the commenter "Dragonfliet" makes an excellent summary of the ways her article gets it wrong, and at the end of their exchange, Annalee admits she'll have to actually see the movie. (His comment starts with I think that this is a predictable, but ultimately very, very flawed examination. While I agree that this movie presents an overtly obvious and simplistic retelling of the colonization of the new world (and in this movie they very literally are stealing the land--the very rock the people live on--of the people) and I also concur on the frustration of having the white man being the leader, there is far more to consider., in case anyone just wants to do a search for it.) If you're interested in seeing the ways her article missed it, his/her comment pretty much sums it up quite effectively.
I'm not saying there isn't anything problematic about this movie from a racism standpoint, because there is. Ultimately it *is* a Honkey Savior trope to a good extent (although, as Dragonfliet points out, there's important nuances that aren't quite the same), and I have some cultural-appropriation issues with certain things about the Na'vi that seem to draw very heavily from some indigenous cultures (ways of dress, weaponry, the look of their rituals), etc. But no, it isn't a Noble Savage trope (as I've seen expressed elsewhere), because their connection to their planet is actually biologically real - it isn't some idealized hocus-pocus "spirituality". (Woo, two instances of derisive quotes in a single response!) And a lot of Annalee's analysis gets it wrong because she draws conclusions based on how she thinks the story went, rather than actually watching it first. I can't recommend her article on being any kind of decisive analysis of the movie, because she isn't analyzing the movie. She's analyzing her expectations of the movie.
I wish she had seen the movie first and then written an article about the ways the movie actually *is* problematic, rather than analyzing her expectations of the movie and getting it wrong.
ETA:
Not only has he been assimilated into the native people's culture, but he has become their leader. This is a classic scenario you've seen in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.
He doesn't actually become their leader. He plays the role of military advisor for a time, because he is obviously far more educated about the human military than they are. But even so, he defers to the Na'vi leader (Tsu'tey), asking him for permission to speak, etc. And at the end of the film he says explicitly that his role (as military advisor) is no longer needed, and has gone away. He's not continuing to remain in a position of power.
Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human meatsack to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege.
No. At the end of the film he lets his human body die in the hopes that he will be reborn in the body of his Na'vi avatar. He gives up his human form and accompanying white/human privilege for the hope (not the certainty, since the only other time this particular death/rebirth ritual has been performed, the human died) of being a full Na'vi.
The fact is that her entire "analysis" is based on the premise that he becomes the almighty Honkey Savior, and continues to be so, and continues to hold on to his white privilege. But in reality, while he is the Honkey Savior for a time, he does not continue to be so, and he willingly completely gives up his white privilege, and so that pretty much makes her entire analysis GIGO. Which, of course, she would have known if she'd actually seen the movie prior to writing about it.
Ugh. Her review annoys me for the same reason that it bugs me when religious fundies go railing about a book they've never read: it's an uneducated look at the subject matter that pretends to be educated, and then other people fall for it and hold it up as some sort of factual confirmation (which conveniently support their own biases).
I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D last night. It was... well, there really aren't any words. Frolic and I sat there silently for about five minutes afterward, and then I said, "Holy fuck." Yeah, I'm coherent when I'm awed.
For two and a half hours, nobody in that theater visibly moved, nobody coughed, nobody made noise, nobody got up to use the bathroom. Everyone was mesmerized by the movie. I don't even know when I last felt that sense of pure wonder. It is beautiful, and thrilling, and deeply emotional. There were times when I cried (yes, me, the woman who never cries) and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Once the movie ended, I tried to stand up and my legs were numb, and I realized that I hadn't even moved my body once during the entire time.
I can't recommend it highly enough. Everybody should go see it in 3D. If available, IMAX 3D. (I've had some friends mention that they tried to get tickets and it was sold out - you are NOT going to be able to get tickets by showing up at the theater, because the shows are selling out in advance. Buy your tickets online, or go into the movie theater a couple days before the show. We bought ours online ten days before.)
And now, because I've already seen it posted three times on my FL, I'd like to discuss Annalee Newitz's When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar "analysis". I don't usually use quotes to show derision, but I'm going to in this case because of one very basic fact: she hasn't seen the movie and she's drawing her conclusions based on what she's read from others. She isn't even analyzing the source material! She makes some major factual errors about the movie, and some major parts of her analysis are flawed or incorrect as a result.
In the comments the commenter "Dragonfliet" makes an excellent summary of the ways her article gets it wrong, and at the end of their exchange, Annalee admits she'll have to actually see the movie. (His comment starts with I think that this is a predictable, but ultimately very, very flawed examination. While I agree that this movie presents an overtly obvious and simplistic retelling of the colonization of the new world (and in this movie they very literally are stealing the land--the very rock the people live on--of the people) and I also concur on the frustration of having the white man being the leader, there is far more to consider., in case anyone just wants to do a search for it.) If you're interested in seeing the ways her article missed it, his/her comment pretty much sums it up quite effectively.
I'm not saying there isn't anything problematic about this movie from a racism standpoint, because there is. Ultimately it *is* a Honkey Savior trope to a good extent (although, as Dragonfliet points out, there's important nuances that aren't quite the same), and I have some cultural-appropriation issues with certain things about the Na'vi that seem to draw very heavily from some indigenous cultures (ways of dress, weaponry, the look of their rituals), etc. But no, it isn't a Noble Savage trope (as I've seen expressed elsewhere), because their connection to their planet is actually biologically real - it isn't some idealized hocus-pocus "spirituality". (Woo, two instances of derisive quotes in a single response!) And a lot of Annalee's analysis gets it wrong because she draws conclusions based on how she thinks the story went, rather than actually watching it first. I can't recommend her article on being any kind of decisive analysis of the movie, because she isn't analyzing the movie. She's analyzing her expectations of the movie.
I wish she had seen the movie first and then written an article about the ways the movie actually *is* problematic, rather than analyzing her expectations of the movie and getting it wrong.
ETA:
Not only has he been assimilated into the native people's culture, but he has become their leader. This is a classic scenario you've seen in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.
He doesn't actually become their leader. He plays the role of military advisor for a time, because he is obviously far more educated about the human military than they are. But even so, he defers to the Na'vi leader (Tsu'tey), asking him for permission to speak, etc. And at the end of the film he says explicitly that his role (as military advisor) is no longer needed, and has gone away. He's not continuing to remain in a position of power.
Avatar is a fantasy about ceasing to be white, giving up the old human meatsack to join the blue people, but never losing white privilege.
No. At the end of the film he lets his human body die in the hopes that he will be reborn in the body of his Na'vi avatar. He gives up his human form and accompanying white/human privilege for the hope (not the certainty, since the only other time this particular death/rebirth ritual has been performed, the human died) of being a full Na'vi.
The fact is that her entire "analysis" is based on the premise that he becomes the almighty Honkey Savior, and continues to be so, and continues to hold on to his white privilege. But in reality, while he is the Honkey Savior for a time, he does not continue to be so, and he willingly completely gives up his white privilege, and so that pretty much makes her entire analysis GIGO. Which, of course, she would have known if she'd actually seen the movie prior to writing about it.
Ugh. Her review annoys me for the same reason that it bugs me when religious fundies go railing about a book they've never read: it's an uneducated look at the subject matter that pretends to be educated, and then other people fall for it and hold it up as some sort of factual confirmation (which conveniently support their own biases).