To not be able to stand film and TV nowadays because it always has an agenda?

[mintlily]

I've noticed that I can only bear to watch TV shows and films produced until roughly 2008.

It feels like everything nowadays has some kind of moral or political agenda. The writers are either trying to show off how enlightened they are, or condition you to accept their certain neo-Marxist world view. Virtually ALL dramas have an LGBT, feminist or anti-racist agenda, delivered with 0 subtlety or nuance. And the way it is done is so patronising and disrespectful to historical writers and figures - as if we 21st century people are the moral arbiters of history, and must overlay our more enlightened worldview on their bigoted work, which was surely produced in ignorance. It's also patronising to the intelligence of viewers, as if we need everything censored for our innocent eyes and can't make our own moral judgements. There is something puritanical and unartistic about it, like the Victorians censoring art to not corrupt the masses.

For example:

The new Little Mermaid deleting the line "men don't like women who blabber" from Ursula's songs. Ursula is a villain. We can cope with her being sexist, for goodness sake - we know that we're supposed to think she's wrong. The writer didn't need to fret that children would internalise the worldview of the villain.

Anne of Green Gables and her gay best friend. Why? This is not the genre to deal with LGBT issues. The author had no interest in this subject (as far as I'm aware).

Call the Midwife and it's pro-abortion stance. As if CATHOLIC MIDWIVES IN THE 1970s would have been pro-abortion?!

It's nothing to do with your actual views on these subjects. I just find that TV and film lacks the nuance and intelligence that it used to and I actually can't bear to watch any of it anymore, as it just feels so soulless.

*Is it that

On a related but different note - I've not seen the latest version of Persuasion but similar issues about authenticity crop up.

Modern phrasing based on modern concepts hat would not exist in the context of the novel (exes).

Main character referring to listening to Beethoven in their room with a bottle of "red" before gramophones were in use.

If you're going to do that with it, turn it into a contemporary version. ... Like Clueless.

Why run with a period/historical context and then shit all over it in cringey ways.

*On a related but different note - I've not seen the latest version of Persuasion but similar issues about authenticity crop up ...... But have seen and read all the reviews, I should add. Which put me off watching it.

It was Persuasion for the Netflix/Insta generation. It was unadulterated shite but I don't really care as the ultimate Persuasion adaptation already exists. (Root and Hinds obv).

It's a travesty.

Pick your era and do it ... Is my view.

I've just thought through more why I find the "colour blind" casting so uncomfortable....it's like the reverse of casting Caucasian actors in non Caucasian roles ... That's mostly been stopped and seen, correctly, as wrong - so why are we doing the opposite with Caucasian characters (?)

I just don't think it works either way.

Huge fan of Ciaran Hinds but I'm not sure that he actually nailed the character.

She also came under flack for looking a bit grim (just get natural physionomy and expression) and I get that - Anne was supposed to be a "pretty girl" who became increasingly more so (after a period of stagnation that affected her looks ) around the time he came back into her life and as she came out of her shell and away from the influence of her family members & substitute Mum .... And she was still quite young (mid to late 20s). I don't think Root really represented that. She certainly had the depth and earnestness but ...

Huge fan of Ciaran Hinds but I'm not sure that he actually nailed the character.

Just to elaborate... He tends to have a lot of gravitas.
His character did become much more serious after the accident, but before it (and even after it) that character had a bit of light heartedness, humour, even cavalier-ness; and I don't think CH can portray traits like that well. All in all he was too serious. He also seemed too old for a 30/early 30s something youbg man who's still got a bit of youthfulness about him (see his behaviour towards the Musgrove sisters etc).

(or should I say youthful folly).

'21st century producers don't care about the moral issues', what are you on about? What a bizarre, unfounded, broad, generalised statement about hundreds of people you've never met

Calm down. We can discuss things without getting confrontational.

Aside from shows that whose main theme is race or feminism or lgbt issues, this is what I find: that cookie - cutter moral stances are usually injected into the plot or the script in a way that feels really insincere and almost childish in its simplistic view of right and wrong. The views are extremely predictable and copy-paste, and there is no artistry in the way they're presented.

I can totally see why this is. My friend is a script writer and he says the producers basically ask him to shoehorn certain themes in to make the commissioners happy. Hence why it's entirely contrived.

Please, this whole thread is confrontational. I don't see you complaining about @JaneyGees aggressive post.

And your scriptwriter friend is about as believable as the Jamaican 'batcher' from earlier on.

Who are these “activists” you keep mentioning? People campaigning for LGBTQ rights? Anti-racists? Environmentalists? The way you describe Dickens is as someone who is woke -
that is, aware of social injustices. You say he is counter cultural. How are woke people/activists not also counter cultural?

So 'calm down' is you bring nonconfrontational? And there was me thinking I was just taking part in a debate.

Is Ursula supposed to be progressive and modern? No, she's a sea witch trying to control a teenager for her own ends. That sort of phrase suits her very well.

I don't think Dickens was "woke" 😅 I just don't think he was the best at nuance when it came to characterisation

And your scriptwriter friend is about as believable as the Jamaican 'batcher' from earlier on.
Huh?
I genuinely do have a friend who is a scriptwriter haha. Scriptwriters exist. They have friends. Why is that unbelievable?

It's just a bit odd that you don't mention this friend and their experience earlier, seeing as it's quite a strong piece of evidence for your assertion that modern writing has an overt and deliberate agenda.

Well he does exist, I assure you😄. He's Welsh. Writes comedy.

You're right - I don't really mean activists literally, only in the sense that I don't think your average viewer would actually be bothered if the shows didn't tick these boxes. I'm not really sure why TV commissioners are so fixated on this or who they are trying to appease. Perhaps it's just the culture in media and the arts? Not sure

I didn't complain about that post because it wasn't attacking me directly

I didn't mention it earlier because I had forgotten we'd had that conversation - this thread jogged my memory

Charles Dickens actually managed to write a story, rather than simply lecturing you.

Thing is - international/independent creators always managed to convey their messages through original content. It is this forced diversity/inclusion in the casual mainstream content that annoys us normies. Because it does feel forced.

Being aware of social injustice is the definition of “woke.”

Highlighting social injustice is the job of the “social justice warrior.”

These terms have been made pejorative by the dominant culture. They are, by definition, counter cultural. Dickens was a big old, wokey, SJW.