If the framework changes it's better for that change to happen naturally rather than being forced To fit the narrative of a politically fuelled agenda. If I was chosen as an actor to play a role I would rather be chosen from my acting ability not because of my race. As that will create friction, if Lando Calrissian in Star Wars was played by a white male that would bother me especially if it was to suit a racially fuelled political agenda.
if we lived in a world of black apologises Lando would be cast as white, just right now we live in a world of white apologises, in other words social justice warriors Who will cast Mary Jane as black, again this bothers me, not to say forced diversity has never occurred before which it has but never before on this scale. if equality and diversity is to be achieved let it happen naturally because forcing it is the wrong way to go. The people who force it shouldn't be directing movies especially if they're looking at life in that kind of way.
And I have no resentment towards race if you think I do you haven't been listening to what I'm saying.
The thing is, Hollywood - or film for that matter - never allows things to just change 'naturally'. In every Hollywood film, there are thousands of calculated, detailed and deliberate decisions, from the race of the cast to the sexuality of the cast to even the age of the cast.
You are presupposing that Hollywood has - before this ostensible change in its attitudes about diversity - embraced the idea of letting things flow 'naturally'. It has always been a manipulation of reality and it has always, in your words, had a 'distorted lens'. The only difference here is the current lens they are looking through is one you disapprove of.
Right now, Hollywood does not care about diversity and social justice enough on a purely ideological level to place it in their films. That is fear-mongering, and something Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro or Richard Spencer might say. If anyone knows anything about the current Hollywood model, it is about making money at the lowest possible risk. And I sincerely doubt Hollywood right now is merely an instrument designed to advance political ideals. Yes, they are primarily left-wing, but is that because Hollywood consists of a bunch of radical activists using the medium of film for their social justice, or is it because they are vein, cupid businessmen who understands that the social justice narrative, at the moment, is prevalent and 'trendy'?
At the moment, Hollywood has realised that social justice narratives are largely resonating with the American public. And they have tapped into that. They want to have a reputation of being an industry that is progressive because more people will buy tickets and watch their content, sometimes on that basis alone. Sure, there is much dissent, but overall, a film starts, primarily, with a
good and
safe (sort of the opposite of 'risk') reputation if it elects or at least makes the impression it has elected to cast non-white actors, or if it is a film about racism, female empowerment, and so on.
And, yes, I did not mean you have resentment towards race. I meant you have a resentment towards this narrative that is being propagated, which you do.
Reply to Topic
