About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 7:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
SPOILER ALERT

I watched the first half-hour of this movie online last night.

I found 3 and 1/2 protagonists: the scientist (Sigourney Weaver?), the military captain, the paralyzed ex-grunt, and the 1/2 protagonist is the dude in charge with the rock floating in an anti-gravity device on his desk. Here's what I got so far:

--the scientist "could" be an Objectivist
--the paralyzed ex-grunt could "turn out" to be an Objectivist
--the military captain is a collectivist/tribalist
--the guy in charge is a collectivist/tribalist

Ed



Post 21

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Crystal meth "could" be a reasonable appetite suppressant.
Adam Lambert "could" be a crab person.
And Obama "could" have the best interests of the country at heart.



Post 22

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

MORE SPOILERS. Your initial take is interesting. Keep watching. The two you call 'collectivist/tribalist' turn out to be the bad guys. 

Dean,

I'm not sure the movie actually brands the bad guys as capitalists, but regardless, the general audience will likely identify the bad guys as capitalist, as 'savage moneylust' is what people think capitalism means these days. I think it makes more sense for Objectivists to say the bad guys are not capitalists painted in a bad light; rather, they aren't capitalists at all!

Jordan


(Edited by Jordan on 12/24, 9:55am to fix a typo)

(Edited by Jordan on 12/24, 9:55am)


Post 23

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

All I'm saying is that the guy in charge and the military captain -- because of their philosophy -- cannot be good people. I'm talking about what it is that cannot be true or factual. In doing so, I'm whittling out what's impossible.


Jordan,

***********
Ed,

MORE SPOILERS. You're initial take is interesting. Keep watching. The two you call 'collectivist/tribalist' turn out to be the bad guys.
**********

Oh, goodie, goodie, goodie. I like to hear when I am dead-on in ascertaining various aspects of reality. Your take on the movie -- and your take on Ted's take of others' take of the movie -- may eventually be revealed as being instructive.

Ed

Post 24

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Besides, it is not capitalism which is involved here, but mercantilism...

Post 25

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Taking a page from John's book, I do find it helpful to see what Cameron himself has to say on the subject. Here's one helpful excerpt from IndieLondon:

Q. Can you talk about the politics of the film and its references to the war on terror, Ground Zero and the fact that the heroes are not the ones with huge mechanised forces. Was that deliberate?

James Cameron: Obviously, I think there’s a connection to recent events. There’s also a attempt to connect to Vietnam imagery, the way they jump off helicopters. I take that thread further back to the 17th and 16th centuries and how the Europeans displaced indigenous people from the Americas. I think there’s a lot of the wonderful history of the human race written in blood. You go back to the Roman Empire and further where we have this tendency to take what we want without asking, as Jake says. I see that as a broader metaphor, not as intensely politicised as some people might take it, but broader in that that’s how we treat the modern world. There’s a sense of entitlement. We’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, the brains, there’s a sense of entitlement there fore we’re entitled to do every damn thing on this planet and that’s not how it works. And we’re going to learn that the hard way, unless we wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on earth. This is the challenge before us.

The film espouses this kind of love-hate relationship with technology. The film uses technology to tell the story that is a celebration of nature, which is an irony in and of itself. But, I think that it’s not that technology is bad, it’s not that that a technological civilization is bad, it’s that we need to be in control of the technological process. We’re not going to be able to just rip our clothes off and run back into the wilderness. First of all, there’s no wilderness left. Second of all, that’s not going to work for 8 billion people. So, we’re going to have to think our way out of this using technology and science. We we’re also going to need to be human about it, get in touch with our emotions and with our understanding of each other. Part of the theme of the film, I think, is symbolised by the fact that it begins and ends with the characters eyes opening. It’s about a change of perception and about choices that are made once that perception has been changed.

(bold and underline not in original)
It's probably helpful also to consider Avatar in light of Cameron's past film endeavors: Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Titanic, Spider-Man. All of these reflect that same line bolded and underlined above.

Jordan


Post 26

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heads up, Jordan: While Cameron at one time held the rights to the Spiderman film, he never followed up, and it went to Sam Raimi.

Post 27

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You're right, Joe. Nix Spiderman from the list.

Jordan


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Taking Ted's side now, I am thoroughly disgusted with this quote of Cameron.

He is -- because of his philosophy -- a bad person. He doesn't understand the supremacy of reason, the virtue of selfishness, or the morality of capitalism. What a philosophical lightweight! All this would be okay if he was 10 or 15 years old, or even 30, but with a philosophic sense of respect or reserve about him. Instead, he has taken the position of an interpretative authority.

We can't help but to follow our adopted sense of life -- but that doesn't preclude my communication of the fact that his sense of life is wrong.

Ed



Post 29

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ed,

What part of that quote sent you in that direction? 

Jordan


Post 30

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yup, that's pretty much Cameron. Anti-Americanist luddite nutcase.

He is good at pacing an action film, really good eye for special effects, but his themes are just atrocious. When I was a kid I loved Terminator and Aliens, but looking back on that, it was more due to the awesome action, efx and suspense than it was for any of its themes.
(Edited by John Armaos on 12/24, 12:27pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Avatar, which I just saw yesterday, is a basic good vs evil movie that even Objectivists can enjoy - if they don't try to over-analyze it. The one real complaint is that it does portray the villain as a corporation, which is normally (today) interpreted as being capitalists.

However, the behavior of the corporation in this film bears no resemblance to "free market capitalism" as we know and love it. These are not traders, they are takers. I would enjoy such films much more if they took at least a moment to differentiate between corrupt and honest businessmen.

In the end, the movie shows beings having integrity and valor as winning over over those acting upon corrupted values. Not so shabby... just wish they showed that corporations (capitalists) can have valor too.

jt

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The problem is Jay is that art, at least according to Rand, is a "re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments". Putting aside Cameron's explicit denigration of technology, American industrial revolution, and the Vietnam war as a colonial effort to steal resources (never mind those Soviet tanks in North Vietnam) consider what we have is essentially the portrayal of an industrialized society as evil, and an agrarian stone age society as good. What is the value judgment you can take away from that? An artist can create whatever he wants, why make the industrialists evil unless as an artist you do not value industrialization and favor subsistence existence instead? I could buy your rationalization if Cameron actually depicted an enlightened self-interested capitalist company with technological advancement as good, but the absence of this is just as telling to the themes the movie put forth. The only entity that is industrialized is evil, the only entity that is from a stone age culture is good. I find that to be absurd.

I understand the criticism of over-analyzing something, but there's also the problem of turning off your mind to everything that is laid out before you.



(Edited by John Armaos on 12/24, 2:24pm)


Post 33

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought about seeing it, if only for the visuals, since I just saw a poster for it that looked like it was lifted from a Yes album cover. But then, Yes has the same problems philosophically as the movie, but at least I can disregard the lyrics. If I thought I could enjoy the movie and ignore the philosophy, I'd see it. But I know I can't, so I won't.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Visually stunning it is, but yes the worldview is that like Dances With Wolves, savoring the primitive against the 'civilized'... if were to have a copy, it would be in the same sector as Metropolis, Triumph of the Will, and yes, Birth of a Nation - cinematic technical points of progress examples, nothing more... in the same manner as having a copy of Mein Kampt, or Alinksy's Manual - to learn from and make use of in my own manner...

Post 35

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I broke down and saw it...A is A, and Avatar is bullshit.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A is BS?

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, I can't bring myself to see Avatar as it reminds me too much of the trite 'film' Fern Gully. And it's funny too because this guy is using technology to make visually stunning films, but he plays the game of stolen concept by damning its use. The guy needs to figure himself out before making claims that technology is bad. Even if he only had a little hand in the actual script writing, he put his cash on this film (along with the studio that distributes it), so he could've said, "Um, gee, isn't this nature loving part a bit...hypocritical? Especially when the hero uses said technology to regain full mobility and a new body to live among the natives?"

And this isn't like graduate school (or undergraduate level) study of philosophy. It's a simple matter of consistency that seems lost on some folks like Cameron, that make it hard to enjoy any work of fiction these days. I couldn't imagine The Prisoner or Blake's 7 being made this way, where there was selective blankout of one's hypocrisy (supporting what is perceived as evil in one hand, but using said evil in another context as good...). Art should be consistent with its method and its message. If Cameron wants to live like the Flintstones, then he shouldn't use any technology to make any fiction. Otherwise, he's an ass to me and just about anyone with half a brain.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I had to see for myself, given the debate (though Cameron's own words didn't give me much reassurance.) The only thing I can say about that is there is sympathy for the "eminent domain" aspect...but I couldn't wait to leave, actually. While it WAS visually stunning (the 3-D was amazing; it WAS a living, breathing Yes album cover!), the philosophical issues were just too much to rationalize away.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Always knew you were a fascist, Joe.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.