Previous Post -Future of the Emerging Church
When I stepped out of the theatre after watching James Cameron’s record breaking film “Avatar”, I was conflicted. Without question this movie raised the bar with respect to the experience of cinema. It was visually stunning and engaging. It kept my attention and, on the merits of the brilliant technology used for the 3D experience, I was drawn into the science fiction world of the Na’vi people. If you are going to see this film at all, it should be seen on the big screen in 3D.
That being said, I also left feeling dissatisfied and, frankly, pissed off. First, there was this nagging feeling that I had seen this film before, some scenes explicitly familiar. It was only later when a friend mentioned “Fern Gully” that it became laughingly clear. (If you haven’t seen “Fern Gully”, but have seen Avatar, it would worth the laugh to watch it to see the parallels). I was also bothered by how both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” were portrayed. The Na’vi culture seemed like a pop culture buffet of indigenous worldviews, dripping of the “noble savage” that I thought we had long since moved past. The military men were so evil, I half expected them rub their hands together maniacally and break out in a Bela Lugosi laugh. I had hoped for (though not expected) something of more substance in this visual masterpiece. And I was disappointed.
Recently, the film has drawn fire from Conservatives who denounce the film for a liberal propaganda machine designed to push some nefarious agenda. Scot McKnight points out 5 complaints about the film, asking for his readers input (for which this post is my extended reply). Note, I’ve changed the order Scot listed them, putting “Worship of nature” directly after “Pro-environment”, as I feel they strongly inform each other:
- Pro-environment
- Worship of nature
- Anti-religious
- Liberal, left-wing agenda
- Anti-military
Pro-environment: There is no question that the current cultural interest in environmentalism is foundational in this films message. While I am sure that Cameron believes in this cause, I’m also convinced that it was included because it is a highly marketable idea these days. As someone who believe that we are not caring for creation in the way God mandated us to, I resonate with this theme. However, I am not an “environmentalist” per se. I believe that Christians need to understand and practice a relationship to creation that surpasses the activism of the environmentalism, even though I believe it is an issue of injustice that Scripture requires us to respond to. I think people (both Christian and otherwise) are looking for something beyond the activism, which leads into the next point.
Worship of nature: Cameron’s generous blending of shallowly appropriated indigenous culture/belief with popular environmentalism is quite apparent from the get go. There is no question that the Na’vi people of Pandora hold to a pantheistic belief system that is informed by Gaia-type worship. This connects well with the environmentalist theme, as the Gaia hypothesis has been a notable influence in the movement. From a Christian standpoint, there are beliefs put forth that are clearly contrary to what we believe. While this should makes us more intentional about talking about such differences, I don’t see that they should be viewed as a threat.
However, we should make note of this synthesis of environmentalism and spirituality. As mentioned above, there is a clear longing in our culture for something deeper to inform our environmental convictions. I believe this is borne from an undefinable conviction that we are connected to creation on a spiritual level. Not in a Gaian, new age sort of way. Rather, our connection to creation as laid out in Scripture has been lost to the often gnostic leanings of Western Christianity. If Cameron’s film is a threat, it is because we have failed to offer a meaningful alternative. So much more could be said about this one, but for the sake of space, I’ll move on.
Anti-religious: After the last point, this one seems even more ridiculous. At best, this critique comes from an understanding of religion as highly formalized institutions (which makes the integrative spirituality of the Na’vi suspect). At it worst, this critique is borne from a fear of any idea or belief that is not explicitly Christian- and by Christian, I mean Western, modern Christianity. In an increasingly pluralistic world, Christians need to learn to better relate to people with differing beliefs. This is not to say we should not argue convincingly for our own convictions, but rather recognize and address the posture of suspicion and fear that informs our responses.
Again, Cameron shallowly picks and chooses from indigenous beliefs here, offering a romanticized mishmash of spirituality. This, in itself, is a greater threat to people than the actual beliefs themselves. I would rather people explore a spiritual belief system in depth than to be lured into something through romantic and shallow appropriation of ideas. I suspect that many people have embraced Christianity for the same reasons, usually to ultimately ill effects for the larger Church.
Liberal, left-wing agenda: This complaint has two parts. To the first, that the film is liberal, there is no question. By this I mean that there are values that are championed in the film that are more commonly (though no exclusively) championed on the political left. Cameron doesn’t strike me as a man whose politics would be too hard to pin down. However, as someone who doesn’t fall clearly into either the so-called “right” or “left”, there is not threat here. If you equate Christian belief with a predominantly right-wing political stance, then we disagree strongly and this point is moot (as it is if you equate Christianity with the left). Let us also not forget the marketability of left leaning ideas in films, clearly influencing the direction the film would take.
As for it having a “left-wing agenda”, I can only roll my eyes. Whenever we want to demonize something, all we have to do is accuse them of having an “agenda”, colouring the whole thing in a questionable, conspiratorial light. If Cameron had an agenda with this film, I suspect it would be for it to be commercially and popularly successful. Would he be happy if the film made people more mindful of environmental issues or military policy? Of course, but I hardly think that was at the top of his list nor worthy of accusations of subversion. Like other religious beliefs, we have to learn to live alongside other political ideologies as well, careful not to demonize (or venerate) any one perspective.
Anti-military: As a Christian with strong Franciscan and Anabaptist leanings, I hold a strong critique of military powers and of violence in particular. That being said, I did feel that the characterization of the military in the film was over the top. While Cameron says he was not trying to parallel the US military, I cannot see how it would be possible for any viewer to NOT come to that conclusion. In addition to the disrespect it shows to honest soldiers, it allows us the scapegoat of identifying “sin” in only extreme categories, thus freeing us from responsibility. Further, as someone who advocates non-violence, any caricatures undermine meaningful discussion about the myth of redemptive violence. While this film takes advantage of the publics disillusionment with military involvement in Iraq, it is by no means anti-war. Though not unexpected, it was still disappointing.
Much more could be said about this film, such as the white man still being the ultimate hero, identifying with the indigenous people in well-intentioned, but incredibly condescending ways. As I said earlier, it was a visually stunning epic that kept my attention like few other films have. Should we uncritically embrace its message? Of course not. In all things we need to be discerning and careful. Should we dismiss it or embrace it as mere entertainment? Only at our own peril. Movies function as a deeply influential mythology in our culture, shaping the way we think and act. Again, we need to discerning and careful. However, to use this film as ammo to fire at our perceived political and/or religious adversaries is both foolish and counter-productive.
You should also check out “The Battle for Terra” and/or Disney’s “Pocahontas” for even more eerie parallels.
And in their recent EW interview, Cameron was quoted as saying, “I’m all for eco-terrorism.” So yeah — his politics aren’t hard to nail down.
But I have to disagree about the suggestion that the Na’vi worship nature. Nay, nay — they have a direct biochemical connection with their planet. It isn’t spirituality at all — their nervous system actually physically connects to the neurology of the rest of Pandora. I think that’s one of the spots where Cameron’s heavy hand forced him to actually miss the mark he was aiming for. The Na’vi are categorically different in their connection with Pandora than humans are in their connection with reality — the Na’vi would be just as blind and foolish and childlike on Earth as humans are on Pandora. I mean, the idea of jacking into reality is a cool twist on cyber-punk, but it doesn’t have much to teach us in a categorically different world. You can’t biochemically jack into an oak tree.
That’s why I think I agree with the idea that it is anti-religious. Religion is about faith, and the Na’vi don’t have faith in Eywa — they are literal appendages of Eywa who also have self-will. Cameron wants to sound spiritual, but what he’s actually saying is deeply atheistic and aspiritual. The Na’vi don’t believe in something unseen or numinous; they’re completely and utterly reliant on their nerves and senses.
This is fine writing, though — I’m glad you shared it with us.
Thanks Nick. Let me push back on the nature worship. Just because something has a biological explanation does not mean it is not spiritual. That assumption is what is wrong with Western conceptions of spirituality (and part of the reason I think many are drawn to what I explained in the post). Clearly their language and practices were steep in concepts of spirits, the sacred, etc. Their understanding of the science was very mystical. Regardless of the reality of the situation, they were functionally relating to creation in a worshipful way.
For example, if their reliance on their “nerves and senses” means that they are therefore NOT spiritual or religious, the implicit assumption is that those who ARE spiritual or religious do NOT rely on the material world or their senses. This is a gnostic division of spirituality that, while widely influential in Western culture, is only one (very biased) understanding of the spiritual.
Further, by your argument they might be described as non-religious, but surely not anti-religious. Also, don’t confuse religion with theism. The Na’vi had a deep historical and traditional understanding of the sacred, the resulting morality and the concept of destiny. These are some of the key hallmarks of religion. Yes, Cameron’s worldview invariably peeks through, but even with a God/god/goddess/etc., he presented a deeply organized system of interpersonal spirituality, encompassing narratives, symbols, beliefs, rituals, etc. In the end, there was not enough information given to be more specific, but religion was still prevalent, if only implicitly.
Thanks for weighing in. Love the conversation!
