What Avatar and Atlas Shrugged have in common
This week, James Cameron's sci-fi epic "Avatar" was nominated for a best-picture Oscar.
Avatar is a visually spectacular film, but a lot of critics -- especially conservative ones -- have blasted its plot and message.
Here's John Podhoretz, writing in the Weekly Standard.
"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."
Even the Vatican weighed in, giving a thumbs-down to the pagan spiritualism practiced by the blue-skinned Na'vi.
Conservatives (and Christian traditionalists are right to wrestle with Avatar. It may be the most aggressively political blockbuster in Hollywood history.
Indeed, Cameron's creation has more in common with "Atlas Shrugged" than "Star Wars".
What do I mean?
Like Atlas Shrugged, Avatar lays out a coherent and serious political message, wrapped in the hugely manipulative guise of a potboiler.
Both have cardboard heroes and cardboard villains. Neither have particularly original stories, but they sell their worldview brilliantly.
Like Any Rand, James Cameron treats some of the most pressing issues of our day.
But they don't wrestle with the complexities of the issues. They offer simple, concise answers.
In Rand's novel, long celebrated as a kind of conservative manifesto, pure unfettered capitalism is unerringly moral, a creative force that can only be sullied by evil government bureaucrats and lazy shirkers.
Dagny Taggart, her hero, is brave and sexy. In fact, there's a lot of fairly steamy sex, with some soft-core rough stuff thrown in.
This isn't "A Contract With America." It's a potboiler, a page-turner, and brilliant propaganda.
Same goes for Avatar. Cameron, an Obama-era progressive, is making some very specific points:
-Mercenaries are bad. A lot of critics (including Podhoretz) have gotten this wrong. The soldiers in Avatar aren't "American" soldiers, they're Blackwater-style corporate soldiers-for-hire. At a political moment when the US is outsourcing more and more of its national security -- and when corporations are running more and more American prisons -- it's compellingly topical.
-Exploitation for energy is a reality. In the age of post-peak oil, Cameron is laying out a picture of what we're likely to agree to as a society to grab our own version of 'unobtainium.' His message is clear: If we have to bulldoze native tribes to get our fix of energy, that's what we'll do.
-There is morality in nature. Christians are right to be uncomfortable with Cameron's argument. He's tapping into a growing post-traditional movement in the US, offering a Rousseauian vision of a society living in synch with its environment.
-Corporations are bad. They do amoral things because they have an inherent collective purpose (profit) but no inherent collective morality.
But here's the interesting part.
Unlike most recent filmmakers, Cameron's not just exploring these ideas. He's making a positive declaration.
This isn't art -- with all the nuance, ambiguity and depth that that entails. It's propaganda.
Cameron's Neytiri resembles Dagny Taggart in all but her skin color and big yellow eyes. She's brave, determined and (yes) sexy.
Because Avatar is really really well made propaganda, it will likely be far more influential than, say, "An Inconvenient Truth."
I'm guessing that it the film will outlive Star Wars as a cultural force. Will it outlive Atlas Shrugged?
No. But I'm guessing the two works will sit on the same shelf together, as classics of popular American polemic.


31 Comments:
Rands simplistic view wasn't quite that unfettered capitalism is good and pure so much as that a persons labor and work have value. If you take that value and "give it" to someone who won't work, if you crush the workers and producers under regulation and taxation, if you demand by law that those with "more ability" be forced to support those who never try (mind you I speak of the characters in the book) then you damage the system, deplete the will of the workers and eventually the workers and producers just say "To hell with it!" and go on strike.
Yeah, old Ayn apparently was a kinky old girl and her characters had about as much depth as Daffy Duck. The book was log and, frankly, kinda boring. But to twist the message into a simplistic "capitalism is good" line is both inaccurate and it fails to note that many of the Corporate Capitalists in the book were just as evil as the pseudo communists in the book. The reflection of todays world is striking. Corporate greed and corporate good are both evident in the book and in todays society. This oversimplification that any corporate entity is automatically evil and wrong is ridiculous.
Haven't seen Avatar, I refuse to pay upwards of $15.00 for what I can rent for $3.00 or less in a few months. Capitalism at work again you see...
Bret -
I didn't find Rand's book boring; and I disagree with your assessment.
I think one of her core messages was precisely that capitalism is a positive moral force.
You create value and meaning through the exchange of goods and services and ideas.
It is a passionate (and, as I think we agree, fairly simplistice) defense of laissez-faire capitalism.
-Brian, NCPR
her message was that capitalism is a positive moral force when practiced by moral people and a poor force when practiced by evil people. Remember the competing steel producer that Reardon was up against? He was a capitalist, but he was also in cahoots with the people making the rules that were designed to cripple Reardon. They took his work and hamstrung him.
Laissez-faire capitalism has a bad name. It isn't accurate IMO. It can be either good or bad depending on who's making the decisions. Once again, perspective is what counts.
BTW- you disagree that her message was that a mans work has value and yet you say almost that in your post? Huh?
"Christians are right to be uncomfortable with Cameron's argument."
No, Christianists are uncomfortable. Not Christians. There's a difference.
I'm a Christian who finds nothing wrong with celebrating nature and the goal of living sustainably. A lot of psalms talk about the same things. And some biblical prohibitions, like the ban on eating pork, may have real environmental reasons behind them--raising pigs in a water-scarce area was unsustainable.
Oh, and as a Christian, I am perfectly comfortable with the "just war" doctrine. Avatar's mercenaries clearly weren't fighting a just war.
Also, will Avatar bribe its way into school curricula? Doubtful.
"...The charitable arm of BB&T Corp., a banking company, pledged $1 million to the University of North Carolina Charlotte in 2005 and obtained an agreement that Rand's novel ``Atlas Shrugged'' would become required reading for students. Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, and Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina, say they also took grants and agreed to teach Rand.
The author, who died in 1982, used her self-righteous heroes to promote objectivism, a philosophy that embraces reason and individualism, while rejecting religion. While Rand, an advocate of free markets, would support a university's getting paid to teach her works, the idea riles academic ethicists.
``A corporation crosses a line and a university is complicit in crossing the line if it accepts money'' and accedes to a request to assign specific books, said Jonathan Knight, director of the program on academic freedom, tenure and governance for the American Association of University Professors, in Washington. ``It's unique in my experience.'' Knight has worked in the field for 31 years....
Ross Douthat had a thoughtful column about "Avatar". It's at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21douthat1.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=December+21%2C+2009&st=nyt
Douthat's column is really good, although I like the good-nature/evil corporate-military complex theme of "Avatar" and so what if it's simplistic? It's a Hollywood movie, what do you want? It was spectacular. But one thing that kept gnawing at me as I tried to ignore the overblown morality of the movie was the inherent absurdity of a Hollywood mogul/corporate master like Cameron preaching a back-to-nature message. OK, sure, but let me and my family dump about 16 half-full candy and popcorn packages in the trash first on our way out of the mall megaplex.
Much of the symbology and many cultural traits in Avatar are borrowed from indigenous people. The long hair connection to the planet mother is a very old belief of Eastern Wabanaki nations. Long hair is often connected to sweet grass to maintain the connection. The idea of a mother tree is central to many origin stories. Most of the First Nations on Earth believe there were star people who came among them. What is missed in commentary I've seen thus far is how the alleged "savior" comes from military mind, in this case literally the trapped mind of a paralyzed soldier. It seems unresolved that such peace requires such fierce war strategy to prevent complete destruction. There is lost in translation the power of planet mother, which most indigenous people understand deeply.
Though I love Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, her story line maps far more cerebral connection than Cameron's intuitive spell.
I may just have to reread "Atlas Shrugged". However I detested it and "The Fountainhead" the first time round. I agree with Bret that it was long and boring with cardboard characters. It wasn't good fiction (in much the same way that Avatar probably isn't good film) but it was good propaganda.
The message that I took away from both books was that the individual is tantamount, that one is entitled to whatever one amasses, that society should follow the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" model.
It seems to me that a society holding the individual on a pedastal (be he/she a sports figure, a CEO, a politician, an entertainer) fails to take into consideration that we are all in this together and that the greatest good can only be accomplished by working together.
John Donne said it best when he wrote that "no man is an island".
What? Avatar is propaganda? I'm shocked!
Avatar reminded me of another film that made waves because of its pioneering cinematic vision: Star Wars. Equally cardboard characters, equally predictable plot, yet I don't recall any particular controversy over the Cold War ideology perpetuated in that movie.
Avatar is a blast. I saw it in 2D; now that I know the plot and won't have to wonder what comes next, I can't wait to see it in 3D. The pure visual experience is memorable!
Pat, go and re-read it. Start taking notes about all the times it's individuals working together to fight the corrupt system. The idea that what one amasses is all that matters isn't part of Rands premise at all, but the idea that what one works for and earns matters to the individual is.
Maybe my compassion for the protagonists and disgust at the antagonists color my view, but I;m sick and tired of people telling me how I should feel, what I can say, how I should think. Society only lets the individual decide for himself if he rides the politically correct rail. The only group you can criticize or poke fun at anymore are working class, conservative, heterosexual, Christian white males. Nobody gives a rats what that group thinks or feels or find objectionable. That's the backbone of the country and yet that's everyone target. Just like in Atlas. The quiet producers get the shaft.
"But one thing that kept gnawing at me...was the inherent absurdity of a Hollywood mogul/corporate master like Cameron preaching a back-to-nature message. OK, sure, but let me and my family dump about 16 half-full candy and popcorn packages in the trash first on our way out of the mall megaplex."
Then why did you go? Or at least not bring your own popcorn?
Regarding Cameron's environmentalism:
My understanding is that he's actually become a fairly sophisticated underwater explorer and conservationist.
A lot of the scenery from Pandora is essentially coral reef reinvented as jungle.
But yes, part of the weird tension of this film -- in addition to its propagandist elements -- is the fact that it's both the sleek product of a highly evolved consumer culture and a caustic criticism of that culture.
--Brian, NCPR
Bret wrote: "The only group you can criticize or poke fun at anymore are working class, conservative, heterosexual, Christian white males. Nobody gives a rats what that group thinks or feels or find objectionable. That's the backbone of the country and yet that's everyone target. Just like in Atlas. The quiet producers get the shaft."
First, I apologize to all politically correct individuals who I have reoffended by quoting Bret above.
There is so much wrong that is found in Bret's expressed notions and he reeks distinctly of a whiny victimhood.
White, heterosexual, Christian males are the backbone of America? And they are under attack?
Please Bret, you are an inteligent man, so give us a freakin' break already.
Do you really believe what you say?
You're right Frank, I forgot to add any white male or female with money that isn't a flaming liberal. My bad.
When was the last time Frank that you saw gang violence between blacks and Mexicans reported as gang violence between blacks and Mexicans? Race will never be mentioned unless it's white on a minority- ever. A black man killing a white will never be charged with a hate crime even if he says it was a hate crime! When was the last time you saw a murder between two gay men reported as that? When there's a scandal involving a Repub Congressman the REPUBLICAN is prominently displayed over and over. When it's a Dem you may go 4 paragraphs before it's offhandedly mentioned that one time. When is the last time you heard anyone in the media refer to left wing American socialist radicals? Have you EVER heard that? No, but that's a good descriptor for many people and groups, certainly as accurate as calling "Tea Partiers" right wing revolutionaries or hate groups.
I'm not whining Frank, I'm venting my frustration at people who can't seem to open their own eyes to the concerns and views of the other side while screaming at me to do the same thing. I understand the lefts concerns, heck, I understand and can sympathize with much of what you write. I don't agree with some of it, but I don't call it whining do I? I don't question your manhood or accuse you of lying either. We disagree on a lot of stuff and that's fine. As with Brians post about the "radicalization of the right" I can't understand why I'm supposed to open my mind and consider your point of view, but you and Brian or whomever aren't required to do the same. Do you try? Or do you just see it's from the right and close your mind?
Bret -
One of the reasons this blog frustrates you so much is that you assume the divides and differences exist even when they don't.
I'm actually a pretty steady small-government-fiscally-conservative- capitalism-loving-mind-your-business-and-I'll-mind-mine-small-town-blue-collar-never-went-to-college-white-male-heterosexual-married-to-one-woman-sportsman-entrepreneur-grumble-when-I-get-my-tax-bill-country-music-listening-college-football-addicted-never-been-on-welfare...
I could go on but you get the point.
Where you and I differ most is that my read of history tells me that we're doing pretty okay in this country, debating important issues, finding solutions slowly, getting a little fairer and a little more equal.
Does that mean that you and I (as white guys) aren't the be-all and end-all anymore? Yup.
Does it mean we're victims? No.
--Brian, NCPR
Bret said: "When was the last time Frank that you saw gang violence between blacks and Mexicans reported as gang violence between blacks and Mexicans? Race will never be mentioned unless it's white on a minority- ever."
Glad you asked! Jan. 27, 2010:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7243293
"The lawsuit claims a Hispanic gang called the "Decotos" has targeted black youths for several years."
Also, quite a bit written on this the past few years:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/61950
9:55- I stand corrected. Let me rephrase it to when was the last time anyone in the MSM pointed out an obviously racial element where the bad guy wasn't white?
Brian, my read of history tells me we're headed someplace we were never intended to go and the people funding it have no say in it anymore. History also shows me that these feelings aren't new and that nothing I feel or think is in the least bit even close to unAmerican.
Bret said: "A black man killing a white will never be charged with a hate crime even if he says it was a hate crime! When was the last time you saw a murder between two gay men reported as that?"
Not a murder, but on Jan. 27, 2010: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/193234.asp
"A Magnolia man is facing hate crime charges following allegations that he threatened two passengers on a Ballard-bound Metro bus."
This was a pretty big story from last year: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_violent_sex_ad_led_to_murder_of_wabc_new.html
Yes, well an obscure blog and a dead link at the Daily News wasn't exactly the point of the post but if you want to nit pick it to death fine, have it your way. You're right, the press has suddenly become aware that minorities commit crimes too. Huzzah, huzzah...
Btw- kudos on your skillful use of Google. Now try "racial element ignored in crime".
"Trent Lott's unfortunate comment at a 100th Birthday Party actually didn't say anything specific about race issues - the linkage was made by the media to suggest that the compliment honoring Strom Thurmond meant something that could be a code phrase supporting Strom's previous segregation stance."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/reid-race-and-the-party-b_b_418772.html
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/gregory_kane/Dont-ignore-hate-crimes-against-whites-50988987.html
Seattle Post Intelligencer, one of the two main papers in Seattle. Not an obscure blog.
Not a dead link. Part of it got cut off. Sorry about that, Bret. I'm sure you'll be understanding.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/03/25/2009-03-25_violent_sex_ad_led_to_murder_of_wabc_new.html
Bret, you make these hugely broad statements that are quickly disproved as though they came down off Mt. Sinai.
I'm just trying to add some accuracy, and in some cases, some levity. Because while it's infuriating what happens to provable facts in these comments, it's also kind of amusing.
"Btw- kudos on your skillful use of Google. Now try "racial element ignored in crime"."
Did it. Here's what came back on my Google search:
No results found for "racial element ignored in crime".
I'm sorry, where is the racial motivation mentioned anywhere in the NY story. And again, I apologize, but a Seattle paper (I honestly never heard of it before- sorry) doesn't really translate into Keith Olbermann or Katie Couric touting the racial quotient of any of these incidents.
As I said in another post, my communication skills are lacking and as I get older with more on my plate I seem to have a harder time getting my thoughts across. My apologies if that irritates you, but since you find it funny maybe it's a moot point.
Not racial. You said, "When was the last time you saw a murder between two gay men reported as that." This was about a murder resulting from a sex ad, reported by the Daily News. All the NY papers reported on it extensively.
Just trying to show this was a pretty prominent case.
And you didn't mention national media in your post, though maybe you were implying it. In any case, I think we can both agree that whenever a pretty white woman gets killed or disappears, it's guaranteed to get a lot of cable news coverage. It's pretty much all Nancy Grace does.
OK, I'm guilty of the sin I hate. It's not all Nancy Grace does. I'm sure she covers other things.
My bad, I completely missed the gay part since the word gay appears no where in the article I saw. I thought you were saying the killer was hispanic and that was noted.
I realize I used the broad brush of "you never see this". I should know better by now but when I'm doing 3 different things and the blood is up. I will re state it this way- very seldom do I see the things I noted, almost never at the national level.
From my wife, who did see Avatar and loved it- "Avatar" is "Red Dawn" in reverse...it's about fighting for what's yours and not letting someone else take it... it's certainly not about the white man saving anyone...it's "Wiley Coyote and the Roadrunner- no one feels bad for Wiley, no says "good try buddy" but you were trying to take something that wasn't yours.
Got me, that's her take.
Individual liberty ... the pursuit of opportunity with the motivation of achiving a higher level on the 'self-auctualization' stack... If the generation of wealth were not possible at the individual level... it would not happen. The leverage of other resources by an individual is called jobs.... aka jos creation. Steal that and force people to work for the good of the mass and you get what? Could it be Tirrany or Slavery?
No individual in their right mind wants to destroy the environment when educated. What happens when the green zelots decide to 'overstate' instead of educate. Their loose application of truth becomes propaganda. The use of prevaracation is their tool to achieve their simmum bonum... greater good...
Sorry. A lie is still a lie. Intellectually lazy or those without motivation can call it anything, however envy is still as vile as it was in Atlas. The left just drinks it in public now and the intoxication of envy is now the joy of the Left.
Post a Comment
<< Home