Do movies teach stereotypes?

Will check out, thanks. But now that I understand, no, I haven’t got round to it yet but will do soon!

Exactly. I am sorry for using poor dear Lloyds Bank as an imperfect example, but it is ubiquitous and, frankly, strange to deny.

Well, I sympathize if Agrip is feeling a bit piled on and overwhelmed, but I don't think that everyone engaging against Agrip has a lock-step position on the issue. I've tried to be specific in arguing my points, which are not the same as some others.

Can we agree that tagging people in responses to other people is kinda obnoxious?

I don’t know why you feel that way, but sure, I won’t. I feel the exact opposite, i.e. that mentioning people without tagging them is disrespectful, as that’s more akin to gossip. But if tagging is an issue, no problem, no more tagging.

And no, I am not feeling overwhelmed, at least not this minute, but I do feel my side of the argument is (I can’t believe I’m writing this) significantly underrepresented, which really is very amusing indeed. I am also conscious that no amount of references I provide will really affect the debate. You know, there was a study that feedback at work is completely useless, i.e. it leaves people immensely stressed and never leads them to change their behaviour in any way. I feel this is a bit like that, you say not everyone has a lock-step position, but no one will change their mind, either, so I’m questioning the usefulness of continuing debate in this instance.

Hence why I intended to withdraw - not because I’ve given up or felt I had ‘lost’ the argument.

Very true, and well put. And yeah fair or not I think if a thread is one person against several (even if they're not in lock-step), it's a little trickier to manage. FWIW I've certainly noticed that each person in here has their own little distinctions and it certainly isn't any kind of hivemind, which is always nice to see on any topic.

Yeah, fair, and that's one of the things I was trying to indirectly address with the social media comparison. I think this is one of those things that lands very differently from one person to another. One thing I've noticed is that younger people I interact with think of pinging very differently than I do (let alone people older than me).

One area I think it would be warranted (just hypothetically, lest someone think I'm wholesale against the idea) is if someone has a direct interest or is being talked about and might want to know, but my threshold for pings is fairly high compared to most.

These numbers sum to 113% so something must be a little off here. But, let's roll with them for now.

Does equity mean "Pure Rainbow Demos" for casting? That is, a stratified sample carefully picking for an equal number of White, Hispanic, African American, First Peoples, Asian, and Pacific Islander? A sort of perfectly proportioned scoop of Neopolitian ice cream?

Does equity mean proportional representation? If so, then the goal would be for roughly one in ten roles cast in Hollywood to go to an African American and roughly two in ten to go to a Hispanic/Latino. Do two in ten roles actually go to Latinos? In the future, by this logic, wouldn't it be the case that fewer roles should go to African Americans, as the Hispanic/Latino population continues to grow?

Our first two options here basically demand that producers force things by keeping score, somehow. Any such formula is troubling in that it would be an intervention, a sort of censorship, but then again networks have censors for language. Seeing as how there are endless demographics (age, education, gender, race, religion, income, political affiliation, etc.), it seems impossible to ever make the carpet fit the room. And this raises the question "Which demographics really matter?" Someone, by necessity, will be marginalized, so we have to figure out which groups don't really count or count as much. This imperfection of representation means that "St. George in Retirement Syndrome" will always loom as a threat.

Should we be looking for equal opportunity rather than equity? There are equal opportunity laws on the books, but if a white producer employs a white director to depict the story of a white writer telling a story about white people, is it likely that many black people will be cast?

If we're all for free-market capitalism and the morality of the age is driving the economics of the age, doesn't this mean that the invisible hand cannot be criticized? That is, if they really are following market forces, isn't this the way it is supposed to work? Wouldn't the bad thing be for them to not listen? The question, here, of course, is whether corporations are really giving people what they want. When we get a all-girl reboot that tanks and toxic masculinity is blamed and then another flop is produced, one gets the sense that they're not so much responding to the market as they are evangelizing, attempting to reconstitute the audience's taste.

Which is exactly what is happening, because it is statistically impossible for the absolute majority of all-girl films to flop (not to say all of them), and for it to be an accident.

The strategy of "'X' but this time girl" does not seem to produce good results. It could be that producers are relying on social media (which leans more to the left) for audience demographic information and are making repeated mistakes.

I don't think that that is entirely it, though. I was saw an interview with a BBC producer who remarked that a problem they were having was that their writers want to produce woke content and to moralize through art, making the world a better place by directing sensibilities. I think that there are "true believers" in positions of power trying to force a world view.

Then again, maybe they're just staying ahead of the curve. As soon as the "Boomers" die off, they will be revealed to have predicted where the market was heading.

I actually miss good old-fashioned "Chick Flicks." These weren't my bag, but they were often good movies and served a large demographic in a way that movies about gun-slingers, wizards, and robots ("Comicon Feminism" or "Buffy Feminism") do not.

If I were trying to make a funny female comedy, I would just hire Tina Fey. There's talent out there. Let them do their thing instead of impressing formulas as nauseum (e.g., remember when new action films were "It's Die Hard in/on a(n) 'X'"?).

That's life, it's not always an equation. BTW those numbers came from the U.S. census bureau
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...e/US/PST045219

Diversity hires don't tend to get the benefit of the doubt. And, actually, when an employee doesn't work out, when it is a minority you are much more likely to hear "Well, you know she was only hired because XYZ." But when a non-minority hire doesn't work out, it's more likely to be "*shrug* Guess he just wasn't a good fit."

But as we've repeatedly addressed, a white guy writing about white guys can still win the Best Picture Oscar, and with very little effort.

Who can't win the Oscar? A straight white (non-disabled) writer/director who makes a film about only straight-white (non-disabled) characters, made entirely with a crew of straight white (non-disabled) men, and with all of the post-production/marketing done only by straight white (non-disabled) men at a studio that has no diversity-focused programs in place.

That's a pretty narrow group of films. And since people have ample warning about these requirements (ie they don't even kick in until 2024!!), there is a ton of time to think about how to meet them. If someone pines after a Best Picture Oscar, hiring a few non-white (or female, or gay, or people with disabilities) folks onto your crew and being willing to partner with some sort of filmmaking internship program seems like the least of your hurdles.

It is not called out to the same extent because it is not a proportional problem. Sorry to keep referencing the Khadija video, but her first example is about the issue with a white actor playing an Asian role on Broadway (yes, with the use of prosthetics, SIGH). Setting aside the question of dressing up like another race, the problem is that there is a huge dearth of roles for Asian men on Broadway to begin with.

If there are 100 roles for white people and you fill 10 of them with non-white actors, you still have 90 roles for white people. If you have 10 roles for non-white people and fill 2 of them with white actors, you now have 8 roles for non-white actors. It is a question of scarcity.

But if you're not okay with temporarily inconveniencing some (NOT ALL) white creators, then you are kind of saying that you are okay with continuing to have a system that is skewed against non-white/male/straight/non-disabled people. The system is currently tilted one way and there is only so much funding to go around. So to give to those marginalized group, yes, you will to some extent take away from the people who currently have it. But you could make the same argument for letting women into college. They took away "male spots", right? There were men who, when colleges became co-ed, did not get a spot because they were admitting women. The same thing is true of desegregating.

There's a minimum for ANY COMBINATION of those groups. So you can still have 70% of your crew be whoever you want. And since many of the workers in that field are already white, it's very likely that the 70% will be filled with that demographic. Saying that a group can make up, at most, 70% of a crew is not a significant disadvantage to a group. And if the film makes its standards other ways, they can still have a 100% white male crew.

I don't think I said anything of the sort. I think that the question of how to react to newly-uncovered past indiscretions comes down more to a case-by-case basis. When someone has demonstrated sincere regret and through their actions have shown that they no longer hold those beliefs, I think forgiveness is possible. Again, James Gunn is a pretty good example of that.

The other side is asking just how old we expect someone to be before we hold them accountable for things they have done.

It seems like you think it's reasonable for men to be offended by lack of representation, but not for marginalized groups. The question is: Does the number of men with hurt feelings outnumber the number of non-white/non-straight people who will respond positively to the marketing?

I'm not saying anyone needs to do anything (outside of employment law).

Companies that embrace diversifying in a sincere way overall seem to do well. It gives them more access to a wider demographic of clients. Companies can choose to or choose not to.

But if we're going to go on market economy, then the opinion of the public matters and it might be a better economic choice to have a diverse set of employees.

I'm saying that it's silly to me that some people will point to the diversifying of commercials (which doesn't mean no white people, just fewer of them) as oppressive. I do think that representation in things as small as advertising is relatively small potatoes compared to historical biases.

I feel, as indicated indirectly in this thread, that even if the above were true and he won the Oscar, this decision would be criticised, ‘spoiling his fun’. And though he ‘can’, it would be really very unlikely indeed and the Moonlights of the day would likely fare far better. This is what I’ve been saying again and again all along.

Yeah, okay. I feel like that won’t be anywhere near enough to win Best Picture in practice, but fine, if you say so.

Well, I think the colleges example is not entirely appropriate. Nothing to do with men and women, but here in the U.K. especially, as A-levels (final high school exams) became more and more competitive (with a huge number of people, especially from top schools, getting A*s and hence people needing to differentiate themselves in some other way), top universities have had to start offering more places.

They are, in a way, diluting and becoming less exclusive as more people go. Soon enough, an Oxbridge degree won’t even be ‘that big a deal’. But there are only so many Oscars and so many prizes to be had. Diluting the Oscars themselves could be a solution, but that’s like a US president creating additional judges to rebalance the court, something we know was very topical recently. Not the best solution, wouldn’t you agree? It makes the prize less coveted and prestigious, in a way.

This is a bit like the age of criminal responsibility. If it were up to me, I would ban social media in its entirety, everyone would be better off. But we can’t do that.

I do think, as someone said further in the thread, that most opinions are private. Broadcasting them on social media is not wise, but kids do, their Instagram in a sense is their definition of a ‘sacred private space’, paradoxical as that is.

The NY Times scandal is a guy waiting for a moment to detonate a controversy bomb to ruin someone’s life, when the said person was speaking to a friend and did not expect to be overheard.

That’s not how marketing works. You need them ALL to make money, it’s not an either-or. And for you to attract all demographics you will probably end up having to be maximally neutral in the end and market to ‘a customer’, ‘a person’, faceless and genderless and raceless, highlighting in a neutral manner the objective technical benefits and features of your product. I feel like this is the only solution.

I agree that this is a bit ridiculous, but then diversifying the ads in the first place is equally ridiculous as it solves nothing and sparks heated debates like this one here.

13% is quite a discrepancy. I am not saying that you're at fault or fudging anything, but that something isn't quite right. Usually, demographic data analysts will fudge things to sit at around 99% when categories get messy. Fudging by 13% does not really result in meaningful mathematical representations. African Americans are 13% of 113% of a population? What does that even mean? That they're really 11.5% of the population? Or does this signal a larger proportion (13% of 113 is 14.69)?

I apologize if that sounded like an attack.

Is it a "checkbox" thing where people can check more than one box? That's my best guess.

Just so you know, I'm more or less on your side of this debate. But like you said, no one will change their opinions, and I don't feel like (at the moment, that is - I have and probably will again) writing long, thoughtful posts for nothing.

__________________

Re: the race percentages - it's only 60 percent White, Non-Hispanic. That makes the total add up to about 99.4 percent. The U.S. Gov't. is lousy at displaying stats.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Thus, the argument can be made that only a little more than half of roles should go to white actors (to be representative). On the other hand, this means that the majority of roles, by representation, should still to go to white actors.

One thing I can think when it comes to people being taught stereotypes from movies is the "valley girl" accent. I live in Canada and there are people here who have that accent, and I read that it has roots in California, so I don't think Canadians would develop that accent naturally. So I figured it must have rubbed on them from American movies and TV unless I am wrong?

I really appreciate that. And yes, I, too, believe it’s time for the whole thing to wrap up for the time being.

So I know I already replied to this, but I did so while someone was coming up to my house and didn't say what I fully meant.

The absence of people of color or gay couples in marketing for years and years was a byproduct of those groups being seen as less than ideal. Companies did not want to be associated with them. I called it small potatoes, but it was representative of a more serious issue, which was the marginalization of people and excluding them from being considered the kind of "ideal" family that you'd see in an ad.

The shift toward having more of those people in commercials is a step toward "bringing them into the fold". And if you're cynical you say it's just about money. If you're less cynical you can see that a company not being averse to be associated with gay people is a step forward because there aren't enough bigoted people to shun them among their customer base.

Having fewer straight white people (not NO straight white people, juts fewer) is definitely a decrease in representation. I take issue with the idea that there are no straight white people in ads these days, because I literally just watched an ad with a straight white couple in it. But this "lack of representation" (which is really just reduced representation) is not symptomatic of the kind of violent, generations-long marginalization and oppression that gay people, people of color, and people with disabilities have faced.

That's why I'm not super sympathetic when someone who is white complains about having fewer (FEWER, not no) representation in commercials. It's a symptom of where our culture is, for sure. But it is not symptomatic of a cultural situation nearly as dire at the one that marginalized those other groups.

And the mortgage ad example in particular, because the inability of certain groups to legally own property (or the semi-legal hurdles put in the way of their home ownership) means that for a long time those groups DIDN'T constitute the majority of people banks would cater to.

I mean, maybe. Or maybe the Moonlight type film was just the better movie and spoke to more people?

When 2024 rolls around and we see who is up for Best Picture, it will be interesting to see how they met their standards.

But at any in-person school there will only be so many "seats" to offer. If your college is all men, but then opens up to female applicants, some of those seats that "belonged" to men would then go to women.

Ha! IF ONLY!!

I actually use almost no social media. I have e-mail (yes, I know that isn't social media). I post on a semi-private alumni forum with some of my college friends. And I post here. That's it.

I mean, she said what she said. And the young man in the article said that he kept the clip because he was so fed up with the racist slurs frequently being used by his classmates. Do you really think that was the one and only time she used that slur?

Also, the young man who shared the clip was 18 years old. One year older than the Teen Vogue girl. So do you hold him responsible for sharing that clip? Or does he get "teen immunity" because of his age?

Companies will always want to put a human face on their customers. I bet if you looked at any marketing campaign for a company that uses people, you'll see a very carefully balanced mix of ages, races, etc.

For years, gay people and people of color saw ONLY ads with straight white people. It just boggles my mind how offended white people get at having fewer ads. It just makes me think they have no empathy for the experiences of others.

I don't know any white people who are bothered by mixed race people in ads.

The only reason I care at all about which beautiful people appear in commercials is that it makes me hopeful that major corporations are willing to be associated with gay couples or mixed race couples and portray them as just being "normal" folks.

I don't know if you remember this, but back in the 90s and early 2000s, there were groups that would trawl gay publications (like The Advocate) and make a huge fuss about any companies advertising in them. Like I think Budweiser put an ad in there and these people lost their dang minds.