Avatar: The Last Airbender creator discusses the show’s politics, sparks debate

Avatar: The Last Airbender is enjoying a resurgence in popularity lately. The animated Nickelodeon hasn’t left Netflix’s list of top 10 most watched shows since it landed on the service, which hopefully means some new people are finding out how great this show is. And it’s happening at a good time, since original series creators Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko are currently putting together a live-action remake for Netflix.

If you’re unfamiliar, Avatar takes place in a fantasy world where people are able to control, or “bend,” the four elements: fire, earth, water and air. One person — the Avatar — is able to control all four. Continually reborn into a new body, it fall to them to keep peace between the four nations of the world. But the new Avatar, an airbender named Aang, runs away from his responsibilities and ends up getting frozen in a block of ice for 100 years. In the absence, the Fire Nation has developed a yen for imperialism and is trying to take over the world, and it’s up to Aang and his new friends to stop it.

Avatar: The Last Airbender first premiered in 2005, so it’s impressive that it’s getting a second wind this many years later. Quoting a Salon article on his Facebook page, Michael DiMartino may get at part of the reason why it’s endured:

"The sobering difference between watching “Avatar” in its time versus seeing it now is that life in America looks and feels a lot like life in the Fire Nation as Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph, and eventually Zuko experience it. It is a place addicted to its increasingly hollow sense of greatness and even superiority, steered by a leader more concerned with his own glory than caring for his people."

Now, I don’t think we have to go too far with comparing the imperialistic Fire Nation with America under President Donald Trump, but the fact that you can at all speaks to how sharply The Last Airbender was written, that it can support these kinds of readings.

But of course, whenever a popular creative says anything remotely political, there is pushback. A lot of commenters on DiMartino’s post were supportive thoughtful, but there’s always that one person who thinks they know best, isn’t there?

"Telling the creator about how his show wasn’t made to ‘be political’ from dontyouknowwhoiam"

“Just let people enjoy the show,” one commenter writes. “Stop trying to make it into some political circus. Especially because it wasn’t created to be a political tool. It’s a damn kids show.”

I bring this up not so much to assess whether Salon’s reading of The Last Airbender is accurate — you can discuss that amongst yourselves if you like — but more to speak out against the kind of line I see too often in these debates: ‘This show wasn’t meant to be political, so stop bringing politics into it.’ ‘This is just a kids show, it’s not political.’ And so on.

First of all, applying this line of thinking to Avatar is a particularly hard sell. The show is about fighting against a militaristic, expansionist nation whose citizens are encouraged to accept the edicts of their autocratic ruler as sacred dogma. In one plotline, the government of a major city, Ba Sing Se, lies to its people to keep the peace inside the city walls even as a war rages outside. You can draw all kinds of parallels here; people who want to read into the politics of The Last Airbender don’t have to work very hard. The fact that it’s animated, or made primarily with kids in mind, makes no difference.

But really, I think the “leave politics out of it” reading is flawed on its face, even if you leave Avatar out of it. Every story — whether it’s told through a book, a movie, a TV show, or whatever — is political to some extent. If it’s The Last Airbender, the politics are right there on the surface: the show is anti-imperialist, anti-expansionist, and advocates balance in all things, both personal and governmental. But if there’s some other show that doesn’t comment on politics at all, that itself is a comment on politics. Avoiding talking about politics explicitly is an endorsement of the status quo; it’s an endorsement of the way things are, which is a political stance.

And that’s my rant about “leave politics out of it.” I straight-up don’t think it’s possible, because like it or not, politics permeate everything we watch and read, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Or I’m completely wrong. Discuss.

To stay up to date on everything fantasy, science fiction, and WiC, follow our all-encompassing Facebook page and sign up for our exclusive newsletter.

Get HBO, Starz, Showtime and MORE for FREE with a no-risk, 7-day free trial of Amazon Channels

h/t Newsweek