Brie Larson Wants Less White Dudes Reviewing Movies

[MightyHypnotic]

brie_lar.jpg (63.4 KiB) Viewed 7452 times

Sounds like she's getting tired of the complaints about that awful costume.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31887/br ... gn=dwbrand


Movies have this wonderful quality of transcending people beyond their box of existence and onto a universal plain of reality. As Shakespeare understood, truly great stories can unite people across all class, color, and ethnic boundaries.

It seems that actress Brie Larson ("Room") has a difficult time grasping that reality. In fact, she thinks "white dudes" don't understand certain films and thinks they marginalize bona fide pieces of garbage like Ava DuVernay's social justice swansong to new age religion — "A Wrinkle In Time" — merely because they are both white and male.

Accepting the Crystal Award for Excellence in Film at the Women In Film Crystal + Lucy Awards on Wednesday, Larson said more women and people of color should be allowed into screenings.

"Female and underrepresented critics can’t review what they don’t see, and many are denied accreditation or access to press screenings," she said. "So, if you are in this room, or if you know someone who is a gatekeeper, please make sure that these invites and credentials find their way to more underrepresented journalists and critics, many of whom are freelancers."

Larson said she does not "hate white dudes" but wants a more diverse audience. Again, this is the age-old leftist axiom that judges people by the color of their skin, not the quality of their work.

"Am I saying that I hate white dudes? No, I’m not," she said. "But what I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to a woman of color, there is an insanely low chance that a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie and review your movie. ... It really sucks that reviews matter, but reviews matter."

"I don’t need a white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him in ‘A Wrinkle In Time.’ It wasn’t made for him," she said to a round of applause. "I want to know what that film meant to women of color, to biracial women, to teen women of color, to teens that are biracial. And, for the third time, I don’t hate white dudes. These are just facts. These are not my feelings."

“A Wrinkle In Time” director Ava DuVernay concurred with Larson and applauded her on Twitter: “Brie Larson is a warrior. Much respect.”

Do Brie Larson and DuVernay intend to say that "A Wrinkle In Time" would have been better had more black women reviewed the film? Last any of us checked, "Black Panther" was released just weeks prior and broke box office records.

Perhaps DuVernay could learn from her vastly more talented colleague Ryan Coogler instead of running to Larson (a white woman) to chastise all the evil white dudes who hated her film, which, by the way, lost millions for stripping the source material of its Christian themes.

[Mr. X]

All the pretty ponies are special.

[sugarcoater]

Typical of a growing intolerance from the virtue-signaling left. And of course, her comment was met with applause, probably by a predominantly white audience. And of course, it’s always safe to hate white America. Can you imagine any other ethnic group or nationality saying such things? It’s pathetic how much whites in America seem to hate themselves, and how they ignore MLK’s message that resonates today as much as ever.

Maybe the real issue is Hollywood has been churning out a ton of tripe with only a few quality movies in the past few years.

[sugarcoater]

To add to the pathetic nature of voicing an incredibly safe and virtue-signaling comment: "'A Wrinkle In Time' director Ava DuVernay praised Larson's comments, calling the actress and filmmaker 'a warrior' in a tweet."

So because Brie says what Hollywood loves to say--we want to see fewer white males in Hollywood (even as there will be no major change in the incestuous industry that is Hollywood)--she is somehow "a warrior"? What could be MORE safe to say?!

[Mr. X]

One thing I like about Gadot is she isn't making comments like this, or at least none I see. She very eloquent and professional.

BTW I found a complaints that Supergirl has too many "white girls" so these people tend to eat their own anyway at some point.

[Visitor]

Go and trash the largest part of the audience because you won't be able to make up for their numbers with the other parts. Even Black Panther needed them in spite of getting major support from black audiences.

Black Lightning is the only superhero TV show that doesn't have too many whites. The Flash comes in a distant second in black cast members.

[Damselbinder]

It's a shame she made her point in such combative terms. If all she was saying was 'professional movie critics are disproportionately male and white, so their voices are overrepresented', then I doubt anyone would have had any problem with it because that's, y'know, true.

[shevek]

Damselbinder: SJWs don't know how to be polite in their objections or reasoned in their arguments..that doesn't fit within the idea of 'outrage'
being all about the 'feels'.

This is just the latest in a long litany of anti white-cis-male articles in entertainment, geek culture and comicbook media that have come out lately.
There almost isn't a week where you don't see some kind of virtue-signal piece like this from Polygon, CBR, Bleeding Cool and the like.
Avengers Infinity War and Deadpool 2 were also attacked multiple times for politically incorrect failings.

They're getting nervous about male nerds (not just white ones! plenty of black, Latino and Asian male nerds feel similarly) gearing up to smear the Captain Marvel movie. I could seriously see Marvel eventually advocating doing something as 'racist' as refusing to provide review copies of movies to white male reviewers (a la Evergreen College's exclusionism). Maybe not actually doing it, but at least talking about doing it.

Solo failed, Kathy Kennedy and Rian Johnson are in deep doo-doo, and Kelly Tran (Rose Tico) left social media.
Wrinkle in Time bombed, so badly, in fact, that there were proposals to twin it with Black Panther showings (and Black Panther didn't do well because it was 'woke'..it did well because everyone in the world likes well-constructed superhero movies).
Ocean's 8 failed - rather than inspire outrage like Ghostbusters did, people just didn't care at all.

Kudos to Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins for staying out of the the fray and only making positive non-political comments that will help promote to their vast audience without divisiveness (such as announcing Chris Pine will be back, or that Cheetah will be the villainess, or that the movie will be set in the 80s, which are all good aspects that people are bound to enjoy).

Marvel, on the other hand, is all about identity politics, and their SJW mindset which has dominated their comicbook division since 2014 has now seeped into the movie-making process. It's already been announced that the Captain Marvel character will become the *linchpin* of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and will be joined pretty soon by Marvel's other diversity pushes such as Kamala Khan and Miles Morales, two characters that the mainstream movie audience has never heard of. In the comic book realm, that approach has failed multiple times - the Captain Marvel books have sold poorly after several repeated reboots. It won't work any better in the movie market either. At least that's my guess. I'm pretty sure Ant-Man and the Wasp is going to do well, though - I think audiences anticipate it as being a fun summer romp.

