|
|
Post by janntosh on May 27, 2021 18:47:15 GMT
Fragile white dudes: "Movies didn't used to be political!" Literally the entire history of cinema: Politics was a big part of movies both implicitly and explicitly. In Star Wars, the Empire were human-supremacist Nazis who fought against a ragtag group of partisans and insurgents comprised of various species cooperating with each other. (In Return of the Jedi, the Ewoks were the Viet Cong, and were the good guys.) The 50s and 60s were filled with red scare propaganda. The "body snatchers"? They were the commies. (In the 80s the red scare films mostly turned into "can't we all just get along?" storylines. Well, maybe not in Red Dawn.) If To Kill a Mockingbird were released today, you'd have a million doughy white dudes complaining about "that SJW movie!!!". Nobody is saying movies were never political, the argument is that the majority of political rhetoric these days on the screen is too one sided and not universal and accessible to understand and get behind by. Your statement about To Kill a Mockingbird being received differently today is a misfire because most people consider racism to be bad and immoral and the novel is a classic literary work. That, and the story is already very political to begin with - it is largely a court room drama. Speaking of which, your suggestion that only white people would be upset by politics in their entertainment comes across as pretty racially insensitive because there are lots of non-white people who agree most mainstream releases are too politically one sided and pandering. Aren’t SJW types actually bashing To Kill a Mockingbird now because the main character is a white guy? Think so |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on May 27, 2021 18:50:34 GMT
plenty of amazing work has been made this last decade so no obviously thats not a fact. He's referring mostly to mainstream entertainment which is designed to make more than a billion dollars at the box office. still feels like a sweeping generalization.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 27, 2021 18:52:55 GMT
Nobody is saying movies were never political, the argument is that the majority of political rhetoric these days on the screen is too one sided and not universal and accessible to understand and get behind by. Your statement about To Kill a Mockingbird being received differently today is a misfire because most people consider racism to be bad and immoral and the novel is a classic literary work. That, and the story is already very political to begin with - it is largely a court room drama. Speaking of which, your suggestion that only white people would be upset by politics in their entertainment comes across as pretty racially insensitive because there are lots of non-white people who agree most mainstream releases are too politically one sided and pandering. Aren’t SJW types actually bashing To Kill a Mockingbird now because the main character is a white guy? Think so Hey, you're right!
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 27, 2021 18:53:11 GMT
He's referring mostly to mainstream entertainment which is designed to make more than a billion dollars at the box office. still feels like a sweeping generalization. It isn't though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 27, 2021 19:10:48 GMT
He's only thinking about Hollywood.
The 1960s was the worst time for Hollywood and the best time for global cinema.
Japan, France, Germany, Spain, England, Italy--as well as smaller studios in the US--professional artists making films that attained audiences--if not at home then around the world.
Movie stars from different countries. Some never even went to Hollywood.
How many Hollywood movies did Peter Cushing, Alain Delon or Marcello Mastroianni or Toshiro Mifune make? Not many. And they didn't have to. They had work at home.
He praises the ad campaigns but he's missing the big picture--you have less movies being made and advertised in Hollywood.
They have completely gobbled up competition and they hire based on very narrow requirements--diversity, loyalty to ideology, and tastes that are very narrow and not populist.
The acceptable movie subjects in Hollywood now are very limited--sharks, zombies, superheroes, WW 2, and worn out franchises and brands, or aging movie stars from franchises or brands. And they spend massive maounts of money and marketing space on these subjects--more than ever before.
No one wants Lethal Weapon 5 or 6 --no one cares--they push this on people like a Lenin or Stalin poster on the side of a building in Moscow.
Who wanted that?
I suspect most street dwellers would rather look at a big picture of Yul Brynner or Svetlana Khodchenkova.
There's no desire to renew the cultural stream--not unless they bring a director from China.
A Dracula movie directed by a Chinese woman.
This is the focus.
You cannot have a culture if you deny audiences in any society from choosing the artists they like best.
50 years ago Hollywood wasn't quite so globally focused so they did have local people employed and promoted but these days they don't do that much at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on May 28, 2021 10:13:11 GMT
The first ever feature-length movie - Birth of a Nation - was a 3 hour long glorification of anti-black racism and the Ku Klux Klan. That was in 1915. Movies have been political for a long, long time. The Story of the Kelly Gang from 1906 is the first feature lengt movie, which is an Australian movie. I stand corrected so. My main point still stands, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 28, 2021 15:15:39 GMT
The Story of the Kelly Gang from 1906 is the first feature lengt movie, which is an Australian movie. I stand corrected so. My main point still stands, however. Well, unfortunately, we can't stop the Kelly gang from coming after you. Fortunately for you, the only two surviving members of the gang are over 120 years old, can't walk, can't see, can't hear, and can't remember anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 28, 2021 15:36:16 GMT
I stand corrected so. My main point still stands, however. Well, unfortunately, we can't stop the Kelly gang from coming after you. Fortunately for you, the only two surviving members of the gang are over 120 years old, can't walk, can't see, can't hear, and can't remember anything. Challenge accepted!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 28, 2021 15:42:05 GMT
Every movie is political--it reflects the desires and interests of the people who made it.
There is no such thing as a true multicultural POV that is equal to all interests. Different strokes for different folks. That means people are different.
The Birth of a Nation was made for white Americans alone at a time when nationalism and patriotism was something beyond questioning -that's why it is like that.
Just as the remake-titled film from a few years is the opposite, it was not made for white Americans.
That Australian film just shows that one did not need Hollywood--it didn't exist in 1906.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 28, 2021 19:09:30 GMT
Every movie is political--it reflects the desires and interests of the people who made it. There is no such thing as a true multicultural POV that is equal to all interests. Different strokes for different folks. That means people are different. The Birth of a Nation was made for white Americans alone at a time when nationalism and patriotism was something beyond questioning -that's why it is like that. Just as the remake-titled film from a few years is the opposite, it was not made for white Americans. That Australian film just shows that one did not need Hollywood--it didn't exist in 1906. I could be wrong but Hollywood was not really a big player back than as it is today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 28, 2021 19:18:29 GMT
I could be wrong but Hollywood was not really a big player back than as it is today. Not in 1906 or 1915.
|
|
