This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Emilia Perez and “Sacredness” of Concepts
I follow the film industry pretty closely, but like most other film buffs, I had never heard of the movie, Emilia Perez, until a few weeks ago when it was nominated for 13 Oscars, the most of any movie this year. For comparison, the Godfather got 11 Oscar nominations. For that, and many other reasons, it’s easily the most culture war controversial film of the year, and IMO, for pretty interesting reasons. If you want a truly unexpected Culture War punch in the face, then go watch it on Netflix. Otherwise, full plot SPOILERS ahead.
Emilia Perez is about a Mexican drug lord who undergoes a MTF gender transition. She fakes her death, leaves her wife and two kids behind, lives as a woman alone for a few years, but then tries to get them back in a somewhat Mrs. Doubtfire manner. Also, the film is a musical. Most infamously, there’s a song about getting gender reassignment surgery - https://youtube.com/watch?v=VHyPL2fBTHs.
I watched it and thought it was bad. I don’t like musicals to begin with, but I thought the musical sections in particular were terrible, boring, and didn’t further the plot. I thought the characterization was confusing and the plot really wacky and dumb. But in its favor, I admire the film’s ambition, and I think it has some occasionally interesting visuals and character dynamics. It’s not mindless streaming slop, it’s stupid auteur bullshit. 3/10.
The interesting culture war aspect is that Emilia Perez perfectly wedges itself between two broad factions on the left. Left-leaning liberals seem to love this movie. The Academy Award voters are mostly very old Hollywood lefties, and their 13 Oscar nominations seem to indicate that Emilia Perez says something culturally important and meaningful. But left wing progressives hate Emilia Perez. Just search for it on Reddit and you’ll find a million hate threads highly upvoted about how terrible and offensive it is.
The best comparison I’ve seen is to the film, Crash, which one the best picture Oscar in 2006. The same left wing cultural split applied, with the moderates thinking it was a brilliant film about the complexity of race relations and the progressives thinking it was nothing more than racial stereotypes and white savior narratives.
In Emilia Perez’s case, progressives think the film’s portrayals of transness and Mexico are offensive. A lot of the blame is put on the writer/director Jacques Audiard, a cis-gender white Frenchman, who in an interview I haven’t seen, admitted that he did almost no research into transness or Mexico for the film. He seems to be interested in the setting and ideas of the film in a generalized and aesthetic manner, not in any deep “I have to say something important about society” way.
Having watched Emilia Perez, I genuinely don’t get the claims that it’s offensive toward trans people. If anything, the film is way too nice to trans people. The movie expects us to immediately sympathize with Emilia Perez after her gender transition even though she has lived a life of carnage and mayhem and is implied to have killed tons of people. It’s not impossible to make a sympathetic character there, but IMO the film really doesn’t sell it. Her personality basically transforms from “crazy murderous psycho” into “standard Western educated progressive” overnight without justification. The Mexico complaints have a little more justification and are more complicated:
I think some of these complaints are legit and some are typical progressive culture warring. I think a huge does of the criticism of Emilia Perez is that a white guy made a movie about a “Brown” country without being excessively apologetic, and if the nationalities were reversed (ie. a Mexican made a movie about France), no one would care. The best counter-example is Moulin Rouge. It’s a 2001 musical about a real French landmark in the French capital that deals with French culture (burlesque, bohemian lifestyles, etc.), but it was written and directed by Aussies, all the actors are from the Anglosphere, and all the music is American or British. Yet no one gave a shit about misrepresentation of French culture or thought it was offensive to French people.
What I find more interesting is that much of the criticism of Emilia Perez seems to come down to what I would call the “sacredness” of topics in popular culture. The progressive left tends to hold non-white cultures to be more sacred than white cultures, therefore Emilia Perez is offensive and Moulin Rouge is not. Similarly, Emilia Perez (a goofy musical soap opera) is offensive for not portraying Mexican cartels in a super serious way, but that same criticism isn’t applied toward movies that portray the American Italian Mafia as cool or goofy, like Goodfellas, Analyze This, Mickey Blue Eyes, Corky Romano, that episode in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, etc.
The phrase I've seen a lot in the criticisms is that Emilia Perez "uses Mexico and its culture as an aesthetic," to which I think the the director would YESChad. He doesn't think Mexico and its culture are so incredibly important and sacred that they are above being an aesthetic. The director also made a weird movie that used the Wild West as an aesthetic (The Sisters Brothers). I believe the progressive critics are fine with using France and its culture as an aesthetic. It all comes down to what people consider sacred or not.
