As many of you know, I'm a pretty political person, and a liberal. But a liberal that believes that if someone holds different views to me, it doesn't put them on the Hitler scale.

Following on from my previous post about 2019 being pretty weak, I do ascribe much of it to the force feeding of far left (supposedly " progressive') messaging polluting their art.

Art should absolutely be a vehicle for socio-political commentary, but in a nuanced, open-minded manner that pays respect to different viewpoints, and an audience that may not share that opinion.

What we have now is an increasing pool of filmmakers who want to force feed you their views, with the art supporting that, almost incidental. The key is to do it the other way round, right? The politics should support the story.

Thoughts, people?

Anyway, this leads me to link this below. I think this guy is constantly hitting the sweet spot on calling out this perversion of film, and how it's santising art and removing much of what makes film so inherently beguiling and necessary.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who utterly loathes where we find ourselves today, I totally agree with you.  Some of it is so ham-handed that you almost have to cringe.

The only "agenda" film that has peaked my interest in a while is The Hunt:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8IifEu67yU

A bunch of "elites" hunting a bunch of "deplorables" for sport.  And here in real life, the deplorables are so easily led to outrage that they assumed the elites must be the good guys in this Hollywood offering.

And once you-know-who started to bitch-tweet, they totally caved to the pressure and pulled the film altogether.

Pussies.  I still have no idea why they didn't just lean into it.  Their marketing team should have just put his tweets right on the damn poster and been legend.

I wonder if we’ll ever get to see this film.

Films are now political propaganda and nothing more.

It's also doubly annoying because it comes from hypocrites. Disney pimping out 'Evil rich' Tropes in Billion pound Star Wars movies when they own cinema and will now be able to own multiplexes as well.

It's no doubt done because they know everyone will fight about it and they get free advertising. They throw everything in there so people can see what they want and they just collect the money.

Social media is the same. All left wing censorship from uber capitalists that run silicon Valley monopolies.

Films from twenty and thirty years ago seem like they were written by futuristic geniuses in comparison to what's offered nowadays. Today's offerings are so cliche that it almost defies belief. It's like watching films from the 1930's, the only thing that has changed is the target of the attacks.

Ultimately the rich use money to own your body, and left wing propaganda to control your mind. It's a beautiful system. I admire it's pure Satanic design.

Me: Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative.  Believe most of the solutions to our problems can be found in the rational middle. Anyway -

Yes - I agree. A classic case of this is "The Newsroom" by Aaron Sorkin.

The acting in this is brilliant. The drama is fantastic. The premise is killer - how do we get the bias and trivia out of the news and focus on the real issues. How can we focus on the facts, not the gossip, not the partisan driven opinions.

And then -

Sorkin fucking blows it by creating a show that has an enormous liberal bias whilst claiming to be a show about bias. The hypocrisy would send any conservative running away screaming.  AN example, they spend much of the focus on two shows on the hero anchor preparing to moderate the Republican Presidential debate.  Sadly, he made all the Republicans seem like exploiting rubes.  The fact is that many were. But the point is why didn't you do the same thing to the Democratic side????  

The series is filled with missed opportunities in this regard. A shame - could have been a perfect show.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I admire it's pure Satanic design.

Yep.  :)

Quoted from eldave1 Me: Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative.  Believe most of the solutions to our problems can be found in the rational middle.

Same here.


I'm not so sure it's all about politics and pushing an agenda as it is about money. Sure, some films and TV shows seem to definitely have a progressive slant, but I would blame that on the filmmakers of that particular project, not Hollywood or whatever as a whole. With Trump in the white house, there's probably a little bit more of it now than in the past thanks to the extreme hatred of him. I don't like him either, but I'm not at all filled with rage and hatred. I know many on the left are. I see it on social media every day. Some of them I actually feel sorry for. Can't be good for your health to be that angry for three years straight and probably longer.

As far as the films go, I think it has more to do with the international market. Movies have to make a profit. Big movies especially, so they have to appeal to every freaking person on the planet. Every race and demographic group. Include everyone and don't anger anyone. The Meg, could've been an awesome movie. Instead it was laughable in a bad way. I read somewhere that it had to appeal to Asian, Chinese especially "sensibilities". The result was a lame movie that could've and should've been great.

Take gay people for example. They are represented more and more in film and TV. That's fine. Doesn't bother me one bit, but it seems filmmakers often add a gay character just to appeal to that group even when it doesn't fit the character. Take that female psychologist in Mindhunter for example. Her being a lesbian totally fit her character, so it worked, but I see over and over films where it doesn't and having a gay character just feels shoehorned in.

