I don't agree with their take that Avatar is actually really good but I find analyzing films I've seen to try to construe a leftist point of view to be very entertaining. So I'd say that's a good enough reason itself, even if they mean it sincerely.
"it has to be bad so that it was popular" is weak special pleading. It's not a great film. Mostly an excuse to try out his new camera tech (which is legit impressive) and a boiler plate white savior/heroes journey plot, flavored with edgy "america is bad" iconography. I wouldn't consider the movie subversive, but I'm gonna rewatch it
Edit. To be fair, I saw it two or three times in theaters, but I'd say it's because it is a beautiful film
How is it inverted? Because it isn't uncommon that the white saviour is a military man that is sent to the periphery of Empire, meets the locals against the wishes of the top brass and then joins the "natives" as he is impressed by their noble yet savage ways and then ends up fighting for them.
Lawrence of Arabia and Dances with Wolves being the prime examples.
Been a while since I saw it, but doesn't he die and literally become one of the avatar blue people? I guess that could be like, he's renouncing his whiteness, since he's not white at the end of the movie, and his white body is discarded.
It's been years since I've seen the movie lol, and I didn't listen to the chapo episode
Yeah, that's the argument. I'd say an actual inversion is he doesn't get to be the big hero, because why would he? He's just some guy. He helps the natives both with his body and knowledge of the invading forces tech, but because he's just some dude that's been there a few months and is kinda useless otherwise. The movie makes him the best at all the local things, better than people doing it their entire lives, who've lived in their bodies their entire lives. And then he gets to be king, basically.
It's like 6/10 subversive of the trope, at best, imo
I don't agree with their take that Avatar is actually really good but I find analyzing films I've seen to try to construe a leftist point of view to be very entertaining. So I'd say that's a good enough reason itself, even if they mean it sincerely.
"it has to be bad so that it was popular" is weak special pleading. It's not a great film. Mostly an excuse to try out his new camera tech (which is legit impressive) and a boiler plate white savior/heroes journey plot, flavored with edgy "america is bad" iconography. I wouldn't consider the movie subversive, but I'm gonna rewatch it
Edit. To be fair, I saw it two or three times in theaters, but I'd say it's because it is a beautiful film
But the podcast episode referenced in this thread is about how it's an inverted white savior plot and that the whole point is that america is bad
How is it inverted? Because it isn't uncommon that the white saviour is a military man that is sent to the periphery of Empire, meets the locals against the wishes of the top brass and then joins the "natives" as he is impressed by their noble yet savage ways and then ends up fighting for them.
Lawrence of Arabia and Dances with Wolves being the prime examples.
Been a while since I saw it, but doesn't he die and literally become one of the avatar blue people? I guess that could be like, he's renouncing his whiteness, since he's not white at the end of the movie, and his white body is discarded.
It's been years since I've seen the movie lol, and I didn't listen to the chapo episode
Yeah, that's the argument. I'd say an actual inversion is he doesn't get to be the big hero, because why would he? He's just some guy. He helps the natives both with his body and knowledge of the invading forces tech, but because he's just some dude that's been there a few months and is kinda useless otherwise. The movie makes him the best at all the local things, better than people doing it their entire lives, who've lived in their bodies their entire lives. And then he gets to be king, basically.
It's like 6/10 subversive of the trope, at best, imo
deleted by creator