https://qoto.org/@Pat/107122564291693893
@Pat: again, we agree about a lot 👏
Commenting on a few points of yours:
“I know that most actors self-identify as ‘progressive’, whatever that means, but the above-the-line producers, directors, editors who decide what the final product looks like – those guys are putting out racist content.”
I meant those people, yes: actors, directors, producers and scriptwriters. Especially the celebrity types.
“I watch a lot films, and 8 out of 10 Hollywood films have racist content.”
Since you watch a lot of films, I’ll assume you’ve watched at least ten Hollywood films released in 2020. Among those, there should be (at least) eight films with “racist content”, according to you. Would you care listing eight 2020 Hollywood films plus a succint description of the racist content in each?
“As I said, college is supposed to teach those critical reasoning skills, so kids can learn to put those things into context themselves. But they come into college from a wide range of experiences.”
OK, I could concede that seventeen-year-olds might need those warnings and explanations. Let’s assume some of them may be that immature or simply inexperienced.
Would you then concede that, in principle, nobody above twenty should need trigger warnings, advisories about “graphic” or “explicit” content, edited or softened versions of books/films/photographs/paintings, etc?
“People of color are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of Hollywood films.”
I’d generalise with this variant of your own sentence, to summarise my position: “people of color are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of Hollywood films places.”
#Stereotypes, as useful heuristics and for humour, are everywhere, and that is not always a bad thing. People like me (software engineers, Spaniards, forty-somethings, introverts) are portrayed stereotypically all the time — as are native Americans, poets, paraplegics, lesbians, counterfeiters, libertarians, participants in eating contests, CEO’s, Mormons, British pensioners, and chemistry students.
This fixation with (against) stereotypes about very narrow subsets of the population, simply because those subsets endured very specific miserable situations at particular places and at particular times, is inconsistent, distracting, and exhausting. The majority of the population today does not discriminate against blacks any more than they unconsciously discriminate against British pensioners, Mormons, or introverts. But this atmosphere of denunciation, extreme sensitivity, and guilty-unless-proven-innocent makes us all fearful, suspicious, less creative and free, and much less fun.
Let’s combat #racism, and all other forms of meaningful discrimination, where they occur. But only there.
/cc @bonifartius
“I’ll assume you’ve watched at least ten Hollywood films released in 2020”
I don’t think I have. I tend to wait until they are available for free so I don’t financially support that shit.
Did they even produce 10 films during the pandemic? Very atypical year, that’s for sure.
In another recent thread related to this topic (https://qoto.org/@Pat/107112989948655788), I commented on how racial depictions in film wax and wane based on the social mood. I said, “Now following the BLM movement, there are better films just being released.”
So, no. At this particular instant films may not be following the trend. However, if you picked 25 random films released during this century (20xx), I could find bias in 20 of them. I am sure of it.
“Would you then concede that, in principle, nobody above twenty should need trigger warnings, advisories about “graphic” or “explicit” content, edited or softened versions of books/films/photographs/paintings, etc?”
I’m not sure I understand what this has to do with Prof. Sheng needing to contextualize his film that had blackface in it. Here are a couple of hypotheticals:
1) An online film streaming company or film archive repository with 100’s of titles has a few older films in their catalog that depict blackface. No, they have no obligation to provide any warnings or contextualizations about blackface.
2) A speaker giving a talk about opera, hand picks a film to illustrate some particular production technical aspect, and out of all the films available he picks one that has blackface. Is that a coincidence? Was he trying send a message? I think he is obligated to address the issue when the film is shown, preferably before hand.
“The majority of the population today does not discriminate against blacks any more than they unconsciously discriminate against…”
In the US they do. Very much so. Prime example is in the selection of mates. Black/white interracial marriages are rare in the US. Up until very recently it was a virtual taboo to even depict this on the screen. And depiction of interracial relationships is one of areas where Hollywood gets particularly vicious in its bias, usually providing a narrative where bad things happen to the couple.
Think of all the RomComs out there. How many depict black/white leads? A random pairing of couples would yield many, many more. Even a random sampling of couples in the US would yield more.
So, yes, a majority of the population in the US does discriminate and segregate into black churches and white churches, white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc. But Hollywood films are even much worse than the general population when comes to bias. They perpetuate it.
“I don’t think I have [watched ≥10 Hollywood films released in 2020]. […] Did they even produce 10 films during the pandemic?”
Coming from someone who “watches a lot of films”, I’m surprised by the question. Of course they did, both produce and release: 2019, 2020, 2021 YTD.
