‘Avatar’ and Boycotts: When the Left Does and Doesn’t Champion Free Speech
by Frank DeMartiniOver the last weekend, I had the privilege of seeing “Avatar.” This is a film of epic proportions and although I had some problems with it cinematically, from a technological standpoint, I recommend that everyone should see it. However, do not go and see it if you are expecting a live action film or good acting. It is a combination of live action and animation and it should be viewed as such. Just expect the equivalent of a technologically advanced, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” I was disappointed because I was expecting a fully integrated live action film.
However, there is one thing about the movie that really upsets me. It is blatant anti-military and less blatant anti-American. Without giving away too much of the plot, the bad guys in the movie are the United States Marines. Apparently, in the future, the world has become one big country that seems to be controlled by the United States. The United States Marines are sent to the planet of Pandora to destroy the opposition to the New World Order’s acquisition of its substitute for oil which just happens to be located on Pandora.
There are scientists assigned by the New World Order to Pandora to negotiate a peaceful solution, but they are overruled by the military and the business interests at every turn. Eventually, the military solution is the final solution. The military then attacks with pure hatred and determination the locals on the planet. They do not care for the sanctity of the alien life, whether it be women or children. And, they attack with sophisticated weapons against the bows and arrows of the natives.
The glee with which the American Marines participate in this massacre is appalling and does not show the true feelings and concerns of the real United States Military. James Cameron should apologize to the American Military and should make a statement that he does not truly feel this way about them. He should also apologize to the American public for painting our young men and women that defend this country as cold-blooded killers.
However, I am sure the Mr. Cameron will not do this as the movie is obviously a political comment on Iraq and Afghanistan.
On another issue, all of my regular readers know that I am a firm believer in Free Speech. I believe that this aspect of the Bill of Rights is absolute. Neither the left nor the right should have any say in limiting it. I agree with the United States Supreme Court on the few limitations on Free Speech they have declared as there is an obvious reason for those few and rare limitations.
In the past few years, many department stores such as Target have decided that the use of the word Christmas should not be permitted in their stores. The new corporate policy is that it is the holiday season and these are holiday sales. My brother wrote an article a few weeks ago dealing with this very issue. I agree with my brother’s concerns.
However, it has just come to my attention that Starwood’s Hotels has now adopted the same policy. I have been informed that all of their employees have been told that they are not permitted to say Merry Christmas or to type Merry Christmas in e-mails. To me this is a clear violation of both Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. If a person wants to wish another person a Merry Christmas, they should be able to do so freely.
I have many Jewish friends. I wish them Happy Hanukkah and many of them wish me a Merry Christmas. This is one of the Freedoms that are allowed in this country. If someone chooses to say “Happy Holidays,” that is also their own personal choice. But, when a company I am working for tells me that I cannot say Merry Christmas, this is going too far.
Accordingly, I am asking that all people should begin a boycott of Starwood Hotels. Everyone that reads this column should pass this on through their e-mail lists, their Facebook account, their My Space account and their Twitter accounts. The American public was able to force Target and other department stores into changing their policy back to the way it used to be. Let’s see if we can get Starwood to change its policy as well.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
666 Comments
So then boycott his 500 million dollar film and make him feel the pain.
….. I certainly do not get your "recommend you see it" ….when I already sensed this from the commercials for the movie!
A company choosing to market "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is a business decision. Apparently a good once since the trend is growing. Don't take it so personal. I think it would make more sense to take it personal when commercialism masquerades as something holy.
No way will I give Cameron a penny in tribute, not now, not tomorrow, not in ten years. He can blow every million in investor money he can garner, make the most impressive special effects in the universe, I won't help him repay a penny of it. We owe him nothing. We owe our military the respect to support their real-life effects.
Why in the name of all that is good and decent would I pay good money to see a film that makes the United States Marines the bad guys? Tell me you are kidding me!!
This isn't the first time Cameron has done this.
In Aliens (1986) the "Colonial Marines" were the muscle for the evil corporation known only as "The Company," who wanted to exploit the alien species for thier own evil purposes.
Maybe you missed it, Frank, but the movie makes it clear in the first 15 minutes that soldiers you see are paid mercenaries, *former* Marines. They're a private army paid for by the RDA (evil corporate bad guys). So really they're supposed to be like Blackwater instead of the USMC. I think Cameron did that so he could make the same kind of anti-military/anti-capitalism/anti-America statement w/o the HUGE backlash that would've occured had the bad guys really been under the banner of the USMC or some other American service branch.