I remember one of the worst cases of trying to represent every demographic group in TV that I've ever seen and it was Under the Dome. I've read the book. Some 1300 pages or so. It all took place in a small town in New England somewhere, but not Derry, I don't think. Other than there actually being a dome over the town, it wasn't recognizable from the book at all. They tried to hard to please everyone and thus ruined it for everyone. IMHO, that's the problem rather than being too progressive. Make everyone like it and it'll make more money...

And I agree with Bert on The Hunt. If people had actually seen the film, they would've known that it was the opposite that happened in the film. Good script though.

Film has always been political, and at times, way less subtly so than recently. I think the difference is that you don't wholly agree with the politics of today and its bothers you more, which is fine. I don't want to watch Birth of a Nation for the same reasons.

Full disclosure: I'm a communist, most days.

Quoted from AlsoBen Film has always been political, and at times, way less subtly so than recently. I think the difference is that you don't wholly agree with the politics of today and its bothers you more, which is fine. I don't want to watch Birth of a Nation for the same reasons. Full disclosure: I'm a communist, most days.

Interesting observation. I do think that there were far less "lectures" in films in days gone by.

Quoted from AlsoBen Film has always been political, and at times, way less subtly so than recently. I think the difference is that you don't wholly agree with the politics of today and its bothers you more, which is fine. I don't want to watch Birth of a Nation for the same reasons. Full disclosure: I'm a communist, most days.

Possibly, but I don't think so.

It's not the message that bothers me, but the hamfisted attempt to get it across. I'm more offended by how poor the moviemaking is.

Film is a medium that naturally lends itself to socio-political commentary (and should be), but the current raft of movies falling foul of the initial point is large, and increasing.

Out of interest, what period of filmmaking has a greater volume of overtly political commentary (all in one direction) in peace time? I'm struggling to think of one.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Films are now political propaganda and nothing more. It's also doubly annoying because it comes from hypocrites. Disney pimping out 'Evil rich' Tropes in Billion pound Star Wars movies when they own cinema and will now be able to own multiplexes as well. It's no doubt done because they know everyone will fight about it and they get free advertising. They throw everything in there so people can see what they want and they just collect the money. Social media is the same. All left wing censorship from uber capitalists that run silicon Valley monopolies. Films from twenty and thirty years ago seem like they were written by futuristic geniuses in comparison to what's offered nowadays. Today's offerings are so cliche that it almost defies belief. It's like watching films from the 1930's, the only thing that has changed is the target of the attacks.

It's definitely the hypocrisy added to the virtual signalling and assumed morsal superiority that gets me! No doubt it'll die out, but it's a quirky development when we have seen siginifcant progress in every areas contested, whilst things are presented as if we live in the 1890s.

Quoted from bert Speaking from the perspective of someone who utterly loathes where we find ourselves today, I totally agree with you.  Some of it is so ham-handed that you almost have to cringe. The only "agenda" film that has peaked my interest in a while is The Hunt:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8IifEu67yU A bunch of "elites" hunting a bunch of "deplorables" for sport.  And here in real life, the deplorables are so easily led to outrage that they assumed the elites must be the good guys in this Hollywood offering. And once you-know-who started to bitch-tweet, they totally caved to the pressure and pulled the film altogether. Pussies.  I still have no idea why they didn't just lean into it.  Their marketing team should have just put his tweets right on the damn poster and been legend. I wonder if we’ll ever get to see this film.

I'll have to check that out, as am not familiar with it.

When you're even losing a couple of liberals like ourselves, it's fair to say things have gone too far. The cringe factor is strong, and hard to bear!

Anybody see the trailer for Social Justice Warrior: The Movie?

Liberal. I'll keep it broad. Make of that what you will. I will say that politics are important to me, and I'm engaged in my own way.

That said, generally in agreement with folks who've posted thus far. I wouldn't say films are being killed. There're still a decent amount of filmmakers who aren't playing into this trend, and there're certainly films every now and then that can pull off a socio-political message with some semblance of tact and thoughtfulness. I would say the fact that everything is so politicized these days is definitely hurting films (and art broadly) though. Beyond that, even where there're important issues to explore, the industry at large is so hacky and cynical that they tend to fail miserably at it.