“At this particular instant films may not be following the trend. However, if you picked 25 random films released during this century (20xx), I could find bias in 20 of them.”
One could almost say you’re trying to duck out 😉 But OK, let’s adapt the challenge: here goes your (reasonably random) selection of 10 Hollywood films of the 2010s (see image; methodology on a separate response).
How exactly are ≥8 of them “racist”?
“I’m not sure I understand what [conceding that, in principle, nobody above twenty should need trigger warnings, etc] has to do with Prof. Sheng needing to contextualize his film that had blackface in it.”
It was a theoretical attempt of mine to compromise to move the conversation forward. I just wondered if we could agree to keep being that protective with young people (not that I like it) and in exchange agree to drop all that hypersensitive nonsense for adults.
Like, let’s concede Sheng should have warned students in advance. All right. Can we at least forget about trigger warnings, taboo words, and images or words counting as “violence” when dealing with people aged 21+?
“In the US [the majority of the population today discriminates against blacks more than they unconsciously discriminate against other subsets of people]. Very much so. Prime example is in the selection of mates. Black/white interracial marriages are rare in the US.”
Of course they are. Not surprising at all. Stats say ~1/8 of US adult population is black. Let’s make the most generous assumptions: everyone’s married, and all blacks are married to whites (ie, all blacks and whites are racist in that they always prefer a mate of the other race). In this (very favourable) scenario, still only ~1/4 of all marriages in the US would be black+white. And again, this is a very distorted model.
But much more is wrong about using interracial marriage as a measure here:
“Think of all the RomComs out there. How many depict black/white leads? A random pairing of couples would yield many, many more. Even a random sampling of couples in the US would yield more.”
Marriage is not a random pairing of two adults, by any stretch of the imagination. If there’s nothing wrong with Americans of German descent being more likely to marry other German-Americans, or heavy metal fans marrying disproportionately other heavy metal fans, how is it surprising or problematic across any other demographical divide one could think of?
Even if actual interracial marriage doesn’t match mathematical probability, how do you know that is not caused also by blacks not wanting to marry whites?
“So, yes, a majority of the population in the US does discriminate and segregate into black churches and white churches, white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc. But Hollywood films are even much worse than the general population when comes to bias. They perpetuate it.”
How is whites going to church with mostly other whites any different than Italian Americans going to church with mostly other Italian Americans, or fifty-somethings going to live music events with mostly other fifty-somethings, or PhDs inviting to their BBQ mostly to other highly educated people, or Korean Americans living mostly close to other Korean Americans, or…?
That’s the hyper-sensitivity I was alluding to. #Race triggers emotions and conclusions that aren’t justified rationally, and that takes us to very strange and divisive places.
/cc @freemo
10 films during the pandemic?
My question was rhetorical and somewhat hyperbolic. I just meant that production and release schedules got disrupted, making the time period atypical.
Also, I watch films from all time periods – silent era to recent releases – which gives me a good feel for trends over time, but that’s quite different compared to say, a young person watching all the latest popular superhero flicks, etc. And as I said, I wait until they get to the free video catalogs. My new-release viewing somewhat leans toward low-budget, direct-to-video films right now because of that.
“But OK, let’s adapt the challenge: here goes your (reasonably random) selection of 10 Hollywood films of the 2010s (see image; methodology on a separate response).”
Yeah, that’s a reasonably random list for a quick sampling. I’ve only seen a few of those (see above re breadth of my viewing). I’d love to conduct an actual research study of this sort, with proper controls and methodology. There are all kinds considerations when doing a study of this sort; how many impressions of each film were there? (weighted by audience size); is the sampling really random?, what would be measured?; what is the criterion or threshold for bias?; are some instances of bias more severe than others? (and therefore have more weight in measurement), etc…
If I could get funding for a study, I’d do it, really. I’d devote the time to it. There’s very little rigorous, quantitative research of this sort out there. It would take quite a lot of time and resources just to design the study, let alone carry it out.
Of course for a truly valid research project like that, I couldn’t actually do the evaluation of the films myself because I’m biased. I’d need to train unbiased viewers, maybe use scanning AI for the simple stuff, etc.
Which leads to your next question:
“How exactly are ≥8 of them “racist”?”
“Racist” is a charged word. “Biased” is probably more objective. If, just for quick sampling purposes, we looked at some of the films you listed to get a feel for what I’m talking about when say they contain bias, what would the criteria be? After I presented my evidence, the response could be, “I don’t think that’s bias”, then we’re back where we started.
I mentioned a few things that I’ve noticed that are biased earlier in this thread and in that related thread about the film “Exodus:Gods and Kings” (https://qoto.org/@Pat/107111545496373988), and there are many, many others. In your opinion, what would you say is biased? Do the things I mentioned constitute bias in your opinion?
“Rarely is a black person cast for a leading character who is, for example a Wall Street banker or in a position of authority or dominance over a character played by a white person. If a black actor plays a boss, it typically is a “mean boss” or one who is in opposition to the protagonist.
“Or black people are rappers, janitors, criminals, slaves, soldiers, boxers, cops, etc. Or they are killed off early in the film. Even black extras are slighted in films, often placed towards the edge of the frame or blurred out or a white extra walks in front them.”
“Black people, if they are included at all in films, are typically portrayed as characters who have menial jobs, carry things for white people, use substandard grammar, are depicted as being mean to the protagonist, etc., etc., etc…”
What about a film that excludes black people entirely? Is that bias? What about films that limit black people only to bit parts, or supporting roles? What about screen time or prominence? Is a quantitative measure of screen time and closeups/distant shots an effective measure of bias? Number of lines? What about more qualitative measures, such as (above) how black characters relate to the protagonists, or how often a black character delivers bad news? What about temporal or spacial juxtaposition of black characters to negative or stereotypical content?
It’s complicated.
“I’d love to conduct an actual research study of this sort, with proper controls and methodology. […] If I could get funding for a study, I’d do it, really.”
OK, we’ll have to shelve our little experiment, then. I’d love to see such a study, too. (Honestly, I would be surprised if it’s not been done already; but I don’t have the time to research that…)
“‘Racist’ is a charged word. ‘Biased’ is probably more objective.”
Exactly. That’s a good point. Now we’re converging, I think.
One of my issues is that in your toots you seemed too quick to see racism where there might be other kinds of benign, or innocuous, bias. There are lots of ways in which lots of things can be “biased”, but only some of those biases are motivated by racial hatred. Causes and motivations matter a lot.
“After I presented my evidence, the response could be, ‘I don’t think that’s bias’, then we’re back where we started.”
I don’t care about biases per se in art (I do care very much about biases in public policy and in science, though.)
So my response to you would almost never be “I don’t think that’s bias”, but perhaps “how exactly is that bias caused by racism, and not by a number of other explanations?”, or “if you think that biased representation is caused by racial animosity, how do you explain this other bias in the same piece of art or by the same artist/company, which goes in the opposite direction? wouldn’t that be a denunciation of racism? shouldn’t they ‘cancel’ each other?”.
“Do the things I mentioned constitute bias in your opinion? […] Rarely is a black person cast for a leading character who is, for example a Wall Street banker…”
Tell me first: what is the percentage of blacks among Wall Street bankers? And most likely there aren’t enough Hollywood films with a Wall Street banker protagonist to constitute a large enough sample. But if there are, and we find that, say, out of 25 recent such films, only in one the guy is black, and in another one he’s of Asian descent… so what? What is the minimum number of cinematic black Wall Street bankers to tick the box? And how could we answer that question without taking into account the real world (of Wall Street banking, in this case)?
I’m not being frivolous. How many Hollywood “hackers” are older than 35? My hunch is: very few. Is that ageism? Or rather a reflection of the real world (of computer geniuses)? Perhaps the real world is ageist, insofar as it admires and comments on very young hacker disproportionately over their older peers. But an artist who decides to more or less reflect an uneven reality is not necessarily endorsing nor promoting that unevenness.
In how many 21st-century Hollywood films the serial killer is not white? I can’t think of one right now. Is that anti-white hatred? Just a coincidence? Is it an accurate reflection of the demographics of psychopathy and violent behaviour in the US? Imagine a scriptwriter working right now on a thriller about a hideous black serial killer who is chased and killed by a white investigator: is it conceivable that that scriptwriter is feeling a certain unease about presenting their work to the world in 2021?
What percentage of film villains are female? Not the “cute” kind (Cruella de Vil) or the “cool” kind (a Bond villain), but the truly vicious type (Hannibal Lecter, Max Cady, Anton Chigurh)? Is it 50%, thus reflecting the distribution of male/female population? If not: does it match the percentage of female murderers? If not: is that a bad thing?
