Updated July 15th, 2023: This article aboutIndiana Jones and the Dial of Destinyhas been updated with disagreeing feedback from two of our thoughtful readers. you’re able to find their lengthy, meticulous responses at the bottom of the article or by clickinghere, and if you have any disagreements or would like to express your thoughts, email us at editorial@movieweb.com
Indiana Jonesused to be seen as not just an iconic adventure hero, but a representative of American heroism. He had an explorative spirit, a fearless attitude (give or take snakes), a sense of humor, and great intelligence, and he fought a lot of Nazis, as well. As Flat White writes forThe Spectator Australia:
Indiana Jonesis an expression of our real-world adventurers that captivated the West through travel journals and newspaper columns across many decades before the era of Hollywood adapted their stories for the big screen. These people were civilization’s glimpse of the unknown. Shackleton, Fawcett, Drake, Cook, Speke, Livingstone, Polo… The list is endless. They all tap into the deep human curiosity about the knowledge we have left behind as civilization grows through the ages.
For three great films, Indiana Jones remained a beloved cinematic legend. Then cameIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, a film which many believed tarnished the entire legacy of Harrison Ford’s great character. However, whatever people said about that film pales in comparison to what people are saying about the fifth and latest installment,Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. And that’s before it was even released.
The new Indy film has been called “woke,” whatever that means, the moment a trailer was released. Entire judgments of the film came down based on just two exchanges (and roughly 15 seconds) ofIndiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, and both of them involve a new character, Helena Shaw, Jones' goddaughter (played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge). In one instance, Jones says, “You stole it!” Jurgen (Mads Mikkelsen) says, “Then you stole it,” and finally, Shaw says, “And then I stole it. It’s called capitalism.” In the other instance, Shaw tells Jones that he stole from Indigenous people. That’s about it, at least from the outrage of people who had only seen the trailer.
What happened? Why is Indiana Jones, this beacon of American heroism, being suddenly attacked for being woke? What does that even mean? Is it true? Does it matter? And more importantly — what the hell is going on with our culture?
Indiana Jones and Capitalism
Let’s first break down these two instances inIndiana Jones and the Dial of Destinywhich have upset so many fans. First, the mention of capitalism. At the outset, it’s important to note that a character in a film doesn’t necessarily reflect a film’s ideology; films have multiple characters, and ideally, they would each have different perspectives that create a dialectic. In fact, the new film makes it clear that Helena Shaw isn’t some ideal, perfect character, but rather a mass of flaws; she’s obnoxious, arrogant, and ultimately needs help. In many ways, the movie actually looks down on her. Thus, she’s more reflective of a selfish and self-righteous generation than she is an ideal, progressive agenda.
But regardless, even if she was the film’s paragon of virtue and ideological strength, what she says isn’t exactly wrong. Equating capitalism with theft is incendiary, sure, but it’s more complicated can that. We defer to u/correcticallytech on Reddit, who gives a wonderful response below to this momentary exchange in the film.
And again, so what? Who cares if Helena Shaw equates capitalism with theft? Indy doesn’t, and you don’t have to if you don’t want to. Even if we were to grant (which we obviously aren’t) that the film is espousing some sort ofspoooookysocialist dogma, and that Disney is being grossly hypocritical, how fragile is your belief in capitalism and the dominant economic system of the world that this 10-second exchange has you furiously boycotting Disney and spamming comment sections? What does it have to do with enjoying a popcorn movie? (Not that the movie is even good, but we’ll get to that).
Indigenous Jones and the Dial of Destiny
Next comes the very brief retort from Shaw that Jones stole from Indigenous cultures. Guess what? He did. The world of archeology, anthropology, and art history has woken up to the fact that pillaging and looting treasure from other cultures is — surprise! — not cool. Jones' persistent mantra was that artifacts belonged in Western museums for Western academics to study and Western audiences to enjoy. In recent years, most intelligent people have woken up to the fact that our museums are brimming with literally stolen goods.
Related:Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny: Craziest Reddit Fan Theories
Indiana Jones never paid for the treasure that he looted. In fact, one of the first scenes inRaiders of the Lost Arkhas him getting paid for hawking stolen goods from another culture. Isn’t it a bit disturbing that his economic rivals are literal Nazis? He’s often racing against the clock to steal the same thing that Nazis want to steal; the fact that he wants to put it in a museum doesn’t exactly make him virtuous in comparison.
A year before anyone got all upset in a tizzy,The New York Timespublished the article, “For U.S. Museums With Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over.” Graham Bowley writes:
“Most significantly, U.S. authorities, both local and federal, have made the return of looted cultural heritage more of a diplomatic and law enforcement priority. U.S. Homeland Security Investigations reports returning more than 20,000 items since 2007, largely seized from dealers and collectors, but also found in many of America’s most prestigious museums.
‘There has been a broad agreement for decades that objects that were stolen in violation of law should be returned, but what has changed is the amount of time and focus spent on this kind of crime and the political will to pursue it,’ said Donna Yates, associate professor, criminal law and criminology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands.”
There was a UNESCO treaty in 1970 regarding stolen artifacts and museums, more than a decade before the first Indiana Jones film. That’s partly why the Jones universe is set before 1970; the latest film is mostly set in 1969 for a reason. Times have changed, and ethics are more important to archeology. If you disagree with that and think it’s somehow “woke,” then you’re more than half a century behind the times.
What’s Woke?
It almost seemed like, even before the first trailer forIndiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, a whole faction of people were ready to tear into the film. What’s going on here? The simple truth is that we live in a wacky world where Bud Light and Indiana Jones, culturally “masculine” things, are considered woke. So are Target and M&Ms. And now Disney.
Disney dared to have asame-sex kiss inLightyearand a Black mermaid inThe Little Mermaid. Scary, right? A cartoon kiss and a Black fish woman will surely topple culture as we know it, no doubt about it. Our kids must only see white people of different sexes kissing. God forbid they see awomanin an Indiana Jones film talk back to the 80-year-old Harrison Ford character. It’s downright apocalyptic.
Related:Why the Indiana Jones Franchise Should Have Remained a Trilogy
The hilarious thing is that most of these Disney films just aren’t that great. They’re not worth getting upset about; if they’re not worth seeing, why are they worth spending time and emotional energy attacking them?Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destinyis filled withawkward de-aging CGIand just seems silly, tired, and embarrassing, not because of politics, but because of aesthetics. Hate a film because it’s a bad film, not because you disagree with its supposed ideology.
These anti-woke warriors are obsessed with their soapbox, but can they define woke? They love to ask people, “What is a woman?”, but what is woke?
Disney Controversy
Our current moment is an extremely reactionary one. Culture always moves with a pendulum, in which progress is made and extreme backlash is presented. We have Obama, and then we have Trump. We have Trump, and then we have Biden. We have the legalization of gay marriage, and then we have violent rhetoric against drag queens and the LGBTQ+ community. We have #MeToo, and then we have the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now we have the Disney hate, from Meatball Ron DeSantis to the alt-right. The tribal trolls are stewing.
The hilarious thing is, these are massive corporations.Target is bad for the environmentand shouldtreat its workers better. Mars, which owns M&Ms, has literally beensued for child slavery. Anheuser-Busch, which owns Bud Light, has a litany ofviolations and abuses, and hasbribed government officials. Disney is a dangerous monopoly, and we’re legitimately afraid to say more, but you can check outtheir rap sheet. Like most corporations, all of these companies deserve criticism.
And yet, because of this culture war nonsense, the criticism they get from the masses devolves into prejudice. The only reason they’re attacked is because of transphobia, homophobia, and racism. Because, for some reason, people are terrified of “wokeness,” some vague term referring to the fact that they broaden their market share by appealing to more demographics for profit.
Sure, people don’t like beloved franchises being ruined, but that happens with just about every single franchise. It’s all a cash grab. If people are violently upset, it’s not because of that. Let’s not fool around — The only reason people are all up in a tizzy about Target’s new bathing suits with intense vitriol is that they hate trans people. If someone hates the newLittle Mermaidwith a bizarre and unrelenting passion and attacks the casting specifically, it’s probably because they dislike Black people. If they were apoplectic overLightyearand think it was dangerous to children, maybe it’s because they hate gay people. It’s that simple; the rest of us don’t care. It’s not about the children, it’s not about “the legacy of a franchise,” it’s about hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. If it wasn’t, why are they commenting with such vitriol? “You mad, bro?” Why?
It’s okay to dislike something. It’s legal to express your hatred in certain ways. But remember — hate speech and free speech have different definitions. Don’t obfuscate your hatred under the blanket of freedom or “protecting the legacy of a franchise.” Go see another movie and stop being obnoxious.
UPDATED JULY 15TH, 2023
Unfortunately, discussing anything even mildly divisive these days leads to a lot of bitterness, hyperbole, and further division. Something begins innocuously (a movie character saying “That’s capitalism”) and the response to the seeming wokeness is vicious anti-wokeness; the response to the anti-wokeness becomes anti-anti-wokeness, and so on, with no end in sight.
Several of you have emailed us with your own thoughts, which have been appreciated and often very intelligent and curious, a far cry from the vitriolic YouTube comments we’ve received for a slightly positive 60-second video short. You’ve spoken (coherently and thoughtfully), and we’ve heard you!
Here are two of our favorite, lengthiest responses; we’d like to thank David and Michael for their thoughts and permission to include them here in full without any modification:
From David Morgan
Hi Matthew,
I recently read your article ‘Indiana Jones and the Fake Controversy of Woke Backlash’ and thought I’d get in touch. From the article, I can see that we’re on opposing sides of THE CULTURE WAR, so in an effort to end hostilities, I thought I’d respond to your article and offer another point of view in what I’m hoping is a respectful manner because, damn, like many people, I’m so tried of all the arguing and negativity.
This has nothing to do with me wanting to avoid Monday morning emails in work…
As far as I understand, being Woke is overtly expressing you’re aware of societal issues such as racism and sexism because you think it makes you look like a good person/company.
A lot of backlash to movies and TV shows, such as Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny, is because the makers of the film are Woke and are signalling their virtue at the expense of a well-loved character who the franchise of movies is about. It’s as if Lucasfilm is saying; “We think there’s inequality amongst men and women so we’re going to have a woman boss around a man”.
The backlash isn’t against a strong, female character in Helena Shaw, it’s about the destruction of the Indiana Jones character. I don’t think people are necessarily against strong female leads, just look at Ripley from Alien, Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Sarah Connor in Terminator or Princess Leia in Star Wars (1977). People are backlashing against what they see as cheap, hollow attempts of virtue signalling at the expense of a good story and well-established characters.
This seems to happen a lot in movies and TV today. If you look at the recent sequel trilogy in Star Wars, both Han Solo and Luke Skywalker went from being iconic heroes to downbeat losers - it just wasn’t consistent with the characters established 40 years ago. Why can’t Indiana Jones just be Indiana Jones? Furthermore, it’s being done to push female leads to the forefront. The problem is, often in modern movies, these characters are written extremely poorly and are two-dimensional and without any fault or vulnerability.
In your article you mentioned that if you don’t like the new Little Mermaid film, it’s because you don’t like black people and that “…it’s about you and the people you hate”.
I don’t think that’s accurate.
People don’t like decisions being made because of what they interpret as virtue signalling. Hence, there was no backlash to Beyonce in Austin Powers because that was the first iteration of that character and Beyonce was great in that role. There was no backlash to the lead character in The Princess and The Frog being black. There was no backlash to Pam Grier in Jackie Brown - there’s hundreds of other examples, obviously, not to mention that Black Panther and countless other movies with a majority black cast are successful.
The backlash isn’t to the casting of a black actress in a lead role - the backlash is against the change because in the first iteration of The Little Mermaid, Ariel was white and many see the casting of a black actress as virtue signalling by Disney. And, hell, people are sick and tried of virtue signalling. This is probably why there was a spiky reaction to Lightyear. I don’t think people necessarily hate gay people, they just saw that as a cheap attempt by Disney to appear virtuous. Generally, anyone kissing in Lightyear seems odd - I haven’t seen it myself.
So, there it is, the backlash is against the motive, not the person’s colour/sex. It’s against the cheap, easy and hollow attempts to signal virtue at the expense of well-loved characters and franchises.
Anyways, I enjoyed your article. Even though I fundamentally disagree with what wrote, it did make me think and prompted this email. Hopefully, one day, when the war is over, we’ll be able to shake hands, accept that we are different and move on with our lives in peace.
All the best,
From Michael Callaro:
Mr. Mahler,
After reading your recent article about the new Indiana Jones film, I feel it necessary to respond to some of your points with some lengthy comments. They are as follows:
“The new Indy film has been called “woke,” whatever that means.”
If you’re asking for a definition, there’s the definition it started out as (awareness of systemic injustices and prejudicesinvolving the treatment of ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities), and a definition that it became (the omnipresent use of race and gender to replace meritocracy and ensure equality of outcome, or in this case, an attempt to write over established tropes with an ideological template). The latter has done so through some pretty observable behaviors of people who ideological enforce their interpretation of what woke is. The only thing I can say about the former definition is that it’s a starting point in the evolution of “wokeism” and the latter is its final destructive form, which we are now witnessing in film.
“Entire judgments of the film came down based on just two exchanges.”
I’m assuming you’re trying to imply how little of the film was needed for these people to make a snap judgement about it. That’s fair, but I would argue that these exchanges were deliberately picked out to market the film with the intention of piquing the interest of a very specific audience – people who fall under the umbrella of latter day wokeness (feminists, anti-capitalists, and people who harbor anti-american sentiment), none of which the Indiana Jones legacy has previously attracted. So it’s odd that they would market the film essentially as something the Indiana Jones never definitively stood for. This is why even the smallest marketing cue managed to tip people off to whom the movie is NOT being marketed to, while simultaneously revealing who it’s really targeting. They knew Kathleen Kennedy was behind this, they knew what they’d seen from the previous tenpole franchises she’s helmed, and from there most people were able to deduce where this was going.
I can’t say you’re attempt to reframe this is a deliberate one, but I do think its reasonable how people came to this conclusion given the historical context of Disney’s recent attempts at social entrainment in previous projects. And does it really matter what conclusions they initially jumped to? They proved correct anyway, in the sense that most of the interpersonal dynamics between legacy characters were virtually copied from the reviled Star Wars sequels. In both instances you had failed marriages, father/son bonds that were broken, and beloved heroes reduced to irascible sulking babies who just wanted to be left alone.
But harkening back to the point about marketing, the reddit post you’ve addressed regarding Mac’s capitalist sentiment wasn’t picked for the Crystal Skull trailer, and with the Last Crusade as its predecessor, the audience in 2008 wasn’t doing any sort of collective groan about “here we go again.” And if the argument is being made that this was simply a callback, I think we can agree it’s a very clumsy one. So if you’re trying to make a point of equivalency, this would be why there’s no equivalency that justifies what appears to be two similar sentiments that audiences had completely different reactions to.
“In fact, the new film makes it clear that Helena Shaw isn’t some ideal, perfect character, but rather a mass of flaws; she’s obnoxious, arrogant, and ultimately needs help. In many ways, the movie actually looks down on her. Thus, she’s more reflective of a selfish and self-righteous generation than she is an ideal, progressive agenda.”
Other than her apologizing for her inappropriately celebrating after Indiana’s friend dies, where is this expressed? And more importantly, where is she appropriately forced to SELF-ACTUALIZE in the story? Nowhere. There’s no moment where she’s done in by the selfish, self-righteousness you claim they’re disavowing in order to bring the character to some sort of redemption arc. And the very fact that she isn’t forced to self-actualize is your proof that the movie doesn’t actually look down on her. Even beyond that, the film subtexually tells the audience that she’s a hybridization of Han Solo and Indiana Jones, and remember how you liked the scoundrel smuggler in that other film? Well, here’s another reluctant anti-hero we think you’ll like because we have in mind a whole series of movies and we’re using this as a springboard to a bigger cash grab. That’s what the invocation of this character screams. No inner journey needed.
The Temple of Doom, by comparison, is a good example of how a protagonist exhibits selfish behavior (grave digging for Luao in exchange for a diamond, with early mentions of fortune and glory). The film forces the protagonist to self actualize by realizing his pursuits are superficial in the face of slavery, and when he tries to do something about it, the antagonistic forces consume him. By the end of that film, he understands the power of the stone and what that stone means to the village. A woke interpretation of Indiana Jones would, of course, be a cynical one, whereby the analysis of that film would ignore all of the aforementioned arcs and go straight to talking about how this was yet another “white savior” film. How can we be sure? Because it fits right into the already established cognitive pattern of how the woke appear to think.
“Even if we were to grant that the film is espousing some sort ofspoooookysocialist dogma, and that Disney is being grossly hypocritical, how fragile is your belief in capitalism and the dominant economic system of the world that this 10-second exchange has you furiously boycotting Disney and spamming comment sections?”
To be honest, I don’t think people’s criticism of this is an example of American jingoism or any type of overarching defense of a monetary system. Again, it’s a marketing cue that’s letting people know what they can expect – more of the same emphasis on eye-rolling polemics over cinematic auteur. It’s really no different than writers who consider themselves activists first and writers second. And it’s my understanding that for a relative newcomer to the industry, Phobe Waller-Bridge had an unusual amount of creative control over her character and the story - the kind of control you’d be more likely to see with an industry veteran of more than 30 years. I haven’t seen Fleabag, but it’s also my understanding that she essentially plugged that character into this character. So yeah, that raises more questions than it answers.
“Indiana Jones never paid for the treasure that he looted. In fact, one of the first scenes inRaiders of the Lost Arkhas him getting paid for hawking stolen goods from another culture.”
If you look more closely at that scene, he’s trying to sell the artifacts to finance a trip to where he thinks Beloq is going to sell the artifact he just lost. He’s not doing it for money, he’s doing it to get the more valuable piece into the museum. Again, it’s worth noting the diamond he bartered for in the second film and how his character arcs into self actualization at the end.
“He’s often racing against the clock to steal the same thing that Nazis want to steal;the fact that he wants to put it in a museum doesn’t exactly make him virtuous in comparison.”
How does it not make him virtuous by comparison? What is HIS ultimate end for the artifact vs. THEIRS. Indiana Jones wants to preserve the past in a way that creates an appreciation for it, perhaps as a lesson for the future. His enemy’s want the Ark of the Covenant to level cities and win the battle for global control. I’d say that’s virtuous by comparison.
“For U.S. Museums With Looted Art, the Indiana Jones Era Is Over.” Graham Bowley writes:
Is it really worth making a point about a court decision that retroactively reverses some views of past conduct? Indiana Jones doesn’t get to live in 2007. This is a period piece, so bringing this up makes about as much sense as Matt Damon’s presence in The Great Wall.
“There was a UNESCO treaty in 1970 regarding stolen artifacts and museums, more than a decade before the first Indiana Jones film. That’s partly why the Jones universe is set before 1970; the latest film is mostly set in 1969 for a reason. Times have changed, and ethics are more important to archeology.”
Um, okay, but what relevance does the zeitgeist of the present have in relation to the zeitgeist of the past when a period piece must adhere to the “ethics” of that particular moment in time? This is perhaps the single biggest driver behind the current asphyxiation of creative output in Hollywood today. “Oh, we don’t think like that now, so it either has to be revisionist or we can’t portray it at all.”
“It almost seemed like, even before the first trailer forIndiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, a whole faction of people were ready to tear into the film. “
Probably. See my previous points about the marketing and a certain producer having already established the expectation.
“God forbid they see awomanin an Indiana Jones film talk back to the 80-year-old Harrison Ford character. It’s downright apocalyptic.”
To simply boil all of this down to the marrow of sexism would be making an argumentative,a priorifallacy for the sake of making it. When you say “God forbid,” you’re mocking the very argument you’ve boiled down. Few fans, other than backlash detractors, have boiled it down to this. Marion struck Indiana Jones in the face. Willie spit at him. So the issue can’t be outrage over a woman taking physical action over a man. The more the supporting characters exert their will over the protagonist, the more defined the protagonist’s journey has the opportunity to become. So that’s not the real issue here.
“The hilarious thing is that most of these Disney films just aren’t that great. They’re not worth getting upset about; if they’re not worth seeing, why are they worth spending time and emotional energy attacking them?”
I agree. They’re absolutely terrible, in the most surprisingly terrible way anyone could’ve imagined. Yes, there are more important things to be upset about. But it’s worth pointing out that the question of “why do you care so much?” has been asked in defense of indefensible things that actually DO matter, so the tactic of reducing the weight of its importance is more a matter of scale. In other words, if people have posed the same question regarding what actually IS worth getting upset about, it really doesn’t change the nefarious nature of the INTENT behind posing the same question about what is less so.
“Our current moment is an extremely reactionary one. Culture always moves with a pendulum, in which progress is made and extreme backlash is presented.”
