O Really wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:14 pm
So what is the primary goal of the major film makers? That would be to make a bunch of money. So how do they make money? They get lots of people to pay a lot to go see their film, and they sell the rights to show it to Redbox, etc. in the hopes more people will pay to watch it. So who are the majority of those who go see the movies? That would be mostly white people, if for no other reason than historically they've just been the overall majority of the population. So would white people generally relate better to a hero who is also white, or one who isn't? So it should be no surprise that a large number of films over the years have had white people in the lead roles. Seems to be changing somewhat, but even historically I don't know that it's usually been some "Birth of a Nation" sub-plot instead of just trying to sell tickets to the audience you've got and want to keep.
All true, but the claim is not just about white people movies. It's also about the "saving" of a population of nonwhites. The Wiki page
makes the case that many of these films arose out of a sincere intention to "do right" by oppressed real world blacks.
Birth of a Nation
does not appear on the list. "Good" whites aren't "saving" blacks in it. They're saving other whites from blacks and "bad" whites.
The Wiki page is not long and detailed as Wiki pages go. There's not a lot of discussion as to the interplay of factors that lead to this. It's mostly a description of the phenomena. I looked at one of the citations to learn more.
Sounds like the issue is in part not with the genre, but with the unanimity of it. To the extent that's true, I suppose one could say that there's not a problem with any one film appearing on the list, but rather that such a long list can be made.
... Indigo isn't great art, but it is refreshing to encounter a narrative about slavery which doesn't define black people entirely through their slavery or their freedom—and which, therefore, doesn't define black people in terms of the white folks who torment or liberate them. And that's the kind of narrative Hollywood needs more of. I love 12 Years A Slave, admire Django and Glory, and think Amistad and Lincoln are sanctimonious drivel. But they'd all be better if they existed in a context of other films that allowed for different kinds of stories. Hollywood’s insistence that white people have set black people free seems like a sign that maybe, possibly, we could stand to hear other truths, both about the past and about the present.
I'm not entirely sure but it looks like Noah Berlatsky
is a white guy, despite the 'fro.
Is he a 'white savior'?
I haven't checked to see how many of the Wiki citations are by nonwhites.