As you know, I've dedicated space in this blog to celebrating the increasing diversity of American cinema.
It therefore perhaps comes as no surprise that I prickle when people dismiss movies that center characters who are not members of the dominant classes in America, meaning: anyone who is not white, straight, cis, male, presumed Christian (or at least not not Christian), and able-bodied. The VAST majority of major American movies center characters who fit into this narrow demographic mold, even though that means excluding all but a minority of the population of this country.
This dismissal can be expressed through outrage, concocted controversies, and even whining over characters being played by actors with traits consistent with how the characters were written. Or it can be more subtle, perhaps packaged in a deeply fraught choice of words. With a sigh, a furrowed brow, a shrug of the shoulders, or an irritated eye roll, these movies are at times described as "pandering". I've heard this word used in reference to some of the most visible recent non-white-guy-centering movies, and it strikes me as exceedingly problematic.
Before we dive into what it means to use that word to describe these movies, let's start by defining our terms. According to Merriam-Webster, the word "pandering" or "to pander" can be defined as:
to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
- films that pander to the basest emotions
to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable
So from where I'm sitting: hooooooooly shit please tell me it's obvious that using this word to describe movies about people in oppressed minority groups is deeply problematic. It's obvious, right?
In case it's not, let's unpack what's happening when we use the word "pandering" to describe
"Black Panther" (2018),
or "Wonder Woman" (2017),
or "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" (2015),
or any movie that isn't only about white straight dudes. Let's talk about what's happening if you've ever used that word for one of these films, or one like it.
First off, does that word even apply?
to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
- films that pander to the basest emotions
If we're saying this definition applies, we're implying that these films are created with the goal of gratifying "others' desires". Well, who do we mean by "others", exactly? "Wonder Woman", a movie centered around a female heroine, was directed by Patty Jenkins, who is a woman. "Black Panther", a movie centered around a Black hero, was directed by Ryan Coogler, who is a Black man. While many people have to cooperate for a movie to get made, if we consider that the person most readily identified as "in charge" of film projects is the director, we can't say that these films were made as a scheme to please "others" who are unlike the people in charge. We could make the inference that it is the director's, not "others'", desires that are being gratified through these films. These are movies made by women/Black people and about women/Black people. Because pandering is by definition about providing for others', not your, desires, the word simply cannot apply in these cases; there are no "others" to be pandered to.
And what do we mean by "gratification of desires", and why is that inherently bad? By "desires" being "gratified", are we insinuating that these films are only a manipulative ploy to grab at the ticket money of people too dumb to know that they're being "pandered" to? Because that's pretty bleakly misanthropic. Could we instead mean that the director's "desire" in these cases is to "for once make a movie that features characters with similar demographic traits to mine"?
Sidenote: J.J. Abrams directed the white woman and Black man co-starred "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," and he's a white man. So maybe we could say this definition applies for this film, but I'll address that later.
The exemplar given in that definition—"films that pander to the basest emotions"—I suppose could apply to these movies, if you interpret the simple wish to have someone who looks like you show up as a hero or even at all in movies every once in a while as an expression of profound self-centered narcissism. But then, since the people calling these movies "pandering" often have similar demographic traits to those of basically EVER MOVIE HERO EVER, aren't you showing a bit of hypocrisy? After all, you're basically saying, "Hey! I like it better when literally 100% of the heroes look like me!!" Who's having the self-centered "base emotions" now?
Now let's look at that second definition:
to do or provide what someone wants or demands even though it is not proper, good, or reasonable
Oof.
So: like many, I see the increasing emergence of diversity in cinema as a signal that our society is progressing by becoming more inclusive, tolerant, and embracing of people who are often overlooked or demeaned. This is a particularly heartening trend in light of the current political reality in America. It is also a necessary counterpoint to decades of (and still ongoing) problematic portrayals or erasures of people of color, women, LGBTQ people, members of non-Christian religions, and people of different ability levels and body types in American cinema. There are so many people—the majority of Americans—waiting and fighting to be uplifted and seen as equal players in this country.
So if we say that diverse casting and stories are "pandering", we are suggesting that striving for more equitable and positive representation for members of oppressed minority groups is improper, bad, and unreasonable. What worldview would support something so preposterous?
The answer to that question brings us to the real issue at hand: white supremacy and white privilege.
 |
| From this excellent Facebook page based on one of my favorite 90s shows! |
If you feel a pull to call a non-white-dude-centric film "pandering", that is an expression of the very disconcerting fact that you see anyone not superficially resembling you—because of gender, color, sexual orientation, physical ability, body type, what have you—as less than you. It expresses your failure to see those people as, like you, just people. It is an indictment of your own lack of ability to recognize the humanity in others who do not look like you.
That failure might not be in your full, conscious awareness. It may be in conflict with your values or the kind of person you want to be. Regardless, in calling these films “pandering”, you are naming your blindness to the humanity of your fellow human beings, and you are participating in their oppression by supporting their continued erasure. You are saying, in essence, that these films should not be made because they are somehow beneath us.
It is therefore uncomfortable to be shown that there are other people. This means that maybe the world isn’t only about you anymore, and that space is being made for others to also have comfort. To need to put down those still extraordinarily rare corrective films as “pandering” is an attempt to reclaim 100% of the comfort for yourself. Well pardon me, but fuck you.
 |
| You and me both, Clarissa. |
Because here’s the thing: I’m not Black. There are no white women in “Black Panther”. On a demographic basis, I have no placeholder in the film. But as a human being, watching that movie made my heart sing with joy. I know how much intentional positive representation matters, and how far we have yet to go as a nation in creating that for everyone. In "Black Panther", I saw a critical step in that corrective process. I saw my fellow human beings being celebrated. I could imagine the uplifting force of that movie for thousands upon thousands of my Black fellow human beings. I could see its capacity to heal and empower after generations of oppression. How could I not gratefully embrace this film?
And how could I not speak up when I hear it dismissed?
Seriously, look at these children’s faces as they watch "Black Panther". Listen to their reactions to that movie.
Look, listen, and ask yourself: Are those the faces of children who are being “pandered” to?
You would say that movie shouldn't have been made? You would deny those children the chance to see themselves as powerful, valuable, capable, and as deserving of our attention—yes, your attention?
A movie does not need to be about me or you to be a source of exhilaration, inspiration, and happiness. We can recognize that a rising tide of inclusion uplifts us all—and that we cannot be free while any one of us is unfree. We can see the good, communal value in another person’s story. We can have gratitude for being given a seat at the table where others’ stories are told.
There’s a seat for you, too.
If you don’t take it, your loss—of the opportunity to expand your curiosity about, compassion for, and experience of the common humanity of your fellow human beings.
I sincerely hope you join us.
{Heart}
