Reflections on Avatar
I saw James Cameron’s Avatar over the weekend.* In spite of several things to dislike about the movie, I can’t give it anything but an overwhelming endorsement. The movie is certainly worth the price of admission, and, as Michael Arrington wrote in the Washington Post, “Movies will never be the same after Avatar. Like the iPhone in the mobile world, this movie disrupts an entire industry.” It is so innovative, so awe-inspiring and such a game changer that you’ll be left in the cinematic stone ages unless you see this historic film.
Nevertheless, if I had to point to a negative in the movie, it would be the film’s storyline. It’s not a tired storyline because it’s been done before (it’s a cross between Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas). It’s tired because, in the words of Peter Suderman, it has an “overlong pastiche of anti-corporate clichés and quasi-mystical eco-nonsense.” There’s nothing innovative about that.
But then I read the review of Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian attorney. He offers an insightful and unique rebuttal to the lukewarm response the movie’s storyline has received. “[A]t its core it was very libertarian: it was about a group of people (the Na’vi) defending their property rights on the world Pandora from aggressors (the human invaders), and about one of the humans (a soldier named Jacob Sully) deciding to join and help the right side.” Perhaps the plot isn’t as left-wing as I thought.
Regardless of how flat the characters or storyline may be, the movie remains a must-see. Yes, it is that good. I heartily recommend Avatar.
(* I saw the movie in 3D at the IMAX theater. I can’t vouch for whether the movie is equally amazing in 2D or on normal 3D screens.)
4 Responses to “Reflections on Avatar”
” Perhaps the plot isn’t as left-wing as I thought.” Well, Kinsella’s interpretation isn’t _un_-left-wing, either. Seems to me it comes from a point of broad cultural political consensus: preservation of liberties in the face of aggressors is a very, very good thing, often worth fighting and dying for, even sometimes on behalf of others’ liberties.
Does that mean that both the left and right wings agree on Kelo v. City of New London?
It seemed to me that pretty much everyone was outraged at Kelo, though perhaps for subtly different ideological reasons.
Thanks for posting this review, Josh. It’s the first I’ve read, and confirms the impression I got from the trailers I watched.
In order for Kinsella’s take to be accurate, the Na’vi would have to be more like William Wallace and his compatriots in Braveheart than Pocahontas in the Disney flick. You can’t portray people as fighting in defense of property rights when they are also portrayed as rejecting “commercialist” ideas like private property.
I’d consider seeing Avatar in 3-D if I had more disposable income at the moment. I’ll wait until it comes out on video, and hope someone with an HDTV invites me over to watch it.