But, ok, let's go there. Where is my equal representation, as, say, a first generation Austrian Jewish immigrant with an anxiety disorder? Oh, and, I also demand that you portray my story in a positive light, as a powerful superhero, because apparently in this country positive role models can only come in the form of contrived, violent crime fighters.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, did you presume that, because I am white, my particular socioeconomic status and history have been satisfactorily represented? Should I be screaming about how unfair Hollywood has been to me and my heritage for simply not being inclusive of my particular successes and problems? Where does one draw the line?
Perhaps it is up to us to learn to find and identify parallels where they exist, and not demand that a superficially homogeneous majority accommodate to each minority. Not to mention the problem with presumed outrage not on other minorities' behalfs.
Don't you think it a bit dangerous to teach children that they can only find inspiration and parallels in cinema if the protagonist looks and speaks like they do? Shouldn't we be teaching the opposite, as I could swear I learned growing up in the 90s and 00s?
I think that's Peter Parker a.k.a Spiderman, the nebbish boy living in a multi-generational Brooklyn walk-up, with old-world grandparents.
If we're going to keep making super hero movies (which I couldn't care less about) it seems like we have to keep playing and defying the genres expectations: Spiderman, one of the first, transforms the intellectual into a man of action. Two years ago, Ryan Reynolds transformed the mask crime fighter (Deadpool) from an all-too-serious stoic into a sloppy knucklehead. And now Black Panther transforms the soulful and dirt poor African American into a royal aristocrat and scientist.
I largely agree with your final paragraph. But I think this cultural issue is going to play out like a pendulum where Hollywood is going to make ten more Black Panthers until everyone is completely sick of it, the eleventh movie tanks, and then nobody can make produce even a great Black Panther-esque movie for several years following it.
No one said anything about "equal representation". I think people have just gotten tired of the dull pastiche of chisel jawed Ryan Seacrest types that dominated American film and television for so long. There's some value in seeing stories that feature people that look like you or have similar backgrounds, but more importantly there's a lot of value in hearing stories about people who aren't like you. I think I personally get a lot out of art by and about people who are very unlike myself.
If you're looking for art and film that speaks to your background and identity, it exists. But you're right there could be better treatments of people like you. It's not like theres some artificial limit on the amount of art that can be produced, so I think there's room for everyone.
>Perhaps it is up to us to learn to find and identify parallels where they exist, and not demand that a superficially homogeneous majority accommodate to each minority. Not to mention the problem with presumed outrage not on other minorities' behalfs.
In the US we have a really incredible capacity to bring a lot of different types of people to the table, and let them define for themselves what their Americanness means. It seem to me that pusing for our art to reflect this positive aspect of our culture is a good thing.
>Don't you think it a bit dangerous to teach children that they can only find inspiration and parallels in cinema if the protagonist looks and speaks like they do?
I don't think anyone is saying children should only find inspiration in representations that look like them, that would be silly. However it is easier to imagine yourself in the place of someone who is at least superficially similar to yourself. So if that's what it take for some kid to realize they can do great things, then I'm all for it. I don't think broad representation takes anything away from anyone.
Brilliant! Except, erm, which one of the top 50 grossing films is telling somebody's story? And are we sure that affluent people are really going to the cinema much? Also, different people go to see different films (e.g. 50 Shades of Gray being the obvious example, or kids films). Certainly escapism/entertainment seems like a common motive with the recent super hero movies. But also, attendance drops when there's no film that people want to watch, so again it's not clear that people would go watch such films even if they existed and the favourable condition that there was no other blockbuster out there happened to occur. In other words, it doesn't seem to be zero sum game.
So maybe it's not the big bad affluent white "masses" fault, but it's a facile argument to throw out there.
But even if we accept that's true, the cost of film making has dropped dramatically. People could make whatever these grim, poignant but yet still entertaining films, put them on YouTube, and watch the views rack up if people truly wanted to watch them. And yet most stuff in YouTube is also pure entertainment. Strange...
What i also find frustrating is that people think it can't be entertaining. These are brilliant artists for crying out loud! They can weave stories while being faithful to reality too, and there are some pretty good examples out there.
The real problem is that entertainment creates a bubble for people. I get escapism but it is in our nature to want to be entertained forever if possible. I'm not trying to make an extreme example but we should at least consider how much time people spend watching TV.
And if that's shoving down people's throats.. Well frankly i don't feel terrible about it because eventually people might feel that it is not. We can argue whether it's better for society and such, though to me it is clear that it is.
I don't believe it. I googled for fun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films... only Titanic and Finding Dory qualifies :|.
We know this argument is incorrect to an extent because at least for the top-tier films their world-wide collections overshadow the US collections.
US itself is not as white as it used to be, and when you add world-wide audience its more mixed.
You could have made your point by not stereo-typing.
They're the ones that make most of the decisions, and are responsible for what the masses see. They're also the ones who give themselves awards and pat each other on the back at the Oscars:
"In 2012, the results of a study conducted by the Los Angeles Times were published describing the demographic breakdown of approximately 88% of AMPAS' voting membership. Of the 5,100+ active voters confirmed, 94% were Caucasian, 77% were male, and 54% were found to be over the age of 60."[1]
Also, the masses are not "predominately affluent", so not sure why you'd choose to describe them like that. The "white" part is unnecessary as well but that's a whole different discussion.
How is simply making a movie about poverty shoving it down your throat?
It's not like anyone would force you to watch it.
Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining??