11–20 of 43 posts
I really hate it when articles refer to “woke” as if it was a thing. I’ve never heard a consistent definition of that word, to the point it just seems like it means whatever the author doesn’t like
Like going back to the early 90’s there was this incredible rash of bad films, especially action movies, and that was just the nature of Hollywood incentives.
Because I think the complaint in some sense isn’t the fact that there are progressive movies, it’s the fact that it’s a layer added to all low risk big budget studio films.
But these movies would likely be bad for other identifiable reasons if not for the sprinkling of diversity. The lord of the rings on Amazon isn’t otherwise great.
So sometimes I think this criticism is just feeding into the very thing it’s trying to fight. Industry is great, and it’s great for the reasons described, but I think the moral ambiguity problem as described isn’t caused by diversity, they’re correlated. Bad movies have less moral ambiguity and use diversity in a hamfisted way.
Also, I think narrative is not the main issue with recent blockbusters. Their issues is dedramatization and impersonal stakes, which makes them weaker than movies from 20-30 years ago. I think A24 studio and the Daniels showed you can be goofy and fun while still making the audience care and even cry a bit, so this is probably a skill issue.
There is a spiritual successor to The Wire: 2022’s miniseries We Own This City. Same complicated representation of Baltimore. Same complicated representation of American policing. Good critical reception, but less widely-known than a legendary show that ran for six years and sixty episodes.
The substantive difference between the two is that 2020’s-era HBO doesn’t make long-running serials like The Wire and The Sopranos anymore (Hacks is a notable exception).
That’s not a political change forced on them by unnamed leftists. That’s a change in business model.
Usually a South African :)
i have no idea if this is relevant to the article or not
I don’t entirely disagree with this criticism, but it also feels to me like - progressivism is the flavor of modern bad studio films, but not a cause of bad media. Like going back to the early 90’s there was this incredible rash of bad films, especially action movies, and that was just the nature of Hollywood incentives. Because I think the complaint in some sense isn’t the fact that there are progressive movies, it’…
It feels worse because it's a mindless, careless addition to check the "diversity" box. If it was made with effort it wouldn't feel this way.
I don’t entirely disagree with this criticism, but it also feels to me like - progressivism is the flavor of modern bad studio films, but not a cause of bad media. Like going back to the early 90’s there was this incredible rash of bad films, especially action movies, and that was just the nature of Hollywood incentives. Because I think the complaint in some sense isn’t the fact that there are progressive movies, it’…
That really underscores how bad the author’s “drama requires moral ambiguity” argument is. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power did everything it could to inject moral ambiguity into a very unambiguous text—Galadriel is now an obsessive that disregards the cost of her vengeance, Halbrand presents as a possible Aragorn ancestor, Adar is just trying to redeem the Uruk, etc.—but all of it falls flat, none of the reveals land (“I am good!”), and the end result is simply narm. The casting of Arondir and Disa hardly makes a difference in the light of all these writing flaws.
It's very over-the-top, and very preachy. Once you notice it, it's impossible to stop noticing. "Did you know that people who look like you are bad, and stupid, and laughable, and that people who look different are good, and also you're bad. Did you know you're bad?" I'm sure people are going to issue with that characterization, but it really is everywhere these days, and has been for well over a decade. Are there counter-examples? Yes, but this is really getting tiring.
I claim it has an outsized effect since it doesn't _really_ matter who is represented in movies or TV. If I'm represented poorly in television, it doesn't really have bearing on things that matter; my political rights, my socioeconomic standing, my job prospects, access to health care, etc. But it does push that little tribal button in people's heads. It's lobbing a tribalism grenade. It's hard to ignore, hard not be aggrieved about, etc. Does this mean I am oppressed? No, certainly not. oppression is not people expressing opinions. But damned if it's not annoying and alienating.
And so, for very, very little benefit (ie, representation of ideology in movies) people are fanning the flames of tribalism nearly as aggressively as they can get away with. It's just one more thing inflaming tribal impulses today.
For my part, I really don't watch movies or TV for the most part anymore. I was disappointed, offended, or annoyed too many times and I now I just assume a movie is going to be trash unless it can demonstrate otherwise. Really they have probably done me a favor. I'm just trying to read books as my default leisure.