5 ms·

When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where do authors like OP get the idea that I wan

When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? And that there is some kind of obligation for those in charge to forgo their primary motivations of artistic expression and/or profit in the interest of some totally arbitrary target of "representation" of every combination of color, gender, and socioeconomic status? Not to mention, this kind of thinly veiled political grandstanding in the context of film review is almost always cherry picking. There have been plenty of films examining poverty from numerous perspectives. The fact that they are not en vogue now does not speak of some kind of crisis-just like people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen, while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema. Outrage is the kind of thing, in my opinion, that is trivial to find, if you look hard enough.

Leader2light 9y ago
Could not agree more! For me, its actually created a backlash to the point I hate everything about diversity. China may win in the end because of purely this issue.
hadsed 9y ago
It is incredible that you cite artistic expression for your case. It is likely the money making side that makes it difficult to do anything truly new because the predominantly affluent (and yes, white) masses may be skittish about it. You should think about its broader impact on society, because while you have the time and resources to complain about not being entertained enough (incredible in this age of over entertainment!) there are people's stories not being told precisely because you would prefer entertainment to something that challenges your views on what is even entertaining. Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining??
- meri_dian 9y ago
  But that's the point he's trying to make. A movie about poverty will probably not be a pleasant movie to watch. So don't shove it down people's throats. 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.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    "A movie about poverty will probably not be a pleasant movie to watch. So don't shove it down people's throats." How is simply making a movie about poverty shoving it down your throat? It's not like anyone would force you to watch it.
    - meri_dian 9y ago
      The undertone of the article is that people need to be exposed to poverty through cinema. Hence, shoving down people's throats.
  - sincerely 9y ago
    From the last year alone "Good Time" and "The Florida Project" were amazing movies that were about or contextualized by poverty.
- sremani 9y ago
  >> predominantly affluent (and yes, white) masses 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.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    It's not as much about the white masses as it is about the white, affluent people in power in Hollywood and in the rest of the US entertainment industry (which is still the overwhelmingly dominant entertainment industry in the world). 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] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars#Voters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars#Voters
- allthenews 9y ago
  Minorities dominate popular culture, but armchair directors complain that there is not enough representation, exactly the cherry picking I described. 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?
  - ch4s3 9y ago
    > Where is my equal representation 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.
- guitarbill 9y ago
  > there are people's stories not being told precisely because you would prefer entertainment to something that challenges your views on what is even entertaining. > Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining?? 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...
  - hadsed 9y ago
    I think your point is valid, but i also think it doesn't invalidate mine. There is a lot of cheap fun and easy money to be had, so I'd find it difficult to buy arguments about what the top grossing films are about. 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.
  - johnchristopher 9y ago
    > Brilliant! Except, erm, which one of the top 50 grossing films is telling somebody's story? I don't believe it. I googled for fun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films... only Titanic and Finding Dory qualifies :|.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 9y ago
I really get the idea the article is not much more than a hit piece. It clearly focuses in only on the nominations while completely ignoring all the other media people consume, much more if it is on the small screen. there is more that enough about the poor hitting Americans every day through the news, television shows on both broadcast and streaming, to even billboards and telemarketers. the truth is too many assume the government is helping when the government usually is causing more issues or confusing the issues. worse in some cases actions taken because of a feel good politician negatively impact the local people who then in turn tune it out because it annoys or disgusts them so instead of working to see it fixed they blame the poor and homeless. (see the streets of LA and SF)
rusk 9y ago
Art is the conscience of society. Sure there's a lot to be said about escapism and lolz but to say that art shouldn't be challenging risks disappearing up the hole of narcissism. This miserable loveless screed in fact, your outrage at outrage, is a fantastic example of why we should be encouraging filmmakers, and artists in general to present us with a more challenging view of life.
ksk 9y ago
Why should there be a purpose to art at all? In any case, Oscars are known for handing out awards to non-commercial movies. That was the entire point of the awards. To reward excellence, not money (modulo human factors). If you are not going to be entertained by a movie, don't watch it. If you don't like the authors opinion, move on and go read something else. Maybe I should move on from your opinion too :)
overthemoon 9y ago
Film can be many things. Entertainment is one of those things.
mping 9y ago
Art is a two way street. Besides, EVERYTHING you do has a responsibility, an echo. Whether you accept it or not doesn't change. You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people? I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up.
- wand3r 9y ago
  > Art is a two way street. Besides, EVERYTHING you do has a responsibility, an echo. The parent is not disagreeing imo, just that an artist feels their art/message is their primary responsibility and a financiers primary responsibility is making money. Just as someone else's responsibility might be showcasing poverty or delivering a political message. Most of these basis are covered as the "art" market is very large. > You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people? I don't understand this analogy with relation to the parent post. > I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up. I also believe this. I think it is important we question the status quo and convention to assess what has value. I agree with the parent comment that after these questions I came to a similar conclusion.
