EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The 2003 Oscars: Where Michael Moore Dared ...
Michael Moore was booed when he denounced the Iraq war at the 2003 Oscars. This year, Kathryn Bigelow played it safe
At this year's Oscars, Kathryn Bigelow won best director and her film, Hurt Locker, won best picture despite criticisms from veterans that it failed to take into account much of the daily life of the men and women serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and criticisms that the film itself was as pro-war as it was pro-soldier. Although Bigelow dedicated her award to the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, she didn't touch on the lies that sent them there to risk their lives in pursuit of a political coup.
Back in 2003, Michael Moore strode upon the Oscar stage to accept his award for Bowling For Columbine with his fellow nominees and one intention: to make his voice heard by the Oscar audience about the injustices he saw in America. At the Oscars on 23 March 2003, Bush hadn't landed on an aircraft carrier to declare "mission accomplished" even as soldiers were still fighting and dying in Iraq; America with her "coalition of the willing" had only just begun the invasion of Iraq on 20 March. Despite the prevailing sense of national patriotism and efforts by the administration to encourage the media to report their "intelligence", there were already whispers - since proven correct - that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, he had no access to nuclear materials or technology and his administration had no contact with al-Qaida. None of that mattered to a country at war, apparently.
But it mattered to Moore, and his fellow nominees. As he took the stage to a standing ovation from the audience for a film that documented and condemned America's violence-soaked gun culture, he did so with one purpose: to make himself heard. Instead of thanking a long list of people few in the television audience knew, he spoke to them as much as the audience he could see.
"I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us and we would like to ... they are here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction. We like non-fiction, as we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or fiction of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much."
As Moore declared the results of the 2000 elections "fictitious", a few members of the audience yelled in assent, but they were quickly shut down by the assembled members of the Hollywood elite booing Moore - many of whom had just sat down from applauding his award. Ironically, Moore's industry colleagues thought he deserved an award for a movie that attacked America's obsession with guns but then booed his stance on the president's orders to turn our beloved guns against a country that our "fictitious" administration knew only a long, sustained campaign of misinformation would lead people to support.
This year at the Oscars, Michael Moore wasn't among the nominees, and since his speech in 2003, many winners have taken the stage to denounce the Bush administration and its policies on everything from the environment to the wars without fear of being booed down. But then, a patriot, he stood up and denounced to jeers and opprobrium that which the rest of the country finally realised was true: that the previous administration led us into a war on false pretences, lied to us about what they were doing there, and continues to lie to us in order to keep their entry in the history books untarnished.
So Bigelow kept quiet, maybe because, for all the rightwing carping about how Hollywood is so anti-war, when push came to shove in 2003, there were very few in Hollywood willing to stand in solidarity with Moore instead of the Bush administration.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
110 Comments so far
Show AllLet the chorus of "Moore isn't radical enough, he just doesn't get it" begin.
Sometimes I wonder at you folks who, rather than affirming and building on your fellow progressives, always relish tearing them down.
I agree with that completely.
Many of these 'purist' progressives just get off on presenting themselves as more catholic than the pope.
If anyone thinks Michael Moore is the problem, they're nutz.
Some of us progressives live without a check list of what to appreciate and what to criticize.
Of course, no one is "beyond criticism."
Can you list the weakness in Moore's political views?
I consider myself a progressive, but even that is a weak choice of words to describe my own political position. And while I disagree with Moore's support for the Dems, just like Kucinich, I understand it. I think there's room for people like Moore and Kucinich, just as there is room for Nader and others of a much less malleable mindset. While I don't think the Dems are salvagable, I have no hard feelings for people who think it better to fix a broken system than to dismantle it and rebuild from scratch. As for Moore, I think he's a national treasure just by providing a national platform for the the important issues. And he actually says the things I want said, and often he says them just as I would have.
"Can you list the weakness in Moore's political views?"
