It got bad reviews
Posted on April 19, 2010
Filed Under CMU, May I Interject?, Uncategorized |
Below is my fake, unfinished rhetoric paper on Avatar. I think Avatar got better reviews . . .
Here’s how I see it.
James Cameron finally noticed the illegality of hallucinogens. He decided to capitalize. His personally profitable course of action was to provide consumers with a legal, longer-than-comfortable trip. Bravo for the “War on Drugs” and the future of simulation.
Yes, there he was at his desk, prophesizing about the upcoming fascinations of Western society. Simultaneously Pocahontas (the Disney film) lulled in the background, subconsciously and cheerfully embedding words like “color,” “wind” and “riverbend” into his psyche.
He lifted his pointer finger. “People who take ‘shrooms like trees and the Internet,” he thought aloud. And after quickly reviewing the plotlines of The Matrix and Fern Gully, Cameron vomited Avatar through the passage between his brain and his fingertips.
So that’s not what really happened. Like I said, that’s how I see it. You along with many people–perhaps millions– won’t agree with what I have to say about Avatar. Some of you might find my argument completely obnoxious. Examples of reactions include, “It’s just a movie,” “But it was beautiful,” “You’re looking too much into it,” “Why does it matter?” You were there; you remember: the movie won three Oscars, numerous random awards, was nominated for 53 more and was and is raved about. Avatar matters because mainstream society showed it matters. My concern lies within what the popularity of the movie shows about the tastes of mainstream society.
First, let’s census the movie’s population. It’s the year 2154 and in this particular faction we see lots of thoroughbred White guys and one White woman, a couple minorities (as we know of them today) interspersed into the roles of U.S. military men and women, and one Asian woman, who can be seen typing on the computer in two scenes. Does it strike anyone else as bizarre only one Asian person exists in 2154?
But I guess an audience can justify having another big-time movie with another cast made up of disproportionate demographics if the majority of the movie shows computerized blue people. That seems fair.
But even then, the blue people are just digital mirrors of how Western epistemology would shape a generalized indigenous person. Also, if you think about it, Cameron had no choice but to make them blue. Green (or any shade of it) wouldn’t provide him a wide enough color palette with the forest. Colors like white, black, red, yellow and brown automatically imply racial undertones. Purple and pink are just silly (Barbietar). Orange would provoke too many tanning bed jokes (Cancertar).
The creatures, too, are digital mirrors. They, however, fall short of being metaphorical. Instead of a rhino, we have a rhino-hammerhead shark-thing. Instead of a horse, we have a hybrid plug-in seahorse with legs. And don’t even get me started on the pterodactyls. My point is if you want to laud imagination, you’d be better off watching Teletubbies upside down.
Remaining Argument:
We are still fascinated with tales of imperialism, masculinity and subordination. We are still easily distracted by the aesthetic nature of propaganda. Life is in 3D!
Comments
One Response to “It got bad reviews”
Leave a Reply
Have you read any Ursula K. Leguin? She *hates* how every character — in every show, movie, and book — is white. (Rightfully.)
I wonder if perhaps the decision to use mostly white characters was intentional — e.g., symbolic, and intended to be symbolic.
I’d also point out that we have no guarantee segregation will be less of a problem in 2154 than it is today. See also: Firefly.