Why Does Discussion of Pop Culture Make Up So

Large a Part of Political Discourse in

Twenty-First Century America?

Nader Elhefnawy

August 2022

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 1

Controversy about the real or imagined political content of popular culture is by no

means new.1 Still, the proportion of the public discourse given over to such controversy at least

seems to have grown greatly relative to the discussion of everything else. Moreover, besides

expanding quantitatively that discussion appears to have changed qualitatively, becoming

considerably more intricate and involved, with much that would not have been noticed at all

becoming highly charged, and much that would have been regarded as innocuous becoming

intensely controversial. Thus do episodes that would once have got little attention outside of the

relevant "fandom" now receive vast amounts of coverage in the most high-profile outlets of the

mainstream media as a matter of course, with its commentators often attributing to clamor over

culturally marginal works among people usually derided as "geeks" a vast cultural, social,

political significance (as with "GamerGate," "ComicsGate," and the release of the films Wonder

Woman, Black Panther and Captain Marvel, to name but a handful of the most dramatic of

recent years).2

Indeed, the history of single franchises shows the distance traveled, with the Star Wars

franchise exemplary. While George Lucas' initial conception of Star Wars was in its premises

actually far to the left of anything that would be considered as at all suitable for a major

Hollywood feature film today (in his early conception of the film, the Evil Emperor was modeled

on the President in office when he started out, and Alderaan on North Vietnam), the movie's

politics, if hardly unnoticed by sharp-eyed critics, did not arouse any great controversy. 3

Mainstream observers, at least, did not pick the film apart, instead taking the whole thing much

more casually even as the film became a record-breaking hit and a cultural touchstone—for

everyone. Significantly reflecting the fact is that the political right was so comfortable with the

film that few saw irony in Ronald Reagan's apparent evocation of such a movie in his

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 2

characterization of the Soviet Union as "the Evil Empire"; while, if identification of his proposed

Strategic Defense Initiative with Star Wars began with Senator Edward Kennedy's mockery of

the Initiative as fantastical, the Reagan administration eventually embraced "Star Wars" as

shorthand for "SDI."4 By contrast, on seeing Disney's recent prequels and sequels to the Star

Wars trilogy (most notably 2017's The Last Jedi), many on the right immediately dissected the

films and vociferously condemned them on the grounds of their alleged "left" content—and that

not on the grounds of their treatment of such traditional leftist concerns as democratic

degeneration, political gangsterism and imperialistic war that had concerned Lucas (such was

absent here) but simply the perceived implications of the film's casting and characterizations as

feminist and more generally what the right denigrates as "woke." 5 (In response the "woke"

rallied around the film, while going so far as to accuse right-wing critics of being manipulated by

a Russian "information warfare" campaign in the heated atmosphere of "Russiagate."6)

Thus has it also gone with the much later and pop culturally much more modest matter of

Marvel's Thor film series. Looking back the call by a conservative group for a boycott of

Kenneth Branagh's Thor over that film's casting of Idris Elba as the Norse deity Heimdall in

2010 seemed to many a surprise meriting a good deal of remark.7 However, when Taika Waititi's

Thor: Love and Thunder hit theaters in July 2022, with the race, gender or both of several more

characters reimagined (including the gender of Thor, somehow), the predictable new call for a

boycott seemed only the familiar background noise of pop culture. 8 Indeed, that particular

boycott was almost drowned out amid the furor over a different Disney movie released mere

weeks earlier, Pixar's Toy Story tie-in Lightyear, which contained a lesbian character who

married her partner, which inspired far more profuse condemnation—and defense.9

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 3

One can, of course, dismiss this continual uproar over such matters as indicating that

those who pass for thought-leaders in the United States are suffering a collective nervous

breakdown; cynically distracting the public from real-world problems in a time of growing stress

on multiple fronts (pandemic, economic crisis, environmental crisis, war, etc.); or both; all as the

"entrepreneurs" involved strive to move their worthless product (the politicians "selling

themselves" as well as their policies, the media looking to get more ratings, clicks, sales for their

news stories, etc.).10 One can also see these tendencies as being reinforced by the extent to which

people in Washington D.C. make it very clear that they would prefer to be in Hollywood, and

people in Hollywood make it very clear that they fancy themselves the "legislators of mankind"

not in Percy Bysshe Shelley's sense but quite literally, and fancy themselves Presidents, too

(politicians seizing any chance to involve themselves in a Hollywood production and hobnob

with film stars who in their turn appear delighted to hobnob with them, media celebrities utterly

without anything to commend them but name recognition running for office, etc.).11

Still, all this can only go on as it does because it "works" for a critical portion of the

audience, and it behooves the cultural analyst to consider why this is the case. Certainly the same

factors that have done so much to sustain and escalate the decades-long "culture wars" of which

all this is a part seem relevant. Most obviously there is the way the right and the "liberal" center

have embraced a neoliberal/neoconservative political framework requiring any participant in

mainstream political discussion to accept that the terms of economic life and all the material

issues connected with it have, in all but slight details, been decided for all time, leaving the

country with little to argue over but culture; and the spread of a media-obsessed postmodernism's

"ways of seeing," terminology, etc. beyond the university lecture hall (evident in how

widespread such terms as "intersectionalism" and "male gaze" have become), with not only

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 4

feminist, LGBTQ+ and ethnic minority activists deploying them, but the avowed right equipping

itself with the same tools, and using them at least as aggressively; with all that these

developments mean for attentiveness to popular culture.12 There is the way all this pushes to the

front and center of public life status politics, with its baggage of intellectually muddled

subjectivism, conspiracism, unapologetic double standards, sheer mean-spiritedness—indeed,

plain and simple hatred—the more in as proponents of the associated politics of identity and

culture are so contemptuous of calls for civility of any kind and questioning or criticism from

any source; those who speak from this standpoint so commonly show less interest in "wining

over" anyone else in the fashion of textbook democratic political discourse than in gratifying

their nastier impulses (reflected in the gleeful use of words like "troll" and "trigger"); and the fact

that such attitudes and rhetoric inevitably bring on reaction in kind; all of which naturally

polarizes the public and makes mountains out of the proverbial mole hills.13 There is how the

media's overwhelming support for postmodernist feminism, multiculturalism, etc. permits a right

devoted to elite interests to appear populist by attacking "coastal elite" standards in those areas,

with criticism of "woke capitalism" having a whiff of the economic populism about it the "woke"

do not and cannot associate themselves with for myriad reasons; how the right has claimed the

mantle of defending free speech and culture from censorious, cancel culture-minded "liberals";

how the element of "anti-political correctness revolt" in such attack permits it to appeal as "cool

and edgy" to youth who have much to be discontented with but who under the circumstances are

deprived of other objects for their rebellious impulses, in the manner exemplified by "South Park

conservatism"; and even how the right has been able to present itself as not only the champion of

the rights of men in the post-#MeToo context of "guilt by accusation," but heterosexual male

subjectivity, sexuality, identity against LGBTQ+ radicals fiercely hostile to binary and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 5

heteronormative conceptions of gender, sex-negative feminism, etc., with this extending even to

the defense of those cultural pleasures conservatives traditionally condemn in the case of the

alt-right.14 And of course, there is the fact that all political operatives are under ever-greater

pressure to play this game, symbolic of which is that that bastion of "high policy," the Heritage

Foundation (so closely identified with Ronald Reagan's '80s-era economic program, the 2003

Iraq War, and much else), has been obliged to "retreat from traditional but stodgy fiscal and

foreign policy issues in favor of the hot-button . . . debates that increasingly define the

Republican Party" today—an assessment which makes the Heritage Foundation publication The

Daily Signal devoting an article to denouncing what that article's author held to be Kevin Smith's

"woke," "left" and even "Marxist"(!) reboot of He-Man appear telling rather than surprising.15

