James Cameron: Marxism For Thee, But Not For Me
by Big Hollywood
–
Cameron claims “Great wealth makes me uncomfortable,” and he has a track record of producing “quasi-Marxist epic[s],” as Newsweek described Titanic. Cameron himself said that Titanic was “holding just short of Marxist dogma.”
Critic James Kendrick pointed out Titanic, Aliens and The Abyss as three Cameron films that include Marxist overtones.
Certainly Avatar can be added to that list. Along with the global warming message—Popular Science calls it “every militant global warming supporter’s dream come true”—it has also been described as “blatant anti-military” and “anti-American.” The idea of the corporate partnership itself (or a $300 million movie) is a very capitalist idea in and of itself—made more so because McDonalds is so often targeted by radical critics for not being “socially responsible.”
Read the full article here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
102 Comments
I think Comrade Cameron needs to walk the walk as well as talk the talk, and "self-nationalize" his assets. I'd like my chunk of that TITANIC and AVATAR change.
I'm somebody who regularly reads Big Hollywood but rarely agrees with anything that's being said (I like to keep myself abreast of differing points-of-view.) But the first thing I said when I read this was:
WHAT!?
Until I get a glimpse of how much money Cameron has donated to charity from all the billions of dollars he has stowed away in a vault, I'm not buying that for a second.
If he really is just short of a Marxist dogma, then why does he keep spending more on movies?
While I can't entirely disagree with this, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot looking for deep subtext like this. It isn't enough to enjoy Titanic – no, it's Marxist propaganda. (Simply portraying a class struggle doesn't necessarily equate to condoning a class struggle. A lesson I wish the anti-smoking brigade would realize too.)
If you keep on saying it, maybe it'll come true
What tickles me about "conservatives" post-Beck re-embrace of "Marxist" as a general epiteth is that at least a 3rd of the Republican voter-base is quietly wondering why they're supposed to be mad at Groucho…
It must be hard to see where you're going with your nose so high in the air.
That's the MO of everyone that wants to impose Marxism or Socialism. It's a great idea for everyone else except themselves.
FTS
What collar color is academia? Red? I grew up in a liberal household–my dad's extended family are all teachers or professors. I held the liberal, "capitalists are evil swine-pigs" dogmatic belief until a few months after I graduated college. I struggled to find a job in my field (photography), lowered my standards substantially (3rd shift at Kinko's), and then worked my ass off (from 3rd shift straight to computer programming classes at the local comm. college). I worked very hard for the money that I have, and I continue to work hard so I'll have more of it. Now when people tell me that others are more deserving of my money than I am, I ask: How many sleepless nights did they endure? Are their backs sore from lifting paper cases and standing for 10 hour stretches? How many job applications did they fill out?
I believe Cameron's problem is he hung out with the wrong crowd. He forgot that it was his labor that made him successful, and his business and creative skills that employ the people who create his movies. His success doesn't happen in a collective society, but only in an individualistic one.
Cameron is not a renaissance man, Scott…
He is a technocrat. He doesn't understand much outside of his world of knobs and dials and switches. So, his take on 'marxism' is undeniably that of the clueless Hollywood where he keeps ALL of his stuff while we have to eat veggieburgers and take the bus.
Of course it doesn't work like that- but the insular world of Hollywood- and the protective blanket fly over country provides for them- allow such nitwittery…
In Titanic it was entirely reasonable to show how the classes were treated differently back then. British society was indeed very much rigid about those things at the time. It's a legitimate criticism. However, the only difference in a marxist class system would have been the party officials enjoying first class treatment and lifeboat priority while the proletariat get shoved back into steerage while the ship floods.
Camoron is a clown. Just like that fat-arsed baboon Michael Mooreon. Both are to be ignored.
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/2009/12/30/...
The Anti Liberal Zone
BTW Mr. Camoron, Titanic SUCKED!
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/2009/12/30/...
The Anti Liberal Zone
Everyone should see the Nazi propaganda film Titanic. It airs on TCM every once and a while.
It's actual a well made movie and you can see how the story lends itself to Leftism/anti-Capitalism. (through distortions, of course) they don't call it propaganda for nothing.
That's a great critique. Are you 12?
The soul of liberalism: contempt and self-regard.
This "Cameron and Avatar = commie pinko tree-hugger socialist smurf porn" stuff is entertaining, but we're quickly approaching the end of that horse's life and people are still queuing up with clubs and closed fists.
Just watch Red Dawn after you watch Avatar to cleanse your palette.
This reminds me of a recent blog by a friend of mine about Dorian Grey and how Socialists lie to themselves and mask their beliefs. enjoy:
http://thephillipian.blogspot.com/2009/12/portrai...
Well said.
how one goes from that to "Marxist.'
Cameron himself said that Titanic was “holding just short of Marxist dogma.”
I think the label applies once the individual basically comes out and says he's a Marxist.
Touché, EdSki.
Unfortunately, a statement like that causes people to retroactively judge his previous films: if Titanic is borderline Marxist, then his other films must be too.
But I also stand by my original statement: portraying a class struggle is not the same as condoning one (and I'd say the same about characters smoking, too). Unless there are other Marxist elements, or Cameron had some nefarious agenda the whole time.
well a LOT of it is the Canadian thing, Scott…
Not all canucks are socialists- but it is an entitlement society and Cameron represents that philosophy.
Wrong crowd? Is there really any other in Hollywood?
yes- his utter lack of any perspective other than his narrow confines of technology causes the default to traditional leftist thought.
Good pull…
My own opinion is the vast majority of Americans aren't very educated on capitalism much less Marxism. I'm fairly sure Cameron doesn't have the slightest clue as to what any of these ideologies actually stand for.
Anyone who listens to democrat politicians spout out how capitalism is over, and it was nothing more than some Reagan era experiment gone terribly wrong, and then votes for them, hasn't a clue.
And considering some of the publicity stunts and PR campaigns coming out of Hollywood, it appears the elites are indeed clueless.
Agreed, compelling stories can be made about any subject. And the circumstances of a particular story do not necessarily reflect political ideology. It just seems the stuff coming out in the last 40 years or so seem to be hell bent on dressing up Marxism and communism as adorable, obvious, next step in societal evolution.
I liked Terminator, and I could at least sit through Titanic (I'm more an action/adventure/comedy kind of guy than love stories), but I have no intention of seeing this one. From what I've read it seems like nothing more than a Disney cartoon dressed up with better effects.
As a former blue-collar guy, he might just identify with working stiffs and so he makes them the heroes of his stories and big-shots in general the villains. Unfortunately, this tendency is strongly reinforced by Hollywood culture's infatuation with the "Little People vs. The Evil Corporation" narrative.
I just figured out another reason why I liked the new Star Trek movie so much. It's a sci-fi movie that doesn't have an evil corporation, an evil government, or an evil military doing evil experiments, trying to achieve ultimate power, or trying to capture cute little aliens and their friends. OK, sure, it's got aliens that look like humans with bumpy forehads – another sci-fi cliche. But I forgive the movie for that because it doesn't preach to me.
He's insulated. I didn't change my viewpoint just because I understood the value of hard work. My wife beat me again and again in our debates after I finished cussing at O'Reilly on the tv. Little by little, the layers of doublethink were peeled away and I began to see that my true opinions–the ones I could articulate and defend–were conservative principles.
In short, I had an intervention. Cameron has been insulated, like I was as a kid in my family. He needs outside influence to see that what he says doesn't make sense. Cameron has been a success story for so long he forgot what made him successful in the beginning. Liberalism is an echo chamber from which it's very difficult to escape. You need someone from the other side to break you out.
well said and reasoned…
welcome to the club for thinkers, Nathan…
Well said.
I think I was in college when I finally realized that communism wasn't a form of government, but an economic system. It just wasn't discussed in high school, except in the McCarthyism segment, the extent of which was McCarthy was bad because he hunted Commies.
It's not taught, and people don't understand anything about the rewards of hard work. Success without risk, achievement without effort–that's the prevailing curriculum at school nowadays. Everybody gets an A, lowest grades are dropped, and everyone letters on the sports team.
as we said, take the footage out of the Clifton Webb stinker, give it the proper British stiff upper lip treatment and you get the VERY accurate 'Night to Remember'…
Cameron's behavior is typical of contemporary Hollywood success stories: Succeeding in what is the most cut-throat, laizzez-faire industry imaginable–where one climbs or descends the ladder on the basis of someone liking or disliking you, leads to two tendencies which reinforce groupthink:
One is the feeling of guilt. He's advanced ahead of others with equal or greater talent who for reasons beyond ability didn't get his break. This creates an ambivalent attitude towards one's own wealth.
The other is the fear of losing it. One succeeds or fails on the basis of being liked or desired
"when does the Marxist label start to apply?" i'm thinking after the 4th or 5th film that label starts to have some validity…
I understand what you mean about it being an economic system, but I don't think I would even dignify it by calling it anything more than what I see it as: a rationale that allows one segment of society to feel morally superior to others, and grants them the moral authority to enslave them.
I'm still not entirely convinced Marx didn't cook this entire scheme up as a way to get free drinks at the German beer halls.
and thus into the fraulein's panties. who among us has not listened to some lib-chick drone on just to get a little action in college?
"If you keep on saying it, maybe it'll come true
"
We'll be sure to keep that in mind when reading your posts.
Charity? That´s not how marxism works. You give it to the state. You "donate" everything you don´t need to the IRS. And believe me, in such a system you don´t need much. Charity requires private property.
You´re not even trying anymore.
Not quite. There were class differences. Almost all the women in 1st class survived but less than half of the women in third class. All 1st and 2nd class children survived but two thirds of children in 3rd class died. On the other hand, a woman in 3rd class had higher chances of survival than any man, crewmember or passenger. But even among men, the 1st class passengers had the highest rate of survival. 57 were saved, 118 died. I took the figures from here: http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
It´s a silly site but I assume the figures are accurately cited.
Of course "A Night to Remember" cannot compete as pure spectacle, but it is an excellent movie. Cameron must have liked it because he copied a few shots (for example the child looking up as the signal rockets explode).
I went to see Avatar on Monday and the technical aspects of the movie impressed me more than I expected them to (I actually liked the 3-D and I thought things looked more photorealistic than I expected them to). A few observations from a political perspective…
The overt references to modern politics (e.g., "shock and awe") felt incredibly forced and out of place. The point where the villain talks about answering terrorism with terrorism occurs in a context where no terrorism had been depicted in the film. That's forcing a message into a movie and making a worse movie because of it.
But I also had a bit of an epiphany about how liberals view the military, corporations, nature, and primitive people.
The military and corporation that Cameron offers in this movie are essentially straw men for him to knock down. They are bad guys with no nobility or humanity that any decent thinking human being would oppose in favor of the aliens. Because of that (and this is true of other Cameron movies, too), we don't see the straw men bad guys in any detail that might humanize them and, for the most part, only one spokesman character for each is allowed to speak: the military leader and the corporate mouthpiece. Everyone else is essentially mannequins and we never get to hear them express an individual opinion about what's going on except for the Michelle Rodriguez, who is quickly established as not really one of them. They aren't real people. This is likely how the left really views the military and corporations but it depicts the childlike naivete of their viewpoint. It's a fairy tale reality.
What that means is that the solution to leftist propaganda about the military and corporations is to offer a more rounded and realistic depiction of those things to the public. And that explains why people tend to become more conservative as they get older. As they experience the real world rather than the fairy tale world of leftist fiction and academia, they realize that the fairy tales that they believed in just aren't true.
Next, to nature and primitive people. The left also has a fairy tale vision there, too, based on fiction and academia.
Nature is brutal and ruthless and there have been massive extinction events in Earth's past that have had nothing to do with humans, caused by things as diverse as meteor strikes, massive volcanic eruptions, and even the rise of the first life that produced oxygen. The Earth, itself, could be (and will be) wiped out and the universe will not shed a tear for its loss. Nature doesn't care, nor do plants and animals. For example, the program Planet Earth showed a fox slaughtering a nest of young geese, only to be driven away by the mother, making the slaughter senseless. Nature senselessly slaughters creatures, including cute baby animals, all of the time through floods, fires, droughts, and so on as well as global events like ice ages. Nature is not your friend.
As for primitive people, just as the military and corporate figures were straw men with no redeeming qualities that might make one care about them, the primitive people are unbelievably perfect and without flaw that might cause one to dislike them. They are the flip-side of the villainous straw men. The reality is that primitive people are often savages that do incredibly brutal things to each other, animals, and the environment around them. American Indians used buffalo runs (driving buffalo herds off of a cliff), burned woodlands on purpose to create meadows, and massacred each other (e.g., Crow Creek) long before Europeans entered the scene. The same is true around the world, where primitive people had their good points and their bad. But here, again, most are essentially mannequins and their perfect and noble leaders speak for them all.
