Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Author! Author!
See other Author! Author! Articles

Title: Jim Cameron eager to mix it up with 'Avatar's' right-wing critics
Source: latimesblogs.latimes.com
URL Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the ... p-with-right-wing-critics.html
Published: Feb 13, 2010
Author: Patrick Goldstein on the collision of en
Post Date: 2010-02-13 00:44:24 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 868
Comments: 41

You can always tell that the Academy has sent out its final Oscar ballots by the sudden reappearance of gaudy full-page Oscar ads in the trades, my paper and the New York Times. It also means that most nominees, fearful of making a horrible gaffe, are especially careful not to say anything that could possibly be viewed as controversial in their interviews with the showbiz press.

Except, of course, for Jim Cameron.

He's on the cover of this week's The Envelope and he's clearly eager to mix it up with the multitudes of conservatives who've been trashing "Avatar," claiming that it's dumb, sanctimonious, anti-military, nuttily pro-environment and, as Big Hollywood's John Nolte memorably put it, a "Death Wish'' for leftists. Cameron isn't the sort of guy to take those brickbats lying down, even if means alienating a few Oscar voters, either because they agree with the conservative take on the film or prefer to vote for films that are free of any political leanings.

As he told Glenn Whipp: "Let me put it this way. I'm happy to piss those guys off. I don't agree with their worldview." As for his detractors' contempt for his environmental consciousness, dramatized in the film by the callous destruction of the Na'vi's pastoral world, Cameron says that the film's environmental message is a lesson for all moviegoers to digest. He explains that our planet "will be a dying world if we don't make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth .... We're going to have to live with less."

Cameron admits that many people will wonder what a fabulously wealthy filmmaker ensconced in a Malibu mansion knows about living with less, but he says that "I think there's a way to live and raise your kids with a set of values that teaches them the importance of hard work, the importance of respecting other people and the importance of respecting nature."

Cameron says he did have second thoughts about using an explicit "shock and awe" Iraq war reference in the film, but he insists that it reflects a bigger point he was trying to make. "What I really was saying was, 'Listen to what your leaders are saying. Open your eyes. And understand what the run-up to war is like, so the next time it happens, you can question it."

People have debated for years whether message-oriented films actually have an effect on filmgoers' consciousness. Seeing a movie is such an internalized, diffuse experience that it's hard to know how much of an influence it leaves behind. But I would say this: You could not have spent 150 minutes immersed in the world of "Avatar" without coming away with a new respect for how much we should treasure the natural resources of our world -- or any other.


Poster Comment:

I am in complete awe of this film. It is a movie that will revolutionaize the industry and bring people back to the theater.

More importantly this fim maker is spot on with his message on culture, the need for more focus on the environment, and I completely resonate with it.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lives, and the Na'vi and Pandora have captured my imagination and heart. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.

#4. To: Ferret Mike (#0)

He explains that our planet "will be a dying world if we don't make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth .... We're going to have to live with less."

Who's "we?"

It's difficult to decide who is worse, pompous Hollywood types or pompous Washington types.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   8:20:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Mister Clean (#4)

Yeh - it really pisses me off that some Hollywood character would have the nerve to show a military force in anything but a glowing light.

Those blue monkeys brought it on themselves. I mean, jeez, the militants even gassed them to give them a chance to leave their homes before they made the military bomb their homes.

I'm with you on this one MC. That jerk Cameron outta be water bordered for his hateful views on the US and its military.

tom007  posted on  2010-02-13   9:17:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tom007 (#5)

Yeh - it really pisses me off that some Hollywood character would have the nerve to show a military force in anything but a glowing light.

I apologize for causing you to have knee jerk reaction but I wasn't referring to his views on the Iraq war. I was simply pointing to his pompous statements about how "we" are going to have to learn to live with less.

Do you really think any rich person, be they from Hollywood or D.C., is going to live with less?

If you choose to respond, please respond to what I actually wrote, okay?

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   9:36:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Mister Clean (#6)

"Do you really think any rich person, be they from Hollywood or D.C., is going to live with less?"

Yes. There needs to be recognition that the most foundational budget to recognize is the carrying load of this planet for human numbers and individual human needs.