However, it does seem there is a case to be made that besides its generally lending itself

well to the culture wars the nature of entertainment generally and the stuff of contemporary

entertainment particularly, because of what they mean for the interaction of pop culture and

politics, do much to intensify the preoccupation of much of the public with such things as the

why and wherefore of the latest editions of Star Wars and Thor and Buzz Lightyear and He-Man

and so much else. This paper suggests four attributes of contemporary entertainment as

particularly relevant here, namely:

1. The Frame of Mind of an Audience Looking for Entertainment.

2. The Ascent of Action and "Sci-Fi" in the Cinematic Marketplace.

3. The Marketing of Popular Culture.

4. The Media's Obsession With Itself.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 6

1. The Frame of Mind of an Audience Looking for Entertainment.

A logical starting place for a discussion of why it is that argument over the political

content of popular culture has come to consume so much time and attention is the frame of mind

in which audiences happen to be when they receive such content, with a logical starting point for

that the difference between art, and the subject of this paper, entertainment. The consumption of

art in the sense in which the author is using the term tends to be associated with the audience

taking a work on the terms of that work's creator—and thus an alert, open-minded,

nuance-recognizing audience which can show respectful interest toward, and even admire,

something it finds less than entirely accessible or pleasing. 16 It is no accident that this is,

stereotypically, an audience which is well-educated, leisured, secure, such that it has the frame of

reference, the urbanity, the plain and simple emotional cushioning needed to bear with, and see

and acknowledge the value in, something that confuses or offends them.17

In considering all this it is well to acknowledge that even for such an elite (to say nothing

of the far broader public) the appetite for art is limited relative to its hunger for entertainment, in

which, instead of the audience being expected to take a work on the terms of its creator, the

creator of the work is expected to meet the audience on their own terms. They do not want a

demand made on their capacity for empathy; what they want is a storyteller who will empathize

with them (e.g. offer them something they easily find "relatable").18 They do not want to be

challenged, but agreed with; do not want to be told what tastes others think they should have and

what valuations those others think they should make, but instead have their actual tastes and

valuations affirmed and catered to; do not want to be criticized but instead praised—told that

they are "strong" and "smart" and generally wonderful just as they are; etc.. In short, they want to

be validated, flattered, their fantasies given form, and in general be made to feel secure,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 7

comfortable, triumphant, good (with, in contrast with art, which may succeed even when not

pleasing, any entertainment that leaves them feeling badly a failure as entertainment).

Of course, this is complicated by the fact that not everyone can be given very much

satisfaction of this kind at the same time, because not everyone finds the same sorts of figures

and situations relatable; do not have the same tastes and valuations, do not have the same

fantasies; with what is relatable or appealing to some likely to be the opposite for others, so

much so that in deciding to please one part of the audience by indulging it in this manner, accept

the risk of not pleasing, or displeasing, another part of the audience, because it can be

discomfiting to watch others be indulged rather than oneself, especially at one's own expense (as

when one sees themselves in the target of a revenge fantasy).19 This expectation of what can

only be described as pandering may make it sound as if the pop cultural audience is selfish,

narcissistic, intolerant and petty, if not self-pitying, mean and stupid, the more in as its members

are so unforgiving of the same traits in other people.20 However, it is also the case that when

sitting down to an entertainment people feel quite entitled to be selfish, narcissistic and the

rest—perhaps the more especially insofar as they have "behaved" themselves at other times,

putting up with the alienations and privations, the repressions and frustrations, of a "responsible,"

"adult" existence and leaving them with that much more need of a "break from it all" in which

they get to be indulged rather than chastised. In a world in which someone is always ready to

punish any self-assertion on their part with the sneer that "This isn't about you!" their choice of

their own personal entertainment really is about them, or it would not be entertainment.

All this would seem the more important because people commonly seek out

entertainment when they want to relax, or are simply tired, or feeling low; when they have their

guard down and are more emotionally vulnerable than they may be at other times. The

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 8

combination of the expectation of being coddled with that state of vulnerability may produce

particularly strong emotive reactions, not least negative reactions when persons have been

disappointed or offended rather than satisfied on this score (as when they have sat down

expecting to be indulged and been chastised or insulted instead)—while those expectations of

satisfaction make entertainment a natural venue for identity-status politics with all its baggage.

Who gets to have their fantasy fulfilled, who gets to be pandered to while others look on

fidgeting in impatience and irritation, is most definitely a status issue of the kind to which such

politics are highly attentive (as seen in the bitter controversy over the term "Mary Sue").21 In

fact, it does not seem to be going too far to say that many insist they have a moral and political

case for their pleasures being off-limits to others' criticism, no matter how offensive others find

them; and at the same time an equally moral and political case against any pass for others, to the

point of seeming to regard any media not pandering to them, because it is intended to appeal to

someone else, as not only "not for them," but illegitimate—a thing that must not be permitted to

exist.22

It would also seem relevant that individuals today are likely to have so many more

reactions to media—because in the age of the smart phone, a vast choice of free and low-cost

streaming services each affording an abundance of content, and ubiquitous Wi-Fi, they are likely

to be consuming music, film, games or other pop cultural content with some level of attention in

virtually every moment in which others are not barring them from doing so. (Indeed, many

consume such content when they are not strictly free to do so, as in class when the teacher lacks

the authority or nerve to stop them, or at work when they think that the boss is not looking—with

the sheer amount of such activity seeming to be one of the dirty little secrets of the modern

classroom and workplace.23)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 9

2. The Ascent of Action and "Sci-Fi" in the Cinematic Marketplace.

In considering the reactions of the audience it is worth acknowledging the kind of content

to which they are reacting. This is especially the case with film, not just because the

highest-profile films are likely to be more widely promoted, known and consumed than any other

type of pop cultural product (important as this makes it to any discussion of these matters), but

because of how the range of content offered by major feature films has narrowed sharply in

recent decades.24 The transition of much of what people once "went to the movies" to see to the

small screen (amid multiplying options, rising budgets for TV production, and the relaxation of

censorship) has meant that makers of theatrically released movies are overwhelmingly dependent

on exceedingly high-cost spectacle that will make a particularly strong impression on the big

screen for their draw, and preferably bring with them the advantage of a "built-in" audience

intrigued by a preexisting interest in what is on offer (e.g. in its being connected with something

they know and like from the past). Meanwhile Hollywood's ever-growing reliance on revenues

from foreign markets has only reinforced the trend, given that spectacle travels more easily than

the subtler stuff of comedy and drama, while in the international market Hollywood has a

near-monopoly on the financial, technical and other capacities required to produce and distribute

globally salable "big movies" (whereas others can just as easily turn out quality comedy and

drama, and often do better by local lights, to Hollywood's disadvantage). Where the combination

of internationally mobile, high-cost spectacle using "brand name" franchises is concerned, the

action film genre, and especially the action film based on previously well-established science

fiction and fantasy films, comics and other such content, fit the bill best, and as a result have

increasingly come to dominate the market, a tendency exemplified by the ubiquity of the

superhero film.25 Applying even the strictest standard, in the last pre-pandemic year of 2019 five

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 10

of the twenty highest-grossing movies at the American box office (including hits #1, #5 and #7)

were superhero-themed action spectacles, while a sixth movie was tied in with a well-known

superhero franchise (presented as the back story of Batman's archenemy, Joker); at least sixteen

of the movies could be classified as adventure or action-adventure of some sort; and every single

one of the top thirteen movies and at least eighteen of the top twenty had some sort of science

fiction or fantasy angle; with the situation much the same in the global market.26

Of course, all of this has had significant implications from the standpoint of identity

politics, because of the highly gendered character of that material. Simply put, the action movie

has traditionally been a particularly masculine purview—because of its stress on stereotypically

masculine qualities (physical courage, prowess and aggression, dominance of others through

violence, the "macho swagger" associated with those who so dominate successfully) and

traditional gender roles (the defense of family and tribes from physical menaces, the punishment

of transgressors, the manning of police and military forces); and which has in line with this

conception been primarily made by, of and for a male audience enjoying such fiction as a fantasy

of, among much else, male power and self-assertion, with many comparing its flattery of a male

imagination to the flattery of a woman's imagination by the romance genre.27 So has it tended to

go with the relevant forms of science fiction and fantasy, which have, in fact, tended to offer

much the same fantasies in even more extravagant form than anything ostensibly set in the "real

world" (consider Iron Man as against Rambo), produced by, of and for the same audience.28

However, those gendered associations, and the makeup of the contemporary movie

market, lead to certain imperatives on the part of the identity-minded. The existence of a

"male-dominated" sphere, especially one so pointedly upholding traditional conceptions of

gender (of certain qualities as distinctly or characteristically masculine, etc.)—makes the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 11

traditional casting of lead roles in action films unacceptable to many feminists as a matter of

principle. At the same time, given how important the action movie has become commercially,

the chances for writing, producing, directing and starring in such films are that much more

important for any group whose members aspire to a career in filmmaking.29 The result is that for

feminists female-led action films have become an imperative on both

ideological-cultural-symbolic grounds (in that female action heroes subvert gender stereotypes

they want to combat, while even claiming that women "need" such fantasies of power,

"swagger," etc.); and for those in the industry, career grounds (bringing women more

opportunities to be involved in such films, and therefore film generally).30

That imperative has frequently clashed with the conventional mode of the action film.

Most obviously a film depicting a woman beating up or killing or otherwise dominating a

succession of men all made to look villainous or ineffectual, and very often foolish and weak,

turns a male fantasy of power into its opposite in a rather "zero-sum" manner.31 At the same time

the fact goes that the preferred source material for such action films has been a handful of film

franchises mainly emergent in the late 1970s and 1980s, and comic book superheroes of even

older provenance, limiting the options of those looking for really successful franchises affording

obvious opportunities for female-led action films—with one common response for those taking

the feminist route "gender-swapping" characters to "compensate" for the relative scarcity or

marginality of past female action heroes (a zero-sum game yet again).32 That course makes a

female-led action film appear the more provocative still because the use of established franchises

in the manner discussed here (exploiting nostalgia for them, or at least their name recognition,

and at the same time not treating that material faithfully) means running afoul of a fandom

historically unparalleled with respect to its length and acuity of memory; strong sense of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 12

"possessiveness" of that material of which they are fans; and proneness to passionate, politicized

argument about what they very much feel is "their" genre and its works, especially where those

adapting the material deviate from the expected—as some Star Wars fans reminded everyone in

the wake of what they regarded as (among much else) feminist "appropriation" of "their" saga.33

3. The Marketing of Popular Culture.

Of course, all that said, a common rejoinder to those who disapprove of the content of

popular culture has long been "If you don't like it, don't watch it." However, there are distinct

limits to avoidance—even apart from that possessiveness that fans may feel toward certain

works. Individuals can, within limits, choose their sources of news according to their particular

taste—someone who goes for FOX or Newsmax or MSNBC, for the New York Post or the

Washington Post or the U.S. edition of the Guardian, generally knows what they are getting with

regard to the editorial line of the item in question, and on that basis chooses to look at, or not

look at, that material.34 They are not offered quite the same choice in regard to movies and other

entertainment products. This is partly because the marketing differs profoundly, pitched at the

widest possible audience with a scrupulous avoidance of signals to some part of the population

that "This isn't for you"; and partly because of the political pressures that mean "non-woke"

content cannot advertise itself as such to those who would prefer it, and indeed can only be

insecurely offered within the mainstream (with the drama of the Hallmark Channels in recent

years, and the as yet marginal nature of avowedly right-wing TV and film production, both

demonstrate).35

Yet another reminder that consumer choice is rarely so unfettered as economics textbooks

would have it, the idea that one can simply ignore what one does not like is contradicted yet

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 13

again by the sheer multimedia onslaught that comprises the promotion of a major new work, with

film again the most pointed case. If production budgets have exploded (such that $100 million+

is now average for a feature film), marketing budgets have grown still more greatly, because

they have gone from representing a fraction of those once much smaller production budgets to

broadly matching the enlarged budgets of today—with the promotional effort beginning as soon

as a production has been green-lit with the aim of stoking "buzz."

The aggressiveness of such a campaign is in itself quite sufficient to annoy many, but on

top of that comes how such promoters respond to the need the massive investment raises to have

something to claim on behalf of an appreciable portion of the audience's not conveniently and

cheaply seeing the film on video a few months after its theatrical debut but buying a full-priced

ticket on that opening weekend on which so much now hangs—e.g. the need to portray it as

somehow an "event." Especially given the usually familiar, formulaic, often banal character of

the product in a movie market absolutely hyper-saturated with the kind of content they are

attempting to make "stand out" as somehow especially unique or interesting the options are few,

with somehow claiming some kind of social or political relevancy to the culture wars a fairly

obvious (i.e. lazy, cheap) course to follow.

Accordingly, the aspects of recent films for which some significance can be claimed from

the standpoint of the culture wars are a major talking point for their backers, who will in fact go

so far as to claim that the public is obliged to "support the movie" because of its political content,

with the promotion of films like Black Panther and Captain Marvel exemplary.36 Indeed, much

of this promotion often gives the impression of being intended to antagonize that part of the

audience that could be expected to be less than receptive to such calls, with this extending to a

good deal of taunting of and gloating over those expected to disapprove in a manner evoking

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 14

nerd-bashing stereotypes shameful enough in a schoolyard, never mind "journalism" (as with the

frequent sneers at presumably tearful "fanboys").37

All of this, for all the aforementioned reasons, produces the expected reactions, which

become news in themselves. Indeed, the media machine parlays even a lack of reaction—a

movie's being ignored by theatergoers—into news, claiming as the cause "enemy action,"

whether in the form of fans of the material who expressed their disapproval vociferously (such

that terms like "review-bombing" and "fan blaming" have now entered the lexicon of the

entertainment business), or professional critics, whom they readily charge with treating particular

works or artists unfavorably out of racism, sexism or another such -ism (as seen in Ava

Duvernay's response to the critics over her adaptation of A Wrinkle in Time, several cast

members' response to critics' treatment of the gender-swapped remake of Steven Soderbergh's

remake of Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Eight, Elizabeth Banks' response to the performance of

Charlie's Angels, and more recent reactions to the reactions to the Pixar animated feature

Turning Red).38 It has even been known to blame the audience more generally (for, due to the

same prejudices, not "showing support"). All this insures yet more reaction that will in its turn

become yet another news story . . . until the time in between the item in question's being

crowded out of that hyper-saturated market by the fresher hype surrounding other, slightly

newer, wares, and the production of the inevitable sequel, prequel or reboot generates sufficient

buzz to penetrate through the mind-numbing pandemonium of the mediaverse.39 One can only

truly escape it by hiding under the proverbial rock—while anyone taking the cultural and

political claims made on behalf of these works at all seriously is easily made to feel that a

concerned citizen of whatever political orientation (or simply concerned parent worried that

even if they choose not to see something their children might) would be remiss in their

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 15

responsibilities if they actually did ignore what they did not like when they believed it to be

something truly pernicious.40

4. The Media's Obsession With Itself.

As if all that were not enough the disproportionate attention to the media-entertainment

industry relative to other businesses—what goes on in it as well as what it puts out for

audiences—means that people who have no personal interest in the business (they do not work in

the field or any closely related to it, they will not be investing money in the business, etc.), and

are uninterested intellectually in the operations of the economy (even among business news

readers, few seem to have much interest in anything beyond their personal portfolio), are often

quite conscious of the goings-on in the media business. To cite an easy example few members of

the general public, in spite of most of them being car-buying motorists, will have any idea as to

how the major automotive manufacturers are doing relative to each other sales-wise, by

comparison with the number who have some notion of the highest-grossing movies, the

highest-rated and most-streamed shows on television, the chart-topping music, the bestselling

books, and much, much else—enough so as to have opinions about what is or is not marketable

or popular, and in cases, even how particular studios are doing (as with the particularly visible

and powerful owner of Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar, Disney).41 Indeed, particular officers of

that firm are probably better-known to the public outside the circle of committed business

news-readers than any comparable figures in the business world save for a handful of "tech"

industry officers (as is the case with fifteen-year Disney Chief Executive Officer Robert Iger and

his successor Bob Chapek, Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy, and Marvel Studios

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 16

President Kevin Feige)—while there is even more attention to the "talent," film stars above all,

extending to their salaries, contracts and the rest.

