1.

​ In both James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) and Frankenstein, there are individuals or
groups that are treated as outsiders, but the way they are treated is different. In
Avatar, from the Na’vi's perspective, they initially view Jake Sully as an outsider and
reject him, but over time they come to accept and embrace him, allowing Sully to
understand, love, and eventually fight for their people. In contrast, in Frankenstein, the
Creature is repeatedly rejected and attacked by humans solely because of his
appearance, leading him to turn away from humanity despite his longing for
acceptance and love. From the human perspective in Avatar, the Na’vi are treated as
outsiders and despite doing nothing wrong, they are feared, misunderstood, and
ultimately subjected to violence and war. This is similar to the Creature’s experience in
Frankenstein, where he is also unjustly refused and harmed. We can discuss about the
possibility of understanding and accepting the outsiders by seeing what happens in
both Avatar and Frankenstein.
2.​ James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) is one of the symbols in filmland, which is evaluated
as the origin of 3D movies. Looking back, I think I’ve watched Avatar at least once a
year, but every time I watched it, I saw something different. At first, actually I cannot
really remember, I simplified the relation between humans and the Na’ vi, dividing
good and bad. The humans who harassed and exploited NA’ vi who lived peacefully
were unconditionally seen as bad , and the Na'vi . The Avatar I saw as a child was one
of the common stories of good triumphing over evil. However, as I grew up, I found
new meanings in the film. I knew that their relationship was not simple, and their story
was not a simple hero story, but a reflection of the human world. The humans who try
to conquer the Na’ vi remind me of the Imperialism era, further humanity exploiting
nature. Thinking more deeply, I realized there are some similarities between Avatar and
Frankenstein. They all imply the concept of “othering.” In Avatar, humans set the Na’
vi “different and uncivilized,” and justified the conquer, not understanding their
culture. In Frankenstein, humans treat the Creature as the social other because of the
difference. In all movies, most humans try not to understand them, but avoid, exploit,
and attack them under hatred of Others. In contrast, those who are hated by humans
do not expose aggression at first, rather neutral, even favorable. Eventually, the
reason humans are wary of and hate them is because they are beings differentiated
from humanity. Then, on what basis do we define humanity, and do we have the right
to grant or deprive human nature of human-made creatures or “others?”
3.​ The bioluminescent palette of Avatar, especially its saturated blues and purples, does
more than paint Pandora as an alien world. These colours serve as a kind of visual
language, coding the Na’vi environment as spiritual, immersive, and emotionally rich.
When Jake undergoes the Na’vi initiation rites, he’s enveloped in blue light beneath
Eywa’s sacred tree. The scene is intimate and reverent; the glowing tendrils that wrap
around him echo the Na’vi’s neural bonds with nature, suggesting a moment of
sincere immersion, even transformation. But when Jake later returns as Toruk Makto,
those same colours appear again—only now, they frame him from below, lit heroically
as the Na’vi look up to him in awe. The colours that once made Jake feel like a
respectful guest now spotlight him as a figure of power and dominance. It’s a quiet
shift, but one that blurs the line between truly belonging and quietly taking over. The
 visual continuity invites us to ask: when someone adopts the language, look, and
movements of another culture, does that signify true assimilation, or does it risk
becoming a beautiful form of appropriation? It makes me wonder whether visual
"translation," especially in a film like Avatar, reflects connection or quiet conquest.
4.​ James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) shows how the humans believe they have the right
to reshape another world simply because they have the tools and knowledge to do
so. Humans see Pandora and the Na’vi as obstacles or resources, not as a living
community with its own value. Even when faced with the deep emotional and
spiritual life of the Na’vi, most humans in the film refuse to change their perspective
because it challenge their sense of superiority and control. This reminded me of
what I thought after reading Frankenstein. Victor creates life but fails to see his
creature as a being with feelings and needs, only as a mistake to hide. In both
stories, things fall apart because of how people respond when that creation doesn’t
fit their expectations. Both raise the question of whether our desire to improve the
world can become harmful when it’s tied to the need to dominate or define others
on our terms. Notably, neither the Na’vi nor the Creature are inherently violent; they
become perceived threats only after experiencing rejection or misunderstanding.
This suggests that the true peril may reside not in the creatures we encounter, but in
our reactions when these creatures challenge our sense of control. It raises the
question, when pursuing knowledge or progress, are we genuinely striving to
understand the world, or are we attempting to mold it to fit our own standards?
