Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? And that there is some kind of obligation for those in charge to forgo their primary motivations of artistic expression and/or profit in the interest of some totally arbitrary target of "representation" of every combination of color, gender, and socioeconomic status?

Not to mention, this kind of thinly veiled political grandstanding in the context of film review is almost always cherry picking. There have been plenty of films examining poverty from numerous perspectives. The fact that they are not en vogue now does not speak of some kind of crisis-just like people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen, while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema.

Outrage is the kind of thing, in my opinion, that is trivial to find, if you look hard enough.

Your points on cherry picking not withstanding, this statement is incredibly short-sighted. Movies are just the latest incarnation of a long line of storytelling. And for centuries, artists have used their usually-comfortable working conditions to shine a light on those less fortunate. Go read some Émile Zola, Victor Hugo, Charles Dickens or John Steinbeck and tell me that their stories were written solely to entertain. Those great writers found ways to intermingle drama and social commentary. That should be every storyteller's goal. If stories don't help us learn to be better people, what's the point? If they just become escapism to rid ourselves of our unpleasant existence for a couple of hours, they only help perpetuate situations that need changing.

Movies are like food...if all you eat is junk, you'll end up fat and unhealthy. Vegetables can also taste good while keeping you healthy. Movie makers should be searching for the kinds of stories that are both entertaining and keep our society healthy. Instead we get the metaphorical equivalent of donuts...all powerful superheroes who teach us nothing about ourselves or the people we live with. You can say that all you want to see are enjoyable movies, but I don't think it's out of line for others to hold Hollywood to account for failing to live up to the storytelling legacy they've inherited.

Some people don't watch movies to get cultured the same way some people don't order healthy food at restaurants. If you're looking for proper culture (whatever that means) or a healthy meal then there's much better ways to go about it so why not just go all out.

"And perhaps if others saw more realistic portrayals of poverty in the movies, they might be more receptive to programs that would help them instead of demeaning and punishing them."

I would love an example where 'realistic portrayals' of a given subject in movies led to changes in public policy / public perception.

If anything, I would argue that popular films, just like other art forms, are more likely to serve as a barometer of society's perception/reception of a given subject than as something that ignites the change.

Take the war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's - I'm not sure you could make 'The Deer Hunter' in '68, or 'The Green Berets' in '78.

Or the war on drugs - movies like Trainspotting, Requiem for a Dream, or Traffic certainly showed a realistic side of drugs and addiction... and yet the war on drugs has only intensified since their popular releases.

I'm not sure if it's really fair to expect such movies, which are a tiny minority of all movies made, to have such a disproportionate impact on policy, especially considering that they're usually ignored or even actively despised by the media and the powers that be.

I don't know of specific examples in film, but some books have had such impact. The Jungle[1] and Silent Spring[2] come to mind.

Film is a relatively young media, and its full potential is unlikely to be realized for decades if not centuries. Give it some time. I'm optimistic that truly moving and motivating films will arrive.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_jungle#Federal_response

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_spring#Impact

It's almost as if the artist can only bring out something that already exists in the audience. Everyone sees it through their own personal lens.

If a movie existed that realistically portrayed poverty, that would only move the viewer to the extent that they can relate to the characters. One person might be motivated to reform the social safety net to provide better support. Another might reaffirm their personal preconception that poor people are brutish, unintelligent, useless, and irredeemable, and might just sign on to a new eugenics program to sterilize indigents and undesirables.

The art rekindles empathy that is already there. If it wasn't already present, it is a lot more difficult to make it grow there from other places in the psyche.

If you are not going to be entertained by a movie, don't watch it. If you don't like the authors opinion, move on and go read something else. Maybe I should move on from your opinion too :)

This miserable loveless screed in fact, your outrage at outrage, is a fantastic example of why we should be encouraging filmmakers, and artists in general to present us with a more challenging view of life.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not people so much as a person whose most recent book happens to be called "Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen".

I do try hard not to be cynical but this chap's profession is poverty and he has a new book out on cinematic depictions of poverty. It's a struggle not to just see this as tying in the Oscars for marketing purposes.

China may win in the end because of purely this issue.

Where did people get the idea that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment?

Film has always been art: the purpose of art is to provoke thought, hold up a mirror to society and, of course, entertainment (among others): the ratio of ingredients can change, but it's never been solely about entertainment.

These days, the studios are pumping out motion renderings of comics, as if some ML algorithm that decides on what to work on is in some sort of a feedback loop.

