Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Jack’s Eye on Everything, a place in which the culture and society you love and inhabit can be discussed critically, as well as the ways to save it. I’m a Christian and a paleoconservative American, and this will be my space to talk about God, country, and the ideas of the present and future. Much of the content here will be based around art, theology, politics, and culture. Thanks for visiting, and have a blessed day.

Letterdoxxed: Why I Was Banned from Letterboxd and What it Means for Free Speech on the Internet

Over the summer of 2021, I was banned from Letterboxd, a social media and film website that centers around watching and discussing movies with other film lovers. I began using the website in early March of 2020, and had logged many films and written over 400 reviews by Summer of 2021. One notable aspect of the site that I picked up on early is that it’s a largely leftist website, and many of the site’s most popular users openly shared their political opinions, many of which were often racist towards whites and hateful towards cops, among other forms of leftist outrage. Being a conservative Christian on the site, I felt like an island in an ocean, but I was able to find others on Letterboxd who shared both my worldview and a deeper love and understanding of movies. After using the site for a long period, I was banned after writing a review of the 1968 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in which I extolled the value of traditional romance and marriage, and criticized modern culture’s total embrace of sexual deviancy, with comments specifically aimed at the LGBTQ+ movement and its monopolization of the entertainment industry and the forced representation that we now see in so many new films and television shows. After I wrote the review, my entire account was shortly removed, and I only received notice from the site when I emailed support and asked them about it. I got a short response saying that I “demonstrated a pattern of hateful language,” and that they’d send me my account data before it was deleted in forty-eight hours if I wanted (I’d already backed it up anyway). 

Letterboxd, the one (and only, that I know of) “social media film website,” has gone by the way of so many other leftist-owned sites. Like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, etc. it suppresses any voices that oppose its viewpoint, and it prioritizes only the voices that support it. Letterboxd’s large base of “popular” users consists entirely of leftists (many of whom are transgender), and any sane conservative people must keep a low profile so as to not be banned outright. Letterboxd staff has even interviewed many of their popular users, including a transgender, proving that they only care about those who fit their narrative and they ban people who disagree with them. No longer can people just mind their own business and occasionally share their views without getting harassed, not by other website members, but by the site’s own government. So now private corporations can pose as public forums long enough to monopolize their markets before revealing themselves as the biased groups that they always were. Another alarming note to make is that many of these social media websites, almost all, in fact, have options that allow people to block a user for whatever reason, so you can no longer see them or what they say. These platforms even give people the ability to ignore completely any speech they disagree with, yet the sites are now deciding for their users what speech they listen to and whom they should block, which is egregious thought control. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, but nobody told these tech oligarchs that.

My experience is not a special one, and I only share it here to communicate one more instance of a growing and serious problem, and to provide a kind of springboard for this blog and what it’s about. As long as social media platforms are allowed to inconsistently pick and choose when they are going to be private organizations and when they are going to be public places that respect the Constitution, those of us who choose to not fall in with the popular dogma of the day must find other ways of sharing ideas. 

Political Correctness is Killing Movies

Political correctness is a multi-headed beast that is attempting to destroy seemingly every age-old institution in America, and film is no longer safe. Every day, the bounds of what culture considers acceptable recede further inward, encroaching on the freedoms of filmmakers to express themselves, and the goal posts are always moving. Exactly what is considered politically correct and what isn’t is entirely subjective, and never easy to pin down. Now, directors are called out for not featuring different minorities and women in their films, and old movies are being called out for all manner of things, including sexism, and “racism” (in the context of today’s hyper-aware racial climate). This growing movement, colloquially dubbed “Cancel Culture,” is a cancer in the cinema system, and a roadblock for any sort of artistic progression.

This idea of films being subordinate to political correctness seems wrong because it’s not at all authentic. It cheapens the art to force the artist or creator to compromise him or herself and pander to people for no reason other then that they just want to be “represented.” I’m not trying to debate the ethics of whether or not representation is important; I’m merely pointing out that it’s morally questionable and almost fascistic to force a filmmaker to make their movie a certain way in order to correct a wrong you perceive in society, or to throw a tantrum when a filmmaker makes something that you don’t like. Therefore, when cancel culture or the media go after a film deeming it insensitive, wrong, or any other accusation, that’s fascistic, because it’s trying to stop someone from exercising their right to free speech and make what they want.

