posted by Sam Richards
Admittedly I have not seen the film. The last time I visited a movie theater was in 2005. Before that it was sometime in the early 1990s. I just don’t get out much. And while Avatar does seem like the kind of film that ought to be experienced on the big screen, it’s highly unlikely that that is where I’ll see it given my track record.
Nonetheless, reading this op-ed by David Brooks makes me a bit curious about the movie. Not sure why, really, as it sounds a lot like just another film from a long list of other films that I was neither drawn to, nor do I feel somehow deprived as a result of not seeing. But Brooks makes some serious accusations about a film that is being widely and universally viewed that it does make me curious about this persistent theme that just won’t go away — about how it is up to white people to save people from disastrous fates that might befall them.
I supposed one could readily argue that Brooks is reading far too much into the film. But these conscious and subconscious themes that drive popular cultures have a way of landing in us and shape our minds and hearts and just because you didn’t draw his conclusions from the film does not mean that he’s not dead on. In fact, if you’ve grown up in this culture and you haven’t not critically restructured your thinking about gender and race and culture and imperialism, then it’s highly unlikely that you would come to his conclusions. It doesn’t make him “correct” or you “wrong”–but I’d give his ideas time to gestate.
Here’s what Brooks had to say: The Messiah Complex
It never ceases to amaze me how the simplest ideas are twisted and turned into a racial conversation. This is nothing but a bunch of drama. Maybe the better way of looking at the White Messiah fable storyline is by putting on your historical goggles. Historically speaking, what other nationality has gone into a foreign land and taken over all of its inhabitants? The Persians, Macedonian, Roman and Great Britain empires took over the world. All of these nationalities have marched in and ruffled the tail feathers of natives. “Ruffle the tail feathers” I know is an understatement, but you get the idea. From the racial perspective what is the tally here 2 brown and 2 white nationalities? (Would the Macedonians be considered light brown or are they white as well?) At any rate, Great Britain had the most expansive empire ever and therefore the most influential and most recent to strong arm their way into the world. It just so happens that they happen to be white. The drama involved in all of this conquering makes a nice storyline for the movie industry and as a result they have made millions and billions of dollars. It works. Is it realistic to have a black messiah? I am not sure there is an historic example to draw from on this or the movie industry would have already exploited it to make more millions. There is absolutely nothing racial about it … it is more historical. Movies such as “Dances With Wolves” and “The Last Samurai” are movies many of us can identify with and see it happening. Would it have had the same effect if Kevin Costner and Tom Cruise were black actors? No. It doesn’t fit either story line.
I have not seen Avatar nor am I likely to go see it. I have family members whom have seen it and loved the movie and were really impressed with the special effects. My understanding was all the native characters were blue. If anything I guess I am more offended by the depiction on the big bad US military and how it portrays my country than what color the hero is. I don’t think it portrays a very honorable role for our military or our nation. Maybe though it reflects what people around the world (and some in our own country) feel about our nation and this would be sad.
“No, the Avatar melancholy I feel stems from the film's brutal aspect, in particular its view of Americans. Contrary to his stated desire to unite us all in planetary love, Cameron has created a movie that could set back international relations by a couple of light years or so.” Says Peter Howell, Movie Columnist for Star.com.
[Reply]
Avatar was one of the best movies I have ever seen. In my opinion it may be the best movie I have ever seen. It was revolutionary. The story line, the special effects, and the creativity all deserve an A+. The movie being in 3d put it over the top even more. After leaving the movie, I wished that Pandora truly existed. I also thought about how there still people are living in the Amazon and in the South Pacific islands still living how life exists on Pandora. In a way I was jealous of their life. They were so happy and peaceful and in tune with nature. I have only felt this way a few times in my life. When I go hunting once a year it is peaceful to just sit in the woods by yourself and look around. I believe God meant for the world to be like this. However, then I go back to Penn State and find myself doing interviews every week and working on my resume. I also find myself noticing all the trash all around as I walk to class. Most Americans have no respect for nature. In time I believe we will all end up losing the battle and destroy the great world we have today. Day after day we waste our valuable resources and I worry about the day when we have nothing left.
About David Brooks, I disagree and agree with his thinking. I do not believe in the principle of white people rushing to save the others and portraying it in that way. The humans on Pandora were not just white. Michelle Rodriguez also fought for the natives and she is not white. I believe the real battle is rather David vs. Goliath. Most people enjoy seeing the underdog win in most situations. In college basketball fans always root for the underdog. The same is true for movies. The underdog in Avatar was the natives. Seeing the hardships of the natives when their home was destroyed was truly sorrowful. I guarantee every person watching the movie was cheering for the natives when they fought the intruders. The natives also went and gathered the other tribes on their planet and joined together against a common cause. I wonder if this will ever happen in the world today. I believe the movie relates to the colonization of the Americas. Europeans came to the Americas and treated the land as their own and killed the people who were here. Personally, I did not look at the natives as black or brown people. I just looked at them as completely different people. White, black, and brown we are all humans and have all had a part in destroying our environment.
Finally, I am very curious and excited to see what James Cameron does with the sequels to Avatar. He says there will be two sequels. I wonder what will eventually happen and if the natives will be able to keep their planet. I believe Cameron is a different kind of director and in the end will have the natives losing.
[Reply]
For a movie received plenty of hype, I believe that Avatar truly lived up to it. In my mind it surpassed what I was expecting, so much that I saw it twice in theatres. In the beginning of David Brooks’ article I could absolutely see the connections that he was trying to make. However as the article continued, I began disagreeing more and more.
Brooks kept mentioning these “White Messiah” plot lines. I agree that all the other movies that he listed fit the “White Messiah” criteria much more than Avatar did. I understand where Brooks is coming from attempting to prove that Avatar is also has a “White Messiah” plot line, but it is too much of a stretch for me personally.
Brooks claims that the hero in Avatar was the “white former Marine.” I initially thought that there were two major things wrong with this claim. The first was that I felt that hero was not the right word to describe the Marine’s roll in the movie, but a better term would be protagonist. The viewer is constantly seeing this world through his eye and has seen him do heroic things, but doesn’t consider him the hero.
This brings me to my second problem with Brooks claim. I personally feel that generally speaking that a Hero saves the day and resolves some type of conflict. Avatar concludes unlike any of the other “white messiah” plotlines. Nothing is really resolved in the conflict between the Navi and Humans. Since nothing was resolved, I believe that the movie is ultimately Hero-less. When I watch a movie with a character that could be considered a “hero”, I normally tend to side with the hero more often than not. Brooks argues that the Marine “saves the day’. Once again, saves the day is a poor choice of words. He was merely fixing something that was his fault. The Marine knew of everything that was going to happen and didn’t decide to act on it until it was too late. In my mind hero don’t mess anything up and if the do, then it is not at the end of the movie.
After the first time I saw Avatar many of my friends said that the plotline makes humans look terrible. I completely felt the same way, which is the complete opposite of anything that “White messiah” plotlines represent. Brooks backs up some of what he says and is actually pretty convincing, but some of his claims are such a stretch. There is no “White messiah” in this movie at all, if anything they are seen to be the problem and ruin the Navi’s land. There is really nothing that the Marine did that would make me think that he was the hero of the movie especially since nothing was resolved.
[Reply]
I might have missed this because there were way too many comments to read all of the, but is anybody even talking about the fact that in most of these movies, the "colored" people wouldn't even need saving if they had never been interfered with in the first place? Couldn't we focus more on the theme of oppression and industrialization's destruction of nature? Don't get me wrong, I love every single thing I've benefited from because of industrialization, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the consequences. I doubt we'll ever see a #1 movie where some culture goes to a new world and plants trees and everyone gets along, but I do think we should pay more attention to the underlying themes of these action-adventure movies and look deeper, beyond the explosions and CGI.
[Reply]
First off I want to say, I have not seen the movie, but I have read and heard enough about it from my friends to get the gist of the movie. I am torn between the ideas of “The White Messiah Fable.” I feel that it does exist within the movies such as Pocahontas and The Last Samurai, but I don’t believe that the message that is trying to be sent is that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. I sort of feel like that is just American nature to make the “rescuer” white. It does make the Americans look as if we have “big heads” that we swoop down whenever there is danger and help everyone with their problems. I also believe that sometimes this is the way the government or the marine’s army or whatever thinks. That this is what people need us to do, go in and rescue the natives from cruel imperialist. In my opinion James Cameron wanted this movie to portray what is going on in Iraq, but not in a bad way. In the movie avatar the marines are after some sort of material and invading their land so that they can mine this material. I feel the military is doing the same in Iraq. This is what I feel, I am not knowledgeable on the war or why we are actually over there. I can also see why this movie could cause an up rise because most of the characters in this movie are white and it is claimed to be racist. To be honest I don’t think that Cameron was implying this; I just think that, that is the way it is interpreted. It does raise that question though as to why all the actors and actresses are white and it seems as if the native people are just native Americans. It does show a multicultural outlook on things, greater than any other movie of its kind. But that is what today’s world is like, it is very multicultural. The fact that this movie comes off as racist, I don’t think that Cameron was trying to come off as offensive. The way I see it, it’s just a movie and yes it does point out certain things in the world that are actually going on in today’s world. But I don’t think that he tried to make this movie against any or come as a bad interpretation. I think it was just a movie like all the other stories about white messiah fables where there is a white rescuer who tries and helps a native community. I don’t see it as anything other than a movie that is not offensive.
[Reply]
A few weeks ago my friends and I went to the movies and we were trying to come to an agreement on what we wanted to see. One of my friends suggested Avatar but I shot that idea down so quickly. Just from the name of it I could tell that I had no interest in ever seeing it. However, as time went on I heard from many people how great of a movie it was so naturally I got sucked in, along with many others out there, I’m sure. It turns out that I absolutely LOVED it and would definitely see it again and recommend it to anyone. That is why when I came across this article my jaw dropped. I read the blogs and watched Sam’s video and realized how true this theory of the “White Messiah” was. This plot has been used over and over again but for some reason I never put two and two together and realized it until this very moment. I do have to say though, when I watched this movie race never played a part in my mind at all. I guess since all the avatars were blue in color that is all that I saw. I never thought too much into it and just tried to enjoy the movie but if I were to see it again, while keeping all of this in mind, it would probably alter my view on the movie just a bit. I can’t help but bring myself to wonder: would this movie still be as big of a hit if things were the other way around? By this I mean someone of a different race coming to save a whole village of white people. And the sad thing is I do not think that it would be as big of a success. White people have always been viewed as the ones on top, people who are able to take care of themselves. So why are the people who need saving usually something other than white? I really don’t know if it is coincidence, I have a feeling it may be done purposefully. Why do white people always need to come to the rescue? It really does not need to be this way at all. It is amazing that I have never noticed this in movies until it was brought to my attention in this article. At the same time, I do believe that people look a LITTLE too much into things like this. It is only a movie after all. Who knows if it was actually meant to take that approach, I highly doubt it. Regardless, it does fall into the “White Messiah” concept and, intentional or not, is not right, in my opinion.
[Reply]
Okay I understand what Brooks is saying but I think this a little bit of an overstatement. Independence Day, John Q, I am Legend, Rush Hour and Men in Black are all examples where a black or brown person is a hero in a movie. The black actors in these roles demonstrate all the qualities that Brooks describes as the qualities of the “white heroes”. I just think this is another instance where someone has to make a non issue into a full blown race issue. It seems like every little thing has to be analyzed so that somehow it can be made it into a race issue.
[Reply]
I heard controversy before seeing the movie and tried to consider it after watching it. I honestly did not get the same ideas from the movie as Brooks, I thought even though it seems somewhat repetitive to that of Pocahontas, in space, with guns, in the future, on a different world, where the people are blue instead of brown/tan. But to reflect on the topic of what exactly Brooks' does see in this movie i think, he might delve a little to far into all the background material. I think where the casting and movie making process conform is on the specific type of casting of characters that would best fit into the scenario of what the director is trying to portray. If it is a movie about civil rights, it seems that a strong well spoken black man in the role of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be better than a white actor portraying that of a black actor, like that with Robert Downy Jr. in Tropic Thunder, being the black sergeant. The fact that he was white makes no difference than the initial story telling but it is more based on his "avatar" which is blue, not white to save the day from those that disregard other rules and enforce the power for wealth scheme. The entire movie is based on the mental process behind the hero's decision, to determine what he should do, betray his race and try living peacefully through negotiation. But all of that goes south as they consider the land sacred. Unlike history the movie moves towards points of culture against that of seeking wealth. The whole money grubbing aspect of human culture is kind of ironic, that everyone is pressured (basically) to contribute something to society, this society cannot advance without the pressure of peers pushing for new higher standards, like that in the technology business, where things 30 years ago are outdated, upgraded, and so on, etc. If they don't contribute, they get left behind, doing remedial chores, random tasks, or just another horrible job, until money is spent to be put into the direction of education, the evolution of information is what keeps the society running on a basic level, as money is the only means to happiness. And every needs money so competition becomes the norm and it evolves again and again until it breaks down, then starts again. I personally take movies at somewhat of a face value, to the way that they are suppose to be entertaining to bring in and captivate the audience as well as telling a story. I trailers bringing the movie up show that of a way that a man has a second chance at life, to feel his legs again on another hostile planet called Pandora. (Pandora's Box, nice reference…) Besides the though on the movie i personally thought it was a awesome film, even though a little long and very close to that of Pocahontas, it seemed to push towards a naturalistic/futuristic view which i thought was enthralling.
[Reply]
Alright so I have many feelings about this move and topic. I'm not sure just how many conclusions, if any, I might be able to draw from my thoughts but I'll do my best.
Just for reference, I went to see this movie with a group of friends, after hearing about how "amazing" it was and that it was a "must see". Everyone seems to be on the same page that the story was old (which I agree with) but there's a difference between having an old story, and having a predictable one. This movie was WAY too predictable for my taste. I mean you gotta give the audience some chance to guess at something or at least a plot twist or SOMETHING, which I think this whole movie offers opportunity for. Here is where I must say Cameron failed but I'm not a film critic and this is not a film class so on to some real discussion.
The messiah complex is most definitely evident in the film and I really have mixed feelings about it. I mean, as Brooks noted, it is based on a lot of stereotypes and "isms". It does rely on the notion that white people are advanced, corrupt, and money and power hungry. It also relies on the notion that the tribe (whether it be in Avatar, Pocahantas, or any other movie demonstrating the complex) is pure, athletic, and spiritual. I mean these are qualities that can fall on ANY human being of ANY race. I'm positive you can find a black or brown person who is advanced technically, corrupt, and power hungry just like you can find a white person who is athletic and spiritual. Because of this, I don't believe in generalizations and quite honestly I think there is only one race: the human race. In my own personal opinion, the fact that we are even attracted to such stories that rely on these generalizations is silly, but we always do. I am no exception although I am forcing myself to become more aware of these underlying messages and notions that our entertainment relies on. The sad part is that the industry (entertainment industry) knows it much better than we do, and they feed off of it which is why they are able to rake in these millions or billions of dollars with messages and notions such as this. With regards to your "water to the fish" comment, I honestly never looked at it from that point of view (which is probably the case with most) and it seems understandable. However I think that sometimes, conversely, people may ONLY understand their own race, culture and ethnicity and NOTHING ELSE. Now this may not be the fault of some but it's those who are ignorant enough to refuse to learn about others and expand their understanding about the people of the world that really upsets me.
Here's a little side note for those of you that haven't seen the movie or didn't recognize this: Near the end of the movie at one of the tribal meetings, there is a black pandora native! He/she is in the shot for not more than 2 seconds but the body is completely black as opposed to the usual blue toned body. I thought that was very interesting… Anyone else notice that?
[Reply]
I honestly don't really watch too many movies in theaters. Instead, I wait a little longer than everyone else and rent movies when they come out on Netflix. But for the longest time, Avatar was the biggest deal amongst all of my friends here at Penn State as well as the people I kept in touch with at home. It was really all that anyone would ever want to talk about and of course, since I haven't seen it at the time, I could not relate to them. So after listening to my cousin's review on Avatar, which was basically her praising the movie, reciting lines as if she was a character in the movie, she eventually convinced me to hop on the bandwagon. Though it seemed a bit late to watch it, the movie theater was absolutely packed. There was not one empty row that night. In fact, I was with a group of eight people and we all had to split ourselves up in order to sit and watch the movie.
Now similar to some of the other posts above, I can say that I never thought about Brooks' ideas on the "white man's burden" while watching Avatar. It's just not one of those things audiences usually pick up while they're trying to watch a critically acclaimed film. …At least for me, it's not. I'm the type of person who watches a movie, takes it all in, and does a little research afterwards to learn more about what goes into the making of the movie, the actors' backgrounds, soundtrack information, and storylines behind the film. With Avatar, however, I felt no need to look up additional research since my cousin had already told me every little thing there was to know about it before I saw the movie.
The only theme that I picked up on was the similar storylines between Avatar and Pocahontas. Throughout the movie, I felt like I was watching a slightly different version of Pocahontas in regards to the plot. (Perhaps this is why I found the story somewhat predictable.) In Brooks' article, I picked up on a bunch of subtle details that I would have never pointed out in watching the movie. Though I do not strongly agree or disagree with any of the comments he made, I do consider his opinions and thoughts towards Cameron's box office hit. Brooks forces you to realize similarities on the so-called "white Messiah" between Avatar and other movies such as "The Last Samurai" or "Dances With Wolves". Sure, he can look at it that way, but it does not solely convince me to change my whole mindset on these movies. Seeing that it took a good twelve years to produce this movie, I don't think that it was Cameron, or anyone's plan to portray this whole "White Messiah" idea.