  - mping 9y ago
    The analogy is that a joke's primary purpose is to entertain but there's always the risk of offending. Cinema is entertainment but the side effect of making people think is undeniable.
kettlecorn 9y ago
> Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? You seem to be doing that thing where you read someone's firm recommendations and assume that the author wants their recommendation to apply to everyone. I highly doubt the author expects people who don't care to see a movie about poverty to go and see a movie about poverty. There's a similar discussion in the video game community where lots of people are upset at attempts to bring "politics" into games. The reality though is that most critics are just firmly critiquing games and not writing mandates about how all games must be. Art has always struck a balance between being a political and philosophical medium and a capitalist one, and often when people criticize a medium they're criticizing the political and philosophical part. It's totally fine for them to do so, because they feel that their criticism can help "improve" the medium even if you disagree. And likewise you disagreeing with the author is fine as well. The problem comes about when people like yourself take personal offense to the efforts of others to improve a medium. You read this article and you read 'outrage', but film criticism such as this is a common part of critiquing any medium. Someone could write a similar article about a technique in film, but because its context isn't political people wouldn't read 'outrage' into it. Similarly in games people view calls to dial back the sexualization of women as a "political" stance and attribute it to "outrage culture". They feel that they just play games for fun, and since the audience is mostly male the developers should focus on their audience instead of pandering to politics. But just like any artistic medium it's totally fair to criticize games for an intellectual failing that cheapens a lot of the medium's artistic merits. People really just need to learn to read the criticisms of others without falling into the mindset "This is a capitalist medium, this isn't a capitalist critique therefor it's a political one and I'm upset by that." NO, art is political and capitalist at the same time, it's totally fine to criticize it from either perspective. > The fact that they are not en vogue now does not speak of some kind of crisis-just like people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen, while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema. I felt compelled to point out here that the major reason people are excited about Black Panther is because the representation of black people in the world of super heroes has been poor. Kids are super into super heroes, and this gives a lot of young kids a character they can see themselves in. I don't think kids are ignoring black cinema, but kids are just more into super hero movies than other movies.
jps359 9y ago
"Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat?" A lot of people seem to want this, given the fact that dozens of political movies are released every year
madenine 9y ago
The last paragraph of the piece kinda struck me: "And perhaps if others saw more realistic portrayals of poverty in the movies, they might be more receptive to programs that would help them instead of demeaning and punishing them." I would love an example where 'realistic portrayals' of a given subject in movies led to changes in public policy / public perception. If anything, I would argue that popular films, just like other art forms, are more likely to serve as a barometer of society's perception/reception of a given subject than as something that ignites the change. Take the war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's - I'm not sure you could make 'The Deer Hunter' in '68, or 'The Green Berets' in '78. Or the war on drugs - movies like Trainspotting, Requiem for a Dream, or Traffic certainly showed a realistic side of drugs and addiction... and yet the war on drugs has only intensified since their popular releases.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  Film and television have been widely credited with progress on gay rights in the US. Where I grew up, most people had their first experience with an openly gay person when they saw Will and Grace, and it really changed how people viewed that community.
- hadsed 9y ago
  I think it is probably difficult to give clear examples. For instance, being gay in film and television was I guess more acceptable to people than letting them get married. Could we say it was a clear influencer? No... But I think you'd also have trouble saying it didn't matter.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  The realistic portrayals of abysmal human working conditions in the food-service industry found in The Jungle led to changes in public policy. Those changes were in food safety regulation and not labor law, but changes were made. It's almost as if the artist can only bring out something that already exists in the audience. Everyone sees it through their own personal lens. If a movie existed that realistically portrayed poverty, that would only move the viewer to the extent that they can relate to the characters. One person might be motivated to reform the social safety net to provide better support. Another might reaffirm their personal preconception that poor people are brutish, unintelligent, useless, and irredeemable, and might just sign on to a new eugenics program to sterilize indigents and undesirables. The art rekindles empathy that is already there. If it wasn't already present, it is a lot more difficult to make it grow there from other places in the psyche.
lucozade 9y ago
> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not people so much as a person whose most recent book happens to be called "Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen". I do try hard not to be cynical but this chap's profession is poverty and he has a new book out on cinematic depictions of poverty. It's a struggle not to just see this as tying in the Oscars for marketing purposes.
ggg9990 9y ago
There’s no obligation for entertainment to be political — nobody is asking why films about poverty don’t sell more tickets. But there is an expectation that award shows like the Oscars bring some values to the table. And if you accept that the Oscars should be something other than announcing the most profitable or most entertaining films of the year, if things like gender and race representation matter (reasonable people can disagree on this), then certainly class representation should also matter.
curun1r 9y ago
> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Your points on cherry picking not withstanding, this statement is incredibly short-sighted. Movies are just the latest incarnation of a long line of storytelling. And for centuries, artists have used their usually-comfortable working conditions to shine a light on those less fortunate. Go read some Émile Zola, Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens or John Steinbeck and tell me that their stories were written solely to entertain. Those great writers found ways to intermingle drama and social commentary. That should be every storyteller's goal. If stories don't help us learn to be better people, what's the point? If they just become escapism to rid ourselves of our unpleasant existence for a couple of hours, they only help perpetuate situations that need changing. Movies are like food...if all you eat is junk, you'll end up fat and unhealthy. Vegetables can also taste good while keeping you healthy. Movie makers should be searching for the kinds of stories that are both entertaining and keep our society healthy. Instead we get the metaphorical equivalent of donuts...all powerful superheroes who teach us nothing about ourselves or the people we live with. You can say that all you want to see are enjoyable movies, but I don't think it's out of line for others to hold Hollywood to account for failing to live up to the storytelling legacy they've inherited.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >Movies are like food...if all you eat is junk, you'll end up fat and unhealthy. Vegetables can also taste good while keeping you healthy. Movie makers should be searching for the kinds of stories that are both entertaining and keep our society healthy. Instead we get the metaphorical equivalent of donuts...all powerful superheroes who teach us nothing about ourselves or the people we live with. You can say that all you want to see are enjoyable movies, but I don't think it's out of line for others to hold Hollywood to account for failing to live up to the storytelling legacy they've inherited. Some people don't watch movies to get cultured the same way some people don't order healthy food at restaurants. If you're looking for proper culture (whatever that means) or a healthy meal then there's much better ways to go about it so why not just go all out.
1024core 9y ago
> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where did people get the idea that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Film has always been art: the purpose of art is to provoke thought, hold up a mirror to society and, of course, entertainment (among others): the ratio of ingredients can change, but it's never been solely about entertainment. These days, the studios are pumping out motion renderings of comics, as if some ML algorithm that decides on what to work on is in some sort of a feedback loop. Where are this generation's "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? "Gone with the Wind"? "Apocalypse Now"? (not to imply that these 3 are the best movies out there, just some names off the top of my head, and I'm no cinephile, so let's not get into a movie-naming contest).
- roryisok 9y ago
  > Where are this generation's "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? "Gone with the Wind"? "Apocalypse Now"? Films like this stood out as original or thought provoking when released, but now films that emulate those classics are everywhere. They have become commercialised to the point of formula. The courtroom drama movie, the period drama set against the backdrop of conflict, the war is hell story. There's one out every other week. It's because they've become so commonplace that they're no longer thought provoking.
  - johnchristopher 9y ago
    Apocalypse now, casablanca, bowling for columbine, etc. were made in a certain context. That context can't be captured and commercialized because history moved on and it isn't there anymore. They can't completely exist in a vacuum. When I look at today's aaa movies whether the context is lacking or the movie suffers from the formula and lack of originality or personal vision (as you point it). I remember gummo, searching for the wrong-eyed jesus, american honey, chop shop, land of plenty and winter bones. I am pretty sure three of them will pass the test of time. (I am not american nor living in america so I don't know the movie scene as well as the european one)
    - 9y ago
empath75 9y ago
One of my favorite movies of all time is City of God, which is about Brazilian favelas. You can make movies about poor people that are just as entertaining and compelling as any movie about super spies or whatever.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
johnchristopher 9y ago
> When did people (...) You are leaving no room for debate with that loaded question. I hope whatever country you are seeking asylum lets you in and you can escape the horrible dictatorship you are living in that prevents its citizens from watching entertaining movies and shove things you don't want down your throat. /s
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Lukeas14 9y ago
I think you're missing the reason why people are excited about Black Panther. It actually has more to do with the motivation of profit than representation. Obviously there have been several decades of positive black cinema but the audience for those movies was always intended to be strictly "urban". And their small budgets reflected the assumption that studios thought only a small subsection of America would be interested in a black movie. Black panther proved for the first time that you could put $200m behind a movie with a predominantly black cast, market it to mainstream America and still make $1b in revenue. Marvel/Disney's primary motivation was still profit. There's no way they would've green-lighted(greenlit?) that movie if they thought they would lose money on it. So it's not about representation just for representation's sake. But rather celebrating the fact that representation is no longer held back due to a lack of profit.
- lurquer 9y ago
  Ray, Ali, Color Purple, Glory, Django, Cotton Club, Boyz in the Hood, Friday, Malcolm X, Bad Boys, Barbershop, and of course, New Jack City. Each of these movies did great and reached a wide demographic. As did Black Panther. The only difference is that Black Panther's marketing propogated this ridiculous myth that it was the first black superhero movie. (Sorry, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, and Halle Berre... you're down the memory hole.) Or, even more absurd, that it is the first all-black cast that has done well at the box office. Just shows how powerful marketing is. More power to them... I've lived through several iterations of "'brand-new' microfiber technology that make cleaning up spills a snap!" I suppose I can live through endless repetitions of "the very first movie with a real-live black person in it!" Whatever....
dragonwriter 9y ago
> people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen There were lots of things that people praised Black Panther for, but the one you point to wasn't what any significant subset were praising it for, in fact... > while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema. Breaking out of the black cinema stereotype that films featuring predominantly black casts are a niche good for black audiences while films featuring predominantly white casts are mainstream products for everyone is, for instance, one of the major things Black Panther has been celebrated for.

Leader2light 9y ago

Could not agree more! For me, its actually created a backlash to the point I hate everything about diversity. China may win in the end because of purely this issue.

hadsed 9y ago

It is incredible that you cite artistic expression for your case. It is likely the money making side that makes it difficult to do anything truly new because the predominantly affluent (and yes, white) masses may be skittish about it. You should think about its broader impact on society, because while you have the time and resources to complain about not being entertained enough (incredible in this age of over entertainment!) there are people's stories not being told precisely because you would prefer entertainment to something that challenges your views on what is even entertaining. Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining??

meri_dian 9y ago
But that's the point he's trying to make. A movie about poverty will probably not be a pleasant movie to watch. So don't shove it down people's throats. 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.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "A movie about poverty will probably not be a pleasant movie to watch. So don't shove it down people's throats." How is simply making a movie about poverty shoving it down your throat? It's not like anyone would force you to watch it.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    The undertone of the article is that people need to be exposed to poverty through cinema. Hence, shoving down people's throats.
- sincerely 9y ago
  From the last year alone "Good Time" and "The Florida Project" were amazing movies that were about or contextualized by poverty.
sremani 9y ago
>> predominantly affluent (and yes, white) masses 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.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  It's not as much about the white masses as it is about the white, affluent people in power in Hollywood and in the rest of the US entertainment industry (which is still the overwhelmingly dominant entertainment industry in the world). 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] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars#Voters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars#Voters
allthenews 9y ago
Minorities dominate popular culture, but armchair directors complain that there is not enough representation, exactly the cherry picking I described. 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?
- ch4s3 9y ago
  > Where is my equal representation 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.
guitarbill 9y ago
> there are people's stories not being told precisely because you would prefer entertainment to something that challenges your views on what is even entertaining. > Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining?? 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...
- hadsed 9y ago
  I think your point is valid, but i also think it doesn't invalidate mine. There is a lot of cheap fun and easy money to be had, so I'd find it difficult to buy arguments about what the top grossing films are about. 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.
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  > Brilliant! Except, erm, which one of the top 50 grossing films is telling somebody's story? I don't believe it. I googled for fun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films... only Titanic and Finding Dory qualifies :|.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 9y ago

