Case in point: James Cameron's new film, Avatar.
I'm a huge sci-fi/fantasy film buff. Almost every movie that has been made during the past 25 years that fell in this category, I've seen. My husband also enjoys many of these films, with our ultimate favorite being Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring trilogy. (We have watched all three extended versions too many times to count.) I also enjoyed The Matrix, The Island, Gattaca, anything Star Trek or Star Wars, and faithfully followed all of the Star Trek spin-offs for many years. (With the exception of Voyager. Janeway just got on my nerves.) I also loved Babylon 5.
So when I heard about Avatar and how long it took to create, with all the bells and whistles of a revolutionary filming method - I was excited. I found out about the film in October and couldn't wait until its release in December.
Then I started to learn more about the plot. It's a story not totally unknown to moviegoers. Disillusioned man meets honorable tribe. Man falls in love with tribal daughter of chief. Man realizes the dirtball kind of group he belongs to. Man renounces membership in such group, embraces the woman and joins the tribe. Dances With Wolves did it poetically and to an extent, Disney's animated Pocahontas.
However, Cameron used this film to vent his hatred toward the American military. In the film, there is a group of mercenaries who are ex-Marines. They wear uniforms and their leader is referred to as "Colonel." The group is assigned to planet Pandora to help mine a vital mineral that will bring energy to a dying Earth. The only problem is the native population, the Na'vi, aren't too keen on the plan. They're fierce warriors and in the words of the Colonel, "hard to kill."
The rest of the movie focuses on waging war on the Na'vi, who are portrayed as tribal nature-lovers who worship a mother-goddess called "Eywa." Jake Sully, a former-Marine who was disillusioned by fighting a previous war he didn't believe in, is sent in to help convince the Na'vi to just move aside and allow the Earthlings to harvest their mineral. Because the planet's air is un-breatheable, the Earth folk created an "avatar," inhabiting a body of a Na'vi by the thoughts of a human while the human is in a scientifically-induced unconscious state.
The problem is Cameron's vision for this film includes painting the American ex-Marines as "the bad guys" and the warring tribal Na'vi as the good guys. It astounded me when I read reviews that said the audiences were cheering the deaths of the ex-Marines. From Big Hollywood:
Okay, let’s grant Cameron this: Everyone’s entitled to his own definition of what is and is not anti-American. You can set the bar wherever you want. Why? Because thanks to the military Cameron smeared in his blockbuster where around the world, and maybe for the first time, audiences are wildly cheering the death of American Marines (NOTE to leftist hair-splitters: former Marines), this is a free country. As far as my personal definition of anti-Amer– wait.What? What did Cameron say…?What is this supposed to mean?“I’ve heard people say this film is un-American, while part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas,” Cameron said, prompting loud applause from a capacity crowd at the ArcLight Hollywood.Of course the audience applauded. Someone went after conservatives during an industry screening at the ArcLight. That’s the kind of environment where you could get a standing ovation while holding a puppy under water as long as you’re sticking it to the right. But what does this nonsense mean?“…part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas.”
The argument is that his film is stridently anti-American and savagely anti-military. But does he answer those charges? Does he explain away his artistic decision to have genocide-happy U.S. Marines (NOTE for leftist hair-splitters: former Marines) on behalf of an American corporation (come on Cameron apologists, it’s not like “Avatar” had a rainbow coalition of evildoers. I didn’t even hear an Australian accent) commit a terrorist atrocity against innocents?
But it’s worse than that…
These Marines are in uniform and you leftist hair-splitters who excuse Cameron’s trashing of our best and brightest because one line of exposition tells us they’re former Marines, had best remember that Quaritch, the top genocide-happy psycho, is referred to throughout the film as “Colonel” — and not because he’s selling chicken.
Ironically, Cameron isn't American. He's Canadian. Still, he couldn't seem to help himself from painting the military with a wide brush, marking them as selfish, brutal, and ruthless.
Read the excellent review of the film on Andrew Breitbart's "Big Hollywood" here. Cameron tried to say his movie wasn't "anti-American" but then says “As an artist, I felt a need to say something about what I saw around me.” Too bad he acted upon that need. What resulted was a full-on attack that claims America is just interested in stealing from other countries - supporting the liberal's belief that America is only motivated to enter into wars because of self-interest.
These idiots conveniently forget how many times our military has bravely laid down their lives for the freedom of others in the countries they served. They conveniently forget how many times our military worked tirelessly to build schools and strengthen communities. They conveniently forget these things for what I say is one reason: They don't have the mettle to do the same thing. They are cowards, comfortably sitting from their plush armchairs and casting judgement on others who dare to show courage and sacrifice.
If that's the game Cameron wants to play, fine. I saw Titantic and a few of his other films but I'm finished with him. I'm finding myself perusing the classics at Netflix more and more. Give me the 1953 War of the Worlds, any day.