TV/Movies Megathread

[celedhring]

I was asking myself the "is this show racist?" question regarding Man in the High Castle and the whole "yellow peril" themes. But I can excuse it because of the subversion that represents putting white Americans in the position of being the dominated race. Then again, I'm not Asian, has this show been controversial on that regard?

Regarding Homeland, the show always tries to put sympathetic muslim characters (who are often fucked with by the "good guys") so to me it definitely tries to create a non-manichean narrative. It's certainly not very flattering to the CIA. In a way it reminds me a lot of Le Carré's books (quality of the writing nothwithstanding) and how the Cold War spionage game ended up morally destroying those who took part in it, no matter which side they were on.

I am not targeting this specifically at you, but rather you reminded me of this: I do wonder how often the accusation/cryout of racism reflects more the suppressed views of the accuser than anything else.

Your comment reminded me of this because it never even occurred to me that the show was racist against Asians. I even found their portrayal of the Japanese society more nuanced than the Nazi one.

Oh, the Nazis get a far worse portrayal. But the most prominent nazi character in the show is American-born, and the show definitely shows that Americans are part of the nazi ruling elite in America. In the Pacific States Americans are an underclass.

Besides Minister Tagomi there's a distinct lack of sympathetic Japanese characters in the show, and the opression is quite brutal. I was quite shocked to see how i.e. they went [spoiler]and gassed Frank's jewish family[/spoiler]. Again, there's a certain strength in the concept of putting Americans at the bottom of the social pyramid, and you need a brutal opressor for the concept to work.

I have to stress that I have only watched season 1 of the show.

[Grey Fox]

You should watch season 2.

[Berkut]

Why is it *necessarily* racist or bigoted for some particular story to portrat some identity group as being bad *in that story*?

If I had a story where most of the Muslims were bad people....why is that necessarily bigoted against Muslims? Is it not possible that there could be a story where the characters in it that have some trait X (Muslim) also all have some trait Y (terrorists)? Especially if the entire plot of the story was about Muslim terrorists???

Does Schindlers List need to make sure that for every Bad Nazi there is a Good German, even if the entire story is about shitty Nazis?

This entire discussion is the essence of what is wrong with the identity Left today. This is what has freshman at Yale demanding that their professors be fired for challenging their beliefs. That need to find outrage and offense in everything, whether it is there or not.

Homeland is a show about Islamic terrorism. Oh, the huge manatee that most of the terrorists are Muslims. What a fucking travesty of justice, wherever did they get such a crazy idea?

[Barrister]

Why is it *necessarily* racist or bigoted for some particular story to portrat some identity group as being bad *in that story*?

Because no particular story exists in a vacuum.

We live in a world where racism, sexism, and many other -isms exist.  If you make a story where the only black characters are violent gang members, that can be seen as feeding into existing anti-black racism.  Even though in fact there are blacks who are violent gang members in the real world.

Now I haven't seen Homeland, or Man in the High Castle.  I don't think having a show with muslim terrorist antagonists should not be made.  But I would think the sensible thing to do would be to show some nuance in the portrayal of muslims in such a show.

[Berkut]

Why is it *necessarily* racist or bigoted for some particular story to portrat some identity group as being bad *in that story*?

Because no particular story exists in a vacuum.

So that means it is NECESSARILY racist if it portrays some group as being bad in that particular story?


Schindler's List is NECESSARILY racist because it shows that Germans are terrible people who murdered Jews?

We live in a world where racism, sexism, and many other -isms exist.  If you make a story where the only black characters are violent gang members, that can be seen as feeding into existing anti-black racism. 

It can be, if the person wants to see it that way.


So Pulp Fiction, for example, is NECESSARILY racist because the only primary black character is a violent gang member?

Even though in fact there are blacks who are violent gang members in the real world.

Now I haven't seen Homeland, or Man in the High Castle.  I don't think having a show with muslim terrorist antagonists should not be made.  But I would think the sensible thing to do would be to show some nuance in the portrayal of muslims in such a show.

It won't matter to those who want to find outrage, nuance is lost on them.

Sometimes a story is just a story. There are stories that set out to be bigotted of course, but that is a very different bar to cross. Homeland is arguably problematic in how it portrays Muslims, but there is no rational argument to be made that it is racist.

And the argument that a show like that should not be made because it is anti-Muslim is weak, at best, given that we do in fact spend incredible resources combating islamic terrorism. In the real world that is rather nuanced, but the basic fact is not.

And the show, at least the first few seasons of it, I think had plenty of nuance - at least as much as actually exists in the real world.

[celedhring]

Regarding Homeland, the show always tries to put sympathetic muslim characters (who are often fucked with by the "good guys") so to me it definitely tries to create a non-manichean narrative. It's certainly not very flattering to the CIA. In a way it reminds me a lot of Le Carré's books (quality of the writing nothwithstanding) and how the Cold War spionage game ended up morally destroying those who took part in it, no matter which side they were on.

See, I think that's the issue. They are either evil crazy plotters or sympathetic characters who are dupes of the CIA (presenting them as then childlike incompetents).  Closest truly positive might have been the Muslim CIA agent but I believe she gets killed off, can't really recall.

I was certainly thinking of her. She's very competent, but she's unfairly treated because of her religion.

There's also the judge in season 6 whose agenda to rebuild the rule of law in Iraq is impeded by the deals CIA has with corrupt individuals.

The arab hacker whistle-blower, also very competent, and a nuisance to Germans and Americans.

Etc...

Yes, there's a theme where good-natured muslims get hosed by the CIA/Germans/etc...., but that's part of the commentary of the show, imho. The "friendly fire" in the battle against terrorism, the fact the west puts the interests of muslim allies below their own...

[crazy canuck]

There's probably an argument to made against Homeland but this isn't it.
Issa's name isn't pronounced correctly?  NOOOOO!
Muslims are shown *egad* burying a Koran (BTW a common method of disposing of a old Koran - Jews do the same thing with Torah scrolls)? 
A guy who wears a business suit is a bad guy?  Should they make all bad guys wear traditional garb - what's the point there?
A Hezbollah terrorist beats his wife?  Gee so sorry we are stereotyping Hezbollah guys.  I'm sure most of them are really sweet to their wives when not blowing up buses and Marines.
The fictional version of al-Qaeda that is not actually al-Qaeda has different alliances then the real al-Qaeda.  OUTRAGEOUS!

If there was not a generalized anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and this particular administration your sarcasm would make more sense.

Psst. Homeland pre-dates this administration.

Psst, we are having the discussion today because, you know, people are still watching it and the comments are more valid now then they were then.

[crazy canuck]

Why is it *necessarily* racist or bigoted for some particular story to portrat some identity group as being bad *in that story*?

Because no particular story exists in a vacuum.

So that means it is NECESSARILY racist if it portrays some group as being bad in that particular story?


Schindler's List is NECESSARILY racist because it shows that Germans are terrible people who murdered Jews?

We live in a world where racism, sexism, and many other -isms exist.  If you make a story where the only black characters are violent gang members, that can be seen as feeding into existing anti-black racism. 

It can be, if the person wants to see it that way.


So Pulp Fiction, for example, is NECESSARILY racist because the only primary black character is a violent gang member?

Even though in fact there are blacks who are violent gang members in the real world.

Now I haven't seen Homeland, or Man in the High Castle.  I don't think having a show with muslim terrorist antagonists should not be made.  But I would think the sensible thing to do would be to show some nuance in the portrayal of muslims in such a show.

It won't matter to those who want to find outrage, nuance is lost on them.

Sometimes a story is just a story. There are stories that set out to be bigotted of course, but that is a very different bar to cross. Homeland is arguably problematic in how it portrays Muslims, but there is no rational argument to be made that it is racist.

And the argument that a show like that should not be made because it is anti-Muslim is weak, at best, given that we do in fact spend incredible resources combating islamic terrorism. In the real world that is rather nuanced, but the basic fact is not.

And the show, at least the first few seasons of it, I think had plenty of nuance - at least as much as actually exists in the real world.

Who are you arguing with.  Go back and read what Garbon wrote.  I think you misunderstand him.

[Berkut]

There's probably an argument to made against Homeland but this isn't it.
Issa's name isn't pronounced correctly?  NOOOOO!
Muslims are shown *egad* burying a Koran (BTW a common method of disposing of a old Koran - Jews do the same thing with Torah scrolls)? 
A guy who wears a business suit is a bad guy?  Should they make all bad guys wear traditional garb - what's the point there?
A Hezbollah terrorist beats his wife?  Gee so sorry we are stereotyping Hezbollah guys.  I'm sure most of them are really sweet to their wives when not blowing up buses and Marines.
The fictional version of al-Qaeda that is not actually al-Qaeda has different alliances then the real al-Qaeda.  OUTRAGEOUS!

If there was not a generalized anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and this particular administration your sarcasm would make more sense.

Psst. Homeland pre-dates this administration.

Psst, we are having the discussion today because, you know, people are still watching it and the comments are more valid now then they were then.

So the people who made Homeland should have known that the future had Trump in it, and adjusting their show accordingly.

The discussion is whether or not Homeland is TEH RACIST! You can't say it was NOT racist when it was made, but magically became racist later because Trump.

[Berkut]

Regarding Homeland, the show always tries to put sympathetic muslim characters (who are often fucked with by the "good guys") so to me it definitely tries to create a non-manichean narrative. It's certainly not very flattering to the CIA. In a way it reminds me a lot of Le Carré's books (quality of the writing nothwithstanding) and how the Cold War spionage game ended up morally destroying those who took part in it, no matter which side they were on.

See, I think that's the issue. They are either evil crazy plotters or sympathetic characters who are dupes of the CIA (presenting them as then childlike incompetents).  Closest truly positive might have been the Muslim CIA agent but I believe she gets killed off, can't really recall.

I was certainly thinking of her. She's very competent, but she's unfairly treated because of her religion.

There's also the judge in season 6 whose agenda to rebuild the rule of law in Iraq is impeded by the deals CIA has with corrupt individuals.

The arab hacker whistle-blower, also very competent, and a nuisance to Germans and Americans.

Etc...

Yes, there's a theme where good-natured muslims get hosed by the CIA/Germans/etc...., but that's part of the commentary of the show, imho. The "friendly fire" in the battle against terrorism, the fact the west puts the interests of muslim allies below their own.

Exactly my point - nuance is ignored when outrage is demanded.

[The Brain]

Why is it *necessarily* racist or bigoted for some particular story to portrat some identity group as being bad *in that story*?

Because no particular story exists in a vacuum.

So that means it is NECESSARILY racist if it portrays some group as being bad in that particular story?


Schindler's List is NECESSARILY racist because it shows that Germans are terrible people who murdered Jews?

We live in a world where racism, sexism, and many other -isms exist.  If you make a story where the only black characters are violent gang members, that can be seen as feeding into existing anti-black racism. 

It can be, if the person wants to see it that way.


So Pulp Fiction, for example, is NECESSARILY racist because the only primary black character is a violent gang member?

Even though in fact there are blacks who are violent gang members in the real world.

Now I haven't seen Homeland, or Man in the High Castle.  I don't think having a show with muslim terrorist antagonists should not be made.  But I would think the sensible thing to do would be to show some nuance in the portrayal of muslims in such a show.

It won't matter to those who want to find outrage, nuance is lost on them.

Sometimes a story is just a story. There are stories that set out to be bigotted of course, but that is a very different bar to cross. Homeland is arguably problematic in how it portrays Muslims, but there is no rational argument to be made that it is racist.

And the argument that a show like that should not be made because it is anti-Muslim is weak, at best, given that we do in fact spend incredible resources combating islamic terrorism. In the real world that is rather nuanced, but the basic fact is not.

And the show, at least the first few seasons of it, I think had plenty of nuance - at least as much as actually exists in the real world.

Who are you arguing with.  Go back and read what Garbon wrote.  I think you misunderstand him.

On my screen the BB quotes show up.

[Duque de Bragança]

Since remaking a series is inherently cultural appropriation i.e cultural genocide, Homeland is indeed racist. 

[Habbaku]

Since remaking a series is inherently cultural appropriation i.e cultural genocide, Homeland is indeed racist. 

Anti-Semitic, even!

[garbon]

I was certainly thinking of her. She's very competent, but she's unfairly treated because of her religion.

She is probably the best treated one agree.

There's also the judge in season 6 whose agenda to rebuild the rule of law in Iraq is impeded by the deals CIA has with corrupt individuals.

Don't know, just watching 6.

The arab hacker whistle-blower, also very competent, and a nuisance to Germans and Americans.

Really? He struck me as someone who didn't really quite understand the waters he got himself into.

Anyway perhaps there is something to be said that they've gotten better with their portrayals over time as Numan and the judge are in later seasons. The article I referenced was I think at the start of season 4?

Yes, there's a theme where good-natured muslims get hosed by the CIA/Germans/etc...., but that's part of the commentary of the show, imho. The "friendly fire" in the battle against terrorism, the fact the west puts the interests of muslim allies below their own...

At the same time, shows don't exist in a vacuum - so it can't really just be down to the intentions of the authors but also needs to be read in the context of the society in which a work was created and what impact such a work might have. I don't know as I've never met anyone claiming Homeland is racist, but I wouldn't think they are suggesting the creators are intentionally making a racist work...unless of course they are the crazy left that Berk is positing.

Btw, if it wasn't clear, I do actually enjoy the show.

[garbon]

I was asking myself the "is this show racist?" question regarding Man in the High Castle and the whole "yellow peril" themes. But I can excuse it because of the subversion that represents putting white Americans in the position of being the dominated race. Then again, I'm not Asian, has this show been controversial on that regard?

Regarding Homeland, the show always tries to put sympathetic muslim characters (who are often fucked with by the "good guys") so to me it definitely tries to create a non-manichean narrative. It's certainly not very flattering to the CIA. In a way it reminds me a lot of Le Carré's books (quality of the writing nothwithstanding) and how the Cold War spionage game ended up morally destroying those who took part in it, no matter which side they were on.

I am not targeting this specifically at you, but rather you reminded me of this: I do wonder how often the accusation/cryout of racism reflects more the suppressed views of the accuser than anything else.

Your comment reminded me of this because it never even occurred to me that the show was racist against Asians. I even found their portrayal of the Japanese society more nuanced than the Nazi one.

If anything doesn't that highlight how people (yourself as one example) don't actually think about how portrayals might appear to other minorities? Why would it say anything about a suppressed view of a minority group if they think it is another negative portrayal of their group?