One doesn't have to take something personally to disapprove or take action. For decades, the Left have used boycotts to promote their political ideology. Fine with me. If they don't want to drink Orange Juice because Rush Limbaugh promotes it, drink tea or water or whatever. If there are enough of them or they are loud enough (it was one of the two; I suspect the latter), they'll force the OJ growers to remove Limbaugh from their advertising campaign (and did). What's ironic is when the Right does the same thing, the people on the Left either claim "boycotts aren't effective" or "boycotts suppress free speech". Just another way for the Left to impose their will on the rest of us without any danger of our fighting back. I don't shop at Target and I won't stay at Starwood Hotels. I also won't see "Avatar" or "The Blind Side" (because it took a gratuitous shot at George Bush) . If there are enough of those who agree with me, sooner or later these businesses will feel the pinch. If there aren't enough who agree with me, they won't. Either way, no skin off my back.
"You see, this is exactly my point. In spite of anti-American/military/people of this movie and so many like it, you have conservatives recommending conservatives to go see it".
You nailed it. Conservatives are wusses. Dedicated Leftists will walk over hot coals for their ideology.
One easy way to tell a Republican from a Democrat is Growltiger's Rule
A Democrat will ALWAYS put party first, ambition second and screw the country.
A Republican will ALWAYS put ambition first, country second, and screw the party.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course. Nixon put the country first TWICE and Clinton put ambition before party (The Monica broughaha – but look how the Democrats, even Al Gore, an idiot but apparently a faithful and loving husband) put PARTY first and stood behind Clinton, and it might have cost him the y2K election.
I'm with you, Bolts. Let the fat cats foot the bill for these anti-American films, and if they can get enough useful idiots to cough up the price of a ticket, then that's fine with me. I at least want to know MY money isn't helping destroy my country.
Their policy should be more like: "if you're not sure then with Happy Holidays". If you're sure, then go with "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah". Making it a strict policy seems dogmatic and clerks should be trusted with making the on-the-spot decision.
But their policy is not a "freedom of speech" issue. It's their company. They can make any policy they feel will keep their guests happy.
I'd rather boycott Target for funding the Zinn Education Project than for their greeting policy. And I am.
As a former Marine I would never watch this form of propaganda. The United States military needs to be honored not shown to be brutal monsters. We are going through a historical period and we must support those who are willing to put themselves in harms way to protect our way of life.
When all of this antiwar drivel has run its course, the young men and women currently protecting our nation will be considered the next great generation for conserving our way of life. The pacifist and antiwar goons feel they must degrade support for our military to win their political battles. I consider Mr. Cameron to be a mentally ill Hollywood elitist.
I see very few parallels between Iraq/Afghanistan and the fictional assault on the Na'vi. The movie takes issue with corporate greed and exploitation of the environment and indigenous peoples. I don't see the USA exploiting indigenous peoples or the environment in Afghanistan/Iraq. Well, if you consider spending trillions of your own money in an attempt to build up those countries "exploiting". What happens to the Na'vi in the movie would likely compare to the USA dropping a nuclear weapon on Baghdad or Kabul. That simply doesn't happen.
One could make a fair comparison to what Europeans did to the natives in North/South America before colonizing those continents.
"However, I am sure the Mr. Cameron will not do this as the movie is obviously a political comment on Iraq and Afghanistan."
And in other news Rachel Uchitel claims she's not "a hooker."
I agree, GT. I refuse to buy anything GE. The store brand light bulbs work just as well. I know that I certainly won't put GE out of business, but I sleep better at night knowing I haven't contributed to GE's anti-American BS.
Folks, I am not sure how you inferred they were US Marines. Does the fact they talk like americans make it so? They didn't wear US Flags nor call themselves Marines. Mr Cameron demonstrated mediocre imagination in his script (the religious practices of the Navi is repackaged new ageism and Native American religion and the mineral un-obtainium had a dorky name). So for him to conceive of getting the soldiers to sound non-american is certainly beyond his ability. In line with his lack of imagination, it is likely he portrayed them using the only model he had which is the "Progressive's" standard list of grievances against our armed forces. If there was some other clear sign (American flag on their sleeves?) these soldiers were Americans – enlighten me. My greatest problem was the environmentalism and the nativism (i.e. these people were superior because they were technologically primitive); but as I consider it, the portayal of soldiers was crudely offensive too (I retired after a full career in the USAF). HInt: don't sit in the second row of a 3D movie, it doesn't work so well.PS: I fully agree with "Former Marine's" sentiment regarding our "next great generation".
"the bad guys in the movie are the United States Marines."
No. The bad guys are a giant corporation, which is bigger than the US, both economically and in military power. There are no US Marines in the film, only hired mercenaries, some of them ex-Marines.
"Apparently, in the future, the world has become one big country that seems to be controlled by the United States."
You wish, but the film doesn't mention that at all. The corporation may be originally American, but it's not controlled by the US. Probably the opposite, with it's majority shareholders (not chosen by US voters) probably controlling the world.
"The United States Marines are sent to the planet of Pandora to destroy the opposition to the New World Order’s acquisition of its substitute for oil which just happens to be located on Pandora."
See above regarding Marines, all else correct.
Maybe you should see the film again, this time only with the 3D glasses.
I would comment further on my views of the movie, but I'd probably loose your target audience.
Maybe businesses say "Happy Holidays" to just kind of cover all of them?
A good employee policy would be to have the hotel employee return "Merry Christmas" or "Blessed Solstice" or whatever with the same. After all, the business is there to make the guest happy. If they want to have a "Happy Hanukkah" then yay for them.
As far as Cameron goes, a douche is a douche is a douche. Even if the douche can make great special effects movies. Whatever.
Avatar sounds stupid and the things look ridiculous. I'm sure it's mind-blowing but who really cares? So was Titanic and that's 11 hours or so of my life I will never get back. No thanks. The McDonalds tie-in is the most stupid thing I have ever seen in my life. Eat your Big Mac and be transformed into the wonderful world of the SmurfCats.
Ick. I am just so over all of it.
the bad guys in the movie are the United States Marines. Apparently, in the future, the world has become one big country that seems to be controlled by the United States.
No, they're not. The security people in the RDA camp are hired security drawn from various military services; the good guy and bad guy are both ex-Marines. That's stated flatly in so many words in the first few minutes of the movie. It's not as obvious in the movie, but the RDA itself, which runs the starships and the mines, is an NGO started by two entrepreneurs in the early 21st century (Google?).
James Cameron should apologize to the American Military and should make a statement that he does not truly feel this way about them. He should also apologize to the American public for painting our young men and women that defend this country as cold-blooded killers.
Well, your mistake, since he makes it quite explicit it's not the US military. Maybe you owe Cameron and the Big Hollywood readers an apology for being inattentive and not doing your homework.
The military then attacks with pure hatred and determination the locals on the planet. They do not care for the sanctity of the alien life, whether it be women or children. And, they attack with sophisticated weapons against the bows and arrows of the natives.
Look, I'm very pro-military, especially the US military. That said, however, I'm also a member of the Choctaw Nation and have Cherokee ancestors as well. Go look up the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre and tell me that Americans would never, never ever, do that.
I never saw any American flag insignia on any uniforms, nor mention of ruling country. All the soldiers are "hired guns" paid by the corporation, they are ex-service members.
On the contrary I was quite proud of this devil dogs "flip". I come from a long line of Jarheads, myself enlisting in U.S Army SpecOps and becoming the black sheep of the family. He posses the motivation of a Marine after being winged and finally knows oppression when he sees it. If he was a member of the USMC then he does exactly what any Marine would do upon seeing this affront to humanity, he cowboys up and kicks ass, laying it all on the line.
We Snake Eaters aren't the only ones that practice "De Oppresso Liber".
Sure the story line wasn't all that strong but it was about the technology mainly and how Cameron just raised the bar in the sci-fi arena. Reminds me of when I was thirteen, seeing a film in 1977 that changed the biz as well, if only I could remember that movie…
Ditto for the marines… but I happened to stumble on a video of Cameron acting like a horses ass to a guy asking for an autograph. That nailed the coffin… the guy doesn't get a dime from me.
So they are hired mercenaries. That means f*ck all. They are Americans. Where else do they come from?
Audiences around the world will think "Iraq" and "Vietnam" and that´s that. If Cameron was worried about the reaction, he would have made other choices. He could have made the bad guys representatives of a corporatist world government/transnational bureaucracy and the Americans accidental participants. That would have been far closer to our reality of today, but it would have flown in the face of the 1970s hippie philosophy that spawned this movie.
Also, you can't miss his message in THEBIGBOAT movie: rich capitalists-evil innocent poor-saints
Probably, probably – you can speculate about the ownership of this fictional corporation, but that is not what a kid in Japan, Turkey, Germany or Brazil will see. That kid will see Americans killing Indians. Does it ever occur to you that Cameron could have made the evil Colonel a FOREIGNER, say, a Russian? But no, he probably felt it was unfair to them (why?) and they don´t take kindly to being insulted.
I fail to understand why more people don't realize what Hollywood is doing. They are producing propaganda film after propaganda film and people, conservatives and liberals both, are eating it up. My former pastor on his facebook today posted in a positive manner that he and his wife are on their way to see "Avatar", complete with comments on his posts praising the film. (he is, in fact, former Navy)
Will he see it for what it is? I doubt it.
Look at it this way, those who only have access to broadcast television are usually the lower income people. Those people are then forced to get their news from the 3 major broadcast networks and Public TV. How could they NOT then vote liberal? If they would only realize the liberal agenda is NOT to lift up the lower class, it's to BRING DOWN the middle and upper class.