5.​ James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) shows the conflict between the Na’vi, who serve and
follow nature, and the humans who seek to dominate them. One of the most
interesting things about the film is the ending line. Jake Sully refers to the humans as
aliens and the world of the humans as a dying world, maximizing the Na'vi victory in
the war between the Na'vi and the humans. The appearance of the Na'vi in the film
makes them look like aliens, but it suggests that the real aliens are humans who want
to destroy and dominate nature. In addition, by expressing the world of humans as a
dying world, it further emphasizes the greatness and importance of nature and
reminds us of the fact that humans are still destroying nature for human convenience,
making us think about the seriousness of the situation. Are we living in a dying world?
Furthermore, Avatar can be interpreted from the perspective of imperialism and
colonialism. The humans believe that they have a more advanced civilization than the
Na'vi. On the other hand, they view the Na'vi as less intelligent and lower in social
status than themselves, giving them justification to invade Pandora. As evidenced by
the film lines like “We are going to teach them a lesson,” humans see themselves as
saviors or leaders, robbing the Na'vi of their subjectivity. I would like to ask a question
here: is Jake Sully, the human-turned-Na’vi, fully assimilated into the Na'vi? Also, who
did the Avatar Program want to control? Was it the Na'vi or was its humans wanting to
control other humans? Is it possible that the program was initially developed out of a
pure desire to assimilate with the Na'vi?
6.​ In Avatar (2009), James Cameron pushes the enlightenment ideal of exploration to a
dark extreme, where seeking knowledge blurs into taking control over life itself. The
Na’vi are depicted as “primitive” but deeply in tune with nature, which resembles the
 way 19th-century colonial texts recorded Indigenous peoples, not to show respect, but
to make them easier to dominate under the pretext of reason and progress. It is the
same logic that Mary Shelley exposes in Frankenstein: the desire to know without
caring, to treat the Other as an object rather than a being. However, Avatar does not
just criticize science backed by violence, it also evokes a strange kind of fantasy. The
way Jake Sully becoming Na’vi is not by learning or living like them; instead, he uses
technology: by stepping into a lab-grown body, plugging into a neural system, and
eventually moving his whole mind into a new form. Like Victor Frankenstein, who
wanted to spark life from corpses, Jake does not break free from the enlightenment
dream of control, he goes one step further by turning himself into life.
7.​ Having watched the movie, I can say that Jake Sully in Na'vi body is also a creation of
humans, just like the Monster in Frankenstein. However, while the Monster is created
by one person, Jake's Na'vi body had an entire research team working on it. Also,
Jake had the ability to switch between two identities, and the Monster had no such
option. Both of the creatures are not accepted by the new community they encounter,
but this does not last long for Jake. One thing I noticed is that the fear of the unknown
is present in both human and the indigenous creatures in Pandora. This caused the
death of hundreds of soldiers from both parties. I guess both sides would have been
better-off if the indigenous provided the precious stones to the humans, preventing
any casualties. My thoughts about the movie are quite tangled, so this is what I can
think of for now.
8.​ While watching Avatar (2009), I thought it has a similarity with Mary’Shelley’s
Frankenstein. Both Frankenstein and Avatar show protagonists who try to gain the
acceptance of a social group to which they are at first rejected. In both stories, this
journey of becoming begins not with approval, but with stealthy watching. The Creature
watches the De Lacey family from a distance, studying their language, traditions, and
ethical code with the aim of being accepted as one of them someday. Similarly, Jake
Sully learns the Na'vi language and behavior through embodied practice and careful
imitation. Both these stories illustrate that action and language are not only means of
communication but symbolic doors to shared identity. But both these figures are also
faced with the frustrating reality that language and action might or might not result in
social acceptance. By comparing Frankenstein and Avatar, I came up with some
questions. Is learning to "act human" or "act Na'vi" ever able to replace acceptance as
one of them? What can Frankenstein and Avatar teach us about the interaction of
learning, embodiment, and social membership? Can behavior and language be
sufficient to afford a feeling of membership in a group, or must people's recognition
be the additional step?
9.​ Watching Avatar, I was reminded of the concept of “playing god” we discussed in
relation to Frankenstein. Jake Sully stepping into a lab-grown Na’vi body feels like a
modern version of human beings trying to reshape life to serve their own goals. But
unlike the Monster, Jake is accepted and even celebrated by the Na’vi, which
complicates the narrative. It made me think about how identity can be flexible
depending on who has power and how they use it. The film also shows how scientific
advancement, when guided by greed, becomes destructive,like how the military
justifies wiping out the Na’vi culture for resources. That reflects our class themes of
ethics, knowledge, and colonization. Even though the Na’vi are imagined, their
struggle felt very real, especially when thinking about how real-life Indigenous groups
are still being pushed off their land. This made me wonder whether Jake Sully truly
becomes one of the Na’vi, or if he simply represents a more “acceptable” form of
colonization through empathy and embodiment.