Where are this generation's "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? "Gone with the Wind"? "Apocalypse Now"? (not to imply that these 3 are the best movies out there, just some names off the top of my head, and I'm no cinephile, so let's not get into a movie-naming contest).

Films like this stood out as original or thought provoking when released, but now films that emulate those classics are everywhere. They have become commercialised to the point of formula. The courtroom drama movie, the period drama set against the backdrop of conflict, the war is hell story. There's one out every other week. It's because they've become so commonplace that they're no longer thought provoking.

I remember gummo, searching for the wrong-eyed jesus, american honey, chop shop, land of plenty and winter bones. I am pretty sure three of them will pass the test of time.

(I am not american nor living in america so I don't know the movie scene as well as the european one)

Ha! Me either! ;-)

Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining??

But, ok, let's go there. Where is my equal representation, as, say, a first generation Austrian Jewish immigrant with an anxiety disorder? Oh, and, I also demand that you portray my story in a positive light, as a powerful superhero, because apparently in this country positive role models can only come in the form of contrived, violent crime fighters.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, did you presume that, because I am white, my particular socioeconomic status and history have been satisfactorily represented? Should I be screaming about how unfair Hollywood has been to me and my heritage for simply not being inclusive of my particular successes and problems? Where does one draw the line?

Perhaps it is up to us to learn to find and identify parallels where they exist, and not demand that a superficially homogeneous majority accommodate to each minority. Not to mention the problem with presumed outrage not on other minorities' behalfs.

Don't you think it a bit dangerous to teach children that they can only find inspiration and parallels in cinema if the protagonist looks and speaks like they do? Shouldn't we be teaching the opposite, as I could swear I learned growing up in the 90s and 00s?

I think that's Peter Parker a.k.a Spiderman, the nebbish boy living in a multi-generational Brooklyn walk-up, with old-world grandparents.

If we're going to keep making super hero movies (which I couldn't care less about) it seems like we have to keep playing and defying the genres expectations: Spiderman, one of the first, transforms the intellectual into a man of action. Two years ago, Ryan Reynolds transformed the mask crime fighter (Deadpool) from an all-too-serious stoic into a sloppy knucklehead. And now Black Panther transforms the soulful and dirt poor African American into a royal aristocrat and scientist.

I largely agree with your final paragraph. But I think this cultural issue is going to play out like a pendulum where Hollywood is going to make ten more Black Panthers until everyone is completely sick of it, the eleventh movie tanks, and then nobody can make produce even a great Black Panther-esque movie for several years following it.

No one said anything about "equal representation". I think people have just gotten tired of the dull pastiche of chisel jawed Ryan Seacrest types that dominated American film and television for so long. There's some value in seeing stories that feature people that look like you or have similar backgrounds, but more importantly there's a lot of value in hearing stories about people who aren't like you. I think I personally get a lot out of art by and about people who are very unlike myself.

If you're looking for art and film that speaks to your background and identity, it exists. But you're right there could be better treatments of people like you. It's not like theres some artificial limit on the amount of art that can be produced, so I think there's room for everyone.

>Perhaps it is up to us to learn to find and identify parallels where they exist, and not demand that a superficially homogeneous majority accommodate to each minority. Not to mention the problem with presumed outrage not on other minorities' behalfs.

In the US we have a really incredible capacity to bring a lot of different types of people to the table, and let them define for themselves what their Americanness means. It seem to me that pusing for our art to reflect this positive aspect of our culture is a good thing.

>Don't you think it a bit dangerous to teach children that they can only find inspiration and parallels in cinema if the protagonist looks and speaks like they do?

I don't think anyone is saying children should only find inspiration in representations that look like them, that would be silly. However it is easier to imagine yourself in the place of someone who is at least superficially similar to yourself. So if that's what it take for some kid to realize they can do great things, then I'm all for it. I don't think broad representation takes anything away from anyone.

Brilliant! Except, erm, which one of the top 50 grossing films is telling somebody's story? And are we sure that affluent people are really going to the cinema much? Also, different people go to see different films (e.g. 50 Shades of Gray being the obvious example, or kids films). Certainly escapism/entertainment seems like a common motive with the recent super hero movies. But also, attendance drops when there's no film that people want to watch, so again it's not clear that people would go watch such films even if they existed and the favourable condition that there was no other blockbuster out there happened to occur. In other words, it doesn't seem to be zero sum game.

So maybe it's not the big bad affluent white "masses" fault, but it's a facile argument to throw out there.