So what the story does is to create a situation where any decent person, taking only what the story has to offer, can't help but oppose the merciless bad guys and cheer the noble good buys, much as one might oppose Darth Vader and his minions and cheer the spunky rebels. As a story, it works like any other fairy tale. As real world political commentary, it fails miserably because the real world doesn't match the fairy tale reality of James Cameron and the left. And what's ironic is that like a good leftist, Cameron imagines his protagonist as a savior that should be in charge and given the authority to save others who will follow him without question. It's a vision that, in the real world, more often ends with a Pol Pot than with salvation.
After pondering the naivete with which Cameron depicted nature, I found myself wondering why Cameron and other leftists can't appreciate the free market perspective on the economy in which the economy works very much like nature. In other words, they can see that a free market economy can be ruthless and unforgiving but overlook that problem in nature, much as they overlook the benefits that a free market economy offers while idealizing such benefits in nature. And, yes, the right often overlooks the ruthlessness of the free market economy much as the left overlooks the ruthlessness of nature.
It was also interesting how this movie also played on the left-wing fantasy of exempting themselves from being a part of the humanity that they want to demonize, in this case providing what is essentially an actual escape from humanity. This perspective on how the left views itself was discussed in Michael Walzer's post-9/11 Dissent Magazine article Can There Be a Decent Left? where he writes:
I haven´t. And now that I think about it, I didn´t get much action either. It all makes sense now.
Snarky wink aside, who are you insinuating is saying what? The only person being quoted appears to be James Cameron himself.
Remember this Cameron jerk at the Oscars the night he won for Titanic? I'm King of the World ! I'm King of the World !
The left are the ones who walk into a room with dog crap on their shoes and then look around complaining that the place stinks.
I think it's probably more likely that Cameron wants to get his movies funded by the fat cats and knows if he doesn't put in the "liberal tell" as Nolte has termed it, he won't get the money. So rather than being a "Marxist", he claims to be. The better term for him would be "sell out".
"(Of course, if he is uncomfortable with having too much dough, he can always donate some of it.)
"
Enough said! If the day ever comes when the useful idiots get a clue and stop and think — "duh, the Kennedys are so concerned by the plight of the poor, why don't they DONTATE all but $5 million of their fortune to be used to elevate x number of poor families out of poverty. Invested properly $5 million should give them a $250,000/year income without touching principle and that would be what President Obama calls "RICH".
But they don't and they won't. "Helping the poor" for the superwealthy politicians just like helping the poor for the Camerons is about helping them with YOUR money, not theirs.
"Unfortunately, a statement like that causes people to retroactively judge his previous films: if Titanic is borderline Marxist, then his other films must be too."
I saw "Titanic" and it wasn't borderline "Marxist" it was just flat borderline.
Exactly. Kruschev, Stalin and the rest of the Politburu didn't participate in the "classlessness" either.
I thought Avatar was very well done movie and basically about property rights and individual liberty of the native Na'vi. The native homestead ("Hometree") sits on the greatest deposit of mineral resources on the planet, yet they have no need for anything that the humans ("skypeople") possess. Obviously, the natives had every right to defend themselves and their property from people wanting what did not belong to them. That is the essence of what we as Americans enjoy today when we defend our own private property from an oppressive gov't through forms of eminent domain which is protected under the 5th Amendment. In this case, the Na'vi did not want to give up their rights to their property no matter what was offered to them (schools, roads, infrastructure, technology).
I believe in reason, liberty, private property, and the belief in unalienable natural rights that come from our creator and the use of self defense to protect those rights from being infringed by external entities. In the case of the movie Avatar, I believe those principles are highlighted very well despite whatever James Cameron's views are on current events of today or in the past.
http://andykatherman.blogspot.com
Here's my "dialogue" with the Left.: "Leave me the @#$% alone–any questions?"
Might work if he were an artist and not a hack.
Au contraire, mon frere! Cameron comes out!
AVATAR: A VIOLENT RIGHT-WING FANTASY
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/avata...
Hey, I'm just putting it out there!
