 External videos |
|
|---|---|
| James Cameron on themes in Avatar | |
 |
James Cameron on Charlie Rose talk show retrieved March 4, 2010 |
The 2009 action-adventure film Avatar has earned widespread success, becoming the highest-grossing film of all time.[1][2] The blockbuster has provoked vigorous discussion of a wide variety of cultural, social, political, and religious themes identified by critics and commentators, and the film's writer and director James Cameron has responded that he hoped to create an emotional reaction and to provoke public conversation about these topics.[3] The broad range of Avatar's intentional or perceived themes has prompted reviewers to call it "an all-purpose allegory"[4] and "the season's ideological Rorschach blot".[5] One reporter even suggested that the politically-charged punditry has been "misplaced": reviewers should have seized on the opportunity to take "a break from their usual fodder of public policy and foreign relations" rather than making an ideological battlefield of this "popcorn epic".[6]
Discussion has centered around such themes as the conflict between modern man and nature, and the film's treatment of imperialism, racism, militarism and patriotism, corporate greed, citizens' property rights, and spirituality and religion.[7][8] Cameron has specifically mentioned intentional connections between the film's plot and the religious concepts and iconography of Hinduism.[9][10]
Contents |
Avatar describes the battle by an indigenous people, the Na'vi of Pandora, against the oppression of alien humans. Director James Cameron acknowledged that the film is "certainly ... about imperialism in the sense that the way human history has always worked is that people with more military or technological might tend to supplant or destroy people who are weaker, usually for their resources"[7] Critics agreed that the film is "a clear message about dominant, aggressive cultures subjugating a native population in a quest for resources or riches."[11] George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, asserted that conservative criticism of Avatar is a reaction to what he called the film's "chilling metaphor" for the European "genocides in the Americas", which "massively enriched" Europe.[12] Cameron told NPR that references to the colonial period are in the film "by design".[13] Adam Cohen of The New York Times compared the struggle of the Na'vi "a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit".[14]
Saritha Prabhu, an Indian-born columnist for The Tennessean, wrote about the parallels between the plot and how "Western power colonizes and invades the indigenous people (native Americans, Eastern countries, you substitute the names), sees the natives as primitives/savages/uncivilized, is unable or unwilling to see the merits in a civilization that has been around longer, loots the weaker power, all while thinking it is doing a favor to the poor natives."[15] David Brooks, in The New York Times, criticized what he saw as the White Messiah complex in the film, whereby the Na'vi "can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration."[16] Others disagree: "First off, [Jake is] handicapped. Second off, he ultimately becomes one of [the Navi] and wins their way."[17]
Many commentators saw the film as a message of support for the struggles of native peoples today. Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, praised Avatar for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defense of nature".[18] Forbes columnist Reihan Salam criticized the vilification of capitalism in the film, asserting that it represents a more noble and heroic way of life than that led by the Na'vi, because it "give[s] everyone an opportunity to learn, discover, and explore, and to change the world around us."[19] Others compared the human invaders to "NATO in Iraq or Israel in Palestine",[20] and found it reassuring that "When the Na'vi clans are united, and a sincere prayer is offered, the "'primitive savages' win the war".[21] Palestinian activists painted themselves blue and dressed like the Na'vi during their weekly protest in the village of Bilin against Israel's separation barrier.[22][23] Other Arab writers, however, noted that "for Palestinians, Avatar is rather a reaffirmation and confirmation of the claims about their incapability to lead themselves and build their own future."[24]
Cameron stated that Avatar is "very much a political film" and added: "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."[25] He confirmed that "the Iraq stuff and the Vietnam stuff is there by design," [13] adding that he did not think that the film was anti-military.[26] Critic Charles Marowitz in Swans magazine remarked, however, that the realism of the suggested parallel with wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan "doesn't quite jell" because the natives are "peace-loving and empathetic".[27]
Cameron argued that Americans have a "moral responsibility" to understand the impact of their country's recent military campaigns. Commenting on the term "shock and awe" in the film, Cameron said: "We know what it feels like to launch the missiles. We don't know what it feels like for them to land on our home soil, not in America."[28] Christian Hamaker of Crosswalk.com noted that, "in describing the military assault on Pandora, Cameron cribs terminology from the ongoing war on terrorism and puts it in the mouths of the film's villains ... as they 'fight terror with terror'. Cameron's sympathies, and the movie's, clearly are with the Na'vi – and against the military and corporate men."[29] A columnist in the Russian newspaper Vedomosti traced Avatar's popularity to its giving the audience a chance to make a moral choice between good and evil and, by emotionally siding with Jake's treason, to relieve "us the scoundrels" of our collective guilt for the cruel and unjust world that we have created.[30][31] Armond White of New York Press dismissed the film as "essentially a sentimental cartoon with a pacifist, naturalist message" that uses villainous Americans to misrepresent the facts of the military, capitalism, and imperialism.[32] Answering critiques of the film as insulting to the U.S. military, a piece in the Los Angeles Times asserted that "if any U.S. forces that ever existed were being insulted, it was the ones who fought under George Armstrong Custer, not David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal."[6] Other reviews saw Avatar as "the bubbling up of our military subconscious ... the wish to be free of all the paperwork and risk aversion of the modern Army – much more fun to fly, unarmored, on a winged beast."[33]
A critic writing in Le Monde opined that, contrary to the perceived pacifism of Avatar, the film justifies war in the response to attack by the film's positive characters, particularly the American hero who encourages the Na'vi to "follow him into battle.... Every war, even those that seem the most insane [are justified as being] for the 'right reasons'."[34] Ann Marlowe of Forbes saw the film as both pro- and anti-military, "a metaphor for the networked military".[33]
Many commentators, particularly conservatives, perceived an anti-American message in the film, equating RDA's private security force to American soldiers.[35] Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post stated that, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects" and criticized Cameron for what he saw as an unnuanced depiction of the American military as "pure evil".[36] John Podhoretz of The Weekly Standard argued that Avatar revealed "hatred of the military and American institutions and the notion that to be human is just way uncool."[37] One review called Avatar the "liberal tell" of "a thinly disguised, heavy-handed and simplistic sci-fi fantasy/allegory critical of America from our founding straight through to the Iraq War."[38] Charles Mudede of The Stranger commented that with the release of the film "the American culture industry exports an anti-American spectacle to an anti-American world."[39] Debbie Schlussel likewise dismissed Avatar as "cinema for the hate America crowd."[40]
Cameron argued that "the film is definitely not anti-American"[41] and that "part of being an American is having the freedom to have dissenting ideas."[25] A critic for MVT concurred that "it'd take a great leap of logic to tag 'Avatar' as anti-American or anti-capitalist."[42] Ann Marlowe called the film "the most neo-con movie ever made" for its "deeply conservative, pro-American message."[33] But Cameron admitted to some ambiguity on the issue, agreeing that "the bad guys could be America in this movie, or the good guys could be America in this movie, depending on your perspective,"[7] and said that Avatar's defeat at the Academy Awards might have been due to the perceived anti-US theme in it.[26]
Commentators compared the destruction of the Na'vi habitat Home Tree with the September 11 attack on thie World Trade Center,[33] one calling it a "tacky metaphor".[38] Cameron said that he was "surprised at how much it did look like September 11", but added that he did not think that it was necessarily a bad thing.[28] A French critic wrote: "How can one not see the analogy with the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center? Then, after that spectacular scene, all is justified [for the unified] indigenous peoples (the allied forces) ... to kill those who [are] just like terrorists".[34] Another writer noted that "the U.S.' stand-ins are the perpetrators, and not the victims" and described this reversal as "the movie’s most seditious act".[43] Reviewers criticized Cameron for his "audacious willingness to question the sacred trauma of 9/11".[43][32]
Commentators around the world sought to interpret the relationship between the Na'vi and humans in the film, mostly agreeing with Maxim Osipov, who wrote in the Hindustan Times and The Sydney Morning Herald: "The 'civilised humans' turn out as primitive, jaded and increasingly greedy, cynical, and brutal – traits only amplified by their machinery – while the 'monkey aliens' emerge as noble, kind, wise, sensitive and humane. We, along with the Avatar hero, are now faced with an uncomfortable yet irresistible choice between the two races and the two worldviews." Osipov wrote that it was inevitable that the audience, like the film's hero, Jake, would find that the Na'vi's culture was really the more civilized of the two, exemplifying "the qualities of kindness, gratitude, regard for the elder, self-sacrifice, respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature."[44][45] Cameron stated that "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."[25] An article in the Belgium paper De Standaard said, "It's about the brutality of man, who shamelessly takes what isn't his."[46]
An Angolan critic saw the film as a message of hope, writing, "With this union of humans and aliens comes a feeling that something better exists in the universe: the respect for life."[47] Conversely, David Brooks of The New York Times opined that Avatar creates "a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism", an offensive cultural stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic and that illiteracy is the path to grace.[16] A review in the Irish Independent viewed the film as contrasting a "mix of New Age environmentalism and the myth of the Noble Savage" with the corruption of the "civilized" white man.[48] Reihan Salam, writing in Forbes, found it ironic that "Cameron has made a dazzling, gorgeous indictment of the kind of society that produces James Camerons."[19]
Many critics saw racist undertones in the film's treatment of the indigenous Na'vi, many seeing it as "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people", which reinforces "the white Messiah fable", in which the white hero saves helpless primitive natives,[49][50] who are thus reduced to servicing his ambitions and proving his heroism.[24] Other reviews called Avatar an offensive assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades,[16] and "a self-loathing racist screed" due to the fact that all the "human" roles in the film are played by white actors and all the Na'vi characters—by African-American or Native American actors.[51][52]
Maori academic Rawiri Taonui agreed that the film portrays indigenous people as being simplistic and unable to defend themselves without the help from "the white guys and the neo-liberals."[53] Another author remarked that while the white man will fix the destruction, he will never feel guilty, even though he is directly responsible for the destruction."[24] Likewise, Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of Die Zeit in Germany, said the film perpetuates the myth of the "noble savage" and has "a condescending, yes, even racist message. Cameron bows to the noble savages. However, he reduces them to dependents."[54] Slavoj Žižek argued that the "film enables us to practise a typical ideological division: sympathising with the idealised aborigines while rejecting their actual struggle."[55] The Irish Times carried the comment that "despite all the thematic elements from Hinduism, one thing truly original is the good old American ego. Given its Hollywood origins, the script has remained faithful to the inherent superiority complex, and has predictably bestowed the honor of the 'avatar' not on the movie’s native Na’vis, but on a white American marine."[56] On the other hand, noting that "the only good humans are dead – or rather, resurrected as 'good Navi'", a writer in The Jerusalem Post thought that the film was inadvertently promoting neo-Nazism, or supremacy of one race over another.[57]
On the Charlie Rose talk show, Cameron acknowledged parallels with idea of the "noble savage", but argued: "When indigenous populations who are at a bow and arrow level are met with technological superior forces, [if] somebody doesn't help them, they lose. So we are not talking about a racial group within an existing population fighting for their rights".[3] Cameron denied that the film is racist, asserting that Avatar is about respecting others' differences.[49] Adam Cohen of The New York Times felt similarly, noting that the Na'vi greeting "I see you" contrasts with the oppression of, and even genocide against, those who we fail to accept for what they are, citing Jewish ghettos and the Soviet gulags as examples.[14]
Avatar has been called "without a doubt the most epic piece of environmental advocacy ever captured on celluloid.... The film hits all the important environmental talking-points – virgin rain forests threatened by wanton exploitation, indigenous peoples who have much to teach the developed world, a planet which functions as a collective, interconnected Gaia-istic organism, and evil corporate interests that are trying to destroy it all."[58] Cameron has spoken extensively with the media about the film's environmental message, saying that he envisioned Avatar as a broader metaphor of how we treat the natural world.[8] He told Charlie Rose that "we are going to go through a lot of pain and heartache if we don't acknowledge our stewardship responsibilities to nature."[3] Interviewed by Terry Gross of National Public Radio, he stated: "Avatar is saying our attitude about indigenous people and our entitlement about what is rightfully theirs is the same sense of entitlement that lets us bulldoze a forest and not blink an eye.... And we can't just go on in this unsustainable way, just taking what we want and not giving back".[13]
Commentators connected the film's story to the endangerment of biodiversity in the Amazon rainforests of Brazil by dam construction, logging, mining, and clearing for agriculture.[59] A Newsweek piece connected the destruction of Home Tree to the rampant tree-felling in Tibet.[60] Others compared the film's depiction of destructive corporate mining for unobtanium in the Na'vi lands with the mining and milling of uranium near the Navajo reservation in New Mexico.[61] However, Armond White dismissed Avatar's pro-environmental stance as inconsistent: "Cameron’s really into the powie-zowie factor: destructive combat and the deployment of technological force.... Cameron fashionably denounces the same economic and military system that make his technological extravaganza possible. It’s like condemning NASA — yet joyriding on the Mars Exploration Rover."[32]
Cameron encouraged everyone be a "tree hugger"[25] and urged that we "make a fairly rapid transition to alternate energy."[62] The film and Cameron's environmental activism caught the attention of the 8,000-strong Dongria Kondh tribe from Orissa, eastern India. They appealed to him to help them stop a mining company from opening a bauxite open-cast mine, on their sacred Niyamgiri mountain, in an advertisement in Variety magazine that read: "Avatar is fantasy ... and real. The Dongria Kondh ... are struggling to defend their land against a mining company hell-bent on destroying their sacred mountain. Please help...."[63][64] Similarly, a coalition of over fifty environmental and aboriginal organizations of Canada ran a full-page ad in the special Oscar edition of Variety comparing their fight against Canada's Alberta oilsands to the Na'vi insurgence.[65] Naturally the mining and oil companies objected to this attention.[66][67] Cameron was awarded the inaugural Temecula Environment Award for Outstanding Social Responsibility in Media by three environmentalist groups for portrayal of environmental struggles that they compared with their own.[68]
The destruction of the Na'vi habitat to make way for mining operations has also evoked parallels with the oppressive policies of some states often involving forcible evictions related to development. David Boaz of the Libertarian Cato Institute said in Los Angeles Times that the film's essential conflict is a battle over property rights, "the foundation of the free market and indeed of civilization."[69] Melinda Liu found this storyline reminiscent of the policies of the authorities in China, where 30 million citizens have been evicted in the course of a three-decade long development boom.[60][70] An article in the Global Times, published by the Communist-Party's official newspaper People's Daily, called the film's plot "the spitting image of the violent demolition in our everyday life. ... [F]acing the violent demolition conducted by chengguan but instigated by real estate developers, some ordinary people have wept or burned themselves desperately, while most continue to bear unfairness in silence."[71] Others saw similar links to the displacement of tribes in the Amazon basin[59] and the forcible demolition of private houses in a Moscow suburb.[72]
David Quinn of the Irish Independent wrote that the spirituality depicted "goes some way towards explaining the film's gigantic popularity, and that is the fact that Avatar is essentially a religious film, even if Cameron might not have intended it as such."[48] At the same time, Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online objected to what he saw in the film reviews as "the norm to speak glowingly of spirituality but derisively of traditional religion."[73]
According to Cameron, one of the film's philosophical underpinnings is that "the N'avi represent that sort of aspirational part of ourselves that wants to be better, that wants to respect nature, while the humans in the film represent the more venal versions of ourselves, the banality of evil that comes with corporate decisions that are made out of remove of the consequences."[25][41][13] Film director John Boorman saw a similar dichotomy as a key factor contributing to its success: "Perhaps the key is the marine in the wheelchair. He is disabled, but Mr Cameron and technology can transport him into the body of a beautiful, athletic, sexual, being. After all, we are all disabled in one way or another; inadequate, old, broken, earthbound. Pandora is a kind of heaven where we can be resurrected and connected instead of disconnected and alone."[48]
Reviewers suggested that the film draws upon many existing religious and mythological motifs. Vern Barnet of the Charlotte Observer opined that Avatar borrows concepts from many religions and poses a great question of faith. He noted: "The movie's Tree of Souls recalls the Norse story of the tree Yggdrasil, an example of a tree supporting the cosmos found in many traditions. Its destruction signals the collapse of the universe. Scholars call such trees the axis mundi, the center of the world."[74] Malinda Liu in Newsweek compared the Na'vi respect for life and belief in reincarnation to Tibetan religious beliefs and practices,[60] but Reihan Salam of Forbes called the species "perhaps the most sanctimonious humanoids ever portrayed on film."[19]