The thing I hate (Look at Ghostbusters 2016) is that they do it  and rub it in your face as if to say don't  come  see this we hate men... BUT I am your audience.

Ghostbusters is made for that little boy or girl in all of us to see people fighting ghosts in a funny/cool way and your movie is telling me that this is girls only but if you say anything you're sexist.

James Bond can be Jane Bond but don't do what Ghostbusters did and put up the sign outside your clubhouse saying "No men allowed" then get mad when nobody goes to see your movie.

I liked the video but he's doing what so many people complain about people doing. Judging before seeing.

I went into that Ghostbusters movie seeing all the negativity and did not hate it but it's nothing special... Could this be solved if studios didn't set a release date and tell the 12 writers it has to be done by this time so we can film it and do this and that and add females in the lead roles so we can tick boxes that the audience doesn't care about.

This is what the internet has done to film and tv, mixed with getting old all the things once held beloved are becoming bastardized because the best idea is an old idea that has name recognition.

A lot of TV shows are making obvious political comments as well. The last two seasons of Supergirl have basically been, “Our President is insane, help!” While I agree with the point, for me such messages work better when they are in the story but you don’t realise it. A great writer avoids in your face politics and uses subtlety. I mean, if you don’t have messages in your story your story will feel flat so you’ve got to get themes and subtext in there, but blend it all in.

The difference is if the story itself is political. West Wing, The Newsroom (which I absolutely adored) and Madame President have all been openly political but they are shows which deals with politics (and the media) as major plot points.

I disagree with just about every opinion expressed in this thread, except for:

I hate Trump.
Ghostbusters 2016 was a pretty good movie, but nothing special.

I like far more movies than I dislike. I even liked The Meg. (Nothing wrong with a fun little B movie.) 2019 had a wonderful slate of films (among the ones I was lucky enough to see).

Joker
Pet Sematary
Godzilla: King of the Monsters
Rambo: Last Blood
Countdown (surprisingly good)

The Lion King was good for the most part, but "Be Prepared" and Mufasa's death were botched. I still prefer the original.

Looking back, I saw less films this year than I thought I did. We usually see what my cousin wants to see (and his tastes can be somewhat questionable -- I bailed on the movie Midway; not exactly a beacon of taste; he actually likes The Phantom Menace and Halloween: Resurrection), and he's only allowed to see one movie a month. We don't have much disposable income anyway, so a lot of movies, we've seen On Demand or via Redbox.

There are a bunch of films I've been dying to see, but our one-movie-a-month quota doesn't really allow it (Once Upon a Time, Endgame, all of the Marvels, Terminator, Doctor Sleep, Midsommar, The Lighthouse, IT 2, Us, The Addams Family, Gemini Man, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood). I did get to see Joker and Countdown in the same month.

I want to see The Rise of Skywalker, but I haven't seen a Star Wars movie since The Force Awakens (but not for lack of trying).

Ghostbusters was good-not-great, but it certainly did not deserve the bile spewed at it. I'm looking forward to James (Jane?) Bond. I still want to see Black Christmas.

None of this perceived agenda seems to outweigh the story. I just don't see it at all. In fact, I welcome it.

Quoted from James McClung Liberal. I'll keep it broad. Make of that what you will. I will say that politics are important to me, and I'm engaged in my own way. That said, generally in agreement with folks who've posted thus far. I wouldn't say films are being killed. There're still a decent amount of filmmakers who aren't playing into this trend, and there're certainly films every now and then that can pull off a socio-political message with some semblance of tact and thoughtfulness. I would say the fact that everything is so politicized these days is definitely hurting films (and art broadly) though. Beyond that, even where there're important issues to explore, the industry at large is so hacky and cynical that they tend to fail miserably at it.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think we are seeing the revered filmmakers are giving this type of filmmaking a wide swerve, which is really kinda instructive.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley The thing I hate (Look at Ghostbusters 2016) is that they do it  and rub it in your face as if to say don't  come  see this we hate men... BUT I am your audience. Ghostbusters is made for that little boy or girl in all of us to see people fighting ghosts in a funny/cool way and your movie is telling me that this is girls only but if you say anything you're sexist. James Bond can be Jane Bond but don't do what Ghostbusters did and put up the sign outside your clubhouse saying "No men allowed" then get mad when nobody goes to see your movie. I liked the video but he's doing what so many people complain about people doing. Judging before seeing. I went into that Ghostbusters movie seeing all the negativity and did not hate it but it's nothing special... Could this be solved if studios didn't set a release date and tell the 12 writers it has to be done by this time so we can film it and do this and that and add females in the lead roles so we can tick boxes that the audience doesn't care about. This is what the internet has done to film and tv, mixed with getting old all the things once held beloved are becoming bastardized because the best idea is an old idea that has name recognition.