I called Titanic Marxist when I saw it in '99 or whatever year it came out. I don't think it's reading something into a serious examination of the class struggle. The rich are dour old fools while those in steerage are having a grand time. Old Rose gives a sweet little smile when reporting that Cal offed himself. Cameron was so busy taking down the rich that he even gave short shrift to the Strauses, which has always been one of the most beloved stories from the Titanic. When I went home and read the liberal Dallas Observer, which said that Cameron painted the characters with "Marxist fervor," I was not taken aback at all.
That said, I don't go back and find Marxism in Aliens or Terminator/Terminator 2. Those are the only three of Cameron's movies that I like and there is an anti-corporation component in Aliens, but I didn't care about it. I might now in light of Avatar. We'll see. His recent activities have made me less interested in revisiting them.
Wow, how long have you been saving up that line? And, I'll have you know that I was using Marxist as a general epithet before anyone knew who Beck was.
It also dumped the whole Scocailist Theme that had crept into Star Trek and breathed new life into a bloated franchise.
For what it's worth, one of the reviews linked to above mentions how much of his own money Cameron invests in order to get his movies made. Or another way of saying it – if he needs more money, he's been known to take it out of his own "salary" as director. I guess that's just part of the investment he makes, hoping for a return that covers what he's given up. But I don't get the impression he's in the business primiarly to get rich. He just wants to make movies.
I'm not sure how that affects the "Marxist vs. Capitalist" dilemma.
If the author is part of the MSM, then I will also take it with several thousand grains of salt.
I don't trust anything that comes out of them anymore. They have zero credibility with me.
1 Word: Climategate.
Good joke.
It reminds of an issue of MAD magazine decades ago, scourging The Way We Were. Streisand & Redford's attending a costume party where the theme is they're favorite Marx brother, and Streisand dresses as Karl.
Excellent comment, blessedly free of vitriol. Thanks!
Regarding nature and the free market: I think leftists want to control nature just like they want to control the economy (and anything else they feel needs central planning). I think the desire for control is what's behind a lot of the global warming hysteria. We depend absolutely on the natural environment, but we're also at its mercy. It's hard being dependent on something you can't predict or control. Therefore, we make up devices to give us a sense of security. Ancient people prayed to the gods. We measure and compute and legislate. Both behaviors are meant to force nature to do what we want it to do, be how we want it to be. Ultimately, it's about imposing our will on nature. Not leveraging nature, like building a dam or putting up a windmill. Not doing what we want to do despite nature, like boring a tunnel through a mountain. This is controlling nature – making sure nature doesn't do something harmful to us. It's a fantasy, but for some people a comforting one.
a lot of folk in steerage were trapped by the early- and quick- flooding. No English sailor would deny women or children access to safety, that just wasn't done. However, by being on deck, as it were, the 1st class had a huge advantage.
As the numbers show…
I didn't consider Titanic to be Marxist when I saw it. I mean, obviously it's very much about the rich dominating the poor and being cruel and all that, but there were some exceptions, such as Molly Brown, though I suppose one could argue Cameron saw her as a woman who never forgot her class roots. The main problem I had with Titanic was the repeated theme of Jack teaching Rose "how to live," a cliche beaten to death by so many genres I want to throw up when I see it. You can only do so many examples of that in a single movie before it wears thin, and it was already reaching that point by the time Mr. Ocean Liner said hello to Mr. Iceberg. (I shouldn't say that, a lot of people died and that's not nice.) As for the others, I haven't seen Aliens, but I didn't find much political in Terminator either.
Have you seen his Overthinker videos? Snark is the only thing Bob's any good at.
he is, at the end of the day, a simple guy. A limousine liberal and technocrat. Poor writer, but talented knob twister.
And he likes his big paydays just fine, thanks…
Was there a time when he was trying?
Red Dawn should we watched regularly and often.
I haven't seen Avatar, but the long trailer certainly betrayed its anti-American sentiment.
That being said, I still don't believe that Aliens had Marxist overtones. There was one very small, very short part involving the corporate representative who quickly got his comeuppance. It was similar to the lawyer in Jurassic Park who could only see $$$ and was quickly eaten.
It was not an overtone; it was a footnote.
and it also had a hot green chick. cant be star trek without the green chick.
