When we read, watch a film, or binge a good TV show, we entertain ourselves with new and exciting plots, stories, and maybe even gain some insight or a lesson or two along the way. But is it possible, that even with the nitty gritty, that Hollywood glamorizes these subjects? Granted, all Hollywood cares about is money, but where does the line cross from education to glamorization?
One key trope that comes to mind is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. The term, created by film critic Nathan Rabin defines it as a female character who, “exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.” Now what does this dream girl have to do with glamorization? Almost always, especially in film, this girl always has some sort of quirky flaw like cancer or a mental illness then is proceeded to be used as an object in the plot to make the main character appreciate life more. One person who I saw fulfilling this trope was actually a male character, Augustus Waters from, “The Fault in Our Stars.” I saw it in the theater at around 13 years old, and only saw the film because a friend at the time wanted to, not because I had any solid interest in the book or film. Throughout the film, Augustus has this sort of…I’m not sure how to explain. Let me just give examples of events that legitimately happened that still haunt me to this very day:
-Hazel, the main character, goes to a cancer support group and meets Augustus there. As she is waiting to be picked up after the meeting is over, she gets mad at Augustus because he gets a cigarette out, and she very clearly has breathing issues. Augustus then explained how him owning cigarettes and putting it on his mouth but not lighting it is some kind of, “metaphor.” Yes. He’s completely serious about this and they then proceed to flirt with each other.
-One scene they just make out at the Anne Frank house and everyone claps. This scene still burns into my mind. I’m not going to lie, the film DID make me cry, it was a definite tear jerker film. I imagine the book being even MORE of a tear jerker. But who allowed this??? What in John Green’s mind, the publisher’s mind, the film company’s mind, in anyone’s mind thought this was not only a good idea to share with the world, but a climatic moment that should be shown in multiple mediums???
Those two scenes are the only one that really haunt me. Now let me be clear, I’m not hating on John Green, anyone who likes romance novels and films, or anything of the sort, however two strange phenomena occurred shortly after:
- Justin Bieber said that Anne Frank would’ve been a belieber
- A new medium of books and films romanticizing life threatening illnesses have been released.
Now of course, the Justin Bieber quote needs no explanation, but if you don’t believe fact number two may I suggest you look at “Five Feet Apart,” “All My Life,” and even “Me Before You.” But to be honest, I never saw the same sort of hype for those films as I have with TFIOS. And seeing the film, I don’t blame them for that. Even with a sad ending, it creates a world of hope, wonder, and love, even to those with terminal illnesses. But it’s very clear that the point isn’t to empathize and educate others on what it’s like to have cancer, but to create a love story. Even if it means they kiss at a historical landmark. Is that offensive? Or is it just a lighthearted story?
Personally, I would hate my physical issues to be capitalized off of in such a manner, a lot of young adult books did that already with my mental ones, and glamorized mental illness and even psych wards. For example, “It’s Kind of a Funny Story.” I read it, and as a reader who was in a psych ward under militaristic type rules, it was hard for me to believe that not only did the average joe main character had sex with not one, but with two girls. He also happened to be grouped with adults as well even though he was only a teenager. I’m not saying sexual intercourse doesn’t happen in psych wards, but what I am saying is that my depression wasn’t cured because another patient fucked it out of me either.
Another example are forms of entertainment based on actual events. Most people seem to have no issue with watching any film about, “The Titanic,” even if it’s a love story because the accident was so long ago. But what about other disasters? For example, wars like Vietnam, school shootings like what took place at Sandy Hook Elementary, or even COVID? What can Hollywood profit and not profit out of? Even though those types of films haven’t been a thing yet, will there be a time when it will be deemed acceptable and if so, when?
What about all those countless stories about black people suffering? Such as films about, “12 Years a Slave,” which shows the brutality of slavery, or “The Hate U Give,” which is about police brutality? Of course both of these examples have good reviews and ratings, and have events that have legitimately happened and still do to this very day, but again, is it morally sound to profit off of the abuse of minorities? Especially if systematic racism normally puts white people at the tippy top of the corporate chain, and therefore they gain the most profit? If creators overuse certain ideas like they did with dystopian YA in the 2010’s, aren’t we doomed to see some not-so-innovative (and even offensive) content?
These questions have been popping up a multitude of times, especially on Twitter. If I remember correctly, there was a debate not too long ago about the book, “All the Light We Cannot See,” about a german boy who is a member of the german army and a blind french girl falling in love as the Nazis slowly try to take over France. But with book discussions, they all happen so fast online, that even if it was less than a week ago, it feels like old news. I also recall seeing a few discussions about minorities and what they were looking for in regards to representation in books and shows and even the book, “White Fragility,” was in some hot water.
What I’m not trying to say is that we shouldn’t be allowed to have the content that I’ve listed. What I am saying though, is that because this medium is being shown through capitalistic companies, the line between education and glamorization, or the purpose of the pieces we have seen, can get blurry at times. Some topics that people have debated about are still being debated about to this very day. And the line between ethical and unethical only gets grayer and grayer.
If you would like to share some of your thoughts on this topic, feel free to comment! 🙂
rachel hall 