Avatar, James Cameron’s 3D CGI epic, walks a fine line between cutting-edge virtual reality and complete philosophical gibberish. Yes, the visuals are a revelation. But at the heart of the movie is a religious worldview so skewed and nonsensical that anyone with a molecule of discernment — i.e., those not suckered in by the mind-blowing graphics — will see through its vacuity.
If only Cameron had put as much thought into the religion he’s selling as the world he created.
I have contended that Relativism is Boring, and that films containing a relativistic worldview undermine their own dramatic necessities. In other words, why defeat evil or battle bad guys when the very philosophy that drives the film doesn’t believe in evil or bad guys? Avatar possesses a similar incongruity.
New York Times’ columnist Ross Douthat, in his excellent piece entitled Heaven and Nature, describes the religious worldview at the heart of the film:
“Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.
The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.
If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”
However, the problem with “All Mother” (who is most likely a feminized incarnation of the All-Father of Nordic and Celtic mythology) is that she’s completely neutral. After the lead character prays to “All Mother” for help, his love interest chides, “All-Mother does not take sides. She balances nature.” So as much as Cameron wants to portray the humans as planet-ravaging bad guys and the blue aliens as their eco-antitheses, the Force is totally indifferent to either’s plight. In other words, if Nature is the arbiter of survival, then whoever has the biggest guns, wins; neither Deity or Destiny will intervene. Or as Douthat puts it:
The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.
Nevertheless, Cameron wants to have his Nature and eat it too. So all the while Avatar is pushing a New Age, Neutral Deity, that Deity is busy acting very non-New Age and un-Neutral, arming her forces to the teeth. In the end, the Impartial, Impersonal Force of Cameron’s world turns partial and personal, comes to the rescue and turns, tooth and claw, on the bad guys.
Much like Slumdog Millionaire denied its Hindu roots to make the story work, Avatar must abandon its New Age, Nature-worshiping, Gospel of Gaia sympathies, to bring about sufficient resolution to the story. But frankly, not even $500 million worth of graphics can camouflage Avatar’s ideological absurdity.
Were you able to notice any philosophically abhorrent and self-contradictory dialogue, like "Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"
Great points, Mike.
Guess I got "suckered in" Mike! Idid realize this rediculous religious view as I was watching it. No matter what I truely believe most people see it as fiction.
Judy, perhaps I should have been clearer about how much I liked the graphics. The movie is worth seeing simply on those grounds. However, I wish people were more discerning. Fantastic visuals should not give a movie a free pass to preach nonsense. Thanks for commenting!
While life requires death, there is no balance in utter destruction, so there is no contradiction in Eywa defending/balancing herself. The military-industrialism represented is so out of balance it definitely falls within the purview of her guidelines of intervention. This conflict was dealt with right off when the native heroine defends the protagonist against the hungry wildlife. I believe you make a mistake in equating dog eat dog Darwinism with a Gaian philosophy. The former is more the moral rationale of the jarhead antagonists and their real-life ilk than the message of the Na'Vi. Strict evolution is passé. Nature can't be neutral in life's precarious scramble against entropy. It has to have immune systems on many scales. The idea of a guiding hand, whether collective intelligence or at least Lovelock's negative feedback cycles, makes more sense than life being a freakish accident. I am sorry for your cynical attitude toward the happy ending, but I find this pantheistic animation much more on point than cartoonish theist fairytales of bearded omnipotent humanesque creators. Keeping religious morays indoors and regarding nature as a free for all is an attitude that is definitely at a tipping point.
That said, I think you also miss that the Na'Vi do not just represent nature, like forests you can log or not. They represent indigenous People in their full beauty and power when they are full connected to the life of the place they are in. Dehumanizing them for their animal wildness and grouping them with an ethical quandary about nature is what is allowing the genocide of real indigenous peoples. Perhaps the avatar device plays on that too. They represent the epitome of balance, so where is the incongruity in their planetary exo-selves giving them some backup?
One thing of note in your critique about Neytiri's comment that "The All-Mother does not take sides," is that her comment is from the context of someone who considers the "sides" to be naturally occurring elements in struggle–predator/prey, tribes/packs conflicting over land, etc. Those are within the All-Mother's network of consciousness and engage much like, for example, our own serotonin and serotonin reuptake inhibitors or the various bacteria in our intestines or multiple applications running on the same processor–there is conflict/competition, but they do not destroy the overall organism. They are part of what makes it functional and dynamic. What Jake brings to the Na'vi (and the All-Mother's) understanding is the realization that the mercenaries and corporation are not just another competing element, they are an element that intends to destroy the overall structure/organism–much like a rampant virus (biological or digital.) Both the biological and the digital examples generally have an immune system to protect themselves from such if they want to stay operational. So does the All-Mother in Avatar–hers just happens to be hammer-headed stegasaurs, big mofo tiger-beasts, flying saurians and 12' blue archers with carbon-fiber bones.
