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.
> 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.
"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.
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 :)
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.
> 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.
> 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).
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??
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
> 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.
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)
"Protagonist is poor" doesn't come close to what they are advocating. From the article:
Take The Same Kind of Different As Me, a movie that presents itself as being about a homeless black man, but is most interested in a rich white couple and the way their volunteerism at a soup kitchen saves their marriage, and their souls.
The protagonist being a caricature of a poor person doesn't make the film an insightful or interesting examination of poverty. Or even about poverty. That takes much more. It's more or a challenge, more of a risk, and when done well (see Florida Project) a much greater potential reward.
For me, an entertaining film says something about reality, life, something meaningful, and done so in such a way it makes the most of what you can do with that medium. I wouldn't expect anything other from an entertaining novel, say.
Of course the crap coming out of Hollywood does say something about reality, that there is no hope left other than wish fulfilment, to hope that a saviour will come and save us all in the form of a superhero; or that the only hope for yourself is to get rich or for fortune to be bestowed upon you; or something else utterly implausible. But I've heard that story a million times, it's dull.
Hollywood has always been all about escapism. In the 1930's - the golden era of film - most of the offerings were aspirational and inspiring, not Grapes of Wrath gloom and doom, which was a lot of people's actual daily experience.
There's a reason the mainstream entertainment doesn't make non fantasy films - it's because they are a for profit business and there's no money in it.
The recent Churchill film, which was very loosely based on reality and flat out wrong in many areas was all about triumph over adversity etc. There's a good argument to made about fantasy films supposedly depicting actual historical events and people distorting mass reality. That's where my beef is with hollywood...
Last year's Palme dOr at Cannes was the British film I, Daniel Blake. It was a fantastic gut punch for how even well-intentioned technology is leaving behind parts of society. My partner and I had a very heated 2 hour discussion after watching it.
I, Daniel Blake has absolutely nothing to do with technology and people being left behind.
It's entirely about the fucking awful mess caused by the Conservative government introducing Universal Credit and a punitive benefits regime.
Being fully tech proficient won't prevent a Universal Credit claimant from being sanctioned.
Daniel Blake has heart problems and is advised by his doctor not to work. But he fails his independent medical.
Here's a real life example: A man with heart problems was told not to work. He has the medical. He has a heart attack during the medical, and the independent assessor has to call an ambo.
To you or me this is proof he's not faking and he really is ill.
To the government he didn't complete the medical, which is a sanctionable failing.
> Again, I support the principle of a sanctions regime. If somebody consistently fails to turn up for work experience or a Work programme scheme, sanctions should be applied. However, I believe that sanctions are being applied indiscriminately. For example, one of my constituents was a beneficiary of employment and support allowance after they had retired on grounds of ill health as a result of a heart problem. He was required to attend a work capability assessment with Atos. During
> 19 Mar 2013 : Column 840
> the assessment, he was told that he was having a heart attack and the nurse said that she had to stop the assessment. He got a letter a couple of weeks later saying that he had withdrawn from the assessment and, as such, was being sanctioned. That beggars belief. I have other examples, as I am sure do colleagues.
How much commercially successful technology is well intentioned? Does Google's philanthropy make up for its advertising? Facebook's? Is the iPhone well intentioned?
I feel like many big corps do some good as an offset to their mostly bad, with a net negative gain.
The premise of this article is wrong. There are many movies about people who aren't rich. The stories may not revolve around their poverty, the poverty may not be an integral part of the story, but the characters are still clearly working class.
That said, people don't go to the movies to be lectured about poverty. They go for an escape. Poverty is sad, so there isn't a huge appetite for movies "about poverty".
> between 1902 and 2015, of all the films made in the US, only 299 of them were in some way significantly concerned with issues of poverty and homelessness.
I think the author is fundamentally wrong about this claim, just like he's wrong about the number of recent movies dealing with poverty.
I haven't paid the $35 to read his prior work that he's citing, but nothing in the abstract suggests that it's a comprehensive list of films about poverty. It's simply an analysis of 300 films on the topic he considers particularly important. And, honestly, it fails the laugh test. Of tens of thousands of American films, many made during the Great Depression, many made in the 70s and 80s, a total of 300 deal with poverty?
Either 'all' is simply untrue in that claim, or 'significantly concerned' is so narrow that 8 Mile wouldn't count because "it's about rap, not poverty".
This article demands that an entire industry conform to the author's own personal opinions on how society is and that educating people about this author's belief is the most important thing in the industry. The character's in a host of movies aren't poor enough, stereotypical enough, don't escape poverty the right way or poverty isn't the single most thematic event in the storyline.
I even agree with the author that conceptually government assistance & social services is important; it just isn't going to make for an exciting core piece of entertainment. While the author nitpicks that no movie goes far enough I would look at it like making progress. The analogy for me is giving a child vegetables. You don't try and force feed raw vegetables to a child as the primary meal because nutrients are important. Instead, you cook it into a balanced (and hopefully better tasting) meal so it can be easily digested.
