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 has never been art for arts sake. Ever. There has always been "an agenda". And that has often been "political". Ever watched any old black and white films - everyone is straight and the war (pretty much any way) was a heroic and good thing where we were on the side of the angels. Music was often created for the rich to demonstrate ther worth. Paintings often the same.

I'm sure people of every generation think this. You're just getting old.
Being "old" doesn't mean stupid or out of touch. But in all my 60+ years I have learned something valuable. There is an off switch.

I don't really get why you think they are shoe-horning in or virtue-signalling rather than just reflecting life as they see it. It seems like it's you who is imposing an agenda in which certain topics are for specialist programmes only. What is an example of a show that does not make you feel uncomfortable in this way?

Steer clear of Grey's Anatomy...the lecturing in that recently made me think I might have to send them tuition fees.

Did anybody watch Harlots? That was bloody brilliant

And the recent Civilisation docs? Awesome

Stories always have some kind of political context.

Stories that don't address areas of social concern tend to be broadly supportive of the status quo. Stories that do tend to be broadly oppositional.

Well, durr.

I understand what you mean and totally agree with you.

Nailed it.

Also nailed it. But people like OP don't notice agendas they agree with.

@FirstFallopians - I have to hold my hands up and admit I haven’t actually seen Bridgerton so perhaps it doesn’t gel with the rest of what I was saying, but I thought the theme of the article I read about it (which someone else has now posted a link to) was interesting. In my post I was thinking more of the op’s comments about Call the Midwife and similar programmes. The characters may be unbelievably modern in their outlook, but actually the whole set-up is a more straightforward and downright nicer version of the world, and the past in particular. Those programmes have always been like that, but now they are adding diversity into their better-than-reality worlds. Which beats the alternative in my view.

I tend to think the op is overlooking the fact that a huge amount of popular culture has always dumbed down and misrepresented what it shows; the western example given upthread is a perfect illustration. And just as there was always more nuanced and ambiguous art, there still is.

Funny you say "token", and you are right but it's actually something to see someone like yourself represented on the screen. I saw the US version of teletubbies the other day and so many different people were represented, even the baby sun was a different ethnicity for each episode. It seemed odd at first. Then I realised how sad that I found it odd that everyone on the show wasn't white. That did make me stop and think a little bit. You say token, but actually it's representative of society. Interesting also that you think it's a bad thing. I'm sure if you had a child with curly red hair, or glasses or in a wheelchair you'd be quite delighted in the US version of teletubbies.

Yes it's piss annoying, particularly for drama set in the past. Contemporary stuff, I get that.

Why?

If you want historical accuracy go and read a text book.

I watched an ITV drama recently set in Ireland. From watching it, you’d have thought straight, white, able bodied Irish people were the minority in Ireland if you didn’t know better. It didn’t reflect my experience of Ireland and its demographic makeup at all. Great that they’re branching out a bit and acknowledging that not everyone in Ireland is in fact straight, white, able bodied and Irish but equally, it’s not a crime or something to be ashamed of the fact that, for the most part, it is exactly that. It all seemed a bit patronising and not very realistic. ITV especially seems to love a bit of virtue signalling.
(It was also a really crap series but that’s by the by)

I used to know that book by heart when I was about 12. It does actually address some of these issues, for example, Ann's being a girl so unable to help out on the farm; her needing the scholarship to teaching college to earn a living (a man giving up his place for her); the difficulties and relationships with wealthier families when she starts teaching.

Hardly a revolutionary call to arms though, I'll admit!

:)

First the Nuns in Call the Midwife are Church of England not Roman Catholic. Second there was a whole episode devoted to why the midwives (not Nuns) supported legal abortion (and contraceptives).

Next there has always been a political subtext to literature and films. Take "To Kill a Mockingbird", I'm pretty sure that there were people saying how the book and film were pushing a political agenda. Its a social commentary on racism on an institutional and personal level. There's also a subtext on drug abuse.

Charles Dickins also had a political statement to make in his books, he was very much writing about the poverty in Victorian England, about the horrors of the workhouse etc.

Jane Austen was a social commentary of the Georgian Era and her books were very much pointing out the behaviour that was expected of Men and Women and then creating characters that broke those boundaries.

Shakespeare very much re-wrote history to favour the Tudors turning Richard in to a village. Then there's taming of the shrew...

Disney has always been sickly sweet and moralistic (those morals have just changed with the times)

Yeah, you're not wrong, OP.

There's a crucial difference between a work of fiction exploring a social or political issue with nuance and complexity from a position of deep understanding of human nature and history - which was common in the 20th century, even (or especially) among writers of so-called popular and genre fiction - and the shallow, crude, leaden hectoring we get now.

It's what happens when so-called creatives use a story to push an issue rather than using an issue to craft a story. The story is the important thing. They've forgotten that, or never knew it in the first place.

@DataNotLore - No!

The past is complex. Writing of the past has its own value. I don't want, say, I Claudius to be updated to contemporary mores. The point was that the Romans were bastards and the time.

The best writers of any age say something eternal about the human condition. A lot of television now attempts to paint the past as a kinder place without that. You cannot suspend your disbelief on this stuff - because you can see too clearly the intent. Good writing is much better than that.

Maybe it's because I don't have an English literature degree and classics always on the go, but I'm not sure what having a gay friend or being pro-abortion has to do with Marxism?

You clearly haven't seen New Amsterdam!

I don't watch tv and haven't done for years, it bores me stupid, same with the radio, just annoying.

Hamilton must have given you the vapours, OP.

@MrsMikeDrop

Yes, agreed.

I don't think it is all bad, but I know what you mean. I feel like that about a lot of modern children's books. Loads of them have an obvious and very unsubtle agenda, often written in terrible poetry and with a boring story. But there are good ones too of course. Thankfully it only takes 5 mins to read a rubbish board book so not much time wasted!

Elvis advocated when things are to political to say then sing,

All entertainment has a moral viewpoint, even when you think it does not. If you look back at what we watched in the 80s, 90s, early 00s, it was progressive for its time. We just thought it was the way things should be, so it seemed normal to us! Now we're older and the younger set is controlling the entertainment and are presenting the way THEY think things should be. We are just as brainwashed as they are, just by different soap.

Going deeper, I think the root problem that you are seeing with modern shows is that the antagonist's arguments are weak. A good work of narrative entertainment should give both the "pro" and the "con" side a fair hearing. Today's shows only allow the side of their own personal worldview to be strong. The con argument (characters, decisions, etc) is weak, obviously wrong, sometimes so stupid or flawed as to be laughable. That makes for bad, obvious art.