On the one hand, the movie has received a ton of praise for its groundbreaking technical prowess. On the other hand, the movie has been criticized for its rehashing of white liberal fantasy, the predictably colonial undertones that drive the narrative forward.
Discussion of the movie in these two regards is well-traversed territory. What I haven't seen much of is criticism of the movie's environmentalism. The environmentalist message is typically noted in passing and subsequently folded into the politics of colonial subjugation.
In its Manichean scheme, Avatar pits humans versus nature, as though one could conceive these two categories essentially and in isolation. Humans relate to the environment in purely corporate, extractive terms; meanwhile, the enviable Na'vi exist in perfect harmony with their natural surroundings. Clearly, the movie espouses a vindictive reproach of capitalist kowtowing to the Almighty Quarterly Earnings Statement. The threat embedded at the heart of the movie: we who in our consumer culture continue to be champions of industry are doomed to moral and economic depravity.
Let me step back from this plot line for a moment and channel Break Through, as I am apt to do:
"If 'the environment' includes humans, then everything is environmental and the concept has little use other than being a poor synonym for 'everything.' If it excludes humans, then it is scientifically specious, not to mention politically suicidal." (emphasis in original)
The movie wants us to buddy up with those lovable scientists who are oh-so-dedicated to protecting Mother Tree and "the environment." In turn we are expected to demonize the mechanical logic of corporate interests. But as the Break Through quote states, the categories of "industry" and "environment" or "humans" and "nature" are simply untenable. Why must economic growth be inherently parasitic and unsustainably extractive? Why is it impossible to imagine technological innovation that brings us towards greater resource efficiency rather than increased resource consumption?
The answer is pretty obvious. Fear sells. We are captivated by the prospect of civilization's eventual demise. But fear doesn't inspire action. I'd like to think that James Cameron aspires in his movies to more than simple-minded entertainment (why else produce an environmental allegory?). In fact, I'd like to think that James Cameron, by virtue of the popularity of his movies, has a responsibility to be thoughtful and critical of his movies' messages. But in this regard, Avatar demonstrates a frightening failure of the imagination.
I relish saying that last sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment