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.

their prevalence in our society.

Isn't 'prevalence' a term often used about bad things, like diseases?

the degree to which something is prevalent or widespread, especially a disease, disorder, or pathogen (Dictionary.com)

Also 'their' prevalence in 'our' society???

I only recently found out that the Chronicles of Narnia was a Christian book designed to capture young people into the faith. It had strong moral messages throughout and we were supposed to recognise Aslan as Christ and the Snow Queen as Satan.

Honest to god that did not make it into my nine year old brain but I guess the message of good versus evil did. So I think there’s been a subliminal message running through media for a long, long time. It’s just now we’re treated like absolute imbeciles and they have to whack us around the head with the message instead of tickle us gently with it.

That's why I didn't like my kids reading CS Lewis. He had some very weird ideas about sexuality and 'sin'.

I want to know what the OP made of Succession and The White Lotus.

It's quite funny that the OP bemoans a lack of nuance in new TV and film writing but cannot/will not supply any specific examples and asserts that everything since 2008 is the same.

And there is an ‘agenda’ behind everything produced in the name of art and culture. The suggestion that the notion of art for art’s sake was not an agenda or an assumed position just like any other is laughable.

This. OP is deluded if they think there hasn't been agendas in art since the beginning of time.

But to a person in, say, the sixteenth century, a person in a play of that century would have talked like a ’modern person’.

I agree with you @mintlily . Yes, great art has always pushed political boundaries, look at the Golden Age of Hollywood and their representation of strong and complex women for example. Or, going centuries back, Euripides' representation of women, or the Gospel writers' representations of the poor and other marginalised figures like prostitutes and tax collectors.

The problem with today's art is simply that it's not done well, it's done in sledgehammer fashion, which means it's crushingly obvious and patronising. It bashes us over the head, it does not engage us.

Today's art seems to start from the start point that we're all knuckle drgaging bigots who need educating. Soviet era films take a similar approach. That's why today's art is frustrating and cringey rather than engaging.

A few PP were talking about Dickens and how he pushed social and politcal boundaries with his works. That's not really very true: the Victorians were incredibly charitable because charities had to do what the welfare state does today. Dickens was in fact very conservative with his views on women, say. He's brilliant and funny and a remarkably good descriptor of human hypocrisy ad character in general, but he wasn't avant guarde - measure in book sales and popularity, he was the Stephen King of his day.

Hardy was more avant guarde than Dickens was.

Yeah, in the final book Susan goes to hell because she starts wearing tights and lipstick.

Would you prefer dramas had a racist, anti gay, misogynist agenda, like in the good old days?

Now the "moral" is being pushed at the expense of the story with the story clearly being used, very badly, as a vehicle to tell you how to think.

I feel this way about children’s/YA books at the moment. When I was studying children’s literature a decade ago we were taught a how the original ‘children’s books’ were didactic in purpose, aimed at providing moral guidance to young people and warning them about the dangers of immoral behaviour.

Then we moved away from that and 20th century children’s literature became more about freedom, adventure, art for art’s sake and simply telling a good story.

But now walk into Waterstone’s and it’s like we’ve reverted back to Victorian-style morality tales. There’s still some good stuff out there, but you have to know where to look for it, and many of the ‘worthy’ books feted by Waterstone’s and the like are as dull as ditch water if you actually pick them up and read them.

You are looking in the wrong place. It's a golden age for children's and young adult fiction and in television. If the left wing politics of most writers pisses those on the right off then good, there are enough right wing fuckwits in the world.

If you start to hate everything modern produced in film. music, TV, books it's a good sign you are becoming a narrow-minded curmudgeon, whatever your biological age.

It started for my parents just after they got married. I don't think they could tolerate any music written after about 1962.

I rather think that's what some of the people on here would prefer. Also mocking those unspeakable creatures who don't know if they are Arthur or Martha.

Honestly I think it's less a case that there isn't good content/art being produced and more that because of the sheer volume that's needed to fill the ever expanding choice of viewing options that frankly a lot of box ticking shit is made too.

My husband and I tend to gravitate towards directors who are outliers in the Hollywood game and tell the stories that are interesting, nuanced and well delivered. Christopher Nolan is a brilliant example of this. Sadly he is one of the few outstanding in his field - but these story tellers do exist and they are still trying to share their stories with us.

And is that a problem? White people are still being represented regardless because they are the majority. And why is it usually black people mentioned when there are other ethnic groups that are also shown?

I disagree with the OP that VIRTUALLY ALL dramas have an LGBT, feminist or anti-racist agenda, delivered with 0 subtlety or nuance. Reads more like it’s how they choose to interpret it.

I’ve also seen people question why or complain when there are ethnic minorities in dramas especially historical dramas when there are literal disclaimers in the very beginning saying a show is loosely based off of history when if they wanted historical accuracy they could just as well watch a documentary or look up the actual history themselves.

Recently, saw people moaning about wokeness on the Chevalier movie when it is actually about a real mixed-race black composer and fencer in France without even seeing the movie or looking into it because they can’t even try to accept or believe that someone like him exists but they’d wouldn’t use wokeness if it with another movie about any other white person of that era.

It may surprise some but there are people who still struggle with the concept that people who aren’t white, straight, and what they perceive as normal can’t possibly do, feel, or think the same things that they can.

Tbh, if you're too lazy to type 'UK black population' into Google then I'm quite happy for you to go without an answer. 😂 Usually requests for data are to confirm questionable assertions.

I only recently found out that the Chronicles of Narnia was a Christian book designed to capture young people into the faith

Exactly, the point with Narnia and the like is that it’s subtly allegorical, not blatantly didactic. The Christian element totally passed me by too, because we weren’t beaten around the head with it, and Lewis’ storytelling always came first. I read the book at 8/9 and (coming from an atheist family) only discovered about the Christian stuff at about 13/14.

Same can’t be said about much of what’s out there today. It’s all so sanctimonious and heavy-handed, and the ridiculous thing is that it’s pushed me and most other book-buying parents I know back to ‘outdated’ Lewis, Blyton and Dahl - because they knew how to engage children and tell a good story.

I find CS Lewis sanctimonious and heavy handed. The fact you didn't notice is as a kid is because you didn't have the knowledge to notice it.

OP has some massive rose tinted specs.

And is a coward for failing repeatedly to list the TV and films that they deem to be full of nuance and soul.

1/10

That is hardly going to back up your claim that black people are over represented in UK media.

I completely agree with you OP. It's getting absolutely ridiculous.

They kind of do don't they though. But not like at that times.
They now wrap it up differently.
Also, not doing favours to anyone by making so bad characters for the sake of tick on diversity that people end up thinking actors got roles just for that not for talent.
They often actually use proper stereotypes to ensure people are fully aware that the person is x.

I think there an unnecessary pile-on the OP here. All she has said is the TV drama lacks balance. It's poorly written and doesn't ring true a lot of the time due to unnecessary storylines being shoehorned into plots.
She hasn't said she wants to watch racist misogynist shite!

Dickens also hits you about the head with morality.

And there are countless examples from the past in literature, film and TV about how single women having a baby were written about - usually being killed off or punished in some way, or women who were seen to be lacking virtue in some way coming to a bad end or how children should behave, loads of double standards for men, anti Jewish, anti-Irish sentiment, anti-black, anti working class, anti gay, the virtuous poor v the unworthy poor. I could go on. It's neither subtle nor nuanced.