Certainly so, but doesn’t this presuppose the idea of what progress means? Is progressed defined by forward movement that’s based purely on a universally accepted ethical code, or defined based on subjectivity in simultaneous alignment with power? Because the argument to be made of the current times is that we’re in the midst of progress based on the subjectivity of the people currently in power regardless of its illusory, periodic exchanges.
“Now we have the Disney hate, from Meatball Ron DeSantis to the alt-right. The tribal trolls are stewing.”
I don’t have a problem with political affiliation, but wouldn’t the act of calling people names be, in itself, a demonstration of the tribalism you seem to be condemning? You can’t simply point the finger and then do the same thing. I mean, you can, but you can’t expect the reader not to see through that.
“The hilarious thing is, these are massive corporations.Target is bad for the environmentand shouldtreat its workers better. Mars, which owns M&Ms, has literally beensued for child slavery. Anheuser-Busch, which owns Bud Light, has a litany ofviolations and abuses, and hasbribed government officials. Disney is a dangerous monopoly, and we’re legitimately afraid to say more, but you can check outtheir rap sheet. Like most corporations, all of these companies deserve criticism.”
I find this comment to be extremely ironic since The Sound of Freedom, a movie calling attention to trafficking, is outperforming Indiana Jones with half the theater presence. It becomes even more ironic that Disney owned the rights to the movie and sold the film to Angel Studios because they didn’t want to make it.
“The only reason they’re attacked is because of transphobia, homophobia, and racism.
I can’t really recall a scenario where any movie was attacked on a large scale solely for these reasons, at least not in a vacuum. Nobody attacked movies like MILK, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, or BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. I’m guessing it’s because they weren’t given what I previously described as the definitions of what “wokeism” evolved into – the polemic act of rewriting of pre-existing creative material at the expense of auteur. And by the way, it’s worth noting that terms like “phobia” and phrases like “being terrified” are very specific to left wing invocation of ideas. The idea of characterizing opposing ideas as an emotional state simultaneously implies the lack of logic. It’s really no different than someone who uses words like, “science” and “critical thinking” when anyone can apply them. Phobia and fear are two words that exist in opposition to rationality. Are these people really “scared?” I can’t picture them cowering in a corner whenever they raise some sort of disagreement to something.
Sure, people don’t like beloved franchises being ruined, but that happens with just about every single franchise. It’s all a cash grab.
Okay, but you just wrote an entire article in defense of the writer, producer and director’s choices. And if it’s all a cash grab, why does it happen? Quite simply, why does it happen? If you write an article that tries to stifle any attempt to explore the question, then are you not, in some small part, an accomplice to the cash grabs that cause the ruination of franchises?
“The only reason people are all up in a tizzy about Target’s new bathing suits with intense vitriol is that they hate trans people. If someone hates the newLittle Mermaidwith a bizarre and unrelenting passion and attacks the casting specifically, it’s probably because they dislike Black people.”
Again, this is an a priori attempt to boil down a reaction when these types of things are multitudinal in nature. Again, if we consider characters that didn’t previously exist, we know that Jack Twist was always gay, so why would they suddenly make him trans, let alone straight? If people found it jarring that BACK TO THE FUTURE II replaced the Jennifer character with another female actor, are they not supposed to find it even more jarring when the racial identity of an established character is even more radically changed? True, audiences didn’t lose their minds about the BTTF II actor swap, but the more radically you change a character that people know, the more you appear to be SAYING SOMETHING, so expect to be held accountable and be prepared to explain your reasoning.
Anyway, that’s about covers it. My apologies for this overly long response, but I just don’t understand what these types of articles are intended to accomplish or who they’re intended for. Movie Web seems to be owned by various holding companies, so I’m not sure if this is part of some monolithic industry message or if this is just you being asked to opine something divisive. Either way, I think it does more harm than good, especially to filmmaking.
Send Us Your Thoughts
We at MovieWeb appreciate your comments, especially when they transcend some of the emails we’ve received (a recent example features the sentences, “Take your “problematic” and shove it up your politically correct, woke, wussy asses. Surprised anyone even tries to make a comedy today in the world of you humourless, scolding, modern day Puritans Ugh.").
If you’d like your thoughts to be included in this article, email us at editorial@movieweb.com
