u/ArmadilloOK1445-alt

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Recently, I have been seeing a lot of criticism for certain pieces of media, specifically because their creators shouldn't "get to" make those kinds of stories, and I find that to be a very immature way of looking at media.

My discovery started recently when I went to a YouTube upload of one of my favorite scenes from the newest season of The Boys, where Stan Edgar and M.M. speak with each other, and Edgar tells M.M. about the cycle of income and how corporations must always continue to grow, even as the big thing in the publics' eyes changes, it's currently superheroes, but it can always be something else. It was a great scene, and it being said by one of the show's biggest villains makes it a very precise critique of the corporate world, yet when I check the comments on a YouTube upload of the scene, it's full of comments talking about how it's ironic that this show is saying this, or even that this show shouldn't be saying this at all, because the show is owned by Amazon, one of the biggest companies in the world and who the fictional Vought International is based on, which also lead to the throwing around of the "critiques of capital will be absorbed into capital" Disco Elysium quote that I hate so much. And to that I say, why can a large corporation not offer critiques of capitalism as a system? Amazon aren't some weak-kneed crybabies who throw a hissy fit at the slightest criticism of them or the system under which they operate, they can and should be allowed to criticize themselves and said system, without it coming across as ironic or half-hearted.

The second main piece I found in my discovery pertains to three movies in particular: Django Unchained, Bombshell, and The Danish Girl. Please do note that while I have not seen Bombshell (although I definitely intend to, Margot Robbie is one of my favorite actresses and getting to see her flex her dramatic skills is always a joy to watch), I have seen the other two, and I would give Django Unchained a 9/10 and The Danish Girl a 7.5/10. Also note that since I am trans myself, I ironically enough am qualified to speak on The Danish Girl. Anyways, the main criticism I have seen of these movies tend to regard their directors, in particular, Quentin Tarantino, a white man, making a movie about the slave trade, Jay Roach, a man, making a movie about the Fox News misogyny scandal, and Tom Hooper, a cis man, making a movie about one of the pioneers of trans representation. All three directors here get criticism for not being "allowed to" or not "getting to" tell these kinds of stories because of who they are as people, and the same question I posed regarding The Boys applies here too; why can these three directors not tell stories outside of who they are? If they do their research properly and show the right amount of tact, like all three here did (at least I'm assuming for Roach since most discussions of Bombshell don't involve the "he's a man making an anti-misogyny movie" argument, that's just the main criticism of the film I've seen) Danny Boyle made Slumdog Millionaire, a very India-centric film, and yet people don't give that movie crap for being directed by a white man because most of the cast and crew who advised him were Indian, so what makes The Boys, Django Unchained, Bombshell and The Danish Girl exceptions? If anything, by saying that a white man can't tell stories uplifting black people or a man can't tell stories uplifting women, that makes you come across as ignorant and blindsided yourself.

I don't really have anything else to add here, this argument has just royally pissed me off for a while now.