{"id":1199,"date":"2010-02-15T23:32:30","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T04:32:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2010\/02\/15\/avatars-global-affects\/"},"modified":"2021-06-12T07:14:57","modified_gmt":"2021-06-12T12:14:57","slug":"avatars-global-affects","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2010\/02\/15\/avatars-global-affects\/","title":{"rendered":"Avatar’s global affects"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Protesters-dressed-as-cha-002.jpg\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Palestinian activists go Na’vi<\/em><\/p>\n

(Note: After a query from an editor friend, who is unfamiliar with recent research on affect, I’ve decided I should preface this post by saying that no, I <\/em>don’t<\/em> mean “effects” with an “e,” but “affects<\/a>,” accent on the “a.”)<\/p>\n

It’s been fascinating to watch the unfolding public conversation about Avatar (much of which, come to think of it, my early review<\/a> had anticipated): environmentalist celebrations of how it portrays the Earth rising up against the megamachine of capitalism and patriarchy; critiques of how the film perpetuates the stereotyping of indigenous people and reiterates tropes of their salvation by white male messiah figures; the Vatican’s and religious right’s denunciations of its pantheism<\/a>; the film’s advance of technological wizardry into the domain of a virtual hyperreality, like The Matrix but replacing that film’s gnosticism with a pantheistic new age science of networks and neural systems; and debates over the balance struck in the film between good spectacle (the high-tech stuff) and bad narrative (poor writing, flat characterization, stereotypes all over), or between bad spectacle (Spielbergian gee-whiz stuff) and good narrative (such as the film’s allegorization of global capitalism’s destruction of indigenous communities<\/a>). Film Studies for Free<\/a> has usefully summarized the various allegorical readings of the film proposed so far, many of which get articulated in conversations and comments by viewers in various blogs<\/a>, op-ed commentaries, and social networking sites.<\/p>\n

The religious debate<\/a> has been interesting in part because of the negative reactions that have greeted some of the conservative commentators like Ross Douthat<\/a> and others<\/a> who lament the film’s pantheistic nature spirituality and its associated “anti-Americansim” and “anti-humanism”<\/a>. In his New York Times op-ed, Douthat wrote that “the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.” About 90% of his 146 commenters disagree, sometimes vehemently, with his assessment, generally by sympathizing with the film’s pantheism and seeing in it either something deeply American (in Transcendentalism’s line of descent), much more broadly religious (such as “panentheism” or some mixture of animism and stewardship), or just eco-pragmatically commen-sensical. And while some of the Christian movie sites that typically like to bash Hollywood liberalism do trash<\/a> Avatar, others (reviewers and commenters alike) are surprisingly positive<\/a> about the film. Defenders can also be found among more sophisticated conservatives, like the localist Front Porch Republic<\/a>, and even the libertarian Cato Institute<\/a> has defended it as an argument on behalf of property rights<\/a>, the very foundation of capitalism.<\/p>\n

What’s more surprising and interesting about the film, however, is how it’s not only breaking box office records around the world, but also may be setting off waves of emotional contagion in its wake — from spurring the launch of numerous fan groups<\/a> and blogs to providing encouragement and fuel for environmental and indigenous activists as widely dispersed as South America, South and East Asia, and Palestine<\/a> (portrayed above), to creating something that’s been called “post-Avatar depression<\/a>.” But let’s start with the politics.<\/p>\n