10 responses to “Promoting James Cameron’s Avatar: Let’s Talk Jake Sully and Disability”

  1. Molly

    Hmmm. He’s clearly using some seriously ableist constructions and ideas. However, I think both he and the film are doing somewhat better than average with regard to ableism. I didn’t expect much from the movie, but I was surprised to find that 90% of the ableist characters are bad guys; you’re not, I think, supposed to agree with their conclusions (like that his legs aren’t his “real legs.”)

    That isn’t to say that the whole giving-up-your-body-for-the-superathlete-cat-body plot isn’t incredibly problematic, of course, because it super, super is. And maybe most watchers *are* agreeing with the ableism expressed by the bad guys. I should poll my friends and see.

    Overall, I thought the movie, and the dude in this interview, are ignorant but trying. They should damn well try harder (how much googling does it take to figure out that the phrase “useless body” is just never a good idea?) but overall I thought it might be a step forward rather than backward in general societal discourse about disability. (Though that discourse is so bad, I’m not sure what a backward step would even look like, so take this all with a grain of salt.)

    (Could I be more unhelpfully wishy-washy about this? Hard to say.)

  2. Ms. M

    I saw the movie last week, and was pretty impressed….I think they tried, which is better than 99% of movies. There wasn’t any self-pity, woe is me stuff from Jake Sully in the movie, just getting on with it. I was prepared to be annoyed with how Jake’s disability was treated, but I really wasn’t. He was a very complex character.

  3. Sarah

    These interviews are interesting, and frankly reveal a lot more depth than I inferred from watching the film. Though the movie wasn’t as ableist as I ancipated, Sully’s disability felt more like a cheap way to make the character sympathetic than anything else. The writers wanted to give him a motive for participating in the mission which would seem sympathetic, and a disabled man supposedly “getting his legs back” was what they came up with. That’s tapping into all sorts of ableist conceptions which are widely shared. I also didn’t really see Sully wanting to undertake the mission because he wanted to “make a difference.” I saw it more in terms of him wanting to undertake the mission for ableist reasons, and also for lack of anything better to do.

    Having said that, it’s true that Jake wasn’t a particularly self-pitying character, which was refreshing, and that aspect of the story was more understated than I feared it would be.

    Interesting to note, however, that Sully was not the only character with a disability portrayed. The villain used a prosthetic arm. Which really fits into a long line of stereotypes in terms of how villains’ bodies are portrayed.

  4. Mel

    I agree with Molly. I absolutely hated hated hated the movie on almost all fronts (racist, sexist, cliched, poor worldbuilding, mediocre acting, exaggerated black-and-white politics…), but I think they were trying (if not entirely succeeding) with Jake’ portrayal and it’s probably a little better than the average portrayal of people who use wheelchairs in media. It is true that most of the ableist attitudes come from bad guys; and Jake’s unhappiness in his normal human body seems to largely come from the society he’s in, which is portrayed as almost without redeeming qualities.

    “You get me what I need, I’ll see to it you get your legs back,” says the blonde character from earlier in the clip.

    “Hell yeah, sir,” Jake says, seated in his wheelchair.

    I think–and I may be misremembering–that in the movie this dialogue was in the opposite order–Jake said “hell yeah” to the idea of spying for the blonde character (Colonel Totally Evil) and THEN the colonel offered him surgery. It was definitely something that came after Jake agreed, so I think an example of them trying (badly). This was such a pointless addition to the plot that I suspect it was included solely so Jake’s rejection of the Colonel’s goals later in favor of helping the Na’vi would be “more dramatic” for an able-bodied audience because he’s “giving up” something, even though wanting surgery is never demonstrated to be a motivating force for him.

  5. Mel

    BTW, here’s a link to a mainstream article discussing Jake:

    http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2009/12/23/what_does_avatar_tell_us_about_masculinity_and_disability

    I’m not even sure where to start with what’s wrong with that take on the movie (disability is “emmasculating”? It’s okay and just like being trans* if you feel your “true self” is another species/race?), but if that’s what people are getting out of the movie, brr.

  6. Anna

    I kinda had my jaw drop here and I haven’t been able to pick it back up:
    “First there’s the research that you, you know, have to do. Went and played wheelchair basketball with a group of guys and, you know, they kicked my ass, to be honest.”

    I am so shocked that… gosh, those crippled people were able to… well, you know, beat an able-bodied person as a game he wasn’t familiar with playing. That must have been so … well, difficult for big strong able-dude to admit to.

    It’s so condescending, I can’t even tell you.

  7. Tristian

    A few thoughts,

    - Early in the movie, Jake’s narration points out that science can “fix a broken spine,” i.e. allow him to walk again, but that he can’t do that “on a vet’s salary,” so perhaps he did want surgery to restore use of his legs, but was used to the idea that he couldn’t afford it.
    It seems to be part of humanity’s culture in the movie that disabilities and other perceived flaws can be ‘fixed’ if one has enough money, as at a later point the Colonel mentions that he could have the scar on his head removed, and be “made pretty again” if he wished.

