Woke Movies

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

That’s off the table now and instead movies are going to school me on diversity and how strong and smart women are and how dumb and useless I am.

I’m all for diversity in movies. The traditional movie cast wasn’t very diverse. But painting white men as inherently stupid and evil doesn’t do anyone any favours.

To what extent is this really happening? I don’t think movies and tv shows can be made about topics like racism without a certain amount of caricature*, but in most of what I’ve watched there is a nod to ‘not all white people’. With a show like Dear White People, it’s meant to be upfront about what the central theme is and at times it’s willing to hit you over the head with it (which isn’t always wrong, creatively), but it’s not without its nuance. If someone walks away from a show like that thinking it’s just slagging off white people and condemning us all as unrepentantly and inescapably racist, it’s not what the show is saying at all.

But I only watch so much content. I can only account for a tiny amount of what’s out there.

*Well, they could, but I don’t know if too much subtlety really is the way to go for most audiences.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

To what extent is this really happening?

I couldn’t tell you.  But I saw a movie last week where the white men just started shooting the (good) Asian and middle Eastern men, for no reason at all.  It didn’t make any sense.  It was a clumsy caricature.

With a show like Dear White People, it’s meant to be upfront about what the central theme is and at times it’s willing to hit you over the head with it (which isn’t always wrong, creatively), but it’s not without its nuance.

I don’t know anything about the show, but with a name like that, it sounds like it thinks about and explores the issue in an honest and thoughtful way, which is all anyone can ask for.

I think the real-world consequence of painting men as stupid destructive caricatures, is that it doesn’t provide young men with role models.  Since patriarchy is supposed to be in the past, and is seen as a bad thing, that leaves men not knowing how to behave instead.  The alternative to patriarchy is egalitarianism, so we need men to be egalitarian instead of domineering over and controlling women.  That’s not soft, it’s just different.  Andrew Tate fills the void with his brand of narcissism where life is a war and there can only be winners and losers.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Autumn and Pope Beanie

Name as little as three movies about family life where the father is smarter than the mother or even the children. If you can, then they will be the famous “exception that proves the rule.”

I think a lot of it has to do with the audience, of course. Comedies aimed at women generally feature either stupid men or cardboard stereotypes like the idiot or sexist boss, the sexist or straightlaced father, the emotionally unavailable male partner, men whose #1 priority is bedding women, etc. Any male who watches these movies and especially TV either notices this or doesn’t notice it because it’s so pervasive. Whatever. The kids are watching.

You’d never know from the media portrayal of fathers that most fathers love their daughters, would take a bullet for them, wouldn’t think of molesting them, and want nothing but the best for them.

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

To what extent is this really happening?

I couldn’t tell you. But I saw a movie last week where the white men just started shooting the (good) Asian and middle Eastern men, for no reason at all. It didn’t make any sense. It was a clumsy caricature.

I don’t doubt it exists. I think the distinguishing factor becomes prevalence. I watched a series awhile back called La Mante. The premise is there is a copycat serial killer on the loose. The twist? The original serial killer was a woman and will only consult on the case if her estranged son works alongside her. From episode one I called it that the killer would be a trans woman played by a cis actress who was someone the audience was already familiar with. The reason I called it is that ‘twist’ is the sort of shock ending that is common enough to be a trope. The show made it worse in that the killer—who is model gorgeous—was motivated by bitterness because after her botched bottom surgery, men rejected her. Honestly, it made little sense and perpetuated some messed up stereotypes, but truth be told, that wasn’t the problem.

The problem was that trans representation in general was so poor that this single production accounted for a bizarrely high amount of on screen representation. For a long time, trans characters largely existed for one of three reasons: to be the punchline to a joke, to be the plot twist, or to be the prestige role for cis actors. But hardly any of this would matter if it were more commonplace for trans people to take up space in mainstream culture as characters in their own right with diverse interests. And that is happening more now with shows like Heartstoppers, Dispatches from Elsewhere, OITNB, Euphoria, the new Barbie movie, apparently. But a lot of that is pretty recent and often there is still ‘controversy’ over it (though I suspect it’s puffed up for media head lines on slow news days).

So while I am sure there are plentiful examples that portray men—individually or as a whole—as toxic or pathetic people, on balance, there is so much diversity of representation of men on screen.

I think the real-world consequence of painting men as stupid destructive caricatures, is that it doesn’t provide young men with role models. Since patriarchy is supposed to be in the past, and is seen as a bad thing, that leaves men not knowing how to behave instead.

I agree. I feel like that was more common in the 80s than now (as a percentage of productions—so much content is created these days). I think especially in teen movies we see more male leads exhibiting growth and secure masculinity while respecting women. Take Ted Lasso as a recent example.

Andrew Tate fills the void with his brand of narcissism where life is a war and there can only be winners and losers.

True, but I think Andrew Tate also gains his following the way many groups do which is by looking for people who feel displaced and disempowered. And while it’s worth looking into why so many young men may feel that way, to some extent people like Andrew Tate are also the answer to that question since he plays on insecurities, does he not? It’s like how companies have historically marketed to women: you’re not good enough so buy our brand and feel marginally less insecure.

[UnseenParticipant]

(removed and turned into a new topic of discussion)

• This reply was modified 2 months ago by  Unseen.

[UnseenParticipant]

I think to many of us it seems that some people think if they just shove the world they’d like to see down the public’s throat they’ll either learn to like it or get used to it, or if they don’t, tough titty.

What actually happens is that it might make some people happy but it will seem contrived and forced to others. What is the result? A division in society. Now, a division already existed between the various minorities and the majority, but the workeist way took something bad, that division, and made it deeper. A chasm.

It seems like the wokeists see the world in a kind of us/them fashion. The oppressed and the oppressors. But we are all oppressed and are in probably at least one minority. You’re young, you’re elderly, you’re no well enough educated, you’re out of shape, you’re female, you’re male, you’re vegan, you’re gay, you’re short… I could obviously go on.  The oppressors and oppressed are on one side. On the other are the wokeists, who don’t get it.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

Autumn, I don’t think I’m alone in wondering what you find attractive in men or even if you are attracted to men. I mean, other than complete and total congruity with your rather highly politicized way of looking at the world. I can’t imagine you’d get along with anyone who didn’t share it almost 100%

These opinions strike me as examples of why my mother often encouraged using words like “you” and “your” sparingly. Autumn, nice responses. 🙂

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

Name as little as three movies about family life where the father is smarter than the mother or even the children. If you can, then they will be the famous “exception that proves the rule.”

I’ve not been vigilant in remembering movies that way. I hate the whole topic of woke now, but I may try to answer this specific challenge you pose, eventually. Not sure I’ve seen many movies with profound wisdom as a theme. I’ll give that to you.

[_Robert_Participant]

Yes, the white privilege thing is hard to figure. It absolutely exists on a broad scale. However, for individuals it’s often way more subtle. Let’s say I have a heavily christian engineering manager. Who gets the privilege, the white “gothy”, atheist engineer or the black, active-christian engineer? That’s real life. I would hope the more productive engineer gets the bigger raise, but unfortunately, that’s just not how it works.

I do think a degree of historical accuracy makes for a better movie. Is “Blackwashing” historical characters really necessary if we are all gonna be colorblind? Is that just a case of black privilege? Can we now cast a white actor to play the black slave Kunta Kinte in a reboot of “Roots”. Must the cultural pendulum of art/music/film swing too far to help equalize real life or does it just cause division? Are all various cultures racial heritages to melt away and become homogenized?

[AutumnParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Yes, the white privilege thing is hard to figure. It absolutely exists on a broad scale. However, for individuals it’s often way more subtle. Let’s say I have a heavily christian engineering manager. Who gets the privilege, the white “gothy”, atheist engineer or the black, active-christian engineer? That’s real life.

Generally it’s recognize that people are more than any single characteristic and people can both experience privilege in one way while experiencing marginalization in another. And even at that, it’s more a statement on social dynamics than a statement on whether an individual had a good or bad life or had it easy or hard. Like, maybe Jimmy is a white man and he doesn’t have to deal with racial profiling from the police. That’s privilege and it’s worth discussing in the context of what sort of society we want to live in. Doesn’t mean Jimmy didn’t grow up poor with a dad who beat him and eventually lost a foot to amputation due to the diabetes he can hardly afford to treat.

