Why I don't watch the news

Exhibit A: A clip from Campbell Brown's program on CNN : A correspondent in Haiti is outside a building which had several people still buried under the rubble and people working round the clock to rescue them. One man had been found alive but trapped under the rubble and rescuers were struggling to get him out. The correspondent told us that she managed to get a microphone to the trapped man, and asked him "What is going through your mind right now?" He answered "I pray that you are able to rescue me in time".

Wow, breaking news indeed.

Someone at CNN thought - "sure there's a devastating earthquake and tens of thousands of people have perished, millions are homeless and starving. But that's just meaningless statistics, our viewers can't comprehend that.. how do we make it personal and interesting for them? I know, lets ask a dying man what's on his mind. And report his response in our most earnest, breaking news voice - pretending that it provides some unique insight." There's got to be a term for this attempt to use meaningless sentimentality to bring home the magnitude of a great tragedy.. kind of like "gilding the lily" but the exact opposite.

And yes, I really don't watch the news. I caught this particular bit on Sirius satellite radio. And no, I don't pay for satellite radio either, I got a 6 month free subscription with my new car. It's pretty good though, it has every possible channel anyone could ever want. All the ads are for truck drivers though.

"Spraying skunk venom on a turd"? Not catchy enough...

Avatar

We saw Avatar this weekend. The trailers had been quite enticing and I knew there was lots of CGI eye candy, but reviews had mostly dissed the story. So while my interest level was high, expectations were set fairly low.

As it turns out, I kind of enjoyed the movie. The alien universe is well imagined, the graphics are amazing, the plot is tight (if predictable) and the action is engrossing. The lead characters did a decent job with the acting and the computer generated characters emote even more realistically. And a shout out to Michelle Rodriquez - Ana Lucia from Lost - who plays essentially an Ana Lucia clone, but does it very well.

So yes, an enjoyable movie - as long as one doesn't over analyze it. But since I'm blogging about the movie, you've probably already guessed that I over analyzed it.

To be fair, if this had just been a run of the mill action flick, I would have left off the analyzing. But James Cameron makes it clear that it is much more - a moral lesson, an allegorical tale, a political statement. And hence, fair game.

Let's start with Hollywood's favourite cliche - the hero single handedly saving the day. It is particularly galling in this movie which purports to be a jab at American colonialism and arrogance. The swaggering colonel and the greedy CEO (humans) look down on the natives (aliens). Their sole goal is to exploit the native land. They make no attempt to understand the natives, underestimate them and treat them with utter contempt and condescension. Terrible, terrible - and we all get to snicker and look down upon the humans. Yet in the end the natives are incapable of defending themselves. It is the good hearted human hero who charges to the rescue, protects the guileless aliens, defeats the evil humans, picks up the prettiest alien female and becomes leader of the tribe. A modern day Lawrence of Arabia with all the accompanying unconscious colonial arrogance.

Speaking of Hollywood touches, the climax is seriously unbelievable... A bravehearted group of patriots, riding hard, swinging swords and shooting arrows descends on a modern army equipped with big guns. Seriously? That tactic was tried in 1854 - it didn't work then, and the guns have only gotten bigger since.

And then there is the movie's main message. Quite clearly, it is all about conserving the environment and respecting nature. Don't get me wrong, I completely support this. However the movie takes it one step too far and sets up a false dichotomy between nature and technology. Right? Or am I imagining that? I felt it as an undercurrent through the movie. Uniformed soldiers and brute machines are juxtaposed against an idyllic, green paradise where everyone lives in harmony with nature. The humans mine expensive minerals (unobtanium?!) and bring in tanks and giant metallic robots. The aliens live in trees, worship trees, and commune with all living creatures - literally, via some convenient mind-melding appendage on their heads. The humans dismiss all this as "that tree hugging crap". The aliens need nothing the humans can bring them, all their simple needs are met by the beautiful forest in which they live. Hey, who needs technology when you can defeat tanks and airborne missiles with arrows and large birds. All nice and sweet and uplifting, and... kind of rings hollow. Like watching a National Geographic documentary full of naked kids deep in some African desert and sighing over the simplicity and romance of their lifestyle.

Quite possibly I'm reading too much into the movie. But it always riles me when people glorify nature by belittling technology. In my mind that is a false dichotomy - science is the most beautiful miracle of nature (and naked kids in African deserts can actually have miserable lives). And I find it a little sad that a movie only made possible by the latest, most sophisticated computer animation cannot find enough space in its heart for a little technology.

Oh, and George Bush has been out of office for a year - so references to "shock and awe" and "preemption" are no longer topical commentary. They are merely a pathetic reminder of how nice it would be if only the Democrats could grow a spine.