It's been out for a while, but I only just got around to seeing Avatar. Luckily for me, the local cinema is open even with the snowstorm here in D.C. (yes, the movie theater is open, but the Federal Government is closed).
I wasn't sure what to expect from it before going in. The day before, one of my Republican friends at school expressed disapproval of the movie. He didn't say it in so many words, but he implied that the movie was anti-military and overly environmentalist. But I felt it was a movie I should see anyways -- and I was right. Not only was it a decent movie, but I found its themes to be extremely pro-liberty.
[Read on only if you want spoilers!]
What really irks me is the idea that the movie is "anti-military." In the very beginning we sympathize with the protagonist, Jake, because he was wounded in battle and the military would not pay for him to receive proper treatment. What could be more supportive of soldiers? Avatar makes us feel for a wounded veteran who wasn't given proper attention by the country he served. It suggests that we don't treat our military men and women well enough.
But the conservatives rage on. For example, John Podhoretz at the Weekly Standard wrote:
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.
Let's take a step back from the blind pro-military-support-the-troops mentality. Why do we love our soldiers? Because our soldiers swear an oath to lay down our lives for our freedom. Soldiers volunteer to go through hell and back to defend the liberties we hold so dear. At least, that's what Republicans have been telling us.
But what are the "soldiers" in Avatar? As the story progresses, we learn that they're employed by some company to "provide security" -- and end up attacking another civilization for "unobtanium." This purpose has nothing to do with why we support our troops, it's a paramilitary army working for a corporation attacking another planet and stealing their resources. The pilot in the movie, as she has a change of heart, says something along the lines of "I didn't sign up for this shit."
That's not freedom. It's not pro-America. And it's not the view of our founding fathers. It's straight and simple corporatist imperialism inwhich the state and corporations are so in bed with each other that the military is used to boost the profits of a corporation. Of course I'm going to root for the defeat of the human soldiers; they went to another planet to kill for the sake of some corporation. What the soldiers in Avatar do has nothing to do with defending freedom.
In fact, if you claim to support the troops because they defend our freedoms, you ought to cheer for the Na'vi soldiers. The Na'vi are the ones who are defending their homeland against attack by an outside invader. An honest assessment of the movie demands that conservatives cheer for the alien race, for it is their soldiers, not the humans, who are upholding the values of freedom and a strong national defense.
That's not the only reason why pro-liberty viewers should enjoy Avatar. There's also a strong theme of property rights throughout the movie. The facts tell us that what the corporation does is stealing, plain and simple. The Na'vi own the land, the magical tree, and the unobtainium underneath; the corporation flies in and bombs their homes in order to take their unobtainium.
More than anything it reminds me of Kelo vs. New London, when the Supreme Court decided it's alright for the government to use eminent domain to forcibly remove someone's property and give it to a corporation (read: steal from one to give to another). Government-sanctioned stealing is the sort of thing is what "conservatives" have claimed to fight against for years, and somehow their reviews of Avatar don't mention this at all.
I guess to them, it's alright if the people you're stealing from don't look like you or practice different religions than you. But as a libertarian, I can't endorse that kind of thinking. As Jake says as he rallies the Na'vi to defend their homeland, "they can't just come in and take what they want."
That's the main point I took away from Avatar. You can't just force things you want from others. We all have our rights to life, liberty, and property. Peace comes from respecting the rights of others. And those effects weren't too shabby either. I hope the sequels don't ruin it.
I just wanted to say that I agree with everything you just said here 100%. I have been having this same argument with people I know as well. For some reason, no one ever sees the underlying meanings in things anymore. And yet they all say they can see through mainstream media subjectiveness....
I agree with your assesment of the movie's handling of the mercenaries. It is not anti-troops. However, I think you missed the main thrust of the movie, which is the philosophy of Deep Ecology, not property rights. Avatar is intended to be an attack on athropocentrism. At its logical conclusion, this kind of thinking ultimately disregards property rights. Awesome special effects, though.
I thought it was Pocahontas repackaged.
I think that the deep ecological philosophy presented in avatar was also right in line with liberty and property rights....kind of. Anyone who read Austrian Economics will realize that its supporters always recognize that resources are limited. This is quite the opposite from Keynesian economists. Keynesians believe that we can consume the world with increases in spending and consumption, because "we are all dead in the end anyways". They ignore the limited resources on our planet. I think avatar was still in line with a libertarian perspective because of this. Not to mention, strong property rights would not allow for a corporation to come in and steal from others through the force of govt/military. It would not allow for factories to pollute on others land without some kind of repayment for damages to the land owner. All of this would encourage us to use technologies that are cheaper (that do not damage others property) and more efficient. In a way, strong property rights would encourage businesses to invent ways to eliminate pollution so as not to incur costs of property damage to others. That being said, I do not think this is what the director of avatar was trying to show the audience. I am sure it was more of a plug for a govt run "green" movement. As the above poster mentioned, "For some reason, no one ever sees the underlying meanings in things anymore. And yet they all say they can see through mainstream media subjectiveness....".
