What’s toxic gatekeeping in entertainment like? Look at how someone judges how people enjoy entertainment. I’ve seen it happen everywhere, irrespective of quality. It makes the arguer look like a snob, and it discourages those on the fence from giving something a fair shake. But most-importantly, it makes someone enjoying something, which I think more people should try more, a chore. In order to explain what I mean, I’ll give some examples:
Avatar:
I’m not referring to the Nickelodeon series here. Rather, I’m referring to the James Cameron movie. I’ve covered this before in another piece, but certain points need reiterating. Because now that a sequel’s been announced for later this year, 13 years after the original, there’s definitely a large enough gap to accurately assess it.
To be clear, Avatar isn’t a masterpiece. It never was. But it’s still good. And I’m not saying that because I haven’t seen it since it came out, either. I’ve actually revisited it several times since 2009, each time thoroughly enjoying it.
I think part of the gatekeeping here’s rooted in unreasonable expectations. This is a James Cameron film. Cameron dominated the 80’s and early-90’s, with each of the 5 films he directed leading up to Titanic being well-loved classics. So when he went mainstream with Titanic in 1997, going full-on romance amid a historical tragedy, people were turned off. Thankfully, time’s been kind to the film...
However, it’s Avatar that made people jump ship in an aggressive and toxic way. Titanic might’ve been “overly commercial”, but it was a “one-off”. Avatar, on the other hand, was Cameron in his element, yet it became another Titanic. Given the general disdain for environmentalist movies, especially since they’re often done poorly, it didn’t take long for the backlash to start. Being the highest-grossing movie of all-time for a decade didn’t help.
Honestly, I don’t know where to start. Avatar’s discourse was when I started to realizing that film nerds were annoying and toxic. People whined left-right-and-centre about how lame and “unoriginal” the story was, calling it a mishmash of Pocahontas, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest and Dances with Wolves. The problem here, aside from being pedestrian, is that it ignores how storytelling works. We don’t tell stories for “originality”, we tell them to teach. And since there’s “nothing new under the Sun”, it’s inevitable that there’ll be overlap.
Besides, I don’t think it’s true. There might be commonalities, but there are commonalities with every other environmentalist film. And there are commonalities with every movie, too. Avatar’s basically a Hero’s Journey story, something every story adheres to in some form. There’s a reason Joseph Campbell called it The Man with 1000 Faces: because the story can be re-skinned in over 1000 different ways. That Avatar feels familiar isn’t a blight on its quality, because then you have to criticize every story in existence. Is it worth opening that Pandora’s Box?
There’s also how the highest-grossing movie was about environmentalism. Well, so what? The environment’s a serious issue, and discussing it isn’t a problem. And while it has its issues, that it’s criticized for that saddens me. But that’s exactly how it’s gone down.
I can chart how the movie’s toxic discourse has changed over time, especially whenever James Cameron has discussed franchising. Back when it first came out, people insisted that “too many people like it”. Now that there’s been distance, people are insisting that “no one liked it”. Which is it? And the answer’s “no” either way. I won’t act like Cameron hasn’t been irritating either, but please let it go already. It’s been long enough.
Star Wars:
This one’ll net the most attention, but Star Wars has generated more headaches than warranted. Whether it’s crapping on The Prequels for being “the worst ever” (which they aren’t), or attacking The Sequels for “ruining Star Wars” (which they didn’t), the fanbase refuses to grow up and accept that it can be a lot to lots of people, instead being three generations of fans yelling at one another. It’s really telling.
I’ll start with The Prequels. I don’t think they deserve the hate they receive. They’re not “great”, but when you get past the clunky writing and wooden acting, there are moments in all of them that are worth your time. The first has the fight between Qui-Gon Jinn/Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul, set to one of the best pieces of music in Star Wars history. The second has the battle between Yoda and Count Dooku, which is really cool to watch. And the third has many great moments, including the Order 66 montage. Not everything about these films work, but if you focus on what they are you’ll definitely find stuff to enjoy.