Tne store brand light bulbs are probably made in the same factories, but at least they earn less off them…
Not exactly. I think the Marines were sent on a legitimate rescue mission but the Company had its own agenda which they knew nothing about. Burke came along ostensibly to act as an expert on the colony's facilities and to "represent the Company's interests." His real mission was to bring back an Alien. He tried to get Ripley and Newt impregnated for that purpose. He also would have sacrificed the entire Marine contingent to further his ends. So in this case, the Marines were used by the Company as unwitting (and ultimately unwilling) tools – victims of the greedy capitalists.
This worked, more or less, in an action/adventure film from the 1980s. Since then, it's become a major science fiction cliche. Anyone using it today is guilty of paint-by-numbers filmmaking.
OK, I'm writing my movie script. Who's going to be my antagonist? Evil Corporation? Paranoid Government? Ruthless Military? Aliens Who Look Just Like Humans? Snidely Whiplash? Oh, it don't matter – I'm writing a sci-fi action/adventure flick, not War and Peace…
it's possible you might have missed Cameron's true political message:
AVATAR: A VIOLENT RIGHT-WING FANTASY
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/avata...
Who knew?
I'm not giving Cameron the benefit of the doubt. In the past, he has made other films with veiled references to evil big bad business, and a generic military being enthusiastic but unwitting tools for them. You can make excuses for his views, I won't, and I won't see the movie. I heard that Sherlock Holmes edged it out this weekend. Good for that, I say.
At one point in The Godfather (the book, not the film), on being told that "It's not personal – it's business", Michael Corleone replies, "Don't kid yourself. It's all personal. Every bit of crap that a man has to eat in his life – it's personal."
Any of you run into "Mr." Cameron, tell him for me, I've gone on a diet …
I'm not a big fan of McDonalds either, so this is another reason to go to other fast food chains when on rare occasions I need my greasy fast food fix.
Were the words "United States" mentioned ANYWHERE in the film?
Hasn't James Cameron admitted this is a 'message film'? And hasn't he admitted he's commenting on Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't see why that's even still being debated. And it's absurd to even try to defend it as not being anti-American. As others have pointed out, the thing opened internationally the same time it opened here. Foreign audiences see "evil Americans", no doubt about it.
The movie's not doing as well as one would expect for a technologically ground-breaking action epic, but I don't think it's all because of a political boycott (although that certainly accounts for some audience back-turning). I think it's the previews and stills that are turning people off. I can't stand the look of it. Those blue things … I just hate how they look. The previews look like a thousand movies that came before and the movie is about blue people. It's not as easy a sell as Hollywood might have thought, and going out to the movies is a very expensive proposition. Foreign audiences are digging the anti-American slant, but the Chipmunks are in a tie and Sherlock beat it this week. Embarrassing, to say the least. No wonder Cameron is cursing out fans who ask for autographs.
The McDonald's tie-in is beyond hypocritical. I have been told time and again not to buy McDonald's food because they supposedly destroy rainforest acreage in the chain of events that gets a burger from a steer's butt to your to-go bag. So … um … James? What say you?
Ditto!!
Whether it's rooted in truth or not, the narrative rules.
So is this a movie for idiots who don't read history books – who know so little about their own country's history that they really need Hollywood to inform them that it wasn't all a heroic adventure conducted for the benefit of white people?
I find I'm constantly being reminded by Hollywood of things that I already know and of moral and political messages that I "got" a long, long time ago. Maybe it's my age – to me, everything feels like a fucking cliche.
With an "e" on the end.
like the difference between saying I like you and I love you, sounds similar but dont mean the same thing.
For what it's worth, I don't care how people greet me at Christmas.
I will not take the recommendation to see this film. As of late I haven't seen a single offering worth seeing.
I think the real problem with Cameron and his generation is how these people view the world. They are all hoping for a another Vietnam so they can relive the good times(whatever that means). Thus the point of view that anything corporate and military are bad. I think back to Aliens, WY was a bad corp. because they wanted to exploit the Alien and the military was that foil. Same with Terminator/T2 a very similar theme(not exact of course, no need to go into detail, most of us know the story). Oddly enough even Titanic took the bad corp. idea, showing the corporate officer pushing the ship to make a schedule. Another one was the Abyss showing the military as a potentially unstable element(just a few individuals), and willing to destroy anything they don't understand. This idea of these things constantly being depicted as bad for me is getting old. I've seen it most of my life, and I'm bored. Why do I want to see another Cameron film when these same old themes keep coming up. He could do us all a favor and retire, or find a new theme.
Come on Jim, you have been doing this same thing for almost 30 years. I would like to see something that really is new and different. Not the same old same old with a bigger budget.
Totally agree. When someone wishes me Happy Holidays I shoot back Merry Christmas. Most of the time they respond with a Merry Christmas. Screw the thought police. I tweak them as often as I can LOL
If you don't see the forest for the trees, then by all means waste your money on this movie. I choose not to buy into Cameron's hippy-dippy socialist-leaning philosophy, and won't waste any of my money on this piece of crap. I can go out, buy some ammo with it and hit the firing range to do something I like to do. Most of the movie's supporters on this thread sound like they'd see it because they like to go to movies, turn their brains off and be entertained. I suppose that's not a bad practice, but for me to go, the idea behind the movie would be something with which I would philosophically agree. With everything I've read about this smurf movie (pro & con), I'll pass.
Oh gosh chas, wtf has the Indian history got to do w/avatar/cameron anyway? Go look up any of Alan Eckart's EXCELLENT books on the history of this country before we were a nation. The Indians were massacaring and eating eachother for a verrrry long time before we got here.They were the original "gangbangers", for crying out loud!If you were an Indian and got caught in another tribes "hood", you'd better pray(or hope, I guess) for ONLY torture followed by a life of slavery.
That being said, I personally would NEVER approve of the atrocities that were committed against the Indians(mostly in retaliation,btw), especially against women and children.I'm sooo sick of all the harping by Indian people about atrocities. They enjoy sovereign status inside of our nation!! What have they done with it?? Nothin', that's what.BTW, big qualifier here, my maternal great-grandfather was a full blooded Cherokee Indian. I don't have a vendetta against Indians, only revisionist history. 2 sides to every story, right?Just sayin"….
Also, the writer of this article completely makes up the idea that Earth as depicted in Avatar is united into a single 'new world order' state. Two characters specifically talk about fighting in wars in Nigeria and Venezuela, so those countries still exist. If the USA itself no longer exists, the Marines and their logo certainly do (Sully is seen wearing a shirt with the Marines insignia on it). The political message is clear enough, and I'm sure its offensive to readers of this site that you really don't have to make up details like that to prove your point. What could be the most popular movie of all time (and time will tell soon enough) is brazenly anti-corporatist and anti-imperialist. What I find most amazing is that anyone can say this is insulting to Marines when the hero of the film is an ex-Marine himself. It's those who advocate unending warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan but choose to fight it with a privatized military, while never suggesting war bonds or higher taxes or most importantly, a draft, that are doing damage to Marines and others in our armed foreces.
As the son of another former marine I thank you for your service it has allowed me to live the life of a slacker. but as a slacker I never denegrated the brave souls who afforded me that freedom. Let us turn our backs on those who belittle our service men and women and kickdust in their ungrateful faces
The movie just looks stupid to me? Am I alone? Why not just watch the old cartoon the Smurfs? I think I will just throw in an old Bogart or Cagney movie.
That's right, el gordo. If they are identified as Americans, what's the difference? Why couldn't they have been Russians, or muslims? The over riding implication is there, for all to see, well…maybe not all.
Seriously? Who knew? Guess not you.Just sayin'….
Wha?
HAH!!!
I dunno…only two weeks out and it's made close to $500 millions worldwide. That's not even counting what they got for the McDonald's tie ins, etc. It may never do "Titanic" numbers, but it'll be in the black before it ends its theatrical run.
The Avatar movie is a powerful example of indirect propaganda. I do not see it as a direct assault on the military only sliming by inference and correlation. For propaganda to be successful it must not directly assault trusted institutions such as the American military. It consists of a soft bigotry designed to slowly change the thinking of the viewing population. Direct attack propaganda occurs when the philosophy thinks it has turned enough of the populace to begin a direct assault on a targeted institution or philosophy. A good example of a maturing propaganda tactic was that of the global warming movement. At first the individuals who challenged the science were skeptics. When the propaganda began to gain traction the skeptics became deniers, a direct inference correlating the deniers to those who denied the holocaust occurred. We now know the global warming (climate change) science is not as solid as the movement maintained. Therefore being skeptical of propaganda is healthy.
CONT'D
IT'S IN THE PAST. It's over and done with. That's what the biggest complaint is about these things. The majority of people in this country know the history, or at least the basics of it. Why do we need to be beaten over the head with it OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Does that work in personal relationships when people just keep bringing up the wrongs you did in the past over and over again? Probably not.
"Oddly enough even Titanic took the bad corp. idea, showing the corporate officer pushing the ship to make a schedule."
Except I believe that was actually TRUE since the movie was based on true events.
Not US Marines? Take another look at those uniforms. Although the film takes place 150 years in the future, they wear the exact uniforms of Marines in Iraq today. Same color, same cut, same everything, including the fold at mid-arm that reveals the lighter shade inside the material. (The Marines do this to look different from the Army.) The rank insignia looks like something borrowed from one of the NATO countries. By the way, anyone wonder what Marines wore 150 years ago? Google John Brown Harper's Ferry 1859.
And that will work better against the tide than anything else…
Just refuse to participate in the Gagging of the American People…
It's 'business' decision more and more companies are REVERSING.