Peace,
Jamie
Yeah, I like your take on the criticisms of the film. There is no way that the film could be construed as “anti-religious.” It even has a moment of quasi-evangelical spirituality where the main character exclaims “Eywa heard me” (or something like that) after praying to Eywa for deliverance and then seeing Eywa deliver on that prayer.
And, you can’t really call this film anti-military in any meaninful sense. Not when the solution to one people being oppressed is simply a violent war to throw out the oppressors. It’s just that one military used futuristic guns and bombs, and the other military rode flying creatures and shot bows and arrows. This was one of the saddest parts of the film for me. Couldn’t Cameron come up with a better solution than just one big battle at the end, with the ridiculously simplistic evil guy fighting the good guy and his girlfriend? Could you imagine if he would have ended it like the 1980s film The Mission? If you want noble Na’vi, that would have been the way to go.
Thanks Todd. Trying to find a cohesive worldview or belief system from this film is likely impossible, which is why there are moments we can even identify with as Christians (thanks for the example). Perhaps in trying to be everything, it ends up being nothing. Still, there is much good that can be gleaned from it.
I still believe the movie is anti-military. However, it is not anti-militant or anti-violence. What I mean by anti-military is that it seems fairly pointedly portraying the military machine as inherently brutish, evil and ignorant. That is an over-simplification (even if I do oppose the military construct). So, I think we ultimately agree on this point. Just wanted to clarify what I meant.
As for ending like “The Mission”, I had the same thought. It would have been very powerful. Sadly, I think people would have whined about it in the end. Oh well, at least it was a fun ride for a couple of hours. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
No, I wouldn’t say that the Na’vi were anti-religious. I’d say that the person who crafted them as a very attractive non-religious option did so because he is anti-religious.
And faith is still the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The Na’vi did not believe in something they couldn’t see/hear/taste. Eywa was/is part of their body. They’re deeply pious, in the Roman sense of piety. I completely agree that rejection of the physical is a gnostic temptation, but COMPLETE reliance on the senses (and on history – remember that they had the actual head of Torok to remind them that the belief that they were THE PEOPLE was historical) is something just as dangerous.
Hey Nick,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I would say the person who crafted this film had leanings against some expressions of religion, but not religion in and of itself. If so, the film was hugely self-defeating. I do not think the Na’vi were completely dependent on their senses, as there were several inexplicable instances throughout the film that suggested a high order of things.
Where I think we do agree is to the quality of the religious beliefs represented. I agree that they are very humanistic and thus can be dangerous. However, I was not commenting on the quality of their spirituality, but on the nature of it- more specifically, that it existed at all.
Peace,
Jamie
I have to disagree with Nick on one point. While the Na’vi could link into Eywa and communicate like we can link into the internet, there was more to it than that. The Na’vi didn’t know everything about Eywa. The sacred creatures–which looked like dandelion seeds to me–landed on Jake and it was unexplainable to the Na’vi. Sometimes God takes someone who is not of the Christian faith and sets them aside for a special purpose (Saul/Paul, anyone?).
I do however agree that this film had a very “Native” feeling to it. People came to the Americas looking for gold and killed the natives to take it. Very anthropological.
Thanks for the input AL. The Saul/Paul comparison is an interesting one, putting Jake’s role as “hero” into a new light. My concern was that they almost made him the prophesied saviour of the Na’vi. It concerns me that we make the white man the source of hope in such a tail. As was suggested earlier, I would have loved to see a different ending, not unlike (perhaps) The Mission. Thanks again!
Peace,
Jamie
Check out the Pocahontas connection. http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
I think that Panentheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism) may better describe the worldview/religion of the movie.
At the end did Jake get resurrected? He certainly was the ’savior’ of his people!
I’m surprised there’s no mention of how Avatar embodied a somewhat tempered version of the way of the Zealot….And it’s hardly condescending to point out to others that they’re terribly outmatched technologically. It was like a remake of the Maccabean revolt, which unfortunately sustained the sort of zeal that eventually resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem.
dlw
Hey BOB! Yeah, that Pocahontas parallel is hilarious. Thanks for sharing it here. And you are probably right with panentheism. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
Hey dlw,
I might have bought into the Zealot comparison, except that the parallel to colonialism with respect to the First Nations people was so on the nose. It is an interesting idea, though. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
before all these parallels to other movies started coming out i saw the movie and as i walked out of the theatre i thought “well, if you’ve seen Dances with Wolves then you’ve seen that movie”. i realized much afterward that the ending is completely different between the 2 films though.
Hey Ian. Funny you should say that. When I walked out, I turned to my wife and said “So, did like watching ‘Dances With Aliens’?”
[...] Arpin-Ricci nailed it for me in his recent review of the film: in discussing the over-the-top evil of the military/corporate bad guys, he writes, “it [...]