I would hope the more productive engineer gets the bigger raise, but unfortunately, that’s just not how it works.

That’s rarely how it ever worked. I am sure we can find individual cases or meritocracy in action, but in how many cases do we reward people not because of performance but because they negotiate better, ask for more, have better connections, were set up better for success, or because incompetent managers don’t really know what good performance looks like anyway so they resort to weird criteria that make little sense?

I do think a degree of historical accuracy makes for a better movie. Is “Blackwashing” historical characters really necessary if we are all gonna be colorblind?

People seeing themselves in their own culture matters, and cinema is our culture. I assume you grabbed a preexisting image, but look at that list. Heimdall? He’s not a historic character and that franchise is not authentic to Norse mythology. The MCU has a sort of cultural dominance but it’s sooooooooooooooo white. Black Panther, while not the only BIR character across the franchises is the notable (and at the time newsworthy) exception. Thor, Captain America, Spider Man, Iron Man, Captain Marvel, Dr. Strange, Scarlet Witch, Loki, Hulk, Star Lord as the leader of Guardians of the Galaxy… etc. Shang-Chi is maybe the other exception, which performed decent at the box office but wasn’t a standout success like Black Panther or a number of the others mentioned. Even on the DC side, we have a similar issue because most of these characters were designed in an era where white people were the default hero setting.

Is that just a case of black privilege?

No. It’s a corrective measure for countless decades of mainstreaming whiteness while sidelining or even overwriting nearly everything else, in particular blackness and indigineity owing to the whole slavery and colonialism contributing to lasting racism. The reason we don’t make the same casting decisions in reverse is because this problem doesn’t exist in reverse. It’s that simple. Popular movies are rarely there for their historical accuracy or educational value; they exist for present-day entertainment. Whether that’s good or bad is its own topic, but it seems to be the case.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

I wonder if the terrible trend of “liberals making conservatives angry enough to destroy democracy and minorities” might beget a terrible trend of “authoritarians making the populous angry enough to destroy government buildings and their autocratic occupants”?

Everyone grab your guns and ammo. Buy more, if necessary. Hey clueless assholes, YOU MADE ME do this!

Fucking hateful, idiot Americans. Coming to theaters everywhere. Where no one cares about mutual progress. Hollywood, add bombs to the movie plots to enhance the fatalistic fantasies. Bus a few state militias to the west coast, too.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

I do think a degree of historical accuracy makes for a better movie. Is “Blackwashing” historical characters really necessary if we are all gonna be colorblind? Is that just a case of black privilege? Can we now cast a white actor to play the black slave Kunta Kinte in a reboot of “Roots”. Must the cultural pendulum of art/music/film swing too far to help equalize real life or does it just cause division? Are all various cultures racial heritages to melt away and become homogenized?

Let’s not overlook the comedy potential of inclusivity-swapping. How about Joe d’Arc played by Idris Elba? Queen Victoria played by RuPaul? A trans Batman paired with a trans Batwoman?
One thing these wokeist extremists forget when asking “Why can’t a gay character be played by an actual gay actor?” is how many gay and lesbian actors have been playing heteros throughout the years. Were there no hetero actors available to play those parts?

What’s sad is that they can’t see the absurdity of many of their attempts to tweak reality.

At the same time, I recognize some problems that I’d like to provide a solution to, but I don’t think it can be done, unfortunately. I can’t see how.

For me, the most poignant and heartbreaking example is in music. Pope Beanie and I are big fans of a band that’s burst onto the music scene, The Warning (example of their work below). These are three sisters from Mexico who consistently play and perform perfectly, write great rock songs, are all physically attractive without playing it up with revealing outfits, and who unfortunately have a big problem looming on their horizon.

We wish them the greatest success. However, the history of female rock acts tells me that they have a shelf life limited to about 10 or 12 years. Once they start drifting into their thirties, their concert dates will drop off precipitously, their record sales will drop accordingly, and by the time they’re in their mid-thirties, they’ll hardly be on anyone’s radar (other than their most hardcore fans). My heart breaks for them. Is there a fix for this? I doubt it. You can’t force the public to want something it doesn’t want, as the wokeists are discovering.

BTW, if you think I’m joking, name one top female band of 20 or 30 years ago that can still draw a crowd of any magnitude. (If you can’t think of very many, you can start here.) And that’s IF they still perform at all! In the meantime, the Rolling Stones, The Moody Blues, Chicago, and other bands of 40 or 60 years ago can count on selling enough tickets to justify a concert.

The young women of The Warning are so hard-working and worthy that it just breaks my heart that in a decade or so they’d better have a Plan B. I’m hopeful they can continue on by writing songs for others, producing, passing on their skills, etc., but it’d take a miracle for them to fill an arena by that time.

The effect on age of actresses is well-known but that of musicians is less talked about and far worse. At least a former romantic lead can trudge on playing secondary older woman roles: mothers, bosses, mentors, etc. Sometimes these can be major roles, but mostly not. That’s sad in itself but it’s worse for female musicians.

As promised, here is a small sample of the wonder that is The Warning:

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Autumn

It’s sad that you can’t hear yourself with other people’s ears (or use an eye-oriented metaphor…same result). Nobody wants blackwashing, even the African Americans I’d wager. I know if the biography of Nelson Mandela had George Clooney in the lead role, I’d find it an eye-rolling embarrassment as a white person, and there’d be a clamor.

Imagining that famous figures from the past were black accomplishes little in the way of social justice.

It’s better to just have new characters who are more inclusive. Believable characters being better than ones with super powers.

Denzel Washington in The Equalizer movies is a great example. While it’s to some extent a reboot of a TV series from the past with a white male lead, it’s kind of not because only a few remaining people of a certain age will even remember watching that show. The Equalizer is ex-CIA, a retired operative with tremendous instincts and skills, and he’s still believable. Black Robin Hood or Henry VIII will never be.

Then, there was a short-lived TV reboot of The Equalizer aimed, again at an audience who mostly had never seen the original series. Queen Latifah, an overweight (the familiar “large and in charge” black female type) who couldn’t run 20 feet without stopping to hold her hips and pant was chosen for the lead. That’s diversity that doesn’t work.

My point is, there’s a way to do it that’s comfortable and widely acceptable and a way that’s eye-rollingly forced, creepy, and results in the opposite of the intended result. When will the woke folks figure that out?

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

One thing these wokeist extremists forget when asking “Why can’t a gay character be played by an actual gay actor?” is how many gay and lesbian actors have been playing heteros throughout the years. Were there no hetero actors available to play those parts?

It’s a question that’s been both asked and answered countless times. We went though a very long period were gay narratives were underrepresented. And when they were on screen they ended up taking gay narratives were constantly being told through the lens of straight people. It created a scenario where gay people got the suffering, but straight people got the Oscars for it. And it contributed to a certain degree of erasure, somewhat ironically.

That scenario does not exist in reverse. And even at that, as gay representation has improved, more and more people are of the mindset that presumably straight actors playing gay roles is a grey area for a number of reasons. In the Netflix series Heartstopper, Kit Connor plays Nick Nelson, a teenager navigating his sexual identity. In real life, Kit, who is still a teenager, was being harassed over his undisclosed sexual orientation because people were accusing him of queerbaiting. It forced the actor—again, a teenager—to publicly come out as bi to quell the harassment.

In queer communities, these are the conversations we’re having on representation and identity. But in society at large, that just gets mulched into ‘Uh dur, the gays can play straights but the straights can’t play gays dur? Dem wokity wokes don’t even understand dat’s hippocrassy, dur?’

You keep saying ‘what these wokeist extremists forget’ but you’ve never talked to any of them so how the fuck would you know? No one is forgetting this shit. That’s entry level in this conversation; a conversation you know so little about yet still want to opine. Learn. Then speak. It’s. Not. That. Hard.

[AutumnParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

I know if the biography of Nelson Mandela had George Clooney in the lead role, I’d find it an eye-rolling embarrassment as a white person, and there’d be a clamor.

I literally just addressed this. come back to me when you learn to read. And honestly, I don’t care how I sound to you. I don’t respect you.

[Author]

Posts