I would also say that material things are hardly the most important possessions of people. Enhancing intelligence and wisdom are far more important then the practice of compounding ignorant and the ability to be hateful and inhumane toward others.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   13:09:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Ferret Mike (#21)

Yes. There needs to be recognition that the most foundational budget to recognize is the carrying load of this planet for human numbers and individual human needs.

Sounds like something out of that discredited book "The Population Bomb" by that discredited author Paul Ehrlich.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   16:48:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Mister Clean (#24)

Fact: species are going extinct at an increasing rate. Fact: the human population has grown huge and the growth of population has not stopped. Fact: this cannot continue forever. If we do not stop population growth, mother nature, war, and other factors will do it for us in a disastrous fashion.

I did not read that book. I do know it is not a new one and more recent works no doubt cover the bases it did better.

You can live with the wool over your eyes; in fact the entire human race can. But we are walking blindfolded toward a steep cliff, and if we do not change our ways, we will go over it.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   17:20:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Ferret Mike (#25)

If we do not stop population growth, mother nature, war, and other factors will do it for us in a disastrous fashion.

Better to have things happen naturally than to have a bunch of know it all, arrogant, paternalistic scum try to stop people from having children.  What do you propose, a one child policy for the world?  Never gonna happen! 

I did not read that book. I do know it is not a new one and more recent works no doubt cover the bases it did better.

The book and its author have been discredited.  All the doom and gloom he predicted in the book never came to pass.  

Anyone who believes in this crap about overpopulation should set an example by commiting suicide.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   17:32:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Mister Clean (#27)

That is irresponsible thinking. We are responsible for our actions, such as irresponsibly increasing our numbers unchecked. Nobody expects the solutions to make people happy, but if you ran a hotel by leaving the doors open and letting fights, fire, murders, theft, and shear lack of room determine the occupancy of the building people would gage you a fool of a business owner.

As far as discredited goes, you argue rate of growth. This is a weak position as the ecologically disastrous effect of too many humans who want to much in terms of material possessions is a fact. It is demonstrable and what is happening is measured and documented.

As far as growth goes, a slower walk to the cliff with the wool over the eyes might be slower, but the results are the same when the camel's back finally breaks when the last straw hits it.

Your argument is full of hole and irrational.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   17:45:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Ferret Mike (#28)

We are responsible for our actions, such as irresponsibly increasing our numbers unchecked.

You don't have the right to tell anyone not to have children.  It's the worst kind of arrogance to think you do.

As far as discredited goes, you argue rate of growth.

Look up the predictions made in "The Population Bomb" and see for yourself.  None of them have come true.   For example, the book predicted mass starvation in 70's and 80's.  It didn't happen.

Most doom and gloom predictions don't happen especially the ones about the future!


Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   17:52:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Mister Clean (#29) (Edited)

"You don't have the right to tell anyone not to have children. It's the worst kind of arrogance to think you do."

But let me guess; you would tell people who love each other they could not sleep together or get married unless they were each a different gender. Then you would laugh and point at them citing how miserable they are, how much their misery effects their health and stress levels and say that that is the cause and effect making homosexuality bad; not the oppression you do to harass and disrupt their existence.

This is called hypocrisy, and you have it in bucket loads.

Nobody should have the right to tell someone they can't sleep unless they have a place to go and do it; but here in Eugene, Oregon and other places it is illegal to sleep in public. Public being anyplace not owned or rented by the individual(s) sleeping.

Humans have all kinds of measures of control to try to make things livable or orderly, and I hear conservatives on FR say welfare Mamas should be spayed all the time.

How do you feel about a woman having kids to increase her check from human services? I mean, you just said to control this is unconscionable.

We have to control population somehow, and it isn't as impossible as you would have us believe. Anyone who takes Sociology 101 learns quickly that developed nations have a low of even negative birthrate, and that less developed countries have population growth that is sky high.

I submit that a careful study of the entire spectrum of human population growth looking at all subsets of human groups would show this is a doable goal, with far less oppression or negative consequences then you would have us believe.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   18:06:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Ferret Mike (#30)

But let me guess; you would tell people who love each other they could not sleep together or get married unless they were each a different gender.

I don't care about gay marriage.

How do you feel about a woman having kids to increase her check from human services.

She only does that because she knows she'll get more money.  Cut off the money or place limits on what is available and for how long and these people will likely stop having children just for the welfare check. 

I submit that a careful study of the entire spectrum of human population growth looking at all subsets of human groups would show this is a doable goal, with far less oppression or negative consequences then you would have us believe.

I submit you believe in pipe dreams. 

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   18:12:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Mister Clean (#31)

"She only does that because she knows she'll get more money. Cut off the money or place limits on what is available and for how long and these people will likely stop having children just for the welfare check."

Many just are into having kids, and kids are not permitted by government to starve and have no support. Do you support starving kids if women have them anyway? And this is exactly what always happens regardless of benefits paid.

It sounds like you are saying, "Screw it, if the kids starve, that'll learn them not to whelp them rats."

And just who is dealing with fantasy? I submit it is you.

You don't even believe in studying the problem of population growth or doing anything about it.

I thought you were conservative, and cared about personal responsibility? If people as individuals or groups do not react and work to end the cancerous and disastrous growth of our numbers, this lack of personal responsibility leads to the cliff blindly walked off of.

And the fall consisting of war, famine, disease, starvation, chaos and social entropy is the route one would expect the fate to be of creatures that do not think, reason, care about one another, build things, and are creative and inventive. Are you saying we are just so many lemmings who inevitably will march to drown in the sea?

It is you here who lives in denial, quite obviously.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   18:32:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Ferret Mike (#32)

Many just are into having kids, and kids are not permitted by government to starve and have no support. Do you support starving kids if women have them anyway? And this is exactly what always happens regardless of benefits paid.

I support people being responsible for their actions.  There is a price to be paid for doing foolish things and people will suffer from foolish behavior.  The larger society is not responsible for taking care of the children of irresponsible people.

You don't even believe in studying the problem of population growth or doing anything about it.

I don't believe in predictions of doom, gloom, diaster and destruction.  If you want to fret over population growth go right ahead.  

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   18:39:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Mister Clean (#33)

"I support people being responsible for their actions. There is a price to be paid for doing foolish things and people will suffer from foolish behavior. The larger society is not responsible for taking care of the children of irresponsible people."

And so children should suffer because their parents were irresponsible? If people are irresponsible in parenting kids, often they are not responsible when it comes to taking care of them. So as innocents should not suffer, government acts to keep those children from suffering and dying of exposure, disease or starvation.

Not to mention that if these children are not educated, then their ignorance as adults will cost more then the price of sending them to a school to learn.

So what are you saying? That people who are irresponsible about breeding should go to expensive to run prisons? Because the innocent children surely should not starve or suffer for actions happening creating them. So what reasonable solution do you have to population growth continuing unchecked? Just ignoring it is not going to make the problem go away.

I also don't live by predictions of doom, gloom, disaster and destruction. I base my belief system and opinions on quantifiable facts and known situations and the obviousness of how things will turn out or happen if better solutions then ignoring or neglecting problems such as unchecked population growth are not found.

You can go ahead and wear that blindfold and march stoically to your doom over that metaphorical cliff. But you are being foolish, myopic and live in denial in doing so.

Ferret Mike  posted on  2010-02-13   18:58:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Ferret Mike (#38)

And so children should suffer because their parents were irresponsible?

It happens all the time just about everywhere and you can't prevent it... not even through population control.

Mister Clean  posted on  2010-02-13   19:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Mister Clean (#40)

this fact remains, and it's the fact you are most vulnerable on:

global oil production peaked in 2005, despite the fact that the price of oil increased by a factor of seven from 2002 to 2008, at which point the price of oil hit $147 per barrel.

this despite a doubling of drills during the same time period, ie, from 2002 to 2008.

when the price of oil hit $147 per barrel, it became necessary to pop the housing bubble, thus causing a global financial crisis that would reduce demand for oil and obscure the fact that oil production had peaked.

groundresonance  posted on  2010-02-13   19:08:39 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 41.

        There are no replies to Comment # 41.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest