Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Jewish papal knight: "Pius XII was the greatest hero of World War II" | Main | Now available: "Loser Letters A Comic Tale of Life, Death and Atheism" »

Monday, March 08, 2010



Loved this post, Carl! Thank you for clarifying for me what is wrong with all their environmentalist blathering. I notice that in all their moralizing about how bad humans are for the environment, they never volunteer to get rid of themselves -- just other humans that they find odious, like unborn babies and social/political/religious conservatives, for example.

I also detest elaborate, pretentious televised boredom, which is one of the reasons I haven't had cable or watched TV at all since 1997. Oh, and I haven't seen Avatar, either, and probably won't, unless I really, really need a time-filler after it comes out on DVD. *grin*

T. Shaw

The Oscars are meant to hype Hollywood and the studio star system. It's one long, elaborate advertisement.

The 'icky' part is that the evil air-heads take themselves seriously. As if impersonating a prophet or a pope and reciting imagined words thereof make one a prophet or a pope.

They live in a faux world both on and off the sound stage. Sadly, they hugely contribute to the cesspool culture in which we live.

Worst: They are rich enough to afford $10 a gallon gasoline and heating oil, and 80% higher electric bills. Being green doesn't hurt them - they can still afford the private jets. Most of their adoring (adoration is the daughter of ignorance) fans are not so affluent. The stars' blind faith in environmentalsim at all costs could unleash hell on earth. They believe it's worth the price. The fans aren't cool. They don't count.

Last movie I saw was the third hobbit episode. It was epic fantasy and everyone knew it.

Blake Helgoth

At first it seemed this post disregarded natural law, but the last paragraph cleared that up. Nature does have an order to it because of teleology, and man is part of it. Man does not exist apart from nature, but, as the Pope said, must be considered as part of it. There is a hierarchy to nature and man and the angels are at the top. Adam was commanded to till and keep the garden. He gave names to all the animals. Man is to care for the gift but use it as well. He is part of the teleology of nature and has a duty to order it towards the greater glory of God. Notice the Holy Father does not speak about rights, but man's duty, and primarily man's duty to other men, that is primary, the rest of nature is secondary - That is a key point that is often missed.


From the "viewpoint of nature", what exactly is the entire "carbon footprint" of this movie from the idea, the production, promotion, talk shows, to the hordes of vehicles still flocking to see it? How does nature "feel" about that? What hypocrites. " love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces."


"In the end, if I understand Cameron correctly, he is proud to have created a wildly successful movie for the masses that tells the masses they are the enemy of nature (and everything good), they should feel guilty for being such, and they would, at least in theory, be better off losing to nature—that is, going extinct." i think you should see the film before writing stuff such as this...!!

Mike in KC, MO

The award shows are nothing more than all the glitterati of showbiz engaging in collective, um, 'self abuse', if you get my meaning.

In my opinion, this also means that people who watch these things are engaging in voyeurism.


I haven't seen the movie, but I saw someone point out the irony that a movie about human greed and excess had a budget of $500 million (or whatever it was).


When I heard that it cost $300 million to make this movie, I was stunned; I thought of how many people in the world are hungry and homeless. It seems to me a very extravagant expenditure when so many people are suffering. For what? So we can sit in a movie theatre with our 3D glasses and be entertained? Sad...

Mathias Thelen

Praise the Lord for writing this! Thanks so much Carl for this thought provoking post. I can always count on a something good coming from your site. May the Lord continue to bless you and your family.

Carl E. Olson

To understand a bit better why so much money would be spent on a film as Avatar, I think we have to understand that for Cameron, this is cinema as religion. James Bowman has an excellent piece about Cameron and Avatar on The New Atlantis site, and he concludes with this:

Ultimately, of course, the word “avatar” comes from the Hindu idea of a god come to earth — a meaning with its own significance for the movie. Tom Shone ends his profile of Cameron in the London Daily Telegraph by writing:

Cameron knows he is hated: every time he opened his mouth at the Golden Globes, the air was sucked from the room as surely as oxygen from the lungs of those on Avatar’s Pandora. He didn’t need to conjure up a new world to let us know he was God. We already knew. Listen to him when he picks up his Oscars and you will hear a man whose pulse doesn’t flicker above 80, even while addressing a billion people. Why should he be scared? Just another filmmaker having a chat with his audience.

Everyone, even those who do not share Shone’s breathless admiration, senses that there is some kind of new creation involved in Avatar, some act of artistic hubris. The film is so obviously informed by the idea of exceeding the normal bounds of its art in an attempt to reach for something better, higher, newer — in fact a new creation to validate the director as new kind of deity. Or rather, perhaps, we should call him a superhero, since movie superheroes are similarly improvements on the old-fashioned sorts of immortals, who were often bad-tempered and scary and not inclined, like Cameron, to give us what we want. The promise of all utopianism is, as Whittaker Chambers once wrote of Communism, the same that was whispered to Eve by the serpent in the Garden of Eden: “Ye shall be as gods!”

I don't really have any problem with Cameron and his investors spending $300-$500 million to make the movie; that is their right and it's their investment. Of more concern (at least to me) is how this film, however brilliantly made, propagates some serious errors about the nature of man, Western civilization, and so forth.


I was equally unfortunate to catch Cameron in an interview with Charlie Rose. The self-indulgence was remarkable.

Cameron praised himself for championing the cause of global warming, "that was proved by countless magazine articles". Rose, as usual, peppered the conversation with his usual empty talk. A sad display of the self-satisfied.

Michael Barber

Great post. Benedict's call for an "ecology of man" is just so important. He's so brilliant.

By the way, from the sublime to the ridiculous. . . my wife and I enjoy Castle too. You've got good taste. Did you enjoy Firefly? If so, did you catch the episode where Castle wears the old Firefly suit? That was hilarious.


Errr... that movie, "Ativan"... i'll wait till it comes out in the book... books are always better...


I agree with everything said here against Avatar, but I have to add a more mundane complaint, something that the curmudgeonly have been saying for ages now: there just ain't no substance in movies anymore. This movie is perfect evidence: pure, unadulterated technical wizardry. It is the "DaVinci Code" of movies, all flash, no substance, and an ulterior motive which permeates its crafting.

In a word... whatever.


hehehe. Accurate and funny assesment. Sad truth right now.


I'm STILL trying to figure out why Disney didn't sue Cameron for his BLATANT rip off of "Pocahantas"... I mean, for criminy's sake, it was the exact same movie with a lot more blood...

Carl E. Olson

Hi, Michael: We started watching "Castle" a few weeks ago and have been catching up. I never watched "Firefly", so didn't make the connection. "Castle" is a very well-written and clever show; it's become one of my favorites.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad