Jessie Earl
patreon
Why The Live Action Avatar Doesn't Get Avatar
🕑 Added 2024-02-23 06:06:07 +0000 UTCHey all; so I watched the live-action Avatar: The Last Airbender remake, and I had so many thoughts about it that I had to write it, so here's an essay that I might turn into a video tomorrow if I have time between IDENTITEAZE VFX editing haha. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy it. Also, if you like the live-action show - it should be clear - it's TOTALLY COOL. It's not the worst thing ever, and I'm doing my classic overanalyzing, but its something that I wanted to talk about, especially since some of these concepts are what I'm writing about right now for my Deep Space Nine video (in a positive sense) and my feature film script I'm working on.
========================
The live-action Avatar the Last Airbender adaptation is terrible. I know… I know, shocking. Why is no one talking about this? This is why you come to me - to say things others won’t. No one… no one is saying this; don’t check!
But what’s interesting, and why I wanted to make this quick little video about it, is WHY because it’s bad in a way that intrigues me for what it indicates about the thinking that went into the series. Because it certainly isn’t WOKENESS that killed it. Actually… it kind of is, but not in the way online outrage merchants who like to put weird Google-y eye monstrosities in their thumbnails would argue. Indeed, it is, at times, an improvement over the M. Night Shyamalan disaster, where it took 4 Earth Benders doing a mildly choreographed dance to move a simple rock. The show's first scene gives us some kick as EARTH BENDING ACTION. I mean, look at that; pretty cool. But that’s the exact problem - it looks cool, and that’s all live-action Avatar the Last Airbender is going for. It is a simple surface-level nostalgic resurrection of Avatar without actually adding to or building on top of what the original had to say. Even worse, its surface-level approach to necromantically recreating the past not only adds nothing new but runs entirely counter to the main nuanced points the original series was trying to say. Also, it did the most unforgivable thing - it made my adorable problematic boy Sokka INSUFFERABLE and Uncle Iroh BORING AS HELL. Unforgivable. You go in the corner and think about what you’ve done.
Given this is going up just a few days after the series releases, I can show you the entire problem with the show without spoiling the entire season, as you can see the issues underlying the whole series on full display in critical decisions made in its first two episodes that ultimately reveal why I find this live-action Avatar not only pointless but actively counterintuitive to the original series.
The first is the one that most people were concerned about even before the series was released, and the series coming out didn’t just prove the concerns correct; it proved them to have been NOT BIG ENOUGH. A couple weeks before the live action series released, showrunner and former Entertainment Weekly editor Albert Kim and the lead child actors for the series were interviewed by, shocker of shocks, Entertainment Weekly. In that interview, Ian Oursley, who plays Sokka in the live-action remake, stated, “I feel like we also took out the element of how sexist [Sokka] was. I feel like there were a lot of moments in the original show that were iffy.” The Entertainment Weekly article then goes on to cite lines like this one where Sokka displays a sexist view of women. It also went on to state there were “entire Reddit threads” to argue that fans found Sokka incredibly sexist as well. Yet, these two citations leave out critical context - let's watch the rest of that clip. [clip]. In that section, we see that his sexism is immediately challenged by the woman in the scene, Katara. And the entire Reddit threads cited was one person four years ago intrigued by how Sokka, despite being sexist, got some of the ladies - to which many people four years ago pointed out that he learned from his encounters with other women - displaying how growing from his sexism was a critical part of his arc…
Take, for example, the early 4th episode of the animated series where the gang visits Kyoshi Island. In the episode, Sokka repeatedly displays a chauvinistic and sexist attitude. Yet, the show itself displays this within the episode as something Sokka needs to grow out of and repeatedly challenges him to do so. The episode opens up with that clip I showed earlier, establishing his ingrained assumption of delineations between men's and women’s work and the biological essentialism he takes for granted in his statements. After being captured by the all-women Kyohsi warrior, Sokka presumes it must have been men who kidnapped them. Later, Sokka, grumping about getting beaten by girls, intrudes on their training, assuming it must be dance lessons - again, biological essentialism - women must be dancing because it is inherent to their place. Despite his attempts to man-splain how to fight, he gets his ass handed to him by my gal Suki. Eventually, Sokka dons the Koshi armor to learn how the Koyshi fight so that he can learn how to be a better warrior from them. At this moment, despite his embarrassment, Sokka is taking on what he sees as feminine traits like dresses and makeup to do something that he views as masculine - underscoring how these concepts are not intrinsically separate nor, more importantly, opposing. And how physical strength is not always needed to win a fight. Even more subtly, though, in this scene, we see Suki not just as a narrative tool for Sokka’s growth but as her person with her own feelings. When Soka does beat her, she plays it off. In some ways, the pridefulness that Sokka displays is also in her, just not filtered through sexism. It’s the show showing us how men and women are both human, even outside of Sokkas arc. It also allows us to see her as a flawed person, giving her depth beyond just Sokka’s narrative tool. In the end, Sokka, learns to grow as a warrior and as a human being who sees Suki and women more generally as whole people, not just objects to be relegated to specific gendered roles. He’s not all the way there; he’s still sexist and chauvinist, but it's an early episode to set up this series-long arc.
