James Cameron’s Brilliance Defies the Oscars
James Cameron has successfully made the new worlds he discovered in science fiction during his youth a reality during his career as one of Hollywood's most prominent directors.
As Muhammad Idrees Ahmad pointed out earlier, it is more than a little ironic that so-called liberal Hollywood awarded Oscars for best picture, director and original screenplay to “The Hurt Locker” over “Avatar”. The fact that both Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal incorporated “support the troops” commentary into their Oscar acceptance speeches (find Bigelow’s here and Boal’s here) is another telling event that we are also probably supposed to ignore. But if we recall that James Cameron unabashedly admitted that he incorporated political messages about the environment and US foreign policy into his film (without a strictly defined “political agenda”), the outcome of the Oscars is less suprising.
Cameron ruffled quite a few feathers when he explained during a private industry screening of the film several months ago that:
This movie reflects that we are living through war…There are boots on the ground, troops who I personally believe were sent there under false pretenses, so I hope this will be part of opening our eyes.
In response to allegations that “Avatar” was anti-American Cameron stated:
I’ve heard people say this film is un-American, while part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas.
Conformity to the gung-ho, take our men to war theme (allegedly balanced out by the inclusion of a Chris Hedges quote and constant reminders of how awful war is for American soldiers) was the substitute for dissent in “The Hurt Locker”. Moreover, while Bigelow and Boal focused on the worst aspects of human nature for their film, Cameron did the opposite:
The Na’vi represent the better aspects of human nature, and the human characters in the film demonstrate the more venal aspects of human nature.
Ignoring for a moment that ”Avatar’s” story inspired the adoration of millions of fans worldwide, criticisms from the Vatican, and praise from the likes of Evo Morales (it even compelled Palestinian peace activists who justifiably identify with the inhabitants of Pandora to protest as Na’vi), Cameron’s film was also superior in terms of quality of production. He waited for more than a decade for available technology to make his dream a reality and has no doubt spurred a trend that will inspire other filmmakers to make use of it and further develop it to the ongoing delight of moviegoers for years to come.
During a recent talk at a TED Conference, Cameron explained that he decided to make “Titanic” after accepting that the appropriate technology necessary for “Avatar’s” production (based on a story he had written in 1995) wasn’t ready yet. He states that he was most excited about the prospect of recreating the destruction of the Titanic on film, but it was his highlighting of the class divisions that determined who was to be saved and who was to be sacrificed when the ship sunk that sticks out in my mind. Certainly “Titanic” was a love story, but one that put a spotlight on the suffering of the poor who often perish unnoticed in the shadow of the lives of the rich.
Cameron is a leader in Hollywood and it is admirable that he chooses to use his prominence to promote critical thinking as well as produce spaces for people to think outside of the box and defy the status quo rather than reinforce it. He has no reason to do any of this, and in fact, has reasons not to, since as the Oscars showed, his fame can suffer as a result of these actions. Cameron is also anything but a one trick pony; he continues to explore new topics to cover in his films and has even been considering producing one about the US’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the victims of it during World War II, but this is also currently embroiled in some (unsurprising?) controversy.
During his TED Talk Cameron emphasized the importance of exploring the limitless depths of your curiosity:
It’s the most powerful thing you own. Imagination is a force that can actually manifest a reality. And the respect of your team is more important than all the laurels in the world. I have young film makers come up to me and say, “Give me some advice for doing this.” And I say, “Don’t put limitations on yourself. Other people will do that for you, don’t do it to yourself, don’t bet against yourself. And take risks.”
Cameron took risks with “Avatar” and may have won the Oscar for best director and best film had it been less controversial in tone, but if he meant what he said at the end of his speech at TED, he likely has no regrets:
NASA has this phrase that they like: “Failure is not an option.” But failure has to be an option in art and in exploration, because it’s a leap of faith. And no important endeavor that required innovation was done without risk. You have to be willing to take those risks. So, that’s the thought I would leave you with, is that in whatever you’re doing, failure is an option, but fear is not.
In a society that Mr. Obama gets Peace Noble Prize by defending wars, of course The Hurt Locker gets the Oscar. Hey George Orwel you knew it so well!
Shoreh
March 9, 2010 at 4:37 pm
James Cameron (this courageos “unconformist” and radical infiltrated in Hollywood) on “The Hurt Locker” (this fascistic “pro-war” and “racist” film seemingly so far from Cameron’s sensitivity and ideals):
“I encouraged her to do ‘The Hurt Locker,’ because she had gotten that script and let me read it just for comment. I said, ‘Jump out of ‘White City’ and do this film!’”
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-hurt-locker-kathryn-bigelow-could-beat-ex-husband-james-cameron-for-the/?eref=RSS
“It’s a great action movie. I think there is very much a chance of it to be the ‘Platoon’ to the Iraq war”
Carlos Sardiña
March 9, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Carlos: Cameron is no radical antiwar activist. He is into science fiction and science, watch the TED clip, but unlike Bigelow, he created a film that challenged US authority openly and leaves the audience siding with the oppressed!
Cameron likely never thought Palestinians would identify with his characters (again, not so great for PR), but the important thing is that he created something that could go so far as to inspire that while making resistance to oppression the main theme! Many others also saw the film in a completley different but equally interesting way, which shows that “Avatar” was also superior because it wasn’t *just* or *only* one kind of film. It was so many things, but it required a non-cynical, open audience. “The Hurt Locker” on the other hand is about men at war. Where is the uniqueness, the creativity? Are we supposed to be blown away by the closet caveman (supposed to be intellectual) who finds it difficult to cope with how many choices of cereal there is to pick from in a supermarket? It was just an adrenaline pumping action film. What is original about that? Why does that deserve the most reputable film award in the world?
Finally, there is this undeniable elitism present in so many criticisms of “Avatar” that I cannot be silent about anymore. As in the link that everyone on the Left that didn’t like “Avatar” cited, there is this bitterness about the fact that a successful and prominent Hollywood director would dare enter the realm of progressive politics with his art. It sounds a lot like: how dare this “white,” privileged male try to enter *our* realm, the realm of the Left. Never mind that he did it for a good reason without any self-serving motives, he wasn’t politically correct enough, he wasn’t radical enough, he didn’t do it the way *we* would have done it! But he still attempted all this and was vehemently criticized from the Right AND the Left. Go figure.
Jasmin Ramsey
March 9, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I would like to to comment a few things:
1) I haven’t seen “The Hurt Locker”, so I am trying my best to avoid passing any judgment about it. Nevertheless, it seems that you base your judgment of its “artistic value” in its subject. You have said “”The Hurt Locker” on the other hand is about men at war. Where is the uniqueness, the creativity?”. Well, I think the subject (or the ideology) of a work on art doesn’t determine its artistic value or its creativity. (One of the best films ever made in Hollywood being precisely “Men in War”, by Anthony Mann, for instance). Anyway, I don’t want to argue about Bigelow’s film, as I haven’t seen it (I have seen other films of her, and I think she is an awful director).
2) But I have seen “Avatar” and I am ready to concede that it “sides with the oppressed” and there is implicit a critique of US imperialism. Nothing special about it, “siding with the oppressed” it’s actually an old theme in Hollywood blockbusters (even in TV Series like “The A Team” works as a sort of leit motiv), there’s a lot of mainstream Hollywood films with this message (I am thinking here in “Dancing with Wolves”, a film with a very similar plot and message, by the way). And, from the artistic point of view, there is nothing remarkable about “Avatar”.
3) I agree with your last point and I don’t like this elitism but this is not my point of view. This kind of elitism is ridiculous. There can be art in Hollywood films (sometimes high art) and there can be radical politics. But it’s not less ridiculous to consider that Cameron is promoting “critical thinking” and defying the status quo.
Carlos Sardiña
March 9, 2010 at 6:56 pm
[...] [...]
Awesome Analysis from Pulse.com on Cameron and the Oscars - Avatar-Forums.com
March 9, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I’ll also move my response here so the discussion is complete:
Well, I am not doubting so much about the supposed politics of Cameron but about the supposed politics of the Hollywood establishment (which is not so homogeneous, by the way) and the alleged distance between both. I think there is not such a wide gap between both as you pretend (he himself won a lot of Oscars with Titanic, and directors like Michael Moore and Warren Beatty have won it in the past for “leftist” films like “Farenheit 9/11″ and “Reds”, to name two).
The gap is always relative. If it were absolute we would have seen at least one pro-Palestinian film in Hollywood history. The last person to try — Costa Garvas — had his Hollywood career short as a consequence. The gap is nevertheless significant, because it incurs costs. Films that stay within the consensus are rewarded, as Titanic or Bowling for Columbine were, and films that don’t are blocked (as Fahrenheit 9/11 was before Michael Moore won the Palm d’Or), ignored (In the Valley of Elah, Redacted), or if they are too big, denied proper recognition (Avatar).
Fahrenheit 911 never the won oscar. In fact the Weinstein company tried to block distribution.
As regards genius it is measured by one’s inventiveness, capacity to transcend genres, or limitations of the medium, and in this instance, to be able to make a statement, without compromising the the message, and still make it appealing to millions.
It appears you subscribe to the early 20th century notion of ‘genius’ which defines it by how few people are able to apprehend or understand a work of art. That was a silly, elitist notion, meant to introduce a cultural heirarchy between the ‘masses’ and the ‘cultured’. I reject it for that reason.
James Cameron (this courageos “unconformist” and radical infiltrated in Hollywood) on “The Hurt Locker” (this fascistic “pro-war” and “racist” film seemingly so far from Cameron’s sensitivity and ideals):
“I encouraged her to do ‘The Hurt Locker,’ because she had gotten that script and let me read it just for comment. I said, ‘Jump out of ‘White City’ and do this film!’”
And yet, he made Avatar, not The Hurt Locker. This is as if someone listented to Mark Antony’s speech at Caesar’s funeral and declared him a collaborator because he called Brutus and the conspirators ‘honourable men’.
Nothing special about it, it’s actually an old theme in Hollywood blockbusters (even in TV Series like “The A Team” is a leit motiv): there’s a lot of mainstream Hollywood films “siding with the oppressed” (I am thinking here in “Dancing with Wolves”, a film with a very similar plot and message, by the way). And, from the artistic point of view, there is nothing remarkable about “Avatar”.
I am amused to find that you also borrowed your opinions from the same lame review from which everyone draws the ‘Dances with Wolves’ parallel. The film was about much more than ‘siding with the oppressed’ (an admirable feature, nevertheless).
A-team was ‘siding with the oppressed’? I rest my case.
m.idrees
March 9, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Of course, I am not saying that there are not ideological limits in Hollywood. What I am saying is that “Avatar” is not outside these limits.
I was mistaken with “Farenheit 9/11″, true. I wanted to say “Bowling for Columbine”. My point was that Hollywood actually awards “leftist” directors or films (from the John Ford for “The Grapes of Wrath” to Michael Moore).
I don’t know how to measure genius, to be honest and I don’t now even how exactly I measure it (but I suspect that in arte is not something measurable). But thanks God you are here, MIA, and you can tell me: it seems that I “subscribe to the early 20th century notion of ‘genius’ which defines it by how few people are able to apprehend or understand a work of art”. I didn’t know that about myself! Thank you. The truth is that I just have say that I don’t think James Cameron is a genius and that I don’t think the subject (or the ideology) of a work of art determine its artistic value or its creativity. You are very clever indeed if from that you are able to know what is my notion of genius.
The truth is that I haven’t read any article about “Avatar” comparing it with “Dances with Wolves”. But the parallelism is quite evident, which shows the lack of originality of “Avatar”. [I supposed I have mispelled it because the Spanish tittle of "Dances with Wolves" is "Bailando con lobos", which in English would be "Dancing With Wolves", not "Dances with Wolves".] By the way, it’s a dirty trick to play with Typos when you know that English is not my mother tongue.
I haven’t said that the films was only about “siding with oppressed”. Once again you read my mind when you say it is a shame that I missed the rest.
I haven’t said tha “The A-Team” series sided with the oppressed. I have said that this theme worked as a leit-motiv in the series. (The usual plot was: bad guys oppressing good but weaker guys and the A-Team helping the lattest against the former). It’s such a common theme in Hollywood that even a program like the A-Team uses it.
MIA, so far I haven’t used any ad hominem argument. But you have used it (as when you say: “I assumed you were capable of having your own opinion”). I’m not interested in arguing in these terms with people who seems unable to accept different points of view without insulting. So this is the last discussion we have. Adios.
Carlos Sardiña
March 9, 2010 at 7:49 pm
First, you are right about the the ad hominem stuff. I apologize.
Regarding leftist directors, as I said before the question is not who they are, the question is what they produce, and how it is treated. When Michael Moore produces a nice documentary about healthcare issues at home, even Fox News fetes him. When he produces Fahrenheit 911, the studios try to block distribution, and only release the film after Moore causes them embarassment i europe. Likewise, Cameron could get accolades for Titanic, and consolation prizes for his more deserving Avatar.
As regards John Ford, he was an Irishman with the very Irish name Sean O’Feeny who changed it because he knew he would never go far with it in Hollywood. Because of his Irish origins, he also made films which are more true-blood american, so he could prove his nationalist credentials. Yeah, he was an artist alright. As is James Cameron. Artistry is not consecrated by time. An artist could also be an artist in his own time. One doesn’t have to wait for enough approbation to accumulate over time before recognizing someone’s art. Cameron’s has appealed to millions for a good reason.
As regards Dances with Wolves, yes there are plotline similarities. But I thought we agreed that a film is about more than just its plotline. And here let me apologize once again for the earlier comment. It is just that when you hear the same example for the umpteenth time in 2 days (7th to be precise) sometimes patience slips.
m.idrees
March 9, 2010 at 11:15 pm
James Cameron: The man who wrote, directed and produced “True Lies”, one of the most racist, derogatory anti-arab (Palestinian) films ever made.
Perhaps one should consider Professor Shaheen’s film “Reel Bad Arabs” before bestowing praise on Cameron.
District 9 should be considered a substitute deserving the accolade of a great film.
MAC
March 9, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Does it mean, after I read this article, I need to watch Avatar?
For this weekend, I only have 15 Euro to watch a film, and the choice is between; The White Ribbon or A Prophet.
I can’t see why Avatar is the worth of the money, consider the two films listed above. And I bet the theme of Avatar is a White Man saves the Native People, bla bla. Boring!
hagle
March 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Yes, save the money. Why let get experience get in the way of prejudice? Besides, you already seem to know what the film is all about.
m.idrees
March 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm
And why let logic get in the way of m. idrees being right?
hagle, that’s exactly what the film is. Well done cinematically, but otherwise just another action, “environmentalist” movie. It’s basically Pocahantas in space. Without the interesting characters or good music.
Anna
March 22, 2010 at 2:03 am
That was ‘logic’? Brilliant. Can you tell me more about logic? I am assuming it is something antithetical to imagination, a sense or irony, and original thought?
m.idrees
March 22, 2010 at 9:22 am