Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Shows Hollywood How to Trash America and Make a Profit Doing So
by John NolteThe crowing we’re seeing from leftists over the belief that the roaring success of the anti-American, military-bashing, feast of political correctness that is Avatar represents some sort of validation of their worldview or a comeback for liberal film-making only begs one question: What took them so long?
You can’t blame them, though. After years of watching helplessly as liberal films flopped at a heartwarming 100% rate while conservative-themed films such as “Rambo,” “Gran Torino,” “Taken,” ”Knowing,” “and “Dark Knight” made money, it only makes sense that to lost-in-the-desert Lefties, Cameron’s garishly colored 3D cartoon makes hamburger look like a steak dinner.
There’s little doubt Avatar will end up as the number one or two top moneymaker worldwide of all time, out-performing the conservative Dark Knight (#5) and another epic that frequently finds its way on to a number of conservative movie lists as a favorite: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (#2).
So the question is: Do politics have something to do with the an event film’s box-office success? To a point, I think so. But does the fact that the exponentially more awful but pro-military, pro-American, anti-Obama Transformers 2, which was also a monster hit this year, cancel Avatar out? For argument’s sake, let’s say not.
Liberals are as enamored with Avatar and as willing to forgive its obvious flaws as conservatives are with films that appeal to us such as Red Dawn. Like I said in my review, Avatar is the Left’s Death Wish 5. A bad movie but one with the kind of story Leftists find appealing. Trashing the military and our way of life is so fulfilling that Cameron’s ham-fisted story flaws wash over them in a sea of anti-American bloodlust. Avatar is a far cry from the dozen-or-so poorly lit, overwrought anti-war dramas no one bothered to see – this is a big-budget action epic where America gets its butt kicked. “Yee-haw!”
Just as conservatives revile street thugs and Communists, Leftists barely conceal their contempt for our military and country. Sure, plenty of fanboys are purchasing tickets again and again and are completely immune to the film’s propaganda, but Leftists who wouldn’t normally give a sci-fi spectacular their repeat business are surely returning again and again to get their HateAmerica on.
If Hollywood learns anything from Avatar it could be that James Cameron might have finally figured out a way to further leftist causes on film and make a profit while doing so. Rather than become another victim of the 100% failure rate enjoyed by pretentious, melodramatic, preachy, adult dramas designed to trash our military and undermine America — they now know they have to make pretentious, melodramatic, preachy $500 million, 3D, sci-fi event films that trash our military and undermine America.
How hard can that be, right? And it’s really the only way. Because unless they’re Avatar, big stars or not, liberal-themed films have a nasty habit of failing. This is just from this year and these are worldwide numbers:
Duplicity $78 million; State of Play $87 million;The Informant! $35 million; Men Who Stare at Goats $32 million; Brothers $27 million; The International $60 million.
Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but some non-event conservative films did do a whole lot better. Taken $226 million; The Blind Side will probably hit $250; pro-American Inglourious Basterds $312 million; pro-Christian Knowing $183 million; Gran Torino $269 million…
But I remain sure that Avatar represents a cultural sea change, not lightening in a bottle. So, Hollywood, please do drop another half-billion into another America-trasher.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
397 Comments
Lol just because it trashes one badly behaving company and its private army of mercenaries doesn't mean it's saying all companies and hired guns are bad. Did it have to show a positive company and a positive team of mercenaries as well to show some sort of contrast just to appease reactionaries that insist on viewing everything through a lens of contemporary politics? Also, how can a film be anti-war when it clearly shows people taking up arms to defend themselves; there was no hesitation there.
I think most conservative reviewers get lost in the superficial bits of critique. "It's anti-american!" they shout. "It's anit-military!" they claim. That may be so, I admit as much, even though I probably lack perspective here as a non-American. The central critique of this film should go deeper, and I am surprised how little has been done w/regard to that as it's so blindingly obvious. This movie is not merely anti-american. It is anti-civilization, and ultimately anti-human!
I'll say it again. I went to see "The Princess and the Frog." I chose not to see "Avatar." I liked "Princess" because it was a far more appealing movie than "Avatar." It may be making millions now but I think that "The Princess and the Frog" will be remembered and loved years later while "Avatar" will be looked at only by film students who want a passing grade.
"If Hollywood learns anything from Avatar it could be that James Cameron might have finally figured out a way to further leftist causes on film and make a profit while doing so."
So we're not going to invade some distant, jungle moon? Damn you, Hollywood!!!!!
Give my condolences to Breitbart. Sorry he invested in all that SPF 75.
I posted on my Facebook page, over a week ago after seeing 3D Avatar: "heavy on the humans / Americans / Military bad, Aliens / Natives / Animals good". Simple-minded drek. I still very much enjoyed the movie for it's visual cinematic brilliance but I learned a long time ago that most of Hollywood's themes are borne of juvenile minds. Does anyone take these people seriously? Movies are for entertainment. If you expect to get more than that, you'll have to dig deeper than most of Hollywood product. And, if you are taking your political / social cues from Hollywood, you might as well ask Nancy Pelosi to perform your face lift, herself.
It is a hippie Gaia-fest pagan fantasy at heart…
but anti-American? Not so fast. You can indulge your taste for Hollywood leftist loonery (which this undoubtedly is) without it being 'anti-American'.
OK, so it's not exactly pro-military (Cameron is extremely conflicted about the US miltary, but is not totally 'anti')
nor does it speak well of humans in general. More important, it's critiques are so sophmoric to be rendered useless- a little logic blows all of his plot lines to, well. Pandora and back.
One could have easily mined for 'unobtanium' and kept peace with the locals. And not having one morally responsible contractor made them even more cartoonish- and less effective. So, we're in comic book territory.
Like the film that inspired this, the far superior 'Danc es With Wolves', it's charm lies in the It's a Boy's Life tale of Jake Sully. Like Kevin Costner's John Dunbar it is a romantic projection of the free spirit that lies within all of us.
Flawed, maybe- but phenomenon most definitely…
Several humans were the main protagonists. Most of the humans shown were being jerks, but that doesn't mean it says being human is bad. And it certainly isn't anti-civilization; the Na'vi are a civilization in the film.
An indictment of some is not an indictment of all.
I don't think Avatar is a left-wing movie. Did you miss the clear invocation of the destruction of the WTC in the middle of the movie? And it's not anti-human either — it's anti- everybody but the hero, who actualizes his identity in a new body, overcoming his human infirmities and committing himself to a people and a planet of his choosing.
Cameron's Earth is an overpopulated hell-hole rapidly running out of ressources. "Unobtanium" is a material enabling, among half a dozen other things, FTL communication, room-temperature super-conductors and commercially viable spaceflight at 70% the speed of light. The material mined and processed in industrially sufficient quantities would have gone a long way to stabilize and improve the situation of 20 billion humans. Cameron's protagonists consciously made the decision to go with the space-smurfs instead, condemming countless lifes in the process. I'd call that anti-human any day.
Cameron basically scrapped the whole premise of his movie the moment they actually got to Pandora. Above anything else, that's bad story-telling.
Planet Pandora! Oooh… ahhhh.
Unobtainium! Wow… yeah.
These two factors alone tell how shallow and obviously anti-civilization this drivel is. I might view this move when it becomes available on Netflix. Then again, maybe I won't.
Taking whatever you want (or think you need) by any means necessary simply isn't justified. I'm sure you'd welcome someone to come into your home and take what they want to sell it and feed their family, am I right? Or would you say they were doing the wrong thing and should be stopped, that they should find a civilized way of surviving.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say with complete confidence whether the message had anything to do with its success; but having read several reviews, I'd say it has more to do with the visual appeal than anything else. I have a site the focuses on scifi/fantasy and "Avatar" was kind of a conundrum for a lot of fans because they knew it would be visually dazzling but no one was sure the story would hold up. Most, if not all, the reviews I've read among the blogs I frequent are really on the same page as John's–it's pretty, but not deep. I think "Avatar," with the same visuals but a different storyline (a more conservative one) would do just as well financially, if not better. But the obviously leftist slant gives libs a reason to crow. But since most people call Cameron out on the fact that the plot and dialog are weak, it's a hollow win.
It's Disney's "Pocahontas" on another planet without the singing
I don't think I was ever as embarassed for someone than when Cameron asked for amoment of silence for the victims of the Titanic, when he said, "work with me here," as if he were directing a scene from one of his movies.
How are The Informant! and Duplicity leftist movies? Every review of The Informant! said it was, despite the presence of Damon And Soderbergh, surprisingly apolitical.
As for Duplicity, even John's review didn't mention any politics – only the tacked-on twist ending, the lack of chemistry between the lead actors, and a few other cliched elements.