All of this makes those interested in such issues that much more aware not just of what

the industry produces, but its practical operations—and as the popularity of the slogan "Get

woke, go broke" testifies, those interested in the political dimension of these matters utilize their

assessments of the commercial performance of specific films, shows, etc. in their arguments,

which break out the more easily because the immensity of the budgets, the hyperbolic hype and

the bar set by the biggest past hits, leave almost anything at least vulnerable to the charge of

failure.42 This is especially the case with those taking the position that a media elite is forcing

"woke" material on a public that does not want it, displaying an indifference to profit suggestive

of other motives—i.e. "pushing the Agenda"—coming first (recently exemplified by U.S.

Senator Ted Cruz's remarks about Pixar's Lightyear and its merchandising).43 Meanwhile their

opponents are obliged to make use of the same data when endeavoring to refute the claims (as

was the case with even such a high-earning film as The Last Jedi, and as has been more recently

the case with that aforementioned fourth Thor film, a box office smash or a box office flop

depending on which source one consults—and not coincidentally, the political attitude of the

writer in question).44

The tendency is amplified further still by the way in which the public is able to

collectively vote on many of the relevant works extending beyond contributing or not

contributing to mere sales totals via sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which aggregates the scores of

both professional critics, and the ratings of non-professional site users, with the numbers

constantly weaponized in such argument. Among much else, the matter of the not infrequent

gaps between the ratings given by professional critics, and those (presumably) given by the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 17

broader public, are frequently a point of such contention. (The critically well-liked but in many

quarters unpopular The Last Jedi's Rotten Tomatoes scores were an excellent 91 percent "fresh"

rating from the critics, and a "rotten" score of 42 percent from the broader public—an

extraordinary 49 point disparity which detractors of The Last Jedi insist bespeaks the political

Agenda of critics they regard as generally identity politics-minded "liberals," and the popular

dislike of the movie; while supporters of the movie take it as proof that it was a brilliant film

which "toxic" fans worked hard to sabotage.45) In the process the culture wars are, again, shoved

to front and center; while as with so much else in those culture wars, the dialogue continually

feeds upon itself, keeping that discourse going round and round in a manner that, in the view of

this author, must not only test the patience but the very sanity of any individual who deigns to

attend very closely to it for long—evidences of which insanity are everywhere (and indeed,

prompted the writing of this very paper).

Notes

1
What is today termed identity politics largely consists of what Richard Hofstadter characterized
as "status politics." For the author's note on the subject, see Nader Elhefnawy, "Revisiting
Richard Hofstadter's 'Status Politics': A Note," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), 24 Jun.
2022. For Hofstadter's original piece, see Richard Hofstadter, "The Pseudo-Conservative
Revolt," The Scholar, Winter 1954-1955.
2
The author compares the treatment of these matters in more recent years to the attention to the
science fiction scene in earlier decades (for example, the highly divisive New Wave of the
1960s, which seems to have been entirely below the mainstream's radar). Regarding this, see
Nader Elhefnawy, Cyberpunk, Steampunk and Wizardry: Science Fiction Since 1980 (Nader
Elhefnawy, 2015). Also see Nader Elhefnawy, "Of Hearties and Arties." In Nader Elhefnawy,
The Secret History of Science Fiction (Nader Elhefnawy, 2022); Nader Elhefnawy, "Revisiting
Earl Kemp's Who Killed Science Fiction?" In Nader Elhefnawy, The Secret History of Science
Fiction (Nader Elhefnawy, 2022). For examples of that more recent treatment, see Nick
Wingfield, "Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in 'GamerGate' Campaign," New
York Times, 24 Oct. 2014; Noreen Malone, "Zoe and the Trolls," New York, Jul. 2017; J.A.
Micheline, "Comicsgate is the Latest Front in the Ongoing Culture Wars," Guardian, 11 Sep.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 18

2018. David Walsh, one of the few to offer a critical take of Wonder Woman, characterized it is a
"trite, often tedious" and misanthropic film offering "crude nationalist and pro-war propaganda"
and general "reactionary twaddle" that was nonetheless treated as "one of the major cultural
events of the year, or perhaps in recent years," with the mainstream "critics either shar[ing] this
excitement or . . . intimidated by this clamor." Nick Barrickman remarked that, while Black
Panther was "a conventional Hollywood 'blockbuster" superhero film its Black Nationalist
credentials (its being "the first Marvel film . . . starring a superhero of African descent," its
"show[ing] black people in 'positions of power," and its "featuring an almost entirely all-black
cast, [while being] directed by an African American director, with a screenplay by black
writers," etc.) induced an "ecstatic response" reflected in the movie's scoring a "Best Picture"
nomination at the Golden Globes and Oscars that year, a "Best Adapted Screenplay" nomination
at the Writers' Guild Awards, and a win in the "Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion
Picture" category at the Screen Actors' Guild awards, honors virtually unknown for
superhero-type blockbusters). Barrickman dismissed this as a "marketing scam" based on
premises that were not just "absurd," but reflective of a "politically reactionary" racialism he
identified with Nazi conceptions of "Aryan art," and celebration of "the worst features of social
and political backwardness" in its "glorified reflection of ex-colonial countries where the benefits
derived from control of scarce and valuable resources go to a fabulously wealthy privileged
elite." In much the same manner Captain Marvel became a feminist "cause celebre," with the
aforementioned Walsh (who called this film as well "empty, predictable and tedious") comparing
the surrounding press to that which had surrounded the preceding year's Black Panther. See
David Walsh, "Wonder Woman: Humanity is Pretty Rotten, But the Germans are the Worst of
the Lot," World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), 13 Jun. 2017; Nick Barrickman, "Black Panther: A
Hollow 'Defining Moment' Cloaked in Identity Politics," WSWS, 22 Feb. 2018; Leslie Lee, "Did
Anyone Else Pick Up on the Disturbing Messages in Marvel's Black Panther?" Alternet, 22 Feb.
2018; Monica Castillo, "Hesitating to Go See 'Captain Marvel?' Then You Must be a Bad
Feminist," Washington Post, 7 Mar. 2019; David Walsh, "Captain Marvel: Money, Feminism,
Militarism, and Previously 'Independent' Filmmakers," WSWS, 20 Mar. 2019.
3
J.W. Rinzler, The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film (New
York: Ballantine Books, 2007); Peter Biskind, "Blockbuster: The Last Crusade." In Mark Crispin
Miller, Seeing Through the Movies (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990).
4
In the famous "Evil Empire" speech Ronald Reagan identified Communism and the Soviet
Union as a literally Satanic "evil empire" ("Marxism-Leninism . . . first proclaimed in the Garden
of Eden with the words of temptation, 'Ye shall be as gods'") in a speech redolent with explicit
evocation of Christianity and its traditional conceptions of good and evil, and drawing heavily on
the Bible and C.S. Lewis' theological novel The Screwtape Letters (cited explicitly and at
length), such that the reference to Star Wars can seem at best slight and ambiguous by
comparison. Still, the pop cultural prominence of Star Wars was such that the connection was an
easy one to make (especially since more people see movies than read books), and perhaps still in
Kennedy's mind when, in the wake of Reagan's "Star Wars" speech a mere fifteen days later, he
referred to SDI as a "Star Wars" scheme, in spite of the fact that Reagan never actually used the
term "Star Wars" in the speech. For transcripts of the two speeches, see Ronald Reagan, "Evil
Empire Speech," 8 Mar. 1983. University of Maryland, Voices of Democracy: The U.S. Oratory
Project; Ronald Reagan, "Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security," 23 Mar.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 19

1983. Archives, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. Also see "'Star Wars': How the
Term Arose," New York Times, 25 Sep. 1985. For an analysis of the rhetoric, see Nathan A.
Wingert, "The Politicization of Popular Culture: A Case Study in Reagan and Star Wars," 2013,
Marshall University, M.A. Thesis, Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 733.
5
Ray Kelly, "'Star Wars: Rogue One' Faces Massive Backlash From Conservatives," Masslive, 9
Dec. 2016; Aja Romano, "Star Wars Has Always Been Political. Here's Why the Alt-Right is
Claiming Otherwise," Vox, 31 Dec. 2016; Zack Sharf, "Alt-Right Group Takes Credit for 'The
Last Jedi' Backlash, Bashes Star Wars for Including More Women," Indiewire, 21 Dec. 2017.
6
Yohana Desta, "Was The Last Jedi Hate Actually Spread by Russian Trolls?" Vanity Fair, 2
Oct. 2018. For the paper which sparked the "Russian trolls" accusation, see Morten Bay,
"Weaponizing the Haters: The Last Jedi and the Strategic Politicization of Pop Culture Through
Social Media Manipulation," First Monday 23.11, 5 Nov. 2018.
7
Ben Child, "White Supremacists Urge Thor Boycott Over Casting of Black Actor as Norse
God," Guardian, 17 Dec. 2010; Pamela McClintock and Tim Appelo, "Black 'Thor' Actor Blasts
Race Debate Over His Casting," Hollywood Reporter, 7 Mar. 2011; Bob Calhoun, "The
Misguided 'Thor' Race Controversy," Salon, 20 Apr. 2011.
8
Matt McGlain, "Thor: Love and Thunder 'Pushing the Boundaries' of Wokeness," Cosmic Book
News, 2 Dec. 2021; Matt McGlain, "Woke Natalie Portman Thor to Be 'Center of' Love and
Thunder," Cosmic Book News, 31 Dec. 2021; Michael Ippolito, "Disney Continues to Be Woke
in a New Thor Movie Trailer," Newsbusters, 25 May 2022; John F. Trent, "Marvel Studios
Appears to Retcon Korg's Race to Make Them All Male, Reveals Korg is Gay in Thor: Love and
Thunder," Bounding Into Comics, 8 Jul. 2022. Regarding the reconception of Valkyrie (which
actually occurred in the preceding 2017 Thor: Ragnarok), see Soraya Nadia McDonald, "Casting
Tessa Thompson in 'Thor: Ragnarok' is a Delicious Way to Troll White Supremacy," Andscape,
2 Nov. 2017. Regarding the more recent boycott, see Samantha Bergeson, "Christian Group
Demands 'Thor: Love and Thunder' Boycott Over LGBTQ Agenda," Indiewire, 16 Jul. 2022.
9
Dani Di Placido, "Disney's 'Lightyear' Controversy is More Ridiculous Than You Think,"
Forbes, 17 Jun. 2022; Sky Palma, "Ted Cruz Loses it Over 'Lesbian Toys' and Disney's New
'Lightyear' Film," Salon, 17 Jun. 2022.
10
Nader Elhefnawy, "What it Means for the News Business to be a Business—and Journalism a
Profession: A Note," SSRN, 24 Jun. 2022. Also see Nader Elhefnawy, "'Toward a Fuller
Understanding of Media Bias: The Role of Centrist Ideology," SSRN, 24 Apr. 2022. The classic
analysis of the right's exploitation of the culture wars to advance its economic agenda remains
Thomas Frank's books, which have also been relevant in regard to the matter of "woke
capitalism." See Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the
Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004); Thomas Frank, Listen, Liberal; or,
What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2016). Also
see Thomas Frank, One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End
of Economic Democracy (New York: Doubleday, 2000).
11
Of the last four Republican Presidents one was a film actor (the aforementioned Ronald
Reagan) and another a celebrity with numerous film and TV appearances under his belt who
became a reality star with the TV show The Apprentice (Donald Trump). The sitting President
apart, the only two Democratic Presidents since James Carter have, in their post-White House
periods, gone in the other direction. Bill Clinton, after his Presidency, "coauthored" murder

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 20

mysteries with multimedia phenomenon James Patterson and served as executive producer on a
(since-shelved) Showtime channel adaptation of "their" novel The President is Missing (2018)
into a television series. Barack Obama, after departing the White House, established a TV and
film production company with a multiyear deal with Netflix, all as, before he left the White
House, his wife Michelle Obama made numerous appearances on television shows like children's
hits iCarly and Jessie, the ABC nighttime soap Nashville, and even the law enforcement
procedural NCIS, while presenting the Best Picture award at the 85th Academy Awards in 2013
(to the producers of the film Argo). And of course, innumerable lesser examples abound, from
Sonny Bono becoming a Congressman (while others like Antonio Sabato Jr. tried and failed to
get the votes), to a Hollywood-besotted Alexander Haig throwing himself into helping John
Milius make Red Dawn (1984), to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff making a Dolph
Lundgren-starring action movie with apartheid-era South African government funding (1989's
Red Scorpion). Regarding the last two of those stories, see a book by David Sirota (himself an
example of the phenomenon as a speechwriter for Bernie Sanders more recently turned
screenwriter through his work on the Oscar-nominated satirical film Don't Look Up), namely
Back to Our Future: How the '80s Explain the World We Live in Now—Our Politics, Our
Culture, Everything (New York: Ballantine Books, 2011); and James Verini, "The Tale of 'Red
Scorpion,'" Salon, 17 Aug. 2005.
12
Nader Elhefnawy, "'What is Neoliberalism? And What Has it Meant?': A Primer," SSRN, 10
Mar. 2021; Nader Elhefnawy, "What is Neoconservatism?" 8 May 2021; George Packer, "How
America Fractured into Four Parts," Atlantic, Jul./Aug. 2021; Jared Keller, "Republicans Are the
Main Purveyors of Identity Politics," Pacific Standard Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019.
13
Packer, discussing the emphasis on status politics, remarked the postmodernist inclination to
"close down a general argument with a personal truth ('You wouldn't understand' or just 'I'm
offended')," with "identity disqualify[ying] you from speaking." He also remarked that provided
with such "power. Packer. The choice of the word "hatred" is not made lightly. H.G. Wells
described hatred as "a chronic condition of vindictive disapproval" toward a particular person or
thing which has them "seek[ing] . . . occasion for offence, and find[ing] a profound satisfaction
in the nursing of resentment and the search for reprisals and revenges." That such attitudes
characterize the culture wars seems absolutely undeniable. For the source of Wells' remarks, see
H.G. Wells, The Shape of Things to Come (New York: Macmillan, 1933).
14
Ross Douthat, "The Rise of Woke Capital," New York Times, 28 Feb. 2018. The criticism of
"woke capitalism" is remarkable in a country where criticism of capitalism is so unspeakable
that, as James Kenneth Galbraith was to remark, one could hardly speak of it without "bending a
knee and making the sign of the cross" (while a significant reminder of how orthodox,
conventional and conservative the "woke" are on virtually every issue but the few they do
address). James Kenneth Galbraith, The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free
Market and Why Liberals Should Too (New York: Free Press, 2008). Regarding South Park
conservatism, see Brian C. Anderson, "We're Not Losing the Culture Wars Anymore: Why
Conservative Ideas Are Everywhere," City Journal, Autumn 2003; Janan Ganesh, "Did South
Park Accidentally Invent the Alt-Right?" CNBC, 8 May 2017; Lindsey Weedston, "How 'South
Park' Helped Empower the 'Alt-Right," Medium, 10 Aug. 2017; Shawn Setaro, "South Park
Provoked the Rise of White Supremacists—Here's How," Complex, 18 Oct. 2017; Jacob
Bacharach, "Watching South Park at the End of the World," The New Republic, 3 Apr. 2020.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 21

Regarding the specific dimension of sex and culture, consider how one finds in the film reviews
of Breitbart's John Nolte nostalgia for the sexier content of yesteryear's Hollywood prior to the
push to suppress the "male gaze," while columnists for "liberal" newspapers offer a hard rain of
feminist sex-negativity openly scornful of its male object. See John Nolte, "Box Office Poison: 6
Reasons Amy Schumer's 'I Feel Pretty' Flopped," Breitbart, 23 Apr. 2018; John Nolte, "Nolte:
David Cronenberg Blames 'Political Correctness' for Sexless Movies," Breitbart, 6 Jun. 2022;
Michelle Goldberg, "Why Sex-Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion," New York Times,
24 Sep. 2021. All of this may be the more consequential because what is perceived by the
alt-right, and not just the alt-right, as a delegitimization and repression of male heterosexuality,
has gone along with a push for sexuality of every other kind on the screen as part of the demand
for "representation" (again raising the matter of double-standards, and their associated offenses);
and because for many (perhaps especially in hard economic times) the more prurient pop cultural
pleasures may be a substitute for "the real thing." Regarding the situation of young people,
particularly males, in the U.S., see Peter Ueda, Catherine Mercer, Cyrus Ghaznavi and Debby
Herbenick, "Trends in Frequency of Sexual Inactivity and Number of Sexual Partners Among
Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the U.S., 2000-2018," JAMA Network Open, 12 Jun. 2020. Also
see Christopher Ingraham, "The Share of Americans Not Having Sex Has Reached a Record
High," Washington Post, 29 Mar. 2019; E.J. Dickson, "We Aren't in the Throes of a 'Sex
Crisis'—But Men's Rights Activists Think We Are," Rolling Stone, 2 Apr. 2019; Nader
Elhefnawy, "Is a Flight into Virtuality Already Underway? A Consideration of Changing
Lifeways in the Twenty-First Century," SSRN, 5 Oct. 2021.
15
As the Daily Signal's Douglas Blair writes, "there is more to [the] coordinated campaign by
the left to destroy cherished childhood shows and movies"—of which he declared Smith's
He-Man a part—"than simply trying to ruin things for everyone. One of the ways Marxists infect
society is through destruction of the past to replace it with a new Marxist future," drawing
explicit comparison with the conduct of Mao Zedong in "the Chinese Communist Revolution."
Jeff Stein and Yeganeh Torbati, "Heritage Foundation, Former Powerhouse of GOP Policy,
Adjusts in Face of New competition from Trump Allies," Washington Post, 7 Feb. 2022;
Douglas Blair, "Netflix's Woke 'He-Man' Reboot: Another Beloved Property Ruined by the
Left," Daily Signal, 4 Aug. 2021.
16
Lest it need saying—this is very much a modern, contemporary, conception of art, while it can
be added that the line between the two is imperfect, and the categories not wholly exclusive. A
work of art can entertain; and an entertainment can be art; with what is entertainment in one
context received as art in another. (Consider, for example, the plays of William
Shakespeare—which were entertainment in his time, but today are much more often approached
as art, in significant part because the associated thought-world, language, etc. have become
remote from the everyday usages and conceptions of twenty-first century persons, requiring them
to approach Shakespeare on his terms, in contrast with his presenting the audiences of his time
with a play "as you like it.")
17
Reflecting this reality Steven Soderbergh remarked in a noted speech that there was "a very
good argument to be made that only someone who has it really good would want . . . a movie
that makes you feel really bad." "Steven Soderbergh's State of Cinema Talk," Deadline, 30 Apr.
2013.
18
Rebecca Mead, "The Scourge of 'Relatability,'" New Yorker, 1 Aug. 2014.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 22

19
Ian Watt, discussing Samuel Richardson's Pamela and the tradition of fiction it represented
(stories of courtship which see a male's desire for sexual relations without commitment thwarted
and his acceding to a marriage which "leads to a rise in the social and economic status of the
bride, not the bridegroom"), remarked that "the direction of the plot . . . outrageously flatters the
imagination of the readers of one sex and severely disciplines that of the other," and that this
convention has undeniably been connected with "the preponderance of women in the
novel-reading public," precisely because you get more fans with flattery than discipline. (The
fact that contemporary feminist readings of Richardson's novel are more critical, emphasizing as
they do the constraints on acceptable female behavior, does not change the validity of Watt's
assessment by an earlier, different standard.) Ian Watt, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe,
Richardson and Fielding (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1962).
20
While indulgent toward the selfishness, and silliness, of their personal fantasies, for instance,
they are quite the opposite where others are concerned, quickly being irritated by and loudly
calling out the foolishness of others' fantasies, and indeed taking considerable pleasure in picking
those fantasies apart in front of those who do enjoy them—all while being exceedingly
thin-skinned about anyone else's criticism of their own fantasies. It might also be acknowledged
that even for people whose politics are progressive what is entertaining may diverge from what
they regard as right, fair and just in society, with what appeals to people's "amorous" sense an
excellent example (e.g. the classism of women's romantic fiction)—setting up, among the other
charges here, grounds for accusations of "backwardness" and hypocrisy as well.
21
The term "Mary Sue" denotes a female character who is an idealized fantasy figure for its
creator or for their audience. Feminists attack the term as inherently sexist, misogynist, etc., and
want it (and indeed any suggestion that any female character is such a figure, however worded)
entirely disallowed. Caroline Framke, "What is a Mary Sue, and Does Star Wars: The Force
Awakens Have One?" Vox, 28 Dec. 2015.
22
Thus does one writer (at a web site named the Mary Sue!) denounce the very existence of
male criticism of the film Captain Marvel in such terms. Rachel Leishman, "Even Captain
Marvel's Deleted Scenes Aren't Safe From Men's Bad Opinions," Mary Sue, 28 May 2019
23
David Graeber has remarked the extent to which people "on the job" occupy themselves with
such distractions—while the refusal of students to give up their electronic entertainments in class
time is notorious among instructors, at least at the college level, with some studies affirming that
they use the devices to cope with the "boredom" of being in a classroom. David Graeber, Bullshit
Jobs: A Theory (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018). San Bolkan and Darrin J. Griffin,
"Students' Use of Cell Phones in Class for Off-Task Behaviors: The Indirect Impact of
Instructors' Teaching Behaviors Through Boredom and Student Attitudes," Communication
Education 66.3 (2017), 313-329.
24
Consider the alternatives to the few dozen really "big" movies that come out each year with
the backing of a nine-figure publicity came. The rest of the cinematic market consists of a great
many movies individually much less seen; the television market is ever-more fragmented in the
streaming era, with the same going for music (innumerable "singers" better known as celebrities
than for their actual music); and so forth. Meanwhile ardent comics readers are a small enough
minority that they rely on specialty retailers, and "no one reads actual books anymore."
25
Where until the 1980s there were years in which the top ten-grossing films including one
action film or none, in the twenty-first century at least five of those ten films were on average

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 23

action movies, with the proportion steadily increasing (and the proportion of science fiction and
fantasy represented increasing among them)—the action and science fiction genres, once
generally confined to the lower-budgeted, lower-grossing, less prestigious "B" pictures, the "A"
pictures of today. See Nader Elhefnawy, "The Action Film Becomes King of the Box Office:
Actual Numbers," Raritania, 5 Jul. 2017; Nader Elhefnawy, Star Wars in Context, 2nd ed. (Nader
Elhefnawy, 2018). For a robust, if extremely uncritical, overview of this and related
developments in Hollywood, see Ben Fritz, The Big Picture: The Fight for the Future of Movies
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018).
26
The five superhero films were Avengers: Endgame (#1), Captain Marvel (#5), Spider-Man:
Far From Home (#7), Shazaam! (#19) and Aquaman (#20, on the basis of the portion of its
earnings after the New Year; it had been #13 in 2018), while the sixth, related, film, was Joker
(#9). Star Wars Episode IX (#6) and Jumanji: The Next Level (#11) undeniably offered blends of
fantasy and action in other forms, while Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (#13) offered
"spy-fi." John Wick 3 (#14) afforded more grounded action, while It Chapter Two (#10) and Us
(#12) are both horror movies with heavy elements of the supernatural/paranormal. Besides these
the live-action remakes of the animated hits The Lion King (#2) and Aladdin (#8), the
live-action/CGI Pokemon film (#17), and the animated sequels Toy Story 4 (#3), Frozen II (#4),
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (#15) and The Secret Life of Pets 2 (#16) all
combined action/adventure with fantasy for a family audience (with Secret Life, yet again,
having a superhero element—it just never stops). And indeed even the twentieth film could be
considered science fiction of a sort, Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood (#18) being "alternate
history." 2019's list of worldwide hits was very similar to the American list. Nine of the top ten at
the U.S. box office made the list of the global top ten (all but It Chapter Two, confirming the
predominance of action/sci-fi, replaced by the Jumanji sequel, which had only been #11 in the
U.S.); while 15 of the top 20 U.S. films were among the global top 20 (with a sixteenth
American film, the Maleficent sequel, again confirming the preference for sci-fi/fantasy
adventure). The four films not from the U.S. were all Chinese and reflected the same fashion,
with hits like the superhero movie Ne Zha and The Wandering Earth claiming the 12th and 13th
positions (mainly on the basis of ticket sales in China itself). For the purposes of this count the
author used the Boxofficemojo.com web site's listing.
27
Elizabeth Mehren, "Some Dare Call it Romance: In a New Breed of Novel, Violence is
Always Rife and Heroes Always Win," Los Angeles Times, 29 Jul. 1988.
28
It is worth noting that, while the gender distribution of the following varies by genre, the fans
of superhero comics are overwhelmingly male even today, with a recent analysis indicating that
78 percent of the genre's fans are male (making for a 4-to-1 preponderance over female fans).
Brigid Alverson, "NYCC Insider Sessions Powered By ICV2: A Demographic Snapshot of
Comics Buyers: Who is Buying What, and Where?" ICV2, 19 Oct. 2017.
29
"The actors who are doing the superhero movies are the ones getting the leads in independent
movies," Ray Liotta remarked in an interview in 2018. Jason Guerrario, "Ray Liotta on Working
With Jennifer Lopez, Why He's Been in Only One Scorsese Movie, and Not Believing the
Woody Allen Sexual-Misconduct Allegations," Business Insider, 12 Jun. 2018.
30
One saw a great deal of such claims in the wake of the release of Wonder Woman, and still
more, Captain Marvel, the latter seen by many as still more significant from a "feminist"
standpoint because, in contrast with the saintly Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel is brazenly

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 24

egotistical, arrogant, abrasive, "unsmiling" and "unlikable," as well as more thoroughly

desexualized and defeminized (so much so that after Captain Marvel came out all those who had
rapturously cheered the 2017 Wonder Woman for its feminism—e.g. its refusal of the "male
gaze"—now began writing of it as a capitulation to traditional gender expectations, the "goal
posts" apparently moved fairly quickly). For some of this discussion of Captain Marvel, see
Andy McDonald, "'Captain Marvel' Comic Writer: She Always Gets Back Up Because 'F**K
You," Huffington Post, 22 Sep. 2018; Afshan Jafar, "Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel and the
Power of Gender Stereotypes," Ms. Magazine, 3 Apr. 2019; Leishman; Sika Lonner, "Femininity
and Likability in Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel," The Daily Fandom, 5 Sep. 2020. One
can compare the more disparaging remarks about Wonder Woman post-Captain Marvel in those
items to the pieces that ran two years earlier, such as Melissa Leon, "Wonder Woman is the
Feminist Hero We've Been Waiting For," Daily Beast, 2 Jun. 2017; and Becca Burnett, "How
Wonder Woman Succeeds as a Feminist Film," Mary Sue, 15 Jun. 2017.
31
With The Last Jedi, for example, it was a significant sticking point that the film made the men
villainous or foolish or both, and generally ineffectual; the women the repositories of goodness,
intelligence and strength. Indeed, a notably vocal critic of the film credited by some as playing
an important part in the backlash specifically declared that he was "sick and tired of men being
portrayed as idiots," and that such sentiment was why he "voted for Trump." Zack Sharf,
"Alt-Right Group Takes Credit for 'The Last Jedi' Backlash, Bashes 'Star Wars' For Including
More Women," IndieWire, 21 Dec. 2017.
32
Apart from Star Wars Hollywood has been relentless in exploiting the Star Trek, Alien, Mad
Max, Blade Runner, Terminator and Predator franchises, indeed doing so in a manner unjustified
by the returns on many of the later efforts, with this include feminist revisioning of both Mad
Max and Predator (in 2015's Mad Max: Fury Road and 2022's Prey), and a considerable upping
of the (never absent) feminist quotient in the Terminator films in 2019's Terminator: Dark Fate.
Nader Elhefnawy, "Is the Sci-Fi Blockbuster Frozen in the Early '80s?" Raritania, 30 May 2016.
Meanwhile Marvel Comics' pantheon (X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc.) goes back to the
1960s, and that of DC Comics, by way of Superman and Batman, to the 1930s.
33
Elhefnawy, Secret.
34
Elhefnawy, "Business."
35
Again it should be reiterated that most of the time on most issues entertainment industry
content is well to the right in its politics (celebrating capitalism, wealth, nationalism, the armed
forces, law enforcement, with corruption exceptional and limited; promoting the belief that
society is a meritocracy and the elite enjoy their privilege because of inherent superiority; etc.),
the scope for disagreement limited to those "hit-button" issues connected with race, gender and
"lifestyle." Elhefnawy, "Toward." The Hallmark Channels, which had long come under fire for
failing to live up to what some critics saw as their social duty in regard to "representation," were
subject to particular criticism after pulling a Zola commercial featuring a lesbian wedding for
fear of offending the target audience, an episode which ended with the ouster of the President of
the channels' owner (Crown Media), after which the channel became considerably more
accommodating of such expectations, with greater diversity in the casting of the leads in its
films, and even the presentation of movies which feature an LGBTQ+ protagonist pursuing a
romance with a person of the same sex (as in 2022's Love, Classified). Meanwhile the ex-Crown
Media chief set up a Hallmark-like channel of his own (the Great American Channel) vaguely