The framing of Ousely’s quote - and lets be fair, that Entertainment Weekly article did not do him or the show any favors in terms of how it presented the actor’s out-of-context quotes alongside other quotes like “more weight with realism in every way” as if sexism is somehow not realistic - led to a lot of backlash from fans towards the show; citing that the remake didn’t get the original show. Which, at the time, was an unfounded accusation. While undoubtedly talented, Ousley is the actor, not the writer, and his comments about the potential removal of sexism in the series might not have reflected the writer's intentions or what was in the final edited show. Even further, it also could be that his growing sexism was replaced by another, just as exciting or even more dramatic character trait that could be explored. It wouldn’t be that they just removed his sexism and still tried to play the episode the same way… right… right? Sigh.
Episode 2 of the live-action series adapts the same Kiyoshi Island episode, and it's much worse. Here, the episode starts with Sokka being concerned about duty and responsibility to his water tribe instead of having the ability to SAVE the world alongside Aang and Kitara. There is no sexism here, despite scenes in episode 1 displaying his chauvinistic tendencies to take charge. Yet, it’s never filtered through explicit sexism, so it goes almost entirely unchallenged - instead it’s depicted as him being unconfident. So when Sokka meets Suji, to reflect live action Sokka’s current character arc, the show sets up Suki as a character with all the weight and responsibility of a Kyoshi Warrior in contrast to Sokka, who is also a protector of his village. Sokka here does not showcase sexism, but a desire to be seen as JUST as strong as Suki, given she looks down on HIM as someone who supposedly abandoned his village. As a result, their conflict becomes more about Sokka learning to prove himself as a warrior and that he is strong enough to save teh world. In fact; the episode takes a moment for Suki to feel bad after she shows him up; the exact opposite of how she’s depicted in the animated series. Even further; the episode has moments where it depicts Sokka’s sex abs and body; highlighting his physical strength that Suki can see and he does not. The episode becomes more about him needing to see his prowess and ability, how special he is, and not being afraid to take on that destiny. But more importantly, for now, while Suki is shown to be the better fighter and teacher, the story is about her building him up rather than confronting him. To actually confront him; to make him doubt himself and his strength, is seen as a mistake on her part. As a result, she becomes a prop for his development into the guy he is destined to be, arguing that he should not feel emasculated because he isn’t a bender, but just be stronger-willed. The show removes Sokka’s sexism and by doing so presents a sexist worldview, which is far far worse.
Also; the series never has him don the Kyoshi armor, which, as my fellow transgender filmmaker Mia Moore argued; “Netflix didn't put Sokka in the Kyoshi Warriors outfit because they don't want to be seen as supporting drag/crossdressing in children's media and that's WAY more misogynistic and conservative than having him call Suki a stupid worthless girl right before she beats his ass.” She's absolutely correct, and you should also be excited for her scifi film Again, Again coming sometime this year. Between her film, Abgail Thorn's Dracula's Ex-Girlfriend, Jane Schoenbrun's I Saw the TV Glow and my own IDENTITEAZE, its gonna be a banger year for trans genre art.
