Well I saw the movie Avatar this past Saturday night. And subsequent to having “experienced” it, I was involved in quite a thoughtful and very constructive — personally speaking — conversation. Discussing, both, the film’s flaws — animal issues, with which I have a specific concern with, and don’t fully agree — and its benefits — the fact that white people can better understand and relate to a white character, and thus begin to understand “colonial[/white] privilege, hegemony, etc.” — on Facebook.
As for the animal issues raised, I agree with the objections to the “domestication”/domination/ownership of the flying species the Na’vi used throughout the film is flawed, specifically with respect to the way they are “connected,” but I’ve issues with demonizing the hunting. While sad, of course, plus I’m not really sure how necessary hunting is to the Na’vi, given their seemingly “fruitful” environment, but condemning an indigenous people for living off the land, much the same away people in the Arctic currently, and for many a generation have survived, seems uncomfortably misplaced.
That said, my interpretation of the film is a bit different. Not better. Just different. While I agree with what one particular individual involved in our conversation said, it was very refreshing (even exciting) to see a disability cast in such a role, the main role, but something about Jake’s value as productive member of the team — only because he happened to be the twin of the intended original Avatar “driver” — didn’t sit right with me. An almost a least best scenario? Like “it’s this or nothing?” I understand it. But it still bothered me. And I’ll be the first to admit, it could be me being hyper-sensitive…