If the welfare of my own friggin' species heavily depends on it while it merely poses an inconvenience to the smurf elves?!? Are you even seriously posing this question? That I should care about what a bunch of stone-age, obstructionist aliens 4 light years away think that have proven to be unwilling to seriously negotiate the issue while our own home planet, our own survival as a species is at stake? Because the cheap escape of "Oh, but what if it would be you?" doesn't cut it with me. Because it's not the matter of some agency driving through Germany, or Minnesota, or wherever, displacing humans for some oil. It's the welfare of the human species vs. some stubborn smurf elves/blue cat people. Seriously, this is about the most basic "us vs. them" scenario possible. Of course, Taking whatever you want (or think you need) by any means necessary simply IS justified.
Wiggle all you want, Mr. Nolte, but there's no way out of this one. You've dug yourself a hole, plain and simple.
Since you started film blogging, here and elsewhere, your central thesis has been that the boxoffice for ostensibly right-wing movies (and even movies that people like to pretend are right-wing, like "Dark Knight") versus the low earnings of "liberal" films somehow "proved" that the mass-audience was more conservative and that Hollywood was doing itself a disservice by not catering to them.
So, what now? If billions for "Dark Knight" proved that the audience wanted conservative films, then billions for "Avatar" means they now want liberal films… yes?
Unless, of course, you've been wrong and boxoffice DOESN'T actually say anything about audience politics. Maybe most people aren't as politically-inclined one way or another as you give them credit for, and both Avatar and TDK were successful for the same reason: big, loud and shiny.
If AVATAR is to equal TWILIGHT New Moon, it will have to make more than $12 for every $1 invested. That is, worldwide, it must bring in more than $5 BILLION. Twilight NM cost $50 million and is on its way to some $600 million worldwide.
The Twilight movie/book phenomenon is unique: the hero is a woman, but not of the "Red Sonya" sword and sorcery kind. The story's structure is that of a quest, a very traditional form and one that has been beloved for centuries. Its box office strength, and that of its actors, is something new, though: it is almost completely a creature of the Internet. Its closest precursor is The Lord of the Rings, also based on a book loved by millions, and which also had an intense internet fanbase throughout its filming.
Think of your list:
"Taken $226 million; The Blind Side will probably hit $250; pro-American Inglourious Basterds $312 million; pro-Christian Knowing $183 million; Gran Torino $269 million"
The only one of these that is close to a 'woman centred' story is "The Blind Side." None had an internet fanbase, and I would be surprised if any of them returned the kind of money to investors that Twilight has done. BH should do a story on Twilight. It is much more important, I think, than this Avatar. Avatar is a one trick pony, really.
the resource "unobtanium" that's no longer found on earth would appear to be original script ideas.
there's this guy. despite being all white and privilege things have not gone well. he is a loser. he is alienated from his society. somehow he ends up in a primitive society where he is special. the locals make him a leader. the spectacular babe/chiefs daughter falls for him.
then in act three, he uses his new minions to get revenge on the western culture that did not appreciate what a unique and precious snowflake he was.
the end.
an example that was both more extreme and wonderfully subtle was called "never cry wolf". the naturalist character actually ran with a wolf pack. excellent movie by the way.
Yes, I am seriously posing that question. If the 'cheap escape' of empathy and seeing through the eyes of others is beyond consideration, then I'm about done with this conversation. We clearly disagree about the concepts of being human and the ideas of right and wrong so drastically that there is no point.
I have to call it as I see it. I think Mr. Nolte has admitted defeat!
As for liberal America-trashing plot, there's nothing in this movie that wasn't said in "Little Big Man" or "Dances With Wolves". In fact, many times it seemed like I was watching Cavalry versus the Sioux, with the Sioux finally winning. Mixed into it was the subplot of "boy meets alien, boy loses alien, boy regains alien". Just turn off the frontal lobe and enjoy the special effects.
How can anyone have seen this movie and not seen it as anti-American? Who are the bad guys? The U.S. Marines!! for crying out loud. Mercenaries, or not, they are U.S. Marines. — Who said "Shock and awe"? Not the Australians. Who said, "Pre-emptive war to fight terror."? Not the Chinese.
In the movie the U.S. Marines commit a 9/11 on theNa'vi….
