Avatar: A futuristic movie filled with old-fashioned ideas

I’m not really one for science fiction but after all of the hype surrounding James Cameron’s Avatar, I had to see it for myself. I have to admit the movie was visually appealing (even if the 3D glasses I was forced to wear blurred my vision rather than enhanced it) but I found the story itself unoriginal and more importantly, I found the way in which the Na’vi race was portrayed problematic.

Yeah, the Na’vi are blue but their faces are a melting pot of ethnic features and their long hair is dreadlocked. Plus, the main Na’vi characters are voiced by four black actors (Zoe Saldana being the prominent Na’vi character and love interest to the movie’s white protagonist Jake Sully). Consequently, it is not enough that the Na’vi are meant to be an extraterrestrial race – no, Cameron must further emphasize the “other” aspect of these fictional people by giving them recognizably ethnic features and by having black actors portray them.

Now, I know that Avatar is meant to be symbolic; that it is supposed to be a reflection of the imperialistic and colonial exploits of our world (Cameron admitted this himself in an NBC interview stating that the plot is centered on how greed and imperialism “tends to destroy the environment” and so on and so forth). And I think that if Cameron had done it right, I would have appreciated it. But Cameron did not do it right. He merely perpetuated tropes and themes that have negatively or condescendingly portrayed other races. For instance, before the (white and for the most part middle-aged) humans officially declare war on the Na’vi, Sully inhabits his Avatar and desperately attempts to make a diplomatic agreement between the two races. But of course, the Na’vi ignorantly ignore his advice and believe that their bow and arrows will take down the humans’ advanced machinery. And when that doesn’t work, Sully becomes one of the Na’vi people and leads them into battle because for some reason, the actual leader of the Na’vi can’t seem to do it himself. Therefore, Cameron adds to the vast amount of literature and movies that portray the need for the white man to rescue an ethnic race because they are not intelligent or strong enough to overcome extraordinary obstacles themselves.

Of course, that isn’t the only contentious detail. The way in which the Na’vi are portrayed as the “primitive other” is also problematic, for while the film tends to praise the Na’vi people for being in touch with nature, the fact remains that these fictional and yet recognizably ethnic people are inherently bestial and are meant to be the antithesis of refinement and civilization. Cameron doesn’t depict civilization as being a particularly good or moral place but he still depicts civilization as something that is Western.

It is in my opinion that Cameron’s heart was in the right place when he made this movie but it is also my opinion that the story was hackneyed, that it lacked insight, and that it was filled with Western arrogance.

Beloved by Toni Morrison: A brilliant book about Trauma

Today I was engaged in a debate that I've been having for two years now. It is a debate I always welcome with anyone and it concerns a topic I'm very passionate about. While Toni Morrison's Beloved won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, many of my friends and fellow students believe the novel is undeserving of the award, that it is far too pretentious, and that it is a vanity piece in that it merely displays how clever Morrison is.

I respectfully disagree.

Toni Morrison is my favourite author and Beloved is my favourite book of all time (Drown by Junot Diaz is a strong contender). While I can hardly call the writing simplistic, I refuse to acknowledge it as pretentious. I believe the writing is intelligent and that if the author were a white man rather than a Black woman and if the book's subject had nothing to do with enslavement, it would be considered as such. Of course, I have heard theories that Morrison only won the Pulitzer because of the fact that Beloved is about enslavement; these theories usually come from my white friends who find the book an uncomfortable/frustrating read because they feel as if the book is merely "another" story detailing how white people have marginalized and "screwed over" (as they say) African Americans. My response to them is twofold.

One: enslavement is a very big part of American history and it is not an event you can merely wish away just to make yourself feel more comfortable; it is not an event we should or can forget especially since the traumas of enslavement are ongoing considering that even today, African Americans are very much a marginalized group. Second: the purpose of Beloved really isn't to point fingers. It is a book about trauma. I cannot stress this enough. The novel is about how a Black family, how a Black community, tries to find happiness, independence and identity but the effects, the traumas, and the mere memories of enslavement constantly hinder their attempts to advance. Beloved concentrates on Black characters and details the ways they try to cope with a horrific experience that psychologically and emotionally broke them; the depravity of the white "slave" masters is not the focus.

But even if the inequitable and barbaric power dynamic between the white masters and Black enslaved peoples was the focus, that should not and would not render the novel bad. For those who think it would, perhaps they should analyze why they are unable to read about a book portraying true historical facts.

The Problem With The Tale of Despereaux

I just finished watching The Tale of Despereaux and while I find the movie visually engaging and the "mice are cowardly" theme cute (even if it does become hackneyed over the course of the film), I just cannot get over the way "Ratworld" was introduced. As in many books and films, rats in The Tale of Despereaux are depraved and vicious creatures. As if to heighten these characteristics, when the film first displays the squalid Ratworld, it does so over a score of African drum beats and Arabic melodies. The blatant racism behind the fact that this music is meant to invoke a sense of barbarism and savagery is atrocious and detestable. Exactly what message is this movie sending to its child audience? And for those who believe that deconstructing the music of an animated film is ridiculous and that I am merely going "PC crazy," I have two things to say. Firstly, I HATE the term and the entire concept of "politcal correctness" because it does not eradicate or solve anything - it merely asks a racist/misogynist/bigot to cloak their views. For instance, if a racist wants to refer to a Black person as a "nigg--" but says "African-American" to uphold "political correctness," said racist is still calling the Black person a "nigg--" in his/her mind and still has the same views. Secondly, nothing in film is an accident and so the responsible thing to do when presented with a situation such as the one in the Ratworld scene is to question why did the composer/director choose to use African and Arabic musical tones to introduce a world that is meant to represent debasement, primitivism and vulgarity? What implications does this choice have? And why, in this day and age, is the concept of the primitive other one that is still very much alive?

The Danger of Twilight

Two nights ago, I went out with my friends to celebrate my 19th birthday. But instead of going to a club (as was our original plan) we ended up losing ourselves in conversation about certain television shows, movies, and books (you know you're an English major when ...) And a bulk of our conversation consisted of the danger and flimsiness of Stephanie Meyers' Twilight "Saga". Admittedly, we had all read the books and had gone to see the films (in fact the conversation started with us admiring the built of Taylor Lautner and the Jacob Black persona). However, I believe that the fact we have read the books and have seen the movies allows us to criticize the books more thoroughly and more productively than the people who merely state they hate the franchise. What I realized is that when I read New Moon, I did find some things problematic but when putting the book on screen, all of those probelmatic aspects become heightened and emphasized. The mere concept of a teenage girl going on suicidal endeavours just to "see" her estranged boyfriend or "hear" his voice is not only ridiculous but socially regressive. That Bella's character is not able to take care of herself and relies on another man (Jacob Black) when her boyfriend (Edward) leaves is also extremely problematic - why is it that the only strong female characters in the novel are vampires? Furthermore, the relationship she has with Edward is completely unhealthy as he is possessive rather than protective and that they are willing to die for one another since life without one is meaningless is for, lack of a better word, completely insane. And while Bella's relationship with Jacob Black is normal, human and "natural" he still manipulates her into kissing him by threatening to commit suicide (seems to be a theme prevalent in the series). However, what I find most disturbing about everything mentioned is that while my friends and I are able to deconstruct the series and pick out what is problematic (due to being young women) the little girls who read these books find them romantic and want to grow up to be Bella and attract men like Edward (who is literally the "unattainable male character"). I am not saying that Twilight should not be read but I am saying that despite being a superficial book, it is one that should be taken with a grain of salt.

The Princess and The Frog Controversy

I have to start by saying that I grew up on Disney films. Lion King, Aladdin, and Hercules were my favourites. After re-watching these films in high school, I realized how probelmatic the representations of ethnic characters were. Arabian Nights in Aladdin is extremely offensive "Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face, it's barbaric but hey! it's home." Pocahontas is completely historically inaccurate. In Lion King, the villain is a dark brown while the heroic protagonists are golden (it could be argued that this colour scheme was meant for the children to visually see who is evil and who is good, but then another question arises: why is black the representative of evil?) Anyway, The Princess and the Frog is Disney's first Black princess and yet there is controversy surrounding this. And rightly so. I have only seen the trailers for this movie as it has not come out yet, and I already saw an array of stereotypes. The "shuck and jive" slave dance, the hypersexualized Latin prince, the voodoo magic is quite pointed, and I have to say even the way Princess Tiana speaks is also very pointed. And quite frankly, I am extremely sick and tired of people claiming that it is harmless because it is an animated film. Animated or not it perpetuates a particular image of Black people that has been reverbrating throughout cinematic history since Uncle Tom's Cabin. I am also sick and tired of people claiming that the controversy is stupid and that people are reading far too into this. People must understand the history surrounding African Americans/African Canadians and that racism does exist in contemporary society (Obama is the president of the United States and that is most definitely progress, but it is not a progessive milestone that eradicates all racism towards Black people in North American society) and that the way in which Black people are portrayed in film and television contributes to our social situation.