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!

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.

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.

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.

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.