AVATAR, Anarchy, Narrative and Perception

Avatar!!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Maybe I’m lucky in that I’m not around a lot of people, so I don’t hear the kind of stuff you have. To call Thelma and Louise a “male-bashing” movie is to laugh, in MY opinion. And yes, the ambiguity of Dead Man Walking was a perfect example of there not BEING a hero, and even there being a question of who’s the protagonist, Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon? Most people would say Robbins, but I’m kinda on the fence.

---

You're meaning Sean Penn here, not Tim Robbins, yes?

Yes. They were both such thoroughly realized characters. Trying to decide which of them was "the real hero" seems such an empty exercise, don'it? Narratively, structurally, I'd say the prisoner perhaps has the more extensive character arc, but the nun also changed deeply over the course of the story--though her transformation was perhaps smoother as the kind of spiritual growth she experienced was something she was seeking all along, whereas, the criminal's transformation was unlooked for and therefore, more "dramatic." Interesting how violence of one kind or another--even if it's only the spiritually "violent" shifting in a man's character--can tip the scales, from a story point of view, to making that character "more important," or "more heroic" than the person who experiences "less conflict" or at least is better prepared to handle the shifts and changes.

Similarly, Lt. Dunbar in Dances and Jake Sully in AVATAR have the more "dramatic" transformations, the more extensive character arcs than the indigenous cultures that embrace them.

I don't see that as a problem, fundamentally. On the deepest level, all stories seem to be "about" conflict and "trouble" more than harmony and ease--but that makes sense as art is, in its most fundamental nature IMO, a modality of healing.

Quote:

---

As to Dances, I’m afraid I see it with a much broader view, in that I appreciate not just the movie and story, but the acting, directing, and all the stuff that goes into “making” a movie. I saw some wonderful camera work, I thought Mary McDonnel did a magnificent job and presented a character we don’t often see in movies. I see all the obviousness of it, but I still appreciate it for its own sake and can let Costner be. I happen to be very anti-Costner, and anti that nutbag Tom Cruise to the extent that I never saw Last Samurai. There are some people I just can’t get past enough to enjoy the movie. Costner is one NOW, too, but I enjoyed his performances for a few years, up until that Waterworld idiocy, and then his politics. Put those together with his ego, and I don’t want to see him anymore. Just my prejudice against some movie stars (some of which have no talent to speak of anyway).

---

Yeah, I'm kinda having a real problem with George Clooney these days, owing to a story I heard from a friend of mine who's li'l brother works in Vegas. Seems Clooney rather violently groped and pretty much dry-humped this waitress on security camera and when the Hotel management got wind of things, they ended up firing the waitress when she wanted to press charges.

Kinda takes all the "charming" out of the guy, y'know? So every time I see him in the Up in the Air ad on tv these days, I just kinda cringe and don't look. I think he's a gifted actor and all, it's just the guy himself bothers me now, and I want him to seek some help rather than continue doing this kinda shit to random hotel employees around the globe.

Quote:

---

I’m glad to hear that—I heard all the stuff about it being a romantic portrayal of the Indians, I didn’t hear a lot about Costner being considered a “hero” At the time I thought Dances was interesting in that it gave us a different view of Native Americans, and I still appreciate it for that…tho’ the obviousness was a put-off, admittedly. I just compared it to a reverse of John Wayne in that the sympathy was completely with the Indians and against the White men, reversal of what we had for decades.

---

Yeah, I don't know that this "mighty whitey" thing was applied to Danc

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Oh, Cavalier, that was just plain beautiful! How articulate, and what a pleasure to read. Okay, I'll stop now.

By saying "everything is subjective", I don't mean it's WRONG to be subjective, it's just that I believe virtually everything we think is colored by our own personal experience, childhood messages, observations, likes and dislikes, etc. I don't find it wrong, just that it "is".

Oops, yes, Sean Penn. Duhhh...And ditto Clooney. I liked the way Hugh Grant dealt with his "indiscretion", that he took complete responsibility for it and then laughed at himself. I THINK it may be a fair representation of who the man himself is. I'm not fond of those who get big egos and think theirs is the only way to believe, a la Tom and Kevin.

Quote:

---

there are matters of taste that come from deep inarticulate places in us that respond to art. And much of the time, that's as far as anyone need take it. Anyone can appreciate art, with or without bringing a lot of critical thinking to bear, or having a thorough background in critical theory.

---

Very well said, and what I was trying to say.

Quote:

---

But to say that "everything is subjective" takes us to a place where all argument is pointless and every opinion is "valid."

---

Not at all, in my book. I believe that ever opinion IS valid--sometimes misguided maybe. But it's like we say in the mental health community: "ANY thoughts are valid; it's what you do with them that counts." To me, all opinions are valid to the person, and it definitely doesn't make argument pointless--by sharing those opinions, we help others see things beyond THEIR own subjectivitym and equally we can learn to see things outside OUR own subjectivity.

Quote:

---

To blame a work of art for showing us these realities is to advocate censorship and enthrone propaganda as the only real purpose of art.

---

Ahh, but you see, the people who seriously condemn a work of art or a film or something DO want censorship--they want whatever they are criticizing to be ignored, changed, or censored. That's usually the effect of most dogged and serious complaints about stuff.

I agree with what you said about worship, and what you said about disagreements here; I think DEBATES are fascinating, but when it degenerates into calling names, yes, I think it's as you said.

All in all, thank YOU for a very clear, concise post making good points. Those are treasures, to me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME