Talk:White savior narrative in film: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(565 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talkheader}} |
||
{{Old AfD multi| date = 20 December 2014 | result = '''keep''' | page = White savior narrative in film | date2 = 15 June 2016 | result2 = '''keep''' | page2 = White savior narrative in film (2nd nomination) | date3 = 12 August 2016 | result3 = '''keep''' | page3 = White savior narrative in film (3rd nomination)}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List| |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USfilm=yes|USfilm-importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Lists|importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Image requested|in=the United States}} |
|||
{{Old AfD multi | date = 20 December 2014 | result = '''keep''' | page = White savior narrative in film | date2 = 15 June 2016 | result2 = '''keep''' | page2 = White savior narrative in film (2nd nomination)}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|||
== Free State of Jones == |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|||
|counter = 9 |
|||
[[Free State of Jones (film)]] may or may not be a candidate for this list. It comes out on May 13, 2016. We can search for reliable sources that make this connection when it premieres. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/movies/free-state-of-jones-a-film-with-footnotes.html The New York Times] has an article about the film that mentions the white savior element. Film comes out this weekend, so coverage can be looked up then. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|algo = old(180d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
== The Revenant == |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Refideas |
|||
[http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/18/revenant-review-its-ok-still-same-ol-white-savior-stuff-native-people-163106 This] mentions [[The Revenant (2015 film)]] having a "white savior". Thoughts? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhiteMansBurden#folder4 |
|||
|https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey}} |
|||
: I saw that movie. Didn't see him save anyone. I also think that's a pretty low standard for a source. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.212.102.26|71.212.102.26]] ([[User talk:71.212.102.26|talk]]) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== The Soloist == |
|||
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that a good test to see whether a film has such a narrative is asking whether the role of the white man could have reasonably been cast as a non-white human. Please correct me if I'm missing a nuance that invalidates my point of view, but this does not seem to be applicable in case of a true story. |
|||
Regarding The Soloist, while "white saviour narrative" fits insofar as it features a white man rescuing a black man, it is in fact a true story, and if it has been the subject of a book and subsequently a film without exaggeration, there is nothing "grandiose", "narcissistic" or "exhibitionistic" about the film; it can't be any of those things if it simply reflects a reality, or tells a true story faithfully. |
|||
To label a film as such, that does not portray a white male lead in a position of privilege arbitrarily, seems counter-productive to me, for whatever purpose you can imagine. |
|||
[[User:Sapiocrat|Sapiocrat]] ([[User talk:Sapiocrat|talk]]) 00:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:The categorization applies to real-life stories too; see an earlier discussion [[#The Blind Side|above]] for commentary on this. ''The White Savior Film'' lists ''The Soloist'' as part of its sampled set. There are different ways to define a genre; ''Screen Saviors'' identifies characteristics that would identify most of them. The more appropriate characteristic to consider here, I would imagine, is the teacher example where white teachers are portrayed as saving nonwhite students despite many nonwhite teachers doing the same thing. The same could be said for ''The Soloist'' where it has to be a white person saving a black person for it to be made into a movie, where there are stories of black persons helping other black persons that are not selected to put into a movie. The choice of story can matter as much as how the story is portrayed. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{reply to|User:Erik}} I take your point, but there is still something amiss for me that I cannot quite put my finger on. I can see that there is a trend in which stories featuring white protagonists are disproportionately represented in media, and that the label is not meant to discredit or demean the movie, but to draw attention to this trend. However, this is like telling your children the reason they made the team isn't just because they have prodigal skill, but also because they're white (whether that is the case or not in that specific instance; being white is always a helping factor). In my honest opinion, The Soloist is an inspirational story and a well-made film, and it deserves to be presented simply as a story of a human helping another human, and not be mired in a dichotomy that isn't applicable to it. In short, in a perfect, equal world, I think The Soloist would still have made it to the big screen, and it is perhaps those films featuring a white savior narrative that would not have made it to the big screen in such a world that deserve such a label. That said, I do realize now that the page is correct to include The Soloist with respect to the established definition of white savior narrative in film, and that I'm criticizing that definition, for which Wikipedia isn't really the platform. Thanks for the response. [[User:Sapiocrat|Sapiocrat]] ([[User talk:Sapiocrat|talk]]) 02:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{reply to|User:Erik}} Something else occurs to me. White people saving other white people surely also gets disproportionately represented over non-white people saving other people. Why then don't we label such movies with the white savior narrative as well? But perhaps I digress. [[User:Sapiocrat|Sapiocrat]] ([[User talk:Sapiocrat|talk]]) 03:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Woman Walks Ahead == |
|||
[http://www.salon.com/2016/02/10/white_woman_walks_ahead_jessica_chastain_starring_in_a_film_about_sitting_bull_is_everything_thats_wrong_with_prestige_films/ This] mentions ''Woman Walks Ahead'' (reported [http://variety.com/2016/film/news/jessica-chastain-woman-walks-ahead-1201696126/ here]) potentially being a white savior film. Mentioning here until we see reliable sources based on the final product. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Concern with topic redux== |
|||
:''See [[Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 1#Concern with topic]]''. |
|||
===June 2016=== |
|||
The article has clearly developed into a personal crusade for one single editor. There are few outside contributions other than this individual's. It hints of anti-white racism and it is almost entirely supported by one single book along with links to articles from op-ed blogs like Salon, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, and The Huffington Post, which are not sites of newspaper journalism writing articles of straight reporting. The article should be heavily modified to be focused on the single heavily cited book and citing its themes including its opinions on the topic as such. The article lists interpretations of movie plots and characters which are absolute opinion and have no place on Wikipedia. [[User:Thelobbyist|thelobbyist]] ([[User talk:Thelobbyist|talk]]) <small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 12:30, June 20, 2016</small><!--Template:Undated--> |
|||
I have a question: why is this article in list form? Shouldn't this page be more along the lines like the Magical Negro article, or the noble savage article? Where most of the article is about how the title trope is used, how the trope is problematic, quotes from people discussing the trope, etc. You know, ACTUALLY ANALYZING THE TOPIC TROPE AND NOT JUST SLAP TWO PARAGRAPHS AND THEN LIST A BUNCH OF MOVIES THAT IS JUST INVITING A DEBATE ON WHETHER SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY BELONGS THERE? Except there's not a debate, because the article is under control of one guy who's armed with a bunch of (very subjective) sources that automatically cancels out the other sources that refutes that. This reads like a TVTropes page, except if it was a TVTropes page, it would actually allow discussion on what counts as an example of that trope, plus there would be a ''lot'' more detail on what the trope was about, and not "the white savior is a narrative trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight". Seriously, it is sad when TVTropes have, not one, '''but two articles''' that do a better job describing the white savior narrative than this page. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhiteMansBurden) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey) [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 05:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:The book ''The White Savior Film'' can be leveraged to add more detailed prose to the article body. What is at TV Tropes cannot be sourced here because it is written by random people, no matter how well it is written. This article has to be based on reliable sources, and the aforementioned book would be a great reference to source. You are welcome to contest some of the sources, but many of these films are actually listed in the book. It would be good to swap out the footnotes to reference the list in the book. Regardless, it is possible to have both prose and a list. If you think there is a reliable source that contests the "white savior" label imparted by other sources, we can incorporate that. This was done for ''McFarland, USA'', for example, where the director says it is not a WSF. I believe there is similar commentary for ''Free State of Jones'', which could have a paragraph that draws together statements from different sources. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Way to avoid my criticism, Erik. Again, why is this article resembling a piss-poor version of a TVTropes page? Why do you have a iron fist control on this article? Why won't you let there be a debate on whether some of the films on this page? Why is it that most of the sources cited on this page are op-ed pieces from progressive websites and not from people '''who have any involvement in film?''' Also, I gotta wonder: do you even ''own'' the books you're citing? Have you even read them outside of the previews on Google Books? ''Do you even went to film school?'' Because it feels like you haven't. And I have to call BS on your claim that this article has prose. Again, the two TVTropes articles are doing a better job analyzing this trope than this page. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:3592:B8C7:A4DD:45BA|2600:8800:5100:38E:3592:B8C7:A4DD:45BA]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:3592:B8C7:A4DD:45BA|talk]]) 20:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I did respond to your criticism. The article is based on reliable sources. I am not sure why you are saying that there is no prose; there are two paragraphs in the lead section. In addition, the current sources are not the only ones in existence; many of these films have multiple sources out there highlighting the narrative. For simplicity's sake, there is one for each entry. It would be easy to find other reliable sources to cite for a given film. From what I recall, I started the article based on sources listing films per [[WP:NOTESAL]]. Subsequent additions drew on other list sources as well as non-list sources. I do have the book and find it quite good and think that summarizing its contents here would improve the article more. I'm not sure what you mean by debates about some of the films. An editor's personal disagreement with a sourced entry is irrelevant. If sources disagree with each other about whether or not a film has the white savior narrative, then we fold that debate among sources together. Which films in particular do you want to discuss the sourcing of? What sort of prose do you think should be included? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::''Oooooohhh! A whole two paragraphs!'' That clearly what prose means, right? How many paragraphs there are? And not whether or not the article is doing an decent job analyzing the trope? Seriously Erik, are you dense? And I love your reaction to whenever people points out that the sources are heavily skewed to come from op-ed pieces from left-wing websites. "People are complaining about the sources I use? Well, then! I'll just replace those sources and make this article entirely based on one book that I most likely only read the preview of on Google Books!" [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|talk]]) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Are you the same editor who personally disagreed about ''12 Years a Slave'' being removed last December? I see that you inappropriately removed the link to here from that film's article as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=12_Years_a_Slave_%28film%29&type=revision&diff=727413098&oldid=727412257 here], which erodes any good faith in your comments. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh that's is so sweet. Ignore the fact that I am not the only person who disagrees with characterizing ''12 Years a Slave'', ''a film that solely focuses on Solomon Northrup (this the main reason why people dispute having this film listed as an example; it has nothing to with the fact that Brad Pitt's character actually exists and this is all based on a true story—it's the fact that Brad Pitt's character only appeared in one scene, and the movie continues focusing on Solomon) and '''in the opening paragraph is stated to be based on the slave narrative of the same name.''''' My god, Erik! Nobody is saying that a film based on true events can't be a white savior narrative! Just because people dispute having ''12 Years a Slave'' on this list doesn't mean they dispute having ''Cry for Freedom'', or ''Mississippi Burning'', '''and especially not ''The Blind Side'' being on this list.''' And it may be a shocker to you Erik, but it is totally possible to both believe that the "white savior narrative" is a real thing '''and''' find this article to be crap! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|talk]]) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Pinging {{ul|Sro23}}. Also, please see [[Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 2#12 Years a Slave]] for multiple sources about the white savior in ''12 Years a Slave''. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::But none of them are saying it's a white savior narrative! That the main crux of the debate! You just happen to find some articles by people who didn't like ''12 Years a Slave'' who accused Brad Pitt's character of being a white savior. Hell, the first paragraph states that the film is based on the slave narrative of the same name. What is it Erik? Is it a slave narrative, or a white savior narrative? It can't be both, Erik! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|talk]]) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do not think there is anything else I can say that would answer your concerns. I do not mind moving the article to [[white savior trope in film]] or [[white savior in film]] since most sources are just writing "white savior" and "film" rather than "white savior narrative" anyway. We are not stuck with the current article title and can rename it accordingly. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There you go! Using another favorite tactic of yours! Instead of admitting that some of the films listed on this article doesn't belong there and then removing them accordingly, you decide to pout and go "fine! I'll just change the title of the page so it'll be vague enough to justify the inclusion of those films! God forbid I allow anyone but me to touch my rejected TVTrope page!" [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99|talk]]) 03:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::There is nothing to admit. I have said that there are additional sources identifying the white savior in each film. Your disagreements are personally derived. There can be white saviors in historical films; the book ''The White Savior Film'' makes this case. It would be good for this article to cover that as well. Your argument about white saviors being invalid in historical films is your own personal opinion and does not apply to including or excluding content. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::'''How many times do I have to tell you? I know that a film based on true events can still be a white savior narrative. I don't have a problem including ''The Blind Side'' on this list. Why? Because the entirely of that film is centered on Sandra Bullock. ''My objection to including ''12 Years a Slave'' on this list has nothing to do with the fact that this film is based on true events. IT'S BECAUSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE FILM IS FOCUSED ON SOLOMON NORTHRUP. NOT ''MOSTLY,'' ''ENTIRELY.'' IS ENGLISH YOUR SECOND LANGUAGE?'''''[[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 23:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I agree that the white savior narrative is not its defining feature, but a "white savior" is present in the film. The summary description in the table does clarify that Northup is the film's focus. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 01:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::But if the white savior narrative is not its defining feature, then why is it on this list? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::You're right that I misread what you said about historical films. Honestly, your tone has been so uncivil that I was not keen on reading closely your hostile prose. Since we are focusing on ''12 Years a Slave'' here, there are multiple sources identifying a white savior in a film that is indeed primarily a slave narrative. The argument is that it should not be mentioned here at all because it does not apply under the scope of being a white savior narrative. We can address this matter, but since this is the main place on Wikipedia to discuss the general topic of white saviors in films, we should address it in a way that we keep mention of it. That is why I would support moving the article to a new title. The opening sentence doesn't even say "narrative" but "narrative trope", which is more narrow. (The source actually says "cinematic trope", so we should fix that.) Definitions are not arbitrary; there have been other debates about what genre(s) a particular film should fall under. Essentially, most films that feature white saviors will focus on them. ''12 Years a Slave'' is different in that regard. One could personally opine that ''Django Unchained'' is not a white savior narrative since it does not focus on the German. So I really am fine from getting away from this whole "narrative" business. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 11:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::But wouldn't it be easier if we just removed ''12 Years a Slave'' from this list? Seriously, you don't have to rename this article, just remove the films that is not centered on the white savior. It's not that hard. You'll will still have plenty of films left that are considered excellent examples of the white savior narrative, a.k.a. a story that is focused on a white character, either mostly or entirely, that is all about him or her helping out people of color. |
|||
::::::::::::Also, I have read the ''[[12 Years a Slave (film)]]'' article and not once does the term "white savior" popped up. Don't you think it's kind of odd to have its "See Also" section linked to a seemingly unrelated topic? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Removing ''12 Years a Slave'' from this article is based on the premise that it has to be a white savior narrative. I came up with this article title very early on, not to lock in the definition, but probably because the explicit term "white savior film" did not seem commonly used. Looking at [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/04/can-belle-end-hollywood-s-obsession-with-the-white-savior.html this], it says, "When it comes to race-relations dramas—and '''slavery narratives''', in particular—the '''white savior''' has become one of Hollywood’s most reliably offensive clichés," mentioning ''12 Years a Slave''. So "narrative" in this article title is truly not needed, and we can fix that. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::OK, first off, way to ignore my criticism that it makes no sense to have a link to this page on the "See Also" section of ''[[12 Years a Slave (film)]]'' when the term "white savior" appears nowhere in that article. AT ALL. Second, why are being so stubborn? You admit that ''12 Years a Slave'' is not a white savior narrative. Shut up about this talk of ''"Well we can always change the title of this article"'' and just remove it! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 19:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Don't tell me to shut up. See [[WP:CIVIL]]. There is no reason to be nasty. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Continue to ignore my criticisms Erik. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::What's your name? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::What the hell does this have to do with anything? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 21:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==The Matrix?????? == |
|||
''The Matrix'' is a white saviour film? What??? Neo certainly is a saviour, but he's saving the HUMAN race from domination by MACHINES. The racial context... is not there at all. Neo could have been played by Will Smith, Morpheus by Hugo Weaving and Laurence Fishburne as Smith without changing a word of the script. Looking for the source, it's a book, one book, without any quotes from that book, so unless I buy that book, I can't find out the argument for inclusion, and can't dispute it. And the same book is the sole source for including 8 films. All sourced to two pages in a book, where I can only assume someone made a list. So one guy put a list in a book and we must accept this person as infallible. Since people rarely write articles saying "XXX is not a white saviour film", any film that anyone ever used the term about in any context will suffice to include it. So even though 99.9% of reviews of ''The Matrix'' (an underestimate) do not describe it in those terms, it's proudly certified by this Wikipedia article as a racist film with a white supremacist message. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.110|202.81.249.110]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.110|talk]]) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: PS. The description of the film: "a white computer hacker (played by Keanu Reeves) is rescued from being plugged into a computer system, by a black character, and becomes a messiah figure who confronts all-white villains. Black characters serve him as disciples." Again -- What??? [[Keanu Reeves]] is "white"? 50 years ago he'd probably have been called "Coloured". The "Villains" have white complexions, but they aren't Caucasians, human, or living creatures at all. They're artificial intelligences, parodies of 60s FBI agents. And "black disciples"? I've only seen the film two or three times, so I must have fallen asleep each time they were on the screen, whoever they are. And what about Trinity? Not mentioned at all, because she contradicts the theory. Apparently all the people (sorry, "Disciples") on the ''Nebuchadnezzar'' or who are in the resistance, who aren't black are so white they're invisible. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.110|202.81.249.110]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.110|talk]]) 18:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Forget it, man. Erik found one article that claimed that ''the Matrix'' is a white savior narrative. That automatically trumps all objections to having the film on this list. If a bunch of clickbait articles is able to keep '''''12 Years a Slave'', a film that's is entirely centered on a free black man who got kidnapped and was forced to be a slave for twelve years''' on this list, do think pointing out that Neo (who is played by a person of color) was saving the entire human race and not just a oppressed group is going to move the person who has total of this article? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please see [[Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 2#Matrix|this]]. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::You know you are doing an excellent job of ignoring any criticism people have with this article. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 21:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wikipedia articles cannot be written based on personal opinions. Such opinions do not overturn sources. I do not see any value in continuing this discussion, which is one I've had multiple times before. I'm not going to continue this. I do recommend reading all of the sources in the article, and especially the book ''The White Savior Film'', for answers to the questions you are not really looking answers for. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"Wikipedia articles cannot be written based on personal opinions." Yet you have no problem using them as your sources. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0|talk]]) 21:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: You "do not see any value in continuing this discussion" because you've made up your mind. I make one post and you refuse to answer the points I made because you're bored with people disagreeing with you. Maybe these are obvious points that people keep raising and you keep blowing off. Despite having no one agreeing with you, you declare your opinion correct. So much for [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Of course anyone who can't see the obvious racism in these films as you do must therefore be a racist bigot who doesn't like being outed by your perceptive analysis. "I do recommend reading all of the sources in the article" I CANNOT BECAUSE THEY ARE PRINTED BOOKS WHICH I HAVE NO ACCESS TO. The ONLY link on the film ''The Matrix''is to a printed book by a person I've never heard of. Anyway, the reason people are attacking your classifications of films is that you (and it is you, personally and no one else) are in effect declaring that these films are racist tracts pushing racist ideologies. That is a deeply insulting characterisation of the people who made the film and anyone who liked the film, by extension, since it implies if I like a film I support this racist message, a message visible only to someone who sees racism everywhere and in everything. Therefore I'm a racist who refuses to admit it. The description of ''The Matrix'' is completely unsourced and complete bullshit, unrecognisable to anyone who has actually watched it. I'm sure other films have been equally maligned. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 02:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::The content here is not written because of my opinion. This is what sources write about the topic, and we as editors need to combine that coverage. We can't say, "I disagree with what they wrote, therefore I will not include it." Also, references are not required to be online, but most of these should be searchable via Google Books. ''The White Savior Film'' is not quite as searchable, but I have it on hand. I think it is unfair to talk about racism here. That word is not even used to describe the trope. Look at ''Mississippi Burning'' where the director's comment was also shared. This and Professor Fitzgerald's comment (in the lead section) show that the trope appears because of the circumstances of society. Hollywood makes these films based on the industry and the audience with no intention of being racist. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 11:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Erik, I really don't think you understand why this guy is objecting to having ''The Matrix'' on this list. For the ''vast majority'' of the people who believe in the existence of the white savior trope (including me and 202 here), a white savior film has to be: a) a film that is essentially about the struggles of people of color that b) ''somehow still manages to have a white person as the central character'' that said film revolves around. That's why 202 objects having ''The Matrix'' on this list, and why ''I'' object having ''12 Years a Slave'' on this list; ''The Matrix'' has nothing to do with the struggles of people of color, and the central character ''12 Years a Slave'' revolves around is the black guy! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097|2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097|talk]]) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
This article does describe a real "trope" in film, but instead of examining it and using a few, clear examples and analysing them, it instead opts to list every film that anyone ever used the terms about and supports their inclusion with frankly ridiculous and incorrect plot descriptions and links to obscure, inaccessible books and random online articles by even more obscure "critics" well known only to their Facebook friends. What is the point of making a list and insisting on including films where the trope is marginal or disputed? There are plenty like ''Dances With Wolves'' where no one would dispute the idea. To decide that humans in ''The Matrix'' are "black" and the computers are "white" to make it fit the trope is just inviting ridicule. The reason the trope is "White savior" is to distinguish it from "Savior". Not every "Savior" film is a coded form of "White Savior". If Neo in ''The Matrix"'' is a "white saviour", why isn't Jesus in ''King of Kings''? All those Semites, they're not white so they must be black, and Jesus is played by Jeffrey Hunter, a guy who looks white, so it fits. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 03:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:For what it's worth, I agree this article is in need of serious work. I don't doubt it is a trope in film, and quite a racist one at that, but I'm not convinced the Matrix is such a film. The description given for it also seems seriously POV-pushing. I think we need to see some more accessible reference. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 06:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ul|Mattbuck}}, there are numerous references highlighting the white savior in ''The Matrix''. This does not mean that is the full focus by sources. Some films are very notable for their white savior, while others have elements that very much overshadow it, such as ''The Matrix'' being groundbreaking in science fiction. As for references, which ones do you need to access more readily? Online access is not a requirement, but some of book references can be looked up in Google Books. I also have ''The White Savior Film'' handy if needed. I am not sure why you think that the description is POV-pushing, the white savior is not a trope commended by others. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 11:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: "Numerous references"? You only give one, a printed book that only you have access to. It's obvious that Neo is a "saviour", but that he is a "white saviour" in the sense of your article (let's be serious, its 100% your handiwork) -- no. The role of Neo was first offered to Will Smith (an extremely non-white person). That counts for nothing as to the race blindness of the story? Anyway, Reeves isn't "white", he's very mixed race. Your description of the film says there are "black characters serve him as disciples". Who are these "disciples"? "serve him" How? Neo isn't a white outsider, riding it to save benighted natives, his background is no different to any other of the oppressed humans, who live in a 1990s western-style city (actually shot in Sydney). Neo is not distinguished by race or culture from the people he "saves". Yet you describe him as "white" and the people he "saves" as "black". You describe both Neo, a mixed race human, and the Agents, artificial intelligences, simply as "white", to fit your narrative. You ignore the fact that Morpheus is as much a leader, if not more, than Neo. Anyway, looking at the history of this page, I know that you will just shrug and cite some commentator with a racial axe to grind. The only hope of removing this weird crap is to expose it to the light. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 13:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::What is the point of discussing this with you if you overlook my replies? See my comment at 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC) in which I link to an older thread mentioning other references. To keep this succinct, the book ''The White Savior Film'' lists ''The Matrix'' as part of the set of films it assesses. Your opinion does not overturn that. You should contact the author and ask him these questions, but there is no policy or guideline to support applying your personal disagreements here. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: OK, so you can base a whole article on the opinions of one racially obsessed critic, and then go around maligning dozens of films accordingly. So you sourced the ridiculous description of ''The Matrix'' from this book? "White" Neo with his "black disciples" fighting the "all-white villains" and all? Whoever made that up is either a professional axe grinder or has severe tunnel vision. Glad to hear it wasn't you. No matter if it is in print, this is a purely subjective opinion by one person. [[WP:UNDUE]] should apply; there are thousands of reviews and analyses of ''The Matrix''. What proportion describe it as a "white saviour" film? One? Two? [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 16:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The book is not a layperson coming up with their own "purely subjective" opinions. See these reviews of the book to get a sense of its academic approach to the trope: [http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/26/sf.sou121], [https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3854495781/the-white-savior-film-content-critics-and-consumption], [http://has.sagepub.com/content/39/1/112.short]. In regard to WP:UNDUE, a film's article must find a balance based on everything that has been written about it. For ''The Matrix'', there are many sources writing about the science fiction and philosophical elements of it. The white savior trope is only a piece of the whole conversation and would not warrant as much attention as the aforementioned elements. For some other films, that trope may overshadow everything else about the film. For example, ''[[Dangerous Minds]]'' is probably one of the most referenced films with this trope, and it should have its own sub-topic on that article (but it does not, which is an unfortunate omission). In regard to compiling a list of films, it is within the context of this sociological topic. [[WP:NOTESAL]] says, ''"The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the ''group or set'' is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."'' [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 16:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: It's not which aspect of ''The Matrix''' is most important, it's whether this racial subtext you see is there at all; or if you prefer, is seen by anyone citeable aside from your one and only source. Because there are thousands of reviews and articles, a dozen books written about the film ''The Matrix''. Why does one book with this outlier opinion make this true? Again, ''[[WP:UNDUE]]-- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia.'' Just finding one among thousands who agrees with the line you like is not sufficient to close the topic. I have not seen any cogent argument, from your source or otherwise, to support that. And you still refuse to source the description you put in the article, the "black disciples" who you see but no one else noticed. If not sourced to the above book, it is presumably your opinion; you must therefore substantiate it. Also, I don't appreciate being compared to an evolution denier for daring to disagree with your opinions. I believe in provable facts, not making up facts fit my political worldview. The article you wrote opens "In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color". That does not happen in ''The Matrix''. QED [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 17:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::This article is about the white savior trope, so it is fully about the trope itself. The list of films is part of that. The ideal article about ''The Matrix'' would not weigh as much attention to the trope as other elements. The ideal article about ''Dangerous Minds'' would weigh a good portion to the trope. Here we have a list that includes a film if there is coverage by reliable sources of the trope in it. They are different scopes. Hughey's book has a chart that shows scores for different films. ''The Matrix'', from what I recall, is average or below-average in its scoring, where ''Dangerous Minds'' has one of the higher scores. So there is a range of films with this trope to be had here. Many sources about ''The Matrix'' but not about the trope does not mean it is exclusionary. Most of the sources focus on the science fiction and philosophical elements. Some even focus on other kinds of racial elements (e.g., multiraciality) beyond this trope. In essence, this article is ''about'' the trope, and films listed here have this trope highlighted, even though outside that scope, the trope may or may not be minor compared to everything else about the film. Just because you have questions a source cannot answer does not mean it can be overturned. The approach would be to review everything that is said about this trope in the film to see if a better explanation could be provided. For example, [https://books.google.com/books?id=ymmxnd-BHosC&pg=PA39&dq=the+matrix+film+race+black+white&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje4NSz4tLNAhXDQiYKHWTqCV8Q6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=%22the%20matrix%22%20%22white%20savior%22&f=false this] has more commentary about the trope in the film. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Wow. It's comments like this that makes me wonder if you even know what white savior trope is actually about. I mean, you clearly ''heard'' of the term, but I don't ''think'' you know what the term actually means. Also, I love how you haven't followed up on our discussion. That's a typical Erik move, just walk away whenever someone has legitimate grievances with this article. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097|2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097|talk]]) 18:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* OK. I looked at your fount of wisdom on [https://www.amazon.com/White-Savior-Film-Content-Consumption/dp/1439910014 Amazon's preview]. ''The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption'' by Matthew Hughey. The index lists "The Matrix" on 3 pages. Two are just lists. The only discussion at all is on p 31, in its entirety: |
|||
:: p31 - After entering the unsettled lands of the western plains (Dances with Wolves), the multicultural landscape outside computer simulated reality (The Matrix) ... the white protagonist must begin, through his grace, to save nonwhite people from impending disaster. |
|||
:Anyone who has seen the film must find this a strange interpretation. The "multicultural landscape? No idea where that comes from. The "real world" is grungier but no more multicultural than the simulation. But more importantly for this article, he says Neo will then "save nonwhite people from impending disaster". Which doesn't happen at all. He tries to save THE HUMAN RACE. White, nonwhite, brown, yellow, freckled, albino, etc. But most of those shown in the film are, as a matter of fact WHITE (or at least, as approximately "white" as Keanu Reeves). Maybe this guy forgot to take his sunglasses off when he was watching it? Would explain all the coloured people he sees that I don't. And no mention of "black disciples" or "all-white villains". So you did in fact make that up yourself. How sad. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Do you know how to look at a reference? The footnote for ''The Matrix'' references the Hernan & Vera book, which says, ''"Finally, two recent films, ''The Matrix'' (1999) and ''Three Kings'' (1999) demonstrate how the myth of the white messiah persists in Hollywood cinema, except now that the white hero has a racially diverse team of helpers... Nevertheless, the movie's potential critique of white racism is contradicted by the mythic plot, in which the black characters—Morpheus, the Oracle, and Morpheus's crew members Tank and Dozer—are disciples who serve the white Messiah Neo."'' The book ''The White Savior Film'' does not analyze ''The Matrix'' in depth; the book selects some of its set of over 50 films and analyzes these, such as ''Dangerous Minds''. The rest of them are part of his sociological chart. There is also the book I just linked above that discusses the trope more. Please assume good faith; the content here is indeed based on sources and not made up by me. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::So the author doesn't even attempt to explain why he considers ''The Matrix'' a white savior film. Good to know! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097|2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:D6F:1DF7:9651:F097|talk]]) 18:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, I figured you would say that, which is why I made the point that he analyzes ''in depth'' only ''some'' of the set of films in his chart. This does not mean an analysis was not performed; all films were scored based on the approach he used. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://books.google.com/books?id=pMpKLdkpnp8C&pg=PA103&dq=%22the+matrix%22+%22white+savior%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NoYAVY2kMoqHyAT7z4GgCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20matrix%22%20%22white%20savior%22&f=false This] is yet another source analyzing the trope in the film. We can expand the article's paragraph about ''The Matrix'' to explain the sociological consideration of the trope. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: Tell you what. You write a paragraph about the trope in ''The Matrix'' and put it in [[The Matrix]] and see what happens. You've already done the research, so instead of wasting it on [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] anti-Darwinist me, put it in an article you don't control and see how it goes down. Your description of the film here remains a complete misrepresentation of the film. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::I already explained about due weight and individual film articles. Detailed mention of the trope in the article for ''The Matrix'' is much less warranted than in the one for ''Dangerous Minds''. We should be in agreement on that, at least. The main issue is whether or not to list ''The Matrix'' here at all, and I find that it has been listed and analyzed to different degrees by different sources to warrant inclusion. You want the cutoff to be something that excludes it, based on your own personal opinions of it. I'd rather follow the sources, even if I have personal disagreements. You don't think I've summarized negative film reviews for a film I've liked, or vice versa? It's part of editing. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Then why don't just remove the link to this article on the "see also" section if you feel like ''[[The Matrix]]'' doesn't even warrant a small paragraph about the accusations of Neo being a white savior? [[Special:Contributions/107.77.227.149|107.77.227.149]] ([[User talk:107.77.227.149|talk]]) 19:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Don't patronise me. I edit books for a living. All I see in the article is one note to one book and a ridiculously biased description with no relation to the film I saw. And don't tell me you "follow the sources". You aren't acting as an honest broker. You have an agenda, you are defending your own personal point of view. You never allow any contrary views to appear in your article. You say that this racism crap is a small part of the film, but when challenged, enlarge the coverage and make it seem as if it's a film designed to denigrate blacks. The only people who write articles about racism in film are predisposed to see every film as an example of that. Any film with people of different races can be twisted to fit the agenda. (See "King of Kings" as above. Just as plausible as this bull, and you have a "saviour" as a given.) Just [[Doublethink|pretend]] that Neo is white, all the humans are black peasants, the computers are white, that Morpheus is a "disciple", FFS. The thousands of reviewers who didn't notice any racism DO NOT MENTION IT. So for the 3rd and final time [[WP:DUE]] applies. The idea that ''The Matrix'' is a "white saviour" film is held by a tiny minority of strident writers. The 99.9% of reviews that do not mention your "white saviour" interpretation are not included in your analysis. This is the same standard of proof as required by a witch trial. Any hysteric points a finger and says "I see a white saviour" and you drag them off to the town square to be ritually humiliated, brand the film's article with your sign to let everyone know it's a certified racist tract. Again, if your analysis is so evenhanded, well sourced and incontrovertible, put it in [[The Matrix]] article and prove it can stand outside this walled garden. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.27|202.81.248.27]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.27|talk]]) 19:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Oh my god! This is amazing! Erik is getting attacked on both fronts! [[Special:Contributions/107.77.227.149|107.77.227.149]] ([[User talk:107.77.227.149|talk]]) 19:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::''Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddd'' this conversation went nowhere. Erik has once again responded to the criticism by walking away, preventing us from making any change to an article that he has ''de facto'' control of. Because god forbid we make ''any changes'' to his shitty article. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 21:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: In Wikipedia, the person most obsessed by a topic can take control of it. Everyone else just gets sick of dealing with them and walks away. Every now and then someone comes across this article, says "What is this shit?" and might try to fix it. Erik just cites his books and tells them logic doesn't matter, consistency with the definition he gives in his own article doesn't matter, [[WP:DUE|due weight]] doesn't matter, white is black and black is white if it fits his narrative. Nothing matters except the opinions of a couple of guys who see a racist agenda in every film with a whitish protagonist. Rinse and repeat. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.208|202.81.248.208]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.208|talk]]) 01:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: At least ''The Matrix'' has a whitish protagonist so you can stretch it to claim it's a white savior narrative. ''12 Years a Slave'' doesn't even have that! The entirety of ''12 Years a Slave'', a film that is perhaps ''the'' first film to finally exposed United States's slavery system for the wickedness that it was, is centered on Solomon Northup... '''a free Black man'''. But because this is the internet, meaning that there are always going to be a small number of people who wants to be different and shit on a movie that is most likely to be listed as one of the greatest films of the decade if not all time, and because Brad Pitt's character shows up and helps Northup off-screen allowing said people to throw in the term "white savior" so they can go ''"well-beloved anti-racist film is actually loved due to racism!"'', Erik gets to characterize it as an example of the white savior narrative in film. And since the vast majority of the people who loved the movie have ''never'' felt the need to explain why it's ridiculous to apply the "white savior narrative" to a film that's directed by a [[Steve McQueen (director)|Black-British director]], written by a [[John Ridley|Black screenwriter]], is based on a [[Twelve Years a Slave|memoir/slave narrative of the same name]], meaning that the film is centered on [[Solomon Northup|the person who wrote it]], and famously had a hard time getting financial backing from Hollywood, all we can do is get Erik to go ''"Well we can always just rename the article, I don't have a problem with that. Isn't it enough for you that this article acknowledge your criticism?"'' [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 06:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
FFS, Now Erik has enlarged the description of "The Matrix" in his blacklist to two paragraphs, 11 lines; four or five times more than any other film. "Dances With Wolves", one of the most blatant "White savior" films, gets 2 lines. So now in his universe "The Matrix" has become the most prominent and important "White savior" film ever made. Mission accomplished, he's proven he has no perspective or common sense at all. Still ignores the thousands of articles about the film that never mention his trope, while now quoting at length the couple that do. Yet he's still afraid to make his case in [[The Matrix]] article, because he knows he can't get away with this except in an article he controls. This article begins with the definition '''In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight.'''. None of these things are true for the film ''The Matrix''. Erik has turned his own article (he created it in 2014, has made virtually all edits to it, deleted anything not congruent with his worldview) into a parody of political correctness. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.208|202.81.248.208]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.208|talk]]) 09:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:See, I don't think it's political correctness. I think this is more to due to with the fact that '''''ERIK HAS NO GODDAMN CLUE ON WHAT THIS TROPE IS ABOUT,''''' so he just looks up the term "white savior" and just grabs any article by some hack and takes their word for it. We're lucky that the contrarians went with the "LBJ was demonized!"-angle when it came to ''Selma'', because you know Erik would have no problem adding ''a film that mainly focuses on Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery march'' to this list once he comes across an article that reads "''Selma'': Another White Savior Film from Hollywood". [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF|2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF|talk]]) 11:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:EDIT (After looking at said description): LMAO! Good job, Erik! Instead of just admitting that ''The Matrix'' doesn't belong on this list, you decided to double-down and made it the largest description on this page; larger than ''Cry Freedom'', ''Dances with Wolves'', ''Dangerous Minds'', ''The Last Samurai'', ''Lawrence of Arabia'', ''Avatar (now there's a film that you can use as proof that you don't need literal people of color to be a white savior narrative)'', ''Mississippi Burning'', ''Radio'', ''To Kill a Mockingbird'', '''and the fucking ''Blind Side.''''' Well done, Erik! *slow clap* You have just delegitimize everybody who had complained about Hollywood's obsession to make the struggles of people of color all about whitey. Bravo! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF|2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF|talk]]) 12:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, and the content here is based on such sources. Personal opinions do not overturn these sources. Having the trope does not make a film racist. Multiple sources exist for ''The Matrix'', ''12 Years a Slave'', and the other movies, and their descriptions in this particular list have to be based on such sources. It is not within policy to apply personal opinions to mold such sources or to exclude them and their content entirely. It is within policy to see what sources exist and for what films and to reference them here, not to ignore such sources because one thinks they came up with a good counter-argument. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 13:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Erik's article is based on a tiny number of sources that share his viewpoint. IMDB e.g. links 309 professional critics' reviews. He choose two or three that say what he wants to hear. The vast majority of reviews, articles and books that discuss the movie did not find his "White savior" in the film. Every other theme you can imagine is detailed and analysed in depth. According to the [[WP:DUE|Neutral point of view policy]]: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The only viewpoints in the article that are even mentioned are those that support Erik's minority view. This article thus violates policy. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.208|202.81.248.208]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.208|talk]]) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:DUE]] says, ''"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."'' This article is devoted to the sociological topic. On a given film's article, the relation of that topic to other aspects of the film will vary. For ''The Matrix'', other aspects of the film surely overshadow this trope. For ''Dangerous Minds'', coverage of the trope would be well-represented in its own article. The page also says, ''"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views."'' You have made derogatory statements about the sources' credibility, basically saying simplistically that they who write about race in film unnecessarily see race in everything. So your comments are merely driven by your personal interpretations and challenges on the whole topic. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Yes, I have no respect for the writers you cite, since they describe factual elements of the film incorrectly in order to bolster their conclusion. But that's by the way, I know WP doesn't care about truth. My formal, policy-based objection is simply based on the fact that they form a tiny and unrepresentative minority of reviews, and so, you guessed it, you are violating [[WP:DUE]] by presenting them as if they were the consensus view. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.208|202.81.248.208]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.208|talk]]) 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If you know that Wikipedia does not care about truth, then you must know that it cares about verifiability. The sources are verifiable. You and I are not. I've quoted WP:DUE above. It would violate WP:DUE to write in the film's article, "''The Matrix'' is a white savior film..." or to have a whole section ''in that article'' devoted to it. How much to write about the trope in an individual film's article depends on how much has been written about it out there. ''The Matrix'' is not a seminal example of the white savior in film. If I wrote the best article possible about ''The Matrix'', maybe there would be an academic section with several subsections, with one about race in general and some commentary about the white savior trope within that. But it is in ''this'' scope that ''The Matrix'' is worth listing. The connection of a film with a particular trope will vary. Consider genres. Some science fiction films will be obviously science fiction, where some are less obviously sci-fi. We follow the sources in listing a film under a particular genre. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ec}} Why do you keep insisting on this being racist? Generally, films with white saviors are popular with almost everyone. Through a sociological lens, it is seen as a trope that can be interpreted in certain ways, depending on the film. In addition, do you realize that you've been restoring "Wachowski Sisters" on ''The Matrix''? That's vandalism that you are endorsing, unless you are not paying attention to your edits. You complain about it not being clear why the trope applies to ''The Matrix'', now you're complaining that there is too much about how it applies to the film. As I have repeatedly stated, it is not the epitome of all films with white saviors. ''Dangerous Minds'' is a much, much better example. But this is a full list of films. How else do you want to indicate the degree of how much the trope applies? You're in complete denial of any connection between the trope and the film, even as I have provided additional sources and related commentary. I don't think this article is perfect or complete, maybe we could have a synopsis for each film before we provide a paragraph's worth of analysis for each one (based on sources). But you want to apply the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is nonsense. Most commentators are not going to consider every single possible aspect of a film, especially sociologically related aspects, before writing it. You want to believe that it has to jump out to every single layperson for it to be accepted here. That's not the way it works. Some films will have that trope ''very'' highlighted, while others are less expected, like this one or ''12 Years a Slave''. I don't see why I should be attacked for following the sources. You've asked questions about this film that I can't answer because I am a fellow layperson. Maybe these questions were considered, maybe not. Sources are not obliged to spell out every single answer to every possible challenge. If a newspaper reports that critics loved a film, maybe they did a good assessment of all the reviews published. Maybe they just looked at the Rotten Tomatoes score. We don't know for sure. It does not mean we cite ourselves to cancel out a source. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Don't accuse me of vandalising [[The Matrix]]. I have never, ever edited that article. For that matter, I've never edited this article, only the talk pages. And of course you're declaring that all the films in your list are racist in theme. It's absurd to pretend otherwise. But that is simply my shorthand for your term. Just pretend I wrote "exhibits the trope white savior" if you prefer. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.208|202.81.248.208]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.208|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I apologize since the discussion has involved dynamic IPs. That's why I asked someone's name earlier. (Was that you or not?) Are you saying that all films listed in Hughey's ''The White Savior Film'' are racist in theme? What are you even defining racism as? Explicit hatred toward nonwhite people? Can racism be incidental or unintentional? These are aspects that are beyond our purview. If you want to read "white savior" to imply that the filmmakers wanted to exercise white supremacy on purpose, that's your fault. As far as I can tell, there are different reasons why this trope emerges. You can push for that to be explained more, certainly, but your perceived definition of it is fairly cheap. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: It should be pretty damn obvious who is who since your other main critic has a massive IPv6 IP. And all my IPv4 IPs have the same first 2 blocks. Anyway, as to your "absence of evidence" idea: If I ask 50 people who watched a film to describe the protagonist, of those 50 one states that he had a third eye in the middle of his forehead. You would therefore feel justified in adding that as a fact to your article, as the other 49 did not contradict this since they didn't mention the number of eyes at all. My point is, if this trope is in the film, most reviewers, whose whole raison d'etre is to discuss such things, will notice and discuss it. They did not. Only your handful (if that) of professional racism-sniffers. People who look very hard at any film, especially popular ones, in order to make them fit their agenda. As for "racism"; if I were a film maker I would be highly offended to find my work listed here. It implies that I am either deliberately writing a story to denigrate "people of color"; i.e. I'm a racist, or at best too stupid to realise what the themes of my own work are. So your addition of a film to your list is not the same as calling it "noir" or "thriller", it's a very unpleasant allegation. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.208|202.81.248.208]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.208|talk]]) 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: Oh my god Erik! When people used the term "white savior film", it is ''always'' in the context of "Wow Hollywood! Even when it comes to the struggles of people of color, you still managed to find a way to center it on whitey." And it's absolutely true! Hollywood does have a terrible tendency to make the struggles of people of color all about whitey. 202 and I are completely aware of this trend. We are not one of those idiots who'll come by and demand this article to be deleted for being nothing more than "SJW talk", we just want ''12 Years a Slave'' and ''The Matrix'' off this fucking list! And holy shit, dude. ''You're the one'' who thinks that racism can only equal white supremacy? Really? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF|2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:6C91:B244:E028:D5EF|talk]]) 21:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I outlined my own skepticism about ''The Matrix'' in an [[Talk:White_savior_narrative_in_film/Archive_1#The_Matrix|earlier discussion]], but the entry itself is now accompanied by four scholarly sources so it is very difficult to formulate a policy based reason for removing it. While Neo obviously isn't a white savior in a literal sense, the sources seem to be drawing analogies with black power movements. That's a completely valid way of looking at the topic, and if scholars are discussing the film within the context of white savior tropes then it seems reasonable to include it on this list. While I am sympathetic to the arguments for its removal (as my earlier comments indicate) the point remains that editors should not be arguing from their own analysis of the film, and four scholarly sources seem to overcome any possible [[WP:DUE]] concerns of a "lone voice". [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: "Black Power movements? How is that even possible? That's one group that quite definitely didn't have any "white saviours". And [[WP:DUE]] does apply. Hundreds of published reviewers don't see this unicorn, Erik finds a handful that do, who don't even describe the film accurately, and voila, it must be true -- sorry "verifiable". Reviewers who don't see any "white saviour" don't say "There is no white saviour", they just don't mention it at all. And of course it's also irrelevant that it fails to fit the definition in the first line of the article. This lunacy would be tolerable if this single-author article were isolated, but Erik is backlinking it from every film on his list. Thanks to Erik, and Erik alone, the Matrix is now a Wikipedia certified racist film and no one can say otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.106|202.81.249.106]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.106|talk]]) 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Betty, you know that this entry is bullshit. Stop defending Erik, and join us! We can also remove the ''Blood Diamond'' entry; I know you had a huge problem when Erik tried to justify that! [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:F44F:EA83:4DC4:4A22|2600:8800:5100:38E:F44F:EA83:4DC4:4A22]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:F44F:EA83:4DC4:4A22|talk]]) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let me be clear: in my own personal opinion I do not consider The Matrix a "White Savior" film. I think that is obvious from my previous comments on the subject. If I were to draw up my own list of White Savior films I personally would not have included it, but here's the kicker: there are currently four academic sources in the article that say it is. We are free to disagree with those who interpret it as a white savior film but ultimately a couple of editorial opinions do not trump FOUR reputable sources per [[WP:NOTTRUTH]]. If you feel that strongly about it I suggest that you run it by [[WP:NPOVN]] and see what they say. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::I know that you personally don't consider ''The Matrix'' as a white savior film; that's why I would like for you to join our side and end Erik's bullshit. And as 202 points out, the main problem with having ''The Matrix'' on this list due to four "academic sources" (and I really question if they could be considered academic) is that reading ''The Matrix'' as a white savior narrative is such a ''very uncommon'' interpretation that I doubt that ''anyone who has written extensively on the movie is even aware that it could be read that way.'' This isn't like ''Free State of Jones'', ''McFarland, USA'', or the potential [[John Brown (abolitionist)|John Brown]] biopic where the premise of those films (white man helps out people of color in one way or another) is going to invite a debate on whether or not they can be considered white savior narratives. '''Nobody is going to feel the need to write an essay on why ''The Matrix'' is not a white savior narrative. The same thing can be said with ''12 Years a Slave,'' especially since the majority of the sources that justify it being on this list are ''fucking'' op-ed pieces.''' Also, that still doesn't explain why films like ''Cry Freedom'' (a supposed [[Steve Biko]] biopic that's actually about some white journalist who'd met Steve Biko) only has two sentences, while ''The Matrix'' '''''HAS TWO PARAGRAPHS AND IS THE LARGEST ENTRY ON THIS PAGE.''''' [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 10:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Erik}} You could mitigate the inclusion of The Matrix by elaborating that the Neo role was originally offered to an African American actor. The black power movement seems like a valid analogy to me, but if it is a white savior film it is only by accident rather than design, considering that a black actor was originally pursued for the part. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 03:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Betty, I know I can't edit the article, Erik would just revert anything I do immediately with a "revert vandalism" comment. But why do you ask his permission? You're just validating his ownership of the article. Why not just fix it yourself? Anyway, aside from "Neo" being originally intended to be a black actor, as if that isn't enough, the whole point of the trope is that a white person rescues black people who are incapable of doing it themselves, thus demonstrating the innate superiority of the white race. This can be abstracted, so "white/black" applies to "Humans/Naavi" in ''Avatar'', etc. But in ''The Matrix'', Neo is the SAME ethnicity, the SAME culture, as the "blacks" (who aren't "black" noticeably). Neo was born and raised in the Matrix world, same as everyone else. He's not a tourist from a superior civilisation, not a missionary, he's just a schlub until Morpheus finds him. He might be a "savior", but cannot be a "white savior". Whatever magic power he has, it's personal, not racially derived. Which is why of the hundreds of articles, reviews, books about ''The Matrix'', only the handful of commentators with racism axes to grind dug up by Erik mention this "white savior" bullshit. And even though Erik has now devoted 5 times as much space in his article to ''The Matrix'' as any other film, he's afraid to put his findings in [[The Matrix]] because he knows it could not stand the bright light of scrutiny away from the dark corner of his own article. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.114|202.81.248.114]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.114|talk]]) 04:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* How interesting. Erik is also the creator and major contributor to [[Whitewashing in film]]. Same format as this, a short description and then a long list of any and every film that anyone ever complained was too white. So he can link any film he puts on that page to it, as he has been doing for this page. Between them he's given himself a licence to smear any film whose racial politics he finds not up to his standards. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.219|202.81.248.219]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.219|talk]]) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Eh, I got to admit, that list is a bit better than this one. (Although I am bit annoyed that the largest entry on that is ''The Hunger Games'' whose protagonist's ethnicity wasn't even mentioned. Still, since the author of the books did state that the Katniss is most likely mixed, its entry is ''a lot'' more justified than ''the Matrix'' being on this list.) However, if I want a list of Hollywood's trend of giving non-white roles to white people, I'll just stick with this article (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RaceLift). [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:B929:FF85:508:4FBF|2600:8800:5100:38E:B929:FF85:508:4FBF]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:B929:FF85:508:4FBF|talk]]) 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Alright. It has been days since Erik last responded. You think it's safe for me to delete both ''the Matrix'' and ''12 Years a Slave'' entry? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:9D4E:1776:E4CB:1285|2600:8800:5100:38E:9D4E:1776:E4CB:1285]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:9D4E:1776:E4CB:1285|talk]]) 22:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::No. If you feel that strongly about it, I'd suggest starting a [[WP:RFC]]. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 22:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Very funny, you know it's hopeless. Erik has got his "reliable sources" lined up. Since the only people who write in respectable media (as opposed to blogs, etc.) who write on the racial subtexts of films only mention films they see it in, there is no way to remove any film that has ever been charged with this. It's like the [[No Fly List]]. Once your name is on it, you're blacklisted (no pun intended) forever, one published opinion by anyone is enough. While Wikipedia's policy of [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]] stop a lot of crap from being included, they also enable any opinion or interpretation to be validated and be impervious to criticism if it gets published and no one bothers to refute it. Erik can just lay low and when we get sick of it, just keep adding films to his rogues' galleries and then backlinking them from the film articles. It's an important issue because labelling a film like this is a slur against everyone involved with it -- it's not a trivial "genre" label, it implies that the people who made the film are bigots. As such, it really is a [[WP:BLP]] issue. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.11|202.81.248.11]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.11|talk]]) 06:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::OK. I am really getting annoyed by how the people who are trying to uphold Erik's bullshit keep repeating "well maybe you should have a discussion, then!" Sure, I'm down for having a discussion... if anyone is actually interested in giving me one! How the fuck is it so hard to remove '''''one godddamn link''''' to this crappy article. Why do I need a RfC for ''that''? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Well there's now a RFC on the ''12 Years a Slave'' page on removing the link to this page. 202 can you help me out? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 18:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: Well, I have made a comment there -- and you should link it [[Talk:12_Years_a_Slave_(film)#RfC_on_White_savior_narrative_in_film_wikilink]] -- but can't in conscience vote, since I'm afraid I haven't seen the film. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.43|202.81.248.43]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.43|talk]]) 02:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Hello, I've been on vacation. I emailed Matthew Hughey, who wrote ''The White Savior Film''. Here is what he had to say: ''"I outline the 'common denominators' of white savior films, which I empiricalyl demonstrate are made of seven categories: (1) crossing the color and culture line, (2) his saving grace, (3) white suffering, (4) the savior, the bad white, and the natives, (5) the color of meritocracy, (6) white civility, black savagery, and (7) based on a true story: racialized historiography... Second, piggybacking off the first point, a particular film such as '12 years a slave' and 'the matrix' certainly does have White Savior Film elements, as do many other films. Therefore, I would certainly characterize both film as 'white savior film', but I also realize that those films have other elements that might contradict the white savior trope, too. That is, the categorization of a film is not a zero-sum definition, but can co-exist with other genres and categories. I.e., I would also argue that the Matrix is a 'magical negro' film. Both claims are empirically supportable and do not require only one or the other to exist in solitary. Hence, when we speak of whether or not a particular film is or is not a 'white savior' film, its more than a question of whether it is or is not, but it’s more accurate to say that it’s a matter of how much it is or is not, which can be measured by how many of those seven categories are met and then, how quantitatively frequent and qualitatively intense those categories are in that particular film."'' Based on this, [[WP:UNDUE]] needs to be applied differently. This is not an instance of where the Flat Earth minority view is at odds with the majority view. As Hughey states, it is not a zero-sum definition. So I find there to be a stronger case to link to this article as a tangentially related topic. I suggest that the editor(s) who had all their questions about ''The Matrix'' and ''12 Years a Slave'' contact the sociologist with the questions. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{ul|Betty Logan}}, do you think it is appropriate to mention the casting if it is unrelated to this particular topic? It is not a point of debate in sources. It could possibly be meaningless in the sociological sense since the final product had a white savior after all. I could email Hughey for his thoughts on how to consider the near-casting of Will Smith. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]])<sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC) ({{ping|Betty Logan}} I was re-reading the discussion and wanted to point out that Adilifu Nama's commentary actually argues against the white savior element. I found it in my research and included it as a counterpoint. I wanted to let you know in case you want to re-evaluate your argument. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)) |
|||
::: "the final product had a white savior after all." '''IN YOUR OPINION''' which we've heard before. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.75|202.81.249.75]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.75|talk]]) 09:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::You've been sharing just your personal opinion all along. The one time I step away from the sources and speculate offhand, you criticize me? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Your sociologist seems to have discovered Wittgenstein's concept of ''[[Familienähnlichkeit]]''. Well, it is not at all easy to use, its grid can filter out too much or too little, so you should not continue with your one-man show article, but "sociologically" you should compare your opinion with the other editors. IMHO, ''The Matrix'' has more items for not be added to this list than the opposite. It's a messianic, Christological, Augustinian history, with the love of Neo for Trinity and the betrayal of Judas [LU]Cypher. Do you think Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano are people of color? Perhaps Keanu Reeves is more colored, with his blood half Hawaiian, Chinese and Portuguese. Then there are the other characters, but the core of the plot is this, and the salvation ("soteriology") of Neo is for the whole world, interracial and multiethnic, not only for the non-whites. I have a mountain of objections also on some other films of the list (for example ''Gran Torino''), but if the article is a your own property, then go ahead alone. --[[User:Mauro Lanari|Mauro Lanari]] ([[User talk:Mauro Lanari|talk]]) 19:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::It would be nice if Erik "go ahead alone" if it wasn't for the fact that he lazily slaps a link to this article after he adds a film to this list. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:35B0:664A:1171:4151|2600:8800:5100:38E:35B0:664A:1171:4151]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:35B0:664A:1171:4151|talk]]) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I know there is a lot more to be written about ''The Matrix''. I added it to this list because it was named in sources. I see no reason to find the sources invalid, especially when the sociologist says that it is a zero-sum definition and that the definition is empirically supportable here. I am not comparing my opinion to anyone else's. I am defending basing Wikipedia's content on sources and not having it be overturned by editors' own musings. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
At least we finally have an argument to look at. According to Mr White Saviour himself, Matthew Hughey, these are the criteria: |
|||
* (1) crossing the color and culture line, |
|||
:Does not happen in ''The Matrix''. Neo is the same culture and colour as the other humans. Unless he means the the Matrix simulation's green colour scheme. Or choosing the red pill? |
|||
* (2) his saving grace |
|||
: True, but that may make Neo a saviour, but not a ''white'' saviour. |
|||
* (3) white suffering, |
|||
: Whites are suffering, blacks are suffering, Asians are suffering, EVERYBODY is suffering. Even the computers aren't happy. |
|||
* (4) the savior, the bad white, and the natives |
|||
: "the natives"? Who the hell are "the natives" in ''The Matrix''? This is the question I keep asking, and is never answered, since it's central to the concept. |
|||
* (5) the color of meritocracy |
|||
: If I understand this at all, it means whites have more merit than coloured people; so Morpheus has no merit? Really? |
|||
* (6) white civility, black savagery, and |
|||
: What "black savagery"? No idea what that could refer to. "White civility"? Neo is a slob. Did this guy even see the film? |
|||
* (7) based on a true story: racialized historiography |
|||
: Sorry, this is a fantasy/SF story set some centuries or millennia in the future. The only racialization is in his and Erik's head. |
|||
: If you can see a historical racial allegory in this, you've drank too much Kool-Aid. The point of the film is philosophical; not sociological, about current or past human relations, it's about our possible future relationship with inhuman intelligences. Trying to force it into this racism/colonialism/white vs black paradigm by arbitrarily dividing the cast into "black" and white" (when neither is true in any sense) is perverse. The film is not about race at all. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.75|202.81.249.75]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.75|talk]]) 09:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::You are not a reliable source. The sociologist is. You do not get to project your own interpretations to override that source. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::You contacted your buddy and he gave you a definition. His stated criteria clearly fail at almost every specific point to apply to this film. He didn't bother to explain how they did -- WHO ARE THE FUCKING "NATIVES"???? It's so lacking in detail I really wonder if he ever saw, or can remember the film. If when asked he doesn't bother to explain how he came to his conclusion, he is not a source I would rely on. Feel free to ignore anything that doesn't support your opinion and cite any half-baked jumble that does. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.75|202.81.249.75]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.75|talk]]) 18:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Please look at the source. The criteria is in general and does not apply for every film. Some films score very highly under a particular criteria, and some do not. For ''The Matrix'', it scored 0 under "based on a true story" because duh. Do you want to know the scores the film has under the other criteria even though your opinion on this is irrelevant? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::''Hence, when we speak of whether or not a particular film is or is not a 'white savior' film, its more than a question of whether it is or is not, but it’s more accurate to say that it’s a matter of how much it is or is not, which can be measured by how many of those seven categories are met and then, how quantitatively frequent and qualitatively intense those categories are in that particular film.'' This definition of your sociologist is absolutely correct (Wittgenstein ...) and your measurement of those seven categories applied to ''The Matrix'' is absolutely wrong. Matthew Hughey is a reliable source as much as you are unreliable as his interpreter. --[[User:Mauro Lanari|Mauro Lanari]] ([[User talk:Mauro Lanari|talk]]) 18:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's evident that nobody is looking at the sources. Hughey's book on pages 20-21 shows "Table 2.1. White Savior Films (1987-2011)" in which ''The Matrix'' is listed. I am not interpreting anything. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I looked a the source. It lists the film. It does not say WHY. Neither did your communication above. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.75|202.81.249.75]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.75|talk]]) 19:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This only means that the sociologist is the first not to be able to apply his own criteria. --[[User:Mauro Lanari|Mauro Lanari]] ([[User talk:Mauro Lanari|talk]]) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What makes you say that? By all accounts, the book is well-reviewed. I hope you're not citing your own reading of the movie to say that the criteria does not apply? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Nope. As 202 wrote, your sociologist does not motivate why his 7 criteria would apply to ''The Matrix''. List with explanation, thanks, and not only a list. Can you grasp the difference between the criteria on one side and the simple list on the other? --[[User:Mauro Lanari|Mauro Lanari]] ([[User talk:Mauro Lanari|talk]]) 19:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm not sure what you mean. Each film got scored under each criteria. ''The Matrix'' got 0 for "based on a true story" but had nonzero scores under the other criteria. Are you looking for a written-out explanation for why ''The Matrix'' got a nonzero score under these criteria? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{ec}}Sure, and it's time to know the reasons for each of his scores. I gave the college sociology exam, and I learned that there is a serious sociology, experimental, and a journalistic one made by opinion makers: ''flatus vocis'' ("breath of voice"). --[[User:Mauro Lanari|Mauro Lanari]] ([[User talk:Mauro Lanari|talk]]) 21:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I don't find that this disqualifies identifying the white savior trope in the film (especially since this is not the only source). I do see what you mean but am not sure what that means for listing films? Some films may seem vaguely science fiction, and experimental criteria could be applied, but at the end of the day, the categorization has to be done explicitly. Hughey does not explain why he scored each film the way he did (the list has nearly 90, I believe) and analyzes maybe a dozen or so in-depth. But I don't find that lack of in-depth analysis to disqualify a film. The whole list of films in his "White Savior Films" table should qualify. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::But you'll agree that there is a great difference between the dozen or so films analyzed in depth and the whole list of nearly 90 titles. Do you intend to include all of them in the article? What are ''your'' criteria? --[[User:Mauro Lanari|Mauro Lanari]] ([[User talk:Mauro Lanari|talk]]) 22:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::What great difference is there? It is unrealistic for all 90 films to be analyzed in depth. The book has related ground to cover such as historical context, critics, and audiences. The fact is, the full list of films is stated by the source to have this trope. It is not a list of films in general from which he selected the ones with the trope. They all have the trope. My criteria is that I follow the sources. If they state that a film has a white savior trope, then it can be included and referenced. One mention by one source is not enough, which is why I did not include ''The Revenant''. The films in this list article do have more than one sources. Many of them do not reference the Hughey book, and that book can be used as yet another reference for the film. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 22:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Erik, I got a question, why is the main person that you're using to justify your BS entry on ''The Matrix'' a sociologist, and not, I don't know, A FILM CRITIC? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 20:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Do you not understand what sociology in general entails? The book even studies how film critics wrote about certain films; that is the high-level scope that is taken. Here is a book section that can explain it better than me: [https://books.google.com/books?id=M55WAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=%22image+and+influence%22+%22patterns+of+meaning%22&source=bl&ots=V6DgMqBEZR&sig=khGIp08SM1qUL9i_8Ucx-W_IBpw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVufvD5e7NAhXGbj4KHRUTDyQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22image%20and%20influence%22%20%22patterns%20of%20meaning%22&f=false Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film – Patterns of Meaning] (see page 211). [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::And if we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list ''Dangerous Minds'' here. Film critics do not necessarily take the long view (though some do). The white savior trope in ''Dangerous Minds'' appears to have been explored later on. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::"If we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list ''Dangerous Minds'' here." ''"If we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list ''Dangerous Minds'' here."'' '''''"If we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list ''Dangerous Minds'' here." THAT HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST STUPIDEST SHIT I'VE EVER HEARD, ERIK.''''' I'm looking at reviews that are being paraphrased in the ''[[Dangerous Minds]]'' article, and while the term "white savior" might not appear in their reviews, ''they are definitely complaining about the nature of this trope, especially Roger Ebert. '''This is what I mean about you not having any idea what the hell the term "white savior narrative" is about.''''' All you know is that there are people complaining about this trope, so you just Google it and add any film that pops up. And I am sorry, but your sociologist that you keep promoting has clearly demonstrated that he lacks the basic ability to analyze a film. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 02:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::: The fact is, that Erik will include any film that anyone ever said was a "white saviour" film. He doesn't care if it makes sense. He doesn't care if it satisfies his own or his buddy's definition. He doesn't care how offensive it is. If one of his pet sociologists put it in a list, then he can label it as a racist piece of shit and add his tags to its article. It empowers him, he gets to put down all these white bigots, so why would he not do it? As for "And if we only used film critics as sources, I don't think we'd be able to list ''Dangerous Minds'' here. Film critics do not necessarily take the long view (though some do)." That film was made in 1995, before the trope was named and publicised. Anyway even without the guidance of sociologists, some film critics do look below the surface. See e.g. [http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=1641&reviewer=1 Chris Perry's review]: "movies like this one, and Rush Hour, and Lethal Weapon 4, which take a tiny little tinge of anglo-superior thought and take it to an extreme." etc. Can you find any reviewer who says anything like that about ''The Matrix''? No, because most film reviewers actually watched the film and tried to work out what it was saying, not trying to force it to fit into their trope so they can score a hit on a popular film. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.249.48|202.81.249.48]] ([[User talk:202.81.249.48|talk]]) 03:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Hell, look at [http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dangerous-minds-1995 Roger Ebert's review]. Despite not actually naming the trope, that has got to be the most excellent and accurate analysis of the "white savior narrative", breaking down everything that is wrong with this trope. Seriously, how hard is it to find a film critic complaining about the white saviorness of ''Dangerous Minds''? In fact, why is it that the majority of the sources are not coming from film critics? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6|talk]]) 06:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== What is this racism posing as fact doing on Wikipedia? == |
|||
The only way this is not a political narrative propaganda article is if there is an article for every hue of color the current variance in pigment in the sum of the current human gene-pool allows (to my knowledge, in no country has there not yet been made films of the native people to date). But there's just this one. Curious thing. |
|||
Disappointed that this is apparently the lowered standard of today. [[User:RhoDaZZ|RhoDaZZ]] ([[User talk:RhoDaZZ|talk]]) 16:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Inclusion of ''The Matrix'' == |
|||
== What about the Inverted Trope - the "White Wrecker" ? == |
|||
{{rfc|media|rfcid=78B6DB3}} |
|||
Should ''[[The Matrix]]'' be listed with other films at [[white savior narrative in film]]? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
You could argue there's a case for an inverted trope that shows the White man as a nihilistic wrecker or well-meaning, but ignorant disruptor and destroyer who thinks he's helping the natives, but is only making things worse, driven by his misguided, arrogant sense of mission and belief in his superiority: [[The Searchers]] | [[Apocalypse Now]] | [[The Ugly American (film)|The Ugly American]] | [[Dark of the Sun]] | [[The Mission (1986 film)|The Mission]] | [[The Wild Bunch]] | [[The Dogs of War (film)|The Dogs of War]] | [[Last of the Mohicans (1992 film)|Last of the Mohicans]] | [[Thunderheart]]. Some of these films [[Thunderheart]] and [[The Mission (1986 film)|The Mission]] have elements of both tropes. |
|||
*'''Comment:''' ''The Matrix'' should be included because there are multiple sources that identify the white savior trope in the film: |
|||
:*{{cite book | last1=Vera | first1=Hernán | last2=Gordon | first2=Andrew M. | year=2003 | chapter=The Beautiful White American: Sincere Fictions of the Savior | title=Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness | publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers | isbn=978-1-4616-4286-2 | quote=Finally, two recent films, ''The Matrix'' (1999) and ''Three Kings'' (1999) demonstrate how the myth of the white messiah persists in Hollywood cinema, except now that the white hero has a racially diverse team of helpers... Nevertheless, the movie's potential critique of white racism is contradicted by the mythic plot, in which the black characters—Morpheus, the Oracle, and Morpheus's crew members Tank and Dozer—are disciples who serve the white Messiah Neo. }} |
|||
:*{{cite book | ref=harv | last=Hughey | first=Matthew | year=2014 | title=The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption | publisher=Temple University Press | isbn=978-1-4399-1001-6 | quote=[a white protagonist] entering... the multicultural landscapes outside computer-simulated reality [and] must begin, through his grace, to save nonwhite people from an impending disaster. }} (Hughey lists ''The Matrix'' as part of nearly 90 "white savior films") |
|||
:*{{cite book | last=Eng | first=Michael | editor1-last=Bloodsworth-Lugo | editor1-first=Mary K. | editor2-last=Flory | editor2-first=Dan | year=2013 | chapter='Born into Bondage': Teaching ''The Matrix'' and Unlearning the Racial Organization of Knowledge | title=Race, Philosophy, and Film | series=Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy | publisher=[[Routledge]] | page=46 | isbn=978-0-415-62445-9 | quote=By having Neo occupy the time-honored role of white male savior, the racial and gendered otherness of the rebels is paradoxically underscored and dismissed while also being appropriated because their cause is now his. }} |
|||
:The listing of the film was first criticized, then the sources have been criticized with layperson arguments, e.g., "The source is wrong because I saw the film, and this happens which refutes the source." I don't find it appropriate that such personal opining should override the sources, but that is what is happening here. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 13:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Here's more: [https://books.google.com/books?id=NtTLIH6ON0IC&pg=PA117&dq=%22the+matrix%22+%22white+savior%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje_d-8yvDNAhXB5oMKHTGZDIIQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=%22the%20matrix%22%20%22white%20savior%22&f=false The Persistence of Whiteness: Race and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema], [https://books.google.com/books?id=JCoFDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&dq=%22the+matrix%22+%22white+savior%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje_d-8yvDNAhXB5oMKHTGZDIIQ6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=%22the%20matrix%22%20%22white%20savior%22&f=false Race and Contention in Twenty-First Century U.S. Media], [https://books.google.com/books?id=pMpKLdkpnp8C&pg=PA103&dq=%22the+matrix%22+%22white+savior%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje_d-8yvDNAhXB5oMKHTGZDIIQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=%22the%20matrix%22%20%22white%20savior%22&f=false Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender]. The content can be shaped, but the identification of the trope in the film is inescapable. Hughey explained that the trope is not a zero-sum definition, meaning that because the trope exists, does not mean that there cannot be other elements of the film. This trope is only one of numerous elements of the film, and in the context of this article, the film is worth listing to understand how the trope has been identified by sources. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: Your sources were criticised because they are a tiny minority of all critiques of the film. None of the sources you cite are professional film critics, all are people who primarily write about racial issues and look for examples of that in every medium. Whereas hundreds of professional reviewers have written articles and books about ''The Matrix'' and none, to my knowledge, referenced your trope. Thus your presentation of sources that support your claim as if they were a majority opinion violates [[WP:DUE]]. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is presumptuous to believe that film critics will consistently review a film through every kind of sociological lens. This article is ''about'' the trope, so that means ''The Matrix'' can be discussed in this particular scope, provided that there are good sources about it. At the article for ''The Matrix'' itself, it would be undue weight to discuss it ''more'' than the other elements of the film. If I shoehorned in a big "White savior trope" section at that article, ''that'' would be undue weight. This article is instead the space to include related commentary. And your statement about "people who primarily write about racial issues and look for examples of that in every medium" is rather telling. You appear not to want to tolerate any discussion of racial issues because you perceive such people as too obsessed about race? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 15:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Your sources were criticised because they described things that did not happen in the film, a film which we have all seen so these discrepancies are evident, even to "laypersons". At least the film critics, unsophisticated as they are, did not make up facts to support their theories. Similarly to how you assert I am intolerant of discussion of race, despite my earlier citing reviews that discussed racial themes in other films. I object to your inclusion of films that only your handful of sources, people who only discuss films to reveal their racial subtext, can see the "trope". You are not "discussing" films in your article, you present only an unrecognisable description of the plot that supports your thesis. A discussion normally includes other points of view. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't think the issue is so much the inclusion of The Matrix, although this is quite clearly a borderline case (the consensus in [[#The Matrix??????|the above section]] is that it involves a saviour narrative, and that that saviour is white, but that ethnicity is irrelevant to the film), as it is the whole structure of this article. I'll grant you you seem to have found sources for this one film, and so this borderline case has three times as much information about it as anything else on the list. This article as a whole to me seems like nothing more than a list of films that Erik has found personally objectionable. It frankly needs to be burned to the ground and started over using prose and reliable sources discussing the subject critically, rather than being one editor's laundry list. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 13:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ul|Mattbuck}}, are you seriously saying I add films that I find personally objectionable? ''The Matrix'' is one of my favorite science fiction movies. I do not bring my personal feelings about movies into editing. The list of films is based on other people identifying the white savior trope in films. Many of these entries have multiple sources available, and they just have one here for simplicity's sake. We can certainly add more sources across the board as needed, but your claim that this is my personal list of objectionable movies is nonsensical. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 14:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: Erik, since ''The Matrix'' is a favourite film, and you are also invested in labelling it a white saviour" film, you should have no problem explaining to us how it fits the definition you put in the lead para of your article. I know that logic has no weight in Wikipedia, any asshole who can get his opinion in print is a reliable source and you can continue to thumb your nose at anyone who disagrees, but your inclusion of ''The Matrix'' has been questioned on this page many, many times over the two years since you created this list. In particular, your definition says "the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight" WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR? The whole point of your trope is that the "savior" is white and the "people" he rescues are not. But Neo is NOT different ethnically or culturally from "the people". He's more or less white and so are most of the humans we see. In fact, I could make a better case that Morpheus is a (black) saviour who rescues Neo from his plight as a human battery living in a dream world. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am not invested in it. I am invested in going with the sources on this even if I disagree with sources. If you're calling Professor Matthew Hughey just "any asshole who can get his opinion in print", then I can tell that you're not interested in using sources on Wikipedia. Your continued personal opining demonstrates this. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 14:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I didn't call Hughey an asshole. I just said anyone, even an asshole, who can get in print is by definition, a [[WP:RS]]; some RS are assholes (even Adolf Hitler is actually cited in his article), but not by any means all, and not anyone in particular. I should have known you would avoid the question by taking umbrage at trivial wordplay. So I restate my question: '''WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX'''? Your trope definition states they are necessary, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the film. I thought since it was one of your "favourites" you might enlighten me on this key part that I (and all the reviewers, evidently) must have slept through every time I watched it, only spotted by your eagle-eyed sociologist. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 16:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You're not willing to recognize that Hughey is authoritative in his role as a sociologist to identify the trope in films. Your rhetorical questions do not trump his assessment and actually miss the point entirely in regard to the sociological approach to films. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: I'm not asking a "rhetorical question". I'm asking a simple question that you, despite the thousands of words you have written here, still refuse to address: '''WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX?'''. Your trope definition requires them. Hughey's definition requires them (he called them "natives"). I must assume that both he and you refuse to identify them despite being asked multiple times because you can't, they do not exist. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 19:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes, it is a rhetorical question. It's "a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer". You're asking questions to make points. I'm not bothering to answer because this kind of general discussion is irrelevant. Our opinions about whether or not the film has the trope does not matter; the source is what matters. You keep trying to interject yourself as an equally valid authority to identify or deny the trope, but you are not. I am not either; I am only following the sources, irrespective of my feelings on the interpretation made. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: It's a real question. I'm asking you to answer it, not grandstanding. You're just looking for ways to avoid answering it. It's the reason I posted on this talk page to begin with. I do not understand how this film fits the definition you put in your article. You created this the article and several others on similar topics. You went to a lot of trouble to do that and object to anyone else changing a word in them. You aren't a disinterested editor, you have a strong personal investment in these issues. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but don't pretend you are neutral. So yet again, my real, non-rhetorical question is: '''WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX?'''. Your trope definition requires them. Hughey's definition requires them (he called them "natives"). You can and very likely will just keep blowing me off. But after his page is archived, a few months later someone else will come across the article, say WTF? and ask the same question. It's happened several times already. If you can provide a rationale for your list other than "This professor put it on his book, so suck on it" then you would not attract this controversy. If you won't explain how your definition applies, it would be more honest to replace the lead para with what the definition is in practice: "In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope that includes any film that Matthew Hughey says is a white savior film.". [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 05:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible deviations and variations and subgenres like the Black (white) saviour? == |
|||
* '''Remove'''. On the grounds that this analysis of the film is supported by only a handful of sources, while unnoticed by the vast majority of professional reviewers and authors of books analysing the film. Thus it is [[WP:UNDUE]] to list it unequivocally, and very prominently, since it now has the largest section in the table. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*:WP:UNDUE does not apply like that. It says, ''"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."'' (I would argue that this is not a minority viewpoint because the trope is not a zero-sum definition like the Flat Earth concept, used as an example, would be.) This article is ''about'' the trope, so it is appropriate to discuss the trope as identified in ''The Matrix''. It would be undue weight to devote too much prose in the film's article itself about the trope when there are a lot of other elements that are written about in the film. At minimum, there should be a link in its "See also" section. At most, it would depend on the entire universe of commentary related to the film, but I could see a few sentences about it in a reasonable section about the film's portrayal of race. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: You switch rationales from one sentence to another. First it's appropriate because it's a minority viewpoint, then because it's not a minority viewpoint. It's undue to talk about in [[The Matrix]], but not undue to label it as such. All I can see is that you refuse to justify your inclusion except by citing a sociologist whose built a career out of finding racism everywhere he looks. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.248.232|202.81.248.232]] ([[User talk:202.81.248.232|talk]]) 19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry, I'll explain. I do not think the white savior trope is comparable to the Flat Earth concept example. It is a topic assessed through a sociological lens and not at diametrical odds with a "majority viewpoint" (which is simply mute on the matter). In contrast, the Flat Earth concept is at diametrical odds with mainstream science. This does not mean there is no weighing to do here. I think that at the film's article, the content should be weighed much more toward other elements such as philosophy. At this trope's article, the weighing does not apply because it is within the confines of this topic. I am not finding ''The Matrix'' to be outside the cutoff especially when it is explicitly listed as a "white savior film" in Hughey's book. If you think the source is just "finding racism everywhere he looks", that's a gross over-simplification and rather insulting that that is the particular conclusion you're drawing. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' with more concise summaries of the WS claims and Nama's counterclaim. The fact that numerous reviews overlooked an archetype is irrelevant. Link to an appropriate section of [[The_Matrix_(franchise)#Influences_and_interpretations]] (or create one there). Nothing is wrong here except that the description is a bit unwieldy for a list.