Last week I promoted my new Substack Thread (which you can check out by downloading the Substack app down below) where I asked you all what YOU want from the movies that would get you going to the movie theater. Considering there are only three answers and two of them are from, no joke, my mother, I’ll be responding to, diagnosing, and perhaps prescribing each of them specifically. I told you this would go both ways!
Honestly, more empowerment to the main character without having to spell out the fact that it’s because of some social injustice in the world. I also want more cinematic movies. It seems we’ve fallen into a pattern of plagiarism in movies. They all seem to be carbon copies of each other with only slight variations. This is something that is hard because we want originality but there really isn’t anything new under the sun but that’s what I want. - David O
Thanks David!
Sounds like you have three punch-ups to get you into a theater seat:
Less main character empowerment from contrasting real-world social injustice.
More “cinematic” movies.
Originality (supposedly a pipe dream).
There’s a lot to dig into here so I’m going to break this down into three articles. Let’s start with your first topic.
Truth, Social Justice, and the Diverse Way
Real-world injustice has always driven the movies (see my article “Movies Shouldn’t Be Political”). As it should; making large-scale movies about real-world topics can truly affect change. But the audience’s annoyance at making that connection explicit in blockbuster cinema is an interesting one with an absolute ton of influences that have created it. Seriously, we could stand here all day speaking about exploitation cinema’s mainstream appeal and real-world political movements. But to keep it as focused and as practical as possible, I’ve boiled this down to three clickbait-appealing factors at play.
1. Comic Book Culture Taking the Screen
I could write a whole essay on comic culture’s influence on cinema leading to protagonists like Black Panther and Captain Marvel spelling out their connections to progressive representation politics. Those characters have already existed as beacons of hope against social injustice before they jump from page to screen, and comics have strived for increased diversity and explicit pushback against injustice for decades, spearheaded by many of its grandfathers like Stan Lee. The increase in superhero movies, especially ones that feel an obligation to their source material, has led to more heroes whose inherent character calls for social change to end up on the screen.
THAT’S NOT A BAD THING. Many of these characters are beloved because of that pushback against social injustice. Why would any of us want to see a Black Panther movie where the main character is just a chill superhero with claws? The thematic purpose of that character is a commentary on black political movements. His name is Black Panther for crying out loud.
Since current blockbusters are all trying to copy the success of Marvel, this has led to instances of filmmakers who don’t know what they’re doing throwing in themes of social justice for oppressed groups simply to copy rather than to innovate or express. This leads mostly to moments that hint at some strong viewpoint without much actual resonance in the story like Jasmine’s song about being unsilenced in 2019’s Aladdin remake, or the comment that the ancient malignant interdimensional being Gozer the Gozerian’s lack of gender identity is “pretty woke for 2000 B.C.” in Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021). These are thrown-around bits of characterization that don’t add much to the story except to say they exist. Those two examples are also noteworthy for taking characters that already existed in previous movies and trying to make them seem like cool icons for a new generation. The comic industry is already a bit ahead in its choices of explicit diversity politics; the movie industry is just following suit.
2. Criticism’s Dying Breaths Make It So
You know I’ve said a lot about how film criticism is dying? It’s totally true, but I need to make a small amendment to that claim. You can still find plenty of profitable people online doing one specific kind of critique: the analysis of representation. Articles interrogating how good a character is at representing a certain people group or movement are perhaps the most prominent bit of real film criticism for film-loving readers.
People may not care about the thematic implications of a Star Wars flick, but they’ll still interrogate whether or not Finn is given enough characterization in comparison to his white costars, or if the latest Dungeons and Dragons movie follows the initiative to smooth out the bad history between goblins and orcs and racist writing. This is, at least often, real and worthwhile criticism that looks at the text to analyze a viewpoint. That’s great! Especially since lots of these articles aren’t simply a numbers game about how much diversity there is, but about what that representation is saying about a given people group. But since it feels like one of the only things selling to the mainstream right now in criticism in general, films bend to its will without paying attention to any other kind of criticism, which is just a bummer.
3. Fan Service of All Kinds
We can’t get into how much audiences online are now driving the creation of your biggest blockbusters because we’d be here all day. The unreal amount of money thrown at movies to “make the fans happy” is usually better spent elsewhere. Along with the choices to make sure Sonic the Hedgehog’s design is like the video game or the Transformers use the sound effects from the cartoon show comes the mindset of looking to online discourse to drive decisions in a movie. The studios look to social media and are told that diversity makes money. So they just inject that diversity in wherever they feel like without much else.
Most noticeable is when this technique is applied to the slew of remakes and sequels. Those who are resistant to change will naturally be annoyed at the slightest variations from what they know, minority-based or otherwise.
This, I think, is your greatest issue, dear readers. When calling for empowerment without spelling out its contrast to social injustice, I think what you are truly worried about is the behind-the-scenes story of the casting and how it changes your viewing of the movie. The move to cast women or minorities in roles that previously weren’t given to those people groups is seen as inherently empowering, even if the plot gives them no more empowerment than a male or white protagonist.
Let’s showcase another example. Social media was all abuzz when Halle Bailey was cast as Ariel in the live-action remake of The Little Mermaid that came out this year. The film itself doesn’t touch on representation politics more than the original animated feature with a white protagonist did. But the choice to make a change from what previously existed makes everyone feel every moment where Ariel is “empowered” is for social justice reasons. Yet Disney live-action remakes have a reputation for barely changing the source material if nothing else! Ariel still does all the things Ariel does, but the audience now sees any winning moments in the original story as going out of the story’s way for diversity. The casting itself is seen as some kind of forced empowerment rather than anything in the text of the film.
So…what?
Character empowerment and diversity is an advanced subject I could spend several more articles digging into, but I think the core of why readers say they want empowerment without diversity are the three reasons for its rise I’ve laid out here. Comic book culture is now mainstream and all-encompassing for movies on the screen, while, off-screen, critics only touch the mainstream with articles on how equitable diversity is and audiences fixate on a studio’s stories behind the scenes emphasis and ignore what’s actually on screen.
Let me reiterate. DIVERSITY IS A GOOD THING. In addition to real-world social benefits, attracting audiences to which Hollywood rarely curates is one of the easier ways Hollywood can keep innovating in blockbuster cinema. When audiences have an adverse reaction to it, more often it’s because of other factors than the actual representation. I’m not denying there are some movies where they have “an exclusively (insert real-world minority) moment” where the plot takes a quick backseat to a bit of audience pandering, but more often that’s the audience and the studios bringing perspectives from outside the film and projecting them onscreen. Last time I checked, the only thing that should be projected is the film itself.
Coming Attractions:
Next article, we’ll continue to address David O’s thoughts on what he wants from the movies, tackling “more cinematic movies” and the misconception that “there really isn’t anything new under the sun.” To get those articles, please make sure you’re subscribed and if you have a moment please share this piece with a friend!