Some People Are Tiny-Brained Pillocks

I have not yet seen James Cameron's Avatar, although I remain leery of a movie that consists of computer-generated Blue Kitties fighting Space Marines on a Dinosaur Planet. But quite a bit has already been written about this film, some of it interesting and insightful, some of it predictably insipid. Which brings us handily to our main topic...

Brett Michael Dykes of Yahoo provides us with an article with the shocking fact that Avatar has - gasp! - anti-war and pro-environment themes! This is one of the most useless, air-headed observational pieces I've come across, and the idea that it constitutes any form of journalism is frankly insulting.

Since it opened last week, James Cameron's much-anticipated film "Avatar" has won praise from movie critics and been a juggernaut at the box office. But some who have seen the film say that it contains hidden messages that are anti-war, pro-environment, and perhaps even racist.

Ooh, look at the big brain on Brett!

These messages are not "hidden". Just a quick glimpse at the plot summary or trailer makes it clear that these "messages" are in fact the very basis for the film's story. You really think that a movie with this plot - think Pocahontas in Space - is not going to have messages about ecology and imperialism? The only thing missing is Colors in the Wind and a talking willow tree. But I kid shitty mid-'90s Disney flicks.

Indeed, Brett provides a lengthy, in-depth plot summary of the film, with the helpful observation afterwards that:

Are you beginning to get a sense of why some viewers noticed what they believe are underlying messages in the film?

A poorly-written sentence for a start ("Are you beginning to get a sense"? Really?), a completely banal bit of weasel journalism for another, refusing to admit a pretty obvious fact for fear of offending someone. Nor are these messages in any way hidden when, as Brett himself goes on to say:

But are these hidden messages really all that hidden? James Cameron himself hasn't been shy in publicly proclaiming the fact that he's an environmental activist who believes that humans and "industrial society" are "causing a global climate change" and "destroying species faster than we can classify them." In a recent interview with PBS' Tavis Smiley, Cameron admitted that he made "obvious" references in the film to Iraq, Vietnam and the American colonial period to emphasize the fact that humans have a "terrible history" of "entitlement" in which we "take what we need" from nature and indigenous peoples "and don't give back."

Further, one of the film's stars Stephen Lang told CNN that he is "not surprised at all" that some people have taken note of the film's political messages, mainly because the central theme of humans "destroying" a "pristine world" out of "blindness and greed" is so "overt."

Gee, thanks for undermining the whole premise of your pointless article, buddy. Now why are we reading you again?

I guess what I'm saying is that could not be more obvious in a film with Earth Marines invading a planet to plunder its resources and slaughter the peaceful, environmentally-conscious natives, that some sort of Dances With Wolves Meets Fahrenheit 9/11 As Enacted By Blue Cat People "message" is intentional. And yet we need 602-word article by a tiny-brained pillock who probably flunked his Intro to Journalism course to reveal this. Nice work, Brett.