Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures.
So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.
Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures.
So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.
Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.

Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures.
So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.
Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures.
So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.
Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures.
So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.
Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group.

So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status.

Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures.