Avatar: the limits of the human imagination
14.25 per person. That?s how much I paid for my husband, my sister and myself to see Avatar. I wasn?t following the hype leading up to the movie so I wasn?t too familiar with the plot, but I did catch a press piece touting the movie?s cinematic innovation. That, paired with Zoe Saldana, a fellow afrolatina, heightened my expectations and for naught. Half way through the film I was bored and wondering if I could get my money back or at least hold on to my 3D glasses for another film. I like science fiction movies but I am not a fan girl, so on one level the special effects fell on an untrained eye but what really kept me from enjoying the movie was a critical mind.
The natives ?the Na?vi? are blue and about 12 feet tall; they also sport cornrows or braided extensions along with Masai/Native American/Melanesian (name your anthropological field site) jewelry and headdresses. And lest we veer too far off script the natives?I mean the Na?vi are extremely fit and barely clothed.
Haven?t I seen this somewhere before?
Then there is the Na?vi and their ?all mother/spirit earth/tree god? who they go and sing to when the battleships are coming.
We haven?t gotten tired of this yet?
These ?noble savages? exhibit that familiar ? au naturel? spirituality where they understand the land and the animals?.which makes sense considering their animalesque features?the Na?vi can bond with animals as one?.another uniquely ?native?, I mean Na?vi, skill.
Wow that?s original!
Yet despite all of this knowledge, they still need the golden (white) boy, albeit in an avatar of a Na?vi body, to save the day. To be the only one who can be innovative, break tradition and taboo, to lead them and inspire them and in the end to ultimately ?go native? (I am hanging my anthropologist head in shame) and leave behind the ?soulless??and I use ?soul? deliberately?war mongering ?civilized? world whose alienation from their own ?all mother? led them to slaughter her too.
What may have been a little different was the fact that the movie?s commentary on American imperialism includes (some) Americans?yes Americans?killing other Americans in a time when the nation is at war. Of course these Americans are unredeemable because they are soulless and war mongering, making their deaths are more palatable. Nevertheless it is a weak commentary. It is weak because it is a commentary that is still invested in white supremacy and white patriarchy. It is the white man who ultimately saves the Na?vi, without him they would have never survived. Even the lone white woman with some semblance of authority, played by Sigourney weaver, is in the end an impotent character, a ?tree hugger? with no real power against the white men who have all the power?to do evil and to do good. Furthermore, with the critique of US power so heavily cloaked in the comfort of ?native symbolism?–will the average American viewer actually see the criticism, be able to disentangle from their own attachment (whatever race/ethnicity) to the fantasy of the master race?
When I first started to write this piece, all I could think of was the phrase ?the limits of the human imagination.? What does this mean? Well, for one, it has something to do with God. Although the film seems to be ambivalent about how the viewer should feel about the Ewya (the Na?vi?s god)–haughty or in awe–, the secular humanist impulse that would celebrate the film as an achievement of human capacity might need to reconsider that position. It is clear the director spent countless creative hours and a ton of money to create a fantastical picture?that merely rehashes old stories. Therefore, from my vantage point, rather than see this a triumph of the human, who knows no limit, the use of a well-worn storyline speaks to the exact opposite: humans cannot know nor create beyond themselves??this is the natural limit of humanity.
Yet within the realm of what humans actually are capable of, this film still made me consider the limits of the human imagination, but in a different way??even if we are always destined to create tales that reflect our own understanding, don?t we have the potential to reflect our own understandings in new ways? Could Avatar have been told without a noble savage? Can ?natives? be complex?
How?s this for an alternative ending: The Na?vi do not send the remaining humans back to earth, without harming them, ultimately leaving open the possibility of their return with bigger and better ships (and of course the profits from Avatar: the Return and Avatar: the Next Generation ). Rather, the Na?vi give the remaining earthlings the choice between becoming permanent Na?vi or death. I know we like happy endings and in all seriousness, violence is not the answer, and way too often what we see on the wide screen?.but if we want to push the limits of our reflections on ourselves what if the Na?vi weren?t such peace-loving-turn-the-other-cheek-folk, but more strategic?.more flawed?more human?