1187
"Woke" games
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
1187 points (94.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
6015 readers
1513 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There are two kinds of wokeness I complain about:
Hernia level virtue signaling - this is when a production company is straining super hard to make sure we know they're the good guys, but the writers don't have the brains to come up with interesting allegories, or even super-transparent ones like the half-black/half-white dudes in the TOS episode. All they can muster up is character dialog like, "Wow, look how backward this time period is! So much misogyny and discrimination!" Yeah duh, I live in this time period and I'm not stupid. (talking to you, Picard season 2)
Misrepresenting the past - this is when they portray let's say Victorian England or 1950s America as a fully integrated society where characters of all races mix freely, with equality at all levels. That's not how it was, kids. The black housewife in 1953 Ohio would not have a white maid, although she might work part time as one in a white household. You don't raise social consciousness by painting a fake picture of history to avoid upsetting your audience. That does no service to the people who still feel the effects of those times.
But oh right, I forgot, the point is profit not genuine social consciousness - sorry, my bad.
/edited for grammar
While I agree with your first point - corporate pseudo-progressivism is a stain - I don't really think it's fair to call it "woke". In fact, it's almost the opposite of what woke is supposed to mean. To be "woke" originally meant having "woken up" to the reality of systemic racism... Corpos thoughtlessly stuffing games/films with "diverse" casts are not really respecting that reality. It's performative. There is an argument that it improved things for actors regardless, but I still don't think it's "woke".
On your second point I have to slightly disagree. Taking Bridgerton as an example - set in something like Victorian England, but a racially diverse one. The Queen is black, there's a black Duke. I think these things immediately set the story apart from real Victorian England. Ok, perhaps if you know nothing about history it might be confusing, but to me I see those things and immediately one of two things is true:
Given that it's fiction, I don't mind either of these things. I think it's nice for people who aren't white to be able to imagine themselves in those stories, even if in the real history things would have been much different. Bridgerton isn't trying to present a vision of real historical events, it's primarily a romance. Just like mediaeval fantasy isn't really medieval, Victorian romance doesn't need to really be Victorian. We don't need to see the systemic racism any more than we need to see the cholera or dropsy or whatever.
I will also just briefly shill for Taboo which I just finished - that's a historical show which incorporates a "realistic" amount of diversity into it's cast while maintaining (at least what appears to me) a level of historical accuracy. The story is fictional, although it appears around real events... But the world it presents feels genuine. Crucially by contrast to Bridgerton, slavery plays quite an important role in the story - so here it would feel absurd to have a black Queen or Duke.
Haven’t seen Taboo but Bridgerton is a fantasy alt world - it can have steam-powered computers for all I care. My objection is specifically about falsely portraying real eras for the sake of casting diversity, which I think is a disservice to people who were held down in those real eras.
Fair enough, I have seen the same arguments applied to it is why I used it as an example. I don't know what shows you are thinking of, but are they misrepresenting things, or are they just using blind casting and asking you to suspend your disbelief? This is something we do without thinking when watching theatre, but it's a bit more subtle when watching television or films because they go to lengths to make the environment feel more real.
Suspension of disbelief is great for science fiction and fantasy, but I don't think it's healthy to mask past realities. I don't believe for one second anybody does "blind" casting - entertainment companies pander to what they think their audience's main demographic wants, and they do extensive research to tell them what that is. They want to be on the audience's side on every issue, support all the right things, criticize all the right things... there's nothing blind or random about any of it.
Perhaps, or perhaps the casting team had other goals that aren't so obvious. While it's true there are purely capitalistic production firms, there are clearly things being made with artistic vision behind them, and sometimes that includes blind casting. Again, I suspect this is more prevalent in theatre, where audiences are more willing to accept, say, a woman playing King Lear, or black actors playing nobles in a historical setting. Because, on stage, you are already suspending lots of that disbelief - you're not looking into a throne room, you're looking at a stage - it's easier to take it a step further.
But while less is asked of you when watching a historical drama on TV, you are nonetheless suspending your disbelief. You know really that cameras couldn't have filmed this in the Victorian era, that's not really Henry VIII, and Jesus wasn't a white guy. The question is what makes it too jarring for you?
I noticed you're quite focused on the production company's intent behind the casting. Maybe it's politically/philosophically motivated, maybe purely capitalist, or maybe artistic... But you can't really know. And should it even matter to you as the viewer? I understand trying to unpick the artistic decisions behind a piece, but those of the production company? That doesn't seem like something to bring into your viewing experience - just perhaps conversations like this one on the internet.
I'd invite you to try suspending your disbelief as you might when watching the Passion of the Christ, and see if you're able to enjoy these films/shows despite the historical inaccuracies.
Okay here's my background - I've been involved in over 20 stage productions as an actor, director, assistant director, designer, set builder, and various other tech positions. This doesn't make me an expert but it means I've been there and done that. I've seen Midsummer Night's Dream done with 1930s gangsters, an all-black MacBeth in Stratford, England, and I was stage manager for a Comedy of Errors in a Hollywood Squares style set with a cigarette-smoking nun playing a piano. I understand suspension of disbelief, so you don't need invite me to try it like you're talking a kid about broccoli.
Casting directors do not cast "blind" except background crowds, and even then the overall look and feel is as important as paint scheme and set decoration. I imagine this is even more true in television and movies, where there's a lot more money at stake and a lot more people to please. They carefully control every element they can - if only because every person in those coveted positions is striving to prove how indispensible they are. Nothing is done at random except for occasional quick one-off decisions. I don't object to comic anachronisms like throwing WWII German soldiers and Count Basie's orchestra into Blazing Saddles. I'm talking about serious stories where everything seems to be meticulously recreated except the painful elements of society are being whitewashed for the sake of pleasing modern-day sensibilities.
Suspension of disbelief only has meaning for an audience that already has knowledge of the material, but today's audiences generally know very little about history except what they see in movies and on TV. You probably aren't even aware that about 1 out of 4 cowboys in the Old West era were black. Ranch work was something a lot of freed slaves took up after the Civil War. But having grown up with American movies and TV, my mental version of the Wild West is almost all-white - with the odd asian cook, or an occasional black dude sweeping up in a saloon. I bet yours is similar. That's why I criticize the current trend of misrepresenting history as a carefully balanced well-integrated society. Whatever the reason, it's just a different generation trying to please audiences. Like every generation the one currently doing most of the creative work in Hollywood thinks it's more enlightened than every other one before it, which is another crock of shit. One delusion in the collective consciousness is no better than another.
Haha, ok, I wasn't trying to be patronising - my suggestion was that you try suspending you disbelief in situations where you otherwise might not. Clearly you know what it is, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Jumping ahead a bit to another relevant part of your comment...
Where I am suggesting you might suspend your disbelief is exactly that - a situation where you have knowledge that the world you're seeing is inaccurate. Anyway, I don't mean to come across as condescending, sorry about that.
Blind casting doesn't mean you have to have no artistic vision. It just means you aren't concerned with, for example, the gender or race of the actor. I saw a production of the Little Prince a while ago where the titular prince was played by a woman. Now, given the storyline (which was presented more or less true to the book) I think it's clear that there was no philosophical motivation behind the casting... She was just small. I'm sure it was a conscious decision to cast someone small, but do you really think they specifically wanted a woman? I doubt it.
This specific situation I can understand. The reason I was inclined to argue with your original point, and why I jumped to Bridgerton as an example, is that I have usually seen these arguments presented in relation to things just like Bridgerton, where they really have no place... So, do you have an example?
I'd also ask, given your example, what your perspective is on modern Cowboy films still presenting the old west as predominantly white?
You took the words out of my mouth, both of those are such libshit that I cringe my asshole out.
That's another aspect of it - those practices aren't "libshit" they're corporate shit. Same as sticking a big GREEN label on random products.
Ya know, there's a scene in The Boys where Maeve is outed as a bisexual, so they decide to promote her queerness as part of a "Brave Maeve" campaign to encourage those in the closet to come out.
But then they tell her she has to be a lesbian, not bisexual, because bisexuality is "too confusing", and even then they police what behaviors she is and is not allowed to do; she can be a lesbian but not "too gay", and she's only allowed to date feminine individuals while presenting as masculine or vice versa because to do otherwise is to "send the wrong message"
This basically ruins her life, forces her girlfriend to break up with her because she can't take having to be a "Model Minority" at all times, and Maeve is left so broken she almost reveals the fact that she and Homelander don't actually save people to the whole world.
When I saw that, I was like "Holy shit, finally, someone else who understands why I, a transgender woman, actively avoid media that caters to the LGBT community. Finally, SOMEONE gets it and they're making sure other people get it too."