Haha, yeah, he's definitely read way too much into the trailer (which suits his wider points), but it's hilarious. Be curious to know if it's someone in the industry.

Quoted from ChrisBodily I disagree with just about every opinion expressed in this thread, except for: I hate Trump. Ghostbusters 2016 was a pretty good movie, but nothing special. I like far more movies than I dislike. I even liked The Meg. (Nothing wrong with a fun little B movie.) 2019 had a wonderful slate of films (among the ones I was lucky enough to see). Joker Pet Sematary Godzilla: King of the Monsters Rambo: Last Blood Countdown (surprisingly good) The Lion King was good for the most part, but "Be Prepared" and Mufasa's death were botched. I still prefer the original. Looking back, I saw less films this year than I thought I did. We usually see what my cousin wants to see (and his tastes can be somewhat questionable -- I bailed on the movie Midway; not exactly a beacon of taste; he actually likes The Phantom Menace and Halloween: Resurrection), and he's only allowed to see one movie a month. We don't have much disposable income anyway, so a lot of movies, we've seen On Demand or via Redbox. There are a bunch of films I've been dying to see, but our one-movie-a-month quota doesn't really allow it (Once Upon a Time, Endgame, all of the Marvels, Terminator, Doctor Sleep, Midsommar, The Lighthouse, IT 2, Us, The Addams Family, Gemini Man, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood). I did get to see Joker and Countdown in the same month. I want to see The Rise of Skywalker, but I haven't seen a Star Wars movie since The Force Awakens (but not for lack of trying). Ghostbusters was good-not-great, but it certainly did not deserve the bile spewed at it. I'm looking forward to James (Jane?) Bond. I still want to see Black Christmas. None of this perceived agenda seems to outweigh the story. I just don't see it at all. In fact, I welcome it.

Going to see Black Christmas this evening - it's been panned, but I love this kind of fare! We shall see.

Out of interest, why do you disagree with the opinions? Do you think film hasn't taken an overtly political turn? Not saying that's wrong, if so, just curious as to your thinking.

How was Black Christmas, Andrew??

My take: film isn't being killed by politics, it's being killed by pandering. That the content of the pandering happens to be left "politics" is neither here nor there. Don't blame the politics, blame an industry that's currently tipped too far towards business on the business-art spectrum and a world where political identity is a targetable consumer trait.

The Critical Drinker video is pretty content-free, but the main thing I'm getting from it is that this guy doesn't realize that 1. Bond movies were always hollow wish fulfilment and 2. masculine identity won't always be defined by mid-20th-century tropes.

Consumer culture in general has taken a superficially leftist turn. There's more feel-good pandering about marginalized people in Coke ads, there's more feel-good pandering about marginalized people in movies. Whatever -- they'll all be onto something else next. Good movies will always be good on their own merits in a way that defies the sort of watered-down pop analysis that Critical Drinker offers. Mad Max: Fury Road did something new, moving the story away from Max just like Drinker's complaining about with Bond, and that movie was an incredible continuation of the franchise. And tons of movies this year that probably got produced because their content appears trendily progressive -- The Farewell, Booksmart, For Sama, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Chained For Life, heck, even the much-hated Rian Johnson's new one Knives Out, etc. etc. -- are actually just really good movies whose pleasures have nothing to do with cheap political affirmations.

Quoted from Heretic My take: film isn't being killed by politics, it's being killed by pandering. That the content of the pandering happens to be left "politics" is neither here nor there. Don't blame the politics, blame an industry that's currently tipped too far towards business on the business-art spectrum and a world where political identity is a targetable consumer trait.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I'm not so sure it's all about politics and pushing an agenda as it is about money.

I still have a big problem explaining myself in text, but my comment was trying to say basically the same thing.  ;D

It's so easy for cisgendered patriarchs to say the work is all done and we just need to move on now, but as a gender queer Afro-American woman of Caucasian ethnicity believe me when I say we have a long way to go. In fact just today, some disgusting heterosexual cis white man (obviously privileged) told me I look like a "fucking ugly clown" plus other things!

Quoted from Heretic How was Black Christmas, Andrew?? My take: film isn't being killed by politics, it's being killed by pandering. That the content of the pandering happens to be left "politics" is neither here nor there. Don't blame the politics, blame an industry that's currently tipped too far towards business on the business-art spectrum and a world where political identity is a targetable consumer trait. The Critical Drinker video is pretty content-free, but the main thing I'm getting from it is that this guy doesn't realize that 1. Bond movies were always hollow wish fulfilment and 2. masculine identity won't always be defined by mid-20th-century tropes. Consumer culture in general has taken a superficially leftist turn. There's more feel-good pandering about marginalized people in Coke ads, there's more feel-good pandering about marginalized people in movies. Whatever -- they'll all be onto something else next. Good movies will always be good on their own merits in a way that defies the sort of watered-down pop analysis that Critical Drinker offers. Mad Max: Fury Road did something new, moving the story away from Max just like Drinker's complaining about with Bond, and that movie was an incredible continuation of the franchise. And tons of movies this year that probably got produced because their content appears trendily progressive -- The Farewell, Booksmart, For Sama, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Chained For Life, heck, even the much-hated Rian Johnson's new one Knives Out, etc. etc. -- are actually just really good movies whose pleasures have nothing to do with cheap political affirmations.

I think it's a good point re: pandering > politics. We probably diverge on the extent to which this pandering is based on business > belief. My feeling is that whilst the scaffolding holding up the art (the money and the studios) is less enamoured by the politics than by the potential $ returns, the filmmakers themselves are avowed believers in the ideology of intersectionalism / identity politics / whatever other label they wish to use, or others like myself may use pejoratively!

My feeling on this type of 'radical' and (misnomer pending) 'progressive' movement is they evoke the same contempt in me as the Tea Party did; ideologues with axes to grind who co-opt general grievance to push their politics. This type of populism just doesn't sit well with me, mainly because it obscures the real issues, and delays required action to implement the practical solutions which could alleviate inequalities, for example. The difference between now and the Tea Party era is that film wasn't polluted with the preaching, evangelising and contempt for story with a slew of Tea Party themed movies. If it had, I would've been posting the same kidn fo frustration. That's the crux of my complaint, really.

It's an interesting comparison re: Mad Max; obviously I don't know CD's views on this, but I suspect it would be along the lines of an organic, story-led change versus the better framed pandering you mention. What we are seeing in the latter (and more broadly) is an attempt to imbue the story - explicitly - with social justice themes that take precedence over the art of telling the story in a way that appeals to people on an emotional level. What perfectly captures the ignorance of the shift towards a 'progressive' slant is Brie Larson's 'this wasn't made for you', which is about as far removed from the essence of filmmaking as I can imagine.

I would recommend giving CD's videos a fuller look (assuming, of course, you haven't already), because whilst it's clearly a rallying cry against the spectre of 'progressive' movies scrapping the unspoken bargain between film and audience of an appeal to place story front and centre, CD shouldn't be unfairly characterised as a bit of a retrograde throwback to a macho, sexist - and probably racist - caricature that defines so much of the messaging towards anyone critical of the social justice movement.

In my own view, there should absolutely be space in film catering for progressive causes, but that we need more talent to realise those visions, and we shouldn't stray from the need to keep story the bedrock of any production, and not an incidental ingredient to push a political message.

As for Black Christmas, it's just a very poor film. Perhaps it was butchered in the edit, or perhaps the script just wasn't up to it, but its barely decipherable even within the confines of its own story. The messaging does, at times, subvert the core feminist themes, taking some time to explore the degree to which ideological dogma can inhibit a movement, but it's cocooned in a movie that doesn't even really have a clear message on feminism, and a curious relationship to visuals that may symbolise what themes it is trying to tease out.

There is no doubt, however, that much of the criticism is down to reactive weirdos getting all stressed out that a movie would dare push a feminist message, and in my view, this regressive attitude is as unwelcome in the world of film as the issue I raised with the post itself.

Quoted from Heretic Whatever -- they'll all be onto something else next.

This, I hope, is true, and something I seriously look forward to!

Gonna have to disagree with you on why there is backlash towards Black Christmas, Andrew.

SPOILERS

The actual motive for the killers in the remake is, fuckin' get this, toxic masculinity! Where the Hell is the face palm emoji at?

Just read this interview with the director of the remake. It's completely insane that Blumhouse actually greenlit this film. The director literally says that the underlying message in the film is that "Men aren't born hating women, they are taught to hate women." What the fuck is that?

https://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3598021/black-christmas-director-sophia-takal-discusses-films-biggest-twist-spoilers/

Quoted from Andrew We probably diverge on the extent to which this pandering is based on business > belief. My feeling is that whilst the scaffolding holding up the art (the money and the studios) is less enamoured by the politics than by the potential $ returns, the filmmakers themselves are avowed believers in the ideology of intersectionalism / identity politics / whatever other label they wish to use

Makes sense! I know a lot of filmmakers whose progressive ideologies are, I suspect, a bit cynically held, but I'm sure there are true believers everywhere too. That said, to take a concrete example, if you want to get a feature funded here in Canada, you're relying on a few fairly similar funding organizations, and those organizations always have buzzwords on their minds, and right now those buzzwords are progressive ones. This happens not because they're lefties, but because they're bureaucrats who wouldn't otherwise know how to pick projects. But the cost of doing business is hitting some of those buzzwords, even if nobody on either side of the equation cares.

Quoted from Andrew The difference between now and the Tea Party era is that film wasn't polluted with the preaching, evangelising and contempt for story with a slew of Tea Party themed movies.

Ha, you can always check out Unplanned, God's Not Dead, Persecuted, The Reliant, etc. They're trying (and a few people are getting rich)!

Quoted from Andrew What we are seeing in the latter (and more broadly) is an attempt to imbue the story - explicitly - with social justice themes that take precedence over the art of telling the story in a way that appeals to people on an emotional level.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement, actually. I don't see that there's any meaningful way to discern when social justice themes have "taken precedence over" standard storytelling. I don't really even know what the claim is -- after all, the use of social justice themes is presumably meant to appeal on an emotional level in the same way that other writing techniques are used to appeal on an emotional level. To take Bond as the example, Critical Drinker seems to be implying that the story of No Time to Die would be completely different if one writer hadn't come in and changed it to be all about a black woman. But really, the idea makes perfect sense for Craig's final outing: a tired Bond, increasingly out of place in the world, returns to find himself in constant conflict with a new agent who has a new way of doing things. That's a perfectly fine approach, even when we consider it altogether without a social justice lens. How can one determine when social justice has taken precedence?

Quoted from Andrew What perfectly captures the ignorance of the shift towards a 'progressive' slant is Brie Larson's 'this wasn't made for you', which is about as far removed from the essence of filmmaking as I can imagine.

This is far removed from the essence of filmmaking because it's marketing. Corporate progressivism is shitty because corporate everything is shitty.

Quoted from Andrew CD shouldn't be unfairly characterised as a bit of a retrograde throwback to a macho, sexist - and probably racist - caricature that defines so much of the messaging towards anyone critical of the social justice movement.

I've only seen a couple videos of his. To be honest, what stood out to me in this one came somewhere around the midpoint -- he says that Bond is being sidelined in his own movie, then cuts to a picture of Waller-Bridge and says, "More stellar work from Phoebe Waller-Bridge then..." This dude looked at a trailer made by a marketing department for a movie with five co-writers from a franchise that's been overseen by the same people for decades and decided to place all blame on the sole female writer. I concluded from this that he is un-rigorous and a douche, but that's all, and that's fine. And my comment about masculinity was just in response to him talking about Bond's "classic masculinity" or something -- I forget the phrase -- because that seems to me a silly argument to make.

Quoted from Andrew As for Black Christmas, it's just a very poor film. Perhaps it was butchered in the edit, or perhaps the script just wasn't up to it, but its barely decipherable even within the confines of its own story.

Damn. I rewatched the 2006 (?) remake in anticipation and found that I enjoyed it more on a re-visit. Might skip the new one altogether then. Thanks!

Quoted from Heretic I think this is the crux of our disagreement, actually. I don't see that there's any meaningful way to discern when social justice themes have "taken precedence over" standard storytelling. I don't really even know what the claim is -- after all, the use of social justice themes is presumably meant to appeal on an emotional level in the same way that other writing techniques are used to appeal on an emotional level. To take Bond as the example, Critical Drinker seems to be implying that the story of No Time to Die would be completely different if one writer hadn't come in and changed it to be all about a black woman. But really, the idea makes perfect sense for Craig's final outing: a tired Bond, increasingly out of place in the world, returns to find himself in constant conflict with a new agent who has a new way of doing things. That's a perfectly fine approach, even when we consider it altogether without a social justice lens. How can one determine when social justice has taken precedence?