And yes, SJWs constantly attack and eat their own for not being quite woke enough. The CW shows, which are all run by progressive types, endured repeated criticisms for various supposed shortcomings as well. But those shows are all doing relatively well because most of the time, politics is still subsumed into story (except for specific instances like James Olsen's annoying speech). With Supergirl, the continued success is easy to explain - people are simply in love with Melissa Benoist's interpretation of the character.

[sugarcoater]

@ Damselbinder
I agree. Had she been eloquent about it, then it probably would have been properly virtue-signaled and noted. But do we even know that movie critics are disproportionately male and white? What is the proper proportion?
And if we are going down that path, when will we have conversations about the disproportionate lack of Asian males in the NFL, lack of white males in the NBA, and lack of males academically (check the top 100 GPAs in high schools and the majority are female)? These conversations are merely symbolic ones leading to a bigger conversation about culture.
But such issues aren't worth talking about because then something critical might be said about a non-white male.

I have no horse in this topic as I don't align by gender or race. I'm just tired of the overt virtue-signaling and tired conversations about trite matters. If we really did want to address race issues--and it seems like the only race issue actually addressed these days is that of black America--why not talk about the issue regarding the lack of black fathers in the household? As someone who works in an environment with a heterogenous community, I can vouch for this as an issue; in fact, it is a MAJOR issue in the black community and was a grave concern of black Civil Rights leaders in the 60s when absentee fathers was only 1/3 of what it is now. Consider that the number one commonality among people in prison today is an absentee father, not poverty nor race.
But Hollywood wouldn't dare talk about a real issue. Instead, it just centers its conversation on safe topics like criticizing any seemingly overrepresentation by white males. No conversations about the overrepresentation of blacks in sports but not as valedictorians (when blacks, like any ethnicity, can easily be either one). Consider Asian culture and how they are underrepresented in sports but overrepresented in academic success. How about looking at some way of balancing both cultures and taking the best of both to create a more well-balanced society for all ethnicities? One's race is not a limiting factor in academic success; the real issue is culture. But society will ignore such uncomfortable conversations and will simply hone in on trite and safe topics as it always does. No change will occur, but people like Ms. Larsen will feel good about themselves falsely believing they are causing any change.

[Damselbinder]

I think there's an overall misunderstanding of the kind of argument that is going on here. Until very, very recently in our cultural history, it was normal to be racist and sexist. That has changed, just about, but it has only changed recently. Let us imagine that 'SJW's are all, as you say, incapable of being rational, and focus only on their own emotions, etc. What, ostensibly, are they trying to do? They're trying to make the world fairer. Are many of these attempts pointless? Sure. Are many of them hypocrites? Of course. But many aren't.

Furthermore, is it impossible to imagine that some executive at Marvel is saying to themselves "look here, we've got the biggest entertainment franchise in the world. That gives us a lot of cultural power. Why don't we use that just to normalise the idea of minority and female characters in heroic roles, just to sort of push culture in a fairer, less prejudiced direction? Sure, it might seem a bit forced at first, but the point is to make a cultural space in which it won't have to be forced in the future." Even if that attempt is doomed to failure, doesn't the idea come from a place of human goodness?

Let us imagine that it's the 1500s London. You go to the Globe Theatre to see Shakespeare's latest comedy, 'The Merchant of Venice'. This is mass-media stuff, the kind of thing any old Tom-Dick-and-Harry can go and see, and they do. It's crowd-pleasing stuff. Then there's this speech where Shylock goes on about how Jews and Christians are ultimately the same.
"Ugh," you react, "he's just virtue-signalling."

My point is, society is, in dozens of ways, to every kind of person, terribly unfair. But it is MORE unfair to some than to others. People recognise this, and there's a feeling that something, culturally, should be done, because art - even mass market popular art - has always been trying to push the cultural envelope. It's one of the main reasons people make art. Look at X-Men: half of the point of it is about the evils of prejudice. Of course people can do it wrongly. Of course people can go too far. But they are trying to make things fairer, and I do not understand the hostility to that, even towards those whose efforts are counter-productive.

[sugarcoater]

To begin with, let me open by asking if people really believe that the left-leaning media is actually trying to block certain minorities from writing movie reviews? That seems to be Ms. Larsen's argument.

Anyhow, to engage further in the debate, please define "Until very, very recently in our cultural history, it was normal to be racist and sexist." How old are you?! I'm in my early 40s and it was NEVER normal to be racist and sexist. I'm not going to be beholden or ask anyone else to be beholden to me for transgressions that occurred before my lifetime. That's just absurd. I will consider circumstances where society can lend a hand to people who, due to oppression were not able to pass on wealth from one generation to the next. But I can't agree that somehow racism and sexism have been a part of our culture recently. The 21st century has been very attentive to decrying any racism and sexism, often when it is not even the issue.

As for SJWs trying to make the world better, who isn't? Many are. But the excuse of "making the world better" is weak. I can claim that I'm trying to make the world better by stealing your money and giving it to homeless people Just because I'm "making the world better" doesn't mean what I do is either moral or right. Your argument of coming "from a place of human goodness" is an argument for the simple. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No one would argue against doing something to create a better world, but the false narrative pushed forth too often by SJWs only creates more acrimony and argument. Facts are now deemed unfair to use in arguments in some SJW circles. I, and I would imagine others here who criticize Ms. Larsen, want that"better world", but we want it in a way that is logical and realistic. We are tired of trite comments and no real conversation on actual issues that are adversely affecting minority groups.

I don't think people are against what you suggest Marvel might be doing (though it most likely isn't, as the bottom line for business is profit; they are simply using the SJW as a way to entice more readers/viewers, in my humble estimation). As for the issue with hostility, from my perspective the hostility comes from creating false narratives of unfairness and not using any evidence in trotting out complaints of racism or sexism (and as I'm sure someone will immediately rebut with this cliche, OF COURSE there is racism and sexism in the U.S., just as there is in every heterogenous country). This happens too often without any evidence of race or sex being the issue. Might it possibly be that certain minority groups HAVE NO INTEREST in writing movie reviews? To reiterate my opening point, is Ms. Larsen suggesting that the left-leaning media is preventing certain minorities from writing movie reviews?! Really? As a counter, why don't people complain about the under-representation of Hispanics in the NBA? Or the lack of Asians in the NFL? Instead of talking about the overrepresentation of white males, Ms. Larsen should simply have focused on the under-represenation of groups she wants to focus on. And in doing so, she might actually do research: so what are the numbers that seem so skewed to her?

[GeekyPornCritic]

I agree with Brie Larson on allowing more females and minorities into press screenings. Reviews may affect a person's decision to watch the film. How many times have we heard bad reviews about a movie from the 80s, and people now love the movie? Look at The Thing. The Thing was not a hit and critics bashed it. Today, The Thing is considered one of the best horror movies ever filmed. Reviews may matter.

Directors and Producers know why they invite certain people. They know their movie will most likely appeal to certain groups. They are hoping to get good reviews from those critics, and lure in viewers on box office day.

However, how many black critics are there? This could play a role in why there are so few black critics at press screenings.

Anyhow, to engage further in the debate, please define "Until very, very recently in our cultural history, it was normal to be racist and sexist." How old are you?! I'm in my early 40s and it was NEVER normal to be racist and sexist. I'm not going to be beholden or ask anyone else to be beholden to me for transgressions that occurred before my lifetime. That's just absurd. I will consider circumstances where society can lend a hand to people who, due to oppression were not able to pass on wealth from one generation to the next. But I can't agree that somehow racism and sexism have been a part of our culture recently. The 21st century has been very attentive to decrying any racism and sexism, often when it is not even the issue.

I suggest you get out more and talk to your black friends. There are groups of people, who believe racism is normal. There is a white nationalist rally in my state this weekend. These groups believe it is normal behavior. Let's go back to slavery for a moment. Slave owners believed their lifestyle was normal, and groups such as the KKK believe they are acting in the name of God. It is normal in their worlds/communities.

As a counter, why don't people complain about the under-representation of Hispanics in the NBA? Or the lack of Asians in the NFL?

Your statement does not make any damn sense. The NBA scouts players from around the world. The NBA has greatly progressed in the last twenty years. I do not see many Asians in college football. Thus, there are only just a few to scout. The NFL is not at fault. The interest may not be there in the Asian community. Baseball is having a problem getting black players. Young black men are more interested basketball and football.

[sugarcoater]

Sorry geeky, but I'm going to disagree with you. I am not going to resort to the "talk to your black friends" because I am both around them and we have open conversations about anything and everything, including race issues. Not sure about your "white nationalist rally in [your] statement", as I mentioned racism is NOT NORMAL! What media source approves of it? You have a few whack jobs out there trying to start something. Heck, just look at all the various fringe groups that exist in our society. Does that mean it's ubiquitous? Don't use a completely out-there group to make a point that somehow it's the norm. There isn't one mainstream media outlet advocating or supporting anything close to racist or sexist (and please, no FOX news or any of that cliche tripe as being in favor of racism; that's a tired canard).

And your point about "going back to slavery". Please actually read my post before commenting. I SPECIFICALLY said, we are talking about OUR lifetime. I specifically referenced the 21st century. I am not addressing grievances of the 19th century here. We are talking about a comment from 2018. We are not a slave-owning society. Your entire point there is preposterous and inane.

Thank you for making my points about the NFL and the NBA. There ISN'T racism there even as certain race groups are more represented than others. That's my whole freaking point! As you said, young black men are more interested in baseball and football (based on the numbers). Could it be that more geeky white males are interested in writing reports about movies? Again, the point IS that there aren't complaints about under-representation of those groups in sports because SOMETIMES IT'S A MATTER OF INTEREST. Please next time actually read my comments and think about them before replying; it will make for a more logical discussion next time.

[shevek]

You folks are getting off topic quite a bit. I'd like to remind you that there is more slavery now in the world than there was during the Roman Empire or the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and the sjws are doing little to nothing about it. So let's focus on the matter at hand.

Brie Larson is only making these statements about "too many white critics" because she knows that it will affect the performance of Captain Marvel at the box office the way it has affected the performances of Solo, Wrinkle in Time, Ghostbusters, Ocean's 8 and others. She knows her career is on the line and she doesn't want its fate subject to the whims of established nerd culture. She feels that positive female and minority opinions on her movie will give it a better chance of succeeding with those audiences. She is planning ahead for this by saying that.

This all comes within a specific context. Marvel Comics has been working hard for the past four years to push a social justice message and to place "forced diversity" characters at the forefront of its published universe, and it has failed to do so. Books like America, (the terrible) She-Hulk, Kate Bishop Hawkeye, Unstoppable Wasp, Iceman, Squirrel Girl, Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel and others have been mostly sales failures. As soon as the established hardcore geek readership sees what the comic is about, they lose interest in it and stop buying it. So, Marvel has been searching (in vain) so far for some kind of new progressive audiences to buy their comics so they can boost their appeal and bolster sales, thus winning the sjw argument. So far, they haven't found those audiences. Women aren't buying a huge amount of comics - if they buy anything, it's anime and manga. New generations of non-white kids, or LGBT crowds, they're not buying lots of comics, either - they simply have other cultural interests, whether it be sports or video games or artisanal food or pop and rap music, etc.

Because Marvel has been unable to find a new socially progressive audience to buy their comics, they are now stepping their approach up a level and applying the "forced diversity" to the movies themselves. They are doing this so that in a few years, the entire Marvel Universe will be seen as diverse by the mainstream movie audience, and then that attitude will trickle down to the smaller audience of comics buyers. At least, that's their strategy at this point. This is a long game, and the effort is just beginning - what we're going to see is the end of the Marvel Universe as we've known it for all of our lives (where characters like Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Spider-Man and others are in charge) and a new Marvel Universe where Captain Marvel becomes the Marvel version of Superman, and other characters like Ms Marvel and Miles Morales are brought to the forefront. This is what's going to happen whether you want to see it or not.

Where Brie's statement ties into this is that she is anticipating the changes that will take place. She is pulling for more non-white, non-male critics because, due to the philosophy of identity politics, she (and I'm sure the bigwigs at Marvel) believes that such people will give diverse movies a fairer shake. These more diverse movies, given more greenlighted critical acclaim from their minority press yes-men (yespeople?), will then make more money. And she and the other characters who will be introduced will thus have a gravy train to ride for a long time to come. Or at least that is the theory of marketing by identity politics.

Here are some articles confirming that Captain Marvel will be the *leader* of the Marvel Universe (succeeding Iron Man and Captain America). White males will be retired as the leaders of the Marvel stable. She will be the ultimate Mary Sue who can never be hurt and is so strong she can literally move planets. The problem with this plan is that there doesn't seem to be anything 'human' about something who can do that. Her character has no depth and is not interesting - she's just a mannish-looking superpowerful being with whom nobody can identify. Somehow they're hoping that Brie Larson can bring 'humanity' to such a character so that Captain Marvel becomes popular. I'm sure we'll watch her try.

I think where it crosses over with our interest in superheroines is simply this: Is Captain Marvel going to be portrayed as excitingly sexy or just boring? It seems very doubtful that she'll ever encounter any peril, but is the appeal of the powerful woman factor going to at least be there? My hope is that it is, but we also have to remember that as Marvel is trying to inject diversity, it is also trying to reduce the appeal to the male gaze. Me, I would love a movie that appeals to both empowered women and to the male gaze (certainly, Wonder Woman did both..and that's what I try to do with Heroineburgh), but I have a feeling that the sjw types at Marvel don't want that to happen...they want to teach a lesson to the hardcore male comics
geeks.

https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-new-face-mcu-report/

https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-brie ... e-planets/

[Mr. X]

I suggest you get out more and talk to your black friends. There are groups of people, who believe racism is normal. There is a white nationalist rally in my statement this weekend. These groups believe it is normal behavior.

Just curious, where exactly is this "white nationalist" rally and how do you know its "white nationalist"?

[sugarcoater]

@ shevek

Interesting points. I think part of the issue is that Marvel assumes loyalty from its current fans and is thereby appealing to the other types of fans as they have labeled them into various groups. What most likely galls people is the contrived manner of Marvel trotting out characters as if they are saying, "Here you go [insert minority group here], this is your new superhero because this character is like you." There isn't much backstory or character build-up, or a former mainstream character is transformed into the new minority group identity. I really don't care much for a character's label insofar as gender or ethnicity, I just want the character to be interesting. I think most of us feel this way, which is why I think Marvel miscalculated in going down this path of SJW preaching. From what I've seen, their audience is hardly composed of the people they are trying to preach at; most comic book fans seem to embody the same principles Marvel is pushing forth.

What I don't like is how female characters can't be drawn in a sexy manner by the mainstream companies. I miss Jim Lee's Psylocke, Ed Bends' Supergirl, Frank Cho's...well, any of his female drawings, etc. It's as though the comic book companies are worried about objectifying women (ignoring how the men are drawn), yet the genre is entirely one of fantasy--these obviously aren't realistic physiques and people and plots. Not saying every male and female must be drawn in a provocative manner, but the bland look and outfits (imho) make the comics a bit less interesting to me.

And I think you're right on about Captain Marvel. It's going to be like Wonder Woman in that very little peril is thrown her way.

[Renegade]

I thought we were still bitching about the Miss America pageant.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Sorry geeky, but I'm going to disagree with you. I am not going to resort to the "talk to your black friends" because I am both around them and we have open conversations about anything and everything, including race issues. Not sure about your "white nationalist rally in [your] statement", as I mentioned racism is NOT NORMAL! What media source approves of it? You have a few whack jobs out there trying to start something. Heck, just look at all the various fringe groups that exist in our society. Does that mean it's ubiquitous? Don't use a completely out-there group to make a point that somehow it's the norm. There isn't one mainstream media outlet advocating or supporting anything close to racist or sexist (and please, no FOX news or any of that cliche tripe as being in favor of racism; that's a tired canard).

And your point about "going back to slavery". Please actually read my post before commenting. I SPECIFICALLY said, we are talking about OUR lifetime. I specifically referenced the 21st century. I am not addressing grievances of the 19th century here. We are talking about a comment from 2018. We are not a slave-owning society. Your entire point there is preposterous and inane.

Thank you for making my points about the NFL and the NBA. There ISN'T racism there even as certain race groups are more represented than others. That's my whole freaking point! As you said, young black men are more interested in baseball and football (based on the numbers). Could it be that more geeky white males are interested in writing reports about movies? Again, the point IS that there aren't complaints about under-representation of those groups in sports because SOMETIMES IT'S A MATTER OF INTEREST. Please next time actually read my comments and think about them before replying; it will make for a more logical discussion next time.

Excuse me, I did read your comments. You clearly are unable to comprehend or just want to ignore the facts. The same people who believed slavery was normal are the same groups from today who believe racism is normal. I doubt you spoke to any black people about this subject. Any black person would say certain groups believe racism is normal. Please read my posts. I never said mainstream media believes racism is normal. I clearly pointed out the KKK and White Nationalist. I can make the argument that Fox News believes racism is normal because of their racist undertones.

[tallyho]

I always remember a quote from a better man than I, who said years back
"No one, when they are asked what they want to be in school, WANTS to be a (film) critic'.(or any other critic for that matter)

They want to be the artist, the actor, the painter , the film maker, the author and for whatever reason it doesnt happen for them and they end up as critics.

If minority critics are being actively kept out of screenings, then thats an issue. If they arent there to be let in in the first place, thats a different issue.

Either way if you make a good film, it doesnt matter what the subject is or what colour the actors are or what colour or sex the critics who review it are, you have made a good film.

As minority elements in society tend to face more obstacles to their success, maybe they are more driven and dedicated to succeed as actors, writers, poets, film makers, artists.

And if they sre actively pursuing that dream and not giving up on it, then they dont become critics. Its all us failed lethargic whitey males who end up giving up and picking holes in other peoples work.

