It's All About How You Think

James Cameron may not rank among the greatest directors for many critics but there is no doubt that his impact on motion pictures has certainly paved the way for many of the current trends in Hollywood. When he made "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" he pushed the envelope in terms of computer graphics and special effects which led to so many of today's special effects driven blockbusters. With "Titanic" he proved that big budget spectacles were still popular if done right and with a gross revenue intake that shot the film into being one of the most successful of all time it's no wonder that many people had high expectations for his next full-length feature and it would be amiss to say that he didn't deliver when it came to "Avatar". But rather than looking at the film as what it was more or less intended to be, a showcase of new camera and film technology with a decent story backing it, some are choosing to look at the film with something other than their 3D glasses.

For those who don't know, a very brief summary of the film is that by the year 2154, the natural resources of Earth have been completely consumed and mankind has gone to the stars to seek out new power sources. One such source, called unobtanium (since it is so hard to find and so rare) can be found on the planet Pandora. However, the native population of the planet, the aliens called the Na'vi are not too enthralled about having their planet stripmined. Nor are they agreeable to relocating their homes just because it happens to reside on a place known to have the largest deposit of unobtanium on the planet. Naturally, the Na'vi tribes are not too happy about the suggestion that their homes be uprooted and moved just so that human miners can then get the mineral so pockets of insurgency began to pop up. In order to counter the insurgency, the United States sends private military contractors to provide security. That's the background of the film but the focus is on a soldier, Jake Sully, who joins the team on Pandora because he is capable of mind-linking into a genetically engineered body that makes him appear like the Na'vi.

Initially sent in to gather intelligence that the military can then use to exploit the Na'vi should war arise, Sully then begins to identify and sympathize with the Na'vi and ultimately joins their forces in order to defeat the humans and free the planet from the invading force. Now this is not the first time a story of this sort has been done. There have been others that share this same general storyline including "Dances with Wolves" and "The Last Samurai" but what sets this version apart is the visual way in which it's presented. The 3D presentation adds a whole new dimension (if you'll excuse the pun) to the film and makes for a very unique experience. Not surprisingly then there has been tremendous success for the film at the box office and in less than a month, the film has already topped $1 billion gross revenue around the world and it doesn't seem that the trend will stop anytime soon.

So then why the backlash in certain sectors? Well some conservative commentators are pointing to the fact that there are some obvious references to the war in Iraq and how the military and America in general are perceived. Many conservatives have openly stated that they feel that this film sends the wrong message and that it glorifies the insurgency within Iraq while vilifying the American military. They feel that it sends the wrong message not only to the American public but to the world as well. After having read that I couldn't do anything but shake my head in a mix of despair and disgust. The reason for that reaction is because I shudder to think that our society has finally descended into a level of cynicism that we really can't enjoy a film for what it is (entertainment) but instead go to great lengths to try and understand the hidden (or blatant) subtext behind the story. If you ask the average filmgoer they probably wouldn't even think about these things. I mean if you ask a kid what their impression of the movie was and they'll probably tell you about the neat creatures, the cool aliens and the battle scenes. Ask the average adult and you'll probably get comments on the beautiful visuals and the wonder of seeing a film brought so vividly to life through 3D technology. Ask the average cynic and they'll tell you that the film does nothing more than glorify the defeat of America.

I then wonder where some of these cynics were when films like "Rambo III" came out. In that film the titular character and defender of freedom Rambo (John J.) fought alongside Afghanistan's Mujaheddin against the Russians. Sure it was during the height of the Cold War and when anyone against the Russians was our unquestioned ally. Even if at that time the Mujaheddin was the Taliban and splinter groups that later became part of Al-Queda. At that time it wasn't cynical but support for freedom I suppose. There was no hidden message in a film like that about the need to support the war (overtly or subvertly) against the Russians. There was no question about how a film like "Red Dawn" (the 1984 original or the forthcoming sequel) were sending a message of fighting for democracy no matter where the battle occurs. Many conservatives point to "Red Dawn" stating the story (about American high schoolers fighting a guerilla-style war against communist invaders in America). There there was no problem with the message of the film because it was what conservatives wanted to see and what they supported. Still, I have always looked at it as more of an action film than anything else; I suppose it just means that we look at things with the eyes we choose to use.