Like I said above, he manipulates the facts to suit his worldview, and ignores/hides facts that contradict it.Another example: he likes to play up the ignorance of AMericanas, and once while on Democracy Now he claimed that no one on the staff could name the Canadian prime minister. Seconds later several people chimed in with the correct answer. This may be like blasphemy to some, but Moore has an almost REaganesque gift for overgeneralizing and painting in broad strokes. He would be a terrible politician.
Yep, that appears to be the trend around here. A bunch of very angry self-proclaimed "progressives" who lash out in every direction in their frustrations. Moore is an ally and a very good one at that. The right wing is always on his case and people around here should be standing with him, not against him (faults and all).
Cheers.
The criticism has a carefully thought-out purpose. You seem to forget that Count Dracula (euphemism for the elite establishment) has most USans under his spell. So we on the far-left take every opportunity to criticize the Count, and his defenders, and his various defenses. When USans wake up from the spell, then the criticism will wane.
It's not that Moore isn't "radical enough," it's that he's a blowhard. He sees everything in one way, and he manipulates his audiences shamelessly.
Take Bowling For Columbine. Most people think of it as a standard treatise on gun control. However, he doesn't actually talk that much about gun control. Instead, he claims that it's the USA's violent culture that makes people kill each other. In effect, he's no different from the demagogues on the right, except that he blames the military industrial complex rather than Marilyn Manson.
Moore portrays Canada as being just as "gun-loving" as the USA, and determines that it must be Canada's "caring environment" that keeps people from killing each other. Well, first of all, there *have* been mass shootings quite similar to Columbine in Canada, and second of all, Canada *does* have stricter gun control laws than the USA. While it's true that Canada has per capita as many rifles and shotguns as the USA, there are virtually no legal handguns.
these are subtle points, which Moore would probably dismiss as "nitpicking." But they point to a tendency to treat things as black-and-white just as assuredly as Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.
I agree with your take on this year's award and Bigelow's comment.
As for your last question: Yes. Das Boot-- a terrific movie that is only about the experiences of German sailors aboard a submarine. I've seen it three times, I think. The difference perhaps is it was made 30 years after the war ended. There was no moral point to be made about who was right or wrong in the war, or why it was fought. Since the Iraq war is still going on it is somewhat more problematic to gloss over those issues.
Excellent point. Frankly, I can't watch movies made about Iraq or Afghanistan, or TV shows -- I believe HBO has a series on Iraq. My son found this curious, and asked me about it, since I had watched Oliver Stone's "Heaven and Earth" the night before. I said I watched it because A) Vietnam is long over and B) of the entire Stone trilogy this movie showed not only the damage to the soldiers, but also to the people Vietnam.
"Heaven and Earth" is one of the most underappreciated films in recent history.
q
Along with "Das Boot," I think that the 1993 German film "Stalingrad" fits the bill.
Rich M.,
In early February, John Pilger wrote a terrific essay titled, 'Why the Oscars are a Con,' which echoes the excellent points you make regarding The Hurt Locker and other war movies, which consistently paint Americans as the victims of their own wars of aggression. The complete essay can be viewed here: www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=566.
Regarding The Hurt Locker, Pilger states in part:
"...what Hollywood does brilliantly is suppress the truth about America’s assaults. These are not wars, but the export of a gun-addicted, homicidal “culture”. And when the notion of psychopaths as heroes wears thin, the bloodbath becomes an “American tragedy” with a soundtrack of pure angst.
Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker is in this tradition. A favourite for multiple Oscars, her film is “better than any documentary I’ve seen on the Iraq war. It’s so real it’s scary” (Paul Chambers CNN). Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian reckons it has “unpretentious clarity” and is “about the long and painful endgame in Iraq” that “says more about the agony and wrong and tragedy of war than all those earnest well-meaning movies”.
What nonsense. Her film offers a vicarious thrill via yet another standard-issue psychopath high on violence in somebody else’s country where the deaths of a million people are consigned to cinematic oblivion. The hype around Bigelow is that she may be the first female director to win an Oscar. How insulting that a woman is celebrated for a typically violent all-male war movie."
"How insulting that a woman is celebrated for a typically violent all-male war movie."
But that's the type of movies she makes. Most of her previous movies have been action movies with male protagonists (one exception being Blue Steel with Jamie Lee Curtis). I think it's more insulting to suggest that a woman should only do "chick flicks."
Pax:
"I think it's more insulting to suggest that a woman should only do "chick flicks."--Pax
John Pilger, the journalist I was quoting, never made such a suggestion and neither did I.
Well, how would you interpret "how insulting that a woman made this movie?" Why should it matter more that a woman made it?
pax-I think it makes it especially tragic since women often bear the brunt of wars more than men do.
Sioux Rose
Your sexism is showing! An anti-war film that made raw conflict its subject is not exactly fitting to the genre of "chick flick." I think your answer is a deliberate diversion to the real issues involved. This film was soft propaganda. Bottom line.
No, the movie was a war movie, bottom line. But Bigelow is a director who has made apolitical action movies before, and made them well. Why is it more insulting that she's a woman? Why should a woman be considered automatically more "sensitive" to such issues?
Sioux Rose
GIOVANNA/RICH M: Excellent posts.
Rich, if I believed as the Buddhists do, that reincarnation can involve the return to embodiment in other species... then it would be logical to conclude (in the Buddhist tradition) that had you lived before as an animal, you probably would have been one of the canaries taken into the coal mine shafts. There are a number of very intelligent posters in this forum, but I nominate you for having the most acute bull shit (as in poison vapors expressing) detector of all!
Very perceptive, as always. Though I might quibble with one point. When Bigelow says the soldiers are "there for us" I don't think many Americans (what? 3%?) see any contradiction between that and the fact that they're there "to secure the oil; to strengthen US control over those regions & to crush resistance to US domination. They are there to prop up US puppet governments, to establish & operate permanent US bases in the region, & to prevent rival great powers from getting a foothold in the region."
Most Americans are so brainwashed that these reasons for the US military being in Iraq exactly coincide with their being "there for us." So if it's patiently explained that we're there to essentially seize Iraq's resources for the sake of our oil companies and their support network of corporations, most Americans will understand that as being "there for us." Any violence that serves the corporate state is translated into benefitting the American public. That's how powerful corporate brainwashing has been for 50 years.
Yes, I remember a slogan on a sign at one of the huge antiwar marches in 2003 just before the Iraq war was launched: "What's our oil doing under their sand?" Even though that sign was facetious, a lot of Americans almost literally think that way.
That always reminds me of the connection between pushing hemp production out of existence about 80 years ago and our modern resource wars for oil. The sooner oil runs out, the sooner to road to hemp and algae for oil all grown in the country will be allowed. If people knew about the industrial benefits of hemp and connected it to Iraq and Saudi Arabia, this country would be different by now.
I have always been a huge supporter of Michael Moore since I saw his first film Roger and Me. Very few times in history does a human being put others ahead of themselves and in Moores case puts an entire society interest ahead of his personal interest. Dr King, Mandella, Ghandi, Che, amongst others. I believe that we have a chance at redemption by nominating and electing Moore as our next president. Hopefully, he will run, the time for true change is now and Moore is the perfect candidate lets not let this moment pass. Moore for President 2012.
"It was very much in his own interest to do what he did."
Please explain just how it was in Moore's "own interest" to make the speech that he gave.
At the time, the American people were solidly behind Bush and Cheney and everyone who criticized the war was being marginalized and demonized. What Moore did took a lot of courage. He confronted the ignorance and apathy of his peers and suffered their opprobrium. He's probably missed out on more awards because of that stance.
"Obviously his only claim to fame is that he did those movies."
Well, he's a filmmaker. What else would his fame be based on? In 1964, you could have said virtually the same thing about Reagan.
And why is fame a prerequisite for a political career?
q
Moore running for president in 2012 would only assure a Sarah Palin victory. Like him or not, we're stuck with Obama until 2016.
In any case, Moore would be a HORRIBLE president. His tendency to speak without thinking, to overgeneralize, to see everything in black-and-white terms, would make him a left equivalent of Reagan or either Bush. I'll pass.
For sure you are stuck with him until 2012, but 2016 may be overly optimistic on the part of his supporters.
Well, 2016 would be the end of his second term. My point being that challenging a sitting president usually hands the election to the opposing party. So... Palin 2012. Simple as that.
"I believe that we have a chance at redemption by nominating and electing Moore as our next president"
M. Moore would make a fine thronesquatter at this point in time. He would not abandon his Follywood friends, and he would not abandon the Demok party, but he would create a GREAT wave and truly upset the status quo. While he would not bury every elite six feet under as they deserve, he would put at least half of them out. Compared to our current trajectory, THAT IS PROGRESS.
MM is a brilliant artist and a genuine patriot. His reluctance to relinquish hope for the dems is frustrating because he has the ability to bring so many along with him when he sees the light.
Come on, Michael, take that one last leap to the left. Help us create real change.
America is much more right wing today then in 2003 and now there is this terrible bipartisan approval of all soldiers even when they are engaged in an immoral and imperialistic war of empire in Iraq. So you have liberals swooning over what they lovingly call 'our heros.'
Where do you get your data that America is more right wing now than in 2003? Or is that just your opinion? Remember all the yellow ribbons and American flag yard signs that popped up in 2003? Millions and millions of people blindly approved of the war. On the other hand, I've seen lots of recent polls that show, for example, that a majority of Americans would prefer a government-run health insurance program, even if it meant paying more taxes. That doesn't sound very right wing. I think some people have the mistaken impression Americans are more right wing because the MEDIA are turning more right wing. (And having a black president brings a lot of vociferous nutcases out of the closet.) But that doesn't mean the PEOPLE are, overall.
I think that it's a mistake to read too much into Bigelow's success. After all, there were ten films nominated for best picture and any film could have won with a fairly small plurality.
Secondly, a lot of Bigelow's support for Best Director may have been a reaction against the technology that her ex-husband Cameron employed in 'Avatar." That technology basically reduces actors to props.
It's Hollywood folks, not the real world.
q
"The film industry is an incredibly influential shaper of public attitudes. Giving top honors to an essentially pro-war movie is Hollywood's way of demonstrating support for US foreign policy."
You're giving the Oscar voters credit for much more intelligence and sensitivity than they deserve. When you look at how easily they have been manipulated in past campaigns (Denzel Washington for 'Hurricane," for example) then you realize that they are hardly the most politically astute bunch. Hollywood, in its own way, is as incestuous and inbred as Washington.
"To claim one "shouldn't read too much into Bigelow's success" is to claim that the propaganda we see on the nightly news isn't really all that important, & we shouldn't really get all hot & bothered about it."
That statement is so ridiculous as to defy response. The two situations have no linkage whatsoever.
"BTW, it's quite possible that 'Avatar' was passed over for top honors because of right-wing objections to its portrayal of the brutalizing of Pandora, which bears obvious resemblance to US invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan."
Anything is possible but there is no evidence of such widespread sentiment among the Academy voters. You could just as easily claim that the objections of the Christian Right - due to the film's clearly non-Christian point of view - was responsible.
As for the extent of the influence of "The Hurt Locker," it has earned only a little over $20 million.
q
While there is and always has been a right-wing element in Hollywood, it's a big stretch to call Hollywood and the US military allies. Studios want - and need - to make lots of money. They'll exploit whatever the general moving-going populace wants to watch.
Did you even see "The Hurt Locker"? It cannot fairly be called a pro-war film - unless you fall back on some absurd piece of ignorance such as "All war films are pro-war.".
q
"...it's a big stretch to call Hollywood and the US military allies...."
I'll not comment on today's situation, but the military and Hollywood were best buddies during WWII, when the US military discovered that Hollywood was a wonderful medium for dispensing propaganda. That relationship has today been extended to cover TV and cable.
"All war films are pro-war."
I contend that is a true statement. Fiction movies have a strong element of characterization, and that characterization forms an emotive bond between viewer, and the framing of the movie. Through dialog and carefully directed action, the director has a powerful control over the audience. Having said that, I truthfully do not recall a war movie that has not asked the audience to be sympathetic to not only the actors, but the reasons WHY they are fighting.
I believe the reason why this is so is because all war movies paint conflict as us versus them, good versus bad bad, day versus night. Even before the titles roll at the beginning, this basic premise makes the movie pro-war.
There have been a gazillion war movies produced. Certainly every war movie made through to the 1970s were vehemently pro-war, as often they were made with cooperation of the military and starring such pro-war luminaries such as John Wayne. It was not until "The Deer Hunter" that things became muddied, but still, even in that movie, the reasons for the Vietnam War was never questioned. Ditto "Born on the 4th of July", "Full-Metal Jacket" and "Saving Private Ryan".
I'm not a war-film fan (but I do know sci-fi), so perhaps a student of this vernacular can enlighten me if I am wrong.
WTF
Your belief that Hollywood and the U.S. military have always been intertwined is most accurately backed up by a most informative book entitled The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture [2007] by Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard. Also, the claim by a commenter that The Hurt Locker is not a pro-war film is very much weakened when the director of The Hurt Locker dedicates her film to the soldiers. Those soldiers, which she admires so much, are part, as Boggs and Pollard would agree, of a war machine which have brutalized, terrorized and illegally occupied not one but two countries for almost ten years. Perhaps one should be grateful for the fact that Ms. Bigelow did not decide to dedicate her film to those Afghans and Iraqis who have died at the hands of those soldiers whom Ms. Bigelow believes merits so much respect and attention.
I agree with your point generally, WTF.
I also think that a subliminal pro-war message was preserved even after film and cable-TV projects moved beyond the dimwitted jingoism of the John Wayne ("The Green Berets") era.
With the help of technological innovations, filmmakers became able to depict military operations more realistically-- if "realistic" can include novel special effects, e.g. following the path of an individual bullet in slow-motion and blood & guts that look more like actual blood & guts instead of the conventional fake Hollywood gore.
But for all of this improved "realism", which of course is still the same old fake-ism with improved production values and capabilities, movies involving war just shifted its ostensible redeeming qualities to other areas.
For instance, "Saving Private Ryan" and the critically-acclaimed "Band of Brothers" played on the personal sacrifice and (mostly male) bonding that occurs in theaters of war. IMO, the producers are mining the "noblest" of the addictive qualities of war described by Chris Hedges in his horribly-titled "War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning".
This latter-day technical realism and increased sophistication purports to show a truer picture of war as hell-- but it still manipulates viewers with sentiment and appeals to nostalgia that make war still seem somehow glamorous and grand. And always acceptable, because of the circular dictum that it is inevitable.
As in "The Sopranos", whatever repugnance or disapprobation the viewer may feel about the dirty business fundamental to the story is eclipsed by fascination for complex plot lines and "character development"-- the amoral core of almost ALL the characters, and the amoral core of the producer that exploits this admittedly rich and tempting motherlode of drama, is simply accepted and taken for granted because it makes for compelling entertainment.
Like the incomparable Edwin Starr, I heartily concur that the answer to "War! What is it good for?" is indeed, "ab-so-lute-ly NOTHING!" But the Oscars could easily stage a version in which the answer is, "the MOO-vies!"
One may argue the purity or emphasis of "antiwar" messages, and what constitutes a "true" antiwar work. But even whimsical comedies like the classic "The King of Hearts", and even the farcical "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" are arguably antiwar movies.
I find myself hearkening back to comedies from a time I actually went to the movies a lot. Ironically, I'm a fan of Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, but thought its supposed antiwar message framed as the ABSURDITY of war was seriously weakened by the episodic narrative of a bunch of red-blooded pranksters having tons of fun between gory work shifts.
I wasn't surprised afterwards to find out the the former MASH surgeon who wrote the book that inspired the film wasn't "antiwar" at all, and didn't particularly appreciate the superficial antiwar spin. To the dismay of family and many friends at the time, I hated the TV series, which lacked even the pretense of being antiwar.
BTW, although it's been many, many moons since I last watched it, I'm pretty sure that Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" echoes the Edwin Starr sentiment without tacking on a "positive face" or redeeming qualities to senseless slaughter.
And now, let's go out to the lobby, let's go out to the lobby, let's go out to the lobby and get ourselves some snacks!
Sioux Rose
OS: Truly excellent, well-crafted post. If you were a student in one of my former English classes, this "essay" would have gotten you an A+ and a gold star.
I'm surprised I wasn't hauled to the mat earlier with films such a MASH.
Nevertheless, I will argue that even MASH was pro-war. I never said war films hide the true horror of war from us; we see that in many films such as Private Ryan and Das Boot. However, even in MASH, we see/hear that Americans are in the good war, fighting oppression, and saving the locals. How often do we see MASH's surgeons tenderly caring for the abused-by-communists locals?
So we get the message: Yes, war is Hell. Yes, Americans fight the good war for global security and peace. Yes, Americans risk their lives to bring liberty even to local children and their pets.
Ever seen a war film that posits: Yes, war is Hell. Yes, Americans fight because it is a national priority. Yes, Americans risk their lives to enrich corporate pockets at home. Yes, most Americans support war.
The Anti-War lobby has been tarred and feathered these past 9 years. Any murmur against the wars/occupations is deemed unpatriotic, supporters are apologists, not supporting the troops, is an act of terrorism, etc, etc, etc. It is highly unlikely that Hollywood would ever produce an anti-war film against this backdrop.
It is not until we see films that do not involve US military forces that real anti-war messages come blasting through. A recent example of such is "Blood Diamonds".
Hollywood glamorizes and sells violence. This is what Hollywood does.
Sioux Rose
WTF: Hollywood also gets paid to design some of the video "games" used by soldiers in learning the "art" of the drone-kill, etc.
In the l970's some anti-war films showed up like Z, Catch-22, and a little later Oliver Stone's Platoon. Not all of them are pro-war.
Harper's ran a story that beginning in l947 money was allotted to writers and artists willing to wed an anti-communist theme into their literary works. I am quite sure with the military cannibalizing too much of our national budget today, money is covertly heading back to Hollywood and those writers willing to create doubt about global warming, or turn the commies into the terrorists or vice versa.
More thoughtful films questioning "the establishment" were in vogue in the l970's. Even "All In The Family," the type of show that's NEEDED today, contrasted the anti-war views of the unemployed long-hair son-in-law, with the knee jerk conservative "values" of Archie. Often through the mirror that fiction holds up people can locate and realize things about themselves they would be too defensive to face (or own) through any other medium. It is the fountain into which Narcissus can look and discover something new about himself. IF it's used for higher purposes... as opposed to its preferred use, propaganda, overt as well as covert.
Exactly ....
the Technology in Avatar is used as an EXCUSE to hide the fact that it was "avoided" and to be presented only as a "commercial success due to its TECHNOLOGY but comic-book story" ....
and avoided BECAUSE behind its technology and story
WAS the TRUE story and morality tale -- EMPIRE is NOT a wonderful thing, ESPECIALLY for those being victimized.
and TODAY's empire IS the USA. ....case in point -- over there in iraq.
iraq or other places DON"T have to be fantastic - otherworldly - dreamlike states of niceness (as avatar ALSO showed the brutal realities NATIVE to the far planet) --
the point is the USA does NOT have a business invading other countries for their resources.
and its counterpart in the movies WAS AVATAR. Avatar was "science fiction" telling TRUTH.
Bigelow's PROPAGANDA film was its opposite. ....PROPAGANDA glorifying LIES posing as "reality".
and Hollywood and US media chose PROPAGANDA.
"its counterpart in the movies WAS AVATAR. Avatar was "science fiction" telling TRUTH. "
Avatar... which condemns war while relying on battle scenes for its impact, and which condemns colonization while using the hoariest trope available, namely that of the white guy "going native..." no thanks.
I haven't seen Hurt Locker or Avatar and likely never will, but I thought the cleverness of Avatar was in how Cameron was able to enrich himself while simultaneously promoting the anti-war, anti-imperialist POV among those most likely to sign up -- unsophisticated young males who enjoy battle scenes.
well...the point is:
for purposes of discussion -- if avatar WAS meant internally by cameron , regardless of the ulterior and quite likely the greater motive of success and money as a film maker of "big works" as is his particular wont, how does one make an "anti imperialist" film without the elements inherent IN imperialism and genocide and resource theft such as battles, war, destruction, death, motives (the corporations on earth wanted the "unobtanium which costs 1 million dollars per pound")?
can you make a movie about murder WITHOUT a murder? can you make a movie about homosexuals living and loving and quarreling without homosexuals doing THAT?
can you make a movie like "PRIVATE RYAN" WITHOUT the reasons why private ryan was to be brought home alive at all costs through the war in which his life was in danger that took 3 of his brothers' lives already?.
how ELSE was Avatar supposed to be made?
with the N'avi perhaps NOT going into battle against the humans? and instead "talking like grownup americans" to "peacefully" leave their sacred places? so there will be NO battle scenes ?
the film was about
a planet or "place" with its own people and creatures - that don't want to be exploited and want to be left alone who , apparently are satisfied with THEIR lives, and don't want any meddlers - and refuse to bow down - and want to defend themselves and their planet -
while aliens invaded, set up shop and then demand that the natives COMPLY!
ISN"T THAT what the american revolution against England was all about?
ISN"T THAT what the "new american nation of liberty , happiness"
IMPOSED on NATIVE "N'avi" INDIANS in america ?
so what's your peeve about the film "using" elements that are inherent in the story?.
My "peeve" is that Avatar wants it both ways: to be an anti-war movie filled with cool gadgets and tech. It's hypocritical.
Private Ryan, Platoon - these are movies which show war as horrible, confusing and real.
And if it was about a "planet with its own creatures," then why shoehorn a human character? How is that not colonial/paternalistic?
You appear to be comparing Avatar against some ideal movie. How about you do the same for the Hurt Locker?
As for the hoariest trope, the hoariest trope is the us vs them trope, far far older than the white guy going native trope. That is the trope that every lazy writer, especially lazy writers who have to kiss the boots of whichever ruler is paying for their living, since time immemorial has resorted to. Which was the trope the Hurt Locker used.
I think it's more likely that Avatar lost because Cameron has burned too many bridges in the Hollywood community.
Or else - shock - maybe they just liked Hurt Locker more?
Sioux Rose
RICH M: I agree. Although slightly off-topic, I remember when the academy gave its "best song" award to a group offering its virulent anti-female, misogynistic RANT of hate. I was aghast by this repugnant decision. It provided a nod (or kudos) to the big buck operators of the rap music world. It was all about the $. THAT was the message. I live in the Deep South and since the Rap "artists" have become the rage in the music world, I see a lot of young white country girls with Black boyfriends. Quite a fashion statement that. I am all for love whether it crosses racial, ethnic, or economic lines; however, I don't see this as being about love, it's like a fashion statement (and I'm talking about the fashion perception that it's hip to date across racial lines). I admire fine actors like Sydney Poitier and Denzel Washington, to name but two. These men respect women. The Black rap "artists" are of an entirely different ilk, and frequently their lyrics amplify a disgraceful message, one that calls all young women whores or worse. That this type of verbiage was raised to the height of glory and validated by our twisted culture says more than the sickening words.
"..technology basically reduces actors to props."
Uh, we are talking movies, aren't we? In movies, actors are just props, always.
My favorite line spoken (with great flourish) by Peter O'Toole in "My Favorite Year":
"I'm not an actor. I'm a movie star!"