I'm mad at Groucho cause of all the beatings he gave Harpo off camera.
Never saw Titanic – I have a firm rule that I never watch anything with Billy Zane it in – and will never see Avatar because I have a new rule never to see anything connected with James Cameron.
Furthermore, if Mr. Cameron is uncomfortable being around wealth then I will not burden him further and will refrain from giving him any of my wealth.
should have done what I did, accept what sacrifices I had to to get the action, then give said lib-chick the best action she's ever had in her life, then as she slept, spent and content in my arms, whisper conservative truth in her ear. In the morning, set deprogramed chick free to spread her new subliminally learned faith. mwhahahhahahahaahhaa
which, of course did not happen…
'Women and children first!' was the cry of the Captain as men of ALL classes watched as women- and children- of ALL classes boarded the pitiful collection of lifeboats.
'A Night to Remember' is the Titanic film to watch, not Cameron's recreation in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico…
I wasn't implying he was a renaissance man (though I've read and listened to various behind the scenes crew interviews where the general idea is: "If someone doesn't know how to do something on a set, Cameron can do it.").
I understand the technocrat label but my question was, given the fact that he wasn't born with a silver spoon or born into the trade (he was a middle-class suburban kid like me), how, why, and when does the Marxist label start to apply?
(Of course, if he is uncomfortable with having too much dough, he can always donate some of it.)
That's cute, but just compare the right wing reaction to Avatar to the left wing reaction to 300.
As an "Artist", he can always fall back on the lame "starting a dialogue", "get people thinking" or the worst, "raising awareness".
That seems to be the all purpose cop out for people from Al Gore to Sheryl Crow.
ha ha. and over half of liberals think Lenin's "Imagine" is a great song.
troll.
Did we not see Cameron recently verbally abuse an autograph seeker? The man claimed to be a $15/hour worker. If Cameron had not only signed the bloke's poster but also had offered to let him ride in the limo then I might have been pursuaded to rethink his self-righteous attitudes. How does Cameron rationalize being a marx-lover with 24/7 limo service and billions in the bank? The $15-dollar-an-hour-man was verbally spat upon by Cameron; who is an elitist at best or a hypocrictical commie at worst. Cameron reminds me of the Vegas dancer who claimed: 'I do a Mambo with the left leg and a Tango with the right and between the two I make a good living'.
Everyone who has ever waited tables understands communism/socialism via the tip jar. Everyone gets the same reward whether s/he is a good waitperson or not, whether s/he works or not. Sooner or later, if everyone stops working, the tip jar contains zero and nobody gets paid. Then it becomes every man for himself — just like what happened in the USSR when the tip jar became empty.
What America is heading for is different. It's like the golf game where Charley died on the first hole and for the other 17 holes, the other three had to "hit the ball and drag Charlie". Since the sixties, we have been hitting the ball and dragging Charlie. But what if three of the foursome kick off on the first hole. The one lone golfer will be unable to hit the ball and drag the other three.
Everyday life can be seen as a microcosm of the world at large, the world at large a macrocosm of every day life.
BRAVO – needs to be repeated loud and clear Nathan – too many leftists and popularity lemmings are unwilling to go through the same mental accounting of their lives – sad thing is, they'd be so much happier if they did!
If you read the entire paragraph, the author of the interview says Cameron was joking when he made that statement. Take it for what it's worth…
While Avatar was cliqhe and poltically correct I don't see anything in his movies as Marxist. The movie certainly decrises uprooting indiginous people from there homes but this is a very different thing then advocating wealth redistribution. Regardless of whatever personal beliefs Cameron may hold Ive yet to encounter anything blatently marxist in his movies.
The enemy was actually working class stiffs who got screwed by the big shot scientist (Spock) who promised salvation. They got their but kicks only when a tough talking farmer boy (Kirk) told the science type (Spock) where to stick his elitism. I don't exactly like this incarnation of Star Trek because there was serious plot holes. However, there is definitely a few conservatives twists for those paying attention.
"Sheep? Are you serious? Let's see here, the typical lib dross verbiage goes something like this~ad hominem,ad hominem, ad hominem, don't address a valid point or issue, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Here's 1 for you, just to let the marks(sparks?) fly, go back to HuffHo or Kos and form a line so that you and your cohorts can pat eachother on the rear ends in assembly line fashion. Just sayin'…."