I just saw the movie last week. I thought it was certainly a slap at the military, but I frankly expected some howls that I haven’t heard yet that somehow the natives couldn’t do anything themselves. They had to have the “great white it hope.” I am anglo and I thought that was a bit condescending.
Hey John. Indeed, I felt the same thing when I left the theatre. I know it has been cited by some groups, but the criticism hasn’t made mainstream coverage. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
[...] Previous Post – Avatar: My Thoughts [...]
The only dumb thing about Avatar is how so many highbrow critics just don’t seem to get it. The comments and negativity is just so ridiculous, it’s almost amusing. Before the film’s release, many expected (unable to hide the glee in their scribblings) it to fail miserably because of the huge box office takings needed for the movie to reach break even point. They also chirped that while it may be technically impressive, the audience wouldn’t feel for the characters etc. etc. Well, they look pretty dumb now that it’s passed the $2bn mark and that so many people have been emotionally affected by the film. They might try to twist things now, making it out that it was always going to be such a big hit, but the truth is they didn’t see it coming, even the cinemas themselves didn’t see it coming and, backing my claim, it didn’t even have an amazing start: first week’s takings in the US were only half that of The Dark Knight.
Also, what really pissed me off is how these critics seem to seem unable to tell the difference in quality between Avatar and something else with a big budget with great effects like Transformers 2 which actually is pure garbage, with horrific direction. To band them all together shows they know nothing of the action genre, certainly of the modern action movie. Cameron is simply the best and most meticulous action movie director in the industry.
I’ve read so many articles explaining how it’s success is down to it being 3D, citing the fact that 3D sales are higher than those of regular screenings. Well, it’s easy to say that when you have the actual figures in front of you, but how do you know it wouldn’t still beat Titanic’s box office record if it was just a 2D movie? There’s nothing to disprove that if the movie was 2D-only, it would still take 90% or more of what it has actually taken. People are going to see an impressive movie, and they’re electing to see it in it’s most impressive format. Besides, the 3D effect just enhances what is already arguably the most visually impressive film ever made. In the same way, critics have said that the movie wouldn’t have done anywhere near as well if it was just live action rather than being computer generated. Again, how do you know? Other Cameron films have been visually stunning without loads of CGI. It’s not down to being CGI, it’s that the CGI is so well done, so natural. The fact is that no matter how it was made, with Cameron directing and producing the movie, it was always going to be visually stunning.
So it doesn’t have the best, most original plot. So it doesn’t have the best dialogue. I think we all knew that before entering the cinema. Any movie with a $300m-odd production budget isn’t going to be the most character-driven, dialogue-heavy film. But it’s incredible on so many levels and it does reach the audience in a way that many supposedly more thought-provoking films do not. There’s nothing dumb about Avatar, it’s just critics of the movie who are dumb.
As for any Guardian readers who stubbornly won’t see the movie because they’re so ‘above’ the action genre and blindly agree with the negative critics, all I can say is that by sticking to your prejudiced, condescending, snobbish artistic high ground, you’re missing out on what may be the best, most immersive cinematic, and yes, artistic, experience ever. When Alice In Wonderland comes out and replaces Avatar on the IMAX screens due to previous binding agreements, you may have missed your chance. Bravo.
Hey Maxwell,
With Cameron’s previous track record, I had little doubt that it would be a commercial success. I agree with you that many of its critics (before it came out) are now eating their words. I also agree with you that the quality of the film making is far superior to the average action flick, out and by far. It is one of the most stunning films ever made.
I think I would take the critiques of the plot (which you acknowledge) a little more seriously. It doesn’t disqualify the film from being credited for its quality, but it is worth mentioning. However, I would say that the story line was lacking, not due to a lack of creativity, but out of a very genius understanding of what sells. A more provocative ending might have been artistically meritorious, but would have cost the bottom line. It is business, after all.
I think people will miss an opportunity for not seeing the film in its best medium. I am glad I got a chance. It was a fun ride.
Peace,
Jamie
well I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who was “p’ed”
you mentioned in passing what was my greatest complaint, namely the socio-ethnic one; how the hero pays homage to the native who conveniently dies and then the hero becomes the king of the tribe. In his progressive thinking, Cameron isn’t really all that progressive at all. And in my worldview as a Christian the biggest problem is that the hero really never gives up his power in the end.
Oh which chalks it up to another perfect comparison: The Last Samurai
Wayne, that was my biggest complaint too when I walked out, including the thought about The Last Samurai. Sadly, I think the decision was not made entirely out of ignorance, but what was going to make the most money. sigh… Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie