----- Forwarded Message ----
From: CK VISHWANATH <ckvishwan...@gmail.com>
To: C.K. Vishwanath <ck_vishwanath2...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, 9 March, 2010 7:35:12 PM
Subject: Re: avatar-film review by Joe
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM, CK Vishwanath <ck_vishwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>-- avatar-film review by Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Avatar: a deceptive saga of reaction Joe.M.S.
>
>The film poses to be providing a satiety for the revolutionary angst of the
>oppressed, through the apparently progressive metaphoric element, in the
>narrative structure of the movie. Thus, the story of an imperialist onslaught
>on a virgin land of humanoids(Na’vi) , and the attempt to plunder their
>valuable mineral resources by, the ever evil humans, using devious strategies,
>evokes very recent historic memories. One can draw an immediate parallel in
>the plot to the recent attack on Iraq by the imperialist forces. Thus , James
>Cameroon’s magnum opus gives the impression, through the deceptive message
>encapsulated in the metaphoric element in the plot , that it is on the side
>of the oppressed. The portrayal of Yankee’s militaristic imperialism,
>epitomized in the abominable character of the head of Sec-ops, Colonel Miles
>Quatrich(Stephen Lang), a la Bush, persuades the audiences to accept the
>‘progressive’ intentions of the
filmmaker .
>Many other revolutionary insignias and codes, appropriated from progressive
>discourses currently in vogue, are weaved in to the plot to create this
>effect. The spectator is broiled with righteous wrath against the malicious
>workings of capitalism .So far so good.
>
>But if one delves a bit deep beyond the predominant strand of the narrative,
>one could see the glaring disconnect it has with the real content of the film.
>The subterranean text of the movie presents an entirely contrasting picture.
>Then, we can rightfully start doubting whether it is a progressive oeuvre, as
>it is claimed to be. The real problem of the movie is with the whole edifice
>of philosophical apparatus on which the apparently progressive narrative is
>premised. In fact, the grand old polemics of form versus content can be
>invoked as a problem here. The form and content dialectically influences each
>other, existing as they are in a continuum. Thus the visual treat and the
>thriller format amounts to an escapist fare which defeats the projected
>objective.
>
>When the creator mantles the role of a progressive, by directly invoking
>concrete references to the workings and lethal contradictions of the present
>system, and poses to provide solid solution , the whole ideological apparatus
>of the basis of such interventions and its efficacy needs to be enquired into,
>as it is misleading and therefore counterproductive. It is particularly true
>in the present ‘apolitical’ times, when cultural productions of mass appeal,
>can inflence people ideologically.
>
>A critique on the reactionary philosophical basis of Avatar
>The film upholds eco -romanticism to the extent of its radical mythicization.
>Take the scene in which an attempt is made to invoke the supernatural soul,
>and the conviction and sympathy of the script towards such process, to
>reincarnate the fatally wounded Grace - the head of the Avtar programme to
>grow the sapient Na’vi-human hybrid bodies. Her body is placed in front of
>Omaticaya’s Tree of Souls and a graphic and indulgent portrayal of the ritual
>to invoke the soul is followed, which hints at the idealistic perspective of
>the movie. The indigenous humanoids of Pandora( the moon of planet Polymous)
>pleading with Mo’at to heal her and the scene in which the clan performs the
>ritual that transform the protagonist Jake‘s human body permanently to his
>Na’vi Avtar too bears testimony to it. Here the process of
>reincarnation-which can be read as material consciousness too if one takes the
>seemingly opposing leads in the plot,
created by
>the works of modern ‘deprecated’ ‘instrumental’ rationality- to the
>accoutrements of well choreographed visual expletives of sophistry, is itself
>contradictory in its execution and intention. Thus the resultant successful
>transmigration of the ‘soul’ is logically absurd, even when one allow for
>poetic justice. The spectacular choreography of the said scenes are aimed at
>creating the urge for an idyllic world and its romanticised cultural practice
>as a panacea for the contemporaneous realties. (One can leave the ulterior
>motive in replicating the primordial culture of human tribes on humanoids and
>its inherent anthropomorphism, which indirectly results in a sort of
>appropriation of the right to cast judgment on the ‘other‘ in another time
>and space, a la burden of civilising !).
>
>The prominence given to the said scene were worship of the holy tree is shown
>is directly inspired by the recent craze among the middle classes of third
>world for protection of sacred groves- a kind of holy forest- and associative
>practice of alleged environmental protection ingrained in the whole feudal
>cultural milieu, with in which it works. Here the take is that a search is on
>for progressive practice of protection of environment, necessitated in turn by
>the instrumental application of modern rationality, which has been questioned,
>and as a panacea, the search culminates on the assumed virtues of such ‘other’
>cultural practices. The underlying rationality in such moves to ahistoricise
>the socio cultural complex on which that particular and momentous strand of
>culture thrive. It’s posing as libertarian, lacks from a dialectic
>understanding of history. How it works in third world as full-fledged
>ideology of liberation is questionable as
well.
>
>The director has indulged in exorbitant use of visuals abounding in
>commodification of the ‘exotica’ which caters to the voyeurism of the Western
>mind, thereby even stretching the potential coffers of worldly capitalism, to
>the nether world! .The attribution of a symbiotic structure of the cultural
>practices and belief system of the humanoids to the ancient tribal cultural
>practice of the planet earth is a deliberate attempt aimed at this effect.
>
>Even if one allow for the prospects of an imaginary, escapist fancy for the
>mythical world, situated in the realm of an anthropomorphic imaginary species,
>the delineation of the discourse, is reactionary. The fancied and there by
>attractive part of the romanticisation of primordiality arises from the
>seeming ‘un-knowable’ nature attributed to its belief system and therefore
>the resultant potential for its mystifications, rooted in idealist
>interpretations. Again the propensity to think so, is a reflection of the
>alienation of self, resulting from social contradictions in real life.
>
>The visible indignation on all modern props of enlightenment,(may be a genuine
>one due to the misuse of science by the capitalism and the distrust it
>generated, but obviously wrongly posed) is juxtaposed to the sole virtues of a
>historically unreal culture .On a close reading, one can deduce that the
>ideological roots of the process can be traced back to orientalist discourse
>itself.(Its contemporary reproduction is post -modern philosophy, both
>genetically linked to philosophic idealism). In search of awe, resulted from
>alienation generated by commodification of life, the western mind, bewildered
>at all ‘other’ cultural practices as unfathomable and unknowable, develops
>‘protective’ urges towards ‘other’ realities, in the process ‘absolving‘ them
>from the realm of materiality, as one not to be tampered with.
>
>In the perspective of post-modern philosophy they doubt all human engagement
>as unwanted and cultivate a deep animosity to all human achievements, by the
>reductionist argument of branding the very human endeavour as such as
>positivist and bordering on linear progressivism, thereby denying human
>agency, the very literal potency to act in nature. The ideology espoused in
>the movie, inspired by romantic environment movements, subscribe to such a
>position. They conceive that mankind cannot know the workings of the nature
>empirically and his efforts to do the same are destined to be fallible. All
>human interventions are antagonistically pitted against the omnipotent nature,
>without realising the inherent humanising of nature involved in such an
>attempt. The very concept of ‘progresses and ‘development’ are problematised
>non-dialectically. In this move they uphold a position, in reality an
>imperialist ploy, mistaking it as subversive and counter
>hegemonic. All genuine human actions to come to term with the vagaries of
>nature are termed violent and human existence is conceived as a freezed,
>lacking contradiction: amongst themselves arising from class disparities, or
>with nature. Such an ideology had provided fuel to many third world
>semi-fascistic movements based on the admixture of feudal ideological
>formations and technocracy. Ultimately, as an emergent conclusion, mankind’s
>whole history is ridiculed and deep distrust is sowed towards mankind as a
>race itself, incapable of ‘salvation‘. The huge influence such an idea may
>generate among the masses through a popular cultural product may make them
>pessimistic and disempower ideologically.
>
>The total denial of human agency is very dangerous on another count too. They
>do it because, due to the clarity for actions of mankind, it is possible to
>fix responsibility for his pitfalls as a race. The restriction of the
>possibility to comprehend material reality to its complete negation is the
>problematic of such an epistemology.
>
>There assumption behind the unsubstantiated belief exemplified in the lore
>of a personified mother nature and harmonious co-existence between species
>conceptually presupposes the denial of the destructive/accidental side of
>the of natural contradictions resulting from the natural ‘developments’ of
>nature and this ‘positivist’ conviction entrusted in their folklorist belief
>system, deny the possibility to conceive dialectical developments in nature
>as such. James Cameroon, willingly or unwillingly falls prey in to this
>conundrum. The dichotomous detachment of the narrative at bipolar level, one
>as a progressive political praxis conceived as an immanently subversive one,
>and the other one cancelling out its natural ideological progression, is
>reflective of the logic of post -modernity itself. Their attempted liberation
>suffers from a retrograde ideology. In the deliberate aestheticisation of
>primordial life style as
progressive they
>don’t understand that the whole process is in fact informed within the ambit
>of modernity.
>
>Despite the overt political praxis transposed in the narrative to hoodwink the
>people , there were genuine criticism raised and aired by people of concern,
>on the racism involved in casting. For instance, they cited, the usual cliché
>in an American hero liberating the indigenous humanoids of Pandora. But this
>was only the tip of iceberg. The paradox is within the structure of the
>narrative itself, which is regressive.
>
>Let me further point out the instances shown by Cameron as ‘progressive’
>traits in the presumed superiority of the species, Navi. Such a ‘superior
>culture revels in the parochial annihilation of another race on the flimsiest
>of grounds. The issue referred to crops up in the scene where the heroine
>Neytiri (Zoë Saldana) aims an arrow at Jake on her first encounter with him,
>who later changes her mind according to the portents of Eywa. The lack of the
>basics of rational scientific temper, and the resultant ignorance and
>idiosyncrasies, which handicaps them as a race is eulogised and solemnised as
>solution for the real life problems.
>
>The nobility of intention, in developing harmony between man, beast and nature
>attempted in the movie, would have been portrayed in a different format,
>without forays in to the forbidden, that is, without developments like the
>human soul transfixed on the humanoid ’Navi’-a different species and in a way
>a beast- indulging in escapades of physicality with one of that
>race,(obviously not a platonic one!). The commodified sexual exploits even
>cutting across special segregation in the name of universal love(can love be
>only physical ? Then it is dangerous), despite posing to be progressive, and
>the voyeurism instituted at the subconscious of the movie, is obnoxious. The
>psychedilic and perverted impulses deducible here is representative of a
>capitalistic runoff the mill Hollywood streak .
>
>
>The reactionary element of the whole oeuvre is visible even in the title of
>the movie, Avatar. It smacks of idealism of dangerous proportions for its
>genesis in the Brahmanic( read fascistic) lore, which was institutionalised in
>the thought process and body politic of a country to subjugate the subaltern
>for thousands of years. The organic link of the western ideological escapism
>to philosophical orientalism, refurbished and re-articulated in ideological
>apparatus of eco-metaphysics, proves as a reactionary instrument of
>oppression against the liberation of the natives, even now.
>
>Conclusion
>The apparent progressive elements of imagination in the movie fades away, with
>the realization that the sanguine, harmonious and ‘unalloyed’ (stagnated?)
>culture of Pandora pitted against the morose, instrumental culture of plunder
>abound in earth; the leads are that all human agency and empirical endeavours
>to comprehend material reality, in accordance with the vagaries of nature, are
>illegal and that the agency is mooted only in the omnipotent and intelligent
>nature. The inherent fallacy in such a conception lies in being the idealistic
>other of empirical epistemology, as opposed to the materialistic mutual
>inevitability, existing as a continuum, inherent in dialectical conception.
>This is the real message despite the anti-capitalist sloganeering imposed in
>the movie to mislead people. The movie indulges also in a sort of neo-vitalism
>to dispense with human agency and provides falsified ideas for the ongoing
>liberation movements in the world.
>
>__________________________________-Joe.ms
>
>
Your Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!
http://downloads.yahoo.com/in/internetexplorer/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