Wake up. Many good firms have readopted 'Merry Christmas'.
Secular humanism is garbage.
i went to see it as a conservative because i am an animation loving kind of guy but, i wished i had just pirated it off a torrent site and i feel bad now. i don't ever support blatantly leftist things normally. i'll pay penance somehow. promise.
[...] that, despite Avatar’s being a Fox release, they’re going on the attack. Clearly Frank DiMartini over at Big Hollywood hasn’t seen Cameron’s Aliens, where the military is also ready to put human life in [...]
True, the Marines were there for a rescue op, and they turned on Burke when they found out what he was up to.
I stand corrected.
great analysis. thank you for your service
[...] more: ‘Avatar’ and Boycotts: When the Left Does and Doesn’t Champion Free Speech This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
While I agree that forbidding employees to wish others "Merry Christmas" is ridiculous, I think your response misses the point.
As much as a despise the hotel's anti-Christmas policy, I do think that corporations should be allowed to put some restrictions on employee speech. When you are working for a corporation you are not acting as an individual, you are being paid to represent that company to the public. If a clerk at the hotel started cussing loudly at the customers, that should be a reason to fire him based on speech. Or, suppose the hotel clerk were to smile at each customer and say, "Have a nice day. Vote for Obama!". That would also be reason for firing the employee based on speech. You are not paying the employee to swear or push a political view, so its reasonable to stop employing him if he insists on doing so.
Making this a free speech issue misses the point. The battle we are fighting is not really about free speech, its about the larger issue of political correctness and an anti-religious attitude that is spreading in our culture. If you want to boycott the hotel by all means do so. Forbidding people to say "Merry Christmas" is ridiculous and as customers we should let the management know we disapprove of the policy. But the hotel's policy is just a symptom of a larger problem, the PC attack on all things Christian and conservative. Putting the focus on the free speech rights of employees misses the bigger picture.
Free speech means that private corporations are free to order their employees to desist from saying "Merry Christmas". Particularly as you insist you consider the 1st Amendment "absolute", this should be the sacrosanct right of these businesses and hotels.
However, it is equally your right to speak loudly the words "boycott", vocally and in written communication and media, in some cases to picket and speak directly to their customers.
Organizing a powerful free speech offensive of this kind is the best way to convince corporations to serve the broadest possible customer base, and in a free society should prevail.
Not going to see it. Not interested. Cameron is repulsive. I'm confident that I'm not missing something grand, inspiring, intelligent, witty, humorous, thought provoking, or even entertaining.
Not to defend Cameron, who I agree went way too far (and in completely the wrong direction). But I think the plot idea was that the United States Marines had been deemed for sale to private corporations, in this case "MNU" (multinational something or other) and had effectively become mercenaries, kind of a reverse Blackwater phenomenon. Probably as the result of decades of big government policies driving the U.S. ever further toward bankruptcy and corruption. Democrats aren't advocates of nature, they are all about control, and this is their future.
I, my spouse, and 3 kids will NEVER go see this freak show.
I looked up the trail of tears and learned the only indians that were moved off the east coast were those that did not own real estate.
Also the move was done for the specific reason of moving the indians off the land and further to the west. It was not a forced death march.
BTW do you know that as well as the indians being moved were permitted to take their horses, belongings as well as their black slaves with them?
I would like to share a point of clarification. As a Starwood employee I can tell you definitively that across our company we encourage each of our associates to be sensitive to and respectful of the holidays and traditions of our guests around the world.
There is not a corporate policy against associates at our hotels wishing guests a "Merry Christmas." We encourage our staff to make rich, personal connections with our guests and we would always encourage them to interact in a manner that fosters that relationship.
Corporate America is the always the bad guy! After all its Corporate America and Capitalism that has given us the highest standard of living in the history of the world and we should feel guilt and remorse. NOT
Pray tell, what did the Europeans do that the "natives" weren't already doing to each other? We need to get off of this idea that the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere were peaceful and kind to each other. Sure, they weren't considered to be technologically advanced, like their European opponents, but their ability to act in a barbaric manner was every bit the same as any other human's natural instinct at that time.
These were people that were still practicing human sacrifice. Hardly a humane bunch.
I would agree with your assessment except that the Left sees our actions in Iraq/Afganistan as just that. Remember all of the "Blood for Oil" signs after our invasion of Iraq? It sounds exactly like the typical leftist relativism.
I didn't imply that the events we're constantly reminded of didn't happen or were not as bad as some people make out. I do disagree with those who contend there was a long-running, consistent policy of "genocide" against Native Americans. As usual, history was more complicated than that – anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or agitating or both. But the point in a movie is not to educate the audience – it's to get them to have an emotional reaction. If you have to simplify American history and warp it beyond recognition in order to get people excited, then that's what a writer or director will do.
"It's those who advocate unending warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan but choose to fight it with a privatized military, while never suggesting war bonds or higher taxes or most importantly, a draft, that are doing damage to Marines and others in our armed foreces."
And who might they be, SJ? I think most of us advocate WINNING the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, recognize that they're being fought by brave American VOLUNTEERS, and believe the country has the resources to accomplish what needs to be done without a draft, war bonds or higher taxes.
Unless I missed your point…
if you see the movie as anti-american or anti-military you are clearly over-sensitive about liberals 'ruining your entertainment' with propoganda, so you start off this 'review' by blantantly misrepresenting key plot elements to support your anti-liberal spittle. are there some crazy liberals? hell yeah. nut jobs. but tunnel vision right wing authoritarians are no better and it's a damn shame most of them have taken control of the republican party. this movie is more anti- corporate military industrial complex and it has the horrible hippie message that maybe you shouldn't kill a bunch of creatures that aren't white like you and destroy their land (for a made up wonder substance, not oil) because a profit can be made. what a…liberal message. worst thing in the world if you ask me. i hope companies keep making bombs and guns until we need to start using the moon to start storing all the stuff we've made to kill each other. but thank god we made money from it. and we've got to keep making money because that's all that matters and anything that gets in the way is just socialist and should be killed anyway
And like any human endeavor, the creation of that standard of living has been marred by bad decisions, greed, and criminal activity. Why is anyone surprised? In all of history, there has never been a human endeavor that has not reflected both the best and worst of which human beings are capable. Why we need Hollywood to pound this message into our heads is beyond me. Should be obvious to anyone.
FYI, I think that's the "tragic outlook" that conservatives are so famous for having.
Mr. DeMartini isn't criticizing businesses that encourage their employees to use the generic "happy holidays". He's criticizing companies that expressly forbid their employees from uttering the words "Merry Christmas." Personally, I don't have a problem with someone wishing me a happy holiday. After all, I live in a diverse area and not everyone celebrates Christmas. But I have a huge problem with a company that tells its employees they can't wish me a Merry Christmas when the employee knows that I celebrate Christmas because I just spent the last several minutes discussing Christmas presents, Christmas events, etc with said employee.
Yes, the past wasn't pretty. But, in these revisionist stories there is no room for any inkling that the culture has learned from past mistakes. There is no objective evidence that the modern US military (or even the past US military) AS A WHOLE acts the way some did during the 19th century. And yet we get countless films making such analogies, or Iraq war films making explicit accusations.
Look, what many of us are annoyed with is being preached about past wrongs as if no one has ever taught the blemishes of US and/or Western cultural history before. Many commentators have already pointed this out. We do not need a rich, abrasive, arrogant jerk of a filmmaker like Cameron to lecture us on the dangers of humanity's dark side.
This might not have been as big an issue if Cameron himself hadn't stated publicly that he was making references to Iraq & Afghanistan and America's spotty history with the native tribes.
As many others have pointed out, the progressive idea that paints any native culture as in perfect harmony & peace and thus superior to Westerners insults not only Westerners but also indigenous peoples.
These stories rob the characters of any dimension. They're cookie cutter. This is a flaw with a lot of Cameron's writing. He makes great action thrillers and and can build superb action plots. But, when it comes to depicting any nuance of human character or interaction, he often fails miserably.
My reaction exactly! I have not seen it, so I cannot say for sure, but I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people say how anti-military and anti-American this movie is. Yet at the same time they're cheering on how cool it is visually or whatever.
I don't get it! There's no way I'm financially supporting this movie. Perhaps if everybody stopped watching these movies, they'd stop making them.
I couldn't agree more, Keith! They don't care what we think of the move. All that counts (literally!) are the box office receipts.
For the life of me I cannot comprehend the logic of financially supporting something that insults everything you stand for and believe in.
Indeed. Given its cost and the old rule of a thumb that a film needs to make 3-4 times its budget to break even, it will likely not be a hugely profitable endeavor. But, it's hard to imagine Avatar not finishing with somewhere near or above $1.5 billion worldwide. Those are big numbers, any way you slice it.
Injecting your values into a more mainstream or heroic character has been a hollywood mainstay for generations. Frank Capra was a 5'5'' dark skinned Sicilian American. He used a more mainstream American -Jimmy Stewart – to play George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life". Cameron knows that the most universally respected institution in the U.S. is the USMC. He is not honoring the USMC. He uses Sully as a prop. Like the enemy, Sully is a working class hero victim of capitalist greed and white/earthling imperialism. He could not have cast a "Socialist Jew" as Sully because a "Socialist Jew" would not need to be converted to Cameron's anti-captialist, anti-God, anti-U..S., anti-Caucasian, anti-Devil Dog point of view.
