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.

There were gay people back in the late 1800s. And some if these people would have had friends who knew about it, like in Anne with an E.

In terms of Call the Midwife. The nuns were protestant. They weren't pro-abortion, they were pro-choice. They disagreed with it but thought that the choice should be the woman's. Throughout the series, and no doubt before, they have seen women die horrific deaths from backstreet abortions. As Sister Monica Joan said, even when it is illegal, desperation enables them to find a way. The nuns knew those mothers would get an abortion if they were adamant it was the best option. So they saw the benefits of letting a woman have a legal, safe abortion. That way, only the baby would die instead of the baby AND the mother.

I agree with you OP, in common with so many things it goes too far. Like with Dr Who, there was an episode where Peter capaldi punched a racist and I thought that was good, and it was an effective side story.

Then we get Jodie Whitaker with literal lectures on slavery etc (we are a black/Asian family) and it became farcical. And embarrassing for everyone involved.

I know we need to rebalance generations of inadequate representation of minorities, and I like that. But when it’s in your face it’s lazy and often toe curling and patronising. And alienates the ‘majorities’ too. There’s still a big place in tv ads etc for white/heterosexual families, and I’d like to see everyone. 🤷‍♀️

I can’t speak for OP, but my objection isn’t because disagree with the general sentiment- I agree with a lot of the politics behind these storylines.

I do dislike bad writing, or treating the audience like they’re incapable of dealing with any nuance. Sometimes nice people have outdated or prejudiced views, and sometimes awful people are right about a particular social or political issues. It’s not all Goodies V. Baddies, black and white.

And?

Agree with you so much OP. I was literally singing poor unfortunate souls last weekend when my companion informed me that the line “it’s she who holds her tongue who gets a man” was removed from the little mermaid. I am an ardent feminist but I love Ursula’s evil misogyny.

why patronise audience by removing this? Is to because they are too stupid to understand that it’s a mean lady being mean and not real life? Are they worried the assumption is that the director agrees with the sentiment? Ffs.

Even in the very early episodes (1950s) the nuns and midwives (not necessarily religious at all) had very tolerant views, they understood people had difficult lives. I remember brother and sister having got out of the workhouse living more as husband and wife, the desperation of women with too many children to feed and pregnant again, women forced/lured into prostitution. I find the series very real and the treatment of, usually illegal abortion very understanding. Religious people are not necessarily remote from reality and nuns working in the community see it all.

Couldn’t agree more with you FirstFallopians, it’s the complete lack of nuance that’s so hard to stomach together with the patronising attitudes.

This is nothing more than "political correctness gone mad".

I'm older than a lot of you and I can see that.

Woke is a good thing, Star Trek was woke. Boys from the black stuff was woke. Grange Hill was woke. Brook side was woke...

Maybe it's just flying over your head?

The sorts of programmes (and films and books) where the ‘good’ characters have anachronistically progressive views on race, women’s rights and so forth tend to be of the ‘cosy’ type. You know, an alternative world where life is simpler, people are clearly good eggs or villains, justice is done and English villages are infeasibly pretty.

In the past the same shows would probably just have avoided difficult subjects by not having e.g. female protagonists or black or gay characters. A works that is also artificial. Now they include them in a way that might overlook or simplify the reality of the times. Because being cosy programmes, the whole point is to offer a comforting respite from the difficult, complex, ambiguous real world.

There’s an article in the Guardian about Bridgerton this week which talks about this subject btw. I’m not sure I agree with the writer - I think there is a place for comforting escapism and enjoying it doesn’t mean people don’t understand that’s what it is - but it is worth reading.

Um... This is the reason we study literature 😬

You just don't like what you probably think of as 'woke'

Btw, nobody is 'pro abortion' as you state. We are pro women's choice.

This 💯

Stickybackplasticbear · Today 21:32
Flickersy · Today 19:54

You're allowed to watch whatever you like you know, you don't have to ask if you're being unreasonable.

I suspect this thread was started with its own agenda to get everyone complaining about "woke" though...
Exactly this.

Watch what you want but try harder next time to get the frothing going.

Also what you like sounds like it's for not very bright people tbh....

1. Cheeky! The frothing on here is most definitely coming from the wokey-wokey crowd. Also a good dose of ageism too (tbh......)

2. I know what OP means. I just switch off when I get a sniff of an agenda/box-ticking/lip-vice/virtue-signalling or whatever you want to call it, and that's a lot of the time. I pay my licence fee because I want the BBC to survive and for Radio 3 and occasional bits of R4.