I guess a better way for me to describe it is the theme taking over the story. So, for example, I recently watched Last Christmas, and it's all theme; the story is redundant next to pushing the notion of representation, economic inequality, the supposed xenophobia and racism of Brexiteers, and the sweeping sense that the big evil is the white man, hence a comic lack of representation of white men in the movie, unless it is to present them as dumb, racist and sexist. The story takes a backseat to all this, the tinsel to a disgustingly ugly Christmas tree. It's not a movie; it's a diatribe of a documentary awkwardly recast as a movie. It's an ugly spectacle.

If you're exploring themes on immigration in film, it's far more interesting to seek to subvert the prevailing notions, to critically analyse why views are held, and how that can manifest within a bold, challenging story. Exploring the complexities of a topic, so again for example, on immigration, that might involve looking at xenophobia and racism, but also assimilation. These people who are so against immigration, are they actually white supremacists (and hell, what about non-whites sharing these views), or you know, are they people who have a story to tell, however much we may disagree with their conclusions personally. That's what great filmmakers do. Hacks make films like Last Christmas.

So that's really where I'm coming from with politics taking precedence over story.

Quoted from Heretic This is far removed from the essence of filmmaking because it's marketing. Corporate progressivism is shitty because corporate everything is shitty.

I do disagree with that. The problem is Larson's comment was instructive on how these people view the world, and how their films are made for groups of people who share their views. That goes against every liberal principle in my bones, and is very distinct from making, say, a horror movie with horror fans in mind. This ugly, ignorant attitude exemplified by Larson's comment should really be shocking, but as societies we are accepting of one level of intolerance whilst hypocritically criticising other forms. For me, movies should be made for rednecks in middle America as much as it is for urban dwellers in Brooklyn, or Brexiteers in northern England as it is for metropolitan elites in London. That's the humanity binding us, and is at the root of actually progressive thinking.

Quoted from Heretic Damn. I rewatched the 2006 (?) remake in anticipation and found that I enjoyed it more on a re-visit. Might skip the new one altogether then. Thanks!

I'd say definitely give it a go, as much for I'd be super keen to hear your views as actually sating your own curiosity for it!

As ever, man, enjoying the chat :) Always good to hear your thoughts as it makes me examine my own views and gives me plenty food for thought.

Quoted from Andrew I guess a better way for me to describe it is the theme taking over the story. So, for example, I recently watched Last Christmas, and it's all theme; the story is redundant next to pushing the notion of representation, economic inequality, the supposed xenophobia and racism of Brexiteers, and the sweeping sense that the big evil is the white man, hence a comic lack of representation of white men in the movie, unless it is to present them as dumb, racist and sexist. The story takes a backseat to all this, the tinsel to a disgustingly ugly Christmas tree. It's not a movie; it's a diatribe of a documentary awkwardly recast as a movie. It's an ugly spectacle.

Well your first problem was watching Last Christmas, you maniac ;D 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?

Quoted from Andrew I do disagree with that. The problem is Larson's comment was instructive on how these people view the world, and how their films are made for groups of people who share their views. That goes against every liberal principle in my bones, and is very distinct from making, say, a horror movie with horror fans in mind. This ugly, ignorant attitude exemplified by Larson's comment should really be shocking, but as societies we are accepting of one level of intolerance whilst hypocritically criticising other forms. For me, movies should be made for rednecks in middle America as much as it is for urban dwellers in Brooklyn, or Brexiteers in northern England as it is for metropolitan elites in London. That's the humanity binding us, and is at the root of actually progressive thinking.

Wanted to say that I do agree with all of this -- though I think your views are gonna conflict with financial interests a little bit... All I meant, actually, was that I think Larson's comment was just part of a hugely cynical marketing campaign that, like everything else these days, recognized the importance of creating outrage. The entire "political" divide over these shitty movies is a marketing ploy straight out of the Coke v. Pepsi playbook, as far as I'm concerned. But I agree with what you're saying about the sentiment being expressed, definitely.

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.)

Quoted from Zack SPOILERS The director literally says that the underlying message in the film is that "Men aren't born hating women, they are taught to hate women." What the fuck is that?

Honest question: which part of this do you take issue with? The message itself, the fact that it's being used as the theme of a movie, or something else?

Quoted from Heretic Honest question: which part of this do you take issue with? The message itself, the fact that it's being used as the theme of a movie, or something else?

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.

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.