[Reply]
Alright does it really matter if the main guy was the white messiah? Clearly it does, the main character is majority white. especially in early films where the minority clearly were mopping in the back of the theater. Clearly history plays a big wonderful role in the movie industry. and more people will be more associated with white people. hence its dominance.
over all i feel i need to watch movie before i make my judgment regarding this film, and whatever white people or black people or whoever write about it.
I feel like people really need to understand that it was just a movie also. If people would as i have said before, sit back and take a chil pill about the whole movie. I say that James Cameron movie was not making any stand, he was clearly taking the "White Messiah" movie story to a whole new level. and to be honest i say he succeeded.
[Reply]
Yay Avatar! I loved this movie! Why? Because the natives were blue! Because there were fun exciting scenes! Because the graphics were pretty! Face it. Entertainment in our society these days has little substance to it. For most Americans, entertainment is not synonymous with deep thinking. We want to relax and just let our minds go numb for a bit. Take football for example, a billion dollar industry. We watch a group of big burly men trample each other down a field, trying to get a tiny pointy ball to the other side of the field. Sure there is strategy involved, but are our brains really being challenged? With each fumble, are we thinking outside the box? I obviously, don't know football jargon, but you get my point. Football rocks! I agree. But it's not popular because it exercises our brains.
I read an article the other day that said Avatar beat Titanic in the box office (this isn't the exact article I read, just the first thing that popped up on yahoo search: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/01/2... Of course this has to do with ticket sales and marketing and such, but the comparison was made nevertheless. Come on people. Do people really believe that Avatar beats Titanic on the Awesome scale? Maybe for some people, yes. But for most people, no. Why? Again, because it lacks substance.
But for me, there was a reason that Avatar lacked substance. For me, James Cameron wasn't trying to create another Titanic. He wanted a money maker. And what makes money? Pretty people, action scenes, and silly romance. He didn't want his gorgeous graphics to be overshadowed by a good plot. No. He had to use a trite, predictable plot in order for all the light to shine on the film's main focus: computer animation. There are many great overused plots to choose from. Like David Brooks says, James Cameron decided that the "White Messiah" formula would best suit his goals. Hmm. I just read David Brooks's article again and it seems I may just be rehashing what he said. So I'll move on.
David Brooks believes that the "White Messiah" complex is offensive. Sure it is. EVERYTHING is going to offend somebody SOMEHOW. For example, I love the old 2D Disney movies. But at the same time, I am seriously offended by some of them. Cinderella? The prince only loved her because she was hot. She only loved him because he was rich and hot (and nice. But hey, first impressions are usually wrong!). Little Mermaid? She was only 16! She has no idea what love is. What kind of messages was Disney trying to send us young impressionable little girls??
I agree with
RAWR MY POST GOT DELETED AND THIS IS ALL I COULD SALVAGE. I TRIED TO EDIT IT AND SOMEHOW IT JUST DELETED ITSELF.
I'M DONE. fajosif
[Reply]
I definitely think that David Brooks made some solid and accurate points in his article. There are many good examples of his “White Messiah” fable and he uses these to his advantage. I think this point probably was lost on me at first glance (until I read his article) because I did not think about the connotations, as they are so common. I am white, so this kind of thing is not a rare occurrence. Having seen films such as ‘Avatar’, ‘The Last Samurai’, ‘FernGully’, ‘Pocahontas’, I think the point he’s trying to make is clear. They are stereotypical. One can even take it a step farther and say that the films that do feature a black or brown protagonist are not portraying them in the same manners as that of a white protagonist. For example, in “Men in Black” Will Smith was chosen for his comedic relief. He saves the world from aliens, sure, but he is the “token black guy” in a lot of ways as well.
But, just to play Devil’s advocate, and as much as I consider and even agree with things that Brooks says, there are solid arguments for the other side of things to take into consideration. Sticking with Will Smith as an example, what about “I Am Legend”? What about the power he holds in Hollywood, constantly putting out blockbusters? Will Smith more or less saved the world from aliens/zombies again in “I am legend” which did not have the same racial connotation. He was an intelligent, powerful, and multi-faceted protagonist in this film, not just the guy who comments on Tommy Lee Jones’ actions. Maybe there are many white messiah films, but we still go to see a large number of the "black messiah" version. You also have to think about the movies with Bruce Lee. A lot of his movies are the typical stereotype of the Asian fighter but it’s mainly about Bruce Lee killing the bad guys. He was the greatest influence for Asian martial arts cinema. I do agree that there is a “White Messiah” plotline in many films but I don’t think you can look at that alone. In addition, one can argue that yes Avatar does have “white messiah” connotation, but remember that the antagonists are also white. We aren’t so much for putting out the white power idea as we are for making satirical jabs at whites as well. I think that every race/ethnicity has this dichotomy to it. It's easy to stock up on arguing points either way, but I have to say that I believe we are pretty diverse in our movie production. There are so many movies out there, that it would be possible to argue just about any point you want to make due to an overwhelming availability of films to choose from.
In conclusion, I agree with many things that Brooks says, and it opened my eyes to something I had not previously noticed. However, I can’t help but point out that you can make many arguments such as his that would be perfectly valid. We have an influx of resources to back us up.
[Reply]
I have yet to see Avatar but I have been wanting to because of the hoopla about it. When I first saw the previews, even with the amazing looking special effects, I didn’t have a real interest in watching it because it looked like an action film and I’m not really into those that much. After I heard it had a good story line though, it sparked my interest. Now even reading the article, I’m more interested in watching the movie.
I can see valid points made by Brooks, but because of his cynicism, it makes me want to disagree with him, but that’s obviously unfair. I can see his points about the White Messiah because clearly in our society there are a lot of films that include this idea of a white male being the “hero”. As I’m typing this though, I’m wondering though, why is there hardly a white female being the hero in top box office films? That’s another topic though, since we’re talking about race here. As I was listening to Sam’s video about the majority of films including white males as heroes, I thought about possible films I’ve seen that didn’t include a white male hero, and the only movie I could think of is “I am Legend” with Will Smith. But after I went on imdb.com I realized Will Smith has other films where he is the hero or one of the heroes that saves “mankind”. And I also thought about Denzel Washington and he’s had films where he is the hero. These two actors are the exceptions though. In Hollywood, the majority of actors are white. I think it’s mere coincidence that actors who are the main heroes in films are white. It’s statistics.
However, I do see the other side of the argument. I feel that as a minority myself, we do see whites as more superior. It’s just how it is. The majority of my family members were immigrants and they weren’t educated and struggled while attending school and obtaining jobs. It was simply easier for whites to go to school and apply for jobs because they knew the language. I do understand that all “whites” that are here doesn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t immigrants, so some whites didn’t have it easy either, but I feel like they had it easier. And the simple reason is because they looked like the majority. It really is unfortunate that people are judged by their skin color, but I really do hope this changes in the near future.
[Reply]
When I first heard of the movie I thought it sounded very far-fetched but maybe something I'd be interesting in catching On-Demand one day. As the movie was hyped in the media leading up to its release however, I saw how much the movie revolved around the revolutionary visual effects and futuristic other-world landscape. I went to see it recently and was very impressed with the visual aspect of the movie. I also found the plot to be entertaining and connected to the audience, something I look for in a movie. My immediate reaction to the film was "so that was basically Pochohantas in Space."
[Reply]
And in some ways, yeah I guess that sums it up, but in other ways it barely begins to describe what happens in this film. Is it really the white messiah that rescues the natives? If anything, I believe that the native's saved him or at the very least they saved each other. Yes in the end, the originally white man did lead the natives to victory but had they not first saved him from his life of misery then the natives would all have perished. I think the movie’s message fell more along the lines of what can we learn from cultures unique to our own. Honestly I feel like the film achieves much in the realm of humans communicating with nature and the Earth. The planet Pandora is worlds away from Earth in terms of landscape and variety of species but it’s connected universe speaks to how disconnected our civilization is from our own planet. I get that this is a fantasy universe, but at the same time it makes me feel guilty of how much we abuse our world and the plants and creatures that inhabit it.
[Reply]
I wish our society realized the true extent of the damage we inflict by polluting and abusing and taking from our natural resources. The greed and corruption of politics and society on our planet is a very discouraging thing to see constantly. It was a nice escape to see a planet in which intelligent beings communed and physically connected with the natural world. I don’t really see how race and a white messiah complex play into the movie as a whole, but I guess that’s just how I interpreted
[Reply]
I'm going to quote my lovely girlfriend on this one in saying "Why can't people just watch the fucking movie?". Since it's a quote, it's legit that I just dropped an F-bomb.