Everything you say is true about the moive missing 1 Big Big thing. I belive it was 5 times they had to slap Christians buy taking the Lords name in vain WHY? My kids hear this. its just to bad. Im sure this is just the gut shot James Cameron and his ilk try for . THERE CAN BE NO OTHER REASON FOR THIS NONE !!!
Business decisions made positions of fear or misplaced self-preservation aren't good decisions. The prevalence of bad decisions, or growing trends, isn't an accurate measure of "good." Social kudzu is still something that should be eradicated.
Since when is seeing a movie that's playing in every city in the nation a privilege?
Sully was wearing a U.S. Marines t-shirt when he got off the transport on Pandora
Not as big as they should be able to expect for the one action movie out at this time of year. That was my point. They are actually not doing as well as hoped in the US box office. Will it make a profit? Yes. But, if you were slated to bankroll the next $500,000,000 production … wouldn't you think twice?
It could be they believe hyper-sensitized is better than de-sensitized.
Conservatives are bombarded every minute with what horrible people they are. I can certainly understand being sensitive about it.
After all, the Left did it first, and raised it to an art form with any criticism of Obama being called racist.
It's getting old from both sides.
You are hereby sentenced to watching Titanic three times in a row…no breaks.
This is part of the reason why I rediscovered anime…yes, they have their "moments" too (*coughFullmetalAlchemistcough*), but at least they focus more on entertaining you than preaching to you. Additionally, I'm sure there are some older movies you haven't seen yet. Go for those!
I agree.
Umm…two back-to-back $75 million dollar weekends in the USA alone is pretty damn good, by any count, especially considering the level of competition in theaters right now (Sherlock, Chipmunks, Blind Side and a Disney 'toon make for a very full slate of movies the whole family can choose from), and the fact that Avatar tickets are generally priced higher than normal because of the 3D. It's also #1 in 107 out of 108 foreign markets (according to Nikki Finke's site) Taking a gamble on the guy who made the highest grossing movie ever seems like a pretty good one to me. (Investors didn't sign on to make a half billion dollar movie. Costs rose during production, as I recall they did on Titanic as well.) They'll make it into the black next weekend for sure, and the happy meal, toy and video game money will turn a nice profit for investors. It's not a fiasco by any means, no matter how people are letting their dislike of Cameron color their judgement of the film. And as I recall, Titanic took a very long time to break box office records–and it stayed in theaters for a very long time. Chances are no-one is going to give Cameron another half billion to make a movie. But if Michael Bey can keep getting roughly 200 million for giant robots, Cameron will still find people willing to bet on his bloated vision.
You see, this is exactly my point. In spite of anti-American/military/people of this movie and so many like it, you have conservatives recommending conservatives to go see it. Slap down big bucks to see a movie that insults our military and our country and give these idiots more money in their pocket to continue t o make movies that spew their socialist, communist crap!
STOP IT. Stop empowering these tools. make them irrelevant. So what if there are movies are technologically advance, big deal. you don't think someone will eventually make movies that are technologically advance? Honest to God people, as long as we provide these people with the funds and means to put us down, they will succeed in their socialist utopia…real or imaginary.
Look around! do you not see the collapse of the American dream? the American way of life? All the while we continue to put propaganda dollars in their pocket to use the most powerful form of art to guarantee our demise.
Wake up people!
Don't insult The Lion King like that.
Only slightly less than my religion stands the love of my country. Those who defame either are on my fecal matter list. Your bleating about a chain hotel sounds so trivial. More so it sounds personal. No mention of boycotting the chain store or any stores that adapt the policy, just that particular hotel chain.
My real problem though is, as you state, this movie is grossly anti-US military, and slightly less anti-American. Read what YOU wrote. How in the world do you reconcile that with "I recommend that everyone should see it." ??? Go give this RICH gazillionaire your money, support him so that he may produce more revisionist leftwing propaganda. Do you recommend we take the kids? Wouldn't want to deny them the chance of being infected.
Having risked my life to save the no good POS, Cameron, you can be sure he'll not get dime one of mine. And nothing from my WWII Marine aviator father or son, currently a Marine in Afghanistan. Make this bomb like the other ones that try and send a message, instead of entertain.
Before I knew anything about this film the blue people was a turn off for me. I will pass on this one.
Sherlock Holmes, however, was great fun, go see it.
With the US military presently fighting two wars, with the US military stationed around the globe providing security for our allies and with the US military here at home providing security for the US, why in the hell would anyone pay to see a creepy cartoon that negates all that the US military has done and are still doing?!?! Small wonder the left is so successful at hawking this crap, when those who should know better go along with the liberal status quo.
If Hollywood would put out a few movies showing our troop in a positive light., maybe i could go see this movie but every single one stab them in back. Go too hell
James Cameron's brother is a US Marine.
You must be logged in to post a comment.