Jumbled Thoughts: Story Discussion and "I don't want to make this about the politics." (Not about politics, more about business of all things) · 7:53pm Feb 19th, 2020
So, first, a disclaimer. I'm going to try not to actually reference anything too explicitly. In fact, the movies and shows that this phrase comes about with actually isn't even the focus of this. It's more about marketing, the reasons behind these narratives, and the perpetuation of the narrative. If/When I bring up a movie, it will be to talk about how misguided a certain critique that followed this whole thinking was and how the marketing and discussions of these movies has broken down. I am also going to probably come off as very unkind to many reviewers and some of these fandoms, but again, not for politics but narrow mindedness in a whole different manner. Just getting that out there. This is also part vent so sorry for the rambling that will happen.
Now, to the actual discussion. To begin with, if you don't want to bring politics into something, DON'T FUCKING BRING IT UP! Just saying the phrase at the top makes you a part of the problem. If you truly do not have a problem with whatever narrative is spinning around a movie than let the fact that you don't talk about it or have critiques based in that narrative say it. You do not have to say it yourself.
And I say narrative for a reason. 99% of the media that this topic is about... doesn't have an agenda. Other than usually in casting, the movie itself isn't properly about politics or even has political themes. In fact, both progressively and not, the most political I would say most of these get is casting females or minorities in roles that do not have to be either gender but have traditionally in media been male.
That's it. BUT that casting is all that it takes, mostly because that casting will be the first thing people hear about a movie. For the beginning of this problem, a vocal minority than yelled about the casting decision (I'm mostly thinking about Ghostbusters and Force Awakens for the beginning of this narrative), and then the MOVIE STUDIO and MEDIA blows it up so it becomes an actual talking point, everyone who talks about the media then feels it has to be brought up, and no matter any other criticisms, because this narrative was the first and loudest one, the studio can dismiss those criticisms while telling people that if they are really forward thinking than they need to go see the movie.
Now, that all sounds super political. It's political in the same way though that many failing European economies back in the middle ages would turn to the jews who ran those banks and blame them. It wasn't the jew's fault for it being bad, but because some people talked about it, and the monarchy/governments could use it as a way to shift blame away from them, they drove that point home harder. It's scapegoating to avoid higher beings from being harmed. Said scapegoat is just now the stereotypical nerd.
So, where does this get worse? Well, once studios saw that they could do this, they were pushed on multiple fronts to make these 'avaunt garde' casting decisions, while still trying to get the best actresses/actors they can get for the roles because they want to appeal to general audiences who won't get caught up in all of this. These directions are A: every online news outlet that wants clicks will blow any scandal about it out of proportion. Free marketing. B: No matter how bad a trailer or piece of media, there will now be some people who will defend it to the day they die to fight bigotry. Free marketing, guaranteed seats. C: People who hate the trailer or piece of media, no matter their political persuasion, will now get into a death march with group B and go see the movie to better state their points. Guaranteed seats and free marketing. D: Even long after the media is out, people are possibly going to be talking about it due to the death march. Better chances at DVD sales due to, you guessed it, free marketing. E: Proper analysis and breakdowns of issues in a movie become more muddied, or just gone, as people blame the politics. Deflection of blame and people mistrusting the criticisms and those making them. Hell, even if they don't bring up the politics, many people might assume, especially if they use the statement in the title.
So now a studio has a half dozen reasons to make these casting decisions and push this narrative, the sixth being the one that's always been there of trying to act progressive or be different by their casting choice (whether or not the studio or director actually cares is irrelevant. Good if they do care because I do want to see more actors be given a chance, but it doesn't matter due to this all being about marketing and not the piece of media itself). They don't even have to make it all that controversial now even because people have already become primed to talk about these issues if they state even once that they're trying to subvert expectations or be progressive.
And now, finally, let's talk about story discussion. The statement I heard that sparked me FINALLY making this blog was "The Last Jedi was ruined by the fact that it forgot to make a good story in favor of pushing a political gender."
*breathes in deeply* So, to start with on the problems of this, let's talk about stories that require certain genders for certain parts. The only times this matters is if the gender plays a role in the story or character arc. Mulan is a good example where a character has to be a certain gender because otherwise the story isn't there. If she were male there'd be no conflict, not without a change like making them disabled or the like. Most roles do not need this. Hell, my own books, most of which are harem erotica, could have literally every gender flipped and with the exception of a single character need NOTHING changed. Because gender isn't important to any of the characters or the plot and if that's the case, you can make almost any female character male and vice versa. In fact, if you want to be progressive, that's usually how you want it to come off as with a gender swapped character. That they'd be this character, and just as good, regardless of gender.
In Star Wars the Last Jedi, there are two real elements that can be said as pushing the political agendas, three if you talk about war profiteering, but that comes off more as moralizing and world building, at least to me, and it's gone in an instant. Those two elements are Holo and Rose... who if they were dudes could be the exact same. One is a cold general who has their reasons for the choices they make but has trust issues that lead to mistakes. The other is a super enthusiast to their cause with a heart of gold. These are things that transcend gender. They aren't political outside of the casting decision, which really only matters if a narrative is spun about the casting decision being something truly special.
Now, the concept of something having overridden a great story isn't entirely wrong. The director had a vision for the themes and ideas he wanted to push, but with the limitations placed on him by the first movie, this being part of a trilogy, etc. it was going to be hard. And they didn't rise to the challenge. Many story decisions made are very questionable from logic standpoints and often bog down the movie and its pacing. I've made an entire blog dissecting the movie, and a second one in more of this format to teach something about Suspension of Disbelief Vs. Payoff, quite possibly one of the least political story elements you can talk about.
Because the media itself wasn't about politics. It only was because the marketing said it was. So, when people critiqued it, they focused on that. It also made for a really easy way to say that the story was bad because it'd already been provided for them. It's a lot easier to blame a story for being bad by saying it was the director's fault because they pushed something that didn't belong in there instead of just how the story may be flawed. It's easy, it's simple, it's eye catching/'thought provoking', and it's lazy.
Perfect for a youtube reviewer. I know that's a real dick thing to say, but as someone who has a roommate who watches at least three reviews that all get mired in this shit A DAY, I don't feel entirely wrong. There's a reason I pretty much full stopped watching reviewers, especially media reviewers, because the online reviewer often falls back on certain traits that appear to be objective and people will usually agree on rather than trying to go deeper and talk about the story in a better sense. One of the best examples is whenever they talk about tropes. Tropes exist for a reason, so when a trope fails there's usually a real discussion to be had on why it didn't work. But... it's the angry cop trope, which makes it immediately bad, move on.
So an easy, popular critique that will get people to look at your videos is popular and brought up often for many of the same reason why News Outlets talk about such matters. Clicks and ad revenue. I don't even really blame these people, they're trying to make a living after all, and I use tactics like this myself with salacious cover art even if the story itself is more artsy fartsy then straight smut. But most of them are able to see the bigger picture, or properly push the narrative to the side to properly review the material and find real, genuine things to say about these matters and add something to the conversation. Not from what I've seen.
So yeah, in summary, genuinely ignore the politics, stop caring about casting choices other than capability of the actor, and make sure to remember that casting choices do not push an agenda. If a movie is some fun popcorn, let it be that and talk about it like that instead of about what might be perceived as political because people keep screaming about it. Those are my thoughts at least on the subject, and I know that this may very well be counter productive due to how much I had to reference the scandals, even vaguely. I hope you all have a good day and if you want to see an amazing movie, go see Knives Out. It should be in second run theaters now and it TOTALLY deserves your attention.
Okay, I admit I didn't read everything about this post. What I can indeed say is this, I agree that politics shouldn't be brought up in entertaiment, or follow an agenda. There's a reason why the phrase "get woke, go for broke" exists.
5206291 I disagree that politics should stay out of media. Some really great media has been made that brings up hard issues, often tackling some level of politics. Your statement actually is kind of hilarious in context to the blog itself though, at least to me.
5206464
Do tell some examples, because recently movies have been tackling politics and following an agenda, often with pretty bad results. I have seen videos of guys like TheQquartering and Yellow Flash. I mean, if you're going to bring up politics in entertaiment, then don't make it part of the main work and don't shove it down people's throats.
5206824 Many of them do well in subtext, while others do it through historical context, but I can't say off the top of my head. Trying to say things are non-political is incorrect though. But, and I cover this in the blog... how much of this stuff that you're trying to say tackle politics actually do so? Because Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, NONE OF THEM ARE POLITICAL. The closest they come to is casting decisions which then... seriously, read the friggin blog. I'm sorry for the aggressive end there, but I don't want to have to say a ton of stuff I already did.