Just finished reading this opinion piece on NYT and I’m thinking that the writer simply didn’t had the guts to end it with „historical movies that don’t focus on minorities and women should not be made anymore”.
Everything else is just pretentious word play. And all the nitpicking on movies that feature a predominantly or only white-male cast is getting so ridiculous, that I’m starting to think „1984” isn’t funny anymore.
The op-ed asks, referring to Scorsese, „Why do so few of his films call for female leads?”. Accepting it’s because those are the sorta movies he’s into, one would be labeled a gullible fool. It’s because of the „belief that white men have done the most and lived the most interesting lives of us all.” #facepalm
If I would have this conversation with someone at a bar, I’d simply get up and leave.
One of the few things that stuck with me from college is that you have to tell stories – regardless of the medium – that are important to you.
Six words: stories that are important to you.
If you try and fake it, those on the receiving end of that story will feel it and their legitimate answer will be „I want my money and my time back!”.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t appreciate a good story about the struggles of being black, gipsy, a woman or whatever, or that you think – if you’re a fan of telling stories about white men – that white men and white men only have done the coolest shit in history.
Yes, racism, sexism and other bad things in this world exist, unfortunately, but trying to look for them in places they don’t exist just makes you a person that’s not fun to be around.
This idea that private investments have to cater to whatever beliefs and views about society and history you have is nonsense.
P.S. it’s funny/worrying how the NYT op-ed drops the movie 1917 into „the same-old stories about white men„. The piece even quotes and idiotic tweet, as if to prove that being narrow minded, while struggling to appear open minded and acceptant, may be contagious. Stay safe.