A Bolivian writer defined "avatar" as "something born without human intervention, without intercourse, without sin", comparing it to the birth of Jesus Christ, Krishna, Manco Capac, and Mama Ocllo and drew parallels between the deity Eywa of Pandora and the goddess Pachamama worshiped by the indigenous people of the Andes.[20] Another compared Pandora to The Garden of Eden.[75] A writer for Religion Dispatches countered that Avatar "begs, borrows, and steals from a variety of longstanding human stories, puts them through the grinder, and comes up with something new."[76] Another commentator called Avatar "a new version of the Garden of Eden syndrome" pointing to what she viewed as phonetic and conceptual similarities of the film's terminology with that of the Book of Genesis.[77]
Some Christian writers worried that Avatar promotes pantheism and nature worship. A critic for L’Osservatore Romano of the Holy See, wrote that the film "shows a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature, a fashionable pantheism in which creator and creation are mixed up."[8] Likewise, Vatican Radio said that the film "cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium. Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship."[78] A writer in the National Catholic Reporter disagreed with the Vatican's characterization of Avatar as pagan, urging Christian critics to see the film in the historical context of "Christianity's complicity in the conquest of the Americas."[79]
Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist of The New York Times, called Avatar "the Gospel According to James" and "Cameron's long apologia for pantheism [which] has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now."[80] In The Weekly Standard, John Podhoretz criticized the film's "mindless worship of a nature-loving tribe and the tribe's adorable pagan rituals."[37] Christian critic David Outten said that "the danger to moviegoers is that Avatar presents the Na'vi culture on Pandora as morally superior to life on Earth. If you love the philosophy and culture of the Na'vi too much, you will be led into evil rather than away from it."[81] Outten further added: "Cameron has done a masterful job in manipulating the emotions of his audience.... He created a world where it looks good and noble to live in a tree and hunt for your food daily with a bow and arrow.... Cameron said, 'Avatar asks us to see that everything is connected, all human beings to each other, and us to the Earth.' This is a clear statement of religious belief. This is pantheism. It is not Christianity."[82]
Other Christian critics wrote that Avatar has "an abhorrent New Age, pagan, anti-capitalist worldview that promotes goddess worship and the destruction of the human race"[83][29] and suggested that Christian viewers interpret the film as a reminder of Jesus Christ as "the True Avatar."[84][20] Conversely, other commentators concluded that the film promotes theism rather than pantheism, because the hero "does not pray to a tree, but through a tree to the deity whom he addresses personally" and, unlike in pantheism, "the film's deity does indeed—contrary to the native wisdom of the Na'vi—interfere in human affairs."[75] Ann Marlowe of Forbes agreed, saying that "though Avatar has been charged with "pantheism", its mythos is just as deeply Christian."[33] Another author suggested that the film's message "leads to a renewed reverence for the natural world—a very Christian teaching."[85] Saritha Prabhu, an Indian-born columnist for The Tennessean, saw the film as a misportrayal of pantheism: "What pantheism is, at least, to me: a silent, spiritual awe when looking (as Einstein said) at the 'beauty and sublimity of the universe', and seeing the divine manifested in different aspects of nature. What pantheism isn't: a touchy-feely, kumbaya vibe as is often depicted. No wonder many Americans are turned off." Prabhu also criticized Hollywood and Western media for what she saw as their generally poor job of portraying Eastern spirituality.[15]
At a press-conference in New Delhi, James Cameron said that the title Avatar, the magical land of Pandora and the Na'vi look had a subconscious reference to Hindu mythology.[26] He added: "I just have loved every thing, the mythology, the entire Hindu pantheon, seems so rich and vivid. I didn't want to reference the Hindu religion so closely but the subconscious association was interesting and I hope I haven't offended any one in doing so."[86]
Acknowledging multiple thematic connections with Hinduism, Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India equated Avatar to a treatise on Indianism "for Indophiles and Indian philosophy enthusiasts", starting from the very word Avatar itself.[87] A Houston Chronicle article discussed a number of analogies between the film and the ancient Hindu epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, as well as their portrayal of the main avatars Rama and Krishna, traditionally depicted with blue skin, black hair, and a tilak mark on the forehead.[88] Another article in Irish Times made a number of connections of the film's plot with the teachings and concepts of Hinduism, such as reincarnation of the soul, ecological consciousness, and incarnations of deities on Earth, commending Avatar and its director for "raising the global stature of Hinduism...in months", while criticizing them for substantiating the western reluctance to accept anything oriental in its pristine form.[56]
Answering a question from Time magazine, "What is an avatar anyway?" Cameron replied, "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body."[9]