More importantly, the live-action series removes this scene from the original episode. [clip] I cannot stress enough that this exchange is WHY you make this episode. The journey for the Avatar characters is for them to grow not just to PHYSICALLY beat the Fire Nation but also philosophically to challenge the imperialism and settler colonialism it represents. The Fire Nation presents a culture of hierarchical supremacy meant to justify its colonialist ambitions - such as with its Fire Bender supremacy rhetoric, generated to validate its occupation of earth bender society.
The entire point of Sokka's arc in the animated series is for him to confront the hierarchical assumptions he had ingrained in him from his culture. The Southern Water Tribe did not have a racialized hierarchy like the Fire Nation. Still, it did have some level of ingrained biological essentialism of women's and men’s roles and the differing value of such roles that Sokka had internalized. For him to see Suki as both a warrior AND a girl intentionally breaks down his belief that strength and womanhood are separate and opposing concepts, showing him that his sexist beliefs are a generated, not natural, hierarchy.
This arc is constantly reinforced throughout the series, so when Sokka faces the Fire Nation at the end of the series itself and the END OF this season, he presents not just a physical adversary but a philosophical rival to the Fire Nation's racialized imperialism. This is the arc for ALL of the Avatar characters; the show is not just going around to say; “look how horrible the Fire Nation is; we need to beat them up.” Instead, it's saying, “look at the ideology of this settler colonialist culture and how it dehumanizes not only the people it colonizes but also itself and its citizens; how do we build something better?” Removing this early story in the live-action show and making it about Sokka learning to be a better warrior rather than overcoming sexism makes the story about "who can fight stronger." It removes the his story's ability to challenge imperialism's core philosophy- that might makes right. Thus, by removing it, the live-action Avatar challenges nothing and reinforces an oppressor belief system. Instead, the show replaces animated Sokka’s arc with one that says, "To win, you need to punch harder," which is precisely what the Fire Nation believes. The show is arguing for the philosophy of the imperialism in the story of its supposed anti-colonist heroes. The show fails to argue what the animated series did so well - that collective unity and valuing of the Other is not only the best way to fight back against oppression but more human.
This is a repeated problem throughout the series; the core arc for Aang in the life action show this season for him to accept his power as the Avatar, which he is initially afraid of. We know this because of exceptionally on-the-nose dialogue. He gets warnings from a vision of a prior Avatar telling him that he has RESPONSIBILITY as an Avatar, even above his own life. He has a destiny, he has power, that he has a responsibility and right to wield. [clip] Death will naturally be a part of his wielding of righteous power, but it is still right that he does it all the same and not be afraid of it, the show argues.
This seemed to be a critical point for writer Kim, as he’s constantly quoted in Entertainment Weekly about how he wanted to show the POWER of the Avatar throughout the season. So when Aang wins the day as the Koi-Zilla in the season finale, it's depicted as triumphant - him accepting his role as Avatar, a conclusion to his at,
Yet, the animated series always presented the wielding of this Avatar power with a hint of horror and trepidation. Indeed, even the older Avatars in that show that Aang meets are shown to have misused their Avatar power - Kyoshi sundered the land in her fury, leading to problems later. Avatar Roku was a pacifist and never stood up to the Fire Nation's expansionism, allowing the entire Fire Nation attacks to happen. The Avatar's power, used and non-used, is a philosophy to discuss. Might does not make right, but also resisting oppression is essential lest you become neutral in the face of violence.
Instead, the live-action series actively, in Kim’s own words, compresses Kyoshi and Roku’s stories into Kyoshi alone; where she argues for simple usage of power rather than a balance between the understanding that violent power and passivism are two sides of a coin used to enable harm. By doing this, instead of showcasing the dual issue of wielding or not wielding power within a leadership position, the live action show instead says the Avatar needs to be strong and punch things well. It celebrates when he does. Same with Sokka; the live action show says he has a duty to protect the whole world. He’s a Hero’s Journey character refusing the call but soon accepting it to become a very special boy. Both he and Aang are presented as people with no real issues other than fear of using their power to its fullest, which is a story told by the oppressor that the show is supposedly about taking down.
