Speaking as a scientist, I find this sort of thing endlessly fascinating.
For 52 years now, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged has stood alone as the
shining example of political allegory. Rand's novel has long been
considered to be essential reading for American individualists and
advocates of free markets. The American left on the other hand has not
had a work of fiction that definitively embodies their worldview.
Avatar might just fill that void. While the two stories are powerful,
their messages are diametrically opposed.
Where to begin. Perhaps with the concession that while I have not seen Avatar, nor plan to see it, because it looks stupid, boring, and goofy, I do not remotely doubt that it is at least every iota as excellent as Atlas Shrugged, which I have, in fact, read, except for the dreadfully tedious speech bit, which of course I skipped, because of how stupid and boring and goofy it is, even relative to the rest of the novel Atlas Shrugged, which is pretty damn stupid and boring and goofy.
Which brings us to the contention that "the American left on the other hand has not
had a work of fiction that definitively embodies their worldview." Great Sinclair's Ghost! Years of spelunking cesspits like Townhall had given me to know that, for a 100% True Real Fact, the Left ruthlessly imposes its World-View on ALL Media products, fiction or nonfiction, broadcast or print, haiku or semaphore. So... wow! Us Reds have not seized the Hollyweird Heights, nor infested the corrupt East-Coastal enclaves of the Effete Literati after all...?
Bummer. Thank Moloch that Berube's vicious coup went off so clockworkly, or else we might not even have the freakin' Modern Language Association anymore. I mean, Christ, what could we lose next? Broadway? Steelworkers? The mind, wobbles.
Rand and Cameron hold up their protagonists as paragons of virtue and
rely heavily on archetypes to get their point across. While these
archetypes cause the characters to be somewhat wooden, they are very
romantic, making them very attractive to audiences.
Especially audiences who like fucking wood. Keep these people away from The Naughty Pinocchio.
But I kid. Hey, I get the point -- Rand and Cameron both make the bold decision to center their work on hackneyed preexisting narrative concepts of what constitutes a "hero," and they are the only two people to ever do this ever, except for maybe the people behind "Twinky the Kid."
Rand’s ideals are represented primarily by three characters, inventor
John Galt, Railroad mogul Dagney Taggart, and Steel baron Hank Reardon.
Cameron’s ideals are embodied by the blue skinned alien race, the Na’vi.
It's "Dagny Taggart," fuckface.
Rand’s protagonists find their virtue in their individuality. Galt,
Taggart, and Reardon are all champions of industry, drawing their
strength from their dedication to their respective crafts. Each
character is an industrial revolutionary of sorts, with their
groundbreaking ideas and creations going largely unappreciated in a
society that is rapidly collectivizing. Their strict adherence to an
individualist moral code drives them to actualize their ambitions in
the forms of innovations that improve everyone’s quality of life,
despite the collective’s efforts to handcuff them.
If in your utopia you effectualize the verb "actualize," includeize me outwardsly.
Cameron’s protagonists on the other hand find their virtue in their
collective identity. The tribal Na’vi are portrayed as an idyllic
collective with a distinct lack of individuality. Members of the tribe
have little character of their own and are accurately described as a
sea of blue.
THOSE TINY BLUE FUCKERS. I hope Gargamel chaps their collectivist asses!
Cameron exalts the primitivism of the Na’vi. Unlike Galt, Taggart, and
Reardon, who seek to physically transform the world around them for the
better, the Na’vi merely subside off the land. Their existence is
static, unchanged since the days of their ancestors. Meanwhile,
according to Cameron, mankind’s industrial pursuit is purely
exploitative. Giovanni Rabisi’s character Parker is a heartless and
one-dimensional hack for an unnamed earth based company seeking to mine
a highly coveted element called Unobtainium. His obsession with
material wealth seems to blind him and drive him to commit atrocities.
This theme is the classic condemnation of capitalism; that wealth
created not through innovation as Rand seems to suggest, but rather
through exploitation.
If you look closely at the history of the Western Nations' encounters with everyone else, I suppose, sure, "innovation" may be one of the words that springs to mind, just as when one reads a Townhall column, one may immediately say to oneself, "gosh, they sure do have fantastic editors over there. I'm sure they are just saving up those missing verbs for a rainy day, just like Dinky Tavert would."
There’s one place where Cameron fails to hold a candle to Rand and
that’s in originality. While Rand’s characters were illustrations of a
moral system of her own creation, Cameron’s are mostly well worn
clichés.
Those who live in clichéd houses should not hold candles. Or so you'd think.
Much of Avatar has an odor of recycled material to it (and not in the
green sense.) For example Neytiri, the Na’vi love interest of the main
protagonist and the Na’vi character with the most depth, fails to offer
viewers anything they haven’t seen before. Her relationship with
turncoat marine Jake Sully is a love story that can be found in the
vast majority of today’s romantic comedies.
A lowercase marine fucks a blue chick. BO-RING. But this sounds juicy, gossip wise:
Even Cameron’s casting
choices seem uninspired and obvious; a veteran Native American actor as
the Na’vi tribe’s proud patriarch; an African American woman as tribe’s
soulful spiritual leader. It would be safe to say that Cameron’s
casting couch didn’t get too much of a workout during Avatar’s
pre-production.
Uh, come again...?
It would be safe to say that Cameron’s
casting couch didn’t get too much of a workout during Avatar’s
pre-production.
!
One would struggle to find two world views that are more opposite than
those of Ayn Rand and James Cameron, but both have found success in
crafting stories with very little moral ambiguity. In the end, Atlas
Shrugged is a story of the triumph of the individual over the
collective, while Avatar is an amalgamation of Hollywood and the
liberal left’s collectivist political fetishes. While both works will
undoubtedly delight those who are predisposed to their respective
ideological tenants, it remains to be seen whether or not Cameron’s
Avatar will hold up to the test of time as Rand’s masterpiece has.
Indeed. Predicting the future opinions of semi-literate ignoramuses is far too difficult for me to attempt. I am astonished enough about the ideological tenants of the present -- will they ever get back their intellectual deposits, or even find sweet re-lease from History's Landlord?
Heck, I'm even so wackily confused, I suspect that with Rand and Cameron, we're just served up different incoherent flavors of ideological mishmash meant to satisfy an all too easily gratified cultural palate. Yum!
Anyone seen Pelosi?