Return to Article Details Cancel Culture and Contemporary Film Criticism or is the Voice of Film Critics Cancelled, Too?

Film Censorship: A Brief Overview

The representation of class, race and gender in films has been a slippery ground on which filmmakers had to step attempting to keep a healthy balance. Throughout the history of American film industry most movies fell under the category of censored films, first imposed by the Hays Code and then by the Production Code Administration. For example, even now classics such as A Streetcar Named Desire (dir. Elia Kazan, 1951) were intensely regulated by the censoring institution, which prohibited the use of profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions, and rape (O’Brien in Lewis 2021). In fact, the Production Code Administration was also responsible for the revision of American cinema especially in the period between 1934 and 1968, when the rating system took over the task of overseeing restrictions for films according to audiences. In the twenty-first century, the motion picture industry is still regulated by the rating system. Nevertheless, in recent years, a new movement emerged, one that has had influence on the contemporary film industry as well. This was the cancel or call-out culture, which brought changes into the production, distribution, and display of films, both contemporary and older ones.

Due to the active participation of the public in contemporary film culture, instant feedback on cinematic productions has had a greater and more serious impact on a film’s reception than before. With the instant spread of news in the social media about the responses to a film, the collective fear of ‘being cancelled’ has proved to be an issue among film critics, more than ever. In this context thus, the aim of this paper is to highlight some of the most palpable effects of current cancel culture on American films. My aim is to discuss whether film critics still have a word in shaping the course of cancel culture or will they choose to remain silent in this turbulent debate. For this, I am going to reflect on and use as example one of The Wrap’s podcasts (dated 4th June, 2021). Here, three film critics were invited to discuss several issues related to cancel culture and, paradoxically, they carefully approached the topic, without giving straightforward answers to the majority of the questions they were given.

At the moment, it is a rather difficult task to define cancel culture as such. A contemporary phenomenon, cancel culture is continuously reshaping itself through popular culture and contemporary politics. At the basis of its definition might lay Foucault’s theory on power and knowledge as well as silence as discourse, all relevant when mapping the origins of cancel culture. In Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), Foucault introduces the relationship between power and knowledge, claiming that power is everywhere, and those who exercise power use and abuse knowledge as well. Thus, power shapes knowledge. Moreover, Foucault states that truth is unlikely to be objective given that each society has its own regime of truth, which indicates that those who are in power decide the collective truth of a society (Foucault in Rabinow 1991, 74-75). Furthermore, truth is constantly reinforced by educational institutions, the media, and various economical, and political ideologies. In other words, truth is affected by power. Therefore, by applying Foucault’s take on power, knowledge, and truth, cancel culture can be viewed as both an institution of oppression and objective reality as those who have power in society shape the reception of certain events and with this, can change the perception of the masses on certain individuals. Additionally, the extensive use of social media platforms by the masses also indicates the possibility of distorting the truth.

Besides truth, the idea of silence is also a concept that was of paramount importance over the past few decades in many fields. In film studies, for example, Pauline Kael’s I Lost it at the Movies (1965) refers to the culture of silence when discussing her fellow film critic colleagues’ attitude towards expressing their opinions about certain films. Kael claims that many critics are afraid of self-exposure, and hence, refuse to explicitly exhibit their opinions (Kael 1965, 9). Kael’s take on silence in film criticism has an even greater relevance today when the effects of cancel culture on the profession became more prevalent.

In addition to the previously mentioned concepts, the influence of cancel culture is largely motivated by the participatory behavior of the public. Henry Jenkins, the American media scholar, coined the term participatory culture in an effort to determine the interactivity of the media consumers and media producers and argues that in today’s media culture, the line between content producers and consumers has ceased to exist (Jenkins 2006, 3). From a previously receptive role, media consumers, in this context, become active participants of digital content creating.

