Empire-related awkwardness: Avatar

 

The talk about just who the "evil empire" represents in Star Wars reminds me of another awkward example of imperialism and colonialism --- "Avatar" (2009). One may argue that James Cameron is a little bolder than George Lucas, because the baddies in this movie are obviously American military. However, Cameron's politics is far simpler than Lucas', as the former appears to believe that having a white savior, aka Dances with Wolves, join and lead the natives in their resistance is more than enough to absolve the character's affiliation with the colonialist army. 

The question is, does it work? Can the audience (the descendants of colonialists and beneficiaries of genocide) be relieved of any discomfort and self-examination by gleefully imagining oneself as the white male savior riding the dragon and bedding the pretty native girl? It seems to work for Cameron, who is perhaps more "left wing" (whatever that means) than Lucas but lacks the latter's self-awareness. Indeed, Cameron's left-wing tendencies were on full display in "Titanic," which was despised by a friend who grew up in the final days of USSR and me, who grew up under CCP. The movie's simpleminded familiarity made us laugh. 

Lucas was fully intentional in acknowledging the sins of the father and the darkness inherited by the son. This is why his sextet was so conflicted within itself. I often wonder whether this internal struggle contributed to the storytelling failure in the prequels. There was a sincere desire to demonstrate how the ideals (represented by the old Republic) descended into evil and perhaps to take some ownership in it, but his fear of being truly understood and rejected, maybe even hated, by the audience must have stopped him short. 

The things we do for love (ie, being loved).