    - In terms of the “real legs” comment being implying that Jakes disabled body is less than human- this comment is made by the Colonel, a character who is not meant to be likable in any way. I also read this as the Colonel distinguishing Jake’s ‘real legs’ from the legs of his Avatar, rather than implying that the legs Jake currently had weren’t real. It seemed to me that the Colonel was saying it would be better for Jake to regain the use of his (implicitly good, real) human body rather than use the (implicitly dirty, fake, animal) Avatar body.

    - I think Molly’s phrase “ignorant but trying” works well, particularly with characters like Grace (played by Sigourney Weaver). She’s one of the likable characters, however she does make mistakes in regard to Jake. When he’s first getting into the machine that links him to the Avatar (the ‘table’ in the clip, I’m guessing) she reaches for his legs to lift them up for him, and he sharply says, “Don’t.”
    She teases him about joining the mission, implying that he’s come out to a ludicrously hostile planet to join a scientific mission that he’s not educated enough for (he’s characterised as rather a jock compared to the other scientists) and he thinks he can just wing it? He smiles thinly up at her and suggests, “Maybe I was sick of doctors telling me what I couldn’t do.”

    The fact Jake is played by a TAB actor is obviously horribly problematic, especially as there’s no need for it as *all* the shots of him as a human are of him disabled – motion capture for the CG elements could have been done with a different actor. There are also big problems with the racial elements of the movie, as have been discussed elsewhere. But in terms of the story, the fact that Jake is disabled seemed secondary to me – it appeared to be one of the reasons he gets so addicted to the Avatar body, but he doesn’t complain or bring it up otherwise, and the only overt comments are from unlikable characters (the Colonel, and some of the thuggish soldiers). The Colonel tries to use it as a bargaining chip, but that ends up not working, which I read as Jake caring more about becoming part of the Na’vi (the Colonel’s offer comes on the eve of Jake’s final acceptance ceremony) than about anything else.

  8. AWV

    The idea of having a disabled guy use technology to have his brain projected into an nondisabled body is just really questionable in itself and I don’t really understand why it was done. (Not that writers should have to explain why a character is disabled, in general–it can just be one of their traits, it doesn’t have to be a big plot point–but you know, if a straight writer created an evil stalker character who was gay, I’d wonder why that was done, because that’s an old, screwed-up story too.) However, given the fact that the concept is innately screwed up, it was much, much less offensive than I would have expected. As other commenters have said, Jake is not portrayed as being especially angry/sad/bitter about his disability. I think his happiness about being able to walk in the Avatar body is at a believable level–it’s exciting to regain an ability he had lost, and the Avatar experience is cool for other reasons too. He’s not like “oh thank God I’m cured.” I guess you could say the movie ends with a miracle cure, but there were other reasons for him to want the Na’vi body besides the fact that it was ambulatory.

    Regarding the casting, maybe James Cameron thought it was important to have the same actor for the motion capture, so the actor would have exact same facial expressions and body language. I’m not saying this is a legit excuse, they could have gotten around it, but it’s a possible reason for casting an ambulatory actor. (Although it’s more likely the usual reason: “he was the best person for the part i.e. I forgot to actually audition any disabled actors.”)

  9. Avalon's Willow

    WTF child? A 10 year old child is the entry ticket to understanding a marine in an alien environment being sent out as some kind of agent to a group of sentient aliens?

    Why?

    Because he can walk again? That ability automatically takes the man out of the marine?

    Also I guess I have gone beyond ‘They’re trying, the poor dears, you can’t expect them to get equality right just off the bat. It’s equality! It’s FOREIGN’.

    Why should I make excuses for them when people eff up? And given the possibilities of what Avatar could have been; which one is the better try? What came out in theaters? Or the script-treatment? | http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html

    Do or do not. There is no try.

    If you show satisfaction with ‘try’ then all they’ll ever have to do is throw you that bone every time. Scraps.

    I don’t know if it’d have been better to have the movie described in that treatment. But I think it would have been a better -do- to have a movie that could have offered challenges to chew on like; What does it mean to be an Avatar? What is an Avatar? What gets destroyed in the mind transfer process? Or is something blended? What is heroism? (‘Josh’ has more to do in his human wheelchair mobile body than apparently Jake)

    Instead there’s this thing that seems to say movie going audiences aren’t expected to think anymore. Just see the pretty, ignore the problematic issues, watch some explosions and have vicarious nookie.

    I’m still agog at the whole ‘A child needs a way in so I created a childish character‘ – as if children don’t relate to their parents and other adult family members all the time. As if they don’t relate to robots in disguise and anthropomorphic animals; all of varying personalities.

    And the limited emotional empathy in thinking someone having lost use of a body-part, finding that their mind can direct a similar bodypart would react like CHRISTMAS MORNING. Juda In A Mini Skirt.

  10. linkspam_mod

    This post has been added to a linkspam round up..

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting