Quoted from Heretic Well your first problem was watching Last Christmas, you maniac But seriously, this is what I think most big budget movies are now: a collection of scenes that the studio/advertisers/star performers want to be in there, pieced together on a formula skeleton without regard for story (as I understand the word story). To me that problem isn't unique to movies that play to "progressive" audiences: basically all of the Disney movies, other franchise movies, big action movies, etc. aren't as concerned with a coherent story as they are with including all the individual elements that they think will get people to buy a ticket. To me, some condescending scene where all the female superheroes line up is the same as some condescending scene where Dwayne Johnson defeats technology with gritty old-fashioned man biceps is the same as some condescending scene where Yoda is super cute as a baby or whatever. It's selling little oxytocin bursts because making real movies is hard. The other thing I always see missing from this argument: in sum, did Last Christmas present any sort of coherent viewpoint? And if not, isn't that relevant? I haven't seen it, but I have seen for example Captain Marvel--which was decried for being hyper feminist or whatever by people who don't know an Air Force ad when they see one--and Captain Marvel's "feminist messaging" didn't make any sense whatsoever. I'd find the argument of thinly veiled propaganda more convincing if the supposed propaganda presented a clear message, but it never really seems to amount to much more than a few random #bossgirl quips and an evil white guy. (Edit: actually I thought the most recent Robin Hood was a good example of a movie that was actually clear, coherent, leftist propaganda from start to finish, which I liked about it, similar to something like Death Wish) Final question: I'm a big fan of the aggressively right-wing crime flicks of the 70s and 80s, like Dirty Harry and Death Wish (and even their rare contemporary descendants, like Peppermint and London Has Fallen). But the gratuitous political messaging isn't as annoying to me there. Are these things more grating when they come from "your side," do you suppose?

Ha, I know. I'm a complete sap when it comes to Christmas-themed movies.

It's interesting that we are seeing the same phenomena in quite different ways, especially when I sense our politics on a lot of things would align. The crux of it really is that what I see as Hollywood being utterly obsessed with the optics of identity, and using film as another 'channel' to get the message out to the unwashed masses through - largely, and certainly on the part of the filmmakers - conviction, you see Hollywood capitalising on the social issues of the day to make $, which is simply a continuation of a long-term trends towards commerce > art.

We both agree this is likely a phase, and it will pass, but we definitely seem to be diagnosing the cause quite differently. Which is actually rather interesting.

Imagine Knocked Up being made today; it would look dramatically different. It would provide cause for a slew of articles deriding toxic masculinity, and the patriarchy, creating this social media bubble that fuels and propels forward more energy towards creating content that aligns with the intersectional left, which has the dual benefit of pissing off the supposedly morally inferior, and gaining eyeballs / traction to the publicity machine.

I don't think (financiers and studios aside, perhaps) those making these movies are doing so to capitalise on trends. They're actively seeing film as a medium to 'educate' people, so in essence utilising film as a propaganda arm rather than as an avenue to escape, unite and thrill.

Regards Last Christmas, its message is worn clearly, i.e. present a laundry list of 'progressive' causes under the banner of immigration and Brexit. Haven't seen Robin Hood or Captain Marvel, so can't comment on those.

Perhaps both our readings of the phenomena is actually happening simultaneously; both the pure messaging of a Robin Hood, and a more accidental, coprorate takeover of the message with Captain Marvel, which creates this - for me - overbearing sense of politics invading an art form which should mainly be about escapism through story.

I'd say there's definitely something in it being extra annoying because it comes from my side of the aisle. The issues being raised are ones I care about as well in terms of higher priorities, but the representation of those issues through the prism of intersectioanl theory (a theory presented as settled fact in lieu - amazingly - of any real compelling data or proof) grates, as does the absolute saturation of it. So I end up being frustrated at the sheer overwhelming volume, the lack of craft in the film, and for the oversimplification of complex problems.

Quoted from Heretic And yes, good to talk/argue, haha. I'm sure I'll end up seeing both Last Christmas and Black Christmas despite myself, so I'll be sure to weigh in on those if/when that happens... (But the next cinema outing is Cats for sure. "Cinematic catastrophe" is one of my favourite subgenres.)

Looking forward to Cats; looks like it may work for me more than Les Miserables, which I found a little vacuous.

Haha, not familiar with "Cinematic catastrophe", but will have a dig around online to explore it!

Quoted from Zack The message itself. It's insulting. I was raised by a single mother. I respect women. It's flat out foolish to label all men as "woman-haters" who need to be taught not to hate. Who wouldn't find this message insulting? The fact that they slapped the Black Christmas name of this social justice flick is disrespectful to the original film.

My feeling on this is that free speech means she should be able to get whatever message she wants out there if the finance and distribution is there. I do believe we are at a point of oversaturation, however, on this type of messaging being thrown out there through film, and people are really starting to feel it.

As for the message itself, I agree it's manifestly ridiculous to lecture people that all men are, in effect, toxic and hate women. Only the hardcore believers buy that shit.

Regards that message being in the film itself, I just didn't see it. Possibly because the craft of imbuing the film with it was so sorely lacking. If that was her intent, she failed miserably. I could see there was a clear and obvious feminist message, but I felt it was more about emancipation, and less about men being woman haters. And it was a stretch for me to even tease out that message, because there was so little to work with. It wasn't like the message was opaque due to skill, but actually down to a lack of skill!

I do think (to her great credit) there was some work that looked at subverting the core ideas, however, as they did explore the idea (through one of the boyfriends) of ideological dogma acting as an agent to dehumanise and be counterproductive in achieving aims; there was also a nod to the ideology being slippery and possibly a product of its own bigotry. I do think there was some nuance in exploring these themes. I didn't personally see it as one note track completely, but rather largely so.

The vid on the No Time To Die  trailer makes points which baffle me. The film isn't out yet; we haven't seen the context. In addition, Bond, the character, has changed with the times. The campiness has all but left the Craig era, although the story of Spectre - in a feeble attempt to tie into Skyfall- was a muddled mess.  That said, I seriously, seriously doubt that James Bond is a jobber to the female 007. When the film comes out, we will find out.

As for The Hunt, I understand why it was pulled, but the outcry from conservatives (especially those at Foxnews) was a bit odd, I thought. The film is produced by Blumhouse, who are cobackers of the Purge films and series. The Purge universe has implied that the NFFA are far right wing, practically a spin on Orwell's Big Brother (emphasized in the recent second season) -and so I took Hunt as being a flip side to that coin.  It's also a play on The Most Dangerous Game, which premise has been recycled in many films. From the looks of it, the film would have all but lasted two weeks or so before forgotten about.

I personally feel we need a new Wag The Dog type film myself, but that's just me. Oh, man, do we need another Wag The Dog right now.

Anyhow
It isn't filmmakers and screenwriters I'm irritated with, I think a good chunk of them don't want to be too PC, and are frowning on cancel culture. Identity politics and the PC police seem to be more in the general media,  blowing things out of proportion, criticizing creatives for  "equality for all!" when the Hollywood pecking order isn't quite like that. This ilk was on full display last May, when some NYT  reporter at Cannes quizzed Quentin Tarintino for not giving more lines and screen time to Margot Robie.  But the real kicker was about a week later when TIME magazine made a "chart"over how many lines of dialog were spoken by women as opposed to men in ALL of his movies!   That's when it gets out of hand.

And while I'm all for inclusion, it should not be  for tokenism, which is far worse.

Very interesting post, Andrew and a fascinating discussion.

I haven't adopted quite the jaundiced view you've taken but its definitely more prevalent nowadays and its not necessarily making for better art. Politics have their place in some films but when it feels shoehorned in by the filmmaker to state their agenda its a problem. Doesn't matter if its coming from the left or the right.

That new Bond film video was funny and he makes some good points even if its just the trailer. Still, his rabid fixation on the female writer did highlight his own prejudice more than anything. I haven't watched any of her work but probably best to see how the film turns out before jumping to conclusions. Then again, that's where we are, hours of think pieces and analysis about a 3 minute trailer...then the film comes out, people talk about it for a minute before moving on the next thing. As Denzel said in that interview: (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter if you're right, only that you are first"

Anyway, given your assessment of current films, I'd suggest you check out Bret Easton Ellis's podcast where he talks about the state of modern films a lot often under the heading of "ideology over aesthetic" which is basically what you are talking about.

I think you'll find a kindred spirit...and who doesn't desperately seek solace in an echo chamber these days?

Seriously though, he speaks eloquently on the matter even if I don't always agree with him.

I have a bias against female authors. That bias wasn't formed through anything other than reading novels. There are few female authors that are as strong as men. Not that there aren't any, I'm not saying that. Nor am I suggesting that this is the status quo and this is how it will be ad infinitum. The brains of men and women have adapted to work differently and the rewire is going to take time. We need only look at the chess world to see this difference.

Out of the top 100 chess players in the world, the best female player ranks 75th and only two female players make it to the top 100. Hou Yifan, the current top female player, says that women have a long time to go before they catch up with men. What did she mean?

To me, it boils down to social conditioning. The proof of this can also be found in chess and a female player named Judit Polgar. Judit's father, with no background in chess, set out to prove that natural talent doesn't exist, that talent, like anything else, can be learned. So he decided to teach his daughters to play chess from a very early age. At the highest point of her career, Judit ranked 8th in the world. No female has ever come as close and probably will not for a long time. Females need to be conditioned with the right mentality as Judit was. However, Judit wasn't free, she wasn't allowed to do as she pleased. Maybe if she made her own choices, she would have chosen to play with dolls instead of a chess set.

I really wanted to do the same thing for my daughter - who is now three. Only, I wanted her to choose her own direction. I've bought her boy's toys like guns and girl toys like dolls. She chooses to be a girl. She clearly likes being a girl best. I wanted to empower her, but she's a girl, and she likes girly things. She plays computer games, but not normal games, they're games designed for girls. She dresses characters up and enters beauty pageants, or lazes on the beach while drinking soda. Nobody is getting shot, nobody is doing much of anything really. She chooses to play these games from a choice of anything she wants. Occasionally she shoots some Roblox zombies, but mostly, she chooses to play 'girly' games. it seems natural to me and not social conditioning. Upon saying that, she's owned a tablet since two and she watches a lot of Youtube videos presented by girls not much older than her, so she's being influenced by that.

I think that we're confusing what equality is. Women shouldn't have to act like men to be equal. The difference between men and women is like Yin and Yang. One without the other is only half a person.