Following the film's release, a number of reviewers focused on Cameron’s choice of the religious Sanskrit term for the film's title and its connection with the film's plot. Parvathi Nayar of The Hindu reasoned that "Cameron uses the loaded Sanskrit word of the movie's title to talk of a possible future manifestation of man. A next step in our evolution, if you like, that results from man's interaction with an emotionally superior — but technologically inferior — form of alien. Can we integrate and change, rather than conquer and destroy?"[89] Priya Rajsekar in Irish Times traced this term 'avatar' to 10 incarnations of Vishnu.[56] Conversely, Maxim Osipov of ISKCON argued in The Sydney Morning Herald that "Avatar" is a "downright misnomer" for Cameron's film because "the movie reverses the very concept [that] the term 'avatar'—literally, in Sanskrit, 'descent'—is based on. So much for a descending 'avatar', Jake becomes a refugee among the aborigines."[45]
David Quinn of Irish Independent thought that Avatar insults traditional usage of its title since it is a human, not a god, who descends in the film.[48] However, Rishi Bhutada, Houston coordinator of the Hindu American Foundation, said that while there are certain sacred terms that would offend Hindus if used improperly, avatar is not one of them.[88] Texas-based filmmaker Ashok Rao added that 'avatar' does not always mean a representative of God on Earth, but simply one being in another form — especially in literature, moviemaking, poetry and other forms of art."[88]
Explaining the choice of the color blue for the Na'vi, Cameron said "I just like blue. It's a good color ... plus, there's a connection to the Hindu deities, which I like conceptually."[10]
Commenting on this topic, reviewers drew more detailed parallels between the Na'vi complexion and the iconography of Hinduism. An Indian film writer and director Sudipto Chattopadhyay opined that the deliberate choice of the blue skin "instantly, magically and metaphorically relates the film's protagonist to two previous avatar’s of Vishnu, namely Rama and Krishna",[90] — an observation shared by other authors,[56][85][91] including Dana Goodyear of The New Yorker, who described the Na'vi as Vishnu-blue.[92] Janos Gereben of San Francisco Examiner agreed, comparing the film's scene in which the blue-skinned avatar of Jake Sully flies a predator Toruk, with a 18 century Indian painting of blue-skinned Vishnu and his consort Laksmi riding through the sky on the gigantic magical bird Garuda, and called the depiction of Vishnu "'Avatar' prequel".[93] Asra Q.Nomani of The Daily Beast compared Jake in his avatar and Neytiri to images of Shiva and Durga.[94]
Reviewers also discussed explicit or implicit similarities of the film with the philosophy of Hinduism. Vern Barnet of Irish Independent suggested that, just as Hindu gods, particularly Vishnu, become avatars to save the order of the universe, the film "suggests something is terribly wrong with a rapacious greed that leads to destroying the world of nature and other civilizations, and the movie's avatar must avert ultimate doom."[48] While questioning theological correctness of the film's title, Maxim Osipov opined that the film's philosophical message was consistent overall with the Bhagavad Gita, a key scripture of Hinduism, in terms of defining what constitutes real culture and civilization.[44][45] Others authors opined that Cameron is alluding to the god Vishnu who regularly manifests himself in palpable form to save mankind from the impeding doomsday.[90][56]
The film reminded Priya Rajsekar in Irish Times of "undeniably...Hindu connection" with the Vedic teaching of reverence for the whole universe and its every manifestation, as well as the yogic practice of investing one's consciousness into another distant body.[56] Asra Q. Nomani in The Daily Beast traced the love scene in the film to tantric practices.[94] Tam Hunt in Noozhawk linked the Na'vi goddess Eywa, the repository of Pandora's biosphere, to the concept of Brahman as the ground of being described in Vedanta and Upanishads and likened the Na'vi ability to connect to Eywa with the realization of Atman.[85] Sheila Shayon in Huffington Post saw the Na'vi greeting "I see you" as an adaptation of the ancient Hindu greeting 'Namaste' which signifies perceiving and adoring the divinity within others.[95] Authors in East Valley Tribune and Philippino News Today Online commented on Avatar's exposition of the Hindu concepts of divine descent and reincarnation[91][96] — a term that Charles Marowitz in Swans Magazine called more exactly applicable to ordinary human beings that are "a step or two away from exotic animals" rather than to deities.[27]
Maxim Chaikovsky, in the Ukrainian Day newspaper, drew detailed analogies between Avatar's plot and the ancient Bhagavata Purana narrative of Krishna written by Vyasa, arguing that the film faithfully mirrored the epic's heroine Radha, the Vraja tribe and their habitat the Vrindavana forest, the hovering Govardhan mountain, the mystical rock chintamani and other topics of the prominent Vaishnava scripture.[97][98] He also opined that this similarity may account for "Avatar blues" experienced by the film's audience.[99]
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Wikis
Quiz
Search