Likewise, transness is such an intense and sacred topic on the left that many consider it offensive to put it in any film that doesn’t treat it with the utmost seriousness and deference. I’m pretty sure that’s the basis of the anti-trans claims against Emilia Perez. It doesn’t actually say anything bad about transness or trans women, it’s just inherently offensive to make a goofy movie that doesn’t take transness serious enough.
Prompt: what is a rational approach to assigning sacredness in society, especially when it comes to comedy? Is it ok to joke about the holocaust? Is it ok to joke about 9/11? Is it ok to joke about Muslims? If my best friend’s son dies in a horrible freak accident, is it ok to make a joke about that the very next day? Where should the lines be drawn? How do we distinguish between personal lines and broader societal lines? My sense is that the progressive left has conquered this space in the popular culture, but I haven’t seen a coherent alternative beyond 4chan “make fun of everything” culture. Are there better models out there?
It's tangentially related to your post, but a few weeks ago everyone here was going nuts about Yura Borisov's nomination for Best Supporting Actor in Anora.
I don't really care about the movie, but this made me realized one unexpected benefit of wokeness: the only Russians played by non-Russians in the movie are the eponymous Anora, played by Mikey Madison, and her sister. Both characters are American-born. Everyone else is played by a Russian actor, because it's no longer acceptable to pretend that White people are interchangeable.
More options
Context Copy link
Misplaced accents and sometimes-high-school-Spanish-class-skit-level Spanish in a work otherwise intended to be well-acclaimed? Have we not learned anything from Breaking Bad?
I’m generally not a fan of musicals either, especially if there's a focus in something other than the music. If there's an additional focus beyond the music and there aren't multiple tracks that are bangers, the story can be better served by a different medium. I don’t watch musicals for the plot or characterization just as I don’t watch porn for the plot or characterization.
I can’t take musicals seriously. The target market is generally women and children, so it’s unsurprising that many men would often find them silly and juvenile.
I do enjoy the odd musical here or there, and I find quite interesting YouTube videos that breakdown what does and doesn’t work in musicals such as Cats, Les Mis, Beauty and the Beast. However, speaking of Les Mis (and thus Hugh Jackman), imagine if for example, Prisoners were done in musical form. It just wouldn’t have the same gravitas and emotional weight, although I’d watch the shit out of it as a tribute or parody work:
Hugh: "Not YOUUUUUUU"*Two drum hits in unison with Hugh and Jake*—
Hugh: *thumps chest*, *thumps chest*
Jake: *blinks hard*, *blinks hard*
Hugh: "Not YOUUUUUUU"
*Two drum hits in unison with Hugh and Jake*—
Hugh: *thumps chest*, *thumps chest*
Jake: *blinks hard*, *blinks hard*
Hugh: "But MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
*orchestral bridge*
Hugh: "Every, every, every, EVERY… e-verrrr-RY-DAY"
*single, simultaneous drum and cymbal hits to end the song*
That being said, I’m rooting for Emilia Perez to win each and every award due to the seething about its depiction of Mexico and alleged transgender (mis)representation. Also, because I first heard of the film due to Redditors ree’ing and pearl-clutching over Gascon’s tweets. And it did not go unnoticed that Gascon’s name sounds similar to a certain hero from the aforementioned Beauty and the Beast (“no… one… tweets like Gascon”). But then again:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, no. its_all_so_tiresome.png
And yeah, what topics or cultures are sacred is just the usual Who? Whom?
You can mock and do impressions of the Sopranos-type Italian American accent in a way you can’t the stereotypical Mexican or black American accent. The modal white or Asian Westerner can make fun of the Germans or Japanese for being stereotypically punctual, make fun of or be annoyed with Mediterraneans for being stereotypically late, but not make fun of or be annoyed with Mexicans for doing the same. One can criticize East Asian cultures as being soulless, no fun, try-hard; one cannot criticize black cultures as low-IQ, impulsive, crime-ridden. It’s open season to shit on and dunk on Christians; criticizing Muslims is verboten and you had it coming if you get mostly peacefully fatwa’d.
It’s all just in good fun to mock men for being vidya-obsessed, athlete-worshipping, thirst-trap and porn-addicted perverts; only incels, misogynists, and pick-mes with internalized misogyny would mock women for being makeup-obsessed, celebrity-worshipping, thirst-trap and being-a-sex-object loving attention whores. #TechBros and finance bros are constant targets of scorn and derision; #WomenInTech and #WomenInFinance are to be coddled and celebrated as Strong, Independent #BossBabes: You fucking donkey vs. oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous.
More options
Context Copy link
Really? It made a huge splash at Cannes last year. The movie podcasts I listen to have been monitoring it for a year now.
But, yes, as a fan of two other Audiard movies, this was total horseshit. The characters make no sense, the songs are tuneless, and the plot is not only stupid but is actually kind of sick -- unless you choose to read this movie as deeply critical of transsexuality as a concept.
The title character attempts two key transitions in this movie: Man to Woman, and Killer to Savior. IMO, both are depicted not only as failures but also as sick expressions of narcisissm. This former drug lord in "her" new life becomes an advocate for the victims of drug lords like "his" former self. It's so gross a turn as to be literally nauseating if one has any empathy for the victims of those monsters. If this transition is to be seen in parallel with the gender transition, how are we then to read the gender transition? That one, too, doesn't really take: Perez is unable to shake "his" past, becoming jealous of his supposedly widowed wife's romantic life and employing "his" old tactics to run the new fiancee out of town. This backfires in a way that also brings the trappings of "his" old world back into "her" new life. The message? One can't escape their nature, and the attempt to do so will ruin the lives of everyone around them.
EDIT: I'll add to this that Zoe Saldana's character operates as the key trans-enabler in this story. She is hired by the drug lord to facilitate the transition. She does it, at first, cynically, out of greed. Later, she sort of falls in platonic love with the woman that Perez becomes, lavish praise on Perez' really groos moral makeover, as if fake tits can erase decades of murder. It doesn't end up well for her, either, at least psychologically. This mirrors how many trans-skeptical critics think about those who cheerlead for transitioning: a mixture of cynicism and myopic self-congratulation.
I know nothing about the people who made this film, but the way you describe the story, it makes me wonder if there's a decent chance that this was the intended message. Having seen clips of the car accident scene at the end and some of the songs, it definitely goes into Poe's Law territory for me, where I honestly can't tell if it's meant to be satirical or serious. It'd be a hilarious turn of events if this ends up winning Best Picture on the power of pushing the correct political message, and 5 years later some old communications comes out that the director always intended the film to be a harsh criticism of the delusional beliefs underlying much of the modern progressive ideology around transsexualism. Of course, by then, generative AI might be good enough that the veracity of the evidence of any such past communications will be in doubt.
Audiard's previous fiim, Sisters Brothers, is an interesting, complicated, funny and heartbreaking contemplation of masculinity using the lens of the traditionally masculine Western genre (not at all the silly comedy of its marketing campaign), so it wouldn't surprise me if he had something more subversive on his mind in Emilia Perez. He's clearly capable of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Everything in your description of the movie is oscarbait. That's not shitflinging, this movie seems to have literally been made to win an award and not for other reasons. Why liberals and progressives take such movies seriously I don't really know, but they do.
It seems reasonable for Mexicans to get offended at their culture being portrayed badly- I'd get offended at my culture being portrayed badly, although no one would give a shit. The trans stuff... well I feel like my views on trans are a major confounder there. 'Punchline' would be a significant improvement in my view of trans people. Reddit liking to complain about a movie that exists mostly to win an award isn't new. Left liberals not getting that progressives are true believers in their own supply isn't new either; I'm guessing that's part of the disconnect.
More options
Context Copy link
Knowing it’s the same director as Sisters Brothers and reading his take of not really giving a shit about Mexico or trans stuff makes me want to see this film now.
Sisters Brothers was fantastic.
I also loved Sisters Brothers as well as A Prophet. This is not to the same standard.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did people start warring about the film and then someone found Gascon's tweets? Zoe Saldana had to make a speech during a Q&A event bolstering her commitment to diversity in response to the tweets being dug up. (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/zoe-saldana-responds-emilia-perez-costar-karla-sofia-gascon-tweets-1236124082/) There is also a lot of anti-trans rhetoric being directed towards Gascon on X and I'm not sure if that would have been tolerated or not under the previous management of Twitter.
It is funny when a trans person says or does something that shocks progressives. By nature, trans people are defiant and refuse, in the most essential way imaginable, to be boxed in. Even if you don't think they suffer from a mental illness -- which would bring a whole other level of unpredictability to their thoughts, words and actions -- expecting them to conform to any model would seem to "deny their existence" as much as any bathroom law might.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see what you're getting at. On the other hand, my impression is that most progressives love Sean Baker's Tangerine, a movie about two trans women prostitutes which isn't merely a comedy but an outright farce, in which essentially none of the characters are remotely likeable. (Highly recommended, incidentally, I laughed my head off.)
More options
Context Copy link
Didn't Emily in Paris get shit for its unrealistic portrayal of Paris? And that was just a random show. It didn't get 13 Oscar nominations which naturally puts more of a spotlight on things. As I said on reddit on the same topic: people hate Crash, a movie about fighting racism, more than worse movies because it won Best Picture.
My general impression is that the backlash from Mexico is organic and this gave people in America something to rally behind (the lead actress being incredibly unwoke, hilariously so, didn't help*). You've given good reasons for Mexicans to consider this film absurd and, frankly, I don't really have much sympathy. This movie is probably only being rewarded because it's seen as a moral milestone for white libs, so it is fair to note that it violates those standards.
When called on not casting Egyptians in Exodus: Gods and Kings Ridley Scott just said "nobody is going to go watch Mohammed Whogivesafuck" and went about his day. The attack is working on this movie because it's seen in a different light than a purely commercial project.
I hate sounding even a bit like Kulak but these discussions seem utterly pointless to me. A lot of norms around sacrality are basically arbitrary. The group that cares more, that is more intolerant and more willing to fight decides. In the absence of an already unifying set of beliefs you're just gonna have to fight it out.
Roman norms around sacrifice and emperor worship were sacred until they weren't. European countries have free speech norms (a non-arbitrary example) yet the fact that psychos will semi-reliably kill you for drawing Mohammed has set a new taboo. Meanwhile, other groups that theoretically have more power have allowed the statues of their great men and icons of their people to get torn down and tabooed even when it makes no sense.
I don't see any coherent throughline in a lot of the things that happen, but they happen anyway because one party imposes its will.
Things are sacred if you'll pay a price for violating them. This is why warring tribes smashed the idols of their opponents. It was a theological argument: either your god doesn't care about you, or he cannot do anything.
* Although, ironically, she's unwoke in a progressive sense: her hatred of religion seems to universal, it's just her bad luck that she's not capable of managing the cognitive dissonance that comes with pretending brown religions from manifestly more conservative backgrounds are somehow not worse than her native faith. That's a middle class Anglo superpower.
I think these examples misunderstand who actually has power and what they want. The will being imposed here is not that of Muslims in Europe (who would have no recourse if TPTB told them to pack this shit in and actually enforced this) but that of the urban/political elite who gain status by openly deferring to the wishes of violent third-worldists. Broadly speaking, they don't identify with the great men of their history and people.
That just pushes it one step back. How did the patriots lose control of their institutions to self-hating people with a totally different religion? Why can't they be claimed back?
The US is showing that some people are willing to fight back against inverted patriotism but a lot of this stuff happens cause one group of people just seem to care more. Their enemies would be perfectly happy going home and not worrying about the curriculum or other details that much. In fact, they may be so disconnected that the people they'd agree with the most seem insane to them
And, sure , let's grant that high capacity states could, if they marshalled all of their willpower and resources, rid themselves of all of the problems of political Islam. I think the idea that because it started relatively harmless and easy to uproot that it'll stay so is very naive though. At a certain point you're not using them. It's just how life is.
Cowardice is self-reinforcing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Emily in Paris is not a random (terrible) show. It is a worldwide phenomenon, to the point that the actual French president complained that they were moving it to Rome for the next season. By comparison, Emilia Perez is an oscarbait movie that everyone will forget in a couple years.
I stand corrected then. I tried to watch it but didn't stick with it personally.
Also: does Macron always do this, take such a direct, visible hand in cultural products like that? IIRC he interfered in Mbappe's transfer saga too.
Maybe. But right now it jumped into the public's view and it's in the way of some very competitive people getting Oscars.
Don't worry, it is, by all accounts, not a good show.
Not being French, I can't tell for sure, but he's 100% an attention whore drama queen: look no further than whatever is going on in French politics right now: He tried to make a 350 IQ 5D chess move, and ended up furthering the crisis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link