Yes this analogy has flaws; but I am contrasting the author's craving for essentially a social services documentary with actual reality & entertainment.
The author seems, I have to say, deeply confused; about politics, art in general, and film in particular—he seems he mostly wants realistic, descriptive, non-documentary films without a traditional story arc depicting
life in American poverty; even without the poverty part this just isn't something that anybody, really, is interested in from film—but most critically about his own thesis.
It's clear he is unhappy with something about portrayal of poverty in film, but he starts off complaining that there is not enough of such portrayal, making what seems to be a quantitative complaint, but then spins out of control with contradictory criticisms of qualitative features of the portrayal. This is most stark in his complaints about I am Another You where he initially blames it for being too focused on explanation rather than description and then blames it for failing to dig deep enough to explain why mental illness leads more easily to homelessness in the US compared to the rest of the West.
> If policymakers in DC (and in cities and state capitals around the country) had the Raineys in mind when making poverty policy, rather than the stubborn, racist myth of the “welfare queen”, they might produce smarter proposals that are more attuned to what poor Americans actually want and need.
Policy makers don't generally base policy on what they see in movies, and don't generally have the racist myth of the “welfare queen” in mind when making policy that effects the poor, they instead have a very clear picture of the expressed interests of the people they are interested in serving (who are often chosen, much as the story goes with the choice to rob banks, “becsuse that's where the money is”), which very often don't include the poor regardless of their lifestyle.
The “welfare queen” is an image policy makers (and policy entrepreneurs) invented to sell the policy, not a real concern at which it is directed.
+1 for Atlanta and The Wire as eye-opening depictions of daily life in poverty. But even in TV, these examples are the exception to the rule, sadly. The only other successful show I can think of is Rosanne, which means we're averaging about one a decade.
Mudbound - https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/16/mudbound-review... - is a very good film about poverty, among other things. It doesn't smack you in the face and say "I'M A FILM ABOUT POVERTY", which seems to be the Guardian writer's requirement for inclusion on his list, but it is.
Well poverty is dispersed and does not compete well with identity politics which gives opportunities of political grandstanding to actors/directors and generate profits for studios.
Slightly off topic but there was a documentary about a lower middle class woman in the Bay Area who chose to adopt children that would otherwise never been adopted called My Flesh and Blood (2003). I would never have thought this could have been an interesting story but it really pulled me in even back then as a younger person. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342804
If you're poor and even if you are not, the last thing you want to see in a film is more poor people. I for one like to go to movies to escape my reality. That's what happened to movies about poor people.
No, I did not read the article. Sometimes, the title hits me the wrong way and I have to make my point.
[+] [-] allthenews|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] curun1r|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] madenine|8 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] ksk|8 years ago|reply
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 :)
[+] [-] rusk|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lucozade|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Leader2light|8 years ago|reply
China may win in the end because of purely this issue.
[+] [-] 1024core|8 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] hadsed|8 years ago|reply
Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining??
[+] [-] mping|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] overthemoon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jps359|8 years ago|reply
A lot of people seem to want this, given the fact that dozens of political movies are released every year
[+] [-] Lukeas14|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] empath75|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ggg9990|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnchristopher|8 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kettlecorn|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Shivetya|8 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] SoylentOrange|8 years ago|reply
- Florida project
- 3 billboards outside Ebbing Missouri
- La La Land (to a degree)
- Manchester by the Sea
- Straight Outta Compton
- Creed
2015 and more recent, set in the USA, nominated for awards at Oscars, protagonist is poor
[+] [-] mdpye|8 years ago|reply
Take The Same Kind of Different As Me, a movie that presents itself as being about a homeless black man, but is most interested in a rich white couple and the way their volunteerism at a soup kitchen saves their marriage, and their souls.
The protagonist being a caricature of a poor person doesn't make the film an insightful or interesting examination of poverty. Or even about poverty. That takes much more. It's more or a challenge, more of a risk, and when done well (see Florida Project) a much greater potential reward.
[+] [-] CoolGuySteve|8 years ago|reply
It seems poverty actually had a pretty solid representation at the Oscars this year.
[+] [-] thirdsun|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leg100|8 years ago|reply
Of course the crap coming out of Hollywood does say something about reality, that there is no hope left other than wish fulfilment, to hope that a saviour will come and save us all in the form of a superhero; or that the only hope for yourself is to get rich or for fortune to be bestowed upon you; or something else utterly implausible. But I've heard that story a million times, it's dull.
[+] [-] olivermarks|8 years ago|reply
There's a reason the mainstream entertainment doesn't make non fantasy films - it's because they are a for profit business and there's no money in it.
The recent Churchill film, which was very loosely based on reality and flat out wrong in many areas was all about triumph over adversity etc. There's a good argument to made about fantasy films supposedly depicting actual historical events and people distorting mass reality. That's where my beef is with hollywood...
[+] [-] dluan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|8 years ago|reply
It's entirely about the fucking awful mess caused by the Conservative government introducing Universal Credit and a punitive benefits regime.
Being fully tech proficient won't prevent a Universal Credit claimant from being sanctioned.
Daniel Blake has heart problems and is advised by his doctor not to work. But he fails his independent medical.
Here's a real life example: A man with heart problems was told not to work. He has the medical. He has a heart attack during the medical, and the independent assessor has to call an ambo.
To you or me this is proof he's not faking and he really is ill.
To the government he didn't complete the medical, which is a sanctionable failing.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm13...
> Again, I support the principle of a sanctions regime. If somebody consistently fails to turn up for work experience or a Work programme scheme, sanctions should be applied. However, I believe that sanctions are being applied indiscriminately. For example, one of my constituents was a beneficiary of employment and support allowance after they had retired on grounds of ill health as a result of a heart problem. He was required to attend a work capability assessment with Atos. During
> 19 Mar 2013 : Column 840
> the assessment, he was told that he was having a heart attack and the nurse said that she had to stop the assessment. He got a letter a couple of weeks later saying that he had withdrawn from the assessment and, as such, was being sanctioned. That beggars belief. I have other examples, as I am sure do colleagues.
[+] [-] ben_jones|8 years ago|reply
I feel like many big corps do some good as an offset to their mostly bad, with a net negative gain.
[+] [-] nafizh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meri_dian|8 years ago|reply
That said, people don't go to the movies to be lectured about poverty. They go for an escape. Poverty is sad, so there isn't a huge appetite for movies "about poverty".
[+] [-] Bartweiss|8 years ago|reply
I think the author is fundamentally wrong about this claim, just like he's wrong about the number of recent movies dealing with poverty.
I haven't paid the $35 to read his prior work that he's citing, but nothing in the abstract suggests that it's a comprehensive list of films about poverty. It's simply an analysis of 300 films on the topic he considers particularly important. And, honestly, it fails the laugh test. Of tens of thousands of American films, many made during the Great Depression, many made in the 70s and 80s, a total of 300 deal with poverty?
Either 'all' is simply untrue in that claim, or 'significantly concerned' is so narrow that 8 Mile wouldn't count because "it's about rap, not poverty".
[+] [-] unexpected|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wand3r|8 years ago|reply
I even agree with the author that conceptually government assistance & social services is important; it just isn't going to make for an exciting core piece of entertainment. While the author nitpicks that no movie goes far enough I would look at it like making progress. The analogy for me is giving a child vegetables. You don't try and force feed raw vegetables to a child as the primary meal because nutrients are important. Instead, you cook it into a balanced (and hopefully better tasting) meal so it can be easily digested.
Yes this analogy has flaws; but I am contrasting the author's craving for essentially a social services documentary with actual reality & entertainment.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
It's clear he is unhappy with something about portrayal of poverty in film, but he starts off complaining that there is not enough of such portrayal, making what seems to be a quantitative complaint, but then spins out of control with contradictory criticisms of qualitative features of the portrayal. This is most stark in his complaints about I am Another You where he initially blames it for being too focused on explanation rather than description and then blames it for failing to dig deep enough to explain why mental illness leads more easily to homelessness in the US compared to the rest of the West.
> If policymakers in DC (and in cities and state capitals around the country) had the Raineys in mind when making poverty policy, rather than the stubborn, racist myth of the “welfare queen”, they might produce smarter proposals that are more attuned to what poor Americans actually want and need.
Policy makers don't generally base policy on what they see in movies, and don't generally have the racist myth of the “welfare queen” in mind when making policy that effects the poor, they instead have a very clear picture of the expressed interests of the people they are interested in serving (who are often chosen, much as the story goes with the choice to rob banks, “becsuse that's where the money is”), which very often don't include the poor regardless of their lifestyle.
The “welfare queen” is an image policy makers (and policy entrepreneurs) invented to sell the policy, not a real concern at which it is directed.
[+] [-] tdees40|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrec|8 years ago|reply
It's a tough sell in some ways - "girl loses dog, girl finds dog, the end" - but oh-so-worth-it.
[1] https://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
[+] [-] nofinator|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jellicle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rusk|8 years ago|reply
By and large now it’s a topic that sees much more treatment in TV than in movies.
“Boyhood” comes to mind.
[+] [-] geodel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenwoo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Antimachides|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WheelsAtLarge|8 years ago|reply
No, I did not read the article. Sometimes, the title hits me the wrong way and I have to make my point.
[+] [-] polotics|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jetcata|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaylyfty|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smashingfiasco|8 years ago|reply