While cancel culture in visual arts may appear to be a relatively recent phenomenon, its roots can be traced back to the early twentieth century as film censorship. The first instance of such censorship applied to movies was enacted by the city of Chicago in 1907. Those responsible for the creation of the law prohibiting certain films to be screened for the local public believed that some silent films and melodramas would go as far as to threaten not only given areas of life but the entire the Anglo-Saxon race and womanhood (Couvares 2006, 91). Yet, “early American films enjoyed an unrestricted artistic freedom and proliferated accordingly in the absence of censoring ‘frontiers,” (Cristian 2014) and years after the first controlling law, film studios on the West Coast became world leaders in filmmaking from the 1920s onwards. However, during the Great Depression and the New Deal, themes like sexuality and violence were still considered to be morally unacceptable and were banned (Cristian 2008, 73-74). In the 1930s, leaders of newly established institutions, such as the Catholic Legion of Decency (CLD), were responsible for controlling the content of studio films. The members of the aforementioned CLD believed that viewers needed to be protected from the violent and morally incorrect content which they saw proper, otherwise the public would be exposed to dangerous visual content that would affect even their mental stability. Advocates of this early form of censorship referred to the members of the audience as the “Vulnerable Viewer,” who was often exemplified as a young person, that is, a child, but more generally this meant an adult woman (Couvares 2006, 3). The CLD was founded in 1933 and operated under this label until 1965, when it was renamed as the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures (NCOMP), continuing to actively do censoring work in the film industry until 1980. With the establishment of the CLD, the “C” (meaning “condemned” – emphasis mine) rating for films was issued and its policy was in usage within the realm of this censorship office until 1978, when it was replaced by the so-called “O” (“morally offensive” – emphasis mine) rating (Szabó 2020).

The Production Code Administration (PCA), which served as another obstacle for the film makers to overcome, emerged in the 1930s from the Hays Code, named after William Harrison Hays, the leader the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA). In 1945, its name was altered to Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) and Joseph Breen became its chief executive officer (CEO). The regulations of the MPAA code included the prohibition in representing any type of sexual intercourse or any picture of a man and a woman sleeping in the same bed, luscious kissing and many other, similar interdictions concerning sexuality. Vulgarity, obscenity and the display of white slavery were already prohibited by the MPPDA, while the alcohol and or medical drugs could only be displayed if it was absolutely necessary for the plot (Cristian 2008, 74). In the 1960s, the PCA was transformed into the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) that introduced the rating-system, which is still used today, becoming responsible for providing different ratings for both American and foreign films. The current version of the Rating System contains the following categories: “G” for general audiences, “PG” for parental guidance suggested, “PG-13” for parents strongly cautioned, “R” for restricted and “NC-17” for adults only (“Film Ratings”). An important difference between the activity of the PCA and that of the MPAA is that “while the PCA influenced the production of movies the MPAA regulated mass screening of the end product of film companies” (Szabó 2020).

From Censorship to Forms of Cancel Culture

Cancel culture, a cultural and political phenomenon which has been present in The United States of America for decades, refers to the “practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure” according to the often cited Merriam-Webster Dictionary. While many support the idea of withdrawing support from those who show offensive behavior, others find this action rather “problematic and toxic” (Krumholz in Merriam-Webster Dictionary). According to Alan Dershowitz, cancel culture is very similar to the atmosphere of McCarthyism (Dershowitz 2020, 14), when Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was leading politically induced investigations during the 1950s to expose supposed communist infiltration in the U.S. life, culture and government. In the era of McCarthyism, as Dershowitz writes,

"[W]e were warned by our parents never to speak out, sign petitions, join organizations, or attend concerts that were in any way associated with left-wingers, “pinkos,” or fellow travelers, lest we be labeled “subversive” and our future prospects cancelled." (Dershowitz 15, 2020)

Cancellation, in this context, meant not only ostracism of those who were not on the same platform with McCarthy’s ideas but also the withdrawal of support from those members of society who did not agree with the views of McCarthy. Cancel culture thus shares indeed common features with McCarthyism as the latter, “employed the power of government, cancel culture employs the power of public opinion, social media, […] and other constitutionally protected forms of private action” (Dershowitz 17, 2020).

In contrast with its political use, the idea of “cancel” has appeared in African American culture, too, most likely in “paying homage to Nile Rodgers’s 1981 single ‘Your Love Is Cancelled’” (Romano 2021). Canceling someone was first heard publicly in the film world in New Jack City (dir. Mario Van Peebles, 1991). The term appeared in the online space in 2014 through a Twitter post inspired by, “VH1’s reality show Love and Hip-Hop: New York that aired in December 2014,” where cast member Diamond Strawberry tells her love, Cisco Rosado that he is canceled (Romano 2020). Shortly after the episode, the quote made its debut on Twitter, too, as users borrowed the term and employed it in comments such as “ima start telling people ‘you’re canceled, out my face’,” (renzoracks 2014, Twitter), which afterwards began to spread on this and other social media platforms. The frivolous comments on Twitter were soon replaced by weightier ones, in which users included the names of celebrities, attacking not only their works but also the persons themselves. One of the most telling examples is the following tweet on Travis Scott: “Travis Scott is homophobic trash. His music is cancelled... He’s cancelled guys!! [...]” (themochalisa 2015, Twitter). Cancel culture thus “demonstrates how content circulation via digital platforms facilitates fast, large-scale responses to acts deemed problematic” while highlighting, at the same time, the lack of “considered assessments and debate” (Ng 2020). Posts on social media pages therefore have a powerful effect on the way in which one sees media personalities, politicians, sportspeople or even films and film characters as such.
By the beginning of the 2020s, cancel culture became an inescapable phenomenon not only in the entertainment industry but spread throughout other areas of life as well, since it encompasses movements such as Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movements and became “linked to everything from free speech debates to Mr. Potatohead” (Romano 2021). Moreover, the polemics cancel culture has been continually causing sincs have been numerous and was mostly, especially at the onset, focused on film industry. However, it is important to keep in mind that the act of canceling someone can also generate adequate attention towards them from which they can and many do also profit.

In recent years, several movies were demanded to be revised due to problematic portrayals of race, gender, and class. For instance, HBO MAX stopped airing Gone with the Wind in 2020 not long after introducing its remastered version in June 2020. In fact, HBO MAX “restored it with a video introduction by African American film scholar Jacqueline Stewart,” including a 2019 panel discussion titled “The Complicated Legacy of Gone with The Wind” (Shepard 2020), thus contextualizing Fleming’s film into the portrayal of racial injustice against African American people. Unlike HBO MAX, Disney+ put content warning labels on various episodes of the classical Muppet Show (dir. Jim Henson, 1976) and on many films, such as Peter Pan (dir. Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson and Hamilton Luske, 1953), The Aristocats (dir. Wolfgang Reitherman, 1994), The Jungle Book (dir. Wolfgang Reitherman, 1967), Lady and the Tramp (dir. Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske, 1997), Dumbo (dir. Ben Sharpsteen et al 1941), and Swiss Family Robinson (dir. Ken Annakin, 1960) instead of canceling them, due to their racist depictions in some of the movies’ scenes. Furthermore, the Walt Disney Company created a website entitled “Stories Matter,” which includes an advisory message that informs the viewers that the film they are planning to watch, has “negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now;” moreover, the company states that they acknowledge the, “harmful impact” their movies can have, and their aim is to, “learn from it” (Stories Matter).

As a consequence of the debate about the equivocal message of certain twentieth century Hollywood films, in March 2021 the cable network Turner Classic Movies (TCM) started a series called Reframed: Classic Films in the Rearview Mirror. In each episode the series examines old classics which, “by today’s standards, are considered "troubling" and "problematic"” (Cordero, 2021, Entertainment Weekly). The problematic moments include, for example, the use of the blackface in Jazz Singer (Crosland, 1927) and in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (Edwards, 1961). The network states that instead of censoring out the ambiguous scenes from films like these two, they try to provide, “rich historical context to each classic” (D’Zurilla 2021, Los Angeles Times). A similar issue is experienced by other network providers such as HBO MAX, Disney+ and TCM. Furthermore, nowadays a post made by a Twitter user can make the public rethink a possible ambivalent message embedded within a movie. The immense public influence on contemporary culture in the USA (and, of course, also globally) today can be linked with the concept of the participatory culture, a term coined by Henry Jenkins in 2006. Participatory culture refers to the fact that instead of looking at media consumers and producers as occupying separate roles, we them as participants who constantly interact with each other (Jenkins 2006, 3). On account of this participatory behavior of the public, the outcome of cancel culture can easily be the complete remodeling of film culture. Consequently, the freedom of speech can no longer be considered as the protective barrier it used to be for filmmakers and critics alike. Contemporary film industry, therefore, has to be careful not to offend any social, cultural or political groups. The representation of equality, however, is a crucial element in most American films today. On one hand, cancel culture has had many positive effects on Hollywood film industry by equitably changing the representation of various ethnic and gender groups and communities. Films targeted by the movement are generally quite controversial. Still, putting them into context would be a more purposeful solution instead of their individual or collective cancellation. On the other hand, cancel culture can be looked at as a tool for power and oppression. In parallel to that, in 1965, decades prior to the spread of the cancel culture phenomenon, Pauline Kael expressed her concerns towards the quality of films produced after 1963 when she said that, “perhaps now ‘stories’ have become too sane, too explicable, too commonplace for the large audiences who want sensations” (Kael 1965, 9). Kael connected the decline of quality films in Hollywood to the constant urge of giving more to the audience from the part of the filmmakers. This urge has altered by the 2010s as cancel culture by now harshly regulates what can and what cannot be shown on the screen. According to American comedian, musician, and film director Donald Glover, cancel culture is to blame for boring and dull movies that are made today. He explicitly expressed this on his Twitter profile by saying that “we’re getting boring stuff and not even experimental mistakes(?) because people are afraid of getting cancelled” (@donaldglover 2021, Twitter). Cancel culture, in this context thus, imposes pressure on the film industry to make more insightful considerations when electing the theme, the actors or even the directors of films, since the risk to be cancelled is now higher than ever.

In a way, the fear of being cancelled has always been present in film criticism. In 1965, Pauline Kael formulated her opinion on the lack of straightforward, quality film criticism after 1963 due to the fact many critics were even then reticent in expressing their honest opinion on certain films and sought reassurance in the belief that “whatever they say is right, but as it refers not to the film but to them (turning criticism into autobiography) they are afraid of self-exposure” (Kael 1965, 18). Kael claimed that, as soon as movies become cinema, people no longer feel the audacity to criticize them given that, “they will become another object of academic study and ‘appreciation’” (Kael 1965, 23). But here she referred to the emerging popularity of cinema over art films and did not predict that, decades later, criticizing films and filmmakers would become a generally accepted act, however not in the same manners Kael would have had imagined in the 1960s.

Today, many films and directors, actors are prone to be easily cancelled by the public mostly because they made their opinions heard on cancel culture. The American actor Johnny Depp is one such eloquent example, as he called the phenomenon of cancelling outright “dangerous” and claimed it went “out of hand” (Vlessing, 2021 The Hollywood Reporter). Film critics, conversely, are not in the frontline when it comes to discussing cancel culture, while one should not miss talking about the relationship of film critics and cancel culture. As a matter of fact, criticism needs to touch upon delicate and also on controversial topics, showing that the idea of forming an opinion is not synonymous with going easy on issues that are less likely to be discussed by the public. In this context, film critics can indeed offer guidance for moviegoers, helping them form an understanding of what cinematic productions are about and therefore, they possess a certain power over audiences. Nonetheless, in the age of cancel culture, the role of film critics started to be questioned. A recent example of how film critics are influenced by cancel culture is related to Marvel’s Eternals (Chloé Zao, 2021). The film received harsh, mainly negative criticism from film critics, who stated that Zao’s movie is one of the worst films in the Marvel Universe. Film critics Clayton Davis and Elizabeth Wagmeister agreed that Eternals’ poor outcome was related to the fact that the film’s director was a woman and even claimed that, “anytime a woman takes on the action genre, which has been made typically for men to helm, people come down harder on that filmmaker” (quoted by Gleiberman 2021, Variety). Another peer of the previous film critics, Owen Gleiberman, shared the view of Davis and Wagmeister, and stated that

"[t]he MCU is the quintessential mainstream expression of the old power structure — an industry, smug in its corruption, run overwhelmingly by men, that has been feeding us a nonstop diet of fantasy since the salad days of Lucas and Spielberg" (Gleiberman 2021, Variety).

Gleiberman also claimed that Hollywood is constantly biased for films directed by men. His take on Eternals is an example of film critics’ standing against the effects of cancel culture. Nevertheless, the majority of contemporary film critics in the USA tend to drag down films in order to ‘save’ themselves from being cancelled. Erik Kain, journalist for Forbes Magazine, called film critics “crazy” in the context of the contradictory feedback Netflix’s movie The Closer, (starring David Chapelle) received on the one hand from fans and, on the other, from too picky film critics (Stan Lathan 2021). Interestingly, Kain based his statements on the scores the movie received on the film rating website Rotten Tomatoes. Indeed, Chapelle’s stand-up special was attacked for its transphobic remarks and Kain argues that critics were too harsh on Lathan’s production since, “in today’s media culture, a critic risks being “cancelled” if they give The Closer a good review” (Kain 2021, Forbes). Unlike film critics, some celebrities defended Chapelle, and this defense process went mainly through Twitter. For instance, Caitlyn Jenner, media personality and transgender woman tweeted about the backlash Chapelle received saying that,

"Dave Chappelle is 100% right. This isn’t about the LGBTQ movement. It’s about woke cancel culture run amok, trying to silence free speech. We must never yield or bow to those who wish to stop us from speaking our minds" (@Caitlyn_Jenner 2021, Twitter).

The controversial cases of The Closer and of Eternals are just two examples of the diversity of issues caused by cancel culture. It is an overgeneralized claim, however, that the majority of film critics gave negative feedback to The Closer solely because they were afraid of being cancelled. However, one can never know the motivation behind such decisions. More examples need to be presented for this case. It is certain, still, that Chapelle’s alleged transphobic takes carried away the critics’ attention (from other, perhaps more important features worthy of criticism) that led to a collective verbal attack pointed towards the entire production.

A fairly recent podcast about cancel culture made by TheWrap.com (4th June 2021) is another relevant illustration of how contemporary film criticism is affected by this phenomenon. In said podcast, operator Stephen Galloway talked to three film critics, Ann Hornaday (Washington Post), Alonso Duralde (The Wrap) and Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune); the official description of the podcast says that

"[I]n this discussion, we talk about film and separating art from the artist. Should old movies with problematic themes be forgotten or explained? Should we avoid entertainment made by actors or filmmakers whose behavior we question?" (The Wrap 2021)

The podcast was one episode of a series called “Conversations on Cancel Culture,” aired between May 25 and June 29 and divided into four round tables: “Cancel Culture in Journalism,” “Cancel Culture in Film,” “Cancel Culture in Comedy” and “Coming Back from Being Canceled.” In the second roundtable, participants touched upon issues such as the racial features in The Birth of a Nation (dir. D.W. Griffith, 1915), HBO Max putting a warning label on Gone with the Wind (dir. Victor Fleming, 1939) or the possible cancellation of the last movie directed by Woody Allen. However, instead of embracing the most controversial parts of cancel culture, such as the collective cancellation of certain cinematic features or the lack of freedom of speech, critics tended to avoid these issues by either remaining silent or by not providing a clear answer to the questions of the reporter. As a matter of fact, the podcast should have concentrated on speaking collectively about the effects of cancel culture on both the film industry and on film journalism rather than just simply tapping around certain topics like avoiding movies of film directors with a controversial past.

The critics, nonetheless, did contemplate on the issue of whether films with problematic scenes should also be cancelled or simply explained somehow, albeit solely focusing on The Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind. The collective answer of the critics was not to cancel the above-mentioned two films but to provide adequate explanation helping viewers develop their critical thinking. Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday highlighted that it is the film critic’s job to guide the new generation of viewers, who see certain films as problematic and offer them an adequate frame about why those films were once accepted, canonized and highly praised and why are they problematic now (The Wrap 2021). Furthermore, Hornaday praised HBO Max for putting a warning label on Gone with the Wind, claiming it should continue its process of contextualization (The Wrap 2021). Additionally, the words of the so-called woke generation are crucially important to listen to, according to Hornaday (The Wrap 2021). The woke revolution, another recent movement that is strongly connected to cancel culture. Those who claim to be part of the woke society are actively engaged in explaining important, usually racial, or cultural, controversial issues. Woke people are often judged by critics for “policing others actions and words, generally in response to backlash someone else has received for their words or actions” (Shennan 2022, National World). To be part of the woke culture also means the support of movements such as cancel culture.

The mentioned podcast avoided discussing contemporary films that are called problematic by the press and the public. Furthermore, providing explanatory speeches to each and every movie labelled problematic by the cancel culture generation does not necessarily help solve the questioned problem. But after all, what is the problem here? The podcast failed to give an overall explanation of what cancel culture refers to in contemporary American culture. As a matter of fact, the frame Hornaday suggested could only be effective if the audiences are aware of why they are being provided with such an aid. A frame, therefore, should be laid out to determine cancel culture first. Cancel culture, from this angle, thus directly affects film criticism but, firstly, film critics in the sense that some of them choose to be reticent to speak up when asked about a controversial phenomenon or they formulate a superficial, commonly accepted view of it. The conclusion of The Wrap’s podcast is that the invited film critics choose to embrace cancel culture instead of criticizing it, leaving the real question of cancelling still open for debate. Nevertheless, film criticism, as such, has not ceased to be important when it comes to discussing controversial issues related to film culture. Users of social media platforms are nowadays more eager and more active to take on their opinions about cancel culture than film critics, making them also worthy players in the game of criticism.

Conclusion

Contemporary film culture is being monitored by numerous means including cancel culture, a movement that has been shaping the USA’s film industry for almost a decade now. The main outlet of cancel culture is social media which, in this context can be seen as the Hays Code of the twenty-first century, with users of social media platforms (such as Twitter) actively participating in the present and also future of the movement.

Not surprisingly, the supremacy of the masses on social media in forming cancel culture over film critics can be explained by the anonymity these platforms offer. Film critics—with this platform anonymity in mind—tend to avoid openly talking about cancel culture and about its possibly even damaging effects on film culture. The reason behind a candid assessment of the effects of cancel culture is the collective fear of being cancelled. In other words, film critics of the twenty-first century are just as vulnerable as other targets of cancel culture. Freedom of speech, in this setting, seems thus limited because the general public possesses a power with which they can easily drag the reputation of a professional down. Moreover, the way the audience perceive films has changed reasonably even since the end of the twentieth century as the online participatory culture facilitates sharing opinions virtually for anyone and anytime on the World Wide Web.

The exemplified podcast made by The Wrap meant to provide a general overview of the current issues of cancel culture in the American film industry through the eyes of three film critics. Besides the formulation of general opinions on the withdrawal of classics such as Gone with the Wind, invited professionals failed to answer the question of what is cancel culture and what are its possible dangers for film culture. Instead of the contemplation on certain issues that cancel culture continues to provoke, film critics should have stated a frank, candid and multi-sided opinion on the phenomenon of cancel culture, highlighting especially the future impact it can have not only on Hollywood but also on the entire American film industry. The collective effects of cancel culture are diverse, having both positive and negative outcomes on contemporary film industry and on film culture in the USA. And while cancel culture can indeed lead to effective changes in film culture and culture overall, it would be useful to provide an informative context, a pragmatic frame about its purpose and background instead of canceling anyone who is not in sync with them.

 

Works cited



Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.