I've been hearing people say that Ozai in the Avatar: The Last Airbender cartoon isn't "supposed" to be "developed" because he's a "symbol". I argue this isn't mutually exclusive, and that Ozai as a character could both be better developed and symbol of villainy. "It makes sense because he's supposed to represent" doesn't justify leaving the writing a little loose on a number of fronts.
Zuko: "It was cruel and it was wrong."
Zuko: "We need to replace this era with an era of peace and kindness."
Ozai: "Lame." (*scowls in annoyance, tries to leave*)
Zuko: "Stay or I'll cut you." (*waves swords*)
Ozai: "Fine. Whatever. Go on" (*proceeds to sit back down and wonder if he's having spiced fire rice cakes for dinner*)
In the cartoon, Ozai is hardly a character to sink your teeth into. You can surmise and speculate things about him, but ultimately every discussion was more about Zuko or another character overcoming him and how satisfying that was than any character depth of Ozai himself. On the Day of Black Sun, Zuko and Ozai's confrontation is less an argument and ideological battle with layers between two human beings and more an extremely well-developed character yelling at an evil cardboard cutout.
The way the cartoon presents it, Ozai is just a superficial, moustache-twirling villain. It's not even him being morally bankrupt or sadistic, but that his rationale and entire character only exists on the surface level. Him being "superficial" and "ruthless" isn't even a character trait because he's written to have no real character beyond the words 'arrogant', 'selfish' evildoer. And that's it, just enough to put on a post-it note. Meanwhile, even some of the worst dictators in human history from Hitler and Mussolini to Stalin and Mao have more complex 'psychological depth' than Ozai, all while having plenty of arrogance themselves and committing the most evil and awful acts against other human beings.
While the writers wanted to reflect the toxicity of the Fire Nation with Ozai as a symbol of "fear" and "ruthlessness", these are symptoms and the result of an ideology, not an ideology in-it-of-itself. It's like an essay with only the conclusion. Ozai and his ideology should be more than 'The Fire Nation's ideology is that they're superior, share the greatness and just kill people'. We never see Ozai really talk about his ideology, how he thinks he is *civilising* the other nations (well, besides, setting them on fire). It can be hypocritical, delusional, but why does he think fire is superior? Why does the Fire Nation? We can speculate from religious adulation to the unity of the Fire Nation and its industrialisation, that maybe the Fire Nation thinks they have better tea ceremonies and cleaner cities, but none of the Fire Nation characters really talk about this. Sharing their 'greatness', how?
And, of course, we and the show know their 'greatness' is a lie and farce really, but for their citizens to buy into this farce realistically for 100 years, sending sons and even daughters to die for it without any real quibble, presumably working in factories endless hours to keep up war production like that giant drill, one would think the smokescreen would be a little more convincing than what is sparingly presented. Yes, in the Headband, they show the kids are taught a warped version history with the Air Nomad army, framing the Fire Nation in a more positive light, but that's it. So, what is the unifying ideology of the Fire Nation exactly? And how does this reflect with Ozai? Beyond calling his a bad guy who is ruthless and a smarmy jerkbender?
And this brings me to a scene in Book 3 I have a major problem with. The War Meeting flashback in Sozin's Comet: Part 1. Essentially, Ozai just goes from 'How do we quell rebellion?' to 'We will destroy their hope by killing them all with fire'. Hehe, well, I mean, why even talk about "destroying hope" when they'll be too dead to despair? Of course, Sokka says after hearing that literally "I always knew the Fire Lord was a bad guy, but his plan is just pure evil". Then they throw in an Ozai baby picture to pretend they have some nuance and that Ozai is a human character, and then blah, blah, Energybending turtle appears out of near nowhere. And Ozai after a few more maniacal lines loses his bending. Roll credits.
(I want it noted how hard it was to get a decent gif of cartoon Ozai, especially in his Pheonix King regalia. That is how little people care about or are interested in him. There is more Daniel Dae Kim gifs from the live-action than the cartoon version)
The funny thing is Ozai burning the Earth Kingdom could have worked if they actually given him character arc in the cartoon. Have Ozai start out believing he can civilise the Earth Kingdom, who he views as inferior and needing to be kept in check. We see in the show Earthbending is banned in Fire Nation colonies and annexed territory, but they should also show him introducing policies to ban certain styles of Earth Kingdom dress, specifically their green national colour dress, and customs, forcibly *civilising* these territory with authoritarian laws. Earth Kingdom children have to go to Fire Nation school to be indoctrinated in how their cultures and homes are inferior, and told to report on their parents.
However, as time goes on, Ozai becomes increasingly disenfranchised with the war, as colonised Earth Kingdom citizens continue to resist, Earthbend and continue banned cultural practices in secret. He feels rising disgust at these people's Earthbender stubbornness and 'backwards' practices, resisting engaging in and conforming to Fire Nation's 'superior' cultural practices, science, and education. How dirty they are, so unFire-Nation, he thinks more and more. He begins to unravel in his hate and think to himself things like how "You just can't take the root edge out of people, so I should burn the root to the ground. Make the world clean, pure and Fire Nation".
If they showed Ozai in the cartoon shifting from the standard position of his father Azulon to an even more extreme and horrifying position over time, reacting in all the worst ways to whatever the world throws at him increasingly and increasingly, his turn as the Pheonix King could have been far more chilling. Azula isn't the only one who has to go "crazy" due to the Fire Nation's twisted teachings. It would have further emphasised the cycle of toxicity in the Fire Nation that Sozin set in motion.
Imperialism and fascism is often driven by a number of things in conjunction, commonly economics, but also vain pride, fear and discomfort; pride of your own nation at the expense of others, as well as fear and discomfort of others, how 'different' they are, their 'weird illogical customs' diluting the 'pure culture of yours' that you understand, their 'strange appearances' changing the face of the culture you know, that you like and think is the greatest and should be eternal. They could be spies, enemy agents of chaos and degeneration. They need to be 'civilised' or 'exterminated' to silence conflict and bring order, this 'dark horde' of backwards people who just can't ever be allowed to be 'in charge'.
I think a weakness here is that Ozai is never shown to show any discomfort, he's just so confident and evil about everything, but if he were to reflect the dark face of the Fire Nation, a people they say aren't wholly evil demons, he does a bad job showing the twisted human face of evil and it makes him irrelevant in a way as a character with the themes other than "Defeat evil guy".
Lessons Taught Improperly
Now some would try to defend Ozai in that Avatar: The Last Airbender is a kid's cartoon, but I would say that makes it more important when discussing real-life issues. What is the point of lesson if it is taught improperly? Sometimes that can do more harm than good.
Avatar includes a number of mature themes, including the genocide of Aang's entire people and Gyatso's skeleton. Judging by the Tibetan influences in Air Nomad culture, a real-life people who have also been genocided, I think it is necessary and good practice for even kid's shows to make sure the lessons on real-life evils like the concepts and systems of imperialism, colonialism and nationalism are taught well. Because otherwise you get an inaccurate picture of what it is and how it actually works, and what is the point of that?
Stories want to impart lessons on things being "bad" as a message, but often I think they fall short in getting to the point of why they happen. I wonder if that makes them a little pointless in a way, because the reasons why characters/people and nations do things is both important to good writing and real life. If you aren't taught it properly, how well can you recognise it in your own country? And if you can't, then hasn't the lesson failed to be imparted?
