I've been reading some criticism of how the media, specifically movies and TV shows, handle bigotry and racism. Generally they argue that bigotry is presented in beyond simplistic terms, that the fictional stand-ins for marginalized groups play into bigoted stereotypes and that the settings don't reflect the reality of how bigotry affects society as a whole. This video about Bright, and this article from Cracked about similar films make these assertions, and I've seen similar criticism elsewhere.
I don't disagree with any of these points. I do think that they are missing the intended audience of major media. These movies and TV shows are not meant for marginalized or socially aware audiences. They are meant to compete for cis, white male attention against media that ignores or actively argues against the existence of bigotry. Marginalized groups know the reality of bigotry better then I will ever conceive. These movies are not trying to portray their story. People who are trying to support and assist marginalized groups (Allies and Social Justice types) are well aware if the problem and are not going to be satisfied with the hamhanded way these movies portray the issues. These movies are trying to serve as a gateway to an audience that is also watching Transformers and Independence Day. They are trying to bring awareness and openmindedness in a genre not known for it and are competing against stories that actively oppose social justice ideas.
The bigotry in these movies is overt and simplistic to make it obvious to the audience. These shows and movies are not competing with contemplative dramas, they are competing with fast moving action pictures. The superhero genre, for example, doesn't have time or room for discussions about how marginalized groups are denied jobs and access in subtle, deniable ways. So X-Men doesn't do that and hits you over the head with parallels to historical bigotry. Movies like Crash and Bright have the bigoted characters be obvious bigots to make it clear to the audience in a hurry. This leaves more time for trailer-friendly action sequences that the audience is presumably more interested in. It also tries to lessen the feeling that the audience is being preached to.
Another criticism is that these movies empower the marginalized groups in ways that justify the oppression leveled against them. They argue that the X-Men are dangerous, thus the fear and hate is understandable, even logical. The critics compare this to the bigoted myths of Blacks and other minorities being beastial, stronger, tougher and quicker to violence then whites. Stopping those bigoted myths is certainly a noble goal, but their argument doesn't sit well with me. I think that the comparison is a bullshit excuse for bigotry. A person is not deserving of more or less rights based on they're strength, intelligence, endurance or other attributes. Putting that aside, the X-Men and other superpowered/supernatural characters are assigned the role of the oppressed group because the (presumed cis, white, straight male) audience is supposed to sympathize with them. The idea is to present the stand in for the marginalized group in a way the majority audience will want to overcome their differences and see things from that point of view. Often the fictional stand-ins in for marginalized people will be a new discovery by the society like the one we live in. Thus portraying the mutants etc as a conquering new race would only fan bigotry and hate.
In these stories, bigotry doesn't work like it does in the real world. And this to me is more of a narrative choice. These movies follow formulas to match viewers expectations. They compete against other movies following the same format. The heroes journey, the well trod three act structures. The fight against bigotry doesn't work in these structures. It is long, slow, tragic and mundane. Victories are won by inches in court and in public opinion over years. None of this makes a good adventure or action movie. Movies are money-making ventures. They are designed, approved and created to maximize profit. To do that they are targeted to the largest, most likely to purchase audience. The current understanding is the teen to 30s white male is that market. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as movies get more tailored and targeted at the supposed audience. I agree that the market should steer away from this to more inclusive designs that can be marketed to more people. However, I'm talking about what is, not what should be. Because these movies are made considering what was and what is, not what we thing it should be.
It seems to me that there are four main categories for social justice in mass media.
And yes, we should have more movies and stories that are neutral and accurate. And the more accurate movies get, the better everything is. But bigotry is a market force. And when you make accurate depictions of bigotry, people push back, often acting more bigoted and rejecting your narrative. The mildly critical films help open people's minds that don't consider themselves hateful, but reinforce the systemic bigotry with little actions and opinions. These stories are blunt and simple to get their point across to people who are in denial about the bigotry in our world. They are trying to make the first step of why the majority should care about what happens to marginalized groups. These stories are attempting to humanize and create sympathy and empathy, opening up the door for further growth.
I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize the issues people bring up in media like this. We certainly should try to make more media that is nuanced, truthful and realistic in it's depiction of bigotry and discrimination. We certainly should have more and better representation of marginalized groups in our media. But part of the problem is getting the majority to understand that there is a problem and to be sympathetic to the oppressed. And I think that these stories can help with that. Or at the very least, that they are trying to.
Site Navigation