“Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be. We have to entertain first. It’s not about messages.” I was shook when I saw this recent quote from Disney CEO Bob Iger.
At the recent DealBook Summit in New York, Iger went on to suggest that the negative focus on messaging was something that began during his transition out of his executive position (when Bob Chapek briefly took the reigns), and that he wants to make sure the artists behind Disney’s entertainment are focused on just that: entertainment. It would seem that such a long and nearly unbroken string of box office disappointments has caused Disney’s CEO to rethink the way they tell stories moving forward.
Every film will have some level of messaging in it, and most people would be surprised to realize how many of their favorite films may have subtle messaging which they completely disagree with. And that’s a good thing. One example of this that cracks me up is Star Wars. George Lucas states clearly in an interview that a lot of the inspiration for the conflict between the freedom-fighting rebels and the big bad Empire was the Vietnam War. In other words, he pretty clearly saw the US as the bad guys in that conflict and painted it so in his movies.
Notice though, that when people talk about Star Wars, it is pretty rare that any kind of political arguments come up (unless you are making a nerd excursion on Reddit). Why is that? Because the focus of the films (the focus of the first 6 films anyways :/ ) is not messaging. The focus is the story. The hero’s journey.
Vietnam discussions don’t make my blood boil as I’m pretty far removed from the issue, but even if it did I wouldn’t feel any different about Star Wars because Vietnam isn’t the point. I think it’s really funny when I go back and watch a film that I love and pick up on a message that I disagree with. I’m okay with it, because I don’t watch movies to back up my own politics. I watch movies to be entertained, to learn, to be inspired, and to see another perspective on life. I want to get outside of my box, not fortify it even more.
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room, and hopefully we get beyond it. Depending on how you lean politically (especially in social politics), you may either love, hate, or be indifferent to the messaging in Disney’s recent releases. As you are probably aware, a lot of controversy has centered around a drastic increase in LGBT focused moments. Think of the same-sex kisses in Lightyear and The Rise of Skywalker, the gay protagonist in Strange World, the multiple LGBT aligned remarks in the last Thor installment, etc. Some people view the increase in LGBT characters as a big step forward in acceptance of those that identify with that community, while others see it as an overstep by Disney in bypassing parents to speak directly to children on controversial issues.
Wherever you stand politically, the point I want to speak to is not the validity of the messages, but the fact that the messaging has taken prominence over storytelling. I know of a lot of people who have been voicing this concern for quite some time, but they have often been drowned out by people accusing them of being blinded by hatred for the message. But when the CEO of Disney comes out publicly (no pun intended) to admit that messaging has taken priority over story, that pretty much settles the argument.
Not sure what I’m talking about? Here’s some examples. This one is rather recent, coming from the supposed final installment of the Indiana Jones franchise. In Dial of Destiny, we have a classic aging hero story. Indy is a washed up, depressed version of his former self. He gets dragged into one last wild adventure alongside a new female protagonist (I’ll be honest I had to look up the character’s name. Helena Shaw) who is clearly slated to be his spiritual successor. Fast forward to the end of the film; Indy and Helena have managed to travel back in time to ancient history. Indy is awestruck; it is a neat moment for the aged character, as he gets to touch, taste, and see the history that he has tirelessly studied, imagined, and protected. And in light of his depressing life back home, he decides he wants to stay in this historical place, and breathe his last in the past (lol it rhymed).
Of course, Indiana Jones always does the right thing (we’ve had like 4 previous films to prove this), and he eventually recognizes that he must go back home, face his fears, and be there for his family. Oh wait, no that’s not how it goes. Helena, or Wombat as he affectionately calls her, gets hurt, and he must take her back into the future to get her the help of modern medicine! Wait, wait, that’s not how it goes either. Oh ya, Indy stubbornly refuses to go home, and Helena knocks him out with a punch to the face, and drags his unconscious body back to the future.
The beloved hero Indiana Jones not only didn’t make the right choice in the climax of his franchise, but he didn’t make any choice at all. The new strong female protagonist made it for him. And what was the reason for this? I can’t see any reason except the writer’s determination to make the audience know that this new character is really cool and she gets shit done and she’s just as good as Indy. Trust me Mr. Writer, we got the message loud and clear, and we are stoked that you ruined the franchise character to make sure we got it.
This is fun, let’s do another. Remember the best Star Wars movie ever made! Yes, that one that Rian Johnson did! The masterpiece that is The Last Jedi. The way I see it, the film only has one small flaw. About halfway into a riveting story that does not at all undermine the set up of the previous film and definitely does not destroy one of the most popular characters of all time, Rian Johnson does something weird. Honestly, it probably was very smart and the genius was just ahead of our time (like Kanye, he’s in the future).
But I just haven’t seen the genius yet. So Finn (a character who’s potential was not completely wasted) and Rose (who is definitely not one of the most annoying characters in the whole saga) go to some Las Vegas casino planet to find the master codebreaker.
It’s kinda a small part of the overall story, so this is just a really quick adventure where they find this guy that is needed to make the perfectly written plot make sense. Wrong. We spend great grandma’s lifespan on this planet. And most of the time, we aren’t even remotely close to dealing with the master codebreaker. We get to see a horse race (with massive alien horses of course), and the disgusting evil pigs that bet on these horse races. And then, with the fate of the entire galaxy resting on their shoulders, Finn and Rose, the real heroes, free the alien horses from their disgusting masters and let them run wild through casino land, crushing building after building and likely causing dozens if not hundreds of casualties. Now, I realize the rest of TLJ is perfect, but this part of the script just does not make any sense to me. It seems like Rian thought, “Dam, I know I’m supposed to write a Star Wars film right now, but I really just want to make sure people know what I think about capitalism and that I absolutely fucking HATE horse races.” And I love that Rian wanted me to get to know him better, but I really would rather watch him subvert my expectations by murdering the future of my childhood films. Just remember, “That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.” :)
Okay, one more. Remember when Marvel hadn’t completely shit its pants yet. Like it was still pretty cool. Way back in like 2019, Captain Marvel came out. It’s probably not something I would choose for a Marvel rewatch, but it had some good moments. But if you want to learn how to completely ruin a climax with a message, it's a great rewatch.
Basically, the writers spend the entire film building up the relationship, conflict, and upcoming battle between Captain Marvel and her evil mentor. Throughout the film, we learn that Captain Marvel (Danvers was her normal name, I think), has never bested her mentor (idk what the hell his name was) in hand-to-hand combat. Well, at the end of the movie, in a big fancy battle, Danvers’ crew beats her mentor’s crew, and the two come face to face in a final stand-off.
Finally, we get the payoff of the loaded gun that’s been sitting on the dash the whole movie. Her mentor challenges Danvers to set aside her newfound powers and fight him hand-to-hand to prove that she really has grown stronger. And in a moment of Taylor Swift power, Danvers blasts him in the chest, and topples the patriarchy with these words: “I have nothing to prove to you.” That’s great for Danvers, I’m really happy for her; but the climax of the film was wrecked and the loaded gun wasted by the insertion of a message. Just like the Super Bowl is about to be wrecked with 5 minute shots of Taylor Swift everytime the boyfriend that the NFL bought her catches a pass.
I found it interesting that Disney continued so long with such strong messaging, even as it continued to lose money for reasons seemingly directly tied to said messaging. The United States is split relatively evenly between those who lean either liberal or conservative, but a lot of polls show that if anything, that more constituents of the domestic box office are conservative.
So why would Disney continually make things that offend at least half of their audience? Call me a realist, but there is no way they made that decision just because they think it’s “the right thing to do.” A corporation of that size follows the money, oftentimes ignoring morality or ethics. I am not educated or up on my research enough to give a great explanation to this, but my rather uneducated guess is that for a while, Disney execs felt that they were better off losing trust from half their audience in order to pacify liberal activist organizations that know how to effectively organize and be heard. Historically, conservatives aren’t very skilled activists and suck at procuring a decent public image; therefore liberals tend to be able to do more damage to a company, even if the ratio of conservatives and liberals involved is equal.
It would seem though, that the loss of trust with such a large portion of their audience has finally caused enough red ink to force some changes. Again, I don’t necessarily think Bob Iger is so enamored with the beauty of storytelling that he can’t stand to see it stained by aggressive messaging. I think the guy is a businessman that realizes a lot of people, on both sides of the political aisle, are tired of lazy scripts with loud political messages. I don’t want to assume Bob Iger’s intentions, maybe he really does value story and want to protect it. I would hope so, considering the legacy he has inherited with Walt Disney’s company.
But either way, I am hopeful that his words are being backed by action, and that Disney will be employing artists who are storytellers first.
To end this, I’ll say that Walt Disney is one of my heroes, and it's been pretty rough watching some of the choices that the company has made in the last several years. (Not nearly as rough as watching Mickey Mouse horror movies release the day that the copyright ended). The idea that Disney might actually start making good movies again makes me really happy. But I’m hesitant to celebrate yet; Imma have to see some good movies before I get too excited. But I am hopeful that this could start a trend beyond just Disney, and that we could soon see entertainment made simply to entertain again. It’d be a kool little renaissance.
댓글