Heroic archetypes in Avatar

[Isard]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

Again, you make a good point. The first time we see Neytiri she is merciful and compassionate. Our initial view of the Na'vi is actually very positive. It is only when we meet Tsu-tey that the Na'vi look in any way violent. Even then, Neytiri protects Jake.

If anything, out inital feeling is that the RDA are the violent ones. Quaritch talks about hitting them hard, grace talks about how machine guns aainst them in a way that suggests that the Na'vi were probably not at fault for the incidenent and Selfride talks about getting them to move. With that background information, even the hostile way that Tsu-tey and Etukahn refer to Jake and the Skypeople in general is understandable from the viewers point of view. We don't really see a barbarous people. We see a people concerned about a hostile enemy, and with good reason.

I also read the Wiki on the "Noble Savage" and it doesn't really say anything to convince me that any of the Na'vi correspond to the noble savage. This is partly because the Wiki is flawed in that is does not seem to look at the noble savage at all in modern or contemporary literature of film.

so the more I think about it, the more that Neytiri and the Na'vi really don't fit in with the noble savage idea.

Actually, for the first few seconds, we see her as 'merciless' rather. (I mean, I could easily call the relationship was going to develop, but still) We see her about to murder a perfect stranger. I have no idea about the political or social stance the RDA and Na'vi currently have at that point, and she's about to go "stabby stabby" and end the movie right there.

Now, she shows her merciful side a few seconds after. But there are no time limits on the label. They're defined as simple savages initially and we observe that they are not.

[neytirifanboy]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Actually, for the first few seconds, we see her as 'merciless' rather. (I mean, I could easily call the relationship was going to develop, but still) We see her about to murder a perfect stranger. I have no idea about the political or social stance the RDA and Na'vi currently have at that point, and she's about to go "stabby stabby" and end the movie right there.

Now, she shows her merciful side a few seconds after. But there are no time limits on the label. They're defined as simple savages initially and we observe that they are not.

you can see it like that. But in fact before we see Neytiri we know that the RDA have been and could be hostile to them.

As I said Quaritch talks about hitting them hard and Grace mentions the machine-gun incident before we see Neytiri. So in this context, neytiri can be seen as a native defending her territory from a potentially aggressive enemy. That to be is actually quite reasonable behaviour.

In the end it is a matter of perspective. I don't really see Neytiri as savage at all when I first see her. On the contrary she looks extremely intelligent and self-aware, as well as looking exotically alluring. But barbaric or savage never came to my mind.

Of course, others may see it differently.

[Human No More]

Exactly - we already know how the humans have treated the Na'vi based on what Grace said.
'That tends to happen when you use machine guns on them'.

Neytiri thought Jake was a tawtute trying to find the Na'vi with bad intentions. If a Na'vi walked up to humans, I can guess what would have happened.

[joeylovesgaia]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Exactly - we already know how the humans have treated the Na'vi based on what Grace said.
'That tends to happen when you use machine guns on them'.

Neytiri thought Jake was a tawtute trying to find the Na'vi with bad intentions. If a Na'vi walked up to humans, I can guess what would have happened.

And she was right, at first. Now, why did Eywa let Jake in, when he was a tawtute spy? Yes, that changed, but he still told Eywa's enemies far too much.

What archetype is Trudy?

[neytirifanboy]

Originally Posted by joeylovesgaia

What archetype is Trudy?

Having looked at the hero archetypes again, there are a few that may fit Trudy.

The most obvious is the martyr, as that is what she becomes. However, I don't think she fits that role all the way through the movie as she clearly doesn't want to be a martyr.

The Silent Man is also a possibility. Not so much because Trudy doesn't talk much but because of the other characteristics. The silent man just gets on with doing the right thing without really explaining why. And that explains Trudy quite well.

The other possibility is the Knight. I do think Trudy does have a sense of honour and seems to fight simply because it is a noble cause, fighting the strong against the weak.

Finally, there may be a bit of a rough Diamond about Trudy. She comes across as being rough round the edges and seems to be a tough chick. Also, the fact that she seems to be a bit of a renegade also may promote this archetype for Trudy.

Anyway, that is my assessment.

[joeylovesgaia]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

I also read the Wiki on the "Noble Savage" and it doesn't really say anything to convince me that any of the Na'vi correspond to the noble savage. This is partly because the Wiki is flawed in that is does not seem to look at the noble savage at all in modern or contemporary literature of film.

so the more I think about it, the more that Neytiri and the Na'vi really don't fit in with the noble savage idea.

Noble Savage is a racist stereotype, not a valid archetype. If you wanted to refer to what archetype the Na'vi characters are, one would have to refer to the legends and stories of the peoples Cameron based them on. Failing that, use a Jungian archetype that isn't a crude stereotype. Seriously, it overlooks far too much about native culture, and it most definitely is a white's man's view of them.

[Human No More]

Exactly, not to mention how badly it fits, even more so that most of these 'archetypes' which are hugely generalised at best.
Some people just love to over-analyse things.

[Sothis]

HNM, I'd like to respectfully request that if you do not like analysis, that you avoid posting in threads where analysis is the explicit, central focus. I don't mind if you disagree with other people's interpretations, but you seem to have a general dislike of analysis. This is not the first thread in which you have accused people of "overanalysing" things, and it is not appreciated.

Whether analysis is excessive or not is a matter of personal preference. For you and many others, a story like Avatar is a pure and compelling experience and you don't like to see it picked apart and analyzed because in your mind it's not necessary to do so. I can respect that. I'm reminded of the quote that says "if you take apart a cat to see how it works, the first thing you have is a non-working cat." A lot of people don't like to read analysis, and that's ok.

However, for some of us, analysis is a natural and automatic aspect of experiencing a story. For me, the story itself is compelling and interesting, but I'm also interested in teasing out WHY it's compelling. What is it about the characters and setting and imagery and plot that evokes the emotional response that it does? Stories aren't told in a vacuum... whether intentionally or not, they play upon the audience's experiences, history, and psychology. I find this fascinating, and I can't help but analyze the stories I find compelling in order to gain insight on how they "work." Maybe this is because I'm a writer... if you want to create good stories yourself, it helps to have some critical understanding of what makes a story good, whether that understanding is intuitive or intellectual.

When I create threads such as this one, I'm not trying to force my interpretations on anyone else. I'm not trying to push any kind of agenda. Like I said, my analysis is something I do naturally and automatically, whether I share it with others or not. But there ARE others on this forum who enjoy reading other people's analysis, and it's perfectly valid for us to share our thoughts with each other. There's no need to scoff at us.

[Human No More]

OK, fine, sorry. I really didn't see you as trying to 'force' anything, and I find some level of it fine, I just think that if something fits into a type (e.g. Quaritch does into several) then they fit naturally, but other things just don't.
I do see some of it as valid, in particular the way some scenes mirror and foreshadow each other, I just don't see finding parallels between characters as pertinent or true.

[Moco Loco]

Nice thread