THE ATTACKS ON ‘AVATAR’
By Douglas Brode
As seen in Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star and the McLachy newspaper chain
San Antonio, TX.--Success breeds contempt. No surprise, then, that when James Cameron’s AVATAR broke through the $1.8 billion box-office record set by his earlier TITANIC, public and critical adoration would be countered by nay-sayers. Most such comments hail from the political-cultural right, including claims that AVATAR conveys “anti-military” and “pro-environmentalist” themes. Not that the far left remains quiet. Anti-smoking activists complain about Sigourney Weaver’s otherwise enlightened character continually “lighting up.”
Like most artists, Cameron deals honestly rather than idealistically with characters. As with every person in real life, each has a flaw. This is hers, making Weaver’s heroine less a perfect real model but more an empathetic human. The film is hardly anti-military though it does come out against exploitive use of independent mercenaries (rather than official forces) for purposes of imperialist exploitation rather than much-needed national defense.
The “pro-environmentalist” theme is present. A better question would be: what’s wrong with that? Why do so many current “conservatives” recoil in horror from principles of “conservation” when those two terms derive from the same word? This wasn’t always the case: former Pres. George H.W. Bush proudly stated: “I’m a conservationist. Always have been. Always will be.” Another Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, initiated our environmental policies.
So! If Disney’s POCAHONTAS (1995) were released today, would it likewise come under scrutiny for projecting the same supposedly “liberal” themes?
Speaking of Disney, in their Florida resort area sits a 500 acres site called ANIMAL KINGDOM, a theme park dedicated to “nature and conservation.” On the day it opened, sign-wielding demonstrators from the left massed to complain that animals were exploited here. Yet this modern zoo and rehabilitation center for harmed beasts has no bars. Should those protestors now be replaced by rightists, angry about efforts made here to protect the natural world?
The epicenter of ANIMAL KINGDOM is The Tree of Life, 14 stories high, 50 ft. wide. Visitors resemble the indigenous blue creatures in AVATAR who gather around their own similar tree. This brings up the most heated attack on AVATAR: that Cameron’s film is “anti-religious.” Is there any truth to that claim? Actually, answering “yes” or “no” depends on how an individual defines the term “anti-religious.”
Positive symbolic use of the tree does run directly against the grain of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Those anonymous figures who set down the moral fables of Genesis set out to reverse the meanings of pagan icons, which celebrated nature in general, the tree in particular. With roots burrowing down into the earth and leaves that reach toward heaven above, the tree was worshipped as a natural bridge between here and there. But in the Garden of Eden, that vicious snake makes his home in the tree, slithering down to corrupt mankind through naive Eve.
Just as that first woman was depicted as weaker of the sexes by early Hebrews and modern religions derived from their teachings, so did pagan peoples--from the Druids to African nations to Native Americans--perceive the female of the species as superior, their beloved Mother Nature replaced in time by male sky gods like Zeus and Yahweh.
The Vatican’s newspaper L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO attacked AVATAR owing to “spirituality linked to the worship of nature,” while Vatican spokesman Revd. Federico Lombardi warned of the danger inherent in “turning nature into a new divinity.” But nothing could be older than such thinking! Does, then, AVATAR does challenge Biblical values? Absolutely. Does that mean AVATAR is “anti-religious”? Only if one takes a tunnel-vision approach: a bunker mentality which holds that an appealing portrait of anyone else’s religion constitutes an attack on one’s own.
This is not unlike Fox news-man Britt Hume insisting that disgraced sports idol Tiger Woods should reject Buddhism and find Jesus. Likely, Hume knows a great deal about his own Christian religion and its ability to help. Clearly, he knows nothing about Buddhism, a legitimate alternative religion which can and has achieved precisely such positive ends for its true-believers.
Hume’s position is identical to that of critics complaining about AVATAR. “If you don’t believe in my religion, then you aren’t religious.“ This represents an intolerance that’s oppositional to the American attitude toward freedom of choice of religion that’s been the hallmark of our country’s greatness since its inception.
According to one point of view, AVATAR and ANIMAL KINGDOM are dangerous examples of popular culture. Yet if that’s so, then why do so many millions of Americans, the vast majority of them Judeo-Christian, dearly love Disney‘s theme park and Cameron‘s film? Yet still diligently return to their Synagogues and churches after visiting ANIMAL KINGDOM or watching AVATAR, with no apparent harm done.
DOUGLAS BRODE teaches courses in American popular culture at Syracuse University and is the author of 30+ books on the subject. You can reach him at dougbrode@msn.com
