Should I feel guilty for liking and owning crocodile Dundee?

The fact that it's become such a tricky thing is the problem though. While it's great this 'trickiness' has maybe made us aware of the importance of understanding how the words (or images, or behaviors) that are depicted in film can unknowingly shape how we view the world, this trickiness I feel has considerably frozen artists willingness to engage with sensitive subject matter, or paint in shades of grey, or confront the audience with difficult ideas to parse. In short, paved the way for a lot of ****ty and pointless art, that strives for meaning, but has absolutely nothing to add to the conversation.

I'm all for having a good discussion, once the film is over, and talking about what one thinks is harmful or helpful about a particular film, but the reflex to cast these wide nets to trap anything that doesn't conform to exact moral expectation has been mostly a gigantic failure, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's been a failure on part of those that create art, and a failure on the part of those who want to make a good point about why these are issues we need to be talking about. It's gotten to the point they've completely diluted all of the many good points that have been put out there.

The whole effort to be more empathetic and inclusive in films clearly began as a legitimately important critical discussion of how we erred in the past, and how we can course correct in the future, but over the last few years has just turned into some dubious game where we are Where's Waldo-ing anything that could be considered objectionable, to the point we're now pulling everything out of context and purpose in order to find them. It's not a good look and its a bankrupt strategy, at least considering how godawful the quality of discussion has become about these matters these last few years. I've never read more terrible takes on why particular films are problematic, and I have also never read more terrible takes from those who think everything is a over-reaction on the road to cancel culture. Nuanced (and, frankly, properly articulated) opinions are frequently cut out of the discussion, leaving all the bone heads to shout at eachother, and keep making everything worse by amplifying all of their worst tendencies.

Because of this we've never been more in need of these less emotionally fire-bombed opinions. But due to the ugly nature of discourse these last few years, we're unlikely get them. Why would anyone who has an opinion that actually takes some time to parse even bother nowadays? Either they'll be drowned out by all the deafening hyperbole coming from both sides, or they will be branded as an apologist for some kind of horrible behavior they clearly don't support, which people would know if the general masses actually bothered to read and not just react these days.

So, while yeah, I understand if someone has a visceral reaction to a word in Lethal Weapon that is charged with racial harm. It's hard not to get that, at least as much as I can. No doubt, there's good reason why someone who has been a target of these words should never want to hear them again. And I'm not arguing they should want to. If they'd prefer to avoid any film that uses them, more power to them. But in regards to creating an actual discussion about something like the 'racist Lethal Weapon', simply because someone might have a bad reaction to a word one character says, what do we get out of this? We already know the word is bad, so I guess that means that movies that have these words are equally bad? And they should be judged solely on the appearance of that word, even if its entirely removed from the context and intent of how it was meant to be used in the film? Am I allowed to call this out as garbage nonsense and not look like an ******* who supports racial epithets? In some quarters, probably not.

Basically, does every emotional reaction someone has towards a film deserve equal attention? There is no end of things we might not like to see or hear, but does that mean they shouldn't be shown? Even for totally novel purposes inessential to the film at hand. My family has been absolutely levelled by alcoholism and addiction, but does this mean I should be angry at films that depict characters harmlessly enjoying a beer? Because don't they know where this might lead? Shouldn't they show the tragic results, because I know what those tragic results are, and they aren't being articulated in any of those joyful slurps I'm seeing up on screen. I'd use the tired and boring slippery slope argument, but if we are talking about a racist Lethal Weapon (at least it being racist because of the singular instance used above) we're already tumbling down it.

In short, there is a difference between an emotion and an argument. And while people should be able to talk about their emotions all they like, they should maybe slow it down when they think their emotion should lecture others for how they interact with or create their art. Because it's poisonous, even if it seems (and sometimes is) so well intentioned.

The fact that it's become such a tricky thing is the problem though. While it's great this 'trickiness' has maybe made us aware of the importance of understanding how the words (or images, or behaviors) that are depicted in film can unknowingly shape how we view the world, this trickiness I feel has considerably frozen artists willingness to engage with sensitive subject matter, or paint in shades of grey, or confront the audience with difficult ideas to parse. In short, paved the way for a lot of ****ty and pointless art, that strives for meaning, but has absolutely nothing to add to the conversation.

I'm all for having a good discussion, once the film is over, and talking about what one thinks is harmful or helpful about a particular film, but the reflex to cast these wide nets to trap anything that doesn't conform to exact moral expectation has been mostly a gigantic failure, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's been a failure on part of those that create art, and a failure on the part of those who want to make a good point about why these are issues we need to be talking about. It's gotten to the point they've completely diluted all of the many good points that have been put out there.

The whole effort to be more empathetic and inclusive in films clearly began as a legitimately important critical discussion of how we erred in the past, and how we can course correct in the future, but over the last few years has just turned into some dubious game where we are Where's Waldo-ing anything that could be considered objectionable, to the point we're now pulling everything out of context and purpose in order to find them. It's not a good look and its a bankrupt strategy, at least considering how godawful the quality of discussion has become about these matters these last few years. I've never read more terrible takes on why particular films are problematic, and I have also never read more terrible takes from those who think everything is a over-reaction on the road to cancel culture. Nuanced (and, frankly, properly articulated) opinions are frequently cut out of the discussion, leaving all the bone heads to shout at eachother, and keep making everything worse by amplifying all of their worst tendencies.