In all seriousness, I feel like this bro-hater has nothing else to do with his life except delve into the alternative meaning of a movie so that he can make his life seem important because it's going to be posted on the NY Times website. Can you even take someone seriously that describes a character as “he’s the most awesome member of their tribe. He has sex with their hottest babe.”? Some movies are just meant to be enjoyed. So a large number of movies use the same basic plot line of White Messiah; BIG DEAL. It's a successful plot archetype (Romeo & Juliet anyone??) that people are interested in, regardless of color. The idea that the main character of this movie MIGHT be a white dude rollin' in on some jungle people somewhere obviously does not offend people too much seeing as how Avatar is shooting to be one of the highest grossing movies of all time. Sometimes a movie is just a great story and that's it.
[Reply]
I recently saw Avatar in theaters and thought that the movie was very creative and original. While watching the movie, I failed to find anything unusual about it. However, after hearing the complaints about how white people are the ones looked upon as the heroes trying to help and resolve the problems, I quickly realized exactly what they were talking about. Although I don’t agree with the idea, I can completely understand where people are coming from when they say this. Like Sam said in his video clip attached to this article, this could be because I myself am white. From my perspective, I didn’t notice anything wrong with the storyline. At the same time, I was only there to watch a movie and be entertained, not to dig into further understandings of the film. After hearing Sam’s comments, however, I tried to think of what the movie were like through the perspective of a person of color. I would probably feel a little bit uneasy and curious as to why white people were portrayed as the heroes of the film. Why couldn’t the heroes be people of color? I also wondered whether or not this was intentionally scripted into the plot, or if the writers mistakenly included these characters without thinking. Although I can see where people are coming from, I think that people use the issue of race too frequently and inappropriately at the same time. Of course, racism remains an extremely prevalent issue today, but I think that people are reading too far into the movie’s story. A movie is meant to be entertaining, but when people make such comments, it’s hard to enjoy what you are watching. Knowing that people are making such a big deal over this actually takes the enjoyment away and I feel somewhat guilty for not taking note of this while watching the movie for the first time. I believe that this view is unnecessary and people should accept the movie as its own story, rather than connecting it to real life. Avatar is meant to be a new breakthrough film with advanced technology and people should go into it with an open mind. While watching a movie, I don’t think people should examine the different aspects of what is going on so closely. I’m not sure why people cannot go to the movies, watch a movie, and see it for what it is. Instead, many times people pick apart details and take away from what the people behind-the-scenes are truly trying to portray. Whether or not a person feels like the movie is deliberately targeting white people as the ones trying to save others, he or she should at least understand both sides and recognize how the movie is making some viewers feel.
[Reply]
After reading the Brooks article, I really do not agree with some of his choice words. People who aren’t white “need a White Messiah” to help them defend themselves. Since this movie is apparently symbolic of just about everything dealing with culture and society, I think that is one stand out symbol. To begin with, I think that could be extremely offending to people who aren’t white. I don’t really believe people of other races and ethnicities would like to appear as that to America. How Brooks approached this idea was wrong; he could have stated what he meant in better way.
What I believe Brooks meant was that it is mostly white people who are the ones who deliver the help in America. Take a look around, the majority of doctors are white and granted, some Asian. Personally, I have never had or saw a black doctor. This could be a root as to where Brooks got the idea of the white messiah taking the lead. Other community help that involves mostly white people are firefighters. This is predominately white field of work. The “helping” jobs in our country are all governed by white people. They are the ones who do that kind of work. Moreover, we have white presidents since our government was created. Up until 2008 there wasn’t even the idea of an ethic president. That is basically the most important job in our country and has been taken over by a white man for hundreds of years. And there is a reason for this. Some fail to realize that.
The thing is, this country is a “white” country. It was never a mixed country to begin with. Black people are always so offended at the fact of the “white supremacy” that takes place here, but that is how the country was built. I think those who feel that way need to open their eyes and read a text book because history and Europeans are the reason for the ethnic makeup of this country. In correlation with this movie, the thing is, is that who really cares if a movie has a white person as a leading and powerful figure. I know the movie is symbolic, but did anyone ever stop to think of other movies that have black leading roles that are portrayed positively? Movies such as I Am Legend and Coach Carter all display male, black, powerful roles. There is a valid reason to not be so racist towards one’s ethnicity. We have movies that show both, however, no one seems to acknowledge the black leading- role movies. I don’t really see too many white people claiming a movie is racist towards them or “out to get them”. These “racist” people need to realize that there are productions of different leading roles, but they are equal.
[Reply]
I remember when I first heard of and saw previews for the movie, I was not interested one bit in seeing it. It looked like any other new animated film with good graphics and it looked a bit sci fi-ish. However, later, after hearing good reviews and everyone just raving about the movie I realized that I might want to rethink my decision. I had no idea that it was supposed to be a big hit and my interest spiked when I found out that Cameron directed it and has apparently been working on it for the past ten years or so. So I did go see it with my family on Christmas day and I really liked it. However, I have to say the "really liked it" part is mainly for the graphics. Also, I just honestly expected more from the movie as a whole, and the story especially.
The first things that my mom and I said to each other after the movie were, "Wow, that was really good. How amazing were those graphics?" and "Oh. Same story again, huh? Nothing new…" We both agreed that it was the same old story that a lot of these types of movies use. Just like the ol' cowboys and Indians…there are too many examples. We were both a bit disappointed by that because we expected so much from Avatar. We expected something new, something very new – not just in the graphics. We thought we'd see something we've never seen before. But it was completely the opposite of that. So I realized that it was the very old story, but I didn't realize that it could also fall into the category of the Messiah Complex. As soon as I read Sam's post and Brooks' op-ed I realized that this definitely fits the description. I agree that this is once again a story of a White Messiah coming and saving the poor helpless people of an untouched land. Thinking of this makes me like the movie less. I realize even more how generic the plot is. And honestly, I’m just sick of portrayal of the White man saving the world. This only further promotes the idea that all the other races of people are helpless and no good by themselves. No matter how peacefully and naturally they live, the White Messiah always comes and intrudes at first, but then of course even becomes the hero. Non white races already feel inferior and movies like this just keep reinforcing the idea. I am anxiously waiting for someone who will decide to make a movie good enough to become as much of a hit as Avatar, only doesn’t choose to play it safe with the story. …Someone to introduce a new idea and get people thinking instead of dwelling on the old fables.
[Reply]
When I read the Messiah Complex I saw that some of the things that Brooks was explaining seemed like some pretty good points like this same story has been repeated quite a few times. Yet there were other things that I thought were going a little bit to the extreme like is the said messiah always white? and if so, do they always intentionally make him white?
My opinon on Brooks is that he is, like many other people looking to hard for racism in places where it might not intentionally be. It could be just the actors just happening to be white or merely where the stories are set.
I don't find this story as offensive in any way. I did see that the movie potrayed Americans as the bad guys of the story, But not specifically the white race. To me, the movie revolved around how,in most cases, America will destroy anything to get what they want, no matter whats there before them.
I was also thinking that maybe this same plot and storyline is used over and over again is because its a familiar story and people obviously like it. Why wouldn't the directors of these movies try to put their own spin on this meaningful storyline.
I do see where some people are coming from when they say that there is an ongoing "white messiah" thing going on and that if taken a certian way it is seen as quite raceist and offensive but I also see that it might possibly just be coincidence that these heroes are white and they are just looking for an opportunity to pull the race card out.
[Reply]
It's funny to read that Pocohontar thing. When I was leaving the theater with my three friends (none of really like the movie that much), one of my friends was criticizing it, saying how it was just Pocohantas in outer space. We saw the movie shortly after its release, so going into it I had not yet heard or been aware of any of the “white man saves the day” criticism. In fact, I really had very little idea what the movie was about. I wasn’t expecting that type of story, and as the story started to develop, I was very slow to catch the White Messiah connections. Actually, the first “message” I had gotten out of it was the pro-environment angle of Americans destroying our planet’s resources.
continued…
[Reply]
In his column, Brooks (and the many other people that had the same criticism) made a valid point, and it’s certainly hard to deny. Why must they need Jake Sully, a member of the white enemy race, to save them? Why is the Na’vi race so spiritual and healthy and athletic and natural and pure (and how come none of them are obese?!), yet they still need help from a white savior? Richards is right with his “water to the fish” analogy. Many of the white people that saw this movie may have not initially made the White Messiah connection (I certainly did not), because they wouldn’t have noticed it when it involves their own culture.
continued…
[Reply]
The article The Messiah Complex by David Brooks is very interesting. I believe that Brooks is right in his analysis of movies that use the “white messiah” plot line. When I look back on movies that I have seen in my life, I can buy the white messiah, a white protagonist going to an exotic place and feels the need to be a hero. It makes sense that directors and producers like to use this plot line, since it is so easy to duplicate. But this whole “messiah” thing in this movie doesn’t make sense to me.
In Avatar specifically, I do not think that the “white messiah” plot works. The main character is an ex-marine who comes to a foreign planet to take his dead brothers place in an experiment. He talks with the military leader about providing information about the native people and their planet as well as going along with the scientific experiments. The main character is a person who has had extensive military experience ingrained into his head. Instead of going onto the planet and bringing back military information for the sergeant, the protagonist ends up falling in love with the native culture and with the people who live on this planet. He becomes one with nature like the scientists had been trying extremely hard to do for a very long time. He assimilated with the culture in no time, even though a professional teacher could not do what he achieved in years of work. He seemingly forgets all of his military training, that in real life marines never forget in their life time.
For me, this makes the movie almost believable, but what really put this movie over the line of believability was the ending. At the end of the movie, the protagonist leads all of the native people on a revolt against the American soldiers. Ignoring the fact that futuristic technology would completely obliterate a non-technologically advanced species on a foreign planet, I don’t buy the fact that the protagonist can completely forget his natural roots and fight against the people he has been raised to be like. He becomes one of the natives in no time at all, completely ingrained into their society to the point where he risks his life to save them. This makes no sense at all. Why would an ex-marine try to kill all of his allies that he was trained to protect and serve? What makes him feel the need to lead the people that he just met into a defensive stand to protect something that the protagonist originally went to destroy and capture?
The whole “white messiah” can be pulled off well in some movies, but I think that in “Avatar”, this was not a believable way for James Cameron to portray this story.
[Reply]
This formula tends to produce a great plot and it is perfect for movies, not to mention CGI blockbusters in 3-D directed by legendary directors that shatter box office records. While this theme is certainly pro-America, it doesn’t seem to have had much of a negative effect on its international success. People of different black and brown races from all over the globe went to see this movie, which is saying something. Perhaps Brooks is making a big deal out of something that really isn’t. Perhaps it’s just a method of getting people in the seats, where movie-goers could care less about the message, and more about the overall experience (i.e. the tremendous special effects, 3-D glasses, a blue species created by CGI, etc.)
continued…
[Reply]
The White Messiah theme is pro-America, but I think that in the end, it gets balanced out by the anti-military theme, which is anti-America. The American military in the film is very aggressive in terms of its domestic approach, and has no problem with imposing on other cultures and attempting to take over its land and resources. It’s probably the third-most talked about theme of the movie (behind the White Messiah and pro-environment themes), yet it’s essential that one considers it when criticizing the White Messiah pro-America message. Cameron balances out the shots a little bit, which may be another reason why the film is so globally acclaimed.
END.
[Reply]
David Brooks definitely has a point. The majority of action movies involve white men saving the day. I believe that part of it is defined by a subconscious cultural belief that white men are superior and are more likely to be heroes, but I don’t think that is the only reason. The actor roster in Hollywood is largely defined by white men and women. Blacks are a minority in Hollywood so it is no wonder that most movies have male leads. The lack of black actors in Hollywood also limits the amount of actual good black actors capable of having a lead role in which they would have to carry a movie’s plot along. There are several movies, though that disproves Brook’s argument. For instance, movies starring Will Smith, a black man, often involve him overcoming odds and saving the world. One of my favorite movies, Independence Day, has Will Smith as a lead character and he literally saves the entire world from a planet invasion. Also, Men in Black, has Will Smith as a lead character who saves the world from aliens again. Aside from the alien plot line, Will Smith also is a hero in I am Legend, where he is the only hope for a cure from the virus that infected most of the planet. Moving away from Will Smith, we also have Denzel Washington, another black actor, who had a lead role in Man on Fire, where he saved a white man’s daughter from kidnappers. He also starred in Déjà vu where he played a lead detective in which he saved hundreds of people from a disaster. Other black actors that have held lead roles include Morgan Freeman, Quincy Jones, Whoopi Goldberg, Halle Berry, Queen Latifah, Samuel Jackson, and Wesley Snipes. Every one of these actors have held roles that were considered heroes in their respective films. Many of these actors have even won academy awards and have had blockbuster hits. So this shows how our society doesn’t necessarily aim for having white men as heroes in Hollywood movies, it just shows that there is a lack of great black actors that are available in Hollywood. Movies were only created within the last hundred years or so, and for much of that time, blacks were frowned upon and treated differently. So much of the industry was dominated by white men. Only within the last several decades have blacks been given the opportunity to do white men things. So I believe we are still in a transition phase where our generation is evening out the amount of blacks and white in Hollywood. I think it’s awesome that blacks are even given the opportunity to have lead roles. I believe in the future, more blacks will hold lead roles and be considered the hero.
[Reply]
“The Messiah Complex.” I have to say I have thought about it, I have noticed it, I just did not know what to call it. I personally do not frequent theaters and so in the rare occasion I am motivated to watch a movie while it is still on the silver screen it has to be something spectacular in my mind. “Avatar” sad to say just did not do it for me. The advertisement about it just failed to bring me out of my home-body shell and watch it; cool 3-D glasses or not. Considering my sentiments seemed to be countering those of my counterparts, I inquired as to what made this movie so special. I have a really good nose and can smell a bad movie before it has a chance to come out in its full unpleasant glory.
And so, back to my inquiries; I asked what made this movie such a “must see” when everything in me said you will only be wasting your money. I heard all kinds of explanations from it cost monetary figures I can’t wrap my mind around to how advanced the technology was that made that 3-D characters move almost life like to it is in 3-D and I will feel as though I were there. Nothing, absolutely nothing could make me budge; I just wasn’t sold.
It was then at this point I decided to look within myself and figure out what turned me off about this movie. It was then I realized it was because I already knew where this movie was going and how it ended before I ever left my comfy room to go watch in the cinema. It had the makings of a cross between George of the Jungle and Planet of the Apes. The hero was decided before the movie began, the only question then was what he would have to go through to get there; either he would already be brilliant with all the equipment he needed making computers out of tree bark, or he would be an ignorant but passionate adventure seeker looking for his path in life and all the native would realize the prophecy of a “savior” was to come through this man, or my least favorite: he would learn what took a native years to train and understand in less than a fortnight; translation: 5 movie minutes, and all this just when all hope is lost. Yup, of this I was certain. The hero decided = movie over before it ever began. Personally I think it is an utter insult to our intelligence making a movie so base, that cost so much money and yet severely lacking in mystery without anything mildly thought provoking.
Our writer makes a good point. Hollywood, catch up with the times and keep up with the people, or did you forget we all bleed the same color blood
[Reply]
To be honest, before this movie I had no idea who James Cameron was so when I first heard about Avatar I wasn’t one of those people that were hype to see it. After my friend had told me he had directed Titanic, I understood why everyone wanted to see it but I still had no interest in watching it. Eventually, I was convinced to go watch it one weekend with nothing to do and, honestly, I thought it was one of the best movies I had ever seen. While watching the movie though, I hadn’t paid attention to the idea Brooks currently brings up and in retrospect, it does seem a little odd that a lot of movies do use this “White Messiah Fable” but I don’t really think it is intended instead, I feel like our culture unknowingly follows this fable.
To state my argument a little clearer, I feel that Hollywood doesn’t mean to make it seem that White people become a “Messiah” for these native cultures, but instead because of our own history, it has sort of become engraved in the back of our heads, and so a lot of our movies stick to this general idea. Now, although directors may have caught on to this idea, and realize people are making the assumption that Hollywood purposefully follows this “White Messiah Fable”, I think they aren’t doing anything about it because of the classic saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Many people enjoy these movies and most people don’t look into it as deep as Brooks would, so people don’t realize (or care) that Hollywood is constantly portraying this fable. Even if people did realize this ongoing pattern, I think that perhaps our culture has evolved to such a point that we have overcome the idea of the White Man’s Burden. We no longer think of it as the White person having to save these native cultures, but simply accept the casting as a coincidence. Like one of my peers pointed out, coming from a society led by a nonwhite, I think we have let go of the idea of the White Man’s Burden (except in racist groups I guess) and so these movies simply provide for an entertaining story.
As for me, I personally don’t look at movies in depth so I don’t pay much attention to things like this but I can say that I wouldn’t mind seeing someone besides the White man being the hero. I trust in our society enough to not purposefully make movies glorifying the White man, which is why I don’t mind watching movies that seem to fit this fable, but I do hope no one actually takes these story lines seriously and feel superior to any other person because then these movies would have reason to be thought of as offensive and movies should simply be movies and not a form of subliminal messaging.
