When people think about the movie Avatar, they tend to think about the glowing 3D flowers, the beautiful computer generated landscape. Some connect Avatar to The Last of the Mohicans, noting similarities between the plots, and leave the comparisons at that. Yet when considered more deeply, Avatar undoubtedly tells the story of ethnic cleansing in a narrative that gives surprising insight into mass media’s depictions of ethnic cleansing for the everyday individual. Hollywood’s films only serve to perpetuate misconceptions about genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The depiction of ethnic cleansing in Avatar occurs, literally, in a place far far away from the average viewer, on the planet of Pandora. The obvious fictional nature of the narrative minimizes the ethnic cleansing's effect on the audience. While the native Na’vi’s plight is obviously saddening, the audience reassures itself of the fictional nature of the story. However, Hollywood produces movies that address real cases of ethic cleansing in equally removed ways.
Hotel Rwanda addresses the Rwandan genocide that occurred between the Hutus and the Tutsi peoples of Rwanda. While the film is emotionally touching, and feels more real than Avatar, the idea of genocide remains un-relatable, as the film discusses a third world population with a first world audience. With Hotel Rwanda audience members can easily dismiss the problems of genocides as being the issues of the “third world.”
Similarly, Schindler’s List portrays the horrors of the Holocaust in Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s. Although the Holocaust is undoubtedly more widely heard of than the Rwandan genocide, Schindler’s List remains remote because the atrocities were committed when most movie goers weren’t born. Audience members likewise dismiss the reality as genocide as a historical problem.
I do not mean to detract from the horror that was the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust. I am merely trying to point out that these movies preserve the perceived distance between the actual genocides and the people hearing about them. Movies being made about genocides in different times or severely different places enhance the viewer’s perception of genocides being the problem of a different world. Such movies augment the popular idea that genocide could never happen in “first” world countries, like the United States.
Similarly, all three movies perpetuate the myth of “evil” perpetrators. In Avatar, the evil character is Colonel Quaritch, in Hotel Rwanda, it is the army general, Augustin Bizimungu, in Schindler’s List, it is Amon Göth and Rudolf Höss. The movies simplify episodes of ethnic cleaning and genocides into the “evil” perpetrators and the innocent victims. Yet our readings over the past three weeks categorically deny that genocides can be reduced into such simple parts. Genocides are more than the “evil” dictator, or the masses of corpses. They are a result of both cultural and individual pre-conditions and phenomenon that are not exclusive to third world countries or the past, but occur consistently in the present.
The depiction of ethnic cleansing in Avatar occurs, literally, in a place far far away from the average viewer, on the planet of Pandora. The obvious fictional nature of the narrative minimizes the ethnic cleansing's effect on the audience. While the native Na’vi’s plight is obviously saddening, the audience reassures itself of the fictional nature of the story. However, Hollywood produces movies that address real cases of ethic cleansing in equally removed ways.
Hotel Rwanda addresses the Rwandan genocide that occurred between the Hutus and the Tutsi peoples of Rwanda. While the film is emotionally touching, and feels more real than Avatar, the idea of genocide remains un-relatable, as the film discusses a third world population with a first world audience. With Hotel Rwanda audience members can easily dismiss the problems of genocides as being the issues of the “third world.”
Similarly, Schindler’s List portrays the horrors of the Holocaust in Germany in the late 1930s and 1940s. Although the Holocaust is undoubtedly more widely heard of than the Rwandan genocide, Schindler’s List remains remote because the atrocities were committed when most movie goers weren’t born. Audience members likewise dismiss the reality as genocide as a historical problem.
I do not mean to detract from the horror that was the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust. I am merely trying to point out that these movies preserve the perceived distance between the actual genocides and the people hearing about them. Movies being made about genocides in different times or severely different places enhance the viewer’s perception of genocides being the problem of a different world. Such movies augment the popular idea that genocide could never happen in “first” world countries, like the United States.
Similarly, all three movies perpetuate the myth of “evil” perpetrators. In Avatar, the evil character is Colonel Quaritch, in Hotel Rwanda, it is the army general, Augustin Bizimungu, in Schindler’s List, it is Amon Göth and Rudolf Höss. The movies simplify episodes of ethnic cleaning and genocides into the “evil” perpetrators and the innocent victims. Yet our readings over the past three weeks categorically deny that genocides can be reduced into such simple parts. Genocides are more than the “evil” dictator, or the masses of corpses. They are a result of both cultural and individual pre-conditions and phenomenon that are not exclusive to third world countries or the past, but occur consistently in the present.
I agree that Hollywood oversimplifies examples in film of ethnic cleansing by having stark examples of good and evil. But isn't this simply a trope used to help an audience know exactly what to think? Because Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List are based on real events, it would be highly controversial to insert any sort of redemption, conflict, or even normalcy on the part of the perpetrators. When there are (for example, in The Pianist, with the Nazi soldier who appreciates Brody's music) perpetrators who are shown in a positive or redemptive light, they are rarely shown committing crimes as well. I believe that such an inclusion would make the films more realistic portrayals of history, but maybe this isn't what makes a blockbuster hit.
ReplyDelete