Blue (Skin) State
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Bit of an obvious conclusion wasn't it? The film was selling itself as an action blockbuster, rather than a staunchly pro-liberal piece, so it is natural to assume that not only would people go to see it for reasons other than its political orientation, but a good film will typically appeal to an entire spectrum of people anyway. Take High Noon; people can pick up from it that it is either a pro-conservative film about an individual hero who protects his society from low-lives, or a pro-liberal film which criticised contemporary intellectual types for not rising against McCarthyism. Depending on your political persuasion, you'll notice either one or the other - or neither if you just appreciate it as an entertaining film in its own right.
It is also obvious that commentators will pick up on the politics of popular media, more so than the public - they have to write about something, so why not make it easy and just write about what they went to see at the cinema last week? This article alone would be an example of this - extrapolate something fairly mundane, at least to give something to write about.
It is also obvious that commentators will pick up on the politics of popular media, more so than the public - they have to write about something, so why not make it easy and just write about what they went to see at the cinema last week? This article alone would be an example of this - extrapolate something fairly mundane, at least to give something to write about.
Ever seen the "original" ending of The Abyss, Bob? That was true politically-motivated horseshit right there. If Cameron can produce something like that, it wouldn't surprise me if Avatar was politically charged.
As for Obama, well, if I were in the US for the election, and legally eligible to vote, I'd probably have voted for Obama. He represented the most change, good or bad, that the government has seen in decades. And the government has been a stagnant eyesore for a long, long time.
As for Obama, well, if I were in the US for the election, and legally eligible to vote, I'd probably have voted for Obama. He represented the most change, good or bad, that the government has seen in decades. And the government has been a stagnant eyesore for a long, long time.
Ole' Bob is a regular. But I suppose that doesn't answer the question...huh.williebaz said:
Guess the escapist wanted to stick its fingers into more pies to garner interest. Plus, MovieBob is an independently established critic of videogames (see his website).
I seriously doubt that most of the people that watched Avatar got the "message" Bob talks about. And I guess this is all for the better, imposing ideology via movies is more of a form of silent indoctrination than a form of art work.
I wonder if you saw all the threads about this on the forum, MovieBob. The place nearly exploded with political debates when the film hit theatres. While I would hardly call the members here average people, it is an example of the many who have taken the political message of Avatar very seriously.
The simplicity of the message was always going to be met with scepticism; Hollywood itself appears to have been close to cynical about moral reasoning until now, if you look at The Dark Knight or Ironman for popular examples. Really, film has changed since the first Westerns and simplistic, bad guys and good guys stories of the past. There were morally subtle films in the early days of cinema, but they were a minority, as this was not perceived as an attractive quality commercially. The audience changed with various revolutions in education and technology, and became less accepting on the outset of cardboard cut out archetypal figures like the lone ranger or Tarzan.
Avatar is a call back to those more idealistic times when the hero in any film could believably start out fighting for the wrong side, betray that side without true moral outrage, and win. It was a risky move critically, and could have backfired if the visuals weren't beyond amazing, but financially a very clever move, because it generated such political heat that the film leapt into the audience with all the enthusiasm and controversy of a heavy metal guitarist. These unexpected nostalgic overtones of the film may have been what lead to greater power in the word of mouth reaction of the first viewers, helping to reach that billion dollar profit.
This film should be celebrated for the clever move against the grain of imagination that it is. And for bringing back real heroes after a flood of anti-heroes, who were getting far too common. I've seen enough guns, car chases, killing and one-liners to fill me up for a lifetime - give me more leaping from the back of an insane flying alien to another, bigger one, to make it do as you say. Entertainment-wise, reality can only go so far, and movies like Avatar bring us back the fantasy and legends that modern, less religious, educated humans need.
The simplicity of the message was always going to be met with scepticism; Hollywood itself appears to have been close to cynical about moral reasoning until now, if you look at The Dark Knight or Ironman for popular examples. Really, film has changed since the first Westerns and simplistic, bad guys and good guys stories of the past. There were morally subtle films in the early days of cinema, but they were a minority, as this was not perceived as an attractive quality commercially. The audience changed with various revolutions in education and technology, and became less accepting on the outset of cardboard cut out archetypal figures like the lone ranger or Tarzan.
Avatar is a call back to those more idealistic times when the hero in any film could believably start out fighting for the wrong side, betray that side without true moral outrage, and win. It was a risky move critically, and could have backfired if the visuals weren't beyond amazing, but financially a very clever move, because it generated such political heat that the film leapt into the audience with all the enthusiasm and controversy of a heavy metal guitarist. These unexpected nostalgic overtones of the film may have been what lead to greater power in the word of mouth reaction of the first viewers, helping to reach that billion dollar profit.
This film should be celebrated for the clever move against the grain of imagination that it is. And for bringing back real heroes after a flood of anti-heroes, who were getting far too common. I've seen enough guns, car chases, killing and one-liners to fill me up for a lifetime - give me more leaping from the back of an insane flying alien to another, bigger one, to make it do as you say. Entertainment-wise, reality can only go so far, and movies like Avatar bring us back the fantasy and legends that modern, less religious, educated humans need.
As someone who hated the movie for its ham-fisted attempt at allegory as a replacement for "story" and "characters", I have to completely agree with MovieBob. Your average moviegoer isn't coming out of this or any other action movie thinking about politics, they're thinking about explosions.
Do I sense a Bill Hicks reference there?. Another point you could make is that the people actually watching them films probably would realise the political differences (Starship troopers being arguably a right wing look at the military while as platoon could be seen as a left wing look at the military were the American forces are seen as being just as bad and at times worse then the Vietcong forces) in them nor would they care.The_root_of_all_evil said:
My father is right wing and I'm sort of in the middle but bordering on left wing and we both enjoyed the movie. I told my father a couple days after watching the movie that a lot of right wingers are against this movie because of the political allegories that could be found in this movie... my fathers reply was "They should just shut the fuck up and enjoy the movie". I guess that one of the few things me and my father have seen eye to eye on.
See I can understand why people seek out these allegories, they make a good discussion amongst friends if your into that sort of thing. However what I don't under stand is how people let these allegories destroy the enjoyment of the movie even to the point of boycotting. Just a couple of months back when Zombieland was being released to the cinemas there was a thread on IMDB asking people to boycott that because of Woody Harelsons political stand point or another on the Twilight boards (Don't ask me what I was doing on the twilight boards) asking people to boycott that film because it apparently makes a joke on George Bush.
That kind of mindset I just don't get.
what the fuck were you doing on the Twilight boards?Sovvolf said:
[/sarcasm]
[bitterex-journalismmajor]
honestly, what i find most amusing about all of this hoopla is who's not getting involved in the debate: Fox News. you know damn good and well that if this came out of any other studio(especially WB) they'd have the goon squad of Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly right behind Bart and the Freepers in decrying the film as "liberal propaganda." instead, you have what is ostensibly one of the most blatant servings of "Hollywood Liberal" thought in cinematic history*, made by the guy who directed The Abyss and wanted to do a documentary on the discovery of what was allegedly Christ's tomb and body(thus disproving modern Christianity), and Fox & Friends invites him on to chat about how cool 3D is.
then again, pointing out hypocrisy in TV news broadcasts is the definition of low-hanging fruit.
[/bitterex-journalismmajor]
*and i say this as a liberal myself