RoR: Forum

Jay:

Where on earth did you find that statement you've ascribed to George Lucas. That statement certainly sounds retarded. Certainly I don't know anyone who ever would have taken that meaning from the movie.

And yet you said yourself that the notion of "how could primitive people successfully defend themselves against an advanced army" concept such as that found in "Return of the Jedi" is a concept that many popular cultural attitudes attribute to the Vietnam war. The superficial observation from idiots who think no more than three seconds about the Vietnam war is "The North Vietnamese defeated a superior enemy with primitive means". The attitude is pervasive, and it's been recreated countless times in popular media.

I believe you can find Lucas saying this on one of the special features on the Return of the Jedi DVD. But trust me, he definitely said that, and yes, he is a retard.

The fact is this concept never happens, a primitive society has never defeated or successfully defended itself from a technologically advanced society. It's simply romanticism for a primitive anti-technological existence.

When I talk about overreaching though, your post 56 really helps. Thanks...

but you scare me sometimes, John. : )

You can belittle me all you want. My analysis is true and the artists themselves have said what the allegories are (no need for even my interpretation of the scenes!). You can rationalize all you want Jay. But it all comes down to whether you believe an artist puts his own value-judgments into his art or not. You obviously think we shouldn't bother even analyzing art and instead take an anti-intellectual approach to it. Well sorry but I'm not going to do that, nor will I be swayed by the argument from intimidation that I'm being "scary". I think it's scary people derive their philosophy from the popular media they consume.

As I recall, you took the same attitude when I pointed out the blatant Marxist themes that were so pervasive in Star Trek TNG and the subsequent Trek spin-offs. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised you take the same attitude now.

Post 61

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 6:34pm

It will be a cold day in hell before I take flak for fighting evil, anti-man cultural corruptions from an Uncle Tom Objectivist. "Don't upset massa Cameron! He mights get mad at us! You best be quiet, so as not to offend or irritate others!"
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 12/25, 6:45pm)

Post 62

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 6:55pm

My wife and I saw the trailer for this and for the new Sherlock Holmes last month when we went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. While Avatar was immediately stunning, it did not take long to see through it. I wrote it off. I will not be seeing the new Sherlock Holmes, either. This production is postmodernist with an anti-hero viewpoint character.

I posted this comment to a sociology blog. (I visit several that highlight markets and organizations. This was to orgtheory.)

Imagine an Avatar in which beautiful, spiritual aliens come here and with persuasion, effectively convince us with a direct message to stop pollution, clear out the cities, go back to the land, live closer to nature and be one with life. Everyone obeys. Millions � billions � walk out of the cities. Oil rigs are abandoned. Three days later, billions are dying, since we have zero ability to live like that. Old, infants, sick, all die first. Stronger people survive longer and some small groups begin to establish camps in the forests where some more die from poisons because they have not yet learned which fruits and roots and shoots they can eat. We see different groups of survivors killing each other over basic resources.
Meanwhile, one guy � an old white guy, a retired General Motors plant foreman who was actually hiking the Adirondacks and missed the aliens � uses a mix of industrial skills and builds a frannistan that negates the alien mind waves.
Everyone lives happily ever after. (Oh, I forgot the part where the alien girl is in an abandoned kitchen at a large hotel and she begins sampling the desserts.)
Anyone who is troubled by civilization is perfectly free to use their 1300cc brain to successfully hunt and gather.

(I cannot believe -- well ok, I can -- that the stuff is actually called "unobtainium." What next? Using the irresistor to transport Mt. Immovable? )

Post 63

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 7:31pm

Pssst, Joe -
Jay isn't an Objectivist, but sympathetic.

Post 64

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 7:35pm

Then he needs to update his profile: "I've been a quiet Objectivist most of my life, partly, I imagine, not to offend or irritate others, including some family and friends."
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 12/25, 7:36pm)

Post 65

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 8:05pm

Yes, Michael - had to laugh when I saw that - gee, what imagination!!! [not] - lol

Post 66

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 8:35pm

Jay, it might be a good idea to change your profile.

Post 67

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 9:09pm

"I am not at all disputing that Cameron's choice of villain - big corporations/ capitalism- is bad. In fact, I think it is bad on many levels. But the other arguments suggested here are, I believe, overreaching and without sufficient evidence."

BS!

That's a cop=out and an insult. "Other arguments"? Be specific with your implications.

Post 68

Friday, December 25, 2009 - 9:46pm

I just saw this danged thing.

Here is the worst line of the movie, spoken by the science character (played by Sigourney Weaver):

There are more connections in this forest than are found in a human brain.

This quote is dripping with the insinuation that man is small and insignificant (or like a stain on "nature"), and that "nature" is sacred and deserves supreme reverence.

Ed

Post 69

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 3:14am

Ted,

Other arguments = pretty much everything else. Didn't think I need to be more specific.

John,

I'll have to take your word that George Lucas stated such an incongruent analogy. Certainly, I cannot imagine anyone taking that interpretation from watching the film.

Also, you can quote me whenever you wish, but please don't misquote me. I only referred to the concept of primative vs advance armies because it is a popular theme. People like to imagine how it might be done successfully, and I also mentioned that it was unrealistic.

And yes, I think you were over-reaching on Star Trek too.

Joe,

I couldn't give a rat's a@@ about Cameron. I do care though, when I think people are trying to take more out of something that was ever put in. Whatever Cameron's personally philosophy might be, what comes through in the film is all I'm addressing. There is one clearly wrong message, and I agree with everyone on that. However, it is reaching a bit to come up with the other messages being ascribed to the flik. Could be be inferred? Obviously... by some. Are they clearly messages? No. Not so clear, and certainly not the message - interpretation -most moviegoers will take away.

Teresa,

Sympathetic (sigh!). What a letdown to hear it, although I obviously have expressed some opinions and reservations which are not in agreement with what I perceive as being official Objectivism. However, I think many here present personal interpretations which might not agree with officially (ARI?) sanctioned Objectivist positions. If we all had one uniform interpretation on the application of Objectivism, there would be none of the lively discussion we see here. I may be obliged to content myself with being a lesser intellect on these boards, where there are many fine (albeit sometimes contentious) and knowledgeable intellects who I respect, but I am not prepared nor obliged to concede myself a lesser Objectivist.

Robert,

Silly sounding or not (can't help that), no less than accurate. However, I will modify that comment since it wasn't my attention to amuse anyone.

jt

Post 70

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 6:15am

But I know you're smarter than that, Jay.

We argue all the time here, but at the end of the day we still agree on the basics.   I don't think you realize how insulting it is to suggest people just ignore what they do know, in terms of connecting the dots and discovering moral truths, in favor of what they don't. Worse is to suggest the conclusions raised are somehow morally corrupt. It's psychologizing at it's worst, and psychologizing isn't Objectivism.

You're saying the movie relies on tired, old, and incorrect, premises, and then suggest we should ignore those premises because it makes us look like paranoid Debbie Downers if we don't. Mistake. Insulting mistake.  You want to give those tired, old, incorrect premises a pass. Why? There's more to it than "the heroes beat the bad guys" in the end.

Examining the heroic is integral in romantic fiction. Discovering true heroism is the spiritual fuel that makes being human worthwhile. In this movie, the primitive and mystic are portrayed as the romantic heroes. You go along with that, and accept the idea that the human abstractions in the movie are the bad guys, even though you're human, too.

An Objectivist first principle is that human nature is heroic. The movie vigorously disputes that claim. On purpose.

If anything, your profile should be changed to small case "o." Upper case suggests you've read and integrated most of the important material, and I just don't think you have.

Post 71

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 6:17am

MEM: (I cannot believe -- well ok, I can -- that the stuff is actually called "unobtainium." What next? Using the irresistor to transport Mt. Immovable? )
RM: Yes, Michael - had to laugh when I saw that - gee, what imagination!!! [not] - lol

I had to run an errand and waiting for a traffic light ... Robert, do you remember when Rocky and Bullwinkle were chased by Boris and Natasha for the anti-gravity mineral upsidaisium?

Post 72

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 9:22am

sorry, not off-hand... but that was satire, and so that name would be logical... using unobtainiam in this, supposedly serious, movie was a farce...

[been many MANY years since last saw those shows - tho intend getting the collection - so memory of all the incidents has faded some]
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/26, 9:24am)

Post 73

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 10:12am

Jay,

This''ll be cheesy, but I think these guys are arguing because they care -- both about truth and about you. Instead of piling on with more abstract arguments about the perils and merit of art for man, let me tell you about what happened last night ...

Last night, I came home from the movie, Avatar. I actually went to my sister's house to drop off her kids and to converse with my parents who are visiting there due to a medical condition. Mom was asleep but Dad was awake and I wanted to tell him about the Avatar movie I just saw. I gave an overview of the plot and paused. I waited for Dad's response, but he didn't have a comment -- so I tried something simple and personal.

I told my dad about a gal I knew named Karla. Karla was the quintessential post-modern tree-hugger. As they were trying to clear trees in order to build a major highway in the Twin Cities, Karla chained herself to a tree which was in the way. At that point, my dad cut me off -- because he was mentally familiar with that kind of situation. My dad then pretended to be the bulldozer driver -- as an illustrative way to communicate that he knew what was going on in that scenario. He said this:

Okay, Lady, I'm going to just bull-doze right over you, because you are just an insignificant person and I represent a huge and significant corporation!

At that moment, I declared to Dad:

You got it, Dad, that's exactly what this movie was about!

Then, my dad got a sad look on his face. He looked up at me with blank eyes and said, with an honest and sincere tone, these gut-wrenching words:

I'm not sure if progress is good or bad.

My heart dropped. I wanted to just go into the fetal position and start crying, rocking back and forth, trying to console myself. My knee-jerk reaction, however, was to stand up for the good in the world and to proclaim that I AM SURE that progress is good. I did that. However [and this kills me], I did not elaborate. I had just been dealt a blow from my father ... my father. My father is, after 64 years on this planet, in a mental position of not knowing whether progress is good or not. I couldn't bear to push this with him and have him, my own father, push back. It would have spiritually crushed me at the time.

Damn Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, and James Cameron! Damn them! Damn them, damn them, damn them! They took my father! They took his spirit. They tarnished his sense of life. That's MY father, a victim of bad philosophy and the culture which bad philosophers inevitably bring upon their own people (as well as the one or two generations after them).

Philosophy is important, it's perhaps the most important thing in the world.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/26, 10:16am)

Post 74

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 10:39am

Jay:

I'll have to take your word that George Lucas stated such an incongruent analogy. Certainly, I cannot imagine anyone taking that interpretation from watching the film.

Also, you can quote me whenever you wish, but please don't misquote me. I only referred to the concept of primative vs advance armies because it is a popular theme.

I didn't misquote you Jay. I specifically quoted you to argue that such a concept of a primitive army defeating an advanced army is bullshit, and it's only a romanticism of primitive anti-technological societies. I was simply connecting it with the pervasive attitude many people have about Vietnam. I didn't say you were connecting it to Vietnam. It was just an example to illustrate the concept is ridiculous. So explain to me how I misquoted you?

And yes, I think you were over-reaching on Star Trek too.

Fuck you too!

(Edited by John Armaos on 12/26, 10:43am)

Post 75

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 3:13pm

Teresa,

It is not that I think people should ignore what they do know in terms of connecting the dots or discovering moral truths, it is more that I think people sometimes make personal choices in how they wish to weight that knowledge.

When I watched the film, I rejected the tired and deceitful choice of big business (or Capitalism) as the villain. I placed no particular importance on the NaVi being primitive. Neither did I place any particular importance on their being (however one wants to call it) "at one with nature". Neither of these things hold any importance or relevance to me. However, what I did place importance on, and what is very relevant to me, is that these individuals (self-aware, sapient beings) were having their rights (to life, to property, to pursuit of happiness) threatened.

I don't dispute what other potential messages those here felt were more important. I only think that those are not necessarily the only, or even the most important messages to be taken from the film. Moreover, I don't think the audiences of this film will automatically take those messages. I think most would take instead the simpler, more obvious message that I considered most important.

Films, stories that most capture their audience's admiration are those that touch on, and reaffirm a basic truth or value. What is remember most, and most deeply felt from a good book or movie, is that basic truth. In Avatar, it isn't that 'so and so is bad' or that 'living with nature is good', or that 'progress is bad'. These were just trappings of minor value. The defining value in Avatar, what gets audience's juices flowing, is when the lead character finally says "this is ours... we will not let them take it". None of the other trappings in the movie, trump this principle - what is ours, is ours, and no-one else has a right to it.

The NaVi's primitiveness just as easily, even better, serves the storyline than any political messages. By being outmatched and out-gunned, the NaVi's final decision defend their property and their rights is made even more heroic - a tried and true formula for Hollywood.

So, even if Cameron comes out and says that these other messages (this represents that, those represent this other) are exactly what he was trying to show - I don't care. The film is in the can. He doesn't get to, and no longer has the power to control the message. The critics have the chance to control the message now, and I know what message, what value I would want/promote from that film. Why concede it to the wrong values?

jt

Post 76

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 3:39pm

Ed,

Thanks for your post. I think philosophy is the most important thing in the world for the promotion of life.

However, it is terribly frustrating to see how unsuccessful we are in promoting a 'philosophy for living'. I think we miss opportunities to promote Objectivism when we can. And as satisfying as it is to read and sometimes participate in many of the discussions here, it is still frightening to see the trends outside this forum.

Films such as Avatar reflect many of the things we don't like to see, but they usually make their money by piggy-backing upon some recognizable core value or belief that people will universally respond to. More than often, it'll be a core belief that Objectivism can explain rationally and logically, and can build upon for better public awareness.

So, we can go out and tell people, who've enjoyed this film, that it has no redeeming values - or we can tell them that (despite its dishonest portrayal of business) it is a good example of the importance of defending one's individual rights to life, liberty, or property. I'll take the latter approach, whenever I can, always. We just need to get as many people thinking about philosophy, and morality, and ethics, as we possibly can.

So, please pardon my stubbornness.

jt

Post 77

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 3:40pm

John,

Sorry, I'll have to decline, I'm married to a wonderful woman.

jt

Post 78

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 5:57pm

Jay,

I think I like your position now.

You tell folks the important thing is that no one, no matter their wealth or power, gets to take anything from you. You add a jab at the tired stereotype that all corporations are evil, showing a few examples of how corporations saved many more lives than government (Hurricane Katrina), or how capitalism in general allows for so much greater human value than statism does.

Ed

Post 79

Saturday, December 26, 2009 - 6:28pm