I didnt like 12 Years a Slave - way too self indulgent, had 45 second shots of a moon over a swamp which did nothing to progress the story that the first 5 srconds of that shot told me, namely its night time over a swamp. The biggest flaw for me was that you didnt see enough of his life BEFORE he was abducted, so you got no real sense of what he had lost, and so I found myself fairly indifferent to what happened to him. I would have felt the same if it had been about anybody else. It had its flaws. But due to the subject matter everyone says its bloody marvellous. Its well acted, its well filmed. But its way too long and could have done with more judicious editing. Its a decent film not a great film. Yet no one sermed able to point those flaws out, without fear of being labelled as racist.

I would hope that regardless of colour or race of the actors or film makers involved in any project or production of art, if its a good product at the end of it, it shouldnt matter a damn what colour are the people who look at it or read it or listen to it.

[Dazzle1]

The difference between D.C and Marvel is that D.C celebrates diversity without marginalizing or demonizing white males.

As far as Bree Larson , she is trying to raise her profile since the average person is saying who?

Remakes when one changes, gender, race or ethnicity seldom work well.

As much as people like the Magnifcient Seven (Yul Bruner version) it pails besides the Seven Samurai

The toxin that is SJW is that it looks to punish and destroy those who have a different opinion.

[kendra]

A lot of good points here.

I'm just thinking, to Brie's point, if you make a movie for black women don't expect commercial success. You made a movie for 6% of the population... That's not a good plan if you want commercial success.

Likewise critic representation even if it were right on par with US demographics would mean 6% of critics are black women. Maybe it's less than that, idk.

Of course then you have to consider men and women like different things. There's a reason demographics in college majors are what they are.

[Abductorenmadrid]

I think the key line of the interview is this ,

"Female and underrepresented critics can’t review what they don’t see, and many are denied accreditation or access to press screenings," she said. "So, if you are in this room, or if you know someone who is a gatekeeper, please make sure that these invites and credentials find their way to more underrepresented journalists and critics, many of whom are freelancers." - BL

It is a falsehood to say BL wants less white dudes. What she actually wants is a level playing field, but, level in reality would be in alignment with racial representation within society.

[lionbadger]

It is a falsehood to say BL wants less white dudes. What she actually wants is a level playing field, but, level in reality would be in alignment with racial representation within society.

I like how everything is simple in the world now and just boils down to a binary choice, good/bad, black/white, left/right

makes thinking less bothersome when you can just lump everything into a one size fits none category

[bushwackerbob]

Ultimately the question comes down to this: Are women underrepresented in the film critic profession because of unfair hiring practices or are their less women applying for those positions. I think it is the latter. I think a level playing field is great, that we should have equal opportunity for all Americans, but equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome, meaning we should set aside quotas for special groups because what we are really saying as a society is that those groups are inferior, that certain groups need additional consideration on their behalf because of our nation's past history with legitimately unfair hiring practices. Yes, I do believe that misogyny does still have some effect in hiring practices in some quarters, but continuing to portray women as these eternal victims in these type of disputes does nothing to empower the millions and millions of talented women who work tirelessly in their professions whose main goal is to be treated like anyone else in the workplace.

[Mr. X]

Actually I think women are all over who critique movies. Comic Book Girl 19, Beyond the Trailer, whole slew of girls reviewing movies. They are just not mainstream. Maybe we should be asking if mainstream is even relevant anymore. Is it bought off. Given the huge disparity between pro-reviewers and fans on controversial movies like Last Jedi and Solo it looks rigged.

maybe Brie should be asking/guilting "hey LADIES! Why aren't YOU stepping up and doing a mainstream review show?"

[sugarcoater]

@ geeky

First off, don't dismiss my facts and present your opinions as fact. It doesn't further the discussion in any way, it just belittles you and your argument. Who are you hanging around with who believes slavery is normal? Are you spending your time in minuscule fringe groups? And what facts are you citing? NONE! You have given no sources for your information, you mention two pathetically small extremist racist fringe groups, and you act as though this is somehow a threat. It's absolutely NOT! Every major media outlet looks for any chance to expose and decry any and all racist and sexist act (as they should) and they occasionally erroneously decry non-racist and non-sexist acts as being bigoted as well.

But look to how sad your pathetic argument is. You write "I doubt you spoke to any black people about this subject." How you even begin to assume something like that based on someone with whom you have never had a single interaction is typical of a person desperate to make a poor argument. And as you keep missing my point, I'll repeat it in the hope that you can then both read AND understand my point: yes, racism and sexism exists, but it is in minuscule fringe groups and no media is going to support or put forth their agenda. My point about mainstream media is to emphasize the absurdity of your premise: " Let's go back to slavery for a moment..." How is going back to the 19th century somehow analogous to where we are today? It make absolutely no sense in any aspect of this argument. Would our source of news--and outlet--even begin to entertain the ideas regarding race from the 19th century? Please.

And to once again to actually have a debate on the matter with you (and perhaps this time without you resorting to baseless and ridiculous ad hominem arguments), do you really think the entertainment industry--part of the left-leaning media--is working to keep minorities and women out of the movie review business? Please address this instead of telling me who my friends are and the people with whom I associate. If we were going to start ignorant and baseless accusations, I would ask why you seem to be so familiar with these racist extremist groups. And just like your ridiculous comment about the people with whom I associate and talk about uncomfortable topics (and I appreciate how you probably assume I'm white, which would be yet another incorrect assumption of yours), that last comment is most likely just as ridiculous.
So let's actually discuss the issue geeky. I'll entertain fair points, leave out the juvenile assumptions about personal lives.

[sugarcoater]

Actually I think women are all over who critique movies. Comic Book Girl 19, Beyond the Trailer, whole slew of girls reviewing movies. They are just not mainstream. Maybe we should be asking if mainstream is even relevant anymore. Is it bought off. Given the huge disparity between pro-reviewers and fans on controversial movies like Last Jedi and Solo it looks rigged.

@ Mr. X

My brother worked in Hollywood for a number of years and will be the first to point out the fact that mainstream reviews are frequently influenced by the companies putting out the movies. But using a one minute Google search, here is just one example of how reviews are clearly not unbiased, using Rotten Tomatoes as the example:

1. As the reviews of a given film accumulate, the Rotten Tomatoes score measures the percentage that are more positive than negative, and assigns an overall fresh or rotten rating to the movie. Scores of over 60 percent are considered fresh, and scores of 59 percent and under are rotten (Aug 31, 2017). This means, according to Vox.com, "Theoretically, a 100 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating could be made up entirely of middling-to-positive reviews. And if half of the critics the site aggregates only sort of like a movie, and the other half sort of dislike it, the film will hover around 50 percent (which is considered “rotten” by the site)."
To use a concrete example from the Wonder Woman movie review on Rotten Tomatoes:

"Of the 124 reviews of Wonder Woman that have been aggregated by the site so far, 117 are positive and seven are negative. In contrast, all of the other recent movies in DC’s extended cinematic universe have many more negative reviews than positive ones.
To be clear, a 97 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating doesn’t mean that critics scored the movie at 97 on a scale of 1 to 100, or that Wonder Woman is a perfect movie — rather, it signifies that an overwhelming majority of critics have given the movie a positive review. The average critical rating for the movie is around a 7.6 out of 10 according to Rotten Tomatoes, and a 76 according to Metacritic, both of which take into account any actual score, like a star rating or a letter grade, that a critic gave the movie."
In short, a C movie comes across as an A movie using this review tactic. My guess is that movies are given more positive than negative reviews using this system so long as the movie is not a complete flop. This would, of course, serve to convince more movie-goers to see movies.

2. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the ticket-sale site Fandango, of which Warner Bros. owns 30 percent and Comcast Universal owns 70 percent (Nov 16, 2017). Clearly, there seems to be a conflict of interest--a movie review company is owned by a movie producing company.

[theScribbler]

Brie Larson is marvelous. She didn't make her point in "combative terms" and she was "eloquent." It's the ill intent writing of Daily Wire's Paul Bois that makes it seem otherwise.

And she and you deserve better representation of her speech than the whiny "Brie can't grasp reality and wants fewer white dudes reviewing" mischaracterization strawlady attempt of Daily Wire's Paul Bois, in yet another left-bashing, selective quoting, ill intent right-wing propaganda article that is his M.O.

So here's Variety's page about speech, including video of the first 4 minutes of it

https://variety.com/2018/scene/news/bri ... 202845853/
.
Hollywood Reporter with more of her speech full of data, statistics, and acknowledgement of issue by two film festivals, more info than can fit into a hundred Paul Bois' empty heads or articles...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... on-1120068
.
and as an aside: Daily Wire, ala Fox news, and the like are known for their false story tendencies...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire
.

if people really believe that the left-leaning media is actually trying to block certain minorities from writing movie reviews? That seems to be Ms. Larsen's argument.

No that is not her argument

Brie Larson is only making these statements about "too many white critics" because she knows that it will affect the performance of Captain Marvel at the box office the way it has affected the performances of

No, tis not why.

As far as Bree Larson , she is trying to raise her profile since the average person is saying who?

No, not purpose of her speech.

But using a one minute Google search, here is just one example of how reviews are clearly not unbiased, using Rotten Tomatoes as the example:

Far better than your one minute google search is this USC study...

http://news.usc.edu/144379/usc-study-fi ... -and-male/

And in closing, I too like Gal Gadot. Eloquent, professional, yep, liked her early on, even before her Wonder Woman proved a great movie and smokin' hot babe. I'm glad it did well for her. And Brie's a nice person too, admittedly not as hot, but with lighting, makeup, vfx and color grading, enhancements are possible. I would've preferred ... doesn't matter ...

OK, cheers, back to lurking...

[Bert]

This forum, and our niche in general, is mostly male. There aren't any data sets to mine, so the exact demographics are impossible to ascertain. I'm comfortable guessing that well over 50% of us are white males. Over the last few years I've seen more and more discussion here on the SJW topic. I get it - comics and TV shows are influenced by prevailing social trends. If there is societal pressure to accommodate feminist viewpoints, our niche (within mainstream media) may suffer a little. But here's the thing, and it's a pretty big thing; as representatives of the group (white males) that has dominated the roost for so long, we have an undeniable moral responsibility to actually, legitimately look inward and ask ourselves in total seriousness "Am I resisting the social momentum towards fairness and inclusivity out of a desire to maintain an undeserved dominance?"

The Weinstein inspired "Me Too" movement made me examine my actions towards women I know in a way I hadn't thought about before. I'm a mid-fifties guy who's been happily and faithfully married for over 30 years, but I forced myself to look hard at my interactions with women. I asked my closest female friend to tell me honestly if I'd ever acted inappropriately towards her. Entitled behaviour is intensely annoying to me, and I'll be damned If I'm going to exhibit it myself, even if it has been more unconscious than intentional.

All of this is to say, Larson has a point. If you think she doesn't, consider that you may be part of the problem. Sure, there are extremists on the SJW side that go too far. They are the exceptions. More diversity in the film criticism world can't be anything but good. These so called merit based arguments are total bullshit. As if being male and white confers some advantage to evaluating a movie. Come on. The audience is varied, and the reviews should reflect that variety.

[bushwackerbob]

How do you know Bert? How do you know that the merit based arguments are bullshit? How many female film critics do you know that are unemployed because some evil white man has their job? Not every white man is Harvey Weinstein. If you are going to argue that there are stupid employers who deny women film critic jobs on the basis of gender, that these employers assume that a male can do the job better, under that same logic I can indict you for assuming with no specific evidence that these male film critics have these jobs based not on merit. You see, when one make assumptions based on feelings not facts, very often the truth gets in the way. Give me some hard evidence, not some left leaning version of white man's guilt.

[lionbadger]

How do you know Bert? How do you know that the merit based arguments are bullshit? How many female film critics do you know that are unemployed because some evil white man has their job? Not every white man is Harvey Weinstein.

That would make sense if you invented the job of film critic today. However for good or for ill the job has a legacy of the past in an industry that is pretty corrupt and exploitative and senior managers who set the tone of the business have likely been in place for rather a long time.

I would make the point that this is not just a dumbed down American cripple fight either. I had a pretty decent boss about (shit!) 10 years ago who simply would not hire anyone from a certain UK demographic.

[MightyHypnotic]

Im letting this thread roll but I also want to inject my voice. Brie Larson already knows this film is a bomb so she is trying to deflect the issue to something else.

She knows that Black Panther killed it at the box office but it wasnt because it was a black film., it was a well put together story line....

[Bert]

Here is another observation on this topic. About a year ago, President Trump put together a panel of Republicans to hash out some sort of health care alternative to Obamacare. Half the population are women, and there are certainly women's health issues that would be greatly impacted by whatever the panel brought forward. Trump didn't appoint even a single woman to the panel. 13 white guys. My guess is it wasn't intentional - just an oversight. The point is, it probably never occurred to any of them that having a broader perspective would lead to better decisions. They just assumed that their old white guy views were adequate. That's the level of unconscious hubris that informs white male thinking.

I was just accused of representing "some left leaning version of white man's guilt." It's a little hard to wrap my head around that. I'm lucky enough to have been born the dominant, most advantaged form of human on the planet. Making an effort to recognize that fact and attempt to not overly take advantage of it doesn't seem political or guilt inspired to me.

[batgirl1969]

I am hoping for an interracial love scene with Captain Marvel in the film....that would be awesome

[Mr. X]

Im letting this thread roll but I also want to inject my voice. Brie Larson already knows this film is a bomb so she is trying to deflect the issue to something else.

She knows that Black Panther killed it at the box office but it wasnt because it was a black film., but it was a well put together story line....

That's pretty much it. And we'll get the Ghostbuster's excuse when it flops... the audience is sexist. However that won't fly cause Wonder Woman did so well. So it could be they/she wants to blame MGTOW or Incels or some such nonsense and not bad story telling or agenda driving. I get the impression this movie will just be a more expensive Supergirl episode.

[Visitor]

Im letting this thread roll but I also want to inject my voice. Brie Larson already knows this film is a bomb so she is trying to deflect the issue to something else.

She knows that Black Panther killed it at the box office but it wasnt because it was a black film., but it was a well put together story line....

If white male film critics reaction on cast members make such a difference, then they wouldn't have trashed Star Wars: Solo so much and it would have had better sales numbers. Content matters.

[Void]

Yeah, when I read anything, or watch anything, or when I consider any pursuit of a profession of any kind, I first ask myself: 'What was the gender and skin colour of the persons involved in this production? Whose *voice* do they *represent*?'

I see the world in terms of groups, and I will define individuals and their content based on the groups they belong to. I don't want merit to matter in profession, I don't recognise individuals as representing purely themselves, and I desire equity in outcome for all the subgroups I stratify the world by, regardless of ability. This all matters to me because I believe in fairness....

Sorry, no. Positions should always be awarded on merit and nothing else. A professional should be seen as an individual and not as being white/black, gay/straight, man/woman, Muslim/atheist etc. By all means, no one should be held back according to their 'group' - but they absolutely shouldn't be advanced for it, either.

[tallyho]

I am hoping for an interracial love scene with Captain Marvel in the film....that would be awesome

Yeah...but you hope for that in the weather forecasts too...and Walmart ads.
Born optimist, you are kiddo

[sugarcoater]

In analyzing those who review movies, how many of the current movie reviewers seem in any way to be anything but predominantly left-leaning? What current movie-reviewers seem to push for less diversity and more mainstream? Almost any movie that has some diverse element to it--be it ethnic, gender, or sexual--and has the least bit of plot tends to be praised. I just don't see the movie-review industry as some sort of good old boys network as based on the reviews I have read over the years.

Here is just one issue with Ms. Larsen's point. She says, “I don’t want to hear what a white man has to say about ‘A Wrinkle in Time.’ I want to hear what a woman of color, a biracial woman has to say about the film. I want to hear what teenagers think about the film.”
My problem with the logic of the quote is that a white man represents a huge chunk of a movie-going audience. Just based on making money, I would want to hear what a huge part of my clientele thinks of my product. It does not make sense to dismiss such a group. Instead, she might have said, "I want to also hear from..." But the way she says what she said makes her come across as simply virtue-signaling.

But to go back to an original point: in 2018, are we really thinking companies are intentionally not hiring certain minority groups to, of all things, review movies? By the same logic Ms. Larsen uses, might I say "I don't want to see what a black man can do in the NFL or NBA. I want to see what a Hispanic man or an Asian man can do in the NFL or NBA. I don't want to see Indians on ESPN in the spelling bee competition. I want to see more whites and blacks. I don't want to see females overrepresented in the top GPAs in high school. I want to see more males."

Perhaps it is merely that movie reviewers--much like in the world of gaming, spelling bees, sports, and myriad other fields--might just appeal more to one crowd than another. Either way, I don't really care about any of the aforementioned points. I only care that ANYONE can succeed on the merit solely of their ability.

Lastly, I wonder how often people create monolithic impressions of racial groups. It's not as though any one person or group represents the whole of any race. Yet it seems oftentimes people argue as though this is the case.
At any rate, enjoyable debate here. Thank you for an engaging discussion.

[Bert]

"Positions should always be awarded on merit and nothing else."

That's a convenient position to hold if you belong to the dominant group. How do you even establish merit in the profession of film criticism? Is there some unbiased algorithm that can determine the taste, entertainment value and clarity of movie reviews? And beyond that, lived experience is going to heavily affect the response to a film. People of differing backgrounds will react differently to the way scenes are portrayed. Having access to the opinions of reviewers coming from different backgrounds will speak authentically to a wider range of viewers. I really don't see how that is in any way controversial.

The same is true in politics. It makes no sense that women (or Hispanics, or Gays) are so underrepresented in elected office. Why should half the population have their viewpoint be given short shrift? It's not like some of the men in government are towering mental giants. If a party decides to field a certain percentage of female candidates in a given election, the resulting increased balance among our leaders will lead to better decisions, because more points of view will be considered.

I want my brain surgeon to be the smartest, most experienced doctor with the best hands. Pure merit. But in some professions, and film critic is one of them, a broad spectrum of options is clearly better.

[sugarcoater]

@ Bert

If you want to focus on the lack of diversity in politics, how about looking at the percent of politicians who are lawyers? And how about reducing the number of politicians above 55 years old too?

And interesting point about the issue of merit. In the end, merit is the only fair quality to use to hire someone, and all the other variables will remain in play. People have been and always will be prejudiced, not merely in regard to people but brands, activities, hobbies, etc. We can only control so much as freedom is ugly.

I see your point about more points of views being considered, but I think you're falling prey to the idea that all groups have differing views and that difference of race or gender creates a difference in perspective. I would disagree. I have more in common with people based on passions, career, interests, etc. Our society all-too-often tends to group people by the most superficial of differences and then assume each group has a group-think mentality.
That said, you do bring up an excellent point about health care needing to have more balanced representation as men and women may prioritize certain policies in a different manner.

[bushwackerbob]

I see what you did there Bert. I asked you to give me some evidence of the non-hiring of female film critics and you change the subject to Donald J. Trump. It always comes back to Trump. Typical. How exactly are white males overtly taking advantage of our so called white privilege or entitlement. It is really stupid for anyone in a position of power to discriminate on the basis of race or gender because there will always be a competitor who will hire the best and brightest putting companies who do not at a competitive disadvantage. The free market at work. My favorite team is the Boston Red Sox. They went 86 years before winning a World Series in 2004. Part of the reason they suffered in mediocrity for so long was because their ownership was racist (they finally won in 2004 with a new ownership group) Their stupid racist mindset was one of the reasons for their lack of success, my point being that there is a cost for a business that is guilty of discriminatory hiring practices, that they do so at their own peril. Merit is not a dirty word if one believes we are truly created equal, that our country is based on equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. I have said this before and I will say it again, setting aside physical and biological differences, there is nothing a man can do that a woman cannot. Set asides and quotas for women is a contradiction of that mantra.

[sugarcoater]

@ bob

A fair point using sports, but the difficulty may be in defining merit in a non-sports setting. Most careers do not have an easily quantifiable assessment of ability. I think that is what Bert may be arguing. If one is hiring and three people of equal merit based on resume apply for the position, what is the tie-breaker? Most careers require some sort of in-person interview. In that moment, the person doing the hiring may have an unconscious bias come into play.
For example, if someone grows up in a homogenous area, would they be willing to hire someone of a culture or ethnicity foreign to them when someone of the same culture and ethnicity also applies for the position with equal qualifications? Would someone hire a male over a female for fear of the female prioritizing family or going on an extended leave due to pregnancy? I see these as issues that merit cannot address. Of course, the only way to fully address such a situation is for people to be entirely honest and objective in looking at such tendencies and--in recognizing them--try to move past them.

[Dazzle1]

@ bob

A fair point using sports, but the difficulty may be in defining merit in a non-sports setting. Most careers do not have an easily quantifiable assessment of ability. I think that is what Bert may be arguing. If one is hiring and three people of equal merit based on resume apply for the position, what is the tie-breaker? Most careers require some sort of in-person interview. In that moment, the person doing the hiring may have an unconscious bias come into play.
For example, if someone grows up in a homogenous area, would they be willing to hire someone of a culture or ethnicity foreign to them when someone of the same culture and ethnicity also applies for the position with equal qualifications? Would someone hire a male over a female for fear of the female prioritizing family or going on an extended leave due to pregnancy? I see these as issues that merit cannot address. Of course, the only way to fully address such a situation is for people to be entirely honest and objective in looking at such tendencies and--in recognizing them--try to move past them.

It does go both ways. In my industry one firm has made their office a"Men not need Apply" Even though the industry is 50/50 the regional manager is passing up more qualified and experienced men.

[sugarcoater]

@ Dazzle

What you describe is why I believe there is backlash against comments along the lines of Ms. Larsen. Society cannot elevate one group at the expense of another, regardless of historical precedent. People aren't going to accept being given a lesser role simply because in previous generations, people like them had unfair advantages. The pendulum of fairness cannot swing back and forth to achieve balance. We can create laws and rules to remove bigotry from hiring, promoting and firing practices. But beyond that, telling a group that they are not wanted simply because they were born a certain way is absurd. Ironically, that seems to be what many are doing in the name of justice even as their same argument was used to subjugate minorities and women in previous generations.

[tallyho]

I'm lucky enough to have been born the dominant, most advantaged form of human on the planet.

Hey great! Another Welshman! Top banana!

Wales - we are crap but great at the same time!

[JohnFeer]

Y'know I used to write film reviews on a freelance basis for the local news daily, not too many people of color or women in that particular line of work. Although I will say the best film reviewer locally for years was a woman who I'll openly admit was a much better writer than me. But could she get a full time gig?
Nope.

[Void]

"That's a convenient position to hold if you belong to the dominant group."

Erm… why? The only way I can make sense of that is if we aren't using the same definition of 'merit' - or you think people 'belonging' to dominant groups are literally more capable at their professions than people 'belonging' to other non-dominant groups.

In any case, I'm not a fan of wilful discrimination and I don't particularly agree that 'lived experience' is as informed by race and gender as you seem to. I don't consider people who share qualities with me as speaking *for* me, just as I don't consider people entirely different from me as irrelevant to me. Only their individual character and content matters, and is the basis I judge them on. Awarding a position based on skin colour or gender or religion or economic background or whatever group you like just seems like a step backwards from anything like an equal society. No one should be held back, either for positive or negative purposes. Politics is a grey area, putting it mildly, but in a democracy the opportunity to have groups represented is very real - but you need valid candidates to step up and earn that, hopefully without being held back along the way. You can't mandate the outcome, and I disagree that a more 'representative' forum would make objectively better decisions than a forum of the most qualified. We can quibble what it means to be 'most qualified', but my main concern here is that your subgroups ought not to factor into it.

Sure, it's less clear with the arts - I don't honestly know how you measure the worth of a critic - but even so there is still enough to judge people according to their content, qualifications and relevant experience without having to defer to what group they 'speak for'. Identity politics seems like more of a problem than a solution to me, I guess.

[Mr. X]

I was just accused of representing "some left leaning version of white man's guilt." It's a little hard to wrap my head around that. I'm lucky enough to have been born the dominant, most advantaged form of human on the planet. Making an effort to recognize that fact and attempt to not overly take advantage of it doesn't seem political or guilt inspired to me.

No its condescending, elitist and gas lighting.

[Bert]

"No its condescending, elitist and gas lighting."

It isn't any of those things.