Because of this we've never been more in need of these less emotionally fire-bombed opinions. But due to the ugly nature of discourse these last few years, we're unlikely get them. Why would anyone who has an opinion that actually takes some time to parse even bother nowadays? Either they'll be drowned out by all the deafening hyperbole coming from both sides, or they will be branded as an apologist for some kind of horrible behavior they clearly don't support, which people would know if the general masses actually bothered to read and not just react these days.

So, while yeah, I understand if someone has a visceral reaction to a word in Lethal Weapon that is charged with racial harm. It's hard not to get that, at least as much as I can. No doubt, there's good reason why someone who has been a target of these words should never want to hear them again. And I'm not arguing they should want to. If they'd prefer to avoid any film that uses them, more power to them. But in regards to creating an actual discussion about something like the 'racist Lethal Weapon', simply because someone might have a bad reaction to a word one character says, what do we get out of this? We already know the word is bad, so I guess that means that movies that have these words are equally bad? And they should be judged solely on the appearance of that word, even if its entirely removed from the context and intent of how it was meant to be used in the film? Am I allowed to call this out as garbage nonsense and not look like an ******* who supports racial epithets? In some quarters, probably not.

Basically, does every emotional reaction someone has towards a film deserve equal attention? There is no end of things we might not like to see or hear, but does that mean they shouldn't be shown? Even for totally novel purposes inessential to the film at hand. My family has been absolutely levelled by alcoholism and addiction, but does this mean I should be angry at films that depict characters harmlessly enjoying a beer? Because don't they know where this might lead? Shouldn't they show the tragic results, because I know what those tragic results are, and they aren't being articulated in any of those joyful slurps I'm seeing up on screen. I'd use the tired and boring slippery slope argument, but if we are talking about a racist Lethal Weapon (at least it being racist because of the singular instance used above) we're already tumbling down it.

In short, there is a difference between an emotion and an argument. And while people should be able to talk about their emotions all they like, they should maybe slow it down when they think their emotion should lecture others for how they interact with or create their art. Because it's poisonous, even if it seems (and sometimes is) so well intentioned.

While referencing racism in film was always going to be tricky just by the incredibly sensitive nature of the subject alone, I agree that it's become overly difficult to do so in a level-headed manner, due to certain bad-faith reactionaries (mostly on Twitter) looking to make a sort of industry out performative outrage, looking for any excuse to continue a perpetual online circle jerk/feedback loop of getting upset about things. At the same time though, there are on the other side (mostly on Fox News) also looking for excuses to react against them, unnecessarily fearmongering over so-called "cancel culture", so I agree that the solution lies somewhere in the middle, by applying rational critical thinking to movies and other media on a case-by-case basis, rather than knee-jerk declaring them problematic, or railing against the people who do that.

One obvious ground rule should be that, having a character being racist in a film does not automatically make the film or the people that made it racist, because if that was case, Robert Duvall using a slur in Widows would make a film that was itself directed by a black man "racist" against black people, as opposed to it just being honest that some white people (particularly the older ones) still say racist things in private in the 21st century. There's a world of difference between that and a film actually reinforcing negative stereotypes in its depiction of racial groups, like the scene in Dressed To Kill where the black thugs in the subway immediately talk about how they want to sexually assault Nancy Allen's pretty white woman when they encounter her. Also, even though I obviously love Tom Breihan's genre/film restrospectives, I grow tired of him looking for excuses to find something "problematic" in almost every movie he writes about, like him finding it a shame that an actress of color like Zoe Saldana had to "cover up" the natural color of her skin in order to become an alien in Guardians Of The Galaxy (because are you for real, dude?), or why, even though I've obviously been critical of Scorsese in his depictions of a certain ethnic group, I'll still come to his defense against the people who claim that he likes to exclude female perspectives from his movies (as you can see in the third comment on this troll-y "review" of Mean Streets that I came across a year ago), because I pay attention to his films instead of watching them to look for Twitter-bait:

You are vile.

but I’ve got far more embarrassing films than that in my collection.

Yes it should be deleted from existence for being slightly inappropriate and you should whip yourself like a sinning priest.

Alternatively, you could eat some artisinal, gluten-free toast and listen to Gal Gadot's cover of "Imagine."

I'll try and respond to this when I'm not in such a bad mood about everything. I tried to start but responding to anything like this takes such surgical precision and you got to always make sure a word isn't out of place first. And I got some shaky hands at the moment.

racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic

In the last few months we've seen the Muppets called racist, Dr. Seuss titles "shelved," and Mr. Potato Head "retired" in favor of a genderless "Potato".

Or was there just a warning before a handful of them?

Most of these Dr Seuss books were long unavailable. None have been popular titles and books go out of print all of the time when they don't sell.

And Potato Head is an almost irrelevant rebrand.

It's like complaining about when they began marketing black Barbie dolls.

In short, these are all pretty bad examples of PC culture run amok. They are used as some kind of short hand to make people think things have gotten out of control without actually reading past the headline. All three are pretty inconsequential and are hardly canceling anything.

A warning to parents about content is not calling the Muppets racist.

As usual you are coloring outside of the lines to make the point you want to make.

It took me about three seconds to find one of those books still online to purchase. It was a used copy so it is expensive, but this is no different than it was a few years ago long before this outrage.

I worked for years in children's books and know from experience how many classic children's books fall into this limbo. As for the possibility that it ever does become legitimately banned from ever being sold in any form, I will agree with you. But talk to me then.

I don't even know how to respond to your Mr Potato Head hyperbole so you can sort that one out for yourself.

And when you're the one being shelved, shall I say that you were an irrelevant person? It doesn't really matter that we've degendered a long-selling toy over fears of (insert your preferred bit of critical theory here).

Mr. Potato Head is an inanimate object.