--[[User:Carwil|Carwil]] ([[User talk:Carwil|talk]]) 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ul|Carwil}}, I had expanded the blurb as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_savior_narrative_in_film&type=revision&diff=727872982&oldid=727666842 here] since there was criticism of the original version. I am okay with putting most commentary in your suggested article. Do you think the original version was fine, or somewhere between the original version and the newer unwieldy version? [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove''' I think the analysis done on this movie, while published, was done backwards and arguably for attention as commentary on the film was extensive. The film is not a narrative based on needing a white savior, as Will Smith was offered the role. This is an example of race-neutral casting where the protagonist happens to be white. The film would be exactly the same if Neo were not a white male, unlike the WSN films like Avatar, Dances with Wolves, Last Samurai, etc, which are dependent on this trope. Including bad examples, such as The Matrix, actually harms the credibility of the article and by extension WP as a whole. Yes, some sociologist published something that says The Matrix is a WSN but that doesn't mean we should leap to define the list as simple as "if anyone ever says anything put it in", but, "if a movie meets the criteria established '''and''' there is published mention", otherwise we are sanctioning minority crackpot and tinfoil opinions. We might not find a source that says it is not, but it's an unreasonable expectation to find sources stating that the film is not an example of the White Savior Narrative because who bothers to write unprompted counterfactuals? We should define members of the category narrowly, by including only films which meet the rules established, not wantonly and widely including any movie any one ever mentioned fits. [[User:JesseRafe|JesseRafe]] ([[User talk:JesseRafe|talk]]) 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*:The article can be renamed [[white savior in film]] or [[white savior trope in film]] to widen the scope. The opening sentence's reference actually says "cinematic trope" instead of narrative. (However this RfC turns out, I can request a move.) However, the rest of your points are still personal opining that cannot be interjected to "debunk" the published source. As for inclusion, you acknowledge that a sociologist identified the trope but then worry about "minority crackpot and tinfoil opinions... including any movie anyone ever mentioned". The book ''The White Savior Film'' hardly matches this gross over-simplification; see positive book reviews [http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/26/sf.sou121 here], [https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3854495781/the-white-savior-film-content-critics-and-consumption here], and [http://has.sagepub.com/content/39/1/112.short here]. In short, ''The Matrix'' is part of Hughey's table listing "white savior films" that meet the criteria under his sociological approach. ''The Matrix'' should not fall outside of some cutoff imposed by Wikipedia editors because they think they made the case to invalidate the sociologist's categorization. We don't even ''need'' a sociological source (other valid sources exist), but the availability of one strengthens the case to include this film. Lastly, the sociological lens is independent of the public perception, not in contrast of it. Sometimes they can overlap, and if they do, the film's own article should cover the trope in detail. Within the confines of this space, though, it is appropriate to identify and list the film since reliable sources have done so. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) ''(I realize that I am [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning the process]] now and will disengage. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC))'' |
|||
*'''Include''' [[WP:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]] support its inclusion. Period. The fact that white savior narratives, like black lives, may be invisible to most white people doesn't matter one whit. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 03:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
You could argue there's a subgenre where the black man or native is in effect an honorary white man because he's adopted White norms and behaviours that White audiences can identify with him as one of them. A good example would be [[In the Heat of the Night (film)|In the Heat of the Night]] or [[Hotel Rwanda]] or [[Swing Kids]] (2018 South Korean film, not the Christian Bale movie) and [[Thunderheart]]. Perhaps an article that examines deviations, perversions or inversion of the White Saviour narrative would be a start you could expand into separate articles and look at similar narratives in other film cultures. Another popular variation is also the white journalist or observer, but also voyeur and sensationalist who uses the backdrop of horror and suffering of post-colonial and other regional, ethnic conflicts to explore and discover his own humanity or lack of it, before returning to his life in the real world to tell his story to an indifferent society preoccupied with its own problems: [[Salvador (film)|Salvador]] | [[The Killing Fields (film)|The Killing Fields]] | [[Under Fire (1983 film)|Under Fire]] | [[Deadline (1987 film)|Deadline]] | [[The Year of Living Dangerously (film)|The Year of Living Dangerously]] | [[Last King of Scotland]] | [[A Taxi Driver]]. Clint Eastwood's [[Pale Rider]] also has many narrative devices of the White Saviour genre although he's rescuing a group of white miners from a local landowner. I would also include Witness starring Harrison Ford as well, substituting the Amish for PoC or indigenous community. [[Dead Man Walking]] too has elements of the white savior narrative even though the person that Sister Helen Prejean is trying to save is white. Hell, even the great basketball movie [[Hoosiers]] feels like a white savior film with Gene Hackman's well-educated, "city slicker" character uplifting a bunch of "small town hicks" (if you replace the hicks with Blacks, it would EASILY fall under the white savior trope). |
|||
== Matthew W. Hughey, PhD == |
|||
== Removal of films based on real life == |
|||
Hughey is the primary source for this article. From his own [http://www.matthewhughey.com/Website/HOME.html webpage]: "My research examines the relationship between racial inequality and collective understandings of race through (1) white racial identity; (2) racialized organizations; (3) mass media; (4) political engagements with race, (5) science and technology, and; (6) public advocacy with racism and discrimination." |
|||
I have restored this list to how it was before {{u|Ninhursag3}} started removing films based on real-life events with these edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_savior_narrative_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1181072831], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_savior_narrative_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1181086428], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_savior_narrative_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1181187804]. There are a number of problems with Ninhursag3's approach here. The main one is that he believes it is editorial prerogative to disagree with sources and edit accordingly: none of us have that prerogative. |
|||
He is I'm sure very sincere but he has an obvious agenda. His entire career is focused on racial issues. His analysis of every issue looks for that aspect. |
|||
I also think Ninhursag3 has taken an unnecessarily narrow, very literal view of what a white savior narrative is. A "white savior narrative" is precisely that: a narrative. Many are allegorical, with alien cultures taking the place of colonial or ethnic minority cultures. The savior may not be literally "white" per se, but the savior may be emblematic of someone from a white culture "saving" someone from an ethnic minority culture. Films such as ''Avatar'' and ''The Matrix'' fall into this group. The other problem is that being based on real events does not necessarily many the film does not conform to white savior tropes. All films are made from a perspective. To take ''Hidden Figures'' for example, which was one of the film Ninhursag3 removed. The film is controversial in some respects, and was called out for a scene in which the Kevin Costner character ends restroom segregation for the women. In real-life this appearently didn't happen; the black women achieved this themselves by insisting that they should be allowed to use the same facilities as their white counterparts. The "toilet dash" was an important part of the film's dramatic impetus, and this is why it was branded as being a "white savior" film. |
|||
His article [https://contexts.org/blog/the-whiteness-of-oscar-night/ The Whiteness of Oscar Night] includes this: |
|||
In article such as these—with all Wikipedia articles really—it is better to assume we do not know better than the sources. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 18:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Many of these award-winning performances by African Americans were in films that follow the narrative structure of what I call a “White Savior” film. A White Savior film is often based on some supposedly true story. Second, it features a nonwhite group or person who experiences conflict and struggle with others that is particularly dangerous or threatening to their life and livelihood. Third, a White person (the savior) enters the milieu and through his or her sacrifices as a teacher, mentor, lawyer, military hero, aspiring writer, or wannabe Native American warrior, is able to physically save — or at least morally redeem — the person or community of folks of color by the film’s end. Examples of this genre include films like Glory (1989), Dangerous Minds (1996), Amistad (1997), Finding Forrester (2000), The Last Samurai (2003), Half-Nelson (2006), Freedom Writers (2007), Gran Torino (2008), Avatar (2009), The Blind Side (2009), The Help (2011), and the list goes on. |
|||
:"The savior may not be literally "white" per se, but the savior may be emblematic of someone from a white culture "saving" someone from an ethnic minority culture." Yeah, Wolf Warrior II is a perfect example of this. The hero in that movie is Chinese, but it's nationalistic tone (Chinese people saving Africans from oppressive whites) is reminiscent of 80s action movies with the virtuous white hero saving an ethnic minority culture. Even the television show Room 222 has white savior tropes even though the main teacher is actually Black! [[Special:Contributions/173.71.122.33|173.71.122.33]] ([[User talk:173.71.122.33|talk]]) 03:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Coach Carter and Lean On Me too have white savior tropes despite the main character not being white. [[Special:Contributions/173.71.122.33|173.71.122.33]] ([[User talk:173.71.122.33|talk]]) 03:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 20:49, 14 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White savior narrative in film article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of White savior narrative in film be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
What about the Inverted Trope - the "White Wrecker" ?
[edit]You could argue there's a case for an inverted trope that shows the White man as a nihilistic wrecker or well-meaning, but ignorant disruptor and destroyer who thinks he's helping the natives, but is only making things worse, driven by his misguided, arrogant sense of mission and belief in his superiority: The Searchers | Apocalypse Now | The Ugly American | Dark of the Sun | The Mission | The Wild Bunch | The Dogs of War | Last of the Mohicans | Thunderheart. Some of these films Thunderheart and The Mission have elements of both tropes.
Possible deviations and variations and subgenres like the Black (white) saviour?
[edit]You could argue there's a subgenre where the black man or native is in effect an honorary white man because he's adopted White norms and behaviours that White audiences can identify with him as one of them. A good example would be In the Heat of the Night or Hotel Rwanda or Swing Kids (2018 South Korean film, not the Christian Bale movie) and Thunderheart. Perhaps an article that examines deviations, perversions or inversion of the White Saviour narrative would be a start you could expand into separate articles and look at similar narratives in other film cultures. Another popular variation is also the white journalist or observer, but also voyeur and sensationalist who uses the backdrop of horror and suffering of post-colonial and other regional, ethnic conflicts to explore and discover his own humanity or lack of it, before returning to his life in the real world to tell his story to an indifferent society preoccupied with its own problems: Salvador | The Killing Fields | Under Fire | Deadline | The Year of Living Dangerously | Last King of Scotland | A Taxi Driver. Clint Eastwood's Pale Rider also has many narrative devices of the White Saviour genre although he's rescuing a group of white miners from a local landowner. I would also include Witness starring Harrison Ford as well, substituting the Amish for PoC or indigenous community. Dead Man Walking too has elements of the white savior narrative even though the person that Sister Helen Prejean is trying to save is white. Hell, even the great basketball movie Hoosiers feels like a white savior film with Gene Hackman's well-educated, "city slicker" character uplifting a bunch of "small town hicks" (if you replace the hicks with Blacks, it would EASILY fall under the white savior trope).
Removal of films based on real life
[edit]I have restored this list to how it was before Ninhursag3 started removing films based on real-life events with these edits: [1], [2], [3]. There are a number of problems with Ninhursag3's approach here. The main one is that he believes it is editorial prerogative to disagree with sources and edit accordingly: none of us have that prerogative.
I also think Ninhursag3 has taken an unnecessarily narrow, very literal view of what a white savior narrative is. A "white savior narrative" is precisely that: a narrative. Many are allegorical, with alien cultures taking the place of colonial or ethnic minority cultures. The savior may not be literally "white" per se, but the savior may be emblematic of someone from a white culture "saving" someone from an ethnic minority culture. Films such as Avatar and The Matrix fall into this group. The other problem is that being based on real events does not necessarily many the film does not conform to white savior tropes. All films are made from a perspective. To take Hidden Figures for example, which was one of the film Ninhursag3 removed. The film is controversial in some respects, and was called out for a scene in which the Kevin Costner character ends restroom segregation for the women. In real-life this appearently didn't happen; the black women achieved this themselves by insisting that they should be allowed to use the same facilities as their white counterparts. The "toilet dash" was an important part of the film's dramatic impetus, and this is why it was branded as being a "white savior" film.
In article such as these—with all Wikipedia articles really—it is better to assume we do not know better than the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- "The savior may not be literally "white" per se, but the savior may be emblematic of someone from a white culture "saving" someone from an ethnic minority culture." Yeah, Wolf Warrior II is a perfect example of this. The hero in that movie is Chinese, but it's nationalistic tone (Chinese people saving Africans from oppressive whites) is reminiscent of 80s action movies with the virtuous white hero saving an ethnic minority culture. Even the television show Room 222 has white savior tropes even though the main teacher is actually Black! 173.71.122.33 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Coach Carter and Lean On Me too have white savior tropes despite the main character not being white. 173.71.122.33 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- List-Class film articles
- List-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- List-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- List-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- List-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Low-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- List-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- List-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States