I really get the idea the article is not much more than a hit piece. It clearly focuses in only on the nominations while completely ignoring all the other media people consume, much more if it is on the small screen. there is more that enough about the poor hitting Americans every day through the news, television shows on both broadcast and streaming, to even billboards and telemarketers. the truth is too many assume the government is helping when the government usually is causing more issues or confusing the issues. worse in some cases actions taken because of a feel good politician negatively impact the local people who then in turn tune it out because it annoys or disgusts them so instead of working to see it fixed they blame the poor and homeless. (see the streets of LA and SF)

rusk 9y ago

Art is the conscience of society. Sure there's a lot to be said about escapism and lolz but to say that art shouldn't be challenging risks disappearing up the hole of narcissism. This miserable loveless screed in fact, your outrage at outrage, is a fantastic example of why we should be encouraging filmmakers, and artists in general to present us with a more challenging view of life.

ksk 9y ago

Why should there be a purpose to art at all? In any case, Oscars are known for handing out awards to non-commercial movies. That was the entire point of the awards. To reward excellence, not money (modulo human factors). If you are not going to be entertained by a movie, don't watch it. If you don't like the authors opinion, move on and go read something else. Maybe I should move on from your opinion too :)

overthemoon 9y ago

Film can be many things. Entertainment is one of those things.

mping 9y ago

Art is a two way street. Besides, EVERYTHING you do has a responsibility, an echo. Whether you accept it or not doesn't change. You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people? I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up.

wand3r 9y ago
> Art is a two way street. Besides, EVERYTHING you do has a responsibility, an echo. The parent is not disagreeing imo, just that an artist feels their art/message is their primary responsibility and a financiers primary responsibility is making money. Just as someone else's responsibility might be showcasing poverty or delivering a political message. Most of these basis are covered as the "art" market is very large. > You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people? I don't understand this analogy with relation to the parent post. > I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up. I also believe this. I think it is important we question the status quo and convention to assess what has value. I agree with the parent comment that after these questions I came to a similar conclusion.
- mping 9y ago
  The analogy is that a joke's primary purpose is to entertain but there's always the risk of offending. Cinema is entertainment but the side effect of making people think is undeniable.

kettlecorn 9y ago

> Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? You seem to be doing that thing where you read someone's firm recommendations and assume that the author wants their recommendation to apply to everyone. I highly doubt the author expects people who don't care to see a movie about poverty to go and see a movie about poverty. There's a similar discussion in the video game community where lots of people are upset at attempts to bring "politics" into games. The reality though is that most critics are just firmly critiquing games and not writing mandates about how all games must be. Art has always struck a balance between being a political and philosophical medium and a capitalist one, and often when people criticize a medium they're criticizing the political and philosophical part. It's totally fine for them to do so, because they feel that their criticism can help "improve" the medium even if you disagree. And likewise you disagreeing with the author is fine as well. The problem comes about when people like yourself take personal offense to the efforts of others to improve a medium. You read this article and you read 'outrage', but film criticism such as this is a common part of critiquing any medium. Someone could write a similar article about a technique in film, but because its context isn't political people wouldn't read 'outrage' into it. Similarly in games people view calls to dial back the sexualization of women as a "political" stance and attribute it to "outrage culture". They feel that they just play games for fun, and since the audience is mostly male the developers should focus on their audience instead of pandering to politics. But just like any artistic medium it's totally fair to criticize games for an intellectual failing that cheapens a lot of the medium's artistic merits. People really just need to learn to read the criticisms of others without falling into the mindset "This is a capitalist medium, this isn't a capitalist critique therefor it's a political one and I'm upset by that." NO, art is political and capitalist at the same time, it's totally fine to criticize it from either perspective. > The fact that they are not en vogue now does not speak of some kind of crisis-just like people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen, while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema. I felt compelled to point out here that the major reason people are excited about Black Panther is because the representation of black people in the world of super heroes has been poor. Kids are super into super heroes, and this gives a lot of young kids a character they can see themselves in. I don't think kids are ignoring black cinema, but kids are just more into super hero movies than other movies.

jps359 9y ago

"Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat?" A lot of people seem to want this, given the fact that dozens of political movies are released every year

madenine 9y ago

The last paragraph of the piece kinda struck me: "And perhaps if others saw more realistic portrayals of poverty in the movies, they might be more receptive to programs that would help them instead of demeaning and punishing them." I would love an example where 'realistic portrayals' of a given subject in movies led to changes in public policy / public perception. If anything, I would argue that popular films, just like other art forms, are more likely to serve as a barometer of society's perception/reception of a given subject than as something that ignites the change. Take the war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's - I'm not sure you could make 'The Deer Hunter' in '68, or 'The Green Berets' in '78. Or the war on drugs - movies like Trainspotting, Requiem for a Dream, or Traffic certainly showed a realistic side of drugs and addiction... and yet the war on drugs has only intensified since their popular releases.

ch4s3 9y ago
Film and television have been widely credited with progress on gay rights in the US. Where I grew up, most people had their first experience with an openly gay person when they saw Will and Grace, and it really changed how people viewed that community.
hadsed 9y ago
I think it is probably difficult to give clear examples. For instance, being gay in film and television was I guess more acceptable to people than letting them get married. Could we say it was a clear influencer? No... But I think you'd also have trouble saying it didn't matter.
logfromblammo 9y ago
The realistic portrayals of abysmal human working conditions in the food-service industry found in The Jungle led to changes in public policy. Those changes were in food safety regulation and not labor law, but changes were made. It's almost as if the artist can only bring out something that already exists in the audience. Everyone sees it through their own personal lens. If a movie existed that realistically portrayed poverty, that would only move the viewer to the extent that they can relate to the characters. One person might be motivated to reform the social safety net to provide better support. Another might reaffirm their personal preconception that poor people are brutish, unintelligent, useless, and irredeemable, and might just sign on to a new eugenics program to sterilize indigents and undesirables. The art rekindles empathy that is already there. If it wasn't already present, it is a lot more difficult to make it grow there from other places in the psyche.

lucozade 9y ago

> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not people so much as a person whose most recent book happens to be called "Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen". I do try hard not to be cynical but this chap's profession is poverty and he has a new book out on cinematic depictions of poverty. It's a struggle not to just see this as tying in the Oscars for marketing purposes.

ggg9990 9y ago

There’s no obligation for entertainment to be political — nobody is asking why films about poverty don’t sell more tickets. But there is an expectation that award shows like the Oscars bring some values to the table. And if you accept that the Oscars should be something other than announcing the most profitable or most entertaining films of the year, if things like gender and race representation matter (reasonable people can disagree on this), then certainly class representation should also matter.

curun1r 9y ago

> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Your points on cherry picking not withstanding, this statement is incredibly short-sighted. Movies are just the latest incarnation of a long line of storytelling. And for centuries, artists have used their usually-comfortable working conditions to shine a light on those less fortunate. Go read some Émile Zola, Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens or John Steinbeck and tell me that their stories were written solely to entertain. Those great writers found ways to intermingle drama and social commentary. That should be every storyteller's goal. If stories don't help us learn to be better people, what's the point? If they just become escapism to rid ourselves of our unpleasant existence for a couple of hours, they only help perpetuate situations that need changing. Movies are like food...if all you eat is junk, you'll end up fat and unhealthy. Vegetables can also taste good while keeping you healthy. Movie makers should be searching for the kinds of stories that are both entertaining and keep our society healthy. Instead we get the metaphorical equivalent of donuts...all powerful superheroes who teach us nothing about ourselves or the people we live with. You can say that all you want to see are enjoyable movies, but I don't think it's out of line for others to hold Hollywood to account for failing to live up to the storytelling legacy they've inherited.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>Movies are like food...if all you eat is junk, you'll end up fat and unhealthy. Vegetables can also taste good while keeping you healthy. Movie makers should be searching for the kinds of stories that are both entertaining and keep our society healthy. Instead we get the metaphorical equivalent of donuts...all powerful superheroes who teach us nothing about ourselves or the people we live with. You can say that all you want to see are enjoyable movies, but I don't think it's out of line for others to hold Hollywood to account for failing to live up to the storytelling legacy they've inherited. Some people don't watch movies to get cultured the same way some people don't order healthy food at restaurants. If you're looking for proper culture (whatever that means) or a healthy meal then there's much better ways to go about it so why not just go all out.

