The 2009 American science fiction film Avatar has provoked vigorous discussion of a wide variety of cultural, social, political, and religious themes identified by critics and commentators, and the film's writer and director James Cameron has responded that he hoped to create an emotional reaction and to provoke public conversation about these topics. The broad range of Avatars intentional or perceived themes has prompted some reviewers to call it "an all-purpose allegory" and "the season's ideological Rorschach blot". One reporter even suggested that the politically charged punditry has been "misplaced": reviewers should have seized on the opportunity to take "a break from their usual fodder of public policy and foreign relations" rather than making an ideological battlefield of this "popcorn epic".
Discussion has centered on such themes as the conflict between modern human and nature, and the film's treatment of colonialism, imperialism, racism, militarism and patriotism, corporate greed, property rights, spirituality and religion. Commentators have debated whether the film's treatment of the human aggression against the local Na'vi is a message of support for indigenous peoples today, or is, instead, a tired retelling of the racist myth of the noble savage. Right-wing critics accused Cameron of pushing an anti-American message in the film's depiction of a private military contractor that used ex-Marines to attack the locals, while Cameron and others argued that it is pro-American to question the propriety of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The visual similarity between the destruction of the World Trade Center and the felling of Home Tree in the film caused some filmgoers to further identify with the Na'vi and to identify the human military contractors as terrorists. Critics asked whether this comparison was intended to encourage audiences to empathize with the position of Muslims under military occupation today.
Much discussion has concerned the film's treatment of environmental protection and the parallels to, for example, the destruction of rainforests, mountaintop removal for mining and evictions from homes for development. The title of the film and various visual and story elements provoked discussion of the film's use of Hindu iconography, which Cameron confirmed had inspired him. Some Christians, including the Vatican, worried that the film promotes pantheism over Christian beliefs, while others instead thought that it sympathetically explores biblical concepts. Other critics either praised the film's spiritual elements or found them hackneyed.
Political themes
Colonialism and imperialism
Avatar describes the conflict by an indigenous people, the Na'vi of Pandora, against the oppression of alien humans. Director James Cameron acknowledged that the film is "certainly about imperialism in the sense that the way human history has always worked is that people with more military or technological might tend to supplant or destroy people who are weaker, usually for their resources." Critics agreed that the film is "a clear message about dominant, aggressive cultures subjugating a native population in a quest for resources or riches." George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, asserted that conservative criticism of Avatar is a reaction to what he called the film's "chilling metaphor" for the European "genocides in the Americas", which "massively enriched" Europe. Cameron told National Public Radio that references to the colonial period are in the film "by design". Adam Cohen of The New York Times stated that the film is "firmly in the anti-imperialist canon, a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit." Saritha Prabhu, an Indian-born columnist for The Tennessean, wrote about the parallels between the plot and how "Western power colonizes and invades the indigenous people (native Americans, Eastern countries, you substitute the names), sees the natives as primitives/savages/uncivilized, is unable or unwilling to see the merits in a civilization that has been around longer, loots the weaker power, all while thinking it is doing a favor to the poor natives."Alt URL David Brooks, in The New York Times, criticized what he saw as the "White Messiah complex" in the film, whereby the Na'vi "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." Others disagree: "First off, [Jake is] handicapped. Second off, he ultimately becomes one of [the Na'vi] and wins their way."Many commentators saw the film as a message of support for the struggles of indigenous peoples today. Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defense of nature". Others compared the human invaders with "NATO in Iraq or Israel in Palestine", and considered it reassuring that "when the Na'vi clans are united, and a sincere prayer is offered, the ... 'primitive savages' win the war." Alt URL Palestinian activists painted themselves blue and dressed like the Na'vi during their weekly protest in the village of Bilin against Israel's separation barrier. Other Arab writers, however, noted that "for Palestinians, Avatar is rather a reaffirmation and confirmation of the claims about their incapability to lead themselves and build their own future." Forbes columnist Reihan Salam criticized the vilification of capitalism in the film, asserting that it represents a more noble and heroic way of life than that led by the Na'vi, because it "give[s] everyone an opportunity to learn, discover, and explore, and to change the world around us." Si Sheppard on the other hand praised the film for drawing parallels between the corporate imperialism of the fictional RDA and its historical equivalents of the pre-industrial era (specifically the East India Company, which maintained its own private army in order to impose profit-driven territorial sovereignty on the Indian subcontinent).
