House of Eratosthenes

This new Ms. Marvel movie is getting a rep as a social-justice vehicle, and I don’t know if it’s deserved but I do know the star asked for it when she said,

About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed  it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male. So, I spoke to  Dr Stacy Smith at the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, who put together a study to confirm that. Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of colour, it sounded like across the board they weren’t getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren’t providing it, they all had different excuses.

Yes…I’ve seen this before. There are some numbers someone collected, and this “proves” that white men are guilty of something. And this gives someone else license to label themselves and their efforts as “inclusive,” while indulging in some very non-inclusive behavior and showing some very non-inclusive attitudes.

“Too many of [blank] in here someone has to do something about it” is, by its very nature, non-inclusive. Do I even have to mention it? It seems only by willfully avoiding it can anyone with a brain fail to see it.

This isn’t the first time Brie Larson has set off alarm bells. Last summer, she made the comment about another movie,

Recognizing that “reviews change lives” and the impact which films are considered for awards season, Larson called for more inclusive representation in the industry. “Am I saying I hate white dudes?” the Oscar-winner asked the room at the Beverly Hilton. “No, I’m not,” she replied.

“I don’t want to hear what a white man has to say about ‘A Wrinkle in Time.’ I want to hear what a woman of color, a biracial woman has to say about the film. I want to hear what teenagers think about the film.”

You’re not saying you hate white dudes, but you are applying a litmus test of skin color & gender and, based on the outcome of that, making a determination that the person’s opinion is irrelevant or undesired.

That makes as much sense as deciding not to watch a superhero movie because the central character is a woman. And it isn’t very inclusive.

I’ve seen this attitude before, somewhere. Ah yes, now I remember: Kathleen Kennedy, producer of the Disney Debacle of Star Wars sequels, unwittingly explaining why her success has been less than complete.

I have a responsibility to the company that I work with. I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. I would never just seize on saying, “Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to men for many, many years, and therefore I owe men something.”

This is turning into a pattern. And the pattern is one of futility. People who say such things want to hold themselves up as strong, independent, “don’t need men,” “don’t owe anything to men”…and they keep babbling away about inclusiveness. But it comes across as weakness and bigotry: “Keep those men away from me, I can’t deal with them.”

And yeah, maybe I’m old fashioned but I recall this was an implicit part of entertainment: You owe something to everyone who buys a ticket. If you don’t like that idea, you need to find a different line of work. That’s show business.

For a couple of generations now, if not more, males who made male-centered action movies kept that in mind, and inserted plenty of kick-butt female supporting characters. Which means the Ms. Marvel movie might be breaking fewer glass ceilings than its most enthused fans might imagine…(warning, video below is produced for people who understand sarcasm)

And these male fans, to whom Ms. Kennedy feels she doesn’t owe anything, by & large didn’t object.

Nowadays, there has to be this twaddle put out there by the stars, the producers, whoever, that we are not to worry, special effort has been taken here to make sure “white males” are not included…and we should think of that as inclusive.

It comes across looking like weak, non-inclusive people were involved in making the entertainment product, which harbors the prospect of relieving us of lots of money and, in return, not providing much entertainment — for white males or anyone else.

I’ll avoid commenting on the movie specifically as I’ve not seen it. I have no plans to do anything about that in the near future. I can tell when I’m not wanted.

Considering this film, all her films for that matter, are not very inclusive since she’s a white chick. I mean, I would think she should turn down these roles and let some black or bi-racial chick have the part if she really wanted to be inclusive.

Let’s just see how far down the rabbit hole these asses are willing to go.

Bet she makes more money than say…the black actor who is in three scenes and says 20 words total. What about equal pay? Let’s see Hollywood experiment with socialism.

Yup, can’t imagine why I don’t go to the movies…would love to see what would happen to Hollywood if ALL white guys did the same.
- tim | 03/07/2019 @ 15:33
So I have a little “insider insight” into how this has been building for a while:
I studied film productions at a four-year Uni. Program got cancelled. I transferred to another four-year and started studying TV and Broadcasting. THAT program got cancelled. The only classes left were “film theory” and “critical theory” classes. I took several of those, just to keep active in my chosen line of study. I was repeatedly told by all the theory professors that I would never make it as a critic. One, because I believed in learning the likes of my reading audience and writing reviews based on their likes and dislikes. Two (and more importantly to my professors) because I repeatedly said that I believed that the purpose of a film should be first to entertain, and second to make as much money as possible in doing so, these being two excellent litmus tests to the general population as to the popularity and success of a film. Every single one of my professors were aghast. A critic should “like” film that’s artistic! A critic should “like” film that has an unhappy ending! A critic should “like” film that has social messages! If you like film that the general masses like, why, you’re not a real critic; you’re just pandering!
Rotten Tomatoes had a good idea in two different review systems, letting the general public see ratings based on your standard ivory-tower educated critic, and everyone else. Now we see the SJW’s are working hard to destroy that too because the general public can’t be trusted to like a movie the “correct” way.
- P_Ang | 03/08/2019 @ 09:08
Walsh really nailed it.

The question that I, a white male, like or dislike the film, or indeed have or have not seen the film, has zero relevance — to anything.

And yet, paradoxically, if I see it and don’t like it, and say I don’t like it where someone can hear me, that is not merely an idle transgression; that’s a crime. That does damage. Redress of grievances will have to take place.

There is no effect, and yet there is damage.

I don’t know how they’re going to go about squaring that circle. I never expected them to accomplish such a thing. They’ve self-tasked.
- mkfreeberg | 03/08/2019 @ 09:29

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Strong Women Can Cope with MenThursday, March 7th, 2019

Strong Women Can Cope with Men
Thursday, March 7th, 2019