This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Out of curiosity—why’d you go see it?
Your observations are in line with a Hollywood that is choosing such plots out of opportunism rather than strategy. I assume whether a script gets optioned is more due to estimates of butts-in-seats than expectations of social impact. This isn’t a claim that Hollywood is apolitical; such a process leaves plenty of room to smuggle in bias. But I think it’s a mistake to interpret movies like this as engaging in cultural myth-creation.
In other words, Hanlon’s Razor applies.
At risk of starting another airing of grievances, I have to mention Rings of Power. It’s nakedly playing with modern American politics, but is it trying to construct a broader narrative? Do the writers actually think making villains parrot modern immigration slogans will turn high fantasy into a progressive on-ramp? I’m inclined to believe that they are instead targeting those little feel-good bursts of tribalism. In a saturated market, the goal isn’t to make art that lasts a lifetime, but to cash in on whatever sentiment is on hand.
For an older example, consider a classic of “Lost Cause” filmography: Gone with the Wind. It unambiguously romanticizes antebellum plantation culture; its source material is even more explicit about framing the KKK as noble protectors. Yet it remains more acceptable than a certain other Lost Cause film because this messaging is viewed as a side effect. Southern belles and hard times gripped the public consciousness in the ‘30s, so the film leveraged them. This is the essence of a “product of its times” defense—the argument that art followed culture rather than the other way around.
Modern political pandering is subject to the same forces. A chunk of the market demands (or is assumed to demand!) this aesthetic, and by God, Hollywood is determined to step up. If that means bolting progressive dialogue onto existing settings, or implementing more diverse casting, or hiring nobodies out of JJ Abram’s cadre, then that’s business as usual. The other relevant law here is Sturgeon’s.
Side note: All of these assumptions go out the window in the presence of a genuine auteur. There’s enough slack in the budgets for AA productions of ideological media, and a sufficiently determined (and skilled) writer or director can command a following all of their own. For the biggest of blockbusters, though, studios will continue to choose the safe road of gesturing at their idea of the zeitgeist.
TBH for novelty; it's not like there's a bunch of African epic history films saturating the box office. And I was curious what the film would be like, thanks to the culture warring.
Also: the very high critic score was the final selling point: it removed the main reason I don't go to see movies I'm vaguely curious about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link