Yet, the worst choice the show makes is its first, one actively made to differentiate itself from the animated series - the depiction of the initial fire nation attack. The first episode begins with a 20-minute sequence showing the lead-up to the Fire Nation’s genocide of the airbenders 100 years prior to the shows main narrative. Kim argued this was the one thing he wanted to add in this adaptation that was not in the original. “But I felt it was important that we see the event that creates the story of Avatar. The famous line is, ‘Everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.’ I wanted to see that.” But the question I have is, why do you want to see a genocide occurring? Like... that's a weird thing to say without presenting a WHY you wanted to see it. To showcase its horrors? To add context? Just saying you want to see it on its terms is honestly kind of... ghoulish. The reason he gives later on for wanting to depict this violence is that this is an adult show made for the kids who watched the series growing up. So now; as adults, we can see the genocide. Yet, this assumes that we, as kids, always wanted to see the genocide which is a leap, and still asks me to question why Kim wanted to see it. It also assumes the only reason the genocide was not depicted in the original shows was limits on what could be aired in front of kids. It also assumes that to depict violent genocide is inherently adult… but I’d argue that the way the live-action series presents this genocide is childish compared to the animated series.
While Kim never says it, if you watch the sequence, the entire point, it seems, behind Kim’s desire to depict the Airbender genocide is for the show to get a chance to see Airbenders fighting - you know, doing that thing that is against their core philosophy. Worse, how it's filmed doesn’t depict the events as all that tragic; it's just a vehicle for cool fight scenes. There’s no commentary on the horrors of this event; there’s not even sad music - it’s all played ss AHH YEAH LOOK AT THIS COOL STUFF HAPPENING - you know, the murder of children and an entire civilization. I’m not saying the show is saying genocide is cool… but it’s also presenting it AS cool visually through its desire to show us the cool airbending fight sequences. Kims impulse here is the same you see in some Star Wars fans and writers that led to shows like the Book of Boba Fett - this desire to see nostalgic Star Wars characters fighting because you thought it woukd be cool as a child on screen when you mashed action figure together; without having to think about a story that gives context or commentary on that violence. It's why I kind of respect the Rouge One scene of Vader; it still presents Vadar as badass, but the scene is horrific and terrifying as he murders Rebels. There’s at least SOME commentary there. Here in Avatar, it's just badass looking. Action figures mashed together without really presenting any artistic point of view about that violence’s context. It’s all rather juvenile rather than adult.
We need to talk briefly about why fascists and oppressors love aesthetics, something I spoke about in my and Aranock’s video on Star Wars, which you should check out if you have a quick 6 hours for the best video on Star Wars you’ll ever watch. You’ll often see right-wing conservatives argue that art should be apolitical, just present us with aesthetically pleasing images and comforting escapist stories that don’t have deeper meaning or challenge us in any way. The curtains are blue and should stay blue. This is why fascists watch Star Trek and miss its progressive politics, or how conservatives will watch Starship Troopers and miss that it is a parody of fascism societies’ need to create and generate an Other to fuel a political machine requiring endless violence because the conservatives are too caught up in how the bugs need to be murdered. It’s because to them, art shouldn’t present a point of view and thus deny they deny a point of view is present. They’ll only get upset when they see superficial appearances of something that challenges their preconceived bias, like a Black person in a lead narrative role. Even if a show is deeply anti colonialist, they’ll claim it’s just a fun kids show because they don’t read any deeper. And that’s intentional, as their inability to read deeper stops them from being capable of imagining anything outside of the status quo. This is why you’ll often see conservative leaders attack academic institutions, especially art programs, as pointless. The goal is to make people not think too deeply about art, to revel in the shallow, fleeting power symbolized by visuals of strength and physical grandeur. These leaders wish to educate people simply to be enactors of capitalism, a form of evolved colonialism, rather than teach them to be thinkers or dreamers who could envision a world behind the present now.
We can see the effect this has on our ability to read art. Gordon Cormier, the actor who played Aang in this show is quoted in the Entertainment Weekly article saying, "I think the Airbender genocide is really cool… Well, no! No! Not like that... I mean... it's not a good thing, but watching it is going to be sick! (he means the airbending effects)." I'm not here to attack the actor; he's a kid paid to do a job and he did it well. I think his words are just more emblematic of the takeaway I think many, kids and adults alike, are intended to and may take away from the sequence that doesn't challenge the audience to actually think about anything beyond the surface-level meaningless spectacle sold to you as a product built on the strip-mined soul of the original work.
In contrast, the animated series shows us the genocide through its aftermath. Aang, 100 years later, sees the bodies of his loved ones and is visibly disturbed to the point of entering the avatar state and nearly destroying everything around him. The series made a genocide that happened over a hundred years ago still fresh, raw, and immediate. By doing so, it showed how the horrors of settler colonialism still reverberate across generations, for these wounds are the foundation upon which empires are built, which are not allowed to heal ever to become scars, for these genocides are revisited daily in the echos of the oppressor states they are built upon. How those open wounds then cause more violence by those oppressed and hurt. How it creates a loop of violence… and how much effort it takes to break that loop. Thus, the animated show made the past present and artistically displayed the horrific violence of an oppressive now. How the oppressive now continually recreates itself through its unhealthful wounds. Yet, the scene also spoke to the future. We see the death of what could have been. The life Aang and so many others could have lived. Potential futures extinguished. If dreaming of a future is to imagine a world resistant to the dominant oppressive order of the present, then oppressive forces that destroy potential futures are a horror that locks us into the oppressive now. This artistic depiction is more meaningful, touching, and introspective in a way that motivates me to want to say “never again” to the violence of settler colonialism.
“In pain or illness, I cling to the hope that this body does not have to be once and for all, but in a way, the body is forever. Even after death, we must take care of the remains. The physical matter decomposes but never leaves. This is simply the law of conversation of mass. What then is ever really lost from a body? I cannot help but wonder how trauma, queerness and pain continue to circulate around one another, pushing me forward in time to the person I wish to become and backward to the child I was, seeking out answers for how and why and who I am, and how and why and toward what or whom I desire. Remember that wounds, when healed, can always be reopened. The past matters not only to discover what was lost but also what might be recovered or reclaimed. The past matters because it is always here now. Such is the chronicity of pain, and such is the chronicity of hope.” - CJ Cerankowski
By depicting the genocide as simply a present event, it locks it to the moment of the event rather than how it echoes long after. The live-action show has a brief moment where Aang looks at his dead past, but it's in the last 4 minutes of a cramped pilot episode instead of the full 22 minutes it gets in the animated show. And even then, the live-action show uses it as a moment to show how POWERFUL Aang gets, showing us his Avatar state for the second time in a way that isn't depicted as terrifying as it was in the original animated series.
How much stronger would it have been to have Aang discover this horrific tragedy alongside us, to feel his emotion and its present rippling from the past into a future Aang wishes to make come true to ensure it never happens again? And then follow that up with a story of Aang learning that it's through collective action, friendship, and valuing the Other - those different from you -as equals that prevent atrocities like these from happening. You could have even had your cool fight sequences in those flashbacks if you wanted to depict them.
There are other things the show fails to do, like wrestling with Zuka’s abuse at his father’s hands, who in this version seems to be rather disinterested in Zuko, showcasing that the show has no genuine interest in depicting how settler colonialism is not just dehumanizing to those it colonizes but colonizers themselves; how the system of oppressors and oppressed, while certainly much more traumatizing and worse for the oppressed, is a system that destroys all of our humanity. That to be oppressor is itself a violence against oneself. Instead, it wants to depict FIRE NATION BAD in highly simplistic terms. The show also depicts Jet as even less sympathetic character than the original series, presenting Jet as almost equally as villainous as the oppressor he fights rather than as someone who is definitely wrong for attacking civilians but is not nearly as capable of the same mass violence as his oppressors. By doing this, the live action show abjectly refuses to discuss the material differences in power hierarchies that distinguish its antagonists as well and how those dynamics are generated by a society of exploration that harms everyone.
The live-action show is dead set on trying to ignore the past; it's one of the final lines of the season. But in truth, to fight the dominant order requires us to carry the bodies of our dead into battle with us. It is knowing what we have lost, feeling that weight, and understanding what we are fighting to stop that helps us build what comes after. To fight simply for the sake of doing it, to focus solely on the now, as the live-action show states, removes our ability to look towards a horizon - a horizon of hope and possibilities. Instead, it asks us just to recreate the same loop.
The live-action show is just trying to be nostalgic and "apolitical" rather than using Avatar to say anything about today. Yet by being “apolitical,” it reinforces the status quo; our society of might makes right. When conservatives rail against wokeness, what they mean is they are angry about seeing anything that disrupts their worldview - that stands up to the status quo - That dares to imagine possible worlds and futures beyond this present now they try to make appear as past, present, and future. And honestly, Avatar, the live-action show, gives them what they want. It only regurgitates a nostalgic superficial remembrance of Avatar, not an actual look at what it had to say. By doing so, it tries to tell us the original Avatar didn’t mean anything either. That the live action series is actually what the past was - meaningless and only capable of presenting power and control as the only options.
I once got dragged on Twitter for saying that leftism isn't about winning. Certain online voices complained that saying this meant I was about losing; that leftists would continue to lose to fascists and conservatives if we didn’t focus solely on winning. But I was trying to point out that pushing back against oppression means fighting for a world beyond the oppressive status quo. For if we don’t, we fall into its trap. We create a US versus THEM instead of fighting for the collective "we" of a future that does not yet exist that has moved beyond the generated borders of identitarian politics. We become a tool for the oppressor to fight against; a generated endless fight that only feeds their loop; to say the story is only oppressor and oppressed and that we can only change who is on top.
To create a vision of a future beyond that is hard. That’s why works like the original Avatar are worthwhile. It was a show that taught us that, in the end, we don’t need to recreate cycles of violence, but can endeavor to move beyond them. Works of art like that help teach us that to choose to fight systems of oppression is necessary but only a first step on the path towards a better tomorrow. We need to know that a future that destroys the borders our society has created to tell us that we are different, higher or lower, can be made, but it is a horizon that needs to be walked towards together or not at all, with a full understanding that we are building something new, not something already present; for the present is oppressive.
Sorry, I didn’t realize I wore my leftist high-horse preaching pants. Let me take those off… Now I’m not wearing anything but underwear, so you can stop taking me seriously as you never should have. The point I’m getting at is that the live-action show not only misunderstands but actively works against what the original series was trying to say. Perhaps that's why the original creators left it. The original Avatar was an anti-colonial work of art. The live-action show had the potential to take that story and update it for the modern day by doing three potential things. First, Do stuff in live action that is not possible in animation. Second, Fix issues with the original series, because heaven knows that while Sokka’s sexism is pertinent to the original story’s message, there are issues still real with the original, stuff that my friend Princess Weekes pointed out in her excellent video; go check it out because the original work is definitely NOT free from colonist-storytelling impulses. And third and finally it could have updated the show’s message for a more modern context. The show superficially does the first two and definitely doesn’t do the third. In fact it actively removes the show's message. As a result, it is not just a pointless show but one actively in conflict with the show’s original intention.
At least Momo is adorable.
[clip]
OH GOD, WHAT DID THEY DO TO MOMO!
Comments
Ninua
I don’t even care that much about the show but I was engrossed in your commentary all the same. You touch on several fundamental points that would each deserve their own video when talking about media representation in general. One that particularly stood out for me is the part about imperialism/ colonialism: it felt good to have it highlighted that the violence/ dehumanization that feeds such a system begins at home. Not that it lessens in any way the suffering of those who are colonized, but it is essential to understand the multidimensional aspects of a system if you want to fight it effectively
Josie Cakes
I have to say, your analysis on this was so good. I’ve been hesitant to watch the new series because of my biggest concern: that it undermines the message of the original. I’m getting really concerned with these live action remakes being set out to be the ‘real’ story, and at the same time stripping any depth from the messaging. It really seems like a relentless attack on how we discuss anything real. And it seems to be only continuing to grow, with animated original stories becoming IP of the past, that are whittled away at until they’re dust.
