Diversity and Representation in Media

When he shows up with the roses and Dana is Zuul, the next cut back to him is her knocked out and him saying he put her under with 300cc's of Thorazine.

edited 3rd Dec '16 7:31:59 PM by Unsung

I feel like I've missed that detail...

Might need to rewatch the movie.

So, I saw Moana and it was absolutely fantastic. Really recommend it, and I say without hyperbole that it sets a new high standard for Disney movies in the future. And here's a cool article on the research and depiction of Polynesian culture in the film. Learned a lot of cool things from it, like how many stereotypes and cultural taboos were avoided.

THIS is how movies should do representation. By actually consulting the people affected and getting their feedback on what is appropriate before the footage is completed, DOCTOR STRANGE.

Also, David Bowie crab.

And on a different note, a testimony about how powerful queer representation in a superhero story can be.

EDIT: Hmm. Doing further reading on Moana and its audience reaction. This is a review I found by someone who feels the film still really dumbs down the culture (spoilers within). It's evident from the article above that a lot of research did go into the story, but the contentious parts are mainly elements of Polynesian cultures that are treated comically at times, especially Maui. What do you think?

edited 4th Dec '16 1:23:02 AM by Tuckerscreator

I think I can understand where it comes from. I read a review saying that Luke Cage was a very conservative show - written by a black man, who thought that a show with so many black characters could have been much more audacious in its themes and in what the hero stands for. It is the same here, the writer considers it not to be respectful enough of Pacific Island cultures. I don't think it is to be considered "right" or "wrong", it just depends on how important details are to you. This article said that Tahitian children were overjoyed to see characters that "looked like them", and a Tahitian adult, while admitting that "there was Disney magic in it", said that they clearly showed respect for their culture (he mentioned navigation using the stars in particular).

It is the same thing with every social issue: between "doing nothing" and "going all the way", there are many steps, and many people agreeing with different steps.

That being said, the negative review said:

It's not culture related, but...seriously? That's some serious nitpicking and some even more serious "let's ignore that moment that doesn't go the way I like". I'd say that making Moana even more efficient would have stretched the WSOD a bit thin.

Yes, that made me regard the review less seriously, because comments like "Moana was helpless against the kakamora" are flat-out incorrect and basically the opposite of what actually happened in the movie.

When I first saw the trailers, I was concerned how they'd balance having Maui as a main character - if he's a powerful demi-god who can deal with anything, then Moana becomes less central in her own movie, but if he's useless, that makes a joke out of him being a demi-god. I thought the movie did an effecteive job of keeping Moana the protagonist while giving Maui a combination of power and limitations. But he was written more like the Greek or Norse gods, or powerful beings in some other indigenous cultures (who, in those cultures' mythologies, can often be arrogant jerks and screw things up), and that may have not been appropriate for the Polynesian culture specifically.

The "villain" of the movie did strike me as odd (even with the way it ended), because I know that Hawaiians, at least, regard Pele (the volcano) as both creative and destructive, and not as hostile or bad. Without volcanoes, the islands don't exist.

I don't see any intended message about climate change in the movie, just a general one about living in harmony with nature.

edited 4th Dec '16 5:30:39 AM by Galadriel

Is there even a Disney movie that is 100% faithful or respectful to the culture? Even their European movies have discrepancies.

Discrepancies? Snow White is vaguely inspired by the Germany and/or Switzerland when it comes to the castle and the cottage, but the wildlife is entirely American...as is the pie, btw.

Same with Cinderella...kind of French in style, but bluebirds are an entirely American thing. And France as naturally never a "little kingdom".

Same with Sleeping Beauty, kind of British in style, American wildlife.

And so on. Mulan for example just throws elements from different dynasties and regions in China together.

Because it was never the point to create a "realistic" setting. Those are fairy tales, there is no need for them to be historical correct. You can certainly complain about this if the fairy tale is used to cover an ugly truth, like it is the case in Pocahontas, or if a beloved lore gets turned into something which has next to no connection to what it originally was, like it happened with Hercules, but I don't see the point in getting nitpicky about details in a movie in which an actual half-god with moving tattoos is one of the characters.

Beauty and the Beast could fit in a medieval French setting I guess...though the Bimbettes would have little to do in a small village in the middle of nowhere. Also no one would be called "Le Fou". Just "Fou" or "XXX Le Fou". And I am unsure whether all the recipes in Be our guest existed in that time period.

Fairy Tales are also more "Western" as a whole than from a specific country, because a number of writers (Andersen, the Grimm brothers, Perrault, and many others) wrote their own versions, adapting an already existing story. Cinderella was written both by the Grimm & Perrault, and was an evolution of stories that started in the Antiquity - so good luck trying to pinpoint its actual roots.

edited 4th Dec '16 8:59:49 AM by Julep

Just tried, pretty much impossible, especially since we can only say when it was written down the first time. This fairy tale is older than the written word if you ask me.

Hell, even the Grimm and the Perrault versions are very different when it comes to the details - and the ending.

And no, some of the recipes are a little bit too modern. As is Maurice's underwear.

edited 4th Dec '16 10:12:19 AM by Swanpride

Re: Luke Cage. Here's two more articles with a less favorable view regarding the show's politics. Tbh, I'm not sure what to think of them myself.

http://stormingtheivorytower.blogspot.com.ng/2016/11/populism-politics-people-and.html

http://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/2016/11/01/the-making-of-luke-black-heroism-and-the-man-in-luke-cage-and-unmaking-resistance-cage-post/

The first one not so much, but the stuff talked about in the second one did kind of bother me too. Luke's dislike of the term "nigga/er" and complaining about black fathers simply abandoning their children when a large part of the problem is incarceration, just (something he should know better on since it happened directly to Pop) or often injust in many cases (the War on Drugs, the Double Standard when it comes to sentencing black offenders) is on the conservative end of things. Though there's room to say it's simply Luke's perspective as an individual rather than the show's perspective in general. Depiction does not always equal endorsement, as they say.