Yes, you’re sheep if you base your decision on whether or not to see a film on reviews that don’t even get the basic points of the movie correct. As an example, the military in AVATAR are NOT the U.S. Marines as one Big Hollywood reviewer wrote. As another sheep example, I find it interesting that this site will rate “blow me” as a +3 comment, but a four-paragraph review, noting positive and negative aspects of the film, receives a –3 rating. Next time, I’ll remember to go with “blow me” to impress the sheeple.
The only comment even approaching a “valid point” was the comparison of “Triumph of the Will” to AVATAR, and I already responded to that. I guess since my response wasn’t “blow me” – and nobody got it – I’ll give it another shot. Now, “Triumph of the Will” was a fictionalized presentation of a real world government and an apologetic for Nazi geopolitical aims. Propaganda to promote Hitler and Nazism does not equate with a fictionalized future extraterrestrial conflict in which the very nature of the protagonists has no real world equivalent. Until any of the indigenous sapient species on Earth can literally and physically “plug in” to their environment, their past ancestors, and their god, the moral choices made by the characters in AVATAR have no real world equivalent. On the most basic level, “Triumph of the Will” was not a cinematic EVENT movie because it did nothing to advance the very nature by which movies can be crafted (AVATAR’s CGI motion capture system is the first time the nuances of an actor’s performance can be translated to a computer generated image) and “Triumph of the Will” was not an EVENT movie (except for maybe Nazi party big wigs) because it was not a recreational, escapist cinematic experience.
As far a the comment, “Leni was also worried about the native Germanic peoples being invaded by commercially exploitive foreigners so I'm sure you'll love it,” he/she must not have read what I wrote. I said, “It's a Science Fiction movie. The Na'Vi being spiritually and physically connected to their planet and environment isn't a real thing. In order to enjoy it, you'll have to do away with reality and religious beliefs.” I specifically stated, “you’ll have to do away with reality and religious beliefs” in describing the FICTIONAL setting of the AVATAR story. If you accept the idea that the Na’Vi can spiritually and physically connect with their environment, their ancestors, and their god, and you then believe committing genocide against them is a morally defensible act, that’s not a liberal or conservative viewpoint, it’s monstrous and reprehensible. “Triumph of the Will” is the antithesis of AVATAR in the sense that it promoted a (real life) system that saw genocide as an appropriate social and economic tool, just as the RDA mercenary army and corporate leadership did. Suspension of belief (the Na’Vi can spiritually and physically connect with their world and god) in AVATAR is NOT the same as suspension of belief (that Germanic peoples were threatened enough to justify genocide). AVATAR has not happened and most likely cannot happen. It’s PRETEND. “Triumph of the Will” was a glossy reflection of a real life engine of destruction that cost humanity about 60 million souls. Agreeing with the poster’s viewpoint that a person who enjoyed AVATAR would also enjoy “Triumph of the Will” requires either mean-spirited intent or sheep-like, unthinking, tagging along mentality.
And if you don’t agree, blow me!
[...] Read the Full Article @Big Hollywood avatar, Celebrity, Celebrity News, environment, Film, Film News, Hollywood, Hot Gossip, james cameron, Marxism, McDonalds, News, Politics, TinseltownNo Comments » [...]
Reply part one: Please feel free to disgree with me on any point I make but why do you stray into territory best described as trolling for Cameron. I didn't suggest only he uses a limo so what's your point about Eastwood & Stallone? The point re limo and his billions of dollars was meant to infer that he blew an opportunity to take the high road.
If the autograph seeker was a poser, as you claim, then why wouldn't Cameron notice the camera as a set-up and simply given his autograph with a smile? That would have defeated the set-up and created positive PR for himself. Instead he chose to repeatedly accuse the guy of being an a**hole on camera.
Cameron claims that "great wealth makes me uncomfortable". Why? His power allows him to create jobs for hundreds of people. He should be proud of what he has accomplished and not ashamed by it.
Reply part two: Leftists love to bemoan capitalism and yet are the first in line when it comes to disrespecting the little guy who are the actual workers of the world they claim to want to unite.
I'm glad you are a Cameron fan. Now why don't you suggest to him that he take time out from being 'King of the World' to give millions to worthwhile charities so he can feel better about himself; and we can all await 'True Lies ll'.
