|
|
Post by judgejosephdredd on May 27, 2021 18:52:26 GMT
If you can’t tel the difference between the approach of movies today and back then, I don’t know what to say The difference is that back then, the message was mostly things like "communism is bad, and we should be glad we were born in the land of the free" or a general "the government doesn't care about us man, so let's rebel". Even when race and gender were addressed, the message was usually delivered by and through a white dude. This was less threatening the white, male America. When the message changed from "commies hate freedom" to "hey, minorities and women haven't been treated so good", and the message started being delivered through minorities and women, then white, male America decided they were being personally attacked. Political messaging in movies from back in the day were more universalist and told much better stories than most mainstream offerings now, and a lot of them are not really a matter of "I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate ice cream". Not a movie but the NBC series Good Girls tries to promote the message that allowing a child to transition to a different gender despite their young age is all well and good and that there are no problems whatsoever that can stem from it - which is very sugar coating messaging and not reality, such a kind of concept is not too far off from the idea of what a 'perfect' body used to be to the general public. Remember in the 90's when a lot of teens became anorexic and developed eating disorders because they wanted to look like Luke Perry or Pamela Anderson? This kind of sugar coating and rhetoric is not exactly universalist because everyone is different in terms of biology - you may require a certain amount of calories per day to maintain a healthy diet depending on your height, gender, and daily physical activity. There is also mental health to take into consideration as well.
|
|
