Avatar
(2009 — Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver)

I’ve, admittedly, got a lot to say about this movie.  Not that anyone who knows me has ever accused me of brevity.  But hang on.  This movie has political and spiritual ramifications, but not like you might have heard.

OVERVIEW

In case you aren’t familiar with the movie already, here’s a quick overview.

The story takes place roughly 150 years in the future.  Another planet which man has discovered contains a highly valuable mineral.  It is also the home of a humanoid race known (to us) as the Na’vi.  Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) leads a team of scientists that is studying and trying to reach the Na’vi.  The primary means by which this is accomplished is through avatars, a Na’vi-like creature spawned of the combination of DNA from a human and a Na’vi. The human from whom the DNA comes can control the avatar as though s/he was actually in the avatar’s body, by the human going into a dream-like state. The familiarity of the Na’vi-like avatars is used to gain the trust of the Na’vi people.  While the scientists’ goal for this trust is better understanding and study, the company (who is funding all this) just wants the mineral.

Jake Sully (Worthington) is a paraplegic Marine whose scientist brother donated DNA and was to be one of the avatar controllers.  When this brother is killed, Jake takes his place (his DNA is close enough to allow him to control the avatar, and the company doesn’t want to lose the money invested in the brother’s training and the creation of the avatar).  Lacking his brother’s training and knowledge of Na’vi culture, Jack is at a distinct disadvantage, but he uses his wits and Marine training to make up for it.

A group of soldiers, headed by a gung-ho (and, admittedly, one-dimensional) Marine colonel serve initially as protection for the exploration team and the other representatives of the company.  However, as the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that the peaceful means by which the company wishes to extract the mineral are failing, and so it is decided that the mineral will be taken by force, instead.  Having become deeply immersed in the Na’vi culture, Sully’s allegiance to his fellow humans begins to waver, and then breaks down completely, especially when it becomes clear that destruction of the land and Na’vi deaths are of little consequence to the company and of no consequence to the colonel.

Content advisory, then back to the article.  The main reason for the PG-13 rating is a lot of action and violence.  However, there is also a fair amount of language and one scene of a somewhat sexual nature.  It’s not as explicit as, say, Leo and Kate in the back seat in Cameron’s Titanic — but it is worth mentioning. One other reason that the MPAA gives is some smoking.  It’s fairly laughable that the nanny state would still permit anyone to smoke in 2154, but there we are.

SIDE NOTE

If you choose to see this movie, see it in 3-D, if possible (sorry, Steve G).  To say that the world created in this movie is visually stunning would be an embarrassing understatement, and the immersion of 3-D will only enhance that effect.  Please keep in mind, too, that this recommendation is coming from someone whose eyes don’t get the full 3-D impact, so you’ll be wow-ed even more than I was.

POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS

Initially, I was not going to see this movie.  The over-blown hype surrounding the movie and writer/director James Cameron’s megalomania (uh, no Jimmy, this won’t “change the movie-going experience forever”) had really turned me off. I was fairly certain that I’d be the only person in the known universe that didn’t see the movie, but I didn’t care.

Then I started hearing some of the reactions, and they further cemented my decision. I was hearing conservatives saying that it was a 2.5-hour commercial for environmentalism, and was anti-capitalist and anti-military. I figured that I get enough of that crap from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — I didn’t need to plunk down my own money to have baloney preached at me.

Then I got an email the other day from a buddy of mine telling me to “run, don’t walk” to the theater to see this movie, followed by a chastisement for delaying by continuing to read his email.  The buddy is a Marine and a bit more politically conservative than I. It occurred to me that if the alleged left-wing messages in the film didn’t bother my friend, they probably wouldn’t bother me.  Although I didn’t run to the theater, I did see the movie within 72 hours of his recommendation.

Now, granted, many of the charges of left-wing messages were fueled by Cameron’s own statements about the movie.  However, given the fact that he created the story 12 years ago, a lot of the claims that he made (and that conservatives pointed to as proof-text) regarding events that occurred much more recently fall flat.  Yes, a couple of standard left-wing talking points were clumsily (almost laughably) crow-barred into dialogue.  And the Na’vi do believe in a hybrid of pantheism and panentheism, concepts to which many tree-huggers subscribe. But the overall message of the movie is a lot less partisan than Cameron (or his detractors) would lead you to believe.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Americans were encouraged to return to their normal routines, and it was proposed that if we did not do so, then “the terrorists have already won”.  The rationale was that, if we did not return to normal routine, this was evidence that we were terrified, and the terrorists had accomplished not only a short-term goal, but also a long-term goal.

I would argue that, by listening to his grandiose claims, the conservatives who are bashing this movie (sight unseen) have set it up such that James Cameron wins.  Cameron is a liberal — big surprise.  Liberal celebrities almost always have an over-blown sense of self-importance and think that John Q Public actually cares about their opinions on political issues.  They also try to ascribe political weight to their art, rather than just do what we asked — “shut up and sing” (to borrow from Laura Ingraham).  Combine all this with Cameron’s natural narcissism, and it’s a wonder that he doesn’t claim that the entire movie was simply a personal reaction to the Bush administration.

And conservatives are buying into this stuff?  Are you people on drugs?

SPIRITUAL RAMIFICATIONS

Perhaps the spiritual ramifications are obvious by now.  But you’ve read this far, so I’ll keep babbling.

One of the great tragedies for Christian art in the 1980s was the death of the Meadowlark recording label.  For those not familiar with the label, it consisted of releases of (mostly mellow) instrumental music.  The label’s demise was brought about largely because the genre of music was very similar to the popular “New Age” music being released in the secular world.  Too many professing Christians were (at the time) looking for New Age threats wherever they could find them (or more often, imagine them).  And so the music of such well-known devil-worshipers as Richard Souther, Phil Keaggy, and John Michael Talbot was dismissed as unworthy of Christian consumption.

Today, the names have changed, but the “battle” remains the same.  I could go into specifics, but this post is already too long.

French poet Charles Baudelaire said that “[t]he greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.”  Perhaps so.  But the second greatest trick may very well be convincing many Christians that he is more powerful than he really is.  Scripture tells us that “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”  Yet often we run around in fear (which “perfect love casts out” — same chapter, no less) that the sky is falling.

Should we be wary?  Certainly.  But our recognition of falsehood should stem from our immersion in the truth, not some paranoia that we try to pass off as “discernment”.  When we buy into this garbage, the devil “has already won”.

Somehow, I don’t think we want that.