Political Correctness in Indy V

Lao_Che

Active member
What I find interesting about Chattar Lal is that he might be the only Thuggee not on the Black Sleep and he's a product of Oxford. It wouldn't surprise me if he voluntarily threw in with the Thuggee as a path to power and influence.

Snark about British colonialism does not necessarily mean Lal has any interest in an independent India. We know how well the Thuggee take care of children too.

Mola Ram is all about a global Thuggee empire and I like that the ToD Sourcebook used Lal's death being cut to say he wasn't quite ready to die for the cause.

But, y'know, keep your politics out of my Indiana Jones. *shakes fist*
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Stoo said:
Nonsense, Toht. What is political about painting a landscape or composing a melody, etc.?

Good question. Despite a lack of a fine arts degree, I'll attempt to answer.
With a landscape painting: what kind of style did the artist employ? Different styles of art have been popular with different political movements over the years, and different styles portray the political climate in which art is created.

Think of German expressionism, coming as it did after the defeat of Germany in the Great War. Stark, bold, with the ever-present threat of darkness and death hanging over it.

Then there's impressionism, which came about during a period of political instability in France, and can be seen as a rejection of the French Academy of Fine Arts, the conservative school that had dominated art training for roughly 200 years.

Also, what kind of landscape is being depicted? Does it show signs of human habitation? If it shows farmland, it could be the product of an agrarian society. Are there buildings in the distance? It could be a product of industrialisation, however subtle. And if the landscape is a deliberate return to nature, eschewing the kind of signs of habitation we're familiar with in the present day, then that in itself is a statement.

At a very bare bones level, any art produced in an industrialised, capitalist society will reflect just that.

The same could be said for music.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Toht's Arm said:
Good question. Despite a lack of a fine arts degree, I'll attempt to answer.
Hi, Toht. As a working artist (with a degree in commercial art), I still respectfully disagree with the common statement that "all art is political". Much of it can be construed to be so, however, not "all". Otherwise, we're talking about everything from world-renowned masterpieces right down to children's drawings that hang on a fridge & beyond (music, sculpture, poetry, etc.) I suppose it boils down to "What is art?" but let's not go down that rabbit hole! ;)

You bring up some slight examples but at the end of the day, even though the artist is the one laying the stuff down, it's the viewer who interprets the work in their own, personal manner. To force a political issue into a piece that is void of such, often resorts merely speculating into the artist's subconsciousness. For instance, Jackson Pollock's paintings were argued to be statements about freedom (even the CIA got involved). Those were the critics' feelings, though, not his.

'Form over content' is one of the general principles of art. It is possible to create something aesthetically pleasing without any political slant whatsoever. Beauty for beauty's sake, as the old saying goes. You mentioned French impressionism. Well, Matisse was a great proponent of this idea.

Yes, a person's output will be influenced by their environment, unintentionally or not, but with Lucasfilm these days, the political injections are obviously VERY intentional.

Pale Horse said:
Already studied 3 years of art history, thank you very much! :p

---
Apparently the upcoming "Solo" movie has a female-voiced droid who is fighting for droids' rights. Wtf? :confused: George has always been an anti-establishment guy but, please, Kathleen, can you pull in your reins a bit? Since Indy 5 is talking place in the late '60s, maybe Kathleen will insist on having a women's lib rally at the college campus where Indy gets the Grail Diary signed by Gloria Steinem!:D
 
Last edited:

Toht's Arm

Active member
I don't disagree with any of your statements really. I think both posts can coexist. Yes, any interpretation of art will also be clouded by the viewer's own world view (their personal politics, the era in which they live, whether or not they've been seen such art before etc, etc). Pretty much all we do here at the Raven is interpret and extrapolate the art of the Beards, no?

I appreciate that people feel that political viewpoints have become more prevalent in mainstream Hollywood, but I don't think that's the case. I think it's more obvious to us because we're older and more learned than when we first saw the movies of our youth, and because - in some instances - the politics rub some the wrong way, so stand out. (See, for example, the internet commenters who bizarrely think Star Wars only become political from The Force Awakens onwards...)

I can guarantee that the same complaints about movies being less political 'in the good old days' before meddling producers and their agendas got their way have been trotted out since the early days of cinema.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Well apparently Lando is "pansexual" in the new Solo movie so my worries about Indy V being a PC fest just quadrupled.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Hi, Toht. As a working artist (with a degree in commercial art), I still respectfully disagree with the common statement that "all art is political". Much of it can be construed to be so, however, not "all". Otherwise, we're talking about everything from world-renowned masterpieces right down to children's drawings that hang on a fridge & beyond (music, sculpture, poetry, etc.) I suppose it boils down to "What is art?" but let's not go down that rabbit hole! ;)

You bring up some slight examples but at the end of the day, even though the artist is the one laying the stuff down, it's the viewer who interprets the work in their own, personal manner. To force a political issue into a piece that is void of such, often resorts merely speculating into the artist's subconsciousness. For instance, Jackson Pollock's paintings were argued to be statements about freedom (even the CIA got involved). Those were the critics' feelings, though, not his.

'Form over content' is one of the general principles of art. It is possible to create something aesthetically pleasing without any political slant whatsoever. Beauty for beauty's sake, as the old saying goes. You mentioned French impressionism. Well, Matisse was a great proponent of this idea.

Yes, a person's output will be influenced by their environment, unintentionally or not, but with Lucasfilm these days, the political injections are obviously VERY intentional.

Already studied 3 years of art history, thank you very much! :p

---
Apparently the upcoming "Solo" movie has a female-voiced droid who is fighting for droids' rights. Wtf? :confused: George has always been an anti-establishment guy but, please, Kathleen, can you pull in your reins a bit? Since Indy 5 is talking place in the late '60s, maybe Kathleen will insist on having a women's lib rally at the college campus where Indy gets the Grail Diary signed by Gloria Steinem!:D


Skip to minute 17:39 in this video. If you truly think Disney has some sort of female SJW agenda, you are mistaken. https://youtu.be/KkjtDgjpz98
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Face_Palm said:
Skip to minute 17:39 in this video. If you truly think Disney has some sort of female SJW agenda, you are mistaken. https://youtu.be/KkjtDgjpz98

Kathleen Kennedy's own words betray the opinion in that video:

From the article said:
...

Erin Whitney: The Star Wars films have done a lot for female characters and female heroes, but the movies have yet to have a female director. You recently said that a woman who has no experience with blockbusters wasn’t suitable to direct a star wars movie, however multiple male directors have had that opportunity. So why is it different for women and — 

Kathleen Kennedy: That’s not true. This gentleman [points to Gareth] did Godzilla before we hired him to direct the movie. And that quote was taken out of context. And I, as you can imagine, have every intention of giving somebody an opportunity. So, if somebody actually moves through the process of making movies and wants to make a Star Wars movie, and shows that they have actually stepped into the role on that level, of course we’re going to consider a woman. That goes without saying.

EW: Can you name any female directors that you think have potential to direct a Star Wars movie?

KK: There are many. And I’ve talked to most of them. There are many out there.

The message here seems to be that Lucasfilm would welcome a female director for a Star Wars film, provided they they aren’t the ones that have to stomach any of the risk involved in moving them from the realm of independent features to blockbuster films....

The interview in screencrush is a result of Kennedy's words in Variety.

Kennedy broached the subject of hiring a woman to direct a Star Wars movie, something she’s previously spoken passionately — an diplomatically — about:

(Kathleen) "We want to make sure that when we bring a female director in to do “Star Wars,” they’re set up for success. They’re gigantic films, and you can’t come into them with essentially no experience. We want to really start to focus in on people we would love to work with and see what kinds of things they’re doing to progress up that ladder now, and then pull them in when the time is right."
 

Lambonius

New member
Stoo said:
Hi, Toht. As a working artist (with a degree in commercial art), I still respectfully disagree with the common statement that "all art is political". Much of it can be construed to be so, however, not "all". Otherwise, we're talking about everything from world-renowned masterpieces right down to children's drawings that hang on a fridge & beyond (music, sculpture, poetry, etc.) I suppose it boils down to "What is art?" but let's not go down that rabbit hole! ;)

You bring up some slight examples but at the end of the day, even though the artist is the one laying the stuff down, it's the viewer who interprets the work in their own, personal manner. To force a political issue into a piece that is void of such, often resorts merely speculating into the artist's subconsciousness. For instance, Jackson Pollock's paintings were argued to be statements about freedom (even the CIA got involved). Those were the critics' feelings, though, not his.

'Form over content' is one of the general principles of art. It is possible to create something aesthetically pleasing without any political slant whatsoever. Beauty for beauty's sake, as the old saying goes. You mentioned French impressionism. Well, Matisse was a great proponent of this idea.

Yes, a person's output will be influenced by their environment, unintentionally or not, but with Lucasfilm these days, the political injections are obviously VERY intentional.

Already studied 3 years of art history, thank you very much! :p

---
Apparently the upcoming "Solo" movie has a female-voiced droid who is fighting for droids' rights. Wtf? :confused: George has always been an anti-establishment guy but, please, Kathleen, can you pull in your reins a bit? Since Indy 5 is talking place in the late '60s, maybe Kathleen will insist on having a women's lib rally at the college campus where Indy gets the Grail Diary signed by Gloria Steinem!:D

Tenured professor of art history here. I would argue that the very choice to try and make apolitical art is itself a political choice. Art does not exist in a vacuum. The context of both artist and viewer will always impact the conversation.

Personally I've never heard the phrase "form over content," (do you mean "form follows function?"--that one was a principle of early modern architectural design, though it implies the opposite of the argument you're trying to make about beauty for beauty's sake.) I teach my students that form, content, and context are all equally important in the complete understanding of a work of art. In fact, one of the habits I work on breaking my students of is their privileging of appearances or "beauty" over all other aspects of a piece.
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
Some of the most hilarious art of all time is Postmodern!

If I'm looking for art, I'm looking for beauty and an escape from reality. If I'm looking for a laugh I'll go see a comedy.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
If I'm looking for art, I'm looking for beauty and an escape from reality. If I'm looking for a laugh I'll go see a comedy.

insert the Crystal Skull movie here
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Disney's constant pandering and agenda-pushing in Star Wars makes me extremely concerned for the future of Indy. I'd rather they just leave the series alone at this point.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
IndyBuff said:
Disney's constant pandering and agenda-pushing in Star Wars makes me extremely concerned for the future of Indy. I'd rather they just leave the series alone at this point.

What agenda are they pushing?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Their agenda is pro-third-wave, intersectional feminism, basically. I mean they just announced that Lando is "pansexual" for example and apparently he flirts with Han in the new film. The leading figures in the new films are all women, the antagonists white males, and even the white males who are not antagonists are shown to be deeply flawed [IE, Han is a deadbeat dad and horrible husband, Luke a failure who considered murdering a child and then cowardly hid himself away while the galaxy burned] and/or failures who need to die in order to be redeemed.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dialogue in Solo has been interpreted as sugesting that Lando could be pansexual, therefore making him sexually interested in men, woman, and droids, which could include both Han and Landos companion female co-pilot droid L3-37. Co-writer Jonathan Kasdan opinionated that Lando is pansexual, stating, "There's a fluidity to Donald and Billy Dee's [portrayal of Lando?s] sexuality [...] I would have loved to have gotten a more explicitly LGBT character into this movie. I think it's time, certainly, for that, and I love the fluidity ― sort of the spectrum of sexuality that Donald appeals to and that droids are a part of. He doesn?t make any hard and fast rules."
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Their agenda is pro-third-wave, intersectional feminism, basically. I mean they just announced that Lando is "pansexual" for example and apparently he flirts with Han in the new film. The leading figures in the new films are all women, the antagonists white males, and even the white males who are not antagonists are shown to be deeply flawed [IE, Han is a deadbeat dad and horrible husband, Luke a failure who considered murdering a child and then cowardly hid himself away while the galaxy burned] and/or failures who need to die in order to be redeemed.

Skip to 17:39 in this video, there is no agenda: https://youtu.be/KkjtDgjpz98

And even if their was, why are the female characters so weak, especially Rey?

Rey was so weak in the last Jedi it was embarrassing. Even Luke was never weak like that. She spends the first half of the movie ?needing a man? - Luke to save the galaxy. When he refuses she doesn?t go ?Well I?m an all powerful girl so I can do this by myself? instead she goes, well I need help from another man - Kylo. And when Snoke (another powerful man) throws her around like a rag doll, Kylo saves her. Even at the end of the movie it?s Luke who has to save everyone?s ass. She was so weak it was unreal. Hard to root for someone who needs men to save her all the time. Episode 9 needs to make Rey a stronger female character, otherwise nobody is going to root for her anymore.

And the one powerful woman character they had in the film - Captain Phasma just gets destroyed by Finn like she was nothing.

Some people think Rey was too powerful in the Force Awakens because she beat Kylo Ren, but they didn?t pay attention to the fact that she grew up with a melee weapon to protect her. So she?s good at it. Plus we saw what Chewies blaster was doing to stormtroopers all throughout the movie, and Kylo took it straight to the gut and was bleeding our big time when they fought. It?s no different from Luke growing up piloting and shooting well on Tatooine and blowing up the Death Star with the force in his first ever film out of nowhere.
 
Top