This idea of canceling non-politically correct films also divisive, because not only is it assuming the artist’s intent with their work, it’s foisting a set of ideals on the artist that they may not have and then calling the person out for those. Take for example, Gone with the Wind. That film has been targeted for its depiction of African-American slaves as servile and mildly outlandish. Now, this film has been regarded as a classic for years, and decades even. African-Americans were obviously viewed differently at the time of the film’s release, but politically correct pundits and social justice warriors refuse to view it in context, and have deemed it racist solely because there are African-American slave characters in it. Are these negative depictions, or are they just depictions baed in the social context of the time? People are now attacking a film released in 1939 for not having the social conscience that we have today in 2020, and even though they can just boycott it or not watch it, many have called for it to be banned or for bits deemed “racist” to be removed. Take another example with The Witches, a new film adaptation of Roald Dahl’s children’s book of the same name. Lead actress Anne Hathaway had to apologize after playing the main antagonist, a character with severe defects. Several news sources covered the incident after the “limb difference” community spoke out. Now, some are calling for no films to feature villains with birth defects. Why is this? Did this really bother people so much that we should cut off certain character possibilities for future films? Why is it wrong to portray a villain with defects? The defects aren’t directly tied to her character as evil, and she’s not depicted as an antagonist solely for her deformities, so why is this an issue? The beauty of movies is that you don’t have to watch anything that you don’t want to, but this isn’t enough. Now people are pushing to not allow creators to have villains with any kind of birth defect, and the lead actress in the film was forced to apologize for portraying the character, for fear of getting canceled or receiving a boycott, despite the fact that she most likely wasn’t playing the character just to make fun of people with disabilities. Now, maybe she was, I don’t know for sure, but isn’t it dangerous to not assume good faith until proven otherwise, and just attack someone solely because you have an issue with their film, and then try and control the way all future films get made because of it?

Another good example of this is when Spike Lee called out Clint Eastwood for not portraying any African-American marines in his film Flags of Our Fathers. Eastwood responded that that would have been historically inaccurate for him to depict them, since even though there were black soldiers in World War II, they were racially segregated from the white soldiers, which is why there were no black soldiers in this film and Letters from Iwo Jima, another WWII film he had made. Lee still came after him, saying that they were not living on a plantation, and calling him a “grumpy old man.” Is this not problematic? It is quite immature and juvenile to attack someone just because their art didn’t express the things that the attacker wanted it to. They are not the filmmaker, the director is. It is the director’s vision, and he shouldn’t be concerned with political correctness.

A director is primarily concerned with how they’ll get their film made, and they’re most likely not setting out to make something racist or homophobic or whatever. Unless the issue of representation is close to their heart, studios shouldn’t force filmmakers to include certain characters in their films and micromanage their art. The onus is not on a filmmaker to pander or appease a people group. They’re in no way obligated to make changes to their art to make social justice warriors happy, nor should they be. If culture continues to grow more and more hyper-sensitive to anything that could be remotely construed as offensive, then the bounds of what is acceptable in film will become more narrow, and soon, everything will be offensive. Should we not allow for any room for freedom of expression? At the very least, preserve movies, and don’t let an age-old, reverently-regarded institution like film become subject to political correctness, or it will surely die.

Out with the Old, in with the Same: Hollywood is Lazy

There are no new stories out there. It’s all been done before. Hollywood keeps putting out unoriginal film after unoriginal film. At some point, it seems as though many filmmakers just kind of stopped caring about putting out a good product.

This isn’t to say that unoriginal ideas are bad. There are lots of films out there that are both unoriginal and entertaining. But regardless, it’s hard to tell an original story. All romance films are pretty much the same, just as most action movies are the same. Under Siege, Sudden Death, and Air Force One are all essentially carbon copies of Die Hard. The Secret Life of Pets is just Toy Story with animals. Playmobil: The Movie came out a few years after The LEGO Movie, debuting around the same time as The LEGO Movie’s sequel.

There are obviously lots of examples when it comes to comparing movies to their spiritual successors. It’s definitely not easy to sell scripts, and audiences like comfort. There are certain things that usually always sell, and that’s ok. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with an unoriginal idea, as long as there’s effort and passion behind it. But so many films today lack both of those qualities. Disney almost has a monopoly on the summer blockbuster market, churning out superhero movie after superhero movie. They’ve now begun remaking many of their most successful and original films from when they first began. A remake of The Jungle Book came out in 2016, followed by a Beauty and the Beast remake in 2017. In 2019, Dumbo, Aladdin, The Lion King, and Lady and the Tramp all received remakes in quick succession. Disney’s prolific output betrays their desire for more and more money, and there’s not even an attempt at originality on their part with any of their current projects. The Fast and Furious franchise is getting a ninth installment, and washed up action stars like Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis consistently put out mediocre garbage that always sees a direct-to-video release.

Like most things, this flaw in the film industry reflects the state of culture as a whole, as movies are one of the best indicators of culture. Everyone wants easy. The easy solution, the easy way out, the most simple alternative. Social media apps are consistently becoming less and less about really connecting people, and more and more about cheap, low-effort entertainment. Technology is advancing almost daily to make people’s lives easier. The movies are focusing more and more on morally questionable heroes that the value-less youth of today can identify with. While there’s nothing wrong with progress, it’s wrong to let laziness and a desire for “easy” to slip into every area of life. Some things should be challenging. Art is such a thing. Without challenges, people don’t rise to the occasion. The more challenging creating the art may seem, the better it will most likely be. If Hollywood and the movie industry continue to produce un-engaging, simple, sometimes even poorly-crafted entertainment to make a quick buck off of the masses, than movies will continue on their current path. Now, more than ever, the film industry needs fresh writers and ideas. It needs creators willing to put thought and work into their craft. Movies should be about fun, entertainment, and thought, not just money.

There is something to be said for much of the crowd-pleasing fare today, but sooner or later, people are going to get sick of endless superhero movies and Star Wars sequels. If culture doesn’t change, the movies won’t change.

Nice Guys Finish Last: How and Why the Antihero Became the Go-to Protagonist Archetype in Cinema

Remember the days when movies were fun? When they were safe? When we could go to the theater and watch a film, sometimes even with our whole family, and enjoy the magic and wonder of the silver screen without having crazy agendas and ideas thrust at us? Without having the things we thought were moral get all but spat on? Many casual viewers and movie buffs would argue that films being made today are not as “good” as they were in the decades behind us, and that they’re more politically motivated today. Sure, films today are very competent on a technical level, and they’re immensely appealing visually, but they’re just not as enjoyable as the films of yesteryear and before, and they seem to constantly assault the audience’s view of morality.

A large part of what makes many of the films of the 40s to, say, the 90s, so good is the protagonist. Every story needs a good hero. This is a fundamental component to storytelling. While filmmakers today seem to understand this, they are woefully misled regarding their definition of “hero”. See, many of the protagonists of today’s films are not heroes. The characters we’re seeing more and more of in film today are not heroes. They’re “antiheroes”. What is an antihero? According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an antihero is a central character in a story, movie, or drama who lacks conventional heroic attributes. Examples of “conventional heroic attributes” would be qualities like selflessness, compassion, empathy, courage, and humility. A protagonist lacking a few or more of these may be an antihero. They are not like the flawed hero, who is a more human, sympathetic character while still managing to be noble. The antihero is a story’s main character, but they don’t act like a hero. They’re often selfish and morally and ethically ambiguous, and their actions are performed out of self-interest rather than a desire to do right.

This may not seem like a big deal, since the purposes that antiheroes serve to a narrative can vary greatly from film to film, and having a morally ambiguous character as a story’s protagonist seems like an interesting concept that doesn’t hurt anybody, right? Well, the fact is, the usurping of the traditional hero archetype in favor of this new kind of morally ambiguous protagonist represents a changing culture, and a desire to upend traditional values that were originally considered to be largely universal. To prove this claim, one need only look back at the famous film protagonists over the years.

One of the earliest and most memorable antiheroes in all of film is Rick Blaine from 1942’s Casablanca. Rick is aloof, detached, and selfish. He owns a high-end club in the town of Casablanca, and just wants to fly under the radar and not be bothered. This fact becomes quickly prevalent when a friend of Blaine’s is gunned down by the police in the club, after Rick sells him out so as not to make trouble for himself. Every action of Rick’s seems to increase in its despicable nature, until the film’s third act in which he undergoes a transformation and resolves to perform an unexpectedly selfless and courageous act, which solves the film’s central conflict. Here we see a clear antihero, who is not governed by any conventional heroic traits, realize his faults and overcome them. Fast forward to 1971, when audiences were polarized by a new antihero; Inspector Harry Callahan, star of Dirty Harry and its sequels. The film follows Callahan, a cop, in his relentless attempts to catch a serial killer. During the film, Callahan takes justice into his own hands regularly, breaking rules and laws in pursuit of his idea of justice. The film and character were criticized at the time for embracing and promoting fascist views, and it’s clear that the film presents vigilantism and one character’s moral views as correct. The film is actually about Harry’s struggle with the institution of the police, and the bureaucracy and red tape keeping him from cleaning up the streets. Many will say that the film ends on an ambiguous note, and that the film is about the relationship between laws and true justice.

So the two aforementioned films portray antihero protagonists pursuing noble goals, and undergoing transformations. Since then, many other films have privileged the antihero concept, with the “vigilante film” becoming a legitimate genre about protagonists pursuing noble causes in the face of becoming what they hate. Other films kill off their antiheroes after their goals are accomplished, as a way of redeeming them, such as the film Run All Night from 2015, in which the main character, a retired mob enforcer, must protect his son from criminals he used to work with. The main character’s actions are constantly called out as immoral by others, and he realizes how badly his decisions have ruined his life. The film ends, spoiler alert, with him saving his family from an assassin, getting shot and killed in the process. The police find his corpse, along with a written confession to his crimes, and a list of others involved. This is a perfect example of an antihero redeemed through their actions, and, ultimately, their death.

In recent years, antiheroes have been portrayed less ambiguously. Take for instance, 2014’s John Wick. The film is about the titular character, a retired assassin, who takes violent revenge after some thugs invade his home, beat him up, and kill his dog. While it’s easy to identify with Wick’s need for retribution, it’s easy to forget that he himself used to kill as wantonly as his enemies did, with little regard for life of any kind. The film is solely about Wick and his revenge, and it seems to privilege its main character’s ability to kill people over any kind of morality or ethical narrative. Wick is not killed or redeemed in the end. His needs and desires outweigh those of others, as well as any subordination to any set of values. Another example of this “new wave” of film protagonists, is Deadpool from 2016. Here we have a man, an ex-soldier, who seeks treatment for his cancer. He is treated by a shadowy organization that performs horrific tests on him, granting him healing powers and heightened natural abilities, but leaving him severely disfigured. He goes on a violent rampage, killing anyone associated with the group. We get to watch as “Deadpool”, the self-titled character, kills many, many people in the pursuit of his own justice. Much of it is meant to be comical, since the film is billed partly as a comedy, and this is more disturbing.

When comparing the four films, Casablanca and Dirty Harry seem in stark contrast to films like John Wick, Deadpool, or 1994’s Pulp Fiction, another popular film about hitmen and criminals that privileges its protagonists despite the clear moral issues it creates. We live in an ever-changing world, and this fact is arguably most reflected in film. As culture changes, and people slowly desert any preset system of morality in favor of their own ideas of goodness and truth, things become muddled. In a medium where it was once easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, culture began to shift and decline. Many of the so-called “heroes” of today’s cinema sit comfortably in ambiguity. It doesn’t matter if your main character kills for the sake of killing, or robs people, or commits other crimes. As long as it’s flashy and hip, it doesn’t call anyone to any kind of moral responsibility, or threaten their view of right and wrong that allows them to live selfishly, it’ll sell. When did we start cheering for assassins to kill people onscreen and innocent characters to die or get cast aside? Wouldn’t it be nice to see the cat get saved from the tree again?