Militarism Cameron stated that Avatar is "very much a political film" and added: "This movie reflects that we are living through war. There are boots on the ground, troops who I personally believe were sent there under false pretenses, so I hope this will be part of opening our eyes." He confirmed that "the Iraq stuff and the Vietnam stuff is there by design", adding that he did not think that the film was anti-military. Critic Charles Marowitz in Swans magazine remarked, however, that the realism of the suggested parallel with wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan "doesn't quite jell" because the locals are "peace-loving and empathetic".
Cameron said that Americans have a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military conflicts. Commenting on the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron said: "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America." Christian Hamaker of Crosswalk.com noted that, "in describing the military assault on Pandora, Cameron cribs terminology from the ongoing war on terrorism and puts it in the mouths of the film's villains ... as they 'fight terror with terror'. Cameron's sympathies, and the movie's, clearly are with the Na'vi—and against the military and corporate men." A columnist in the Russian newspaper Vedomosti traced Avatar'''s popularity to its giving the audience a chance to make a moral choice between good and evil and, by emotionally siding with Jake's treason, to relieve "us the scoundrels" of our collective guilt for the cruel and unjust world that we have created. Armond White of New York Press dismissed the film as "essentially a sentimental cartoon with a pacifist, naturalist message" that uses villainous Americans to misrepresent the facts of the military, capitalism, and imperialism. Answering critiques of the film as insulting to the U.S. military, a piece in the Los Angeles Times asserted that "if any U.S. forces that ever existed were being insulted, it was the ones who fought under George Armstrong Custer, not David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal." Other reviews saw Avatar as "the bubbling up of our military subconscious ... the wish to be free of all the paperwork and risk aversion of the modern Army—much more fun to fly, unarmored, on a winged beast."
A critic writing in Le Monde opined that, contrary to the perceived pacifism of Avatar, the film justifies war in the response to attack by the film's positive characters, particularly the American protagonist who encourages the Na'vi to "follow him into battle. ... Every war, even those that seem the most insane [are justified as being] for the 'right reasons'." Ann Marlowe of Forbes saw the film as both pro- and anti-military, "a metaphor for the networked military".
Anti-Americanism
Many reviewers perceived an anti-American message in the film, equating RDA's private security force to the U.S. military. Commentator Glenn Beck on his radio show said that Avatar was "an anti‑U.S. human thing". Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post stated that, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects" and criticized Cameron for what he saw as an unnuanced depiction of the American military as "pure evil". John Podhoretz of The Weekly Standard argued that Avatar revealed "hatred of the military and American institutions and the notion that to be human is just way uncool." Charles Mudede of The Stranger commented that with the release of the film "the American culture industry exports an anti-American spectacle to an anti-American world." Debbie Schlussel likewise dismissed Avatar as "cinema for the hate America crowd".
Cameron argued that "the film is definitely not anti-American" and that "part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas." Eric Ditzian of MTV concurred that "it'd take a great leap of logic to tag 'Avatar' as anti-American or anti-capitalist." Ann Marlowe called the film "the most neo-con movie ever made" for its "deeply conservative, pro-American message". But Cameron admitted to some ambiguity on the issue, agreeing that "the bad guys could be America in this movie, or the good guys could be America in this movie, depending on your perspective", and stated that Avatars defeat at the Academy Awards might have been due to the perceived anti-U.S. theme in it.
The destruction of the Na'vi habitat Hometree reminded commentators of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, and one commentator noted Cameron's "audacious willingness to question the sacred trauma of 9/11". Cameron said that he was "surprised at how much it did look like September 11", but added that he did not think that it was necessarily a bad thing. A French critic wrote: "How can one not see the analogy with the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center? Then, after that spectacular scene, all is justified [for the unified] indigenous peoples (the allied forces) ... to kill those who [are] just like terrorists." Another writer noted that "the U.S.' stand-ins are the perpetrators, and not the victims" and described this reversal as "the movie’s most seditious act".
Social and cultural themes
Civilization and race