Please do tell me that if that is not an anti-American movie, just what exactly is?
so, two votes for 'not' anti-American, eh?
cameron had more to do with creating the myth of the space marine than anyone other than heinlein. who knew he saw them as the bad guys all this time.
Too much logic, Stratomunchkin. Look at the pretty colors and the hot blue chick! Oooh, wow, gosh.
The aliens are deliberately beautiful and definitely human. If they were slimy alien creatures like the ones Cameron shot up by the hundreds in, oh that's right, ALIENS, then the whole movie wouldn't work. Can you imagine the Na'Vi throwing their spears at human ships, their slavering dog jaws snapping and their segmented tails whipping about? Can you imagine cheering on the Na'Vi while they rip heads off of humans and tear them to pieces?
Naaah. Of course not. Me, I know if I were up against a species that meant the destruction of my own, it wouldn't matter how pretty and gee-whiz they were. I'd fight them, too.
But you and I are logical, and that's not what Avatar is all about, now is it?
Mercenaries are not U.S. Marines. They are former Marines who have decided to stop serving Uncle Sam and start serving the highest bidder. Nothing wrong with that, but they hardly call for the same consideration and reverence. One would hope they would still keep their morals in check; a thief is a thief, and the humans working for the company in this movie are thieves and murderers.
I don't see a 9/11 parallel. The 9/11 attack was not to steal resources. I think variations on the phrases 'shock and awe' and 'pre-emptive war to fight terror' predate the Bush administration and likely predate the founding of America. Those phrases in their current incarnation have been cemented in the lexicon, and can be used by people doing good and people being jerks. Just because these people were jerks doesn't mean the film is talking about Bush. This movie was written a decade ago; of course there have been re-writes however.
I'm not sure that there is an anti-American movie. There are movies against certain administrations and mindsets, certain actions and struggles, but the true core of what it means to be American and our founding ideals… I can't think of a film that is against them off the top of my head.
on one aspect Mr Nolte is dead on…
Holywood chooses NOT to make conservative films. And 'The Dark Knight' was a smorgasboard of politics and social commentary that tried to have it both ways. There is little doubt that millions of filmgoers stay home-until something catches them.
"Avatar' is loud and shiny, as you say. Also a technical achievement. So one cannot draw too many conclusions on it's content. But Tinsletown is littered with the corpses of left wing polemics no one wanted to see, and consevative themed films tend to sneak out and do fairly well.
In other words don't draw too broad a caricature of this particular behemoth…
All these blog articles and discussions are for the most part useless. Cameron wrote his very elaborate treatment of Avatar somewhere back in the 1990s, and it didn't change much. So instead of simply interpreting his story from our current political/cultural vantage point, we should return in our minds to the 90s and ask ourselves, if we would have reacted the same way *then*.
Do you think anyone watching the movie besides the faqr left and the far right read anything into it ? Maybe cameron like all Hollywood egoists did make some anti American input but the special effects are the stars not the message only percieved by the right wing or left wing that looks for these things. The reason the liberal menu fails is becuase it is like all marxist indoctrination and that turns off people who want to be "entertained " not indoctrinated. If you mad Brokeback mountain in the same special effects way it would make 1 Billion. Movie goers are going to see a good movie . Period. If its not entertaining then the movie will bomb left or right .
while it has it's Hollywood leftist cliches, the 'bad guys' are more of the typical take on their favourite villain-
Blackwater- and the former military civilian contractors involved in US policy that drives the Left batty…
Having worked with these folk, there is some validity to the criticism. A lot of 'roided up bullies wanting trigger time is not a good projection of either US foreign policy or an effective diplomatic security force. Our experiences show a dearth of qualified applicants for a fairly nuanced occupation.
That said, it's still a red herring. You can criticize the military mindset without the actual Obama-led USMC.
So why we sympathize to your point and agree- to an extent- it is still just a silly liberal cartoon that no one will take too seriously…
This movie is not merely anti-american. It is anti-civilization, and ultimately anti-human. That's the point I was making, and that specific issue is what I am so surprised to find under-represented in most critiques of the movie. Of course, it's anti-military, and probably anti-american, but that's just the layer of old paint above the rotten fabric of what constitutes the core message of that piece of cineastic crap: that it's okay to betray your own species, to act without any regard to the welfare of your own people if only it means you can tap that hot, alien a** and you yourself get all the goodies.
I do want to ask you, though? What is your new theory?
Moviebob's got you beat on this one. You better parry his thrust.