Makes sense, and it points to a larger overall problem of lack of Polynesian representation in film that puts the pressure heavy on this one. If 50 percent of Pacific Islanders end up liking Moana and 50 percent don't, neither 50 might be wrong; it may be more that some have tastes that allow more liberal depictions of their cultures and others would prefer even closer fidelity. The dissenters deserve their own movie too.

I agree with some of the critiques of Luke Cage. Its message is politically conservative, from Moira being an anti-gentrification black politician to her co-opting a movement that is clearly an expy of Black Lives Matter. I disliked both of those elements.

There are also some progressive elements (the bullethole-filled hoodie symbolism). And it was far, far better than any other superhero media at showing criminals as people rather than just as random enemies to beat up. Granted, that's a low bar when you're going up against a show like Daredevil that, by halfway through Season 2, basically copped out on providing an argument for why criminals shouldn't be murdered en masse.

edited 4th Dec '16 4:05:10 PM by Galadriel

True, I've always thought Luke Cage made a better argument against the Punisher's philosophy than Daredevil season 2 ever did.

The thing about Daredevil is that deep down he pretty much agrees with the Punisher's philosophy— he just won't allow himself to cross that line. For good reason, too. The Murdock men have got the Devil in them, etc.

DD Season 2 suffered from a second two-thirds that undermined that realization from the first four episodes. He kept refusing to kill, but the show increasingly lost sight of why.

edited 4th Dec '16 2:21:35 PM by Unsung

That has been the problem with Daredevil since season one...he keeps worrying about the notion of killing someone, but whenever someone died due to his actions, it never gets addressed.

Matt never provides a strong argument against killing criminal because, unlike the engagement with relevant cultural and social issues in Luke Cage and Jessica Jones, the makers of Daredevil do not understand Christianity or truly engage with Matt Murdock's Christian beliefs, despite them being an integral part of his character.

A core element of Christian belief is that all people are flawed, all people are sinful, and all people are redeemable. No matter what a person has done, the can repent, be forgiven, and change their ways. To kill someone is to deny them the opportunity for redemption, and that is not a decision we have any right to make. Because we have all done wrong, and we have all been shown mercy, we have an obligation to show mercy to others.

That is the argument that Murdock should be making, because it flows naturally from a central element of his character. And the show should be supporting it by showing the criminal as three-dimensional people, not one-dimensional evil mooks.

And yes, they need to take the issue seriously by either never having Matt cause a person's death, or by having him take it very seriously when he does do so unintentionally.

edited 4th Dec '16 4:30:06 PM by Galadriel

I feel like the show is aware of it, and it does occasionally engage with Matt's Catholicism (they at least show willing, during Matt's conversations with Father Lantom in season 1, especially that story about the experience in Africa that actually led him from theology to active belief in the Devil). But they forgot about it completely in the back half of season 2, with everything ended up feeling rushed and multiple storylines fighting for air in each episode.

edited 4th Dec '16 10:05:40 PM by Unsung

I disagree with the view they do not understand Christianity. As mentioned, season 1 had plenty of pretty solid Catholicism. In season 2 there episode-long debate also has Matt providing plenty of counter-arguments to Frank's ethos with more or less that reasoning.

Father Lantom himself raises the concept of a soul's chance of redemption during Grotto's funeral. He even notes Grotto was a heavily conflicted man who always left money to the Church as a manner of repenting.

They show Matt going to confession. They don't engage with the real, central elements of Christian belief that should influence his views and actions, and that provide the best grounding for his opposition to killing.

Donating money is not repentance. (That's one of the issues that led to the origin of Protestantism.) Repentance means sincere regret for previous actions, and the desire and endeavour to change. You can fail an unlimited number of times, but you need to be trying.

edited 4th Dec '16 4:39:09 PM by Galadriel

A moving Twitter thread from a comic book store worker, illustrating the potentially lifesaving power of proper media representation.

If the media we all consume spends enough time tacitly telling you that you can never be equal, normal, or happy, then it's inevitable that you'll start to believe it yourself. But if the media does the other thing...

Tuckerscreator just posted it at the top of the page.

Ha, so they did. Great minds. Never mind, then.

To piggback on the subject a bit, a lot of people go one further than decrying the importance of representation and seem to imply that a story itself doesn't have much importance. You see this all the time, attached to some tirade about how whatever issue you're talking about is irrelevant.

"It's just a movie."

"It's just a videogame."

"It's just a TV show."

"It's just a story".

Except that's bullshit. I won't lie and say I don't understand where that sentiment comes from, but it's still fundamentally misguided.

One story you don't care much about personally may not be too important...for you. It might mean the world to someone else. And odds are, you have other stories that are just important to you in your own life. It's true that to some people media isn't as important in their own lives, but implying that it isn't important in general just because of their own preferences is myopic.

I mean, the stories that I read and saw as a child and teenager have had a really big effect on me in several ways, even professionally. If it wasn't for manga, anime and videogames I might not have started drawing, which has since become a big part of my identity and even possibly a career.

So from that perspective, there's no way that wanting to see yourself as a hero, or even just as a person who matters in a story isn't valid.

Just caught the trailer for the The Mummy reboot. While I appreciate them giving the role of the titular character to an actress of actual North African descent, it still bugs me that in a movie that includes Egyptian mythology, we still need to have the villain be played a poc while the heroes are white Americans.