u/Crafter235

For a while, as a queer person I have complained about his shows with respectability politics and bigotry disguised as “camp” or “queer traditions”, but over time when looking at the big picture, I noticed that there is overall a sense of paternalistic entitlement with him and a lot of queer groups. When seeing someone once defend how Glee revolutionized queer rep despite its problems, to his recent Monster shows and people confused how he could produce such shows, I noticed that it’s not surprising he would “regress” when you see it fits his mindset very well.

Take a look at a lot of his past stuff, aside from the punching down on minorities who aren’t cis white gay men plus the reinforcing of queerphobic tropes, and while people will deflect as “a product of its time”, I cannot help but really notice how for a lot of the publicity around him, it’s less about the show being good and more about him “paving the way”. And also with closer look, I notice a repetition of misery porn, specifically on minorities, and it being praised as “realism”.

In addition, with the less bad stuff, this is where I see the rise of the paternalistic side. With how people will praise him for “giving opportunities” to marginalized groups, I cannot help but feel put off, as they don’t really question the roles his gives them, plus the announcement of it feels less like actual progressive choices and more of PR. And then there’s Pose. Now I know that many people will love and praise it, and even though he didn’t directly write and direct, I still side-eye from the fact that he was an executive producer. People praise it for having the biggest cast of queer POC, but it feels that it’s only praise for that, and people aren’t really judging it for the writing, overall giving the feeling that Murphy made the show out of a paternalistic reason. And with the audience surrogate who’s a cis white gay man, while not as severe it reminded me too much of Roland Emmerich and his Stonewall film. And with how people praise him for tackling stories about older queer culture, and giving him a pass for his age, it feels almost like cultural appropriation.

Over the course though, it feels with the publicity, Murphy has slowly been going mask-off, as we see him being more into true crime and biographies. Well before those, there was The Prom. Aside from the crime of casting James Corden (/s), a major complaint was with how the film reduced the storylines of sapphic characters, and more in favor of the main gay male character. But also when people complain about how Corden depicts homosexuality, I notice a huge defense is that the director (Ryan Murphy) is openly gay, so obviously it can’t be that bad. And then it made me realize for why Hollywood and the industry really allows him to thrive: He isn’t actually progressive, but he gives the illusion of it. I mean take a look of how he managed to disguise queerphobic tropes as something cool and edgy.

And back to the true crime shows like Monster, I realize that it fits the same pattern of paternalism. He objectified queerness before, and he is continuing it now. He already dehumanized, and is still currently doing it.

Off-topic for a bit, but with for (not all but a lot of) cis white gay men like him, I notice with the whole thing people describe as “catty” or “mean girl” behavior, it just feels like they weaponized gay stereotypes to get away with misogynistic BS.

When learning more about the cursed production, this has been something I thought about, especially after being influenced by learning about production of The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. With what we saw with all the problems that happened in a short amount of time, cancelling the film's shooting, I noticed that Terry Gilliam had first begun with the 17th century setting first. And with the script, seeing that it would have had the modern day, which Toby would be sent back in time throughout the film, it had me wonder about this: If Terry Gilliam first shot all of the modern day parts of the film first, before the crazier 17th century.

Perhaps if he did that, could it have maybe helped the film's production continue? Especially since there would have already been a lot of the film completed, it may have made producers and financiers be more hesistant about pulling out, and perhaps continuing the production because of a sunken cost fallacy.

Note that while I refer to both the book and miniseries together, it’s because King had a huge amount of control and creative input over the miniseries, and he praises and defends it. And with that it mind, for even the few nuances of the book, the miniseries erases them to paint Jack in a better light.

This has been something I have been thinking about for a while. With a lot of people, it’s easy for them to criticize the 1980 film, but with how they and King accuse the film of being misogynistic and praising how the book/miniseries depicts Wendy, it has made me more suspicious and want to question THEM instead. While Wendy on a surface level seems like a strong and confident woman, she feels written to not fully be her own independent character. She can seem to question and call out Jack, but deep down she never truly challenges or goes against his authority. And alongside the whole story, her moral/narrative center is around Jack Torrance, rather than her own needs and desires. And this is a problem with the overall story: it’s all about JACK and his own needs. Not about the well-being of his family, but more about HIS own self-esteem and confidence, and blaming others whether it be the alcohol or ghosts for his own behavior. And with Stephen King admitting that Jack is a self-insert, it does make me question things, especially when he’s already had a history of writing villains as one-dimensional cartoon archetypes, but then going through so many loops to excuse Jack Torrance.

And while people complain about Wendy in the film for not being a conventional strong woman like her book/miniseries counterpart, take a look at the stuff she does:

- Maintaining the Overlook when Jack won’t
- Is shown to have her own interests (like reading Catcher in the Rye)
- Even when it’s scary, willing to build up the courage to stand up to her abusive husband

And yet for all this, people will dismiss her because she’s an imperfect victim. And for how they’ll complain about the film being misogynistic, they unironically prove its point about misogyny and patriarchy enabling abusers and rejecting victims who aren’t perfect. And looking at Wendy from the book and miniseries, she begins to feel less like a character and more of a caricature/archetype, but people only defend it because it pleases themselves enough. With that, it also made me realize something I notice about King and his audience: Despite how they make themselves out to be, they are kind of shallow and think everything has to be at face value, and it kind of shows in his writing. Having to over-explain every bit of lore, have to announce every single thing, and also not letting things just be ambiguous (*cough* Gerald’s Game ending *cough*). Don’t get me wrong I do like some stories by King, but also at times it feels like he and his fans can insist upon himself too much. But overall, aside from Kubrick’s treatment of Duvall behind the scenes, the more I look into the discussion and criticism of The Shining film, the more I also begin to actually have a less nice view of King and those around him.

And it feels like projection that they call the film shallow, considering the thing they praise is essentially a wish fulfillment story for addicts who don’t want full accountability for their behavior. And the whole argument of “You can tell Jack is clearly crazy from the start” shows BOTH a lack of media literacy, and how lacking their logic is, as they go by the whole thing that it’s not an abuser’s fault truly, but rather the drugs and alcohol (or ghosts in this case).

There’s still ways to work around the narrative significance without changing it.

View Poll

With AI, assume he lived at least a few more years to make it, but eventually died. I considered having Aryan Papers, but I feel it wouldn’t have been as huge compared to the other unmade projects, and that it would’ve most likely been a mix of Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut visually.

View Poll

With the recent reveal that Hugh Laurie is transphobic, and looking in the comment section, I had begun really noticing a common pattern amongst famous people that turn out to be transphobic. From writers like JK Rowling and Graham Lineham, to pseudo-intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, I notice with how people who claim to be supportive of transfolk will immediately go through all this effort to try and "explain" TERFs and transphobes.

At first it starts out with "Oh they're just ignorant in the subject", but as it escalates, the excuses and theories either get really more contrived or just downright free them of any accountability. And it gets crazier when they'll also extend it out to defend them of shitty/manchild behavior that obviously was long before the public transphobia, and even comments/behavior that are downright predatory, blaming the transphobia, even though that stuff feels like something they'd find another excuse for if not for transgender folk existing.

And it's also ironic how they'll complain about how people can worship those like Trump or Elon Musk, but then proceed to literally defend bigots who join right-wing ideologies because they "used to be" progressive back then.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am well aware of the manosphere and propaganda, but I wanted to bring up something I have slowly noticed. With the whole moral panic with incels and radicalization, I have always been skeptical with it, and have felt that it feels like misogyny, but reworked to hide behind liberal terminology. Take into consideration:

- How people describe and talk about it feels very melodramatic and performative, rather than an actual serious discussion.
- Pretending that misogyny and violence against women never happened until recently, that the past was this progressive utopia.
- The infantilization of young men and boys, freeing them of any accountability or responsibility.
- Speaking of which, it feels like a repeat of “men can’t control themselves”, but this time they’re not (directly) blaming women and/or more marginalized groups.
- Framing the entire thing as a black-and-white morality tale, and any “nuance” is just used to elevate men over women. That an apparently innocent good boy “suddenly turned” into a violent monster.
- The overall “men’s rights” and “nobody listens to male victims” vibes, where it’s less about actually helping struggling men and more about repressing the struggles of women.

And also with the obsession with “boys need positive male role models now more than ever!”. Don’t get me wrong, positive male role models and influences are important, but with how people talk about it, it feels like they’re trying to find a way to make men matter more than women, while still sounding feminist. And also a lot of these self-proclaimed “role models” feel like exploitative grifters, especially when you consider how Justin Baldoni managed to hide his darker side.

With all of this, I noticed with how a lot of liberals and “progressive” people went over with the trial (and even still now) trying to defend Johnny Depp and villainize Amber Heard. Now while this may seem unrelated, I feel that a lot of the rhetoric and logic from above can help show some insight on why they defend Depp, aside from stuff like nostalgia. In her video on Johnny Depp and the image he built around himself, YouTuber Little Shop of Ali describes this phenomenon where when a man isn’t conventionally masculine, people automatically assume he cannot really be misogynistic and/or abusive, and that Depp for years has weaponized that appeal. Now take a look at the common narrative of the incel moral panic: The “poor boy” is usually an outcast (but typically not part of a marginalized demographic), and with the incel aspects they aren’t usually conventionally masculine and struggle to get with girls. With the whole framing of this “poor sad victim”, I notice with that logic being applied, as to how people act “shocked” they would partake in misogynistic activity and/or become an abuser. And with the morality tale aspect that dumbs down the problem, not taking into consideration other circumstances, I notice similarities as to why people who claim to be progressive would jump on the pro-Depp bandwagon and act like he’s a little child and not a powerful abusive older man. And with the “nobody wanted to help this boy” logic that indirectly blames women in the end, it feels like with villainizing Amber Heard for not tolerating Depp’s BS and abuse, aside from the rewriting that she’s the abuser. When I say indirectly blame women, they don’t outright say it’s their fault (they want to still look progressive), but a lot of their ideas of a “root cause” tends to imply it’s when women/girls don’t want to blindly obey a man, and other types of patriarchal ideas.

And for a final end, I wanted to bring up a show that does tackle men’s mental health and such, but in a way that differs from a lot of stuff like Adolescence and the current moral panic: Neon Genesis Evangelion. I know the show has a lot of problematic aspects, but I find interesting with how despite his whole tragic background and such, Shinji is still made to hold accountability for his actions, and with self-improvement he can’t just hide behind it, and also showing us that he’s not the center of the universe and many other people have their own needs and struggles. And compare that to a lot of media and discussion: They coddle men/boys, make them think they’re the center of the universe, constantly enable their shitty behavior, and ESPECIALLY only jump in when misogynistic behavior and violence is involved. Because at the end of the day, their real goal is to just reinforce patriarchy.

Something I had thought about, especially with what we know of him continuing their relationship so he could terrorize and kill her. As we know with him already having problems, his entitlement for sex, and his streak of sexism and overall misogyny, it did make me question about had their relationship continued, it wouldn’t be that good. Especially since your family falling part from an affair wouldn’t be enough to make someone go full killer (most people in that situation would more likely just break up).

Earlier, and on multiple occasions, I have criticized and called out the show Adolescence, and how it tackles current issues, and with how it minimizes the female characters, but for here I wanted to talk specifically more about lead star and co-writer Stephen Graham.

While you might be asking with why him on this subreddit, well aside from a very specific connection, I had also wanted to bring up the problem with men pretending to be feminist, like Justin Baldoni and his PR. Especially in a time with the incel moral panicking, obsession over positive male role models, and the misogyny disguised through liberal terminology in this moral panic, I feel a bit suspicious with Stephen Graham and his whole thing. It’s like he just made an Oscar-bait show that exploits a current issue, said a few things, and now everyone is viewing him as this great ally of women. But when you consider with him co-writing and playing a character that gets huge focus, it feels like he’s in reality a “male-feminist” and this is all part of some act to look good and/or get attention. Especially when his story of “discovering the online manosphere” feels really melodramatic.

