I’m not convinced I buy the premise that “woke” culture, especially regarding movies, is preventing many potential productions. I saw X recently and thought it was comparable to something you might see from the 70s. But I totally agree that it’s a concern, but maybe a little over-stated.
I can see that the racial stuff is probably most impacted. I can’t imagine them producing an accurate version of Huck Finn, for instance. But I believe, based upon the pushback we’re all seeing, that there will be a move towards more accurate historic productions regarding race.
Commonly referred to by its shorthand rather than the full title, the Hays Code was named after William H Hays who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) at the time. “The Hays Code was this self-imposed industry set of guidelines for all the motion pictures that were released between 1934 and 1968,” says O’Brien. “The code prohibited profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape. It had rules around the use of crime, costume, dance, religion, national sentiment and morality. And according to the code – even within the limits of pure love or realistic love – certain facts have been regarded as outside the limits of safe presentation. So basically, this means we have a whole lot of married couples sleeping in separate beds for at least 20 years.”
By the mid 60s, more studios were ignoring the code and enforcement was getting harder and it was ultimately abandoned for the current MPAA Rating system. But, like I said, there wasn’t a whole lot of Hollywood cinema from those years that anyone in 1972 would have clutched the pearls at and said “They could never make that today!” And we weren’t exactly at a point of rejecting racism or homophobia or whatever in our movies in those days either.
That’s what I was thinking. Pretty much any movie that shows homosexuality, or interracial marriage, or any of a host of other things, in a good light, would never have been made back then, but is mostly mainstream today.
I think there’s an important underlying issue here.
As the OP noted, you often see this idea expressed as “they would never let you make a movie like that today.” The individuals who say this like the idea that they’re defying authority to speak out on behalf of the people. But there’s an implied premise that must be questioned.
Who is “they”? Who or what is the specific person or organization that would stop you from making a movie. The answer is that there is no such person or organization. If you want to remake Birth of a Nation there’s no law stopping you.
When somebody says “they’d never let you do that today” what they really mean is “if I did that today, most normal people would be offended by it.” They’re not a hero standing up for what’s right; they’re an asshole complaining about people calling them an asshole.
There’s no law, but there is a money issue. “They wouldn’t let you make Birth of a Nation” today, because a massive epic based on assuming that racism is correct would be a massive flop. Who would pony up the cash for such a project?
So, yeah, you can make all the low-budget racist crap you want, use your credit cards, like they did for Clerks. Maybe your single camera, single location, black and white re-make of Birth of a Nation will hit it big on the festival scene.
The movie Freaks, the one from 1932 about a circus. The cast were all “authentic” as in the pinheads were actual pinheads, there was a guy with no arms or legs, dwarfs, and Siamese twins too. I saw it years ago. The wiki article gives a backstory which I didn’t read but apparently the cast was shunned even at MGM studios.
The chant “Gooble gooble gobble gobble, One. Of. Us” will live in my memory forever
The irony is that both “Blazing Saddles” and “All In the Family” weren’t meant to glorify racism or those sorts of attitudes. Both were essentially lampooning it, and making fun of people like that. Archie Bunker wasn’t ever supposed to be someone to emulate; he was basically the butt of a standing joke about people like him throughout the show.
I think the movies that couldn’t be made today without being dramatically different are the 80s style teenage sex comedies like “Porky’s” or even “American Pie” of the 1990s. There’s no way in the post #metoo days, that movies like that would be made.
I feel that’s just another way of saying the same thing. The reason companies won’t finance a racist movie is because they understand there isn’t an audience for a racist movie.
Racists don’t like thinking about this. They don’t like looking at the evidence that most normal people don’t agree with their racist views. So they invent a conspiracy that’s the supposed source for anti-racism.
Well, maybe that, but I suspect that a large factor is also the outrage and PR nightmare that it would create among the non-racist members of the public.
Isn’t that the same thing? If most people were racists there wouldn’t be a concern over anti-racist protests. Protests only matter when they reflect a wider consensus in the general population.
Most movies only appeal to a minority of the population: there’s a segment who likes superhero movies, a segment who likes horror, a segment who likes romantic comedies, etc.
The difference here is that, for most movies, the people who aren’t interested in a topic simply don’t watch the movie. OTOH, an overtly racist movie would not only (a) only appeal to the segment of the population who likes that idea, but (b) outrage many others, some of whom who would take active steps to oppose the companies which facilitated the production of that film.
The thing about Blazing Saddles isn’t that you couldn’t make it today - it’s also that you couldn’t make it in 1974. It’s not like there’s a whole genre of “anti-racist cowboy comedies” in the 70s that since died out. Blazing Saddles is a singular achievement. There are very few other films like it, from any decade.
The fact that Mel Brooks was able to get this film released was no less remarkable in the '70s than it would be today.
Mel Brooks had a “brand” by the time he made Blazing Saddles. He was the guy who made a comedy about Nazis. Quentin Tarantino has a similar brand today that gives him certain privileges other filmmakers don’t have.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the majority of people in this country are okay with racism. If somebody tells them they believe black people are inferior to white people, they have no objection to make (whether they agree is immaterial).
A small minority of people are opposed to racism. They hold their beliefs strongly enough that they will protest against movies that they feel are racist. According to your post, they will take active steps to oppose the companies which facilitate the production of a film they feel is racist.
I need the details to see this happening. What are the “active steps” that are taken in the face of general public indifference? I feel that without general public support, any protests are a dead end. But you seem to feel otherwise, so I’d like to hear what you’re saying.
I hope this does not come across as hostile or confrontational. I genuinely like to hear viewpoints that differ from my own and discuss those differences. But I’ve had some unfortunate experiences in recent thread where I asked questions about people’s beliefs and people then seemed to feel I was being hostile. Perhaps there is something in the way I write which does not convey my intent. So I’m trying to make my non-hostile intent clear.
OK, let’s use a real-world example: misogynistic jerks who don’t like seeing female characters as the leads in action movies (and don’t like female actresses who aren’t stereotypically gorgeous). They have bitched and protested against the Rey and Rose characters in the Star Wars sequels, the “Lady Thor” character in Thor: Love and Thunder, etc.
They’ve made many angry posts on social media, and informal boycotts; they’ve also engaged in severe online harassment of female actors whom they haven’t liked in those films and shows (such as Kelly Marie Tran, who played Rose in the Star Wars sequels, and Moses Ingram, who played Reva in the Obi-Wan Kenobi TV series).
But, on the whole, they are a small (if vocal) group of trolls.
Now, back to your hypothetical case of a major movie studio producing an overtly racist film today, with the financial backing of, let’s say, a big bank. Let’s say that a small minority of Americans – maybe 15% – are racist enough that such a movie would appeal to them. Is that too small an audience for a major studio to make a film to appeal to? Setting aside the topic, I don’t think it is; big studios make “niche” films all the time.
But, the difference between this, and the other “niche” genres, is that an awful lot of people in the remaining 85% would not only not want to see the film, but they would be outraged that such a film was produced and funded by major corporations.
I could easily foresee widespread, organized boycotts against the studio and the bank, massive amounts of protesting in social media, investors and partners pulling out of their relationships with those companies (not unlike companies severing ties with Kanye West this week over his anti-Semitism), stock prices tanking, etc.
It’d be like the Star Wars fanboy trolls I referenced above, but with a lot more influence and pull.
Every movie is made with a contemporary audience in mind. Even in period pieces the actors often have modern hairstyles and use modern figures of speech. None of the movies considered here would be made the exactly the same way so many years later. But it only takes adjustment to suit a new audience. In some cases more adjustment is needed than in others because not all old movies were as good as they may be remembered, sometimes not considered all that good in their own time either.
Well, yeah, it largely is. But it also helps to realize that there is a factor of “letting” someone make a movie, when it comes to a multi-million dollar project.
You could also use this to point out that there are groups out there funding non-mainstream movies, like those “Left Behind” movies, and even they aren’t funding the new Birth of a Nation. If you’re so fringe that even fringe funding sources have dried up, maybe you need to think about your life.
I recall a line from a book, “It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a consensus”. We’re not plotting against them, we’ve all just looked at the issue, and said, “Yeah, awful idea, waste of money, fuck that movie”, and moved on. When society at large has decided its done with something, no amount of whining will bring it back.
One instance that stood out to me recently was in Rocky I where Rocky has Adrian in his apartment and effectively bars her from leaving. It’s a pretty uncomfortable scene when looked at today.
I feel like this mindset is also behind the brigading of 1 star reviews on movies and shows that toxic haters of woke culture consider unacceptable. Examples: She Hulk, Captain Marvel, the Star Wars sequels, the new Lord of the Rings show, the new Little Mermaid (the trailer was bombarded with negativity immediately due to Ariel being played by a non-white actor).
I think those types really think there is a conspiracy among everyone else to prevent movies they like and force woke pc diversity on them, so they probably feel like they are trying to do the same thing to the “other side”. However they are wrong, and they are also a very loud minority, but still annoying as hell.