When you look at a painting, do you look at it with through that lens?
For example, when you look at the Mona Lisa, do you think to yourself "this is a white woman who was privileged back then and could afford to have Da Vinci paint her", or do you look at the painting and judge whether you like it or not based on the style, technique, and artistry? If you do the former and not the latter, you have no business judging art.
And if you judge a painting for its style, technique, and artistry then...why do you not judge films likewise instead of through an identity politics lens that has nothing to do with the actual artistry (or lack there of) of the film?
Here we go again with the woke non-sense...we're going to kill art if we keep going in this overzealous direction that is more akin to authoritarian regimes than it is to open and free societies where an artist makes his/her art freely without impositions from external pressures.
I know the author means well, but Tarantino has said in no uncertain terms that it was wrong and he wished he would’ve done something about it, even though the true extent of Weinstein’s actions (rape vs. unwanted advances) were unknown. What else can he say or do regarding a past event? Should he have brought a whip and flagellated himself in front of Rogan? Also, you mention men should’ve done more, but what about the women who knew and did exactly what Tarantino did? Everybody is a hero in their own minds, but I’m sure the author would’ve done exactly what Tarantino and everybody else did: nothing.
Yeah, I don't see that at all either. Maybe on-set, behind the camera. But as far as in front of the camera goes, we're being completely ghosted even though we're by far the biggest minority demographically.
That's very true unfortunately. There seems to be only one minority really benefitting from Hollywood's newfound thirst for diversity, and while it's great that black people are getting more roles in films, series, commercials, and more jobs in news networks (to name a few), Hispanics are being completely ghosted. So, in essence, what we have is a new form of lack of diversity whereby only one minority group is being invited into the party and the rest are being sidelined. And it is especially egregious with the Hispanic community because, officially, Hispanics are about 18% of the population, which is by far the biggest minority (and if we take into account undocumented Hispanics, studies estimate that the number is closer to a quarter of the nation's population). And yet, we're barely visible in the mainstream media.
Evidently, the author of this piece didn’t want to give his brain cells a run for their money since he’s confusing cancel culture (an authoritarian fad that used to be domain of religious zealots and has now, inexplicably, migrated to the left) with healthy disagreements (which are a pillar of a free democratic society). Cancel culture doesn’t stop at simply agreeing to disagree with a comedian who says a joke they don’t like or a person spousing a political opinion they don’t agree with; if it was just that, it wouldn’t be cancel culture, it would a simple difference in taste and opinion. Cancel culture, however, doesn’t stop there. Cancel culture aims to destroy the reputation and livelihood of those they deem not pure (woke) enough. In other words, they don’t stop until they get rid of the comedian who said joke that offended them or the person who dared have a different political opinion than them. And that’s what fascists do, not liberals. How we went from Berkeley and the free-speech movement to Evergreen and safe zones and cancel culture, and accepting this new form of authoritarianism boggles me. The great comedian George Carlin (a true liberal) said it best: “political correctness is fascism with manners, it is intolerance disguised as tolerance”.