[ SECRET POST #2843 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2843 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #406.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't, on principle, think that a movie lacking diversity necessarily makes that movie worse in quality. I don't think that is a valid criticism of a movie, generally. I don't, on principle, think that making a specific single work which lacks diversity is an action that anyone needs to be held accountable for. If you want to make a movie that features 5 straight white men in a room for the whole run time, you have not done anything morally wrong, and all other things being equal the movie will not be better or worse than a movie that features 5 Latinas in a room for the whole run time. So I am just intrinsically not going to be amenable to taking those things as criticisms of specific works, as a general rule. My problem with saying those things isn't a tone problem so much as I think that it is an incorrect way of thinking about the problem. I disagree with it.

(And I think, by the way, that is how we do talk about it. I mean, I don't want to push on this too hard, but look at the way OP talks about it - in terms of failings, and racism and sexism. That's not a language that's based around a value-neutral analysis of facts, as far as I can see. That's critical language - which isn't intrinsically a bad thing, but we do have to regard it as a form of criticism. And I think that's true in general.)

And I think we can make both strong criticisms of the system in general and of gatekeepers specifically, and we can make a strong positive case. Because the fact is, stories about people who aren't white men are interesting, good stories that should be told, and that's something that we can convince people of fairly easily. And stories that star people other than white men can make a lot of money, and that's something that we can easily demonstrate. And I have no problem with kicking up a fuss about it. I think people should be loud and exuberant about it. But I don't think it makes sense to talk about it on the level of individual works.