(I’ll continue answering your toot on a separate response…)
/cc @bonifartius @freemo
“OK, we’ll have to shelve our little experiment…”
Even though it’s not a scientific research project, I think looking at those films in the list you provided could be enlightening. I started another thread specifically to comment on the films: https://qoto.org/@Pat/107140410303609143
“I don’t care about biases per se in art… “
If you care about racial injustice, you need to care about racial bias in media. Film and TV are main drivers that perpetuate racial bias against black people in society.
Regarding your other comments. Yes there are all kinds of biases in film (that Moneyball film also treated woman very poorly), but we’re talking about the treatment of black people in film – blackface in older films and much more subliminal racial bias against black people in more contemporary films. And regarding bias against white people, I have just one question: Would you rather be a black person in the US or a white person? There’s your answer.
@Pat
I saw that. It’s great, thanks! (I only saw two or perhaps three of them, so I can’t comment on those ten specifically.)
I care about injustice. There are injustices much, much bigger than the black/white gap in the US and that are treated very seldom or never at all in popular contemporary art. If we were to take the statistical critique of film to its final consequences, the vast majority of films we watch should portray the struggles of poor (or extremely poor) people from Nigeria or Bangladesh, or the miseries of being a woman or a homosexual in a theocracy, the terror of so many living under autarchies, millions of miserable deaths that go unnoticed, etc.
Do you care only about the US when criticising films made in Hollywood? I think that’s not rational, but OK, let’s see: in the US alone there is ageism and aspectism, too. Those forms of discrimination are pervasive (in film, too) and impact the lives of more people than blacks citizens live in the US. There is political correctness and social conformity. Too much ignorance and too little love for books and reason, an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, very poor nutrition, too many opioids, an oversized military, narcissism and invasion of privacy fuelled by tech giants…
Do you want me to give you biases in film, presumably with negative consequences in real life, that are much, much common than anti-black propaganda? In film, everybody is way more attractive than in real life; slimmer, younger, taller. Shouldn’t we denounce that to prevent body issues, depression, anxiety, and suicide — especially among teenagers? In film, all houses are larger, brighter, prettier, better equipped. (I’d say larger rooms and sets make shooting much easier for the crew, but) isn’t that distorting our own expectations? In film, there are way too many heroes, leaders, champions, and winners (isn’t the vast majority of people neither of those?) In film, people speak very clearly, think very fast and act decisively; sex is glamorous (that distorts our expectations), fights are cool (ditto), nobody ever goes to the loo or cuts their finger with a piece of paper or spends one hour on the phone with the insurance company or leads an unremarkable life or needs assistance to walk up the stairs. Looking at real life stats, there are too few plumbers, street sweepers, pickpockets, truck drivers and ice-cream factory workers in movies. Too many athletic blokes and extremely feminine girls compared with real life. Way too many Americans, guns, mysteries, terrorists, protestant congregations, apple pies and school baseball games to reflect what the real world looks like.
How on Earth is film, or any other art, supposed to be realistic, balanced, representative?
We seem obsessed with racism affecting blacks, gay rights and trans issues. We see those biases and transgressions everywhere. A few comfortable topics monopolise the discussion. People complain about racist bias in a film in which the countries of the world, all speaking English and in harmony, end up defeating the alien invasion with an atomic laser under the leadership of a sex-symbol and the help of the caricature of a scientist, plus the sex-symbol happens to find true love in the process. A film in which nothing even tries to map real life. Yet the lack of black characters with enough lines is undoubtedly racist, and outrage. I find that perplexing.
As I said, I think art does three things with the status quo: reflect it, reinforce it, subvert it.
I am not saying that there aren’t racist (and xenophobic, sexist, aspectist…) films, songs, books… But I also see a great deal of art with a very progressive agenda; more and more every day — that’s my impression. That’s why I’m sceptical of your “pessimistic” view. You can’t diagnose Hollywood by looking at its worse output only.
How is that relevant? Don’t tell me you are one of those people who think bias and discrimination only exist (or only count) when the recipients of prejudice are, on average, worse off than the “offenders”…
Let me use your same argument: in the US today, you would rather be a Jew, a Mormon, a Chinese, a Cuban exile, a Nigerian, an Indian, a Lebanese-American or an Iranian — rather than a WASP. Because all those groups, on average, clearly outperform white Christians Anglo-Saxons — in educational attainment, social status and earnings. Does that mean that bias, prejudice, racism/xenophobia, discrimination against those groups is not such, or that it “does not count”? Of course it is, and of course it counts! Why would prejudice against whites, or men, or Christians, be any different?
/cc @bonifartius @freemo