I don't disagree with your conclusions, and I'm glad somebody was able to glean something beneficial out of that movie. However, I think if you look at what the director was trying to do when he designed the story was to create a sort of visual representation of the "battle" he perceives going on today. That is, he set up the stereotypical "evil corporation" against the blue (*cough* green *cough*) people of the planet. What it was then... was green propaganda. I'd say literally anything remotely liberty related in the movie was overshadowed by images of evil corporations and self-righteous environmentalists hacking and shooting each other.
They essentially recreated the tragedy of the European conquest of America, but rather than focusing on the deaths and the slaughter of sentient creatures, they focused on poor mother Pandora's devastating loss of a couple of trees.
Really, I think what they were trying to communicate comes at the very end of the movie. When the protagonist says the line about sending the humans back to their dead world shows that this wasn't about the poor blue people. Rather, it was about the poor planet Earth and Pandora that have been cursed with the plague of humanity.
Obviously, this is just my opinion, but I think if you look at what the director was thinking and what the cast was thinking... this was a movie for the Eco-Mentalists.
In fact, I think the absence of a federal government in the movie may have been even worse, because audiences are inevitably encouraged to think to themselves, "Where's the government that's supposed to regulate and control this evil company? Why would the people of Earth allow this company to exist without any sort of government controls? We had better make sure our government takes the money away from evil corporations so atrocities like this don't happen on our planet!"
I do agree with you. The film makers completely failed to mention a state that had to be behind the corporation and private army mining the ore. The focus on only the "evil monopolistic corporation with unyielding power" was the simple-mindedness of the director. As libertarians, we can look past this and realize the erroneous logic of the director. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the general public would not be capable of such "abstract" thinking. Taken at face the movie was somewhat anti-capitalist(although to me it was more anti-state capitalist, corporatist, cronyist, fascist etc.). There were some themes that support libertarian ideals of property rights and limited resources. However, I don't think the intention of the director was to bring these ideals to light. Where are all the good libertarian film producers anyways? I would think that such a director could blow simple-minded directors like this out of the water. Yet we all sit and wonder why hollywood is no longer creative.
http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
I think the Avatar plot was brilliant as well as fantasy. He made it up, people shouldn't take his conception of property rights in an obviously fantasy world to heart.
First, we don't live in a world where everything is connected, where ancestors actually REALLY are embodied in the trees. If we did, great thinkers like Locke and Rothbard (or Williamson Evers) would figure out the ethics of all that. In the case of this fantasy, when the Na'vi protect their way of life from invaders, even if the offender was military as opposed to "para" military, I think they would be justified in violently defending themselves as they did.
The distinction between military and paramilitary is inconsequential. This distinction simply made the plot stomach-able enough to those who worship the troops to still see the movie and say to themselves "nah, were not like that." Remember, the Nazi's were NOT paramilitary and they invaded countries for similar reasons as our country does, albeit our propogadists are MUCH better.
I wrote about Avatar after it came out since all of the "Conservatives" were outraged that it dare put American or Military folks in bad light, yet totally missed the self evident truths.
Here's my take on Avatar, which I thought was one of the best movies I've ever seen.
http://andykatherman.blogspot.com/2010/01/natural-law-take-on-avatar.html
Andy Katherman
Liberty For Laymen
This movie was not "extremely pro-liberty." It was green propaganda. The Pandora world was portrayed like some spiritual entity that the Na'vi were just naturally at one with, and the evil humans were a virus incapable of getting with the program.
But I don't think anyone was questioning that in the movie the human Marines are bad guys, and the Na'vi the innocent defenders of their land -- the disapproval comes from the fact that it was portrayed that way. The way the Marines were so closely characteristic to US Marines, but acted incredibly barbaric, was distasteful. The Marine commander is completely psychotic and fires on his own soldier. Only two Marines even have second thoughts about mowing down a whole colony of civilians that have shown no sign of combativeness, then performing a follow up attack on where they went to hide. Ridiculous.
This movie isn't raising awareness about our American military empire and the follies thereof, it raises awareness about how bad humans are for the environment, and degrades military servicemen along the way. And that one good-guy Marine? Yeah, he becomes a Na'vi. Get it?
I support our troops 100% .... when they aren't being brainwashed and forced to take over other countries and such. The movies portrayal of the "military" is EXACTLY how it is. And it's funny that so many are offended when it should be a true eye opener.
I don't think our forefather's would be proud of how our "government" is running things today. They are probably rolling over in their graves. Think about it. In the movie our "military" goes to ANOTHER planet, that did NOT pose any threat and FORCES their troops into their homes, wrecks their way of life and thinks it is because it is "good for them." Sounds like what we are doing in Iraq. We were attacked in 2001. WHY are we now forcing our way of government *whatever that may be* on their people? because it is BETTER?? WHO SAYS? Yeah, it works for us, but maybe they don't like the way we do things. I am not saying that 9-11 wasn't a disgusting thing. I am glad that the sorry POS leaders they had are gone. But now the US is wasting our time, money and the lives of our soldiers on something that does NOT need to be done.
Why did our forefathers want to form the US and write the Declaration of Independence??
Not for the shit we're doing now.
Avatar was one of the greatest movie ever produced by James Camron. This 3D effected movie bring the revolution in the hollywood.
Beautiful Refrences of Watch Movies at Online.
Post new comment