There are two kinds of wokeness I complain about:
-
Hernia level virtue signaling - this is when a production company is straining super hard to make sure we know they’re the good guys, but the writers don’t have the brains to come up with interesting allegories, or even super-transparent ones like the half-black/half-white dudes in the TOS episode. All they can muster up is character dialog like, “Wow, look how backward this time period is! So much misogyny and discrimination!” Yeah duh, I live in this time period and I’m not stupid. (talking to you, Picard season 2)
-
Misrepresenting the past - this is when they portray let’s say Victorian England or 1950s America as a fully integrated society where characters of all races mix freely, with equality at all levels. That’s not how it was, kids. The black housewife in 1953 Ohio would not have a white maid, although she might work part time as one in a white household. You don’t raise social consciousness by painting a fake picture of history to avoid upsetting your audience. That does no service to the people who still feel the effects of those times.
But oh right, I forgot, the point is profit not genuine social consciousness - sorry, my bad.
/edited for grammar
While I agree with your first point - corporate pseudo-progressivism is a stain - I don’t really think it’s fair to call it “woke”. In fact, it’s almost the opposite of what woke is supposed to mean. To be “woke” originally meant having “woken up” to the reality of systemic racism… Corpos thoughtlessly stuffing games/films with “diverse” casts are not really respecting that reality. It’s performative. There is an argument that it improved things for actors regardless, but I still don’t think it’s “woke”.
On your second point I have to slightly disagree. Taking Bridgerton as an example - set in something like Victorian England, but a racially diverse one. The Queen is black, there’s a black Duke. I think these things immediately set the story apart from real Victorian England. Ok, perhaps if you know nothing about history it might be confusing, but to me I see those things and immediately one of two things is true:
- We are suspending our disbelief. Just like the pantomime dame, within the world of the play, is a woman and not a man in costume, we can assume that we’re seeing black actors playing characters who would have really been white… Like Queen victoria.
- The world we see is not an accurate representation of history. In this world we might assume that slavery was abolished sooner, or never started, and black people moved not just into the lower but the higher echelons of British society.
Given that it’s fiction, I don’t mind either of these things. I think it’s nice for people who aren’t white to be able to imagine themselves in those stories, even if in the real history things would have been much different. Bridgerton isn’t trying to present a vision of real historical events, it’s primarily a romance. Just like mediaeval fantasy isn’t really medieval, Victorian romance doesn’t need to really be Victorian. We don’t need to see the systemic racism any more than we need to see the cholera or dropsy or whatever.
I will also just briefly shill for Taboo which I just finished - that’s a historical show which incorporates a “realistic” amount of diversity into it’s cast while maintaining (at least what appears to me) a level of historical accuracy. The story is fictional, although it appears around real events… But the world it presents feels genuine. Crucially by contrast to Bridgerton, slavery plays quite an important role in the story - so here it would feel absurd to have a black Queen or Duke.
Haven’t seen Taboo but Bridgerton is a fantasy alt world - it can have steam-powered computers for all I care. My objection is specifically about falsely portraying real eras for the sake of casting diversity, which I think is a disservice to people who were held down in those real eras.
Fair enough, I have seen the same arguments applied to it is why I used it as an example. I don’t know what shows you are thinking of, but are they misrepresenting things, or are they just using blind casting and asking you to suspend your disbelief? This is something we do without thinking when watching theatre, but it’s a bit more subtle when watching television or films because they go to lengths to make the environment feel more real.
You took the words out of my mouth, both of those are such libshit that I cringe my asshole out.
That’s another aspect of it - those practices aren’t “libshit” they’re corporate shit. Same as sticking a big GREEN label on random products.
Ya know, there’s a scene in The Boys where Maeve is outed as a bisexual, so they decide to promote her queerness as part of a “Brave Maeve” campaign to encourage those in the closet to come out.
But then they tell her she has to be a lesbian, not bisexual, because bisexuality is “too confusing”, and even then they police what behaviors she is and is not allowed to do; she can be a lesbian but not “too gay”, and she’s only allowed to date feminine individuals while presenting as masculine or vice versa because to do otherwise is to “send the wrong message”
This basically ruins her life, forces her girlfriend to break up with her because she can’t take having to be a “Model Minority” at all times, and Maeve is left so broken she almost reveals the fact that she and Homelander don’t actually save people to the whole world.
When I saw that, I was like “Holy shit, finally, someone else who understands why I, a transgender woman, actively avoid media that caters to the LGBT community. Finally, SOMEONE gets it and they’re making sure other people get it too.”