<<Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire>> Great ! I guess I'll have to see it after all ! I know its going to be a bunch of cliche-ridden extravagenvce, but I'll support the ethos at least - anything that pisses off neocons and fundamentalsist is all right by me !
OffWorld --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > > 'Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire > > Conservatives are blind to the 3-D blockbuster's charms > > By Patrick Goldstein > [avatar_movie_promo_screenshot] > > It's no secret that "Avatar" has been stunningly successful on > nearly every front. The James Cameron-directed sci-fi epic is already > the fourth-highest-grossing film of all time, having earned more than $1 > billion around the globe in less than three weeks of theatrical release. > > The film also has garnered effusive praise from critics, who've been > planting its flag on a variety of critics Top 10 lists. The 3-D trip to > Pandora is also viewed as a veritable shoo-in for a best picture Oscar > nomination when the academy announces its nominees on Feb. 2. > > But amid this avalanche of praise and popularity, guess who hates the > movie? America's prickly cadre of political conservatives. > > For years, pundits and bloggers on the right have ceaselessly attacked > liberal Hollywood for being out of touch with rank and file moviegoers, > complaining that executives and filmmakers continue to make films that > have precious little resonance with Middle America. > > They have reacted with scorn to such high-profile liberal political > advocacy films as "Syriana," "Milk," "W.," "Religulous," "Lions for > Lambs," "Brokeback Mountain," "In the Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and > "Good Night, and Good Luck," saying that the movies' poor performances > at the box office were a clear sign of how thoroughly uninterested real > people were in the pet causes of showbiz progressives. > > Of course, "Avatar" totally turns this theory on its head. > > As a host of critics have noted, the film offers a blatantly > pro-environmental message; it portrays U.S. military contractors in a > decidedly negative light; and it clearly evokes the can't-we-all-get > along vibe of the 1960s counterculture. > > These are all messages guaranteed to alienate everyday moviegoers, so > say the right-wing pundits -- and yet the film has been wholeheartedly > embraced by audiences everywhere, from Mississippi to Manhattan. > > To say that the film has evoked a storm of ire on the right would be an > understatement. > > Big Hollywood's John Nolte, one of my favorite outspoken right-wing film > essayists, blasted the film, calling it "a sanctimonious thud of a movie > so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC cliches that not a > single plot turn, large or small, surprises. . . . Think of 'Avatar' as > 'Death Wish' for leftists, a simplistic, revisionist revenge fantasy > where if you . . . hate the bad guys (America) you're able to forgive > the by-the-numbers predictability of it all." > > John Podhoretz, the Weekly Standard's film critic, called the film > "blitheringly stupid; indeed, it's among the dumbest movies I've ever > seen." He goes on to say: "You're going to hear a lot over the next > couple of weeks about the movie's politics -- about how it's a Green > epic about despoiling the environment, and an attack on the war in Iraq. > . . . The conclusion does ask the audience to root for the defeat of > American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency. > > So it is a deep expression of anti-Americanism -- kind of. The thing is, > one would be giving Jim Cameron too much credit to take 'Avatar' -- with > its . . . hatred of the military and American institutions and the > notion that to be human is just way uncool -- at all seriously as a > political document. It's more interesting as an example of how deeply > rooted these standard issue counterculture cliches in Hollywood have > become by now." > > Ross Douthat, writing in the New York Times, took Cameron to task on > another favorite conservative front, as yet another Hollywood filmmaker > who refuses to acknowledge the power of religion. Douthat calls "Avatar" > the "Gospel according to James. But not the Christian Gospel. Instead, > 'Avatar' is Cameron's long apologia for pantheism -- a faith that > equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion > with the natural world." Douthat contends that societies close to > nature, like the Na'vi in "Avatar," aren't shining Edens at all -- > "they're places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short." > > There are tons of other grumpy conservative broadsides against the film, > but I'll spare you the details, except to say that Cameron's grand > cinematic fantasy, with its mixture of social comment, mysticism and > transcendent, fanboy-style video game animation, seems to have hit a > very raw nerve with political conservatives, who view everything -- > foreign affairs, global warming, the White House Christmas tree -- > through the prism of partisan sloganeering. > > But why is it doing so well with everyday moviegoers if it's so full of > supposedly buzz-killing liberal messages? > > "It has the politics of the left, but it also has extraordinary > spectacle," says Govindini Murty, co-founder of the pioneering > conservative blog Libertas and executive producer of the new > conservative film "Kalifornistan." > > "Jim Cameron didn't come out of nowhere. He came on the heels of all the > left-wing filmmakers who went before him, who knew that someone with > their point of view would have the resources to finally make a > breakthrough political film. But even though 'Avatar' has an incredibly > disturbing anti-human, anti-military, anti-Western world view, it has > incredible spectacle and technology and great filmmaking to capture > people's attention. The politics are going right over people's heads. > Its audience isn't reading the New York Times or the National Review." > > I suspect that's a good explanation. But if I were trying to get to the > bottom of conservative complaints with "Avatar," I'd offer three more > key reasons why the film has set the right's hair on fire: > > Glorifying soft-headed environmentalism: > > If you hadn't noticed, the conservative movement has become the leading > focal point for skepticism about global warming. The Wall Street > Journal's ardently right-wing editorial pages have been chock-full of > stories ridiculing everything including government sponsorship of > alternative energy, nutty Prius enthusiasts and scientists who allegedly > suppressed climate change data that called into question their claims > about global warming (a flap the WSJ dubbed "Climategate"). > > Ever since Al Gore took center stage with his documentary, "An > Inconvenient Truth," conservatives have been falling over one another in > their attempts to mock liberal planet savers, taking special pleasure in > slamming Hollywood environmentalists who fly private jets or live in > huge houses. > > (As soon as Climategate erupted, two Hollywood conservatives surfaced, > asking the academy to take back Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Oscar, even > though, inconveniently, the Oscar had actually gone to the film's > director, not Gore.) > > So Cameron's giddy embrace of a primitive people who live in harmony > with their land -- and his scathing portrayal of a soulless corporation > willing to do anything, including kill innocent natives, to steal and > exploit their planet's valuable natural resources -- is the kind of > anti-technology, pro-environment dramaturgy that sets off alarms. > > Godless Hollywood triumphs again: > > Conservatives have complained for years that Hollywood ignores, laughs > at or disrespects religion. And to be fair, they are not so wrong. It's > almost as rare to see a film with a sympathetic portrayal of an openly > religious character as it is to see a film with a leading role for an > African American actress. I think it's a stretch to call Hollywood > godless, but it would certainly be fair to call it an extremely secular > world. > > Conservatives are always quick to point out that when someone actually > made an openly religious film -- and of course we're talking about Mel > Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" -- it made hundreds of millions of > dollars. > > Of course, they usually fail to mention that when Hollywood made 2005's > "The Nativity Story," a sweet, very respectful religious drama, it > earned $37 million in the U.S., just about what it cost to make. Ross > Douthat is probably right. Moviegoers are far more comfortable with a > fuzzy, inspirational form of pantheism than they are with an openly > biblical message. > > Hollywood's long history of anti-military sloganeering: > > There is no doubt that "Avatar" portrays its military contractor > characters as barbarous mercenaries, willing -- even eager -- to wipe > out innocent natives in their pursuit of Pandora's precious resources. > It almost feels as if Cameron is drawing parallels, not only to the Iraq > war, but to Vietnam. But while Hollywood often makes antiwar movies, > "Avatar" is something different -- a peaceful warrior film, celebrating > the newly aroused consciousness of a Marine turned defender of a higher > faith. > > What's fascinating is that the American people, who have almost always > shown strong support for our foreign wars, would happily embrace a film > that portrays its military characters in such an unflattering light. > > My guess is that audiences have seen past the obvious because the film > is set in a faraway, interplanetary future, not in present-day America. > When Russian political dissidents wanted to criticize their oppressive > regimes, they would often write stories or make films that were set in > the past, inoculating themselves by using a 15th century czar as a > stand-in for the tyrant of the day. Cameron has done the same thing, but > by moving forward into the future, creating a safe distance for his > veiled (and not-so-thinly veiled) social messages. > > "Avatar" has, of course, far more on its mind than its politics. It's a > triumph of visual imagination and the world's first great 3-D movie. But > it is fascinating to see how today's ideology-obsessed conservatives > have managed to walk away from such a crowd-pleasing triumph and see > only the film's political subtext, not the groundbreaking artistry > that's staring them right in the face. > > http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-bigpicture5-2010jan05,0,\ \ <http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-bigpicture5-2010jan05,0\ ,\> > 5932910.story >