I don't see U.S. Marines. I see Blackwater mercenaries that USED to be U.S. Marines. So it seems the message is that money and power corrupts your value system if you have no faith or moral principles.Sort of a Christian opinion and conservative one to boot. So it's a stealth conservative message. Depends on how you read it in your head, I guess. Also, the Navs, in addition to being the color BLUE, seem to be very opinionated, intolerant of other beliefs, pretty rigid in their thinking, ecologically stupid and without a whit of common sense so that is their undoing. Sort of a Liberal behavoral tendancy. Another conservative message then, eh?
Yeah, totally, John. Anti-Bush-era foreign policy/rhetoric + anti-mercenary = anti-American.
Flawless logic/victory. Well done.
I'm glad I saw "Alvin and the Chipmunks the Squeakuel" instead of this mess.
What you fail to take into account Bob is the fact that the trailers barely showed the back story or any allegorical points that Cameron himself said were in "Avatar". The trailers people saw were the spectacle, not the political undertones.
But if it ends up making $500million+ like "The Dark Knight" domestically, I'd give your point a solid B+…
No new theory. How does a liberal film's success undermine my theory that people want more conservative films…? look at my list in this very … all those conservative movies that were successful… all those liberal films that were not.
AVATAR is the first liberal success story in years, and it's an event film. One film in years… One! And yet I can point to a half dozen conservative success stories just this year alone…
A single outlier = trend.
I'd say my theory holds up just fine.
But of course to buttress your own flawless logic you ignore the whole United States Marines thing.
You are awesome.
I just got back from Avatar…and somehow I still love America, support our military, and will continue to drive my car, use the internet and speak English. You have FAILED Cameron!! Actually, I didn't find it anti-American, just not original except in the technical area, which was very well done. (for bespectacled types like me the hallmark of a good 3D experience as lack of headache and minimum time spent pushing 3D glasses back over real glasses) I know Nolte staunchly maintains the CG isn't as good as Jurassic Park's–I'll respectfully disagree there. I thought it looked fantastic. It's just a shame more of that half a billion wasn't spent on story. Forget "Dances With Wolves" comparisons though–a longtime scifi/comic reader like myself saw Cameron taking big chunks from Anne McCaffrey's Pern books (and oh god WHEN will they start making those??), H. Beam Piper's 'Fuzzy' novels (in the first, a corporation takes over a planet for mining, good guys must prove indigenous species sentient) and even Wendy and RIchard Pini's "Elfquest" comic series from the 80's (Sully & Neytiri's sex scene almost panel for panel a similar sequence to an early EQ issue, not to mention the Pini elves are pointy-eared, bond-beast riding, and dwell in a lush forest at a "father tree"). Ultimately I don't think politics have as much force in box office as Nolte does–people around the world like to see people fighting & stuff blowing up, preferably by big movie stars, as opposed to watching unhappy people argue with each other.
But I really did like it when Neytiri rode the panther-thing. That was kinda wicked cool.
What a non-issue.
"So the question is: Do politics have something to do with the an event film’s box-office success? To a point, I think so."
If you polled everyone who saw Avatar and asked them if they thought there was anything political about the movie maybe 5% would say yes. So, to answer your question, politics have very litte effect on a film's success. Maybe If you went into the movie without being prepared to immediatly figure out how something represents cameron's hatred of america then you could have enjoyed it more.
Oh! And here's a cool star sighting when I came out of the movie theater in Century City: Jon Voight getting his shoes shined!
Politics had absolutely nothing to do with Avatars success. Avatar is a hit because audiences love escape films that build fantasy worlds realisticly for the audience to get lost in. Thats what Avatar does. Its a movie about dazzling visuals, kick ass action, and building an amazing fantasy world. Thats why Avatar was a hit not because of any politics. To use Avatars success as a political mandate is misunderstanding the audience.
3D also is a big reason for Avatars success. 3D movies are estimated to add 15% to the movies cost but add 25% to the gross. My hope is more studios will understand this and make 3D movies the exception not the rule.
This is the cost of the consumer's valuation of special effects over the content: the vitriol directed against those who dislike a visually beautiful movie which expresses backwards ideas. What a strange controversy, I never thought our tastes had decayed to quite this extent.
Mr Nolte they weren't US Marines they were mercenaries. I don't think it ever claims the soilders as US marines.