But even if we accept that's true, the cost of film making has dropped dramatically. People could make whatever these grim, poignant but yet still entertaining films, put them on YouTube, and watch the views rack up if people truly wanted to watch them. And yet most stuff in YouTube is also pure entertainment. Strange...

What i also find frustrating is that people think it can't be entertaining. These are brilliant artists for crying out loud! They can weave stories while being faithful to reality too, and there are some pretty good examples out there.

The real problem is that entertainment creates a bubble for people. I get escapism but it is in our nature to want to be entertained forever if possible. I'm not trying to make an extreme example but we should at least consider how much time people spend watching TV.

And if that's shoving down people's throats.. Well frankly i don't feel terrible about it because eventually people might feel that it is not. We can argue whether it's better for society and such, though to me it is clear that it is.

I don't believe it. I googled for fun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films... only Titanic and Finding Dory qualifies :|.

We know this argument is incorrect to an extent because at least for the top-tier films their world-wide collections overshadow the US collections.

US itself is not as white as it used to be, and when you add world-wide audience its more mixed.

You could have made your point by not stereo-typing.

They're the ones that make most of the decisions, and are responsible for what the masses see. They're also the ones who give themselves awards and pat each other on the back at the Oscars:

"In 2012, the results of a study conducted by the Los Angeles Times were published describing the demographic breakdown of approximately 88% of AMPAS' voting membership. Of the 5,100+ active voters confirmed, 94% were Caucasian, 77% were male, and 54% were found to be over the age of 60."[1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars#Voters

Also, the masses are not "predominately affluent", so not sure why you'd choose to describe them like that. The "white" part is unnecessary as well but that's a whole different discussion.

How is simply making a movie about poverty shoving it down your throat?

It's not like anyone would force you to watch it.

You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people?

I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up.

The parent is not disagreeing imo, just that an artist feels their art/message is their primary responsibility and a financiers primary responsibility is making money. Just as someone else's responsibility might be showcasing poverty or delivering a political message. Most of these basis are covered as the "art" market is very large.

> You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people?

I don't understand this analogy with relation to the parent post.

> I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up.

I also believe this. I think it is important we question the status quo and convention to assess what has value. I agree with the parent comment that after these questions I came to a similar conclusion.

Cinema is entertainment but the side effect of making people think is undeniable.

A lot of people seem to want this, given the fact that dozens of political movies are released every year

Black panther proved for the first time that you could put $200m behind a movie with a predominantly black cast, market it to mainstream America and still make $1b in revenue. Marvel/Disney's primary motivation was still profit. There's no way they would've green-lighted(greenlit?) that movie if they thought they would lose money on it.

So it's not about representation just for representation's sake. But rather celebrating the fact that representation is no longer held back due to a lack of profit.

Each of these movies did great and reached a wide demographic. As did Black Panther. The only difference is that Black Panther's marketing propogated this ridiculous myth that it was the first black superhero movie. (Sorry, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, and Halle Berre... you're down the memory hole.) Or, even more absurd, that it is the first all-black cast that has done well at the box office.

Just shows how powerful marketing is.

More power to them... I've lived through several iterations of "'brand-new' microfiber technology that make cleaning up spills a snap!" I suppose I can live through endless repetitions of "the very first movie with a real-live black person in it!" Whatever....

There were lots of things that people praised Black Panther for, but the one you point to wasn't what any significant subset were praising it for, in fact...

> while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema.

Breaking out of the black cinema stereotype that films featuring predominantly black casts are a niche good for black audiences while films featuring predominantly white casts are mainstream products for everyone is, for instance, one of the major things Black Panther has been celebrated for.

You are leaving no room for debate with that loaded question.

I hope whatever country you are seeking asylum lets you in and you can escape the horrible dictatorship you are living in that prevents its citizens from watching entertaining movies and shove things you don't want down your throat. /s

You seem to be doing that thing where you read someone's firm recommendations and assume that the author wants their recommendation to apply to everyone. I highly doubt the author expects people who don't care to see a movie about poverty to go and see a movie about poverty.

There's a similar discussion in the video game community where lots of people are upset at attempts to bring "politics" into games. The reality though is that most critics are just firmly critiquing games and not writing mandates about how all games must be. Art has always struck a balance between being a political and philosophical medium and a capitalist one, and often when people criticize a medium they're criticizing the political and philosophical part. It's totally fine for them to do so, because they feel that their criticism can help "improve" the medium even if you disagree. And likewise you disagreeing with the author is fine as well.