Earth's just happens to be global climate change and the greenhouse effect.
crow bolt — see comments to Daniel. You speak of All-Mother as if you know her. Do you? Is All-Mother a Universal Force or a deity exclusive to Pandora? And how do you know this?
If All-Mother is a Universal Force, then the strip-mining humans arose from Nature and have as legitimate reasons to fight for their survival as do the Na'Vi. Which means, if they bring nukes, the Na'Vi spears are useless and the strip-mining humans win. Survival of the fittest and Nature balances itself.
If All-Mother is unique to Pandora, then she and her planet can be nuked out of existence and her laws are not applicable to the intruders. The bigger god wins. And congratulations for being the first commentor at deCOMPOSE to reference "serotonin reuptake inhibitors."
Daniel, thanks for commenting. The problem here is not that Eywa fights back, but that she is presented as an amoral, impersonal Force with no compelling reason to fight back. That's the contradiction.
If Eywa is “defending/balancing herself” by resisting the “jarhead antagonists,” then she must see them as evil, or at least a threat to her and/or the Na'Vi's existence. But that would imply some moral / existential imperative, i.e., it is BETTER that we live and they die. Nevertheless, the female Na'Vi proclaimed that “Eywa doesn't take sides.” Then why did she “take sides” and fight the BAD GUYS if it wasn't the RIGHT thing to do?
In the world of Eywa, BALANCE is seen as the ULTIMATE GOOD. Which makes imbalance the ULTIMATE EVIL. Problem is, someone must arbitrate between the forces (i.e., strip mining humans are BAD, indigenous aliens, GOOD). Yet this requires moral distinctions and retributions, which once again implies Eywa is not a genuine Cosmic Gandhi.
To further complicate things, the female Na'Vi saved Jake from the panther-creature. Why do this if he (or his death) was just another part of the “circle of life”? Was he “worth” being saved? Furthermore, the hunted animals were “thanked” for replenishing Life, while the marines were given the finger. But don't their deaths equally replenish the Land?
You speak of “the message of the Na'Vi” as if it were actually written somewhere. Remember, Eywa is a fictional construct. Cameron may have assembled his deity from Gaia lore, but we're left to guess. However, if Eywa is Nature, then she should see all life forms as sacred, yes? Even parasites play a role in the balance. Roaches and ticks and crocodiles are a part of Nature. Bottom line: If Balance is the Supreme goal of Nature, then at some point parasites (like strip-mining humans) are required to tip the scales.
Again, I have no problem with the Na'Vi fighting back. Just don't try to portray them as flower-loving peace-nicks who serve some Neutral Cosmic Force.
The compelling reason; in the movie was setup as waves and waves of people were going to come and you could infer eventually destroy the planet. I think Daniel was right on point with his comments, as well as J.D. Morale aside, I don't think it takes much to see that strip mining and destroying an entire echo system that has taken millions of years to harmoniously develop is somehow out of balance. There was no good or evil in that. More disrespectful than anything, and I think disrespect is what forces life out of balance. You mention 'no compelling reason', I hope you don't ever expect a bing bang bongo reason to your answer of balance. (meant with the upmost respect)
I have to disagree. Eywa isn't just some cosmic Ghandi, it is essentially a planet sized brain, with the electrical connections between the living organisms being the synapses that our brains experience. Sentient organisms like the Na'vi might be able to "jack in" at any time, but the plants are always active, which makes the brain. It can be reasonable assumed that the animal life as well is capable of jacking in, which presumably would be where Eywa is able to control them. Even just one animal can pass on the message of "attack the bad guys."
Now, because the Na'vi represent such a small part of the over neural structure of Eywa, they are not privy to the total cognition of Eywa. Instead, they represent a very limited amount of mental processing. Being sentient beings themselves, they can make conjectures about what they think Eywa is up to, but without the omniscience (relative) that Eywa has, they can only do just that: conjecture.
On Pandora actual, Eywa might see balance as being the ultimate good, but being sentient, survival is the ultimate goal. Killing parasitic humans who act like neurosyphiliis is far more important than integrating them as part of the balanced world.
"crow bolt — see comments to Daniel. You speak of All-Mother as if you know her. Do you? Is All-Mother a Universal Force or a deity exclusive to Pandora? And how do you know this?"
To answer for him, we don't need to know All-Mother personally. We do know that Eywa is a sentient planet, with the life on the planet representing the neurons. This makes the planet behave like a brain, and psychology 101 will tell you plenty about what brains like to do. Because Eywa is represented by the plant life on Pandora, Eywa herself is regulated to Pandora. However, this brain-sized planet phenomenon might not be.
As for the "bigger god wins," the humans are at a significant disadvantage on that part. They do have the bigger guns however, like those nukes, and Eywa would likely be at some disadvantage to stop it. Unless the neural mass can somehow transmit electromagnetic radiation in some way to "cook" a nuke in space before it gets to the planet surface.
Eywa is only portrayed as Cosmic Ghandi by the Na'vi, who are Naive. The scientists understand much more, which was obvious when the Doc was talking about Pandora's neural networking being the real treasure, not unobtanium.