The Sequels are met with resistance too. Here, the argument is that Disney’s “ruining Star Wars”. For one, Star Wars has always been qualitatively-inconsistent. And two, what?! These movies highlight the evils of Fascism and the disunity in politics. It’s been the modus operandi of the franchise since inception, when it was commenting on The Vietnam War. Showing off The First Order as clowns also isn’t out of place when the Stormtroopers in the original films were incompetent.
People are getting mad at Disney for continuing what was already in the franchise’s DNA. And when they’ve tried expanding the universe’s morality, something Star Wars: The Last Jedi attempted, the backlash has been even more severe! How dare Luke be a “burnt-out hermit”? He was always a flawed character, and this is the extent of that. How dare Holdo take out The First Order’s fleet, as opposed to Admiral Ackbar? I’m sorry that matters to you. How dare good and evil be challenged? Isn’t that true to life?
These movies aren’t untouchable pieces of art. Ignoring their finale, which is a can of worms on its own, Snoke’s fate was disappointing, and I don’t like how Maz Kanata acquiring Luke’s lightsaber was never explained. But even going to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Palpatine being able to return and having a granddaughter ignores how: a. he’s openly been able to cheat death, and b. he wasn’t always a decrepit, old man. Besides, I think the backlash is overblown and gross. Especially since the whole subplot existed to highlight the distinction between blood family and chosen family. That seriously needs more discussion.
I know change is hard, but this is Star Wars! This is the franchise that gave us corny dialogue and silly set-pieces. It’s also the franchise that copped-out with two on-screen deaths in Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi, such that Disney retconned them both. If we can tolerate the silliness of the older entries, yet claim that the silliness of the newer entries is “too much”, then I weep for our imaginations. Because Disney might as well use Deepfake technology to-wait, they already did that? *Sigh*
The MCU:
Considering how often I’ve discussed this, you’d think I’d have nothing else to say. You’d be wrong. The MCU’s slowly becoming a double-edged sword, in that defending it makes it look like I’m blind to its flaws. I’m not, the franchise is corporate and often pro-military propaganda, even if not on purpose. It also isn’t always the most ambitious.
That said, this is where people are the most gatekeeper-heavy. The franchise is often bashed for being “pedestrian” and “the death of cinema”, and not always from film fans. Even Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola have dubbed it “not cinema”, despite that being loaded and subjective. Yet since they have influence, the argument gets parroted by people who don’t really understand it. And I’m tired.
You don’t have to like The MCU. You also don’t have to like everything about it. I found the sexism in Guardians of the Galaxy obnoxious. I thought The Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 was handled poorly. And I wasn’t big on Eternals. But that’s acknowledging flaws that actually exist, as opposed to inventing problems and acting like they hold back the franchise from being “good”.
But that’s exactly what keeps happening. Whenever The MCU is a talking point online, it’s almost always in relation to something “wrong with it”. Whether it’s the shot composition, or the colour-grading, or even the dialogue, there’s no end in sight to these “issues”. And if that doesn’t bother you? Well, then you’re worth judging!
You know what the worst part is? That if someone says this doesn’t matter, and to “let people have fun”, RedLetterMedia is brought up like a trump card. It’s not. It’s a cynical YouTube channel saying something that might’ve originally had meaning, but that meaning has been lost over time. It’s not even clever. It’s merely an edgy response to a valid counter-claim.
I’m not sure what to add, other than asking if the gatekeepers have ever been in a relationship. And if they have, was it healthy? I know that sounds mean, but you’d honestly think they were hurt by The MCU. Not that it matters, because The MCU isn’t a person. But who am I to judge?
Disney:
You knew I’d whip out the big guns eventually, didn’t you? There’s plenty of fair criticism to make about Disney as an entity. Lord knows I’ve done my fair share! I also have to tread carefully in light of recent controversies, especially the walk-out by employees. So I’m prefacing this now by saying that any criticism here is focused on their creative aspect, not their business aspect.
Claiming that liking Disney products is a crime against humanity is silly and dumb. Disney isn’t a singular entity. They’re a conglomerate of entities, including Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars. That they own so much might be an issue, but it doesn’t mean that everything they put out is “bad”. Acting that way is elitist. And no one likes that.
But that’s what happens anyway: mention Disney, and an argument happens. Mention that you like Disney products, and uh-oh! Here come the fun police, ready to judge your tastes in entertainment. It’s tiring. Not to mention, it’s toxic.
I’m not joking, either. You think it’s necessary reminding people that Disney’s “evil”? Newsflash: that’s not a new revelation. Disney’s always been “evil”, even going back to their inception. That doesn’t diminish their impact, nor does it diminish their body of work. But it’s the truth.
I don’t get why this is controversial: yes, Disney’s practiced unethical business behaviours before. Yes, Disney’s perpetuated harmful stereotypes. And yes, Disney’s a greedy corporation. But anything you can lob at Disney, you can also lob at any corporation. Disney’s not special in that way.
It doesn’t help that there are people who hate Disney for bigoted and cynical reasons. Whether it’s “supporting” Pride, or recent issues like Turning Red being a tween movie about a Chinese-Canadian girl growing up in the 2000’s, Disney fans can never win. And that bothers me. Life’s too short to gatekeep children’s entertainment. Focus your energy elsewhere.
There’s not much else to add, other than that people need to stop blanketing Disney based on higher management. It’s true that corporate Disney’s monstrous, and that needs calling out, but creative Disney isn’t monolithic. In many cases, creative Disney doesn’t even agree with corporate Disney. We’re seeing this with the employee walkout over “Don’t Say Gay”.
Biopics:
I think it’s only fair to end with something different. It’s more muted, not as prevalent, yet still has weight during Oscar season. Let’s talk about biopics. You heard that right.
Life has many interesting stories worth telling on film. I know that sounds demeaning, especially since movies are fictionalized, but it’s true. Holocaust stories, for example, make great movies. Period piece stories also make great movies. Even some of the best sports movies are based on real events. Life’s often more interesting and bizarre than fiction.
So why do biopics get so much backlash? I know there are an overabundance of them every Fall and Winter, and that The Academy loves them, but so what? There are an overabundance of action movies every Summer, yet no one protests their existence. Or if they do, it’s not as loud. What gives?
Does life scare people? It scares me too, but that’s why it’s worth learning from. Like how fiction helps process hard truths about life, reality helps understand those truths. In some ways, I’d even argue that it helps more than a made up story, as fiction bends the truth. That’s an important distinction.
“But wait!” I hear you interject. “Don’t biopics also fabricate information?” Yes, but that’s a by-product of fitting life into a three-act structure. Even when you’re adapting true events, you still need to take creative liberties. And since not everything in life translates well, that’s necessary for good storytelling. It sucks, but film can’t educate you on everything. That’s what Wikipedia’s for.
Biopics also play around with style sometimes. Rocketman, one of the best music biopics, used Elton John’s oeuvre to be a literal musical. Rush, my favourite sports biopic, is a thriller that features racing. And Schindler’s List, one of the greatest dramas ever, is a three-hour epic about one man’s relationship with his Jewish accountant. These stories couldn’t have been made in any other format.
I get frustration surrounding the overexposure of biopics. And yes, many are trash. But many films in general are trash! You really think being “bad” is anomalous to biopics? It’s not.
That’s why I don’t get the anger behind the existence of the genre. People act like biopics are lame, when what they’re really implying is that real life’s lame. And it’s not. Real life’s exciting for many reasons, you’d have to be dense to not see that. Also, you need to get outside more. Seriously, touch grass.
That about does it! Hopefully you understand why film gatekeeping’s so toxic, and if not…feel free to send hate mail. I promise I won’t read it.
No comments:
Post a Comment