|
Horizon Burning posted:lol one post and we're already to the YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY CHUD, CHUD state of things. my mistake for thinking CD could have a mature discussion about this stuff. Having a reply that disagrees with you and getting super mad about it definitely shows how mature and above this conversation you are. We aspire to your level.
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Panfilo posted:The Blade trilogy has a black protagonist yet they wouldn't consider it a woke series. Racists were absolutely mad at Blade despite it being canonically a black protagonist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
"Go woke and go broke please don't pay attention to Black Panther grossing more than Infinity War and all but 2 other marvel movies."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I'm old enough to remember when "woke" was called "affirmative action" in the 90s with the culture war. A lot of the talking points are the same now as they were during that culture war (you know like "they only got the job because they are a woman and are unqualified yadda yadda"). The difference today is that we have social media and the Internet in general. I mean there were BBSes in the 90s but it was usually just a small handful of weird nerds screeching about The Simpsons or something instead of unhinged assholes flaring their nostrils over Captain Marvel. Affirmative Action = PC Police = SJW = Cancel Culture = Woke probably missed a few
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
War and Pieces posted:Affirmative Action is a different category because it had immediate real world economic consequences Actual affirmative action is great. "Affirmative Action" is also bigot shorthand for anyone non-white getting a job, if you're a boomer. As in "get a load of this affirmative action hire that got promoted over me, the obvious choice being white and male" or college admission or whatever the gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2022 08:01
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Here's an article that I think helps contextualize Larson's comments, and yes, it is completely disingenuous to pretend they were antagonizing. Yeah the fragility was off the charts. Also the "Brie Larson can't act" takes, which were absolutely hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Spermando posted:They do exist--Youtube is filled with channels like these and they seem to be pretty successful. One one hand you have neckbeards who encourage boycotting films they haven't seen based on who they cast and on the other you have completely acritical channels where people readily defend the worst corporate drivel based on said casting choices or shallow messaging while strawmanning any critics as white supremacists or mysoginists. All while said corporation edits out those scenes for China and Russia or erases black people from posters. Call me cynical, but I don't believe for one second that the scene in Onward with the cop, who's on screen for 30 seconds, saying she has a girlfriend had any other reason for being there other than as bait for that kind of controversies. "They're putting inclusivity in the movie just to rile people up" doesn't work if those people aren't riled up, which they are, by literally anything. You seem to be saying that people doing things to rile up racists is the problem, not that racists existing is. quote:In The Northman thread in this subforum someone posted they were disappointed in the film and their main beef seemed to be there weren't any non-whites. People like that do exist. There not being any non-whites in that movie is a valid criticism. Spermando posted:We've seen two extremely similar examples in the past three months of how easy it is to start something like this, just post a 30-second video with the actor in a truck with sunglasses, wait for two hours, and everything from AVclub to major outlets will have hit pieces on toxic fans. Even people who would normally not watch your show will now attack its critics for free in Resetera or what have you. Are you implying that toxic fanbases are some sort of astroturf? Because, LOL, no, they exist and they're pretty prevalent. People are just mad that they're getting called out quote:That brings me to another somewhat related point which is creators that want to score points with that crowd even though their work is still a power fantasy for the other side, which is what happened with The Boys a few weeks ago. That was as if the director of God of War 2 came out and said "no, you guys are missing the point, you're not supposed to like Kratos; we're making GOW3 extra violent and broad so that you'll hopefully get the point." LOL the entire subtext of the character isn't "scoring points". It's just fascists not recognizing that fascism is bad. Like, to this day people think that Walter White is the hero and that Skyler was a joyless bitch, despite, them going out of their way to point out, from some of the first episodes of the series, that WW was the villain. quote:This is no way undermines my claim that the corporation gets to score points with the general or more influenceable sectors while at the same time acting very hyprocritically towards those minorities. Your other points massively undermine your claim to care about that because, like most other people I've encountered pushing back on criticism of toxic fanbases, you only bring that point to balance out your other terrible points. You don't go into any sort of depth. If I was seeing you also talk about, say, colorism in Bridgerton, maybe, but what I'm seeing you do is complaining that the openly fascist main character in the boys was correctly identified as fascist by the person who created him. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Sep 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:No, that's a complaint. What's the valid criticism? It's both. Why does the entire cast need to be white?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Isn't the movie set in like the whitest part of the world? The vikings interacted with the broader world, but basically no one from the broader world would want to go there because it was like the periphery of the periphery. Not being diverse is kind of part of the setting, indicating a society somewhat divorced from the developments of the wider world. 1. Vikings had a lot of genetic diversity in their coastal cities, of which that movie is about. Viking was a job, not an ethnic group. 2. The movie is not historically accurate. It has giant mummy fights and acid trips and Bjork. 3. The choice to do a specifically white monoculture is a choice made in the context of existing white supremacy. They could have done a movie about the Sámi people, who are from the same region, not white, and who were also Vikings. But that would never have gotten funding let alone a fervent racist following.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:The Sami aren't white? White isn't really an ethnic group per se, but historically they're closer to east asians/siberians than europeans, which is what most people mean when they say "white". Modernly, they're very white passing sure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:That really is big I agree, but I'm guessing that folks not familiar are going google them and see some folks that are fairly white looking. But again, we didn't get a movie about the Sámi.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 18:51
|
|
There really is still a lot of racism against sami people.
|
Alhazred posted:Case in point: Hollywood took a movie that actually about the sami and made it into a movie about vikings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(2007_film) Some Sámi were vikings(it's a job not an ethnic group), but your point stands. The Hollywood take on Vikings is a very white euro ethnic group who are specifically not Sámi.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But black (or any other non-white) people essentially playing white people is still reinforcing a white monoculture. Telling stories about a people as deeply appropriated by white supremacists as vikings, even if some of the cast is not white, is a weak substitute for increasing diversity in roles by telling stories about non-white people(s). Merely adding black people to what are clearly "white stories" is basically just another way of saying that the stories of black people aren't worth poo poo. Hell, it might even serve to provide cover for some real historical shitheads, by portraying them as a diverse cast of people - with all the assumptions that follow from that given people's experiences in the real world - rather than correctly casting them as a bunch of racist white men who'd happily wax lyrical about the purity of the white race and the need to preserve it in the face of swarthy Swedes and Germans. You can do both. You can add PoC to viking stories because it's both historically accurate and a good thing to do. You can also tell stories that aren't quintessentially white and euro. And you could stop making movies like viking stories to make space for that. But Hollywood isn't doing any of those things. It's telling white supremacist stories, not telling black stories, and only putting white people in the white supremacist stories.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:How is The Northman a white supremacist story? Do you think we have 57 movies about Vikings for every 1 movie about, say, the Mali empire for reasons that are completely independent from racism? Madkal posted:Well you see white supremacist like movies like regular people like movies and if a white supremacist likes a movie that movie becomes a white supremacist movie, even if that movie has nothing to do with white supremacy. It's called guilt by association and it's totally cool to view the world through this lens. This is some solid fragility.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:There is the descriptor of U.S. film production being structured by racism and then there is the assertion that a film is a white supremacist story. Racism is an ideology — so how does The Northman reassert that? Racism is both an ideology and a societal structure. You're saying "how does this movie explicitly say white people are better than all other people" and it does not, because that would be explicitly white supremacist and would likely not get made by a major studio due to optics these days. You're hewing to the strictest interpretation of what white supremacism is, similar to folks deciding that the only real racism is the blatant and obvious kind. The US film production system being structure by racism is white supremacy, because it's a system that disproportionately pushes white stories, white actors, and white production staff. When it produces another retread of a white story produced by white white people containing zero non-white actors, that's also white supremacy. Is it a Klansman standing around at a lynching chanting white power? No. But that doesn't make it not a white supremacist story.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
Xealot posted:This renders the critique pretty toothless, though. Like, yes: all movies made in a Western cultural context are shaped by power structures benefitting from racist and colonial histories. But that's not a useful critique of any specific movie; this applies equally to The Northman and also Hot Tub Time Machine and also American Pie Presents: Girl's Rules. It only renders the critique toothless if you're only interesting in discussing the easiest and most blatant examples of racism, which further entrenches white supremacy. Though, a super viking movie with an 100% white cast in TYOOL 2022 isn't exactly a subtle example of white supremacy in western film-making. We're already at the point where viking groups on social media have to lead with "we're not nazis" to avoid instantly attracting the wrong crowd. quote:Identifying white supremacy, or capitalism, or patriarchy as dominant frameworks that impact art and narrative is correct. I agree. But what does this have to do with The Northman in particular? It's not a rhetorical question, there's a ton of weird, racist baggage weighing down "historical" narratives about Vikings. It'd be easy to make a movie that falls face-first into racist idealization of Vikings as hyper-virile Aryan perfection, or as some early-medieval example of Europe's rightful destiny to conquer the world or whatever. White nationalists love Norse poo poo for a reason. In the same way the fasicsts love Starship Troopers, it's hard to make a cool movie about a thing without sending the wrong message to the wrong people, no matter how obvious you make it. I agree that the character was no hero but he still is the protagonist, still gets cool magic swords and still completes his misguided revenge mission while abandoning a completely fine and viable out where he could have helped raise a child and righted some of the wrongs in his life. The Northman isn't the worst example of white supremacy in the film industry and the characterization is a more realistic take in a fantastical setting, sure. But it's still the 560th movie about vikings and the fascists won't get any of character criticisms. It could have been improved by adding people of color, or far better, never making it and instead making a bunch of movies about African or American(pre-columbian) history. Or basically any culture but blond vikings.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:There’s a difference between analyzing a film as a text and analyzing it as a cultural production. Two contrary readings are possible under those two rubrics. It's a problem in both ways. Where I started was that it's a valid criticism to complain there was no white people in the movie. Gresh posted:its not by any stretch really, thats just bad posting A movie about powerful viking warriors with literally zero non-white cast members in the year 2022? heavens no We're gonnna do that thing that if Eric Northman didn't utter the 14 words I can't say the scary "white supremacy" phrase huh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 08:18
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:Should we try to make movies much dumber in general so racists don't accidentally like them? I feel like this is coming back full-circle to those 'woke movies' that need to hammer you over the head with the moral lessons. Those movies successfully keep racists from liking them at the expense of treating their general audience as idiots, thus making plenty of non-racists despise the movies too. No the point is you need to be cognizant of the context of what you create. Every war movie, to some extent, glorifies war, no matter how anti-war it tries to be. quote:Like, sure, moronic mouth-breathers can watch The Northman and imagine themselves as big tough Viking dudes, but anyone with half a brain watching it can see that it is clearly taking the piss out of the Vikings' beliefs, in that just about every character is a reprehensible shithead making terrible decisions so they can fulfill self-destructive oaths to gods that don't care. Should movies be dumber, to help the thickheaded parse their message? I think Starship Troopers is fun, and I'm also not a Nazi. I think the fact that it trolled millions of people into taking its message straight is a point in its favor. Again, it doesn't matter how smart or dumb it is. If you make a movie about a 6'5" aryan warrior badass and cast exactly zero nonwhite people, the white supremacists are going to enjoy your movie, even if you explicitly don't want them to. That's how it plays into white supremacist culture. You don't get to opt-out, because you don't get to opt-out of western society and it's inherent white supremacy. quote:Is a movie automatically white supremacist unless it features X number of non-white characters? Should movies go out of their way to include them, no matter what? I'm not trying to take the piss - I'm asking a real question. WW2 movies, for example: The US Army was segregated - it had soldiers of all sorts of races, but black guys had their own units and white guys had their own units and they wouldn't be mixed in outside of extraordinary circumstances. Should future WW2 movies have diverse squads that match the racial makeup of America, which would essentially whitewash (hurr hurr) the racist military that existed at the time? I would be thrilled if we got a cool movie about the Nisei Regiment that was the US's fightin'est unit, but I don't think the fact that we don't have a movie about them means every WW2 movie about a generic squad of white guys needs to never be made again. In the broadest sense, every movie produced in western cinema is white supremacist because it's going to disproportionately tell the stories of white people, cast white people. and have white people working it's production and financing. However, if you're making a movie with all white cast and not addressing any sort of diversity, you're going above and beyond to really build a white supremacist movie. To answer your specific examples, if you do a WW2 army, you have some options. You can show both white and black units to show the segregation. You can cast race-blind and just have imagined a better reality than that which existed. You can do a movie about JUST the black units. There's probably some other options I am not listing here. Do we need another movie about WW2 that is almost or literally all white white dudes to show yet another slightly different story about white dudes in WW2? Probably not. But that's probably what we get out of the next dozen or so WW2 movies instead of any of the other options.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm not sure how this is not just supporting white supremacy in a different way, given that - as Mr. Grapes! says - that white-washes the history of the US military. You simply can't divorce white supremacy from US imperialism, and the latter supports itself among large parts of the American people through the idea that the US is just inherently morally superior. A belief that is obviously much easier to sell if you show the military not being super racist and sexist during the like one war where it was unambiguously on the right side. And of course applying modern social attitudes to the WW2 military also makes it easier to create a connection the opposite direction, where modern enemies become associated with the enemies of the US during WW2. While I agree that simply race-blind casting a la Bridgerton(which also has issues) is the least progressive way to deal with the problem, it's slightly better than the status quo. Which is to not only not address the racial inequities present during ww2, but also to pretend black people straight up didn't exist by not putting any in the movie. Most existing WW2 movies just pretend black people weren't even there, while also not addressing any of their stories. I'd much rather that we told black stories, or at least addressed that there was inequity. Ghost Leviathan posted:Desperately trying to make movies not appeal to fascists is a ludicrous losing game, because fascists are A: constantly acting in bad faith, and 2: dumb as gently caress, they WILL like whatever they want to like and invent excuses for it, to the frustration of those of you who believe in words and literalism. Even fascists outwardly accept token minorities as useful quislings who can and will be disposed of the moment it's convenient. They don't follow the rules that are convenient to liberals who want them to be quietly discredited and stamp on their hats in frustration. Was somebody in this thread advocating that it was possible to make movies that didn't appeal to fascists? Because I sure didn't. I made the point you did, which it doesn't matter how much you don't want them to, they will. My issue is not bothering to address white supremacy and/or actively helping it, by telling aryan wet dreams where we pretend PoC don't exist. KVeezy3 posted:What you’re taking as axiomatic is that diversity is inherently a powerful cudgel against white supremacy, when that can just as easily be a means to reinforce it. Where did I do that? quote:In turn, you’re sidestepping the interpretation process in order to totally disqualify films based on whether they meet the dictates of liberal multiculturalism. Like, I think the MCU film Black Panther is far more white supremacist than The Northman, but ideological criticism of this vein would be impossible under your rubric. Where am I doing that? What is my rubric and why can't you criticize Black Panther? By all means, criticize Black Panther, it certainly has problems. Schwarzwald posted:I agree with this, in a sense, but you're not taking this far enough: any story produced by anyone starring any people is a product of white supremacy society, because society is white supremacist and these stories are products of that. Not going far enough? I literally already made this point. quote:Positing "white" stories as being uniquely culpable is failing to engage with this. You don't get to opt-out. Centering white stories is specifically problematic under white supremacy, because it's a specific driving force of white supremacy. However, yes, all media and art produced under a white supremacist culture is indeed influence by white supremacy, to varying extents. That's why it needs to be actively fought against. Madkal posted:By that metric Blank Panther is a white supremacist movie because there is a white CIA agent who is shown in a friendly light. When you start running purity tests on popular culture you will come up with a lot of reasons why everything is bad and does not come up to lofty impossible standards. Black Panther absolutely does have a white CIA agent as a major character to make white people more comfortable, and that's absolutely a concession to white supremacy. quote:When you start running purity tests on popular culture you will come up with a lot of reasons why everything is bad and does not come up to lofty impossible standards. Talking about societal issues isn't purity tests. Something having problems doesn't necessarily make something "bad" and criticism doesn't apply impossible lofty standards. It's about talking about the problems that exist, rather than saying something is "good" or "bad". This is, again, just fragility. If we talk of the problems with something, that doesn't mean we hate it, or that it's bad, or that you're a bad person for liking it and not catching some of the problems.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I’m talking about the criticism within your categorical articulation of what a racist/anti-racist film is. That is, a conception of film production as a kind of totalizing force — because U.S. society is white supremacist, cultural objects are essentially and irredeemably so. Furthermore, it’s a specific kind of totalizing force such that cultural producers are straightforwardly pushing white supremacist stories, unless they responsibly adhere to liberal multiculturalism. You've added a bunch of baggage and nuance to this that I didn't say, please engage with what I've actually typed, with quotes. quote:Along with this brand of structural determinism is the constituent death of the reader (In Althusserian terms, no subject beyond interpellation): the audience is helplessly inculcated by the white supremacist gaze. Subsequently, the role of the anti-racist film-viewer is to make the correct market choices. POC who like The Northman and don’t think it’s a white supremacist film are unwittingly participating in their own oppression. Again, same. Feel free to reply to things I've written instead of whatever this is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
massive spider posted:Sidetone but cowboys and pirates are a big example of this, its estimated around 30% of pirates were black due to the history of slavery coming through the Caribbean and pirate ships being a living for freed or escaped slaves. Literally almost everything about cowboys is the culture of PoC but you wouldn't know that from watching hollywood movies about cowboys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Pirates I feel are portrayed with a diverse group of people in a lot of media though. Of course among the pirate gang might boil down to racial stereotypes among its members. I dunno if that's the case in movies. Maybe other media? Pretty much any speaking part in any private movie is white people telling white stories. Our Flag Means Death is a TV show that at least tries to have some decent diversity but that's super recent and not really reflected in the theatrical pirate movies of the past few decades, and it's still about a privileged white guy's life. Notably, however, in a modern tale of pirates where they're not the protagonist and not romanticized at all, we have no problem casting black folks, as in Captain Philips.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Do you think that the film industry embracing liberal multiculturalism in its stories would be important to fighting white supremacy? Do you think replying to the posts I make would be good or do you just want to frame my opinions in the way you would be most comfortable replying? Also "maybe we should cast a single non-white person" is "liberal mutliculturism" eh
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I am simply trying to get to the point. You have no opinions on liberal multiculturalism in film representation? Then get to the point by replying to my posts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Mr. Grapes! posted:Why don't they make a lot more loving pirate movies? As others have said, shooting on water is super expensive, and they don't tend to be successful. Our Flag Means Death is probably the most recent example and a ton of that is shot on land. I assume most/all of the sea stuff is green screen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:I'm asking if it's a unilaterally good thing, regardless of how big or small the effect is. So you'd like to ask an unnuanced larger question instead of reply to longer posts that discuss things more specific than generalizations, with regards to an extremely nuanced and complicated social issue and structure?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
Heard it was good, never watched it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Dumpmaster General posted:I think it's a fool's game to go around calling pretty much anything 'unilaterally good or bad' short of, like...basic concepts like agreeing that a rando baby being shot is probably indeed bad (and even then some one's gonna run in to say 'ah but what of baby hitler???' or something). Yeah this isn't a subject that you can reset to a broad general thesis, there's tons of nuance. That's why a ton of replies are strawmen or simplifications.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:So while The Northman is admittedly not the worst white supremacist film, what supersedes overall is its whiteness that stains the scale of justice at large. That's an argument you could make I guess, but not the one I'm making. Both Django and the Help have huge problems but in different ways. However both are a ostensibly black stories shown within the boundaries of whiteness by white creators for a white audience.