Yes, many reviewers linger on the corporation vs natives story, and how the evil humans want to destroy everything that the nature-bound Na’vi hold dear. But apart from the message of the story, what message does the film itself send out?
That five hundred million dollars in capital were invested based on one single man’s vision that it could be turned into a vehicle for tenfold profits, that this vision could bring wonder and joy to people of all nations, and that he could bring it to market without the state ever putting a hand on it.
The director even fits the stereotype of an evil capitalist, often requiring his workers to work over 12 hour days and forbidding them bathroom breaks, not out of malice but because he won’t allow himself these comforts either, dedicated as he is to the work there is to be done.
I enjoyed it, and initially shrunk at its (supposedly) clear environmentalist/anti-capitalist message, but then realised that more realistically it is seen as an attack on imperialism, whether by corporation or government, rather than a particularly anti-libertarian film.
Actually it could be interpreted as an anti statist film, which is what I did. The company in Avatar was a state wasn’t it? It laid claim to a territory (country), laid claim to valuable resources (taxation), used force to do this (guns and anything to confiscate the territory), offered bullshit recompense (public education, socialized medicine ECT), and gave little consideration for those individuals who were not within its specific pay role.
The only reason that this wasn’t a movie against statism is that at leas this was more noble than normal statism, the funds which were at least obtained voluntarily and there was no intrinsic need or threat for violence, it just so happened that the major deposits of unobtainium (lold at the name, don’t know how you spell it) was right below the site of a major tribe, and at least that which is extracted would have enriched the lives for all those on the market.
So a non-governmental company (which is also a quasi-governmental administrative entity [^o)]) has grown, thanks to the state apparently, to the point that it has interplanetary monopoly rights and its own Hollywood style PDA.
Anyone who’s watched the movie care to add to this?
Honestly, one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time. The visuals were breathtaking and jawdropping and the story was lucid, coherent and brisk despite the movie almost running three hours. I felt like I was there for one hour and I never wanted to take my eyes off the screen.
I do think that it had an obvious bias, but I was over that within the first hour.
They did try to paint the humans as being the enemies of peace and it was an obvious allegory for the way native americans were treated by whites when they first got here. There was even a trail of tears. No diseased blanket trading though.
Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed it and I would recommend it to anyone.
The neocons on Hotair already did beforehand, so they could find an excuse to hate it. No wonder the GOP looks like it’s dying:
“I hate Anti-American/Anti-Semitic/Pro-Jihadi Democratic Traitor Hollywood Marxist Leftist Eco-nuts Obama-ites, as much as the next person; and I’ve been prepared for weeks, that “Avatar” was pretty much of the same old Anti-American/Anti-Military/Anti-Capitalistic pap we’ve seen from Hollywood, for the past 35 years!”
“Now Ed Morrissey is promoting a movie that couldn’t be more anti-American, a movie that liberals and Muslims will love.”
there’s also good, ie. ally and protect humans, robots in the second and third terminator. i don’t know if one of those kind were shown in the first one.
A film about property rights. Here are some thoughts I pulled from it though.
The Human Side.
At the end of the movie it is said that Men returns to his dying planet. I’m assuming that this rock they were mining was a fuel. What if the movie was not about the navi but instead was about massive human suffering on earth and the answering being this rock. IT would then become just another “StarShip Troopers” movie where humans kick alien butt to stake claim over territory imperialistically.
So many stories follow that line and people dont give a rats ass about the property rights the humans are stealing from. It disturbs me how fickle people are in this regard, how easily suaded they are from a film. Had the story been followed like that it would have been another human vs aliens movie. The Humans would have been the innoscent race desperately fighting to feed or fuel its people back home.
Had that been the case everyone would hated the Navi for being evil greedy hoarders not even using the wealth they own. I find most people hypocritical in this regard.
Dying Planet
At the end of the movie it is stated that man returns to his dying planet. IF we are to assume that Earth is dying(Which in concept I believe to be a fallacy) then lets rollplay this out again. Lets assume that this mineral they are mining is fuel that will prolong the life of earth and save bilions of people. They will want to extract as much of the mineral as possible.
It seems entirely illogical for the company to jeapordize it’s entire operation, one which could net minerals from the whole planet, simply for one motherload. Instead if they wanted to maximize profits they would have done a better job at respecting the Navi’s property, partnering with them, trading with them, and extracting minerals in an area of the planet that was un-occupied or unclaimed.
They could then create a permanent peaceful residence. This would benefit the Navi and Humans alike. I find it highly unlikely that somehow this corporation grew to the size that it was by taking the short road out everytime.
Fallacy of Dying Planet
I don’t think I need to state this here on this forum but oh well. Human’s economize over time via technological advancement ect… We do more while consuming less. It’s entirely possible that our economic footprint and “environment footprint(queezes inside)” could dwindle if our society were that advanced. Maybe cities would be more like Fifth Elements style of concentration, and forests would be denser than ever. Who knows but I think it’s a fallacy to conclude that man will exhaust his resources on earth. I feel that people think thats what will logically happen but its a fallacy at best.
My take
Great story on property rights and why they are important.