[Reply]
PART 1(cuz the computer was being stupid)
I am one of the many people who saw the movie Avatar. I thought and still do think that is one of the best movies of the entire year and was amazing. It was action packed, heartfelt, emotional, and awesome to watch up on the big screen!
Looking at the movie and looking at Brooks article, I realize that he makes a lot of sense. I think that in American movies we do typically see a group, usually the minority, who falls to some sort of epic problem that needs to be solved. In the end this crisis always seems to be solved by a group of strong, White men who come to save the day in the niche of time. What's funny however, and rather ironic, is that White people are usually the cause of the epic minority problem…at least this is the case in Avatar.
[Reply]
PART 2
What's so unfortunate about this taking place in most American movies is that millions of people are watching them and being guided by them whether they like it or not. No one can deny that we are deeply influenced by things around us, specifically the media and forms of entertainment. If people keep seeing movies with the general idea that the minority always needs to be "dug out of the hole' by White people then people will really start to believe and think that this is true in today's society. This is certainly not the case whatsoever.
We need to keep in mind the difference between reality and perception and make sure that the two don't begin to blend together over time or everytime a new movie is made.
[Reply]
Sure the main character is white, so I guess he can be deemed “A White Messiah”. But when I saw this movie, I believed he was saving the indigenous people not from a “white” threat, but rather from the “American” threat. I do not remember the movie perfectly so I may be simplifying the plot, but the military was invading the other world so they could take and use its natural and profitable resources. I thought it was more effective that the indigenous people did not look white because I was reminded that whites have a tendency to go to foreign lands and that their actions are driven by greed in relation to lucrative natural resources – it can be argued that the war in Iraq is about oil.
This is not the first article that has been written about Avatar’s indigenous people. I read an article the other day saying that there were racist themes in the movie. Honestly, I think it is better that the indigenous people are not white, because if you want to argue that this film has racist themes, you at least grow attached to the indigenous people over the course of the movie, and hope that they win against the white military (at least I did). There is also an interracial relationship that occurs during the film, so that is not saying that the white man thinks he is superior to the indigenous people. Sure he is in a relationship with the highest ranking girl of the natives, but that’s the way many blockbuster love stories usually go, regardless of race; people usually end up with pretty people, or powerful people, etc. If anything, she is superior to him because of her rank. If we’re going to say that the film is racist against the indigenous people, then I think it should be noted that there is reverse racism as well because the indigenous people didn’t want to accept the protagonist into their culture initially because they harbored distrust for the white man. Also, the white protagonist CHOOSES to not live in the white world, which clearly indicates he prefers the ways of the natives than the ways of his own white people. He becomes more pure as a result of spending time with them, and is enlightened through their culture about the beauty of the natural world and having an appreciation for it. His choice causes individuals to reexamine the white industrial world’s values. Therefore, this definitely does not suggest that the white ways are superior to the natives’ ways – if anything, the opposite is suggested.
Brooks says that all of the indigenous people are “tall, muscular and admirably slender. They walk around nearly naked…the natives have hot bodies”. The natives probably have hot bodies because sex always sells, and you would rather look at someone for 3 hours who has a hot body than look at someone who is not physically fit.
Brooks also says that the natives “need a White Messiah to lead and inspire the defense”. They need a leader who understands the technology of the whites – who better to understand it than the white guy who showed he had a pure soul? The indigenous people were not unwilling to fight for their defense; they banished him for awhile and talked about strategies to defeat the whites. But without the “White Messiah”, they would have been fighting against technology about which they knew nothing, and would have therefore invariably lost the battle without his information, just like the whites would not have been able to infiltrate the natives’ habitat had the white protagonist never told the military the natives’ information in the first place, indicating that there was no superior technology, but instead different technology. After all, the white guys with guns were defeated in the end. Also, the protagonist’s attempts to negotiate with the whites to save the natives does not make him the “White Messiah” to me. I think he tried to negotiate with the military because he liked the natives and knew that the military would listen to him before they ever listened to the natives – not because they weren’t white, but because they were different. I think that you usually listen to those who are similar to you, and those whom you know well. Brooks refers to Pocahontas, and I remember that she had to ask her tribe not to kill John Smith. They listened to her because she was one of them and was not white; if she had been a white European her request would not have been effective because the Europeans were not part of the tribe.
I don’t think it is just coincidence that in this movie the “people in need of salvation happen to be black and brown”. Historically, the whites have used other country’s resources for a profit. The only known place for tanzanite is from Tanzanian mines (where there are black people). A lot of oil comes from the Middle East (where there are brown people). I think this movie just brought to light the history of whites trying to profit from the resources of other countries. This movie is about a white individual who is saying that what the whites are doing is wrong, which again goes back to the idea of listening to your own people (if we are talking about a white audience). If there were profitable natural resources in white America or white Australia, I think we would also be trying to profit there as well.
[Reply]
Wow. I have never really thought about the concept of whites always being the hero to some native peoples. But it makes sense. Whites have always felt the need to be the "hero." Maybe it is the fact that whites are trying to cover up the fact that they induced the largest genocide in human history. Maybe they just can't face the guilt. Or maybe they just don't even realize the actions that occurred when the Europeans invaded the Native Americans' land.
So let's say it is the fact that they want to cover up the largest genocide. Now if this is true, that is just sad. I mean most students in the United States do not even know that this massive wipe out of Native Americans even occurred. Most just think that the Native Americans shared the land by choice. Wrong. Europeans barged onto the land and forced the Native Americans to give up some. When they didn't comply, some of these natives were murdered. The Europeans had more advanced weapons than the seemingly helpless Native Americans.
Not only were these Native Americans murdered because of land battles, but they were also murdered due to smallpox. The Europeans brought the disease over from their native lands. This wouldn't have caused the greatest genocide in history if the Native Americans had some sort of antibody to protect themselves from this horrible illness. However, the Native Americans had never experienced or seen smallpox. This caused the illness to spread rapidly across the population with no hesitation. The Native Americans had no way to spare themselves.
As a white American, I am deeply shamed for the actions of the European men who came to the Americas and claimed the land as their own. Now students all over the nation are taught that the Europeans basically found the land or that it was given to them from Native Americans. To be completely honest, that is what I thought for the longest time– that is until I started attending Dr. Richard's class.
White's are either ashamed to admit the truth about the genocide or they just truthfully don't know about it. It is movies like Avatar that can bring these issues to light even more. The main character tries to show the world that he wants to save the natives, and then maybe somehow this will resonate with certain people that this is what white people do. They save those in need. Wrong. White people are generally greedy. If this story was a story based on reality, the white men would have taken the materials they were searching for from the Na'vi and ran. They would have treated those natives just like the Native Americans. Maybe if this film was based on reality we could see the Na'vi forced into tiny reservations living on barely any salary whatsoever. Now that would be an enlightening film worth seeing because I am ashamed of the means that we acquired this land we now call the United States– home of freedom and liberty. Yea right.
[Reply]
Avatar was the one movie that all my friends were telling me to see. I initially didn’t take must interest in the movie until EVERYONE watched the movie. I thought I missed my chance to see it over the winter break because I didn’t really plan on watching it at State College. Fortunately, I had a good amount of friends who still haven’t seen the movie. So, we all went out to see it and loved how it turned out. Many of us had picked up on the similarities Avatar had with Pocahantas and FernGully. Need I say, we were all Asian and not a single one of would be offended by this White Messiah deal. To us, it was just a movie with an interesting (familiar) plotline and amazing visuals.
There may be a reason to why the White Messiah fable continues to be portrayed in many movies. We live in the U.S where white culture remains “sorta” dominant in society. Therefore, writers might only make the protagonist a white person to appeal the typical American. It’s all a matter of money in my opinion. OR if anything, they didn’t even think about that kind of stuff. I doubt there was any racism intended.
I think the real issue is the fact that these happy endings that exist in these “White Messiah” movies are far too imaginative. During the ages of conquest, the natives had always fallen to the ground and been thrown off their land. The conquerors/explorers will generally have the bigger guns or swords that overpower the arrows and axes. It’s always about which team has the bigger guns. But what if the natives win (for example, Avatar)? In Avatar, the humans were sent out of Pandora after defeat. Would they honestly not try again? Chances are, they would make even BIGGER guns and invade again. That kind of stuff may have happen at some point in history. The ones who were in search for a new land may have lost at some point and could have tried to attack again.
Yes, Brooks made a valid point on the hero being a white person. But I feel that writers truly meant to show that war over territory is unnecessary. No human-being should conquer another human-being’s land whether or not resources are being depleted. Things like these should be the reason why humans should conserve energy. Avatar showed that Earth was dying due to mankind’s misuse of natural resources, which led them to go out and try to take someone else’s home away for them to keep. We should really understand that we should work with what we have AND that we can’t have everything we want. This just comes to show that people suck.
[Reply]
Before I went to see Avatar for the first time one of my friends was comparing it to Pocohantas and telling me that the two were similar. I didn't believe that the two could be so similar because I had heard that Avatar was such an amazingly animated movie. After seeing it however, I realized that the two are very very similar! Both even involve the "spiritual" tree where the ancestors spirits are present. It's crazy to think that this is in fact almost an updated remake of the disney favorite but it in fact is. This fact only further proves my point that we are influenced by the media. If we were not, then there wouldn't have been a movie so similiar to Pocahantas…and it definitely wouldn't have been so popular if we weren't once influence by it.
[Reply]
First of all, I've seen this movie. I, for one, thought it was pretty amazing and pretty epic. So I definitely recommend that you see it Sam.
Next, I didn't really get the whole "white people saving the brown/black people" underlying meaning. I got something else, though. I feel that there were multiple ideas going on here. For one, I feel that our military/government was criticized in the film. Specifically, I think it represented the way we entered the Iraq War, but I could be totally wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if I am. I just think that it's showing how this military couldn't care less about destroying a civilization, destroying a culture, destroying lives. The movies emphasizes so much how beautiful Pandora (The world they live in) is. Everything is so simple and pure and amazing. I personally would give anything to live there if it really existed. And I know that sounds extreme but the manner in which the movie lets you experience Pandora is pretty breathtaking. I would provide examples of things in the movie that back this up but I don't wanna ruin it for you Sam or anyone else who hasn't had the chance to see it yet.
Another point of view I got from the movie was that they were maybe trying to make a parallelization between the huge bulldozers that were clearing out their forests and how our very own rain forests are being destroyed constantly. It's so disappointing to hear that football field sized portions of the rain forest are being destroyed and cleared out every day. There are so many wonderful things that we have discovered and even that we have yet to discover about our planet's rain forests. There are cures for so many fatal diseases that have been found in rain forests. Animals are going extinct left and right and will never be seen again. That is just so very, very sad to think about.
My last point of view that I got from the movie was the idea/reality that we, as a human race, have lost respect and value in almost everything. Sam gave us a perfect example in class the other day. He was talking about how hardly any of us really try to find out where the meat we eat comes from. And even the people, including myself, who say we are disgusted with these horrible factories still probably won't bother to actually look up whether or not the meat we buy is from these factories. We leads to the idea that we've become lazier, and in my own personal opinion, we have.
Yes, I know, it's just a movie, but movies have been catalysts in our society to get the ball rolling and believe me the ball is rolling now.
[Reply]
I've concluded this theory a long time ago after watching movies. It most nearly, if not always seems that the white person in a movie is often superior of the other races or color present in the film. I don't know what it is but it seems like the white culture have this Napoleon complex in which they have to have some type of dominant role in whatever they touch. Whether the person that every character most cross, the hero, or the one who comes out on top. This supremacy and wanting to be the "savior" has gotten this culture in a a lot of trouble but it doesn't seem to stop them. I have friends from different countries and when they here about the white people they associate it with people who always poke their nose in other people and try to save them but when they are in fact okay, and instead of helping or "saving" them they end up leaving the country in worst circumstances than they were in before the white man showed up.
I believe since America was built on try to be the beacon or light of the world, authors or director have this idea that if its someone to save the day, it should be a white person in order to implement it in our minds that the "Man" who we all have a perception is white runs things.
[Reply]
I saw Avatar and I thought that it was an excellent movie. The effects and the story were amazing. But afterwards, I heard about all the controversy that never even crossed my mind as I watched the film. The things that did cross my mind were the demonstration of conquering other lands for one's own benefit, and trying to "socialize" the inhabitants to be like the conquerers. That is NOT only an American thing, but America is guilty of it. I felt that having an American learn about the ways of the land and the people living there was an inspiring concept. Instead of them becoming assimilated into American culture, he became assimilated into their culture.
I also noticed when watching it that it does have the same kind of plot as Fern Gully and Pocohontas, which were kid movies. So now that it is an adult movie with the same story line, it causes controversy. I saw in some of these comments about how other movies who have themes similar to each other aren't seen as controversial. Like Remember the Titans and Coach Carter. And I agree with that! They don't need to be controversial, and I don't think Avatar does either. It is a different insight to the film, but I don't think it needed to be taken that far. Whether or not the director was trying to portray the film in that way, it is a fantasy film meant to be enjoyed by all.
[Reply]
"Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration." This made me think of how many history books are written from the European perspective. Many history books portray the colonists as gentle innocent people who came to a new land just for religious freedom and fail to elaborate on the parts about slaughtering natives and bringing slaves over from Africa. Whenever history is written down it will always be biased in one way or another.
[Reply]
I was not, and am not, interested in Avatar. Reading the article, I would disagree that the protagonist HAS to be white, we have seen Will Smith save our country a few times in the movies. I would agree with a lot of critics in saying that the movie follows a cookie-cutter plot line, used to hook as many simple-minded people into seeing it as possible. It uses special effects and MONEY to wow the audience, Cameron did it before with Titanic. I think tribal villages and fantasy worlds are used in order to allow the audiences to easier escape. They want you to believe magical things happen to regular people, that's what the impossible story is ALL ABOUT. I sure hope James Cameron doesn't ruin real cinema with his fancy 3-D camera shit.
[Reply]
Okay, at first I was a little skeptical about the movie, and I heard different sides. However, after seeing he movie, I had a clear understanding of it. Here goes:
In this day and age the "Terms" we use are very important. To say that a movie is "racist" means that it portrays the humans (white people) who are trying to kill the Indigenous ppl (Indians) as heroes. Its all about whose side the storyline sets you up to take. If you end up rooting for the Indigenous people who are justly trying to protect their land…then its simply creating an awareness of the importance of humanity. From seeing the preview…storyline plays on race, which is obvious. There is nothing wrong with that so long as it doesnt support the arguement of the oppressor (such as last of the Mahicans). So whose side does the movie support? Neither. It takes a neutral stance.
Avatar is not a movie about racism, or the “White Person being the hero”. In fact for those who seen the movie can see that this is a story that can parallel MANY events in history. Not just the Whites taking over Indian land. Throughout the colonialism and imperialism eras the British, the French, the Spanish, the Chinese, etc. all had different territories that didn’t originally belong to them. The common linkage between all of these “empires” is that they gained theses territories via oppression and forcefully taking what wasn’t theirs to begin with. This is a movie that shows this commonality in a way that many people would hopefully understand. It is shown from the view of the Indians vs. the Whites because this is at least one story that many know well. This movie shows the pain of those whose land is about to be taken and their willingness to fight for what is theirs. (And those “empires” I mentioned are just a few out of many oppressors as we should all know). To say that the movie shows the white man as the hero is false. If you watch the movie closely, you would see that he had to become one of them to help save them. He had to empathize with them, feel their pain, understand them, and see their land as they do. As you can imagine, with all that compassion he felt, he began to see the land as his own as well and he a part of “The People”. So if anything, it only goes to show that this isn’t a matter of race, it’s a matter of compassion, love, and respect for the land that you call your own and your willingness to fight for it when it is being compromised by someone who doesn’t respect it.
[Reply]
I didn't plan on seeing Avatar because it looked like a no-plot, all-effects movie, but after reading this blog post and some of the discussion, I must admit I'm pretty curious. I think David Brooks makes a good point and a strong argument. The White Messiah formula can be found in countless films, and it's also true that the majority of blockbuster main characters and the actors who play them are white. I can think back to the shows I watched as a child (Power Rangers, for example) and realize the central leader was always white. I don't have the slightest clue what it would have been like to grow up with a different skin color watching TV and movies, thinking "Why is my race always the sidekick or the bad guy?" I made a point in our small discussion class this week about how even in video games, the lead character is usually a white person. It seems like there is something white-centric that is deeply ingrained in the entertainment industry.
Despite the discussion I've been reading and from what I understand of the plot, I wonder how much of Avatar had to do with "the white man's burden" and how much of it had to do with the burden of the human race. He might be suggesting that we, as humans, are meant to see the big picture and are capable of more noble pursuits. That being said, the cultures in the movie seem undeniably stereotypical; the natives are in touch with nature and concerned with deeper things while the white race is pushy and materialistic. But is Cameron trying to say that we should be less materialistic, or is he saying that white people are too concerned with spreading their ways to other cultures who don't really want to be changed? I wonder if he is touching on environmental issues or race issues, or both.