1024core 9y ago

> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where did people get the idea that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Film has always been art: the purpose of art is to provoke thought, hold up a mirror to society and, of course, entertainment (among others): the ratio of ingredients can change, but it's never been solely about entertainment. These days, the studios are pumping out motion renderings of comics, as if some ML algorithm that decides on what to work on is in some sort of a feedback loop. Where are this generation's "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? "Gone with the Wind"? "Apocalypse Now"? (not to imply that these 3 are the best movies out there, just some names off the top of my head, and I'm no cinephile, so let's not get into a movie-naming contest).

roryisok 9y ago
> Where are this generation's "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? "Gone with the Wind"? "Apocalypse Now"? Films like this stood out as original or thought provoking when released, but now films that emulate those classics are everywhere. They have become commercialised to the point of formula. The courtroom drama movie, the period drama set against the backdrop of conflict, the war is hell story. There's one out every other week. It's because they've become so commonplace that they're no longer thought provoking.
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  Apocalypse now, casablanca, bowling for columbine, etc. were made in a certain context. That context can't be captured and commercialized because history moved on and it isn't there anymore. They can't completely exist in a vacuum. When I look at today's aaa movies whether the context is lacking or the movie suffers from the formula and lack of originality or personal vision (as you point it). I remember gummo, searching for the wrong-eyed jesus, american honey, chop shop, land of plenty and winter bones. I am pretty sure three of them will pass the test of time. (I am not american nor living in america so I don't know the movie scene as well as the european one)
  - 9y ago

empath75 9y ago

One of my favorite movies of all time is City of God, which is about Brazilian favelas. You can make movies about poor people that are just as entertaining and compelling as any movie about super spies or whatever.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

johnchristopher 9y ago

> When did people (...) You are leaving no room for debate with that loaded question. I hope whatever country you are seeking asylum lets you in and you can escape the horrible dictatorship you are living in that prevents its citizens from watching entertaining movies and shove things you don't want down your throat. /s

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Lukeas14 9y ago

I think you're missing the reason why people are excited about Black Panther. It actually has more to do with the motivation of profit than representation. Obviously there have been several decades of positive black cinema but the audience for those movies was always intended to be strictly "urban". And their small budgets reflected the assumption that studios thought only a small subsection of America would be interested in a black movie. Black panther proved for the first time that you could put $200m behind a movie with a predominantly black cast, market it to mainstream America and still make $1b in revenue. Marvel/Disney's primary motivation was still profit. There's no way they would've green-lighted(greenlit?) that movie if they thought they would lose money on it. So it's not about representation just for representation's sake. But rather celebrating the fact that representation is no longer held back due to a lack of profit.

lurquer 9y ago
Ray, Ali, Color Purple, Glory, Django, Cotton Club, Boyz in the Hood, Friday, Malcolm X, Bad Boys, Barbershop, and of course, New Jack City. Each of these movies did great and reached a wide demographic. As did Black Panther. The only difference is that Black Panther's marketing propogated this ridiculous myth that it was the first black superhero movie. (Sorry, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, and Halle Berre... you're down the memory hole.) Or, even more absurd, that it is the first all-black cast that has done well at the box office. Just shows how powerful marketing is. More power to them... I've lived through several iterations of "'brand-new' microfiber technology that make cleaning up spills a snap!" I suppose I can live through endless repetitions of "the very first movie with a real-live black person in it!" Whatever....

dragonwriter 9y ago

> people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen There were lots of things that people praised Black Panther for, but the one you point to wasn't what any significant subset were praising it for, in fact... > while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema. Breaking out of the black cinema stereotype that films featuring predominantly black casts are a niche good for black audiences while films featuring predominantly white casts are mainstream products for everyone is, for instance, one of the major things Black Panther has been celebrated for.