Like many of you, we spent winter break tweaking our résumés, networking with industry people and interning at our local … aw, heck, who are we kidding? We did absolutely nothing. The most physical exertion we had was playing Wii Fit Plus. Every once in a while, though, we managed to drag ourselves out of the house to see some movies at our local cineplex.
In one of our favorite scenes in "Up in the Air" (2009), George Clooney's character Ryan Bingham explains how to expedite the process through airport security. His secret: getting in line behind Asians because, "They travel light, pack efficiently and have a thing for slip−on shoes — gotta love 'em." When confronted about his racist comments, Bingham quips that he, like his mother, stereotypes because it's faster.
While funny, this scene got us thinking about racial stereotypes that surfaced in film over this winter break. Some theatergoers have complained about the film "Avatar" (2009), citing its depiction of indigenous populations.
"Avatar," a $300 million space western, is like "Dances with Na'vi," minus Kevin Costner. There's no disputing the success of "Avatar." Its worldwide box office gross dwarfs the GDP of some countries, and it has nine Oscar nominations. The movie may be eco−friendly with its Eywa−hugging agenda, but is its anti−imperialist message undercut by certain stereotypical overtones?
Here's the argument: Our human protagonist, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), betrays his species by leading an alien revolt against the vilified human colonizers, exemplified by the character Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang). There's no denying that the film condemns mercenary corporatism and abuse of the military, but many argue that the blue−skinned native Na'vi were portrayed as helpless dopes incapable of defending themselves against the humans. These detractors further claim that the Na'vi were gross stereotypes — an amalgamation of every Native American stereotype ever created (minus the ones about firewater and casinos).
We can see the point; however, we respectfully disagree. Plot−wise, "Avatar" needed to fully redeem its protagonist, and what better way to accomplish this than to have him take charge and abandon his race? It is far more dramatic from a plot perspective to have Sully lead the aliens to victory. He may be the white man, but he becomes a blue−skinned Na'vi in mind and spirit. Plus, he gets one of those weird sexual hair tentacles.
As for the stereotypical portrayal of natives in the film, there's no doubt that the Na'vi are thinly drawn. Even with those RealD glasses on, the depiction of the indigenous Na'vi is one−dimensional. The aliens were given Native American stereotypes perhaps to make them more relatable to us as movie viewers. The Na'vi could've been a bit more fleshed out, but the movie's already bloated running time made such development impossible. As Clooney said, stereotypes can be time−savers, and in this movie's case, they're a necessary evil.
At the end of the day, "Avatar" is a summer popcorn movie shoehorned into the holiday timeframe. People shouldn't look at this film as an allegory for the war in Iraq — much like this season's awards favorite "The Hurt Locker" (2009) — but should simply enjoy "Avatar" for its entertaining visual effects. After all, no one remembers "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) for its allusions to the gold standard. Just like "Oz," "Avatar" works best as a fantasy film. It shouldn't be thought of as much more than an amped−up version of "Pocahontas" (1995) with groundbreaking special effects.
--
Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian are sophomores who have not yet declared majors. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts.edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu.
