You may have heard that there is a little shindig going on in Hollywood today. Yes, I’m talking about the Academy Awards. I have to admit, I’m not all that big on award shows, so it’s not really been on my radar. After all, it doesn’t have anything to do with the U.S. role in the world, or does it? Two of the top films nominated for Best Picture awards this year, “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar,” could be said to describe different visions of the U.S. role. In the battle between the gritty realism of “The Hurt Locker” and the visually stunning fantasy of “Avatar” we see Americans fighting to save civilians. In the first case, it’s an effort to save people from bombs (IEDs) meant to maim and kill indiscriminately, and in the latter, it’s an effort to save people from displacement and exploitation.
“The Hurt Locker,” directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jeremy Renner, is an intense film that takes a realistic look at battlefield conditions in Iraq. The FPA’s Global Film Review blogger Sean Patrick Murphy has reviewed the film and said that the film does a good job of showing the “effects of occupation on the occupiers.” I haven’t seen the film, so I’ll refrain from further comment.
And then there is “Avatar,” the global phenomenon. I have to admit, when this film first came out and I became aware of the general storyline I had great misgivings about it. The film, directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, tells the story of space marines send in to a pristine planet to remove natives from their land and steal their resources. My first thought was that, at a time when we have a new American president attempting to change the image of the U.S. role in the world, is this the kind of film that we want to send out to the international audience? Here come the Americans to take your land. Of course, you know, there’s much more to it than that, it’s also a romance, a tale of a hero’s journey, an environmental manifesto and (required for a blockbuster) an action/adventure with lots of explosions and conflict. Still, the underlying premise bothered me.
The film has been criticized for being formulaic, racist, and anti-American. For our focus on the U.S. role, I think the real question is, did the director intend to depict Americans? Having seen the film, I’d say the answer to that question is yes. Although there is an early voice over that clearly says the soldiers used to be military and now are hired guns for a corporation (contract pillagers), I think it’s clear the director intends you to think of them as Americans. One of the most persuasive arguments for this conclusion is the undeniable fact that the lead actor, Sam Worthington, is from Australia and has a pronounced accent, which he was made to change for the film, presumably so he could sound like an American. The director is not showing us an international cast, it’s all Americans. Still, this is a complicated movie, it’s not a one-sided portrayal of rampaging Americans, it’s not the My Lai massacre in space. Several of the ex-military and civilian personnel are shown to defect from the corporate agenda and in the end, they Do The Right Thing. Given that, I have no qualms about recommending this movie and suggest that an alternate tile for this film would be Avatar: Brave Marine Saves Natives from Greedy Mining Company.
Photo Credits: Hindustan Times & Times Live
