Plotting
the destruction of the 'Tree of Life': Does the film
Avatar justify, rather than
disparage, the practice of war?
Le Monde, France
Avatar: Nothing But a 'Stupid Justification for War!'
"All
wars, even those that seem the most insane, always occurs for the 'right reasons'
because they're for defense. … Let us recall, even for Hitler, the war was just.
… We don't go to war to fight, whatever any warmonger says, but to defend
ourselves!"
Naively, many took James
Cameron's film Avatar to be anti-war and even pacifist and environmentalist.
However, it's nothing of the sort! Quite to the contrary, this film is meant to
eulogize violence and war. It is true that, in reversing the roles and
caricaturing the U.S. Army, this film is just shuffling the cards and has
confused more than a few. But beneath its idyllic outdoor settings, the film
conceals a view that is remarkably caustic: that of justifying war for us
peaceful Westerners!
First of all, let's recall the scene of that enormous tree falling with
a crash in the midst of a distraught population. 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 a native people so savagely
attacked on their own planet. And it's none other than an American marine,
Jake, the hero of the film, who proposes the unification of all indigenous peoples
(the allied forces) to suppress and kill those who, just like terrorists,
attacked them in such a cowardly fashion. It's at this moment that the imperial
American eagle appears on the screen in all its glory (in the guise of a giant
Transformer-like dragon) which our American hero boldly sits astride to lead
the natives to final victory.
This hero, a simple American
soldier crippled by war and reborn into a new body, will return to war, but this
time for a worthy cause! In this way, he is a perfect illustration of the
average American; that is to say, an innocent man who doesn't want war but who,
for the good of the cause, ends up becoming a fanatical fighter, urging even the
indigenous population to follow him into battle. When attacked, they must know
how to defend themselves. That's an absolute right. Such is the central message
of this American blockbuster that cost $300 million. It is meant to be the
expression of the ideology of war, that's to say of "just war," or if
you like, that of good versus evil ...
For the film makes the
distinction between good warriors (the Na'vi) and bad warriors (the GIs). But
we know there are no good and evil warriors. Every war, even those that seem
the most insane, always occurs for the "right reasons" because they're
for defense (there's a reason we speak of the "Ministry of Defense").
Let's recall that even for Hitler, the war was just: it was about enlarging
German territory to ensure the survival of his people [lebensraum or living
space]. We don't go to war to fight, whatever any warmonger says, but to defend
ourselves! That is the very essence of war and is this essential element that
has made Avatar an "in" film. Even the word "avatar" which comes from Sanskrit,
means a messenger of the divine dedicated to the struggle of good against evil.
We should also note how the numerous
battle scenes in the jungle remind us of what the Vietnam War did to the
Americans. There, despite the use of napalm, the mighty Americans were trampled
upon and humiliated. This film surreptitiously suggests that, henceforth, one
must know how to respond intelligently to this type of humiliation. Not by insolently
crushing everything in our path or by stupidly using poison gas, but by precise
targeting of the enemy in concert with the other threatened nations. And there
we find the perfect justification for the war in Afghanistan, do we not?
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
And, as always, the natives
are depicted as creatures attached to outmoded rituals who must be led into
battle by the film's intelligent hero. Armed with a submachine gun to
annihilate the invader, this new type of Na'vi, due to the appeal of a fierce
exterminator who leads by example, shows these poor natives how to fight
without pity to establish their supremacy. This calls to mind American westerns
where, almost always, a brave cowboy ends up joining forces with the Indians to
spur them on to fight the American Army to the death. By serving as a dispenser
of justice, the hero subtly contributes to minimizing guilt over the genocide
of the tribes of the American Indian.
In the same way,
this film again permits the American eagle to be displayed with pride and
nobility. Its director, James Cameron, will doubtless have understood better
than any other film maker that for a movie to please its audience, it must
reinforce their convictions. Killing is alright, but only of those who threaten
the security of our nation! That's what's comforting and reassuring. Courtesy
of this film, the expression si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you
wish for peace, prepare for war") can, therefore, be put back into service.
The only problem with this ridiculous old expression, however, is that it's
valid for all people who feel threatened ...
Adding insult to injury
is that the film, which aside from its technical prowess has offered us nothing
new under the sun, is in search of tributes. Positioned somewhere between a
Walt Disney film and an episode of the Transformers or, to put it
another way, between Jurassic Park and The Terminator, Avatar
goes off in every direction. For example, the simplistic formula of beasts who
are friends of the good and enemies of the malevolent is beyond irritating. But
for a country where environmental problems still aren't taken seriously, this
is surely more than enough! And there's no doubt that, with such an eye-catching
formula, the king of the world, as James Cameron likes to call himself, will
please a very large public and will, once again, be crowned with glory!
*Pierre
Desjardins is an author and Professor of Philosophy at the Montmorency College pre-university
in Quebec.