@ Nathan — very well said.
@ ScottDS — that academia environment ("rarified" when taken to the 'average' but especially the advanced among academia circles), that labor environment … that very often does produce the anti-capitalist beliefs that "organized" "rarified" people find appealing, such as unions, communists, and unfortunately, all that Leftwing in Hollywood and entertainment in general.
Note Obama's demands for luxurious circumstances. At "the people's" expense.
Here's my radical impression of AVATAR: it is the 3-D, ultimate zombie film.
You no longer want to exist on your own merits? Bite someone, get a host for your rage and to act out your needs. Because it is the "evil living" trying to prevent the bites (translated in AVATAR as the military) that are to blame. So launch the zombies at them.
Unfortunately, many people never outgrow their first few years of college. Or even attend college.
If I remember correctly they didn´t expect to find anyone alive, just to inspect the wreck. But you´re right. First, a Navy SEAL who is twitchy, claustrophobic and dangerously paranoid? And his buddies don´t even notice he´s cracking? I have a hard time buying that (unless they are giving him so much leeway because he is a muslim like the Fort Hood shooter)
And the Mastrantonio character was even introduced as the "queen bitch of the universe". Talk about stacking the deck. Then she is basically forced to repent publicly and beg her husband´s forgiveness. I think Cameron had been going through his divorce… vindictive guy, eh?
They wouldn´t deny it, I´m sure. Just wasn´t done. But I thought the ship didn´t flood very quick and the 3rd class passengers were simply not informed at first while the first class passengers were already getting in the boats.
Add Martha Stewart to the list of the ultra-rich who want to destroy capitalism. Martha crossed the bridge of free enterprise to make millions, now she wants to burn the bridge. Martha wants her common viewer to have no chance of getting rich like she did.
I admit I hated Titanic, but I don't recall Marxism being a theme of the film. Perhaps I was too engrossed in my dislike of the main characters?
I thought that Marxism/Communism was something that you outgrew in your first few years of college. I thought that was the point of education, to dismiss ridiculous political/economic theories.
The $15/hour guy you write about is not some poor slob who happen to get told off by Cameron. That guy was a professional autograph hound – who just happen to have a guy filming him – and it ends up on TMZ and hour later? Set up anyone?
Cameron is NOT known to be an ass to the public – to his actors yes, but the public? No. Lots of celebs (including Conservative ones) say "no" to signing autographs and some get VERY nasty about it. Some celebs are asses and are very nice in signing for people – regardless of their political affiliation. I've been told yelled at by Liberal and Conservative leaning celebs during my 8 years of autograph collecting. And EVERY celeb has limo service when traveling. You don't see Clint Eastwood or Stallone riding the subway when they're in NYC promoting or shooting a film.
All this Avatar/marxist parallels I just didn't see. I saw Cameron's typical disdain for the military & big corporations. Nothing new in Hollywood. His military guys are always exaggerated stereotypes – nothing new in Hoillywood.
I also didn't see the overly pro-eco theme in Avatar either. What I saw was a primitive people with a strong religious belief in nature – similar to Native Americans. If anything, Avatar is actually, in many ways, a pro-religious, pro-freedom from oppression film. Yes, it uses the military & big corporation as the insensitive, anti-religion straw man – again nothing new in Hollywood or Cameron's films – but its certainly not atheist in its central theme. What I saw – is Cameron telling his usual story of little guy vs. big guy -used in "Aliens" & "The Abyss" quite effectively. Why do think he put the hero of Avatar in a wheelchair? "Titanic" was not Marxist at all (nor did it suck), it was actually just accurate of the period – there were class systems aboard ocean liners in 1912. To have portrayed it any other way would have been a manipulation of the facts.
How come nobody talks about "True Lies" which cast govt. agencies as heroic trying to stop terrorists and put the military in a good light? Or "Terminator 2" which tells the story of a Mother's undying devotion to her son. Certainly not typical Liberal Hollywood.
Hollywood Hypocrites: Pretending to care, one empty gesture at a time.
it sunk in under two hours…
Which unfortunately involves keeping her legs crossed…
More Neo-Marxists Posers in Hollywood playing dress up. Yawn.
It is spelled EPITHET, dear boy, and after 100M plus dead, it is very right that it should be such.
You must be logged in to post a comment.