So the Avatar movie hit the big screen and I had the chance to watch it. The whole hoopla over the “racebending” of the characters can be tracked over at angryasianman – virtually every other post. I think the critique is legit – and I’ll take it from a religious P.O.V (being a blog on race, place AND faith). One thing is for sure; this may be the most ethnically diverse movie ever made – as M. Night alludes – if all we are considering are extras. As far as the primary casting is concerned – the protagonists and the heros / heroines of the story – it’s old hat. Last Samurai kind of stuff. And from a religious angle, the continued co-opting of foreign religions – a kind of cultural imperialism – is something that has irked me about Western revisions of Eastern religions for a long time. As if the latest reincarnation of an ancient Eastern religion were anything but. In my travels nearby Tibet I’ve listened with fascination to the lore of reincarnations of “the Chosen One.” But the ongoing question around here is why messiah-figures so often have to be depicted as white. I’m not just on to Hollywood casting. I don’t care, they can cast whoever they want. They have no prerogative to diversify and it only becomes an exercise in political correctness anyway. The question is, why we as a society continually hunger for saviors of a lighter hue.
If you ask me, the Airbender should have looked something more like this: Read more…
she is beholden to the human man
Wow; what a visually powerful and stimulating movie. The plot however, left me unimpressed: (spoiler alert)
It exuded what some call “white man’s guilt fantasy” pertaining to issues of imperialism / dominance – often bemoaning guilt over treatment of natives, American Indians. As such it was entirely unoriginal in it’s portrayal of the same lead character thus freeing and liberating the natives; why must it always be as such? As if the Last Samurai was not Japanese at all, but a white man who somehow learned the mastery of Japanese swordsmanship in one year. Or Dances With Wolves, he who gains entrance into the tribe, gains an Indian name and becomes the hero at the end. Or Gran Turino, where the embittered war vet somehow saves the day in the end, becoming a true ethnic native; which leads me to ask the question that surreptitiously and predictably pops up in these movies; “what is it that you hate about your own race so much?” which is the question that comes up in Avatar as well as Last Samurai.
I don’t mean to be offensive but find offensive already these cliched themes which if indeed James Cameron is so enlightened, perhaps he would have picked up on these but no; he followed the cliches, hook-line- and stinker. Sure it’s a political movie; no doubt – what bothered me was that it wasn’t socio-political enough; it wasn’t critical enough; it wasn’t thoughtful enough; it just pushed the self-accusatory envelope just far enough to give audiences the junk food they want and then to leave happy that complex social issues were solved because the white man became a native and wins the war for us in the end.
5 people like this post.
While this film has received rave reviews I have reserved criticism both positive and negative for it – positive in that it’s brilliantly written – the dialogue is believable, carries w/o a strong sense of fakeness, and is intelligently argued all throughout (on a fantastically minimal budget, for that matter). But that’s where things went sour for me; despite the intellectual survey of history, anthropology, biology, philosophy, and finally religion – there is a strong a priori undercurrent; that is to say – Bixby – the author – had an agenda – and a strong one at that. As a person of faith I can say I wasn’t offended so much by the sacrilege of the movie as much as its strong bias against Christianity – almost evangelistically so. When Christians are portrayed as dull, or closed-minded, or fundamentalistic, I can already tell the trajectory of the movie; It aims to insult. Fair enough, we have given our fair share from our own kin; but if the movie is attempting an intellectual survey at least it can be a little more respectful and objective towards its sources rather than submitting to quaint New-Age caricatures of re-hashed Jesus Seminar.
The first thing I noticed: “The Visitor” – the word is singular, not plural. Watch the movie and indeed, you begin to wonder: who is the visitor here? While it is true that the theme of the square, stuffy, middle-aged white man in a suit who finds his soul with an infusion of Third-World soulfulness can come across as sentimental and condescending, McCarthy has created a believable world, setting up his despondent protagonist in a believable manner – the Man - is broken. And he finds his healing among immigrants – illegals for that matter. That is when the story takes an interesting political turn as he re-finds his voice, his anger, his passion, his life. One would think the charitable benefactor the hero of this story, thus repeating the condescending and predictable narratives that we’re used to. But remember: he is broken – so alone. He’s the hero, but he’s also the Visitor – which shows the helper / helpee distinction is blurred. No theology of condescension here; rather – a theology of ascent.
Contrary to what some may think, Korean-American society has its greaseballs too – played brilliantly by Jun Kim in West 32nd. The crime drama had an eerie sense of familiarity, so accurately capturing the essence of immigrant society in New York City’s Korea town. Of course there were the familiar sights – W 32nd St. – a place I worked just around the corner for 2 years, and parts of Flushing – Main St. NY – where I pretty much grew up. But it was the criminal element that both disturbed and resonated with me. It was simultaneously familiar and frightening and artistically portrayed; I am glad to see Asian-American directors and actors comign into their own. Oh yes – and there’s John Cho – who is such a hottie right now on Flash Forward. Read more…
Recent Comments