Yup, I gotta agree with a lot of commenters here: I didn't find it anti-American. It's more anti-Blackwater type private mercenary organizations – more of a shot at companies who profit from war – as well as a shot at groups such as the Revolutionary United Front and that's only on a very superficial level. As others have mentioned, Cameron wrote the whole thing back in the 90s, so if anything, life imitated art on that one.
Which is why they are referred to as Marines in the film and even wear the insignia…
Look at the post I just put up. I'm not the only "confused" on the whole Marine thing.
Regardless, once a Marine always a Marine — and those are U.S. Marines committing atrocities.
I *am* awesome! Thank you!
As has already been pointed out, the mercs are former marines. Former. As in ex. As in ex-enforcement. You know, the type that comprise nearly all the personnel of private military companies.
Being anti-merc doesn't make anyone or anything anti-American.
What movie did you see? I saw the one where they refer to each other as Marines… The Merc thing isn't all that clear… Regardless, Once a Marine, always a Marine and these Marines are portrayed as genocidal maniacs eager to commit atrocities.
U.S. Marines, U.S. Company, quoting a U.S. President, trashing recent U.S. Foreign policy…
Don't get more anti=American than that.
Wrote it in the nineties? So all those "shock and awe" and "Pre-emptive war on terror" lines weresimply life imitating art…
American company, U.S. Marines, quoting a U.S. President, slamming U.S. foreign policy… Having U.S. Marines (retired or not) commit a 9/11…
What does qualify as anti-American in your book?
Kids aren't going to see it because of its plot. They like the 3D. I've been hearing this ever since it came out. They like the natural environment; I have asked specifically about the plot, anti-American/military themes, hackneyed script…they go blank, as if those are just details. They don't even see it.
Anti-Bush + anti-privatized mercenary profiteering ≠ anti-American.
The idea that you shouldn't portray ex-marines currently serving as mercs in an unflattering light because it's disrespectful of the military is ridiculous.
I'm in the camp that says Avatar was not only very anti-American but also anti-human.
SPOILER:
That ending scene where the humans are marched back to their spaceship with the narration, "The ALIENS were sent back to their home planet, which they had already destroyed."
As the movie ended, from inside my packed theater, I heard maybe 2 people clapping, while everyone else just put on their coats and left.
Just like me.
There is no doubt now that Cameron is a Truther who believes that WE blew up the Twin Towers.
That scene, the destruction of the Tree of Life, followed by Col. Quaritch's, "Good job, boys. First round's on me" was absolutely revolting.
And EXTREMELY anti-American.
John, the other thing that hasn't been addressed is that the sequence showing the destruction of the Tree of Life, proves that James Cameron is a Loose Change / Truther moonbat.
Joe Weldon.
American company, American Marines (retired or not), American President, American foreign policy….
What does meet your anti-American standard? Using Obama's middle name?
And of course it trashes the military, retired or not, it makes them look like they're populated with genocidal goons or those willing to follow genocidal goons.
[...] here: Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Shows Hollywood How to Trash America and Make a Profit Doing So This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
It makes it look like private mercenary organizations are out for profit above all else. Shocking postulation, that.
I haven't thought about what would constitute an anti-American film. I don't really care, long as it's good, and Avatar is. Could've used a script doctor to put a more compelling spin on Cameron's tropes and archetypes, but it's a competent narrative made absorbing by its world-creation.
Our hero's a Marine, or was until the accident that cost him the use of his legs. He's wearing a T-shirt with the USMC logo the first few times we see him.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's more or less irrelevant whether the bad guys here are meant to be an allegory of Blackwater or an allegory of the USMC. Either way, the point which Cameron is trying to make is essentially the same… the point, apparently, being "DURR HURR HURR. TECHNOLOGY BAD. NATURE GOOD. GUNS BAD. KILLING GOOD — IF KILLING PEOPLE WHO HAVE GUNS. HURR."
"blindly follow a genocidal maniac, not people looking for a profit."
They are in this case one and the same. These are people who left behind a career in public military service to join a for-profit corporation. They're there to get paid. Michelle Rodriguez's character, for one, follows her moral compunctions instead of her misguided orders. Others just follow all the orders from the guys who sign the checks.
Quaritch wasn't a genocidal maniac, anyway. He was more of a bullheaded speciocentrist, in keeping with Cameron's anti-Bush theme.
BH exists because Breitbart and etc (and I) believe that the story matters. The fact that the audience is loving the CGI in Avatar doesn't mean that the propaganda in the story is not working. We live in a soup of liberal thinking, and Avatar is part of this.