3. Whatever political agenda is at issue here, there's no denying that TV has dumbed down immensely over the last 3 or 4 decades. Science docs like Horizon just don't happen any more - because the BBC thinks the audience couldn't cope with them as they used to be. Documentaries are now much more akin to kids' TV - with personalities/celebrities as presenters and instead of an intelligent, adult, literate voice-over and loads of interesting information packed into an hour, you get presenter after presenter re-capping and 'discovering' things which they already know but pretend not to...and sometimes having a little weep if it's sad...and history IS sad, for sure.

Your comment, Sticky, about Flickersy's preferences showing a lack of intelligence is honestly crazy. I used to watch whole operas, Shakespeare, Ibsen, Moliere plays, really detailed science docs, discussions, ballets....on BBC2 years ago, along with contemporary drama. Nowadays you have to go to BBC 4 and even that is very dumbed down nowadays.

I'm happy for art and entertainment to challenge, educate and push boundaries and, as an older woman in a rather parochial area, am always interested to learn more but it needs to be done well and not shoehorned into something fake and preachy. I think one of the worst I saw was a Silent Witness episode about refugees which was written with the subtlety of a mallet. It's a shame as, done badly, I suspect it is counter-productive and turns people off rather than broadening their view

I cringed at the last season of Unforgotten. What a complete dog's dinner it was. It had pretty much everything thrown in the mix, and the ending was a joke.

I agree with you OP. It can be argued whether this is a good or bad thing, but it’s definitely happening.

I've noticed that American shows have gone this way big style. Star Trek Discovery recently had a storyline about a non binary couple and the whole thing felt utterly forced. A PP mentioned Supergirl upthread and that one is definitely guilty of picking a "woke" theme of the week.

I think it's that for a lot of these shows, "identity" has become the main plot driver to the detriment of other themes. A detective solving a murder mystery can't just be a detective, they have to have some sort of unique identity that they will wrestle with. It's great that these ideas are being explored and more groups are being represented, but it is often done badly with the overall storyline suffering as a result.

For info
Trad Marxism is about the surplus value of the labour of the proletariat being exploited by the bourgeoisie who own the land and means of production that labour occurs on, for profit.
Neo Marxism extends this to the dominant ideology of the ruling class being as important as labour rather than just a way of avoiding revolution. So op means this is the dominant ideology of the media elite being transmitted I think?

I kind of get what you mean OP. There is a trend of some TV and film adding a bit of very superficial "wokeness" (I really hate that term) to stories otherwise considered a bit old fashioned, without really delving into why they need to be changed and if the change actually works. There was an interesting article in the Guardian recently about whether making certain traditionally white characters Black really worked, or if it actually made things worse by ignoring the real history of slavery etc.

Recently I watched Catherine called Birdy which was a lot of fun. There was one scene (spoilers) in which the main character finds out that her best friend is gay, and immediately hugs him, and is very accepting. Which is lovely and heartwarming - except that her character throughout is shown to be very naïve, mischievous, obsessed with finding out about sex and marriage etc. I felt that it would have made much more sense for her to be just very (and annoyingly) curious about gay sex etc, about men loving each other, and how that fits in with what she's read in the Bible. That's just my POV though. But I feel like it's more intellectually nourishing for viewers to have to work a little harder to connect with the characters, to get a better understanding of how things have changed and improved, than just get a virtual signalling amuse bouche served to them on a plate.

To be fair there are alot of stupid people out there

Oi!

I'm old and love modern documentaries and modern scholarship.

I'm all for decolonising education and academia (I'm one of the ones doing it). I also love reinterpretations of old stories and tropes- that's how they stay alive!

Some of you might as well have set yourselves in aspic circa 1998.

I enjoy art that seeks to expose and shock

Also, I am triggered by the live action remake of the Disney children's film, The Little Mermaid.

I wouldn’t use Bridgerton as an example of this in fairness.

It’s fabulous as a bit of escapism- looks amazing, none of the grim reality of life in early 19th century London. No one is watching Bridgerton and expecting Citizen Kane- it is what it is.

The class is diverse, but who cares? The writers at least attempt to use a similar style of language you’d hear in a Dickens or Austen. They acknowledge how hard it was for unmarried women, loss of reputation, how gay people couldn’t live freely, stigma around mental illness.

In fact I’d say they did a pretty decent job while still keeping to the general theme of whimsical, semi fantasy.

I sometimes play a mental bingo when I'm watching these sorts of programmes, often more fun than the prgrames, The OP will get little support on this topic, it's not the acceptable view don't you know!

Is dumbing down decolonisation?
Why do you / the BBC think wc or ethnic minority audiences can't cope with good quality programming hosted by actual experts?
Is strictly worth paying for? Or what passes for women's hour? I've moved to radio 5, much better but still a bit low brow.