Huh?
Science is hard, Mike. It's okay. The comment was in reply to your post on Avatar and your reply to Daniel.
Konraden, what I just don't understand is how you extract so much FROM A FICTIONAL DEITY. Either you know that Cameron was intentionally portraying Gaia or some defined pagan deity (which, in that case, would make this film religious propaganda, no different than some Christian films), or Eywa is just that — a factional character. But if that's the case, how can you guys know so much about her?
I’ve read your article and I’ve found interesting, but I think there is one point you are not considering:
There is no need to see something as “evil” to utterly exterminate it and there is no need to have any morality to exterminate something that endangers you.
Even animals attack and kill something that is seen as a “threat”.
The idea that something needs to be “utterly evil” to be exterminated is a wholly human concept. From an incarnated Nature point of view, anything that endangers its equilibrium is “worth” exterminating.
Moreover you should consider that “good” and “evil” are the way the most part of the viewers will see the conflict, Eywa and the “intruders”…but the “good” perceived by the natives is to live in the acceptance of traditional ways and Eywa is “good” because brings both gifts and woes. From a Pagan point of view, gods which are seen as “good” will generally embody concepts which could be helpful or harmful (or culturally perceived as such), while those who embody “evil” are mostly associated with harmful concepts and feared.
Also you could perceive Eywa as good because everything associated with her seems beautiful and we instinctively associate “beautiful” with “good” (“kalokagathia”)…
…but it is Eywa truly good?
No…in fact, is a merciless and relentless “thing” that ensures its own survival.
We tend to perceive it as “good” because we got into the whole “love story” thing…
…because we see Jack, Grace, Trudy and the rest side with the “weak”, those they love and with those who fight “with honor” against the “strong”, those have no love and no honor…and so when Eywa acts to self-preserve itself the whole thing is felt as the “arrival of cavalry”!
And…feels good to see Eywa kick the ass of all moneyhungry bastards!
However…if you think about it…Eywa and its “mind-linked” creatures have a lot in common with the Xenomorphs of Aliens…
…what’s different?
…they are more beautiful.
…we have a humanoid race which is able to live in harmony with them (and is somehow part of the “hive”)…and we can perceive us as them.
…but even the Xenomorphs (of Aliens) defend themselves, fight for survival and act as if they had a hive mind…but we don’t perceive them as “good”!
OMG! Reminds me of a critic I heard a long time ago describing the then new Superman Film as being 'far-fetched'. Really? This is pure fiction. If you choose to read into the film far more than I suspect was actually intended, then go ahead and delude yourself with your so-called intellectual synopses.
Please do NOT try and tell the average movie goer that this is an attempt at portraying anything other than a fabulously constructed, but IMAGINATIVE world.
Enjoy Avatar, it is refreshingly simplistic, and has spectacular visuals!
JDB
Thanks for leaving a comment, JD. I do think many critics are going overboard in portraying Avatar as a New Age tract or political shout-down. It is, essentially, a great sci-fi flick. But are you suggesting that there is NO philosophic, religious, or political message in the movie? From the interviews Cameron has conducted, that doesn't seem to be the case.
No, I am not. I think I am just getting a little annoyed that many people seem to be going down the road you suggest:
" I do think many critics are going overboard in portraying Avatar as a New Age tract or political shout-down."
It does have environmentalist overtones ofc, indeed that is the core element of the film, but we are in danger of making it the actual reason for the making of the film, as if it's some kind of "Inconvenient Truth" or "The 11th Hour".
I doubt that the vast majority of Avatar fans will know, or even care, about the issues the intellectuals tell us are supposedly raised in the film.
Personally, I find it deeply moving, and I for one also don't care what the moral issues are. I am going for entertainment not education.
JDB
I sort of see your point on paragraph 4, but again, I think you really missed the movie and maybe overlooked a few things. It was just a movie. She didn't kill the marine for the same reason she took him back to her tribe, a sign from Eywa, otherwise he would have been dead. The panther creatures were hunting out of balance, the Na'vi killed the panthers out of potentially balance (the sign from Eywa), the marines who were fighting were killed because of disrespect, but the majority of them were allowed to live and go back home. And again, in a battle such as that are you going to stop to say a prayer after you take down a marine with 100 more behind him? Again, its just a movie.
Not all humans are strip-mining parasites. The balance came from the paralyzed marine and the science team. The parasite(s) for use of your term were the corporate representative and marine commander. Somehow, these 2 were probably meant to balance each other out.
And you are right; all life on every level, serves some sort of purpose. IMHO. And maybe for the moment in time of the movie, the Na'Vi are flower-loving peace-nicks who serve a cosmic force. For me, and the movie it was, I like to think that maybe they were because it sure is better than what I read in the paper.
In the end this was just a movie, and it was for me at least great entertainment. I saw great parallelism between our world today and the movie. We do live on pandora, but we are systematically destroying it. A debate for another time.