Your Proposal Is Acceptable 1

A forum for Blog Community #1 of CSCL 1001 (Introduction to Cultural Studies: Rhetoric, Power, Desire; University of Minnesota, Fall 2011) -- and interested guests.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

The Destruction of the Na'vi Tree


Though I can’t say I’m a very big fan of Avatar (the nature vs. mankind, destruction-of-native-lands theme is far too overplayed), I do admit that the movie holds a good amount of emotional sway. One of the most emotionally intense scenes I remember is the destruction of the Home Tree. The still of Neytiri’s screaming face, the scattering Na’vi, the terror is Armaggedon-like. I pitied them. Sadly, I feel my pity stems from wrong reasons…The Na’vi switch between animalistic and humanistic behavior throughout the movie, but in this scene they seem so animalistic. Their cries are raw, so unabashed. True, seeing such damage to one’s home would push anyone to forget acceptable behavior, but the scene just verified for me how animal I saw them. I felt bad not because of their loss, but because I drew a parallel to the destructive humans who had snatched security away from helpless creatures. Maybe the point of the movie was to draw light to a scenario us humans could potentially create, but I didn’t come away from watching Avatar with anything but skepticism. Were we truly that blind as a race? Or was the movie telling me the army would do our entire race’s evil biddings? I couldn’t find where I fit into this picture.

Just like in any other “man against the corrupt system” movie, a character is burdened with single handedly representing the immorality of the world. The Colonel Miles Quaritch is so black that his believability is lost the moment he is introduced. He is unhindered by conscience. Even as the Na’vi tree falls, he manages to make some maniacal comments that boil the Na’vi existence down to nothing. I can understand what he represents for the movie; it is easier for an audience to collectively hate a single person rather than a whole entity.

If only we could remove that single person, then the Unobtainium-driven world would be at peace…right? Right. The movie proves us right. Of course a few “good people” will be sacrificed and many of the archetypical “noble natives” will die, but the corrupting will only end once that concentrated evil is gone…If only diplomatic problems were so easily solved. But is it even a diplomatic problem? I thought we were dealing with the destruction of nature?! This movie has far too many themes, and each has a different political message. The army harbors corruption. The ‘natives’ or the Iraqi people or the Native American people (or any other suppressed group of your choice) have been supremely wronged by the oppressive Americans. Technology will ruin nature. And who will be the savior of all mankind? No other than the crippled underdog. Its all to dramatic Cameron, I'm not buying it.

2 comments:

  1. I really liked your comment about how it is easier to blame everything on one man rather then the whole race or entity. In many movies, events, real wars and even everyday situations I feel this is accepted by many people. When people think of World War II they often think Hitler, just as Al Qaeda is Bin Laden, but there were thousands of people who supported both of these people and made what they did possible. I feel the reason why one person always goes down with the blame is because we find it easier to be angry with a single person or small group rather then hold an entire people responsible.

    I often notice this in even smaller everyday situations, when tempers flare the people who started the situation take all the heat for the issue. This is justified in a sense but i think sometimes we have to stop and think if no one ever took sides and everyone remained neutral would certain events ever even happen? I think that everyday people empower ones they look up to whether right or wrong. That is how government and society is set up, but if the soldiers would have refused to follow the colonels orders early on the tree would never have fallen and many deaths wouldve been spared.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked your analysis of this particular scene.
    I want to say that I personally have been affected by events like this. The year was 1970, Vietnam War--war of Communism in Southeast Asia.

    My family had migrated to Laos from China. They've been in Laos for over hundreds of years. They've grown to have lands, prosperity and peace was a part of our culture up in the jungles. No one was dictating, no one was killing for money, and no one was killing for power. No fear and no war.

    The Vietnam War happened and it left my family in so much despair. Homes were destroyed and lives were killed. What we have here is genocide at its greatest. America stepping into Southeast Asia, recruiting jungle men and women to fight. Communist countries like Vietnam fighting back and killing all that come in the way. American colonialism infuriated Vietnam. Vietnam led to independence in hopes of eradicating American presence in their land, led to WAR.

    The Hmong culture has always believed that the spirits of the people and ancestors rest upon the sacred lands. That our spirits and souls will go back to the place where we are born. If the soul is separated for too long from its SOUL birthplace, then the soul--once human life is gone--will be stuck.

    What we have here is a spiritual misunderstanding and the misconception of sentimental value. Not everything in life is about MONEY and political gain. Lives are at lost. Your post just made me realize this part of my life. I'm going on a whim here so sorry if some of the stuff I have said are sloppy.

    ReplyDelete