But the real damning part of this is his support of Johnny Depp. Not like they worked together some time in the past, but a literal friendship, even as recently starring in a movie directed by Depp himself. Like he’s openly supportive of this misogynistic abuser, for someone who claims to want to “enlighten” young men and boys, it’s not like Depp gives him any career or financial advantages, and this is where I get really suspicious. And the irony that he created Adolescence claiming he wanted tot each his son an important lesson, but couldn’t do something as simple as cut ties with Depp. But it’s not surprising that a show that focuses so much on infantilizing misogynistic killer would go on in real life to enable and support a misogynistic abuser.

And for a funny thing I once saw: On one post on another subreddit, full of comments glazing Stephen Graham for not being (openly) misogynistic, someone claimed that even though he supports Depp, that they hear he’s such a nice guy and so good to work with. Someone replied that is what everyone says about Tom Cruise, and I think they were downvoted. But overall it is crazy how much blind support that Graham is getting without being questioned, even accusing critics of “missing the point” even though their complaints of Adolescence are entirely valid.

While I know that there's a lot of hints and implications that Ryder and Depp had a terrible relationship (besides the age gap and when they romanced), this had been something I had questioned about, after seeing a clip of the 1992 Dracula adaptation, and seeing Ryder onscreen.

For context: Back during the making of The Godfather 3, Coppola had originally wanted Winona Ryder to play the role of Michael's daughter. However, according to the production story, she had became sick before shooting, and ended up being replaced by Sophia Coppola, giving us the infamous portrayal of Mary Corleone (at least she managed to be successful as a film director, but this isn't what the post is about). However, it may be understandable with someone taking a break from their work, but what I noticed in the story was that it was Johnny Depp, her current boyfriend, who had made the call that she won't take the job. While it might not seem like much at first, with what we (mostly) now know more about him, and with Winona Ryder hinting at his abusive tendencies, it had me suspicious for a bit. And with also with how, like with Amber Heard, he doesn't like it when a partner is more successful/talented than him, and it made me question. I mean think about it:

• This was a film by Francis Ford Coppola
• The film was an installment to one of the most famous film sagas, so it wasn't just a mere for-hire job or weird experimental film by late-stage Coppola. Even if the final film didn't turn out that good, beforehand it still brings up attention and news.

And when you consider with Depp's career at the time, still rising up, imagine the amount of jealousy he would have if his much younger girlfriend suddenly went had a huge elevation in her career, especially for a job that could really help show her acting skills. Now, compare that to with her starring in Edward Scissorhands:

• It's within a domain that Depp could control her
• Had Depp's inner circle present (like Tim Burton, possibly an enabler as well)
• Role-wise, it was something that she couldn't overshadow him: He played the lead role, and she was the love interest on the side

And while I know that she did eventually play a role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), remember that it didn't have that weight from the Godfather films, and the fact that nobody really knew if this one would hit big or suffer the same fate as a lot of flopped Coppola projects. Overall, this may just feel like some random time, but in retrospect, it has made me a bit suspicious, and seeing potential early red flags.

For a while, I have already been skeptical and critical of the show, especially with the patriarchal narrative and with how it feels like it was made to exploit a current moral panic and social problem. However, especially when learning more about the behind the scenes, it has made me question more of the reason and how it was made.

With the actor Stephen Graham, who plays the father of the girl's murderer, not only is he the main actor, but also he co-wrote and partook in producing the show. Now there's nothing wrong with someone doing multiple parts/roles for a piece of media, where it is a problem is \*\*with what the show is trying to achieve and how.\*\* The show promotes itself as this drama that explores current issues, but the main focus is barely the women, but rather men. There's the obvious elephant in the room with how the show is more focused on the boy's feelings while straight up erasing the girl he victimized, **but also so much focus on how sad it is for the "poor and tragic" father OF THE BOY, who let me remind you is played by Stephen Graham.** All we see with him, it's all about how HE is doing, how it's affecting HIM, but also the camera has so much focus all around Stephen Graham and his acting.

And to add all this together, consider with how Graham is wanting to give himself the public image of positive masculinity and to be seen as a role-model for young boys. Now men can be feminists and positive male role models are important, \*\*but with current trends and influencers, it just feels like that he wants to be seen as one, rather than actually be one, and hence why I wrote in the title "male-feminist". Because it just feels like he is just one of those in reality, as he wants to be seen as some savior.\*\*

And with the TV show itself, a major part I see is with Brad Pitt labelled as the executive producer. I am well aware he has a production company that has produced a lot of films, but it's especially troubling for a project that acts like it's so profound and revolutionary, and that he's in the credits directly, rather than just indirect from his production company. And also when the TV show gives more pity to the perpetuator than the victim, \*\*AND\*\* it barely passes the Bechdel Test.

But with all of this, I feel the most damning part outside the writing is \*\*Stephen Graham still actively supports Johnny Depp. Yes that Johnny Depp, the has-been, the serial abuser, and the rapist.\*\* It's one thing if he had worked alongside him in the past for films before the allegations, but even afterwards he still collaborates and even starred in a film alongside Depp, one that was made by Depp himself. For how much he wanted to seem like he supports women and be a "positive male role model", it all goes down with his casual friendship and willing to openly support Johnn Depp. And when looking back at how the show sympathizes and gives a lot of presence to a misogynistic boy who killed a girl who rejected him, it's not surprising that he would carry on and give support to a man who abuses and harms women.

And off-topic for a bit, there was a story I heard about what inspired Graham to make the show, or at least what he said, was that he saw the manosphere influencers on the internet, and was shocked that this was the kind of thing his son could be exposed to. \*\*What's funny is that his first instinct to "properly teach his son" is to create an oscar-bait show that gives more focus on the male characters, rather than something as simple as stop being friends with a misogynistic abuser.\*\*

But overall, it’s just crazy how so many people will aggressively defend this show for doing the bare minimum, even a lot of supposedly feminist spaces, and even arguing that not centering on women is a good artistic choice.

For a while, I have already been skeptical and critical of the show, especially with the patriarchal narrative and with how it feels like it was made to exploit a current moral panic and social problem. However, especially when learning more about the behind the scenes, it has made me question more of the reason and how it was made.

With the actor Stephen Graham, who plays the father of the girl's murderer, not only is he the main actor, but also he co-wrote and partook in producing the show. Now there's nothing wrong with someone doing multiple parts/roles for a piece of media, where it is a problem is **with what the show is trying to achieve and how.** The show promotes itself as this drama that explores current issues, but the main focus is barely the women, but rather men. There's the obvious elephant in the room with how the show is more focused on the boy's feelings while straight up erasing the girl he victimized, **but also so much focus on how sad it is for the "poor and tragic" father OF THE BOY, who let me remind you is played by Stephen Graham.** All we see with him, it's all about how HE is doing, how it's affecting HIM, but also the camera has so much focus all around Stephen Graham and his acting.

And to add all this together, consider with how Graham is wanting to give himself the public image of positive masculinity and to be seen as a role-model for young boys. Now men can be feminists and positive male role models are important, **but with current trends and influencers, it just feels like that he wants to be seen as one, rather than actually be one, and hence why I wrote in the title "male-feminist". Because it just feels like he is just one of those in reality, as he wants to be seen as some savior.**

And with the TV show itself, a major part I see is with Brad Pitt labelled as the executive producer. I am well aware he has a production company that has produced a lot of films, but it's especially troubling for a project that acts like it's so profound and revolutionary, and that he's in the credits directly, rather than just indirect from his production company. And also when the TV show gives more pity to the perpetuator than the victim, **AND** it barely passes the Bechdel Test.

But with all of this, I feel the most damning part outside the writing is **Stephen Graham still actively supports Johnny Depp. Yes that Johnny Depp, the has-been, the serial abuser, and the rapist.** It's one thing if he had worked alongside him in the past for films before the allegations, but even afterwards he still collaborates and even starred in a film alongside Depp, one that was made by Depp himself. For how much he wanted to seem like he supports women and be a "positive male role model", it all goes down with his casual friendship and willing to openly support Johnn Depp. And when looking back at how the show sympathizes and gives a lot of presence to a misogynistic boy who killed a girl who rejected him, it's not surprising that he would carry on and give support to a man who abuses and harms women.

And off-topic for a bit, there was a story I heard about what inspired Graham to make the show, or at least what he said, was that he saw the manosphere influencers on the internet, and was shocked that this was the kind of thing his son could be exposed to. **What's funny is that his first instinct to "properly teach his son" is to create an oscar-bait show that gives more focus on the male characters, rather than something as simple as stop being friends with a misogynistic abuser.**

For a while, I have already been skeptical and critical of the show, especially with the patriarchal narrative and with how it feels like it was made to exploit a current moral panic and social problem. However, especially when learning more about the behind the scenes, it has made me question more of the reason and how it was made.

With the actor Stephen Graham, who plays the father of the girl's murderer, not only is he the main actor, but also he co-wrote and partook in producing the show. Now there's nothing wrong with someone doing multiple parts/roles for a piece of media, where it is a problem is with what the show is trying to achieve and how. The show promotes itself as this drama that explores current issues, but the main focus is barely the women, but rather men. There's the obvious elephant in the room with how the show is more focused on the boy's feelings while straight up erasing the girl he victimized, but also so much focus on how sad it is for the "poor and tragic" father OF THE BOY, who let me remind you is played by Stephen Graham. All we see with him, it's all about how HE is doing, how it's affecting HIM, but also the camera has so much focus all around Stephen Graham and his acting.

And to add all this together, consider with how Graham is wanting to give himself the public image of positive masculinity and to be seen as a role-model for young boys. Now men can be feminists and positive male role models are important, but with current trends and influencers, it just feels like that he wants to be seen as one, rather than actually be one, and hence why I wrote in the title "male-feminist". Because it just feels like he is just one of those in reality, as he wants to be seen as some savior.

And with the TV show itself, a major part I see is with Brad Pitt labelled as the executive producer. I am well aware he has a production company that has produced a lot of films, but it's especially troubling for a project that acts like it's so profound and revolutionary, and that he's in the credits directly, rather than just indirect from his production company. And also when the TV show gives more pity to the perpetuator than the victim, AND it barely passes the Bechdel Test.

But with all of this, I feel the most damning part outside the writing is Stephen Graham still actively supports Johnny Depp. Yes that Johnny Depp, the has-been, the serial abuser, and the rapist. It's one thing if he had worked alongside him in the past for films before the allegations, but even afterwards he still collaborates and even starred in a film alongside Depp, one that was made by Depp himself. For how much he wanted to seem like he supports women and be a "positive male role model", it all goes down with his casual friendship and willing to openly support Johnn Depp. And when looking back at how the show sympathizes and gives a lot of presence to a misogynistic boy who killed a girl who rejected him, it's not surprising that he would carry on and give support to a man who abuses and harms women.

And off-topic for a bit, there was a story I heard about what inspired Graham to make the show, or at least what he said, was that he saw the manosphere influencers on the internet, and was shocked that this was the kind of thing his son could be exposed to. What's funny is that his first instinct to "properly teach his son" is to create an oscar-bait show that gives more focus on the male characters, rather than something as simple as stop being friends with a misogynistic abuser.

With the recent waves of the director claiming audiences are too prudish, it had me skeptical, especially when the main complaints of the film were more about the story AND writing itself, rather than a lack of sex scenes. Ultimately it feels like Will Gluck is trying to take advantage of a moral panic to try and elevate his mid-to-bad film. Especially when you consider many directors usually go the “woe is me/society hates me” route with the film of their own version, or just blame the studio and exectuive meddling

And also considering how vague the director was, for all we know the sex scenes might have not even been well made. Remember that one animated dog film by Tartakovsky that everyone was protesting to release, only to be horrified at the end product? We’re not really given actual detailed accounts on the audience testing. And if he really believed for it to not be that bad, couldn’t he just not listen to them? After all he chose to cut the scenes out ultimately.

Last thing to bring up, but him complaining about audiences not wanting onscreen sex gives off a lot of vibes similar to that one guy who made the horror film Escape From Tomorrow, claiming Disney will sue them, and that ended up just a really pseudo-intellectual, misogynistic, creepy in a bad way, and overall bad horror film. Not even so bad it’s good.

Ultimately it just feels like a director is using political grifting tactics to try and elevate an otherwise mid-to-bad film. And as seeing in a lot of film subreddits, they just blindly follow the bandwagon without question.