Breitbart has said that, "it's the culture, stupid." Avatar is a $500 million movie that is propaganda for Gaia Religion, for anti Americanism, and for anti Capitalism. And that matters.
A single outlier = trend.
Shouldn't that be "A single outlier ≠ trend"?
Anyway, I'll wait and see if more liberal films turn a profit at the box office.
Another childish and inaccurate diatribe from John. Great article in the LA Times blog about how well Avatar is doing with conservatives. John, face it, you have failed utterly and completely in your campaign against this movie. It's all pointless folly.
Cameron didn't want to dissuade from doing any of those things. Are you wearing a tinfoil hat by any chance?
Good idea, forming judgments about movies that you haven't seen.
Sorry Heather that's not even remotely how it works. It's never worked that way.
Well said Mark
Seriously you actually paid money to see that. The first one was attrocious.
Nice one Ghosty, judging movies you haven't seen. Of course Avatar was far less appealing. You know because you haven't see it.
Nice name. So you think joking about Nazis is funny?
He's a SOF
The point of the movie is protecting your property and home. If a foreign entity invaded your property and destroyed your home would you try to defend it?
Tinfoil gives my skin a sickly cast; hence I avoid it at all costs. I was reacting to the trend of the many posts here on Avatar since its release.
It's not a liberal film. It's about protecting your property and home. Tell us John, if a foreign contingency invaded your property and destroyed your home would you be ok with that? Would it be appropriate for you to try to defend it. It's a very simple plot.
It's about protecting your property and home. Tell us, if a foreign contingency invaded your property and destroyed your home would you be ok with that? Would it be appropriate for you to try to defend it. It's a very simple plot.
New Moon was awful though and was soundly panned by critics, whereas Avatar has very strong critical acclaim, and you don't judge gross against production costs. No one does that. Sorry, fail.
John is getting a backlash because most Conservatives simply have no spine. They go see Avatar because it looks nice and want to be part of the "in" thing to do.
Avatar opened decently but far from anything extraordinary. If Conservatives had held their ground and refused to see a blatantly anti-American propaganda piece, the film would have been a mild hit and nothing more. You can rest assured there will be more liberal movies than ever now.
But why should we be surprised? Millions of Republicans voted for Obama, and he was widely known to be the most liberal Senator, with no record of bipartisanship.
And anyone who doesn't believe that Avatar WILL have an influence on the thinking of moviegoers is simply naive.
He has certainly been defeated, whether or not he ever admits it. A resounding and comprehensive defeat.
The movie could have been written by a third grader. "GET SOME, GET SOME." Cameron has gone the way of George Lucas – it's all downhill from here. Sure it'll make a ba-gillion dollars and will spawn a couple more anti-human Avatar sequels. But, the story still sucks. The Star Wars prequels made a boatload of dough and they still suck. Someone tell Cameron and Lucas that Bush has left office.
When does Batman 3 come out? I want good story-telling. Well, Inception comes out in July. I'm there.
I'm sorry, MovieBob, but that's not JN's main thesis.
His point is that Hollywood cares more about selling their liberal agenda than making a profit. If they were only or even mostly driven by profit, they'd produce at least as many movies with a conservative point of view as a liberal point of view, because conservative movies in general have made as much or more money than liberal ones.
He never said that (good) liberal movies didn't make money, just that (good) conservative movies can make as much.
They think they're being clever by pointing at the word "mercenary" and pretending it magically changes things.
Except I remember the term "mercenary" being applied to US military personnel by these sort of folks more than once in the past ten to twenty years or so.
Really? Then explain Cameron's comments in these articles:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/10...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_a...
Really? Then explain Cameron's comments in these articles:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/10...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_a...
Well said, heathermc, very well said. And Avatar is a stand alone — by the time the Twilight series is done, it will rival Harry Potter in box office dollars.
I'm looking forward to "The Lightning Thief." It's going to be another phenomenon.
I remember the term "mercenary" being applied to the U.S. government in general on several occasions.
Of course they don't see it. They've been getting it every day of their lives since they first set foot inside a school — it's in their blood at this point.
Millions of conservatives have seen and loved Avatar because although the US is 60% conservative, "only" about 20% are fanatics who let their ideology consume their lives and see conspiracy and division in everything around them. The majority do not walk around with such suffocating blinders on.
They are only committing atrocities if you consider the Na'vi as humans not as animals as they would in this situ. If Marines killed dolphins or whales to complete a mission you would not think that an atrocity. They are animals. They have no soul. Are you a fan of PETA? I don't think so.
I'll put this as politely as I can: Bull. Crap.
As has been pointed out ad-nauseum, the story is neither especially original nor complicated – the "dances with wolves but in space" thing was easily-divined even from the no-dialogue teaser a year ago, and essentially the whole plot was layed-out beat for beat in the official trailer. If you honestly couldn't tell EXACTLY who the good guys and bad guys are and what the basic idea was of this movie from it's promotion… I genuinely don't know what to say to that
Because it's NOT "anti-American." Pretending that "military" and "America" are synonyms doesn't make a vaugely anti-military movie (and it's BARELY that, what with the Marine hero and the enthusiastically-martial Na'vi) anti-American.
And while I'm at it, the fact that mocks the former president doesn't make it "anti-American" anymore than you and you're fellow BH bloggers are "anti-American" for mocking the CURRENT president.
"America" does not refer to a president, a branch of the government, a specific political party or an ideology. It refers to a piece of real-estate and the society currently occupying it. Since NEITHER of those things appear or are mentioned in "Avatar," it is ipso-facto NOT anti-American. Anti-Bush? Yes. Anti-colonialism? Sure. Anti-military? At least in part, yeah. But those are all different things.
Avatar is rakin' in the dough for one reason: solid marketing. The 6 – 35 demo is convinced that they HAVE TO see it because ALL THE OTHER KIDS are seeing it. And they must LOVE it, because ALL the other kids love it. Haven't you heard? It's a really, really, really great movie. Yeah. Ah huh. Everyone says so!
It's a dumbed-down movie for a dumbed-down youth culture that doesn't read and is skeptical of independent thinking. In theory, there is a HUGE potential market of 40 – 70 year olds with traditional, pro-American values, a lot of them veterans, and in theory they will also shell out one $billion to see a well-crafted movie made to cater to their tastes. The problem is, that demo DOES NOT GO TO THE MOVIES.
Is it because you disagree, or because you got pwnt in the face by overwhelming logic.
They don't see what isn't there. Very astute of them.
You fail at life.
And… failed at life again.
Taking a philosophy, cause or element that one's "side" in an argument likes and grafting it onto a larger, neutral concept – like a nation or a national-identity, for example – is a classic rhetorical sleight-of-hand. It's easy, you just take something like, say, "military action" and decide that it's synonymous with, say, "America." Then just keeping saying it until enough people think it's true, and PRESTO! An "anti-military" film becomes an "anti-American" film
John, I have always felt that everyone of your reviews have been honest, straight forward and right on the money. You nailed this film as you have done since the Libertas days.
This film is a success for one reason only, its the massive P&A campaign and the SPFX. The story is the same old rehash of anti-American, anti- capitalism, anti-white by the Hollywood left and their leftist white guilt, its not like we haven't seen over and over again since the 70s. This film is a leftist propaganda piece and it is the exception and not the rule . Most of the leftist films that are made bomb all the time. This is typical of all the left that have a 100 films that bomb at the box office over a ten year run and they have one hit and they re-write film history that all their films make money.
You have always told the truth in your reviews , unlike others who call themselves a movie reviewer and their stuff has been nothing but a press release for a liberal film. No one has you beat in this review, you nailed it big time.
John, you are dealing with people who grew up watching film after film where the Americans are the bad guys. This is all the know, this is typical of kool aid drinkers. Cameron uses Marines in his Alien films and now this one. These people are splitting hairs between mercs now and former Marines. Why bring in the Marine name and emblem at all if these are hired guns. Cameron like all leftist from the 60s have utter contempt for the US military and the Marines represent America's finest.
I have always felt that this anti military imagery in leftist films is for one purpose only and that is to create an image of a Marine or soldier to a 14 year old sitting in a theater that it is 'uncool' to be in the military. Cameron has disdain for this country the military and our history and he is going to set the record straight.
John, Cameron has stated that he originally wrote it in the 90s.
However, as I mentioned in another Avatar thread, it would be interesting to trace the evolution of the script to find out when some of these references first appeared. Obviously, he went back sometime in the last ten years and did a revision.
Good point. It's an environmental screed, and modern environmentalism is an anti-human religion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.