@drjekel_mrhyde said:

The movie is about a murder for hire and insurance fraud, but the town is more focused on the black family. No one in this town is even bothered by the home invasion, murder, the sister of the dead woman moving in with the widow, the sister in law changed her hair color to look exactly like the dead wife. The entire town is so mad at the black couple that they don't pay any attention to a murder going on in the middle of a well lit street. I think the story is parallel to the bad comments online, in that no one gives one shiat about the main story, but are more offended by them throwing in a racial subplot.

Why would anyone, then or now, be bothered by a woman moving in with her widower brother in law? How is that abnormal? Why would anyone be perturbed by a TWIN looking like her sister? Or dying her hair? In what reality are these crimes or even odd things?

Nowhere in this movie is there a suggestion that the home invasion and murder are ignored. In fact the point of the plot is that it is very quickly and intensely investigated. The only dramatic value I can see for the rioting is that it gives Matt Damon a chance to go running around town for comedy purposes.

And ftr, Suburbicon IS two film scripts merged together. One dealing with the crime story and the other with the race issue. That neither story helps the other has been almost universally acknowledged.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

George Clooney co-wrote and directed this story around William and Daisy Myers, and their experiences in Levittown, PA in 1957. There's plenty of documentation of this, another ugly episode in American history, feel free to read about it.

So, no, he did not foist/force/shove a racial angle into the story - racism is the story.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

George Clooney co-wrote and directed this story around William and Daisy Myers, and their experiences in Levittown, PA in 1957. There's plenty of documentation of this, another ugly episode in American history, feel free to read about it.

So, no, he did not foist/force/shove a racial angle into the story - racism is the story.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

Good question. I might say it's a movie about racism, using an incident from 1957. Which is to say, it's not so much about 1957, or implying that, because we're no longer in 1957, we can leave this behind, forget about it; it is, rather, about our current condition, just using that incident to work with.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

George Clooney wasn't old enough to make a movie, when it happened in 1957. George Clooney can only make movies after having attained movie-making age/knowledge/experience. I don't mean to sound facetious here - George is a person, an American, an artist, born when he was born, and he, at this time in his life, felt - for whatever reason - that this was a story that should be told/retold now.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

Art must be interpreted. Different people see it differently (clearly as evidenced by this thread). Coupled with what the director and actors themselves said about their interest in telling this story, I understand them to be doing what artists have always done - challenge us, holding up a mirror of the past to help us understand what is, apparently, still happening out there in our society today, that the blindness that our racism causes us makes us the real evil in what we do, while we terrorize other people for nothing more than what they are.

And, that difference, between what we do, and what we are, is critical, connecting with my stance on the difference between being a white person (what we are) vs. being a white supremacist (what some DO); as well as the problem with racism, which targets people not because of what they DO, but simply because of what they ARE.

What purpose does that serve? It should help us see, more clearly, the driving forces behind some of the social issues we face today; or, at least, it should (and has, as evidenced by this thread) bring people from diverse backgrounds together to talk about these issues - not try to sweep them away, forget about them, or blissfully pretend there are no issues with which to contend, as some (in this thread as well) contend.

What's always interesting in these conversations is the discomfort so many white people have in facing the human atrocities that are stitched into the very fabric of American history, for fear that they, today, somehow, are responsible for the past. They are not. But, we are responsible for our present. What people did 200 hundred years ago, or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, are what those people did then. The question is, what are WE doing today? If we can't even face the reality of the past, it's no wonder we have so much difficulty being objective about our present.

More interesting than this, to me, is that this discomfort in dealing with the past seems more important than recognizing their discomfort as relatively minor vs. the pain and suffering that happened and continues to happen due to racism and other isms. Our discomfort continues to be elevated as a more important issue than the pain and suffering that racism/isms cause others. Because (OF COURSE) we are more important than others, and their pain is less important than ours - or, so we apparently still think.

And, in that, we continue to impose our views of the matters as supreme, views that should hold sway over the experiences and realities of any others who dare, who have the audacity, to challenge our supremeness. The very tone of this posture reflects the depth of the problem that did not die in 1857, or 1957, but is alive in 2018.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Of course Get Out was a comedy.

We must respectfully disagree on this. And that's fine, I suppose.

Not 'just' a comedy, obviously, but that is the nature of the vehicle. Suburbicon is supposed to be a black comedy as well. What were you thinking when you saw an adult riding a kid's bicycle? I bet it wasn't, 'Gielgud would have nailed that scene'.

Any movie can have a funny moment, but a funny moment or scene does not make a comedy. Surely, I shouldn't have had to say that.

I have yet to hear anyone claim Star Wars was 'based on a true story' in order to justify script shortcomings in the way that has been done on this board with regard to Suburbicon. Repeating the (absurd) claim that it is 'based on a true story' as tho this mandates its inclusion in the movie is just waffle.

I've never argued that the label "based on a true story" is an attempt to justify script shortcomings. I merely have maintained that the popular notion in this thread - that the race angle was shoved into the story - is not factual, because the writers, director and actors all talk about their interest in this as a story about racism.

The problem with your argument is you are confusing different things. There is the clear right of writers and producers to insert social commentary into their movies. (And deal with the fallout.) Then there is good movie making which knows what to leave out and when. Clooney can be as stridently political as his democratic and economic freedoms allow. I for one would never try to curtail his rights to expression. People do however have a right to engage and reply, despite you claiming to 'be done here'.

More to the point, on a movie forum, people have a right to say when this editorialising ruins what might, just might, have been a movie worth paying for.

And people also have the right to acknowledge that, in their opinion, the movie was not at all ruined by what you call editorializing (which itself is an odd statement, all storytellers edit their story to make it a story); and, as it was, was well worth paying for, and thinking about.

You might want to consider why, if the core story is, as you claim, the racism experienced by the black family, all of the leads billed in this movie are white actors. Is that also an example of 'incorrect billing' or was Clooney forced by dark racist powers in Hollywood to do that? The simple answer is that it reflects what the movie is actually about.

Me consider? How about you consider? They are in the business of making movies, and part of that business is to sell admission. Would YOU have gone to see a movie headlined by a group of unknown, black actors? They are using their position to get people out for the chance they might then see a story that might challenge them and make them think. What's so hard to grasp about putting some nasty tasting medicine in a spoonful of honey?

Yes, I can agree, Matt Damon and Julianne Moore were the focal point of the story - because, as I've maintained, they were ugly, loathsome human beings, based on what they DID...but, given they were hardly noticed while the tiki torches and hate was being mounted against the innocent neighbours just because of what they WERE, the wrapper of everyone missing them is the blindness due to racism.

Ultimately, the final message from this film (since it seems evident to me that too many will miss it , distracted by the tinsel of the incorrect rating and misgivings about the reality of racism in American history and culture yesteryear and today) - the abject ugliness in Matt Damon and Julianne Moore's characters was self-destructive.

And that, my art-critiquing friends, is a metaphor.

"A word, to the wise, is sufficient".

Peace.

Very eloquently put, @DRDMovieMusings in your second to last post here. I too have seen the very thing you mentioned, as far as people denying or dismissing things that actually happened and still happen today. Being uncomfortable with discussing the past, seeing it as more vital than those who were marginalized, is also disheartening.

I can understand also how political things can be shoehorned into films, tv shows, etc. when it just seems forced, contrived or not done well. I'm only saying I could kind of understand what people would be getting at there, but I am not sure if this film would fall into that category.

@A-Dubya said:

Very eloquently put, @DRDMovieMusings in your second to last post here. I too have seen the very thing you mentioned, as far as people denying or dismissing things that actually happened and still happen today. Being uncomfortable with discussing the past, seeing it as more vital than those who were marginalized, is also disheartening.

I can understand also how political things can be shoehorned into films, tv shows, etc. when it just seems forced, contrived or not done well. I'm only saying I could kind of understand what people would be getting at there, but I am not sure if this film would fall into that category.

Agree, mate. I'm all for critiquing a movie. In truth, they may have done a bad job with this movie. No skin off my nose.

I just want to see us get it closer to right on the basis of what worked and didn't work and why. And, thus far, it's been, in my opinion, off target.

DRD. According to Wiki, Suburbicon is the result of two scripts that were languishing (for upwards of 30 years fwiw) that were ultimately merged into the one story. The first story is a rather typical Coen Bros black farce. The second was a serious treatment of the racism experienced by the Myers family (blacks, not jews, possibly the distasteful origin of the similar joke in the movie).

The merging of these two stories doesn't work dramatically. The movie was a box office and critical bomb. That isn't editorialising; it is an accurate assessment of an economic and artistic endeavour. Movies are not like poetry that cannot be judged by external measures. Movies are more like football games. There are winners and losers.

Whoever made the decision to merge these two stories, and it is hard not to suspect Clooney given his artistic and political form, truly screwed up. If it were anyone here, we would have lost our jobs and struggled to find work again.

So when you keep saying 'it's based on a true story' that in no way explains how the Myers' story came to be jammed into a black farce about insurance fraud. No one here is saying that the Myers' story shouldn't have been told; only that didn't didn't belong in Suburbicon. If you step back from this for a while, you might see that this mashup actually does a gross disservice to the Myers' story.

But this is to talk about things from a production end. Moviegoers, mostly, care only about what they are seeing on screen. But they won't be lectured to by celebrities or have theatres turned into audio visual re education camps. If people are going into a cinema to see a Coen Bros movie with Damon and Moore starring, giving them interstitials pushing an identitarian agenda is going to be rejected. If you can't see the problem with the idea that you and I as movie-goers are unwitting patients of Dr Clooney and must accept our medicine, whether it is needed or not, without complaining, then we have a cultural problem that might be worse than the purported disease.

On the other hand, no normal person comes out of The Color Purple or Seven Years a Slave complaining that it has social and political content.

You know, I'm glad we've gotten this far in this conversation. I'd almost given up hope there'd be any rational conversation, and lo, it has emerged. We can and will certainly disagree, but your latest post is somewhat more constructive, and I can live with that.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

DRD. According to Wiki, Suburbicon is the result of two scripts that were languishing (for upwards of 30 years fwiw) that were ultimately merged into the one story. The first story is a rather typical Coen Bros black farce. The second was a serious treatment of the racism experienced by the Myers family (blacks, not jews, possibly the distasteful origin of the similar joke in the movie).

Yes, correct. What captured Clooney, Damon et al was the Myers story. They brought the Damon/Moore angle to it as a juxtaposition, which, I think, worked. Or, at least, was done in a language that I understood, even as I know not all will.

The merging of these two stories doesn't work dramatically.

For you and others, but not all, and not me.

The movie was a box office and critical bomb.

I've built a comparative database of movie box office performance. The greatest movies are not the biggest box office hits, nor the (immediately) highly acclaimed. Meanwhile, Transformers does great box, does that make them great movies? And, as for critical performance, we should all make our own opinions about movies. I don't even watch award shows, I couldn't care less if a movie I don't like won an award and a movie I love didn't. The way Hollywood works, that's the case more often than not. I've watched and enjoyed a lot of movies with an all-white cast (In Her Shoes, It's Complicated), and they're usually just called "movies". But, I've also watched a lot of great movies with an all-black cast (She's Gotta Have It, Mo' Better Blues), and they're typically considered "black movies" which most of my white friends have never watched. Do I really expect any of those to get "awards"? And Clooney knows that, he's not going to cast an all-black cast, because then white people would be less likely to see it, and the message is being directed to white people. I'm also willing to bet that most of the people in this thread trashing the movie are white and that part of why it resonated with me is that I'm black. And that's not new - most white people are as convinced OJ is guilty as if they were there and saw him do it, and most black folks were just happy to a black man not be found guilty before he's even gotten a trial; neither side were emotionally invested in the facts or how those facts were determined, presented and tried; we just looked at the trial through the lens of our own personal experiences and biases. I'm betting that's more the matter of how this movie is being critiqued than anything intrinsic in the movie itself. And I could be wrong, that's just my opinion.

That isn't editorialising; it is an accurate assessment of an economic and artistic endeavour. Movies are not like poetry that cannot be judged by external measures. Movies are more like football games. There are winners and losers.

I'll pass on arguing about this one way or another.

Whoever made the decision to merge these two stories, and it is hard not to suspect Clooney given his artistic and political form, truly screwed up.

In your opinion, to which you are entitled.

So when you keep saying 'it's based on a true story' that in no way explains how the Myers' story came to be jammed into a black farce about insurance fraud.

Again, I think it was the other way around, but we've argued this ad nauseum. Agree to disagree.

No one here is saying that the Myers' story shouldn't have been told;

And yet, all the first comments to which I initially responded said nothing of the merit of even trying to tell their story. Just superlative dismissal of it, "tone deaf in every way", offering nothing of any defense or even acknowledgement of the story and the value of even trying to tell it. I'm not convinced at all that anyone who came to this board initially to trash it have any interest in the Myers story. We've gotten this far in the thread because I took exception to all the vitriol that appeared to me to offer no expectation of any constructive concessions or acknowledgements on the horizon.

only that didn't didn't belong in Suburbicon. If you step back from this for a while, you might see that this mashup actually does a gross disservice to the Myers' story.

Perhaps, indeed. But, given the tone and direction of this thread in general and your contributions up to before this point in particular ("garbage", "tone deaf in every regard") , it's hard for me to believe you actually care an iota about doing service to the Myers' story. You even had what I consider to be the audacity to conflate stereotypes about "violent blacks and "mendacious Jews" with white supremacist terrorists, using that same false equivalence as someone arguing "on both sides...on both sides..." The "problems in taking this route ought to be self evident" does not apply because the problems with stereotyping a group of people do not extend to a dramatic depiction of a real historical event or circumstance. False equivalence is really annoying redirect rhetoric.

But this is to talk about things from a production end. Moviegoers, mostly, care only about what they are seeing on screen. But they won't be lectured to by celebrities or have theatres turned into audio visual re education camps. If people are going into a cinema to see a Coen Bros movie with Damon and Moore starring, giving them interstitials pushing an identitarian agenda is going to be rejected. If you can't see the problem with the idea that you and I as movie-goers are unwitting patients of Dr Clooney and must accept our medicine, whether it is needed or not, without complaining,

I never said don't complain, let's not digress to straw man here. I'm all for critique as I've said earlier. I just wanted to see the conversation more on point.

then we have a cultural problem that might be worse than the purported disease.

Again, each time someone attempts to argue, during a conversation about racism, that some side issue is somehow worse than racism, going so far as to dismiss it with "purported", I'm suspicious that we're not really on the same page about what the real issues and problems are, or their priority.

On the other hand, no normal person comes out of The Color Purple or Seven Years a Slave complaining that it has social and political content.

I see your point here, but if you're suggesting that there's only one way to address an issue, I don't necessarily agree fully there. I recognize and do agree there is formula to storytelling, to movie-making but, at the end of the day, a creative group of people tried something a little different. While most will take the view that they failed, I will take the position that, even if it did, it does serve a purpose in creating dialog in which people can discuss issues beyond the success or failure of the movie that attempted to raise the conversation in the first place.

At any rate, again, I'm glad we've managed to engage some kind of conversation out of the attempt from this movie.

I haven't altered my original opinion of the movie. It is garbage. The movie itself is not worth the time spent on it here, but, possibly, the imputation of racism levelled at those who found the movie awful, requires rebuttal. To do this it was necessary to point out that the criticisms rest on the movie's dramatic failings themselves and are not some fault in the eye of the beholder.

As for the idea that 'great' movies are not always the most popular, you omit that if one alters the criteria in this elitist way, then the 'elite', one might suppose film critics, must at least like the movie. They don't. It was critically panned. So it fails on that metric as well.

Ftr, while we can never truly know what motivated Clooney et al to mash up two unrelated stories, I suspect it had more to do with Clooney being able to say he has made movies with black characters. This sort of white paternalism with the objective of boosting the market value of Clooney Inc is really just another form of racism. Black people are of course able to tell their own stories and no more need Clooney to hold their hand than white people need to be told by Clooney that they are racists.

I will not be lectured at by a white, middle aged, billionaire. Someone considered one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. If you are happy for rich white men to tell serious stories about black lives, and to slip those stories between the pages of a farce, then good for you. What is especially disappointing is that you seem to think the Myers' story has been properly told here. It hasn't, and the attempt to include it in Suburbicon helped ruin what might have been a good Coen Bros movie.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@MongoLloyd said:

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

Good question. I might say it's a movie about racism, using an incident from 1957. Which is to say, it's not so much about 1957, or implying that, because we're no longer in 1957, we can leave this behind, forget about it; it is, rather, about our current condition, just using that incident to work with.

Yeah, that's exactly it, and I'm getting sick of the underlying message that white people are bad. This unspoken edict that people must hate whites is really starting to p!ss me off.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

George Clooney wasn't old enough to make a movie, when it happened in 1957. George Clooney can only make movies after having attained movie-making age/knowledge/experience. I don't mean to sound facetious here - George is a person, an American, an artist, born when he was born, and he, at this time in his life, felt - for whatever reason - that this was a story that should be told/retold now.

And George is other things also, which tends to be heavily reflected in the choices he makes with roles he takes and movies he makes.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

Art must be interpreted. Different people see it differently (clearly as evidenced by this thread). Coupled with what the director and actors themselves said about their interest in telling this story, I understand them to be doing what artists have always done - challenge us, holding up a mirror of the past to help us understand what is, apparently, still happening out there in our society today, that the blindness that our racism causes us makes us the real evil in what we do, while we terrorize other people for nothing more than what they are.

And, that difference, between what we do, and what we are, is critical, connecting with my stance on the difference between being a white person (what we are) vs. being a white supremacist (what some DO); as well as the problem with racism, which targets people not because of what they DO, but simply because of what they ARE.

What purpose does that serve? It should help us see, more clearly, the driving forces behind some of the social issues we face today; or, at least, it should (and has, as evidenced by this thread) bring people from diverse backgrounds together to talk about these issues - not try to sweep them away, forget about them, or blissfully pretend there are no issues with which to contend, as some (in this thread as well) contend.

What's always interesting in these conversations is the discomfort so many white people have in facing the human atrocities that are stitched into the very fabric of American history, for fear that they, today, somehow, are responsible for the past. They are not. But, we are responsible for our present. What people did 200 hundred years ago, or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, are what those people did then. The question is, what are WE doing today? If we can't even face the reality of the past, it's no wonder we have so much difficulty being objective about our present.

More interesting than this, to me, is that this discomfort in dealing with the past seems more important than recognizing their discomfort as relatively minor vs. the pain and suffering that happened and continues to happen due to racism and other isms. Our discomfort continues to be elevated as a more important issue than the pain and suffering that racism/isms cause others. Because (OF COURSE) we are more important than others, and their pain is less important than ours - or, so we apparently still think.

And, in that, we continue to impose our views of the matters as supreme, views that should hold sway over the experiences and realities of any others who dare, who have the audacity, to challenge our supremeness. The very tone of this posture reflects the depth of the problem that did not die in 1857, or 1957, but is alive in 2018.

Obviously, I'm sick of this unrealistic one-sided message that whites are racist, are the only race that can BE racist, and must constantly be reminded that they are racist. I never competed with any bIacks for grades or jobs. I never prevented any bIacks from getting ahead, and my European ancestors weren't even IN the U.S. when slavery was in effect. There are over 20 million human beings living in slavery right at this very moment and yet certain people feel the need to constantly relive, remind, and crow about slavery in the U.S. To what end?

I can't imagine any kind of future where slavery in America would ever return, so why do we need to be constantly reminded of what happened over a hundred years ago and beyond? Everyone is WELL aware of what happened. There is nearly nothing new than can be brought to light about slavery in America. All this does is make certain people feel guilty, and incite certain other people who are preyed upon by people like Clooney with his social justice commercial art.

Not to mention, slavery happened almost literally everywhere on Earth while all races and ethnicities at the very least having to endure long term oppression.

When Kanye West said something about slavery being a "choice," I really believe what he meant was present day - that bIacks choose to live as former slaves, thereby enslaving themselves to some degree at least in their minds.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I haven't altered my original opinion of the movie. It is garbage. The movie itself is not worth the time spent on it here, but, possibly, the imputation of racism levelled at those who found the movie awful, requires rebuttal. To do this it was necessary to point out that the criticisms rest on the movie's dramatic failings themselves and are not some fault in the eye of the beholder.

As for the idea that 'great' movies are not always the most popular, you omit that if one alters the criteria in this elitist way, then the 'elite', one might suppose film critics, must at least like the movie. They don't. It was critically panned. So it fails on that metric as well.

Ftr, while we can never truly know what motivated Clooney et al to mash up two unrelated stories, I suspect it had more to do with Clooney being able to say he has made movies with black characters. This sort of white paternalism with the objective of boosting the market value of Clooney Inc is really just another form of racism. Black people are of course able to tell their own stories and no more need Clooney to hold their hand than white people need to be told by Clooney that they are racists.

I will not be lectured at by a white, middle aged, billionaire. Someone considered one of the most powerful men in Hollywood. If you are happy for rich white men to tell serious stories about black lives, and to slip those stories between the pages of a farce, then good for you. What is especially disappointing is that you seem to think the Myers' story has been properly told here. It hasn't, and the attempt to include it in Suburbicon helped ruin what might have been a good Coen Bros movie.

Interesting.

Ok, be well.

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@MongoLloyd said:

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

Good question. I might say it's a movie about racism, using an incident from 1957. Which is to say, it's not so much about 1957, or implying that, because we're no longer in 1957, we can leave this behind, forget about it; it is, rather, about our current condition, just using that incident to work with.

Yeah, that's exactly it, and I'm getting sick of the underlying message that white people are bad. This unspoken edict that people must hate whites is really starting to p!ss me off.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

George Clooney wasn't old enough to make a movie, when it happened in 1957. George Clooney can only make movies after having attained movie-making age/knowledge/experience. I don't mean to sound facetious here - George is a person, an American, an artist, born when he was born, and he, at this time in his life, felt - for whatever reason - that this was a story that should be told/retold now.

And George is other things also, which tends to be heavily reflected in the choices he makes with roles he takes and movies he makes.

This is a movie about racism in 1957. Why make a film about it now? What purpose does it serve? Understand?

Art must be interpreted. Different people see it differently (clearly as evidenced by this thread). Coupled with what the director and actors themselves said about their interest in telling this story, I understand them to be doing what artists have always done - challenge us, holding up a mirror of the past to help us understand what is, apparently, still happening out there in our society today, that the blindness that our racism causes us makes us the real evil in what we do, while we terrorize other people for nothing more than what they are.

And, that difference, between what we do, and what we are, is critical, connecting with my stance on the difference between being a white person (what we are) vs. being a white supremacist (what some DO); as well as the problem with racism, which targets people not because of what they DO, but simply because of what they ARE.

What purpose does that serve? It should help us see, more clearly, the driving forces behind some of the social issues we face today; or, at least, it should (and has, as evidenced by this thread) bring people from diverse backgrounds together to talk about these issues - not try to sweep them away, forget about them, or blissfully pretend there are no issues with which to contend, as some (in this thread as well) contend.

What's always interesting in these conversations is the discomfort so many white people have in facing the human atrocities that are stitched into the very fabric of American history, for fear that they, today, somehow, are responsible for the past. They are not. But, we are responsible for our present. What people did 200 hundred years ago, or 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, are what those people did then. The question is, what are WE doing today? If we can't even face the reality of the past, it's no wonder we have so much difficulty being objective about our present.

More interesting than this, to me, is that this discomfort in dealing with the past seems more important than recognizing their discomfort as relatively minor vs. the pain and suffering that happened and continues to happen due to racism and other isms. Our discomfort continues to be elevated as a more important issue than the pain and suffering that racism/isms cause others. Because (OF COURSE) we are more important than others, and their pain is less important than ours - or, so we apparently still think.

And, in that, we continue to impose our views of the matters as supreme, views that should hold sway over the experiences and realities of any others who dare, who have the audacity, to challenge our supremeness. The very tone of this posture reflects the depth of the problem that did not die in 1857, or 1957, but is alive in 2018.

Obviously, I'm sick of this unrealistic one-sided message that whites are racist, are the only race that can BE racist, and must constantly be reminded that they are racist. I never competed with any bIacks for grades or jobs. I never prevented any bIacks from getting ahead, and my European ancestors weren't even IN the U.S. when slavery was in effect. There are over 20 million human beings living in slavery right at this very moment and yet certain people feel the need to constantly relive, remind, and crow about slavery in the U.S. To what end?

I can't imagine any kind of future where slavery in America would ever return, so why do we need to be constantly reminded of what happened over a hundred years ago and beyond? Everyone is WELL aware of what happened. There is nearly nothing new than can be brought to light about slavery in America. All this does is make certain people feel guilty, and incite certain other people who are preyed upon by people like Clooney with his social justice commercial art.

Not to mention, slavery happened almost literally everywhere on Earth while all races and ethnicities at the very least having to endure long term oppression.

When Kanye West said something about slavery being a "choice," I really believe what he meant was present day - that bIacks choose to live as former slaves, thereby enslaving themselves to some degree at least in their minds.

All-righty then.

The several attempts to argue that there's an agenda pushing "all white people are bad" is straw man fallacy, utter rhetoric.

All white people are not racists. Being white is not a problem.

All racists are racists. Racists are a problem.

Calling out white supremacy does not target white people. Defending whiteness is an illogical response to calling out white supremacy. It is a redirection, a distraction - whiteness is not under attack.

Conflating these is wrong, untrue, disingenuous.

FFS, quit it.

Heather Heyer, a white woman, lost her life taking a stand against white supremacists. Clearly, both she and they knew/know the difference. Despite her being white, KKK leaders celebrated her death and called her murderer a champion, a true patriot, for killing her.

Her death was not 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, it happened recently in our contemporary time. Racism is not a relic of history - it is proactive today, it hurts everyone, and equivocating is costing lives.

German cabaret was not very successful at stopping the Nazis.(I am paraphrasing Ben Elton.) Where does this idea that political opinion is a good thing to be inserted into otherwise irrelevant entertainment come from?

People resent it not because they are defending 'whiteness' (or 'maleness' or 'straightness' or whatever) but because they resent being patronised by celebrities who, for no good reason, seem to think they know better than us dumb audiences. If writers and directors really want to pull us out of our suspension of disbelief, then a quick detour into political commentary will do it. That is anti drama. And I don't even know where to begin to understand why someone would insert serious political commentary into a comedy that has nothing to do with the story being told or even, amazingly, contemporary society.

And what is worse is that this sort of commentary isn't actually an instantiation of free speech and expression. The range of expression that makes it onto our screens is exceedingly narrow. The same people who encourage this sort of thing seem also to be the same people who will 'no platform' a performer they disagree with.

I doubt you would be defending political commentary in comedies if the politics being pushed ran in opposition to your own. You either allow that as a general principle or reject it as such.

Calling people racist btw isn't like accusing them of littering or having poor table manners. It's a heinous accusation. To do so on no evidence whatever, or merely because the person has different beliefs to yourself, is itself an injustice.