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Disco Pope posted:It's hard to argue with the authenticity allegation when viewing something like She-Hulk (which I fell off, but found entertaining) which is one of the first pieces of content I've seen to deliberately insert itself into "the discussion", in way that comes across as a bit cynical. It's really hard to read as sincere when the show deliberately engineers Twitter moments. She Hulk is reacting to the discussion that was already there. The show was accused of creating controversy and making up twitter reactions in an episode where it showed a website full of angry incel men, but as it turns out they literally just copy-pasted real reactions from when the show was announced. If anything, the show underplays the level of vitriol in the discussion. You can't deliberately insert yourself into a discussion you were already in the middle of. quote:To pick a movie off the top of my head, something like Promising Young Woman is an explicitly feminist movie, but generated no chud discussion that I'm aware of. Get Out was hugely critically and commercially successful and is considered a modern horror classic by many, but I've seen little backlash against it despite it being explicitly about race (although this may be partially because the the film spears liberals quite astutely). Promising Young Woman was not the massive cultural phenomenon that Get Out was. Part of a major chud blowback is often media presense. Get out is making fun of liberal racists, and chuds already claim that liberals are the real(and only) racists, so what would they complain about? Subtlety is lost on fascists. quote:I wonder if part of what makes a movie "woke" in the negative sense for conservatives (and perhaps frequently in a different sense for leftists) is a sense of infringement on ground that they've staked out. They seem fine with stories about marginalised people as long as they stay stories *for* marginised people. I guess what I'm saying is just a rambling extrapolation from the tired "keep politics out of my entertainment" argument. They don't care about movies about marginalized people unless it gets popular, then they can use it to complain about their bigot grievances while claiming it's an artistic complaint, in a way they can't be just saying "I don't like blacks/gays/women/whatever". Hence the complain about Lizzo playing a slaver's flute is almost entirely contained in discussions of musicality, classiness, clothing, etc. Never explicitly said that they hate women, fat women, and fat black women.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Was there much right-wing backlash when Fury Road came out? Fury Road has all the hallmarks of a movie that would be called "woke" by the right: the main character taking a backseat (quite literally) to a strong female character, men mostly being portrayed in a negative light (with exceptions) and women being seen more favourably, and so on. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing some backlash against it, but there wasn't such a huge outcry. Was it simply because when it came out it was liked by audiences and received critical acclaim? There was quite a lot of complaints about it pushing woke ideology and bait and switching the leads. I've seen several video essays that touch on that backlash. Theres 2 things going on......one that's got a lot of toxic masculinity still in the war boys and so that tempers it, but also these outcrys fade with time as the chuds move onto the next outrage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Okay, but wasn't your earlier concern with The Northman that Robert Eggers could have instead made a film about [insert POC group]? Regardless, you haven't addressed the substance of Reed Jr's critique, which extends to black filmmakers. They could have. They could also have made a film about POC that was created by POC. There's always room for improvement. Ghost Leviathan posted:The whole idea that if you're not strictly following a diversity checklist then you might as well be remaking Triumph of the Will is the kind of poo poo the strawman mockeries of liberals do. Is someone in this thread pushing that idea? quote:And also the idea that you need to somehow make sure a movie can't be something fascists like or else it will embolden them is completely idiotic, and only partly because it's completely pointless when fascists are both stupid and constantly acting in bad faith. Or that one?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2022 09:06
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think a lot of the conversation sort of mirrors how people try to write off the underlying critique of the Bechdel Test. Yes, it is possible to have great films without the presence a woman character, but (1) a great film without women still exists within broader trends of the stories of men being valued and elevated over that of women. (2) we once again don't have to categorize films as being one thing. You can and should engage with films with various lenses and you can see great value in a film while also seeing its lack of female characters and people of color and engage with the film from that standpoint. A good post. There's numerous great examples of movies that are misogynist but also pass the Bechdel. Passing the Bechdel test isn't a sign that you're a good movie, or even a feminist movie. It exists because it's remarkable how many movies don't pass the incredibly low bar it sets. Disco Pope posted:Some of what's discussed above and thoughts I've been unpacking make me wonder if the accusation of a film being woke (as a negative) is in a large part aesthetic. "Woke", used as a pejorative, means anything the person using it wants it to be. It's intentionally vague, that's why you'll find both right wing people using it to complain that there was multiple black people in the cast, but also from the left where some people might use it to refer to liberal virtue-signalling or performative allyship. However in my estimate it's 9 times out of 10 a right wing interpretation similar to "PC", "SJW", or whatever. As usual it's a term taken from black culture and twisted by white people to suit our purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:In this form of analysis, the problematic is basically determined in its proximity to whiteness. Is it? quote:Relatedly, is it concerning that a term you've invoked a few times in this thread, white fragility, was conceptualized & popularized by a white academic? Coincidentally, she also promotes a similar salve to white supremacy in her gig as a diversity consultant to corporations. The fact that it was popularized by a white academic is part of white supremacy, yes. It's not a new concept and it's essentially a white woman selling things that black people have been saying for a long time, which white people are more willing to listen to because it comes from a white mouth. There's a lot of grifting in the white anti-racism space. Here's a discussion between two writers about DeAngelo specifically, her writing, and the term: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CL4uU1rn3kC/ I still use the term because like it or not, it's well known enough that people know what you're talking about when you say it. It's also used fairly widely even among activists of color. What term do you prefer?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
Zogo posted:This reminds me of something. A few years back there was a lot of haranguing from rightists about minorities/marginalized people weaponizing their identity through identity politics to castigate others. Basically using their census boxes to their advantage for a change. Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro types were sounding the alarm on it. But it came across as odd because I don't believe marginalized groups have usually put themselves into a box to be categorized and persecuted etc. And identity politics seems like something that would be a natural occurrence to sociologists AFAIK. I think there's some kind of disconnect in the conservation going on between rightists and leftists in this area. i.e. "It's only identity politics when minorities do it!" Not 100% sure what you mean but generally what those type of people meant when they said people were "weaponizing their identity" was basically complaining about people telling them they were wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Philthy posted:I think you missed Black Panther. It is absolutely what is happening today. Any person other than a straight white male is "woke". We are a month away from including other than blonde hair and blue eyes as well. This is a pretty good example of where social media white people are at: 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:A common complaint I see about films that that used an existing IP but changed the race/gender of some characters is idea that a new character dynamic would be better served as a new film in itself. Once they get to that point, they can go back and claim that the people who make "woke" movies are creatively bankrupt, since they want to settle for taking an existing story and changing it to their liking rather than coming up with an entirely new one independent of that IP. I do agree that hollywood should tell stories that are culturally based in minority experiences rather than *just* casting a PoC into a role that is still fundamentally a white story, because hollywood should not be just white euro storeis with diverse casting. But that's not the argument those people are making. It's just a cover for them being mad that something that was "white" is being "taken" from them, and that PoC should be...uh...separate but equal(and they don't really want equal). Mostly seperate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Specifically, the concept of white fragility (along with its sister term “white privilege”) are formally aligned with a distinct brand of white feminism. Much more generally, the approach can be traced back to Booker T. Washington in the treatment of racism as pure pathology. That's why i asked you what terms you prefer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
War and Pieces posted:Rings of Power would get a lot less criticism if it were good Rings of Power IS good. The investment in "RoP is bad!!! bad!!" indicates there's a lot of stuff going on that isn't necessarily an objective review of the show.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Lumbermouth posted:Politics is when a woman is black and in a movie. Woman in movie: Political Black woman in movie: Radically Political
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 01:39
|
|