The plot does seem to criticize Americans somewhat, though. After all the conflict in Middle East, and maybe before it, I feel as if Americans (politically speaking) have this reputation for being unwanted peacekeepers, as in they are out to make the world a better place, but the cultures they try to change don't really want to change or be helped. A lesser developed society is automatically seen as not living up to its potential or lacking in what matters (i.e. wealth, democracy, etc.), which may or may not be true. Perhaps the movie was commenting on this tendency of Americans (or more broadly, white Euro-Americans) to take their high-tech, high-power culture and shove it down developing or underdeveloped nations' throats. The plot seems like a condemnation of American overseas political aims and maybe even (dare I say it?) globalization.
[Reply]
I think the white Messiah formula is something that appears brief and insubstantial on the surface but shows a deeper flaw in the social constructs and medias hidden agenda in America. Of course the people who control the majority of the major networks and media outlets being white males would create heroes in their own image so we should not be surprised. It is not the heros image that disturbs me but the way in which his story plays out. Why can he not save a group of other white men. Why is that he must save a group that often reflects and parallels communities of color. I feel that these story lines and the formula perpetuate this unfounded concept that people of color cannot save themselves and that ever since they were "saved" from slavery and "saved" from their pagan ways there has been this false sense of dependency on the white man rescuing communities of color. FROM WHAT? from the poor socioeconomic status created by the white man? The oppression of communities of color in this country is the sole responsibility and fault of the actions of the ruling government which happens to be made up of mostly white men. It sickens me that these white men are feeding our communities of color this poison of lies and injustice for which only they have the antidote for. And when the promises of relief and a better life are dealt out and then not followed up the complaints are simply brushed aside as the gaze of the government turns to another sickened community already dyeing of the poison made up of oppression and inequality. This insufficient life support must stop! And it cannot be cured with more money and more aid but must instead be cut off at the source. The source of oppression and inequality at the heart of our government. What kind of message are we sending our youth? Why can't children in communities of color have more role models that they can actually identify with? Why can't they be encouraged to save themselves and not depend on the white man in the movies or the welfare in their cities. It is not their fault that they are born into a system that manifests the evil bigoted ideology of the roots of country into real life, every day interactions with society. They are born into a system that is created to keep them down and covered up with financial aid and social programs that are only band aids on a festering wound that not only effects our country but the rest of the world. I make a call for action, don't just ask for change, demand it! Demand change from your government, your community and yourself. Open your mind to accept those less fortunate than you and do whatever you can to help them because its the right thing to do.
[Reply]
I never wanted to see Avatar just because I have a thing about creatures that look like humans. So of course when the big hype was surrounding Avatar I was a bit skeptical. A lot of people have been comparing it to Pocahontas, which we all know is a excellent version of the white man's burden. Another example is the movie Ferngully. It seems like all movies have this rinse and repeat..everything seems like a version of something we've seen before and from what I've read, Avatar is the same. Another example of the "white man's burden," is every movie when they have a white teacher, coach, etc that goes to an inner-city school and helps out the kids and showed the way life should be..BLAH BLAH BLAH. It just gets so frustrating reading all the synopsis' and seeing the same thing. I don't think there should be such a big controversy surrounding the movie, because it has been done before and it will be done again.
[Reply]
As far as the white messiah fable goes, I have to say in no moment during both times I saw the movie, did I think the possible racial message being discussed by Brooks. And might be because when I go to the movies I am not there to dissect any hidden political, racial, or any other subliminal messages. I am basically there to watch a good movie. One thing that I did give some thought to were the various similarities in story line with the movie Pocohontas, by Disney. The typical tale of the enemy being assimilated by the foreign culture, and later on this character becoming the biggest exponent in the fight against his own campaign. During the course of the movie, the only distinctions in race that I made, was between the blue (navi) and humans; I did not make any judgements about the particular set of humans that were invading. I would think that if there is anything that could possibly unify the human race, and bring us together, is the fight against some allien invasion. It sound funny, but if you think about it, it is really the only possible scenario in which humans, regardless of their origins and backgrounds, would come together for a common goal of survival. And in this sense it was kind of cool to see a diversified human enterprise comprised by what seems to be latino pilots, indian scientists, and black and white soldiers all working effectively and harmoniously to effectively destroy an alien race. It is sad though, that the only thing that could unify us and make us put aside our differences is to find something that is even more different from us, which we have to destroy. I would like to add that I did not think there was anything particularly ground braking about this film, apart from the view it was shot. I realized that this is a new way of making movies, due to the technical advances, but the story line, style of photography, and angles, were thing I felt I had seen already. In order to obtain any hidden racial content, in my opinion, you would really have to be looking for it with some sort of intent; and that in itself has racial implications for the person making that judgement. I kind of feel at ease with myself because of the fact that the issue we are discussing never came to my mind at any of the times I watched the movie. It would be great, when the day comes when any type of movie, blockbuster or not, can come out with the intent of entertaining people and not be criticized by any hidden meanings that people might maliciously finds, in order to spur up controversies in order to gain attention from the media and the public.
[Reply]
Ok so here’s my thought on this whole thing related to Avatar. First off, I think a lot of people fail to realize the workings of the industry that comprises Hollywood and film. Much like democracy works where votes count towards a bill or presidential candidate taking office, in too simple of terms to show its true complexity, I have come to learn that films work much in the same way. Interestingly enough, although not entirely true 100% of the time, the people in power of this media driven democracy which we call Hollywood are the viewers. Our purchases of tickets to movies and the overall box office income for the first weekend, thus determining the fate of the film and future remakes and sequels and even ones following the same plot, act much like a vote on a ballad. If a lot of people go to see the movie, then most likely there will be a remake.
[Reply]
Take, for example, Terminator. Back in the early 80’s when the first film came out, box office sales were remarkably high. Was it because of false ads, skewing of numbers, or some covert scandal of James Cameron to aid his own benefit? No, the movie did as well as it did because a large amount of us viewers casted our vote for this genera of movie the minute we purchased our ticket. This leads me to my main point. While I agree it is sickening to see Arnold Schwarzenegger go from Last Action Hero to a heroic revenge driven dad in Collateral Damage, these types of action packed, blood gushing, explosion driven, adrenaline rushing movies find themselves in sequels reaching double digits or remakes of movies that successfully strip them of any success they had in the past with gore and sexuality. Am I surprised that James Cameron came out with a movie where the white man is a hero and the black man and Hispanic woman are merely characters aiding in the white mans glory and fame while either dying off or receiving little credit?
[Reply]
No…but I sure don’t blame James Cameron for following suit of what he sees to be popular. Do I think it would be nice to see more people than just famous white men take the role as Avatar or the unstoppable terminator? Would it be nice to have a black harry potter for a change and leave it to the white actors to take the small roles? Yes but then again people are not much for change. And if changes like that were to make these movies tank, I can bet you my right leg that such roles would cease to exist. Like I said in the beginning…Hollywood is a capitalist industry driven by the success of the commodities (aka movies) it produces. Rather than look to Cameron for staying in suit, to him he is just making a smart business decision. If anyone is to blame for the “white messiah”, maybe the ones casting the votes for these movies (us viewers) should be taken into account.
[Reply]
I saw the movie Avatar, but I did not think that much into the plot being the typical "white man on top story". Now that I think about it, it does remind me of "Pocahontas", because the plot has the lead role trying to "get in good with the natives" like John Smith. The hero per say of the story saved the natives from the evil general that wanted to destroy their "home tree". The lead male becomes a native and saves the day.
It is funny that the typical movie has a white hero that saves the people. Why could the hero be of another color, but hey that is society these days, whatever sells tickets. I bought a ticket and did not think anything into the situation. Brooks was thinking too much into the movie, but the movies he named have a common theme and I have noticed. I do not find it to be a big problem though it is a movie with a typical theme. The movie was well thought out and planned with many years in the making. They created a culture with a language all there own, and it made it different from the other typical "white savior" movies. Like i said before I like this movie and I also liked the movie "Pocahontas" as a child.
Movies these days are made to make money and entertain people. Some movies are made to inspire and make people think. However the Avatar is not that type of movie in my opinion, because I was in no way inspired. I only thought the movie was very creative and interesting. The movie grossed more than The Titanic so that means it is a lot of money. The typical movie theme did nothing for me because I certainly did not take it in anyway like Brooks. He only made me think about the similarities between other movies such as " The Last Samurai." I guess I am one of the ones who likes a predictable story line. I still like the typical love story between a boy and a girl. The typical movies were the odd couple will falls into a deep love against all odds. I guess, I could say that I am a typical movie watcher who likes the classic story line. The good guy sees the wrong in how the military is trying to take something that is not theirs to take, just to make a dollar. He defies his general's orders to help destroy the native people to take the natural resources. The good guy falls in love with the chief's daughter, and they together fight the bad guys. Then the good guy helps to save the day, and happens to be white.
[Reply]