The problem comes about when people like yourself take personal offense to the efforts of others to improve a medium. You read this article and you read 'outrage', but film criticism such as this is a common part of critiquing any medium. Someone could write a similar article about a technique in film, but because its context isn't political people wouldn't read 'outrage' into it.

Similarly in games people view calls to dial back the sexualization of women as a "political" stance and attribute it to "outrage culture". They feel that they just play games for fun, and since the audience is mostly male the developers should focus on their audience instead of pandering to politics. But just like any artistic medium it's totally fair to criticize games for an intellectual failing that cheapens a lot of the medium's artistic merits.

People really just need to learn to read the criticisms of others without falling into the mindset "This is a capitalist medium, this isn't a capitalist critique therefor it's a political one and I'm upset by that." NO, art is political and capitalist at the same time, it's totally fine to criticize it from either perspective.

> The fact that they are not en vogue now does not speak of some kind of crisis-just like people clamoured over Black Panther as the first positive representation of blacks on screen, while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema.

I felt compelled to point out here that the major reason people are excited about Black Panther is because the representation of black people in the world of super heroes has been poor. Kids are super into super heroes, and this gives a lot of young kids a character they can see themselves in. I don't think kids are ignoring black cinema, but kids are just more into super hero movies than other movies.

there is more that enough about the poor hitting Americans every day through the news, television shows on both broadcast and streaming, to even billboards and telemarketers.

the truth is too many assume the government is helping when the government usually is causing more issues or confusing the issues. worse in some cases actions taken because of a feel good politician negatively impact the local people who then in turn tune it out because it annoys or disgusts them so instead of working to see it fixed they blame the poor and homeless. (see the streets of LA and SF)

- Florida project

- 3 billboards outside Ebbing Missouri

- La La Land (to a degree)

- Manchester by the Sea

- Straight Outta Compton

- Creed

2015 and more recent, set in the USA, nominated for awards at Oscars, protagonist is poor

Take The Same Kind of Different As Me, a movie that presents itself as being about a homeless black man, but is most interested in a rich white couple and the way their volunteerism at a soup kitchen saves their marriage, and their souls.

The protagonist being a caricature of a poor person doesn't make the film an insightful or interesting examination of poverty. Or even about poverty. That takes much more. It's more or a challenge, more of a risk, and when done well (see Florida Project) a much greater potential reward.

It seems poverty actually had a pretty solid representation at the Oscars this year.

Of course the crap coming out of Hollywood does say something about reality, that there is no hope left other than wish fulfilment, to hope that a saviour will come and save us all in the form of a superhero; or that the only hope for yourself is to get rich or for fortune to be bestowed upon you; or something else utterly implausible. But I've heard that story a million times, it's dull.

There's a reason the mainstream entertainment doesn't make non fantasy films - it's because they are a for profit business and there's no money in it.

The recent Churchill film, which was very loosely based on reality and flat out wrong in many areas was all about triumph over adversity etc. There's a good argument to made about fantasy films supposedly depicting actual historical events and people distorting mass reality. That's where my beef is with hollywood...

All about rear ends on seats, whatever it takes to keep the punters buying tickets, popcorn and drinks (the latter two being immensely profitable...)

It's entirely about the fucking awful mess caused by the Conservative government introducing Universal Credit and a punitive benefits regime.

Being fully tech proficient won't prevent a Universal Credit claimant from being sanctioned.

Daniel Blake has heart problems and is advised by his doctor not to work. But he fails his independent medical.

Here's a real life example: A man with heart problems was told not to work. He has the medical. He has a heart attack during the medical, and the independent assessor has to call an ambo.

To you or me this is proof he's not faking and he really is ill.

To the government he didn't complete the medical, which is a sanctionable failing.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm13...

> Again, I support the principle of a sanctions regime. If somebody consistently fails to turn up for work experience or a Work programme scheme, sanctions should be applied. However, I believe that sanctions are being applied indiscriminately. For example, one of my constituents was a beneficiary of employment and support allowance after they had retired on grounds of ill health as a result of a heart problem. He was required to attend a work capability assessment with Atos. During

> 19 Mar 2013 : Column 840

> the assessment, he was told that he was having a heart attack and the nurse said that she had to stop the assessment. He got a letter a couple of weeks later saying that he had withdrawn from the assessment and, as such, was being sanctioned. That beggars belief. I have other examples, as I am sure do colleagues.

The movie does such a good job portraying how change is inevitable. From an American pov, I've always admired how the UK has stuff like Gov.uk, a real at-the-forefront use of technology to make government more transparent and efficient, not to mention cool. It has always seemed functional and user-oriented. And, it's lightyears ahead of anything we have in the US to centralize or standardize basic stuff like paper forms.

But then in the movie, you see a guy that you probably know try to run a mouse up a computer screen to complete an unemployment form, by physically placing the mouse on the screen. And then get frustrated when he's not allowed help, but then asks 3 different young people walking by to help him navigate the form, before the form times out and he loses all his data.

Like, even if the developers and designers of the website tried with all their effort to make their page accessible and even more user friendly, what can be done? The enemy isn't the government for trying to modernize, and it's not poor people who may or may not have gotten stuck in time for whatever reason. The enemy is just change, where you don't realize these stories exist. So to bring it back to the OP - there is a real value in seeing and hearing these stories.

I don't think we should caste problems into a grey zone that nobody is responsible for (change). I think we should approach problems from different angles until we find a solution.

That said, people don't go to the movies to be lectured about poverty. They go for an escape. Poverty is sad, so there isn't a huge appetite for movies "about poverty".

I think the author is fundamentally wrong about this claim, just like he's wrong about the number of recent movies dealing with poverty.

I haven't paid the $35 to read his prior work that he's citing, but nothing in the abstract suggests that it's a comprehensive list of films about poverty. It's simply an analysis of 300 films on the topic he considers particularly important. And, honestly, it fails the laugh test. Of tens of thousands of American films, many made during the Great Depression, many made in the 70s and 80s, a total of 300 deal with poverty?

Either 'all' is simply untrue in that claim, or 'significantly concerned' is so narrow that 8 Mile wouldn't count because "it's about rap, not poverty".

I even agree with the author that conceptually government assistance & social services is important; it just isn't going to make for an exciting core piece of entertainment. While the author nitpicks that no movie goes far enough I would look at it like making progress. The analogy for me is giving a child vegetables. You don't try and force feed raw vegetables to a child as the primary meal because nutrients are important. Instead, you cook it into a balanced (and hopefully better tasting) meal so it can be easily digested.

Yes this analogy has flaws; but I am contrasting the author's craving for essentially a social services documentary with actual reality & entertainment.

It's clear he is unhappy with something about portrayal of poverty in film, but he starts off complaining that there is not enough of such portrayal, making what seems to be a quantitative complaint, but then spins out of control with contradictory criticisms of qualitative features of the portrayal. This is most stark in his complaints about I am Another You where he initially blames it for being too focused on explanation rather than description and then blames it for failing to dig deep enough to explain why mental illness leads more easily to homelessness in the US compared to the rest of the West.

> If policymakers in DC (and in cities and state capitals around the country) had the Raineys in mind when making poverty policy, rather than the stubborn, racist myth of the “welfare queen”, they might produce smarter proposals that are more attuned to what poor Americans actually want and need.

Policy makers don't generally base policy on what they see in movies, and don't generally have the racist myth of the “welfare queen” in mind when making policy that effects the poor, they instead have a very clear picture of the expressed interests of the people they are interested in serving (who are often chosen, much as the story goes with the choice to rob banks, “becsuse that's where the money is”), which very often don't include the poor regardless of their lifestyle.

The “welfare queen” is an image policy makers (and policy entrepreneurs) invented to sell the policy, not a real concern at which it is directed.

It's a tough sell in some ways - "girl loses dog, girl finds dog, the end" - but oh-so-worth-it.

[1] https://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/

By and large now it’s a topic that sees much more treatment in TV than in movies.

“Boyhood” comes to mind.

Better watch out, that kid from a broken home might break the rules once, but cool white-savior mom is all he needs (she also managed to free the gardener from wage slavery by giving him a nice pep talk). These are totally real things that happen without any long-term psychological damage worth mentioning.

I was personally more struck by how the boys socioeconomic status forced upon him this unpredictable, drifting lifestyle, without opportunity for putting down roots and develop deep relationships. At the end where he doesn't have a home to go back to. I think that this is viewed predominantly as "kind of normal" in the USA and it's really sad. I don't think it's healthy. No man is an island we need roots and community to make us whole.

It's interesting that you should pick on the "poor white saviour mom" when it's clear she is the only strong character in the film besides the boy. She is the only person looking out for his interests, and that too is sad.

No, I did not read the article. Sometimes, the title hits me the wrong way and I have to make my point.