We want the indigenous to win–on a pristine planet where antagonisms between humanoids and nature are easily resolved and amount to little; where nature is a benevolent terrestrial brain in love with her beautiful blue higher life forms; a pristine planet that resists, then allows humans of the more ordinary variety to assimilate and be absorbed, leaving their own imperfect bodies behind. The defeated humans leave, maintaining firm separation between planets, territories.
The indigenous Na’vi are genetically distinct from humans, their structures of empathy are so removed from those of humans, to understand them requires a thorough genetic transformation. There are no lasting, partial encounters. Is this symbolic of the West’s storied inability to accept other cultures, or is this a resurrection of race as an inherent property of bodies?
In contrast to these idealized amalgams of various ethnicities, the humans are divided. They develop and maintain various positions toward the Na’vi. Some remain committed to their genocidal interplanetary goals, whatever the cost. But some become traitors and identify with the oppressed to the point of becoming Nav’i themselves.
Does the film represent a cul de sac or a tipping point regarding popular Western thought about indigenous resistance? We’re willing to cheer on agents of the empire who take up arms against their own people–but for the sake of a pure race of beings whose society is free of contradictions. What if the oppressed are not aesthetically pleasing? What if they have practices we find uncomfortable, even after years of close contact? What if their relationship to the earth is no less fraught than ours? What if they are not willing for one of us to join and lead them?
Avatar has people talking about these things. And this should be celebrated, even if the film’s message is deeply conflicted.
0 Responses to “Review #10: Avatar”