Racism in last Airbender and Prince of Persia

He is played by Ben Kingsley btw...who is of Indian Decent.

Right so I’m setting up like a custom at my Grandparents house, every time I come I watch a really crappy movie that has a race controversy, first Prince of Persia, now Last Airbender. Both films hired white actors to play the parts of non white characters (for the record, I don’t care enough about these films to look up the actor’s names). In Prince of Persia, the Prince is played by white actor Jake Gylenhaal, while in Last Airbender all the characters but the villains are played by white actors. This has cause a great deal of uproar, especially in the Asian and Asian American communities, an uproar slightly diminished because the films were so bad that nobody really cares about their messages, but honestly, is it racist to have a white actor play a nonwhite role? Now this is a long standing issue, the film industry’s long history of racism and racial profiling so the minorities in America have a very justified chip on their shoulder. I might be bias toward the Asian community, because I’m sympathetic towards their fully justified grievances, and the articles written by Asian Americans tend to be well written, and their argument boils down to A) Many ethnicities are horribly underrepresented in Hollywood, giving the impression that these ethnicities aren’t important, don’t exist or aren’t relatable. B) Hollywood has a long history of type casting and marginalizing ethnicities, and while this is changing for African Americans, its still a big issue for ethnicities with a small population like most Asian Americans C) Blackface and by extension Brown Face or Yellow Face, is racist and insulting to minority groups, and having white actors play non white roles is a form of that.D) We need to have more recognition for minority actors in mainstream media E) Thus, white people should not play non white roles Now since I’m lazy, I’m just going to break my response into bullets as well.

1)Ok, now Hollywood’s assumption is that white people are unable to to sympathize with non whites, for the record, with the exception of some Cherokee blood, I am almost the quintessential WASP, just to put my “ethnic bias” out in the open. Personally, I’ve never had any problem with watching movies with ethnic main characters, I sympathized with the pretty much all the characters in Seven Samurai, in Kun Fu Hustle I can feel for the main character even if I don’t identify with him. Maybe that’s because all of the characters are Asians so I identify with the protagonist because the entire cast is equally “different’, but that in a movie where white people are hanging out alongside Asians will I naturally sympathize with the whites? Well, in the film Se7en costarring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, I am far more sympathetic to Morgan Freeman’s character than I am to Brad Pitt. Maybe its because Freeman is a better actor? Possible, but I think its something deeper than that, its personality, I sympathize with Morgan Freeman’s character because I can relate to him, his intelligence, his appreciation of classical books/music/poetry, and his intense cynicism, while Bad Pitt’s emotionally charged life style doesn’t appeal to me. Or in Men in Black, while I enjoy Tommy Lee Jone’s character, I sympathize with Will Smith’s character because he, like me, is a smart guy caught in a world he doesn’t understand. In the end, it isn’t race, or heritage necessarily, so much as just similarity, and while race plays a part in that, its more personality, and its the duty of an actor to make the character relatable and sympathetic

2) Last Airbender opens in an Inuit style village full of Inuit actors then we’re confronted with two absurdly white protagonists, its just so obvious the director is choosing whites over non whites. When I watched Prince of Persia, I didn’t mind, because Jake is a pretty good actor, but I didn’t fail to notice that the only actors with dark skin are extras. And the main actress’ skin was darkened to make her look Indian and she was horrible. Ok, Iranian actors are hard to come by, but there is a huge industry with absurdly hot Indian actresses, and almost all know English. Choosing such a bad actress and actually changing her skin is just insulting. I think the issue isn’t so much the color of the character’s skin, so much as it is the fact that the films are so obvious about their racially driven casting choices, is just insulting.

3) But compared to the source material is it really that racist? For example, in the game Prince of Persia the main character is basically British, he is white, and has a British accent, and the Princess is somewhat dark but she doesn’t really seem Indian beyond a skin color and dress. Would the game have been better if the story tapped more into Persian Culture and Society rather than just the aesthetic. If the it was equally well written, I think I’d enjoy it even more, because its about clashing societies and two ancient cultures that are almost totally unrepresented in video games today. So yes, it if was handled equally well, I think it would have been much more interesting, in fact I could have used less platforming if their was more story and cultural stuff, but I don’t think the game was obligated to be true to the roots of an obvious fantastical Persian world. Similarly, the Avatar TV Show has to deal with race issues, two of the main characters have dark skin, but in a world that draws heavily from Asian folklore and with an Asian atheistic, most of the characters look white. Aang is supposedly from a Tibetan styled culture (people keep calling him Chinese, don’t know why), and yet he looks like a bald white guy wearing vaguely Tibetan clothes. Now I’ve met like half a dozen Tibetans in my life, so clearly I’m not an expert on a society that I’m sure is very ethnically diverse, but every Tibetan I’ve met, even those born in the states, are very dark skinned, brown eyed and with much more “Asian” faces. Similarly, I’ve seen many movies about the Inuit, they all seem very Asian looking, while Katara and Sokka look like well, white people with a really dark tan, or maybe Latinos, but certainly not Inuit. Troph basically is white, and the Fire Nation despite seemingly drawing upon Fascist Japan/Communist China design, are almost entirely made up of white people with “Asian Styled” haircuts, and are certainly not Indians. Ok yes, not all Asian people share a universal look, but they certainly don’t all look like slightly different white people, the characters of the cartoon could pass for Americans in most cartoons. Also the jungle tribes they stumble across look and act like Louisiana hicks, which as a partial southern I’d find offensive if my family wasn’t from North Carolina (hypocrisy ahoy), while you’d think that a Vietnamese, Thai or Cambodian culture would be more appropriate if they were fleshed out in the process. So can we really blame the Movie too much if the show itself is not ethnically diverse in the least? I mean, why not have the Fire Nation look Japanese. Now maybe I’m a little bias because I personally find the “Asian traits” that were omitted very attractive, but I’d still rather have Troph look Chinese. However, lets bear in mind, the animators are drawing from Asian philosophy and culture, but it’s a fantasy world, with a very western world view emerging from the series, so it isn’t like “Fantasy Asia” exactly. I mean, if a bunch people with dark skin settled in the South Pole, I’d expect them to live like the Inuit just because of how useful that method is for survival. I could see a group of White people with a vaguely Japanese styled culture. Its fishy that out of all of the cultures drawn upon, Inuit, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, and Pacific Islander, none of these people are white and yet white people seem to be everywhere in the world of Avatar. Now I enjoy the show, but I think this is subtler racism. Honestly, quality is an issue, Avatar is a good show so nobody wants to bring up the race issue, because it colors (no pun intended) our view on an otherwise good show, while the Avatar Movie (Both of them actually but I mean the Airbender one) are trash, so people mock its racism

4) So is a film better if it casts people of proper ethnicity? I feel a little nervous making that claim, I mean, because I’m a WASP does that mean that somebody of Irish descent is automatically better at playing an Irish character? I mean, is a random black guy automatically going to be better at playing Martin Luther King Jr. than say, Robert Duvall, who is one of the best American actors at all time? I mean, Robert Duvall who isn’t Irish played Tom Hagen in Godfather very well. However speaking of Godfather, most of the cast for that movie were Italians, and that added a certain something to the film. The way they spoke, their mannerism, the interactions, the film (directed by Italian American director Copula) and so has a certain charm, a feeling of familiarity that is brought out by people who really understand their own culture, enhanced because the characters look Italian. Or watching movies made in their own culture, there is a certain charm that is hard to bring across, like say, Rules of the Game or Yojimbo, those movies are so clearly the product of their respective cultures. Can you imitate that without native actors? I’d say yes, but its much harder.

5) However, even after agreeing with most of the racism, I can’t bring myself to agree with the idea of racial casting, because its not always bad. For example, I love Lawrence of Arabia, I think its an amazing film, and yet despite being filmed in Saudi Arabia, being a movie about Arab culture/history/society, and being about the issue of race, most of the main Arab actors are not played by Arabs, I think only one of them is an Arab. Some are South American, some are Middle Eastern but not Arab, and Sheriff Ali is played by an Egyptian. And yet it’s an amazing film, and the movie’s theme about Arabic culture still ring true, despite the fact almost all of the Arab actors are extras. Lawrence of Arabia is rather ironic, because one of the major themes of the story is that Lawrence doesn’t really identify with his own ethnicity, and seems to project himself as an Arab, which is very interesting take upon the whole idea of race in theaters. You’d think Lawrence (and the average audience member) would sympathize more with the British, but instead he is drawn to the Arabs, possibly because he like them is an outsider (in the film this is attributed to his alleged Homosexuality). Or take Last King of Scotland where African American Forest Whitaker plays Ugandan Idi Amin. Yeah that’s not a typical example, but it still applies, just because they are both black doesn’t change the fact that they are from totally different ethnicity, and even if you traced back Whitaker’s family history, I’d guess that they would come from West Africa because that is where most of the slaves were kidnapped from, not Uganda, in fact I think they darkened his skin for the film so he would look more African. However, he does an amazing job, that is one of my favorite movies of all time, and he does a great job portraying the character. Should they have found some Ugandan actor to play the part instead? Considering how well it turned out, I’m inclined to say know, unless this hypothetical Ugandan actor was somehow better than Whitaker, which I feel is kinda impossible. But again, like with Lawrence of Arabia, the actor shows a great deal of respect (if that’s the right word) for his role. He is speaking in an actual Ugandan Accent, he looks like Idi Amin, he walks and talks like Idi Amin, and honestly it looks like the Dictator was hired for the part. Like in Lawrence of Arabia, race is a plot point in the film, and the fact that Whitaker isn’t African doesn’t dilute the message. In both films, there is a sense that the directors and actors respect the fact that they are playing outside their culture and try to do justice to their portrayals. Ok, so ultimately (I love that word), what do we draw from this, what’s the conclusion? Is Hollywood racist, and is non ethnic casting possible? To the former, I think Hollywood is an absurdly racist institution, but in this particular instance, I feel this stems not from malice so much from the standard Hollywood way of doing business. This doesn’t feel so much like Blackface, instead it feels similar to how Hollywood casts are almost entirely made up of the most good looking people on the planet. You never have women in Hollywood who don’t look almost perfect, you never have men who have a little gut unless it’s a plot point, everybody has to appeal to this very strict standard of beauty, which is non whites sadly don’t fit into with a few exceptions, so to be an Indian American who wants to get good parts you face the same challenge as an American who is slightly overweight, or a women who doesn’t fit that absurd standard of beauty. Its still racist, but its less obvert. Secondly, ethnic casting, I feel like what makes the difference between Last Airbender and Lawrence of Arabia is the amount of respect paid to the source material, in Last Airbender it feels like the white actors were cast off hand and clearly no effort was made for them to blend into their environment, thus making this just insulting obvious, while in Lawrence of Arabia the actors are integrated into Arab culture. So it boils down to respect, I feel like a lot of Asian minorities already have a massive chip on their shoulder due to being underappreciated by the Hollywood elites, are doubly offended by the fact that their cultures are simply dismissed as nothing more than a backdrop which makes people feel unappreciated, while Lawrence of Arabia is very aware of the cultures involved. So I think it ultimately boils down to respect, and a sense of appreciation for the culture involved. However, I think that directors should at least start casting Asian Americans, and by extension, any ethnic minority when the opportunity arises because they aren’t given enough recognition, and often it adds a great deal to the movie, rather than just constantly recasting the same pool. Even if looking past the racism, the insensitivity of leaving out societies from the mainstream media, its just wasting of perfectly good acting talent causing stagnation. You can’t just draw from the same limited pool of actors, that just causes rot, and also has this weird effect of thinking that white people are the norm, the standard in the world, and everybody else are commodities. I feel like they have a sort of obligation to try to move beyond this very localized viewpoint, because as fascinating as our own culture is, there is so much more out there. Focusing upon other cultures/societies should be a welcome opportunity for Hollywood, because these are world full of different ideas and different struggles, in a multi ethnic country,we should welcome more input from the massive amount of people within our borders (for that matter, notice a lack of movies about Latinos?) Even a single big name Chinese Actor for example would bring a great deal more attention to the Chinese American community, whose kids would try to become actors knowing they don’t have to just play stereotypes. With more actors will bring more recognition to these ethnic groups, which leads to a more culturally aware population, cause I feel like most Americans are in this sort of cultural bubble. Unlike Europe, we aren’t directly confronted with these other societies beyond Hispanics and African Americans, and thus don’t really acknowledge them, I mean I don’t know any Vietnamese Americans, so um, why should I care? So while yes, the racism debate is somewhat over zealous, and directors shouldn’t be forced to limit themselves to race when choosing their actors, it is a very viable option, and I feel the more we embrace other cultures the better we will be for it.

From

EE

Why Wall-E is better than Avatar

1) Wall-E took risks. The thing about avatar is that its safe, it feels like a movie made by executives and business men, coldly planning out every aspect of t...he film so they can make money, apart from technology nothing is revolutionary, and technology isn't a risk. Wall-E takes a lot of risks, it could have easily been a flop, but it is about conveying art. From the rising towers of trash, to the dance in space, its all about trying to convey a real sense of meaning, not just showing images for its own sake. I mean, its like an American silent film more than anything else. Also avatar's moral isn't shocking, its just rehashing old cliche ethics, while Wall-E's point is kinda of shocking, its the story of Adam (wall-E) and EVE turning to labor as the path to salvation, turning away from the "false god" of Buy N large, the empty soulless void of capitalism and merchandise, but finding love in meaning. IT also attacks ... See More capitalism, the real thing, not the fact awkward business man of avatar, but instead the brand loyalty, the ease of cruise ships, the hollow existence of hedonism
2) It doesn't contradict its own message. Avatar glorifies a stone age society, which doesn't make any sense, because that movie required 310 million dollars to make, and the most advanced technology of a decedent, hedonistic, escapist society to be successful, marking itself with which is just hypocritical. Wall-E doesn't claim that technology is bad, just that it needs to be inferior to humanity, taht it serves to assistece not to dominate, its is still vauble. And they explain why the humans are on this endless capitalistic cruise ship, its easy, and useful. The message of technology is far greater when they clearly thought it out. Also the film is subtle, their isn't some revolution where they declare implausibility that society will never use technology again, its just shows the waste, but also how nice the humans are. 3) Its about people and hte real. Avatar is an escapist fantasy, the jungle doesn't feel like a jungle just the product of an animator to dazzle us, thats its purpose. In contrast, Wall-e Contrasts the clean, wonderful and perfect ship world to the dirty, grimy, destroyed real world, but it is the world of the real, as broken and grey as it is, ... where human kind can grow and create beuty, rather than simple living like parasites. The humans in this look so weird because by embracing technology they have given up their humanity, the robots are more human then they are because the follow the ethic of work and experiencing life, even if it is a hard life, rather than simple having an endless wave of pleasure. The story is about us, about who we are and what makes us who we are. Its encouraging us to leave the comfort of the ship and come to the ruin, and make a paradise, not escape into this virtual sex world. And that is beautiful

From

EE

District 9 vs. Avatar

Mind you, this part is real

Now all writers have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to focuses of writing. Actually that is true of all writers, but internet reviewers like me are especially prone to stylistic polarization in this degree because of the hilariously low standards we are held too. The most common method for a reviewer, and forgive me if I am just getting the hang of this, is to be hilariously critical towards everything, spurt a lot of curse words, make some hilariously offensive comments to piss people off and finally some veiled comments about sexual inadequacy. And like more critics, I am far more qualified for negative reviewers, through unlike most that is not because of my lacking a soul but instead from my absurdly high standards (and great sense of modesty to go with that). I’ve always had a talent both for blowing my own trumpet, and for articulating what is wrong with a movie, book, video game or what have you. But my weakness is positive reviews, because I tend to take ages to explain why something is good (See my M review) due to how hard it is for something to appease my unreasonable standards. So instead of trying to improve my writing talents through repetition and practice, I’m going to give in to sloth like most teenagers and so I’m not going to review Distract 9 directly but instead just show how it is better than Avatar to explain why it is good. Horary, underachievement. So, after a second brief introduction, the ten reasons why District 9 is better than Avatar.

So lets talk about the District 9. Like Avatar it is a film about humans interacting with an alien species and the humans come off as the evil ones. Underlining themes include culture shock, veiled racism and the somebody being turned into an alien. However, unlike Avatar, District 9 seemed to have people on the team who actually considering plots important rather than just subtext, and while Avatar is the cheap pornography of the science fiction world (through very good porn, but still would bore the fuck out of me), District 9 is….I’m not going to keep this metaphor going actually. Anyway, unlike Avatar District 9 is actually good, which isn’t saying very much but what ever, but even on its own it is a good movie. And so, lets have the contrast

1) Concept. Now neither film is really a paragon of originality. Avatar is just Dances with Wolves with aliens and District 9 is the South African Apartheid all over again but with aliens. Actually just that is a sigh of why the latter wins, because quite frankly, exploring the themes of racism and African culture interest me more than watching Kevin Coster’s hypocrisy combined with James Cameron’s talent for self indulgence in 3-D. But even my own massive personal bias aside, the way its done is far more interesting. Avatar is just the basic “evil military shows up, and oppresses noble natives on super special awesome sci fi world”, while District 9 is about a bunch of aliens who land in Johannesburg, South Africa, starving and on the verge of death. Lacking any real awareness of how they got there, being basically drones nor knowing hot to use any of their own technology, they are then put in the slums. Now that alone is intriguing, because…come on, that explores something human. Also, the more movies in Africa the better I say. When I heard the premise, I was honestly intrigued, even if they didn’t pull it off I was certainly into the theme, because there is so much more room for complexity in this one. And while both movies are about aliens seeing us as monsters, stand ins towards the US military have been done

2) Setting- Yeah, yeah, Pandora is an alien world full of crazy monsters and weird environments but we’ve seen that before. Now that’s fine, if they added something new, but apart from ripping off the matrix, it doesn’t really have anything to it. Now, South Africa, that I find interesting, because I’m always fascinated by human nature, and in our sheltered First World, people don’t normally don’t realize the full extent of horribleness that is African slums, and also because unlike Pandora, this isn’t just escapist fantasy, there is a lesson here. District 9 was filmed in an actual South Africa slum during an eviction, and is therefore touching a real and complicated issue, instead of simply the fantastically problems of Pandora

3) The aliens- Yeah, know that James Cameron wrote like a 300 page document explaining the Na’vi and how his planet works, but honestly, any fan fic writer could do that and still not be impressive. Within the world, the Na’vi are simply disinteresting because they lack depth. There culture is just a mix of Native American and African cliff notes, created to fulfill the “oppressed native” stereotype more than anything else. Because beyond there own language and internet like nature powers, they really don’t have any real alien trait them, they are just humans in weird bodies, nothing about them feels really alien. In contrast, the Prawns are distinctly inhuman. While they share some traits with humans, they also are just really weird. The aliens who land for the most part simply want to eat cat food and wander aimlessly seemingly lacking the ability to think on a long term (with a few exceptions). The Prawn have these weird technologies, but they trade them like they are nothing, and don’t’ know how to control their own ship. Being insect like, they are also kinda scary, or at least disturbing. When the film’s protagonist finds the eggs of these creatures and casually burns the larvae, there is enough moral distance that the audience can at least understand his callousness. The creatures also are never really explained, the humans seem to think that they are just listless or stupid biologically, however that could just be general stereotypes towards creatures who lack any education or prospects. One alien is clearly intelligent, is he just proving that they are in fact quite intelligent naturally or is he a different caste, the way drones are different from workers in a been colony. I mean, their inability to speak English is so much more real than all of the Na’vi contently knowing English in that broken “me proud native” sort of way.

4) Humans being shown as the real monsters- Both movies are remarkable because they are about showing a culture class between aliens and humans, and the humans are seen as the sinister monsters. In Avatar through, this isn’t really developed beyond the stereotypical “white imperialists attack noble savages” cliché that we seen in Dances with Wolves. No effort is really made to explore why the humans are so sinister beyond the general idea of them having guns and some veiled references to George W. Bush. The humans aren’t really that scary, just incompetent, as the Na’Vi are so similar to us in terms of thought process intelligence and mannerism. In district 9, humans are legitimately scary because we are held in a sharper contrast to the aliens. Like the Na’Vi, the Prawn are physically more than a match for humans, being at least eight feet tall with incredible armor and strength. And unlike the Na’V, they have technology that can tear apart anything humans could find. And yet, they are in the slums, because the Prawn lack the human ability to organize and think long term, and thus we dominate them. The Prawn are just individuals and listless, they don’t really identify with each other as a society, the largest group of them is about three guys and even then they have trouble coordinating (such as being unable to hide there precious fluid at all intelligently.) The humans are also legitimately dangerous because they actual display real human ruthlessness. This might sound cold, but honestly, the humans in Avatar were playing with the kiddy gloves on. Seriously read what societies will do if we really want something, Napalm, and smallpox come to mind. Now in District 9, humans are using methods that they we actually have used on minority groups. Those slums you see? Yeah, those exist, in South Africa, right now, where people live in pretty much those conditions. Forced eviction and massive camps full of segregated oppressed minorities who are considered inhuman? Yeah South Africa did that. Cannibalism? Not as much as western racists would want you to think, but it does happen, for example, Albinos can be in trouble in some countries. How about human experimentation. Well les discount Africa, and look at Dr. Manglia., who is much worst than what could happen in the film. When it comes to being villains we are able to do so much worst than simple Hollywood villain laughs.

5) Racism. Yeah let me say it, Avatar is a racist patronizing film. We have the old stereotypes of the Mighty White man who leads the Noble Savage to bring down his White Guilt. The natives are a bunch of Generic Native American/African tribes and the Whites are basically culturally imperialists. In the District 9 movie through, there is more than just a bunch of stereotypes. Yes, it’s a massive parallel to the South Africa Apartheid, and it’s the exact same dichotomy of oppressive Boer Neo Nazis oppressing the impoverished minority. And yet, unlike Avatar’s metaphor for imperialism, this movie actually explores the real racism of that situation For example, in real life, there was a big problem with casual racism, IE even those whites who weren’t out killing blacks still regarded them patronizingly at best and with disgust at worst because of their extreme poverty and ignorance. We have the UN who are trying to “help” the Prawn, but mismanagement and lack of interest (subtle racism) actually makes things worst, and we have advert racists who are then shown to have more positive aspects. And more importantly, its somewhat realistic, the scientists who are experimenting on Wikus are horrible, but they are doing what most incompetent dictatorships (yeah I mean you South Africa) would do. Its more real. Also the whites, while horrible, aren’t total monsters, we see there personalities in the start when they are talking to the documentaries. And we see the main character chatting casually with the ruthless enforcers, indicating that for all of the horrible things they do, the Boers are still people, they have families and loved ones and a sense of humor. Even when the protagonist is trying to help the Prawn, he clearly views that am an inferior people. And the Prawn aren’t shown as ideal either, while they are clearly the victims, they are still kinda disgusting, and for the most part pretty stupid. Also they do bad things, mostly in reaction to oppression, but still bad things, like randomly burning down houses and getting involved in gangs (alien prostitution ewwwww). There is a moral grayness and a examination of racism rather than exploiting it

6) Better characters. As I mentioned before, everybody in Avatar is a stock character who lacks any originality or depth, and most importantly has been seen before. None of the characters are ever conflicted or taken outside there cliché comfort zone. The characters in District 9 are more fleshed out. Lets compare Wikus and…Mini Mel. MM also goes into an alien culture and tries to live among the natives, but at no point does he seem anything other than the ideal Christ like hero. He makes a few mistakes, but he instantly realizes it and repents and is never really conflicted, nor does he show any weakness. Wikus on the other hand is very human, in that he is kinda pathetic. He is socially awkward, nervously high strung, hilariously cowardly, and pretty inept. Besides that, he is a racist, a selfish bastard, and a willing member of the oppressor’s regime. The character is almost the quintessential pencil pusher (he has a calculator in his bullet proof vest for gods sake). And he isn’t even a kinda badass evil protagonist, but kinda embarrassing just watching this incompetent goof screw up in every scene. And yet, that makes him very sympathetic and actually complex, selfish bigot he may be, but he honestly loves his wife, and even as a member of a corrupt organization, its implied that he makes some basic effort to care for the Prawn, limited as it might be. Wikus isn’t a great person, but the thing is, I can imagine people like him, hell I know people like him. He is far more sympathetic and more realistic. If you had to face living your life as an alien life form and giving up your comfy old government life, would you be happy? Hell no, and he isn’t. He also betrays his comrades for his own best interest, which makes sense when you realize he only just met them and doesn’t give a damn about their cause. His somewhat loose regard for morals is actually somewhat enlightening, such as when he kills a guard in debatable self defense despite telling his comrades that there would be no killing. “He shot at me” and honestly , most people would do the same. And when he does do something decent, it stands out more, like his risking his life to tell his wife he loves her. Badass heroics are meaningless if they lack context, and Wikus for all of his many faults, is still a good person at heart. This extents to the other characters, Wilku’s wife is a bit of a moron, but she has a good heart, the corrupt father in law is shown as thoroughly evil, but still has some humanity in him when he is with his daughter, the Nazi Captain is…well a Nazi but he is a total badass in how he defeats the aliens by being clever. Here is the thing, humans aren’t ideal and don’t do the right thing, humans are weak, awkward and morally flexible. But we are also brave, selfless and thoughtful.

7) The storytelling. Do I even need to explain.

8) The graphics. You know what, considering that one had 130 million dollars and the other had 20 million, District 9 gets the cake, because I find the real world much more fascinating than CGI fantasia.

9) The style. Maybe I’m a sucker for hand cameras, but the way the story is told is far more intriguing, we aren’t subject to a bunch of macho voice overs, but we have a quisi documentary style (which I wish they kept up…somehow) and a much more intelligent explanation of how the aliens live

10) The moral. Avatar doesn’t have a moral, it has a plot that serves a purpose. Imperialism is bad, and cat people are perfect yeah we know its BS. District 9 gives up its storyline about half way through, but the main moral is still there, the effects of poverty and misunderstanding upon racism. Is it as clear cut or heavy handed as Avatar? No, and that’s why its better, it presents the situation, shows it from different perspectives, and lets me understand a real life situation in a real place. So not the movie for a quick three word moral (IMPELRALISM IS BAD) unless you want (AFRICA SUCKS WHITY). All in all…better movie.

from

EE

Dances with Wolves….again

Oh you got to be kidding me.....Learn Cherokee

Alternate title: Avatar, An Exercise in Escapist Pornography

Now, I’ve been biased against this film since I first saw the trailers, because honestly…I knew what I was going to see before I went in. James Cameron, the director of Titanic ("Gags) has made a movie where humans in the future land on an alien planet full of giant blue cat elves who live in harmony with nature, making a general environmentalist utopia (besides lack of indoor plumbing i suppose, thats just to be expected) . Then the big bad humans come in with their greed, selfishness, and decadence and try to destroy this paradise, until the main white characters comes and unites the primitives, I mean natives together in a great coalition and defeats the evil cooperation. Thus proving that spears with the power of love can beat bullets (just ask the Zulus…no wait). I knew that the movie would be pretty and have inventive new graphics, but ultimately would be lackluster propaganda, as I am very much not impressed by visuals. So I thought I would be leaving the film in a state of rage that might give me an ulcer. And that didn’t happen. The graphics didn’t impress me as much as I thought they would (which is saying a lot) and the plot didn’t annoy me as much as I thought it would, at least when I watched it. It was the next day when walking my dog that I was hit with intense ulcer inducing rage, for what the film represents, and I think i need a doctor. See also, Mediocre Pornographic Propaganda

The plot is exactly as I described it, except that the EVIL corporations have the ability to create these fake bodies of the native blue people (called Navi, and quite frankly, are about as annoying as that damned Zelda fairy). Basically, a humans plugs himself into a terminal and awakes in one of these artificial beings where he can walk around with his real body miles away. Maybe I’ve been jaded by the internet, but the first thing I thought when I heard a crippled white man was pretending to be a hot blue nature loving archer was “hey its just like World of Warcraft”. Oh right, the main character has lost the use of his legs, which adds whole levels of escapist subtext to the film, I’ll get to that later. Anyways, so our main character…I think his name was Jack. Actually, speaking of that, I’m not sure about the names of any of these characters. The main guy I have dubbed Mini Mel, as he does everything short of wearing a kilt in his big battle speech (in the DVD he blames the Jews for the invasion), who has his big “we must fight the invaders with our barbarian rawr” speech and pretty much exists as a Mel Gibson stand in, but not as good an actor…gods help us all. At random moments in the film, I swear an Australian accent suddenly emerged, even through the character normally sounds American.

OK , lets recap the plot.

The movie opens with Coming Home goes into Platoon, does a cleaner (see stupider) version of Matrix with a tip of the hat to Alien, then its out into the jungle where we replay Jurassic Park straight into Dances With Wolves, and finishes the jungle bits with a little of Dinotopia.

Back at the base we shift between Apocalypse Now and generic bad US military – corporate talk, (see Fern Gully), Back to the jungle we have Dances with Wolves/Braveheart/ Last Samurai/Apocolypse Now/Castles in the Sky/ Dynatopia/ Star Wars 3/Princess Monanokee/more Castles in the Sky/Apocalypse Now/The Matrix/ The hero and chick kiss and the curtain drops. At least I think it drops because I left the Theater after the defeated capitalist leave the planet. Feel free to fill in your own movies, because I’m not sure I got everything (some people have mentioned Dune which I haven’t read, and um, the Smurfs? Also there are some things taken from Titanic, does that count?)

The scenery of air ships attacking floating rocks in the sky is impressive, but lacking the complexity and depth that Castle in the Sky brought us, what we see here feels like a hollow attempt to capture another film's glory. Avatar is just a list of Hollywood clichés that are coupled with new graphics, a cynical attempt to hid the film’s lack of a soul. Other points that occured to me.

1) How can you glorify nature when this MOVIE IS ONLY MADE POSSIBLE THANKS TO THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Hell, this movie would only sell because our culture is so seeped in escapism and boredom that we have the luxury of seeing a Romanized jungle as an attraction. I mean, if you want to show man vs. nature, fine, and if you want to be anti imperialism, I’m down with that, but don’t play up the role of the Noble Savage if this movie's main selling point is its advanced 3-D graphics.

2) Ok, an actual movie point, this culture's not a culture. They have weird rituals, they love nature, awesome internet styled spiritual connection like connection with…everything and lack any sort of civil disunity. There are no problems in their society, a shallow portrayal of a society just the glamorized advertisements (like many of my college pamphlets). Its essentially a utopia. Ladies and Gentlemen, lets talk tribal societies for a second. The Native Americans and African tribes which this movie is blatantly copying were very advanced people with their own cultures, customs and depth. However they weren’t a utopia, they had their own flaws, which is why they lost. I"m Cherokee, and that tribe was notable because we conformed to the white lifestyle (at last before the Trail of Tears) The whites would trade guns and trinkets to the tribes in exchange for assistance or land, and would play the tribes against each other. When the great native victory came at Little Bighorn, the tribes after winning simply dispersed rather than doing anything with their victory. And disenfranchised members of the tribe were willing to work with whites to better there station. I mean the Na’vi have a caste system for gods sake, why are they so hollow? We see not dissatisfied members of the society, nobody who displays a personality against that of the main three characters (like not working with the guy who helped fire bomb your tree, no matter how pimp his ride), or even people who are cubby?

3) Hey, for Aliens they are very human, patronizingly so. To the point where they don't even feel like Aliens, just an obvious knock off of real life human cultures....wait

4) The world feels like a fan fiction. I mean, planet that is alive and everybody having a special connector cord? Really

5) I am not politically opposed to this film. Is imperialism wrong? Of course it is, the company has no right to destroy the village and the Na’vi are justified in defending themselves. However, it is very misleading to simply have the industrialist be a bunch of generic evil stereotypes. Again, Princess Monokee, the iron companies have a perspective.Its insulting that they don’t think I can handle complexity. It’s the Disney problem, if you give people heavy handed idealism, you just get a generation of kids with black and white mentalities. I mean, seriously, don’t give me a perfect idealized race, don’t give me some utopian planet, give me real people, other wise the message doesn't have any meaning, its just Soviet style insecure propaganda. If the film's message is just, it can afford to give its villain some depth.

Finally this film is scenic pornography. I hate porn, not because I’m opposed to sex, but because it isn’t sexy. Ok, and because its sexist, supports eastern European slavery, and is really disgusting (feel ashamed). But aside from all that, its just so blatant that it ruins any beauty in sex, you have contrived situations where people have overly unrealistic sex for pretty much not reason other than to show off the girls and pander to the audiences hormonal urges. The beauty is there, but the real beauty is the spirit behind the act, and it’s tainted if it’s just flaunted like a cheap device to make money. In a similar sense, this film is just pandering to my appreciation of the visual, but without any spirit behind it, its just cheap landscape porn. Contrast to Castle in the Sky or Princess Monokee, where the landscape is truly beautiful and overwhelming but with the feeling that both are labors of love, not just another marketing toy of the same Hollywood clichés. I mean, a film that has feels alive, even if it isn’t as visually stunning like Wall-E will be remembered for generations. This is just another gimmick that will fade when the next even more impressive 3-D film replaces it, just as Titanic will fade by the next generation (except maybe in Kurdistan, don’t know what is up with that). Akira Kurosawa’s RAN was made in 1985 in Japan lacking modern technology but it is still a visual masterpiece. The most poignant moments I’ve experienced in film are visual in nature, but they only matter because of the context, the spirit and the feeling that the directors are creating art. This isn’t art, its porn, showing the image but it’s a hollow soulless illusion. This is porn, because it is all about entertainment, and not about art. There is no real story, no real suffering, no real learning. It is just a generic Disney dribble.

Finally, escapism. The movie had the potential brilliant in terms of touching upon the escapist nature of a movie, a self referential comment upon the escapist nature of film, like Vertigo, and the Matrix. In our current world of advertising and self indulgence, movies are just another empty past time, and ultimately, that is what Avatar is. The film is not about the crippled marine learning that though is body is broken he is capable of living a complete life. Instead we have an emotional crippled society that cares more about fantastical utopias instead of facing the real sociopolitical challenges in life, like imperialism and racism. Apocalypse Now is a journey inward, revealing the dark and disturbing essence of humanity, while Avatar is simply a whimsical fantasy of wish fulfillment.

This clumsily allows me to diverge into racism. The film isn’t racist as “Dances with Wolves” is, but it’s the same manifestation of White Guilt, a typical white oppressor who realizes the corrupt nature of his society and joins the oppressed. However, even after “integration” he isn’t becoming a victim, a standard member of the tribe forced to deal with being an oppressed group. Instead Mini Mel dominates the natives indirectly, thus satisfying his guilt without having to actually give power to the natives. Is Avatar racist? No, but the format it follows is, it cops out actual racism because they don't show any real groups, but its still racist in the same sense Jar Jar Binks is a racist depiction.

Why I’m so angry is because this is so typical of Hollywood, to give me more empty spiritless clichés rather than art. We’ve seen this movie again, because it’s just the zombie corpse of earlier films. I'm not even impressed by the imagery, because this is just going to lead to rip offs trying to avoid making a quality film by using fancy visuals, and this has been seen before. Avatar adds nothing to the genre but the latest technology, which will be replaced within five years. In short, James Cameron is a hack.

from

EE