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 25

promising its viewers "what Hallmark used to be," to a fairly hostile mainstream media
reception. See Johnni Macke, "Who is Bill Abbott? Five Things to Know About the GAC Media
President and his Former Hallmark Career," Us Magazine, 15 Jun. 2022; Joy Saha and Hanh
Nguyen, "Candace Cameron Bure Leaves Hallmark for Trump-Adjacent GAC, Leaving
Christmas Confusion in Her Wake," Salon, 21 Apr. 2022. Also see Nader Elhefnawy, "The
Evolution of the Hallmark Movie Brand," Medium, 20 May 2022; Nader Elhefnawy, "Hallmark
vs. GAC," Medium, 20 May 2022. The currently active production companies producing
explicitly right-wing films would include Pinnacle Peak Pictures (makers of God's Not Dead)
and Ann & Phelim Media (makers of the upcoming Robert Davi-directed My Son Hunter), while
The Daily Wire is investing in this area as well (with productions like Shut In and the Gina
Carano-starring Terror on the Prairie). For one discussion of the as-yet little covered right-wing
TV and movie scene, see Joy Berkowitz, "Ben Shapiro's Netflix Rival is Shockingly Competent
But Still Obsessed With Right-Wing Grievances," Fast Company, 22 Mar. 2022.
36
Barrickman, "Black Panther"; Castillo.
37
See Melissa Anderson, "Despite Some Appealing Misandry, Wonder Woman Can't Avoid
Mansplaining," Village Voice, 30 May 2017. That not everyone may find misandry "appealing,"
of course, is not a consideration, while even more soaked in Schadenfreude (the more notable
because the author is a Pulitzer Prize-nominated Washington Post veteran employed by an
ESPN-owned web site) the work of Soraya McDonald, whose piece on Thor's Valkyrie made its
position clear with its title ("Casting Tessa Thompson in 'Thor: Ragnarok' is a Delicious Way to
Troll White Supremacy"), and then began with the line "As Dorothy Parker might say: Pardon
my glee," as she crowed lengthily over the claiming of the character for feminism, the LGBTQ+
and Black nationalism. McDonald. Examples of such writing seem to have been particularly
abundant in the case of the last Terminator film and the recent He-Man reboot, again evident in
the very titles of the works in question. See Zack Sharf, "Tim Miller Says Mackenzie Davis Will
'Scare the Fuck Out of' Misogynistic Internet Trolls," Indiewire, 10 Jul. 2019; James Field, "The
Best Part of Kevin Smith's 'Masters of the Universe: Revelation' Is the Pathetic Fanboy Hate,"
Pajiba, 26 Jul. 2021; Heather Hogan, "Sarah Michelle Gellar Gays Up 'Masters of the Universe:
Revelation,' He-Man Fanboys Drown in Own Tears," Autostraddle, 2 Aug. 2021.
38
There were charges of "review-bombing" in regard to films like 2016's gender-swapped
remake of the original Ghostbusters, The Last Jedi, or Captain Marvel. See David Sims, "The
Ongoing Outcry Against the Ghostbusters Remake," Atlantic, 18 May 2016 Ashley Rodriguez,
"A Rabid Star Wars Fan May Have Rigged the 'Rotten Tomatoes' Score for The Last Jedi,"
Quartz, 19 Dec. 2017; Ryan Parker, "'Captain Marvel' Sandbagged on Rotten Tomatoes Within a
Few Hours of Opening," Hollywood Reporter, 8 Mar. 2019. For a discussion of fan blaming, see
Gita Jackson, "What is 'Fan Blaming' and Why Are 'He-Man' Fans Mad at Kevin Smith?" Vice, 3
Aug. 2021. Regarding directors' and actors' condemnations of professional critics, see Ellie
Bufkin, "Wrinkle in Time is Getting Panned by Critics, and Director Ava DuVernay is Not
Taking it Well," The Federalist, 14 Mar. 2018; Helen Chandler-Wilde, "Male Critics' Reviews of
Ocean's 8 Are 'Skewed,'" Sydney Morning Herald, 17 Jun. 2018; Stephen LaConte, "Elizabeth
Banks Spoke Out About 'Charlie's Angels' Being a 'Flop' and it Started a Whole Controversy,"
Buzzfeed, 18 Nov. 2019; Deepa Shivaram, "Turning Red is Seen as a Turning Point for Asians in
Film. Why is it Seen as Unrelatable?" NPR, 12 Mar. 2022; Aja Romano, "Pixar's Turning Red is
an Unlikely Culture War Battleground," Vox, 17 Mar. 2022.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 26

39
Just as it has become a cliché to accuse bigoted fans, critics and audiences of failing to
respond in the desired way to a movie because of prejudice, it has also become a cliché to allege
that those making the accusation do so in lieu of admitting that they made a bad film. LaConte.
40
Jelisa Castrodale, "Everything 'One Million Moms' Wanted to Call the Manager About in
2020," Vice, 18 Dec. 2020.
41
The author recalls one occasion several years ago when he asked an acquaintance who prided
himself on his knowledge of the business pages—and his portfolio—who the "Big Three" U.S.
automakers were. That acquaintance was unable to name "General Motors," "Ford" or
"Chrysler." Instead he threw out the name "Tesla," at a time at which the company accounted for
some 0.3 percent of the U.S. market—under one-fortieth of the market share that Chrysler, the
poorest-performing of the Big Three, managed in that year—and failed to come up with the
name of any other firm. The mention of Tesla, of course, was likely less reflective of attention to
the car market than the insane hyping of the company and its products (which have been
connected in part with wildly exaggerated claims about its mastery of self-driving technology
and the imminence of that technology's availability to Tesla owners). Kate Duffy, "Elon Musk
Says Making Autonomous Cars is Much Harder Than He Expected, After Tesla's Timeline for
the Latest 'Full Self-Driving' Software Slipped Again," Business Insider, 6 Jul. 2021. The figure
given for 2017 by Goodcarbadcar is 0.29 percent of the U.S. market (as against 17.35 percent for
General Motors, 14.9 percent for Ford, and 12.04 percent for Chrysler).
42
It was from the world of science fiction that the slogan "Get woke, go broke"
originated—specifically with John Ringo, a science fiction author long affiliated with the hard
right politically (indeed, he is also a commentator for FOX News and in the New York Post), and
long noted for works apparently intended to "troll the libs" (as with his glorification of the World
War II SS in 2005's Watch on the Rhine, and the non-science fiction series about his hero
Michael Harmon, who is presented as a not-always-successfully-repressed rapist he began in the
same year's Ghost). Following controversy over his scheduled appearance at the ConCarolinas
Convention in 2018 (largely due to the Harmon novels) a piece fellow science fiction writer Del
Arroz wrote about the affair for Milo Yiannopoulos's (now defunct) web site Dangerous cited
him as saying that following the convention's "push[ing] its conservative members out of its
planning committee, attendance dropped over years," in an object lesson that "any organization
[that] bows" to pressure from "SJWs" will pay the price—and apparently coined the phrase
summing this up as "'Get woke, go broke'" in that item. ("SJW," just one of many terms coined
amid such disputation that have come into wider use, is an acronym for "Social Justice
Warrior"—first used by the leftist science fiction author Will Shetterly, in his now defunct blog
Social Justice Warriors: Do Not Engage, the term has, ironically, come to be used principally by
the right.) Jon Del Arroz, "Author John Ringo Responds to SJW Assault That Led to Sci-Fi
Convention Ban," Dangerous, 17 Apr. 2018; Abby Ohlheiser, "Why 'Social Justice Warrior,' a
GamerGate Insult, is Now in the Dictionary Entry," Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2015.
43
In a widely reported podcast Ted Cruz spoke of it as "a wild twist where Hollywood has been
willing to grovel to China . . . let China censor its movies . . . because they want . . . access to the
Chinese movie's market" but regard their "culture agenda" as meriting their saying "give up the
money because lesbian toys are more important" (such that the film retained content which was
to see its release in China aborted). Palma.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062

 Elhefnawy 27

44
Exemplifying the uncertainty about how to evaluate the performance of specific films is The
Last Jedi, which even when taking in $1.3 billion worldwide in late 2017 and early 2018
(adjusted for inflation, perhaps $1.5 billion in early 2022 terms), because the gross was markedly
down from the $2 billion take of the preceding The Force Awakens, looked like a failure to the
critical. Mainstream commentary has generally treated the film's opening weekend gross of $143
million in North America as a success on account of the impressive-seeming figure and its being
(at least, in unadjusted dollars) higher than the opening weekend grosses of the preceding three
Thor films; while less mainstream venues, emphasizing the earlier, higher estimates of how well
the film would do at the box office in its first three days of release (which ranged between $155
and $205 million) argue that the film has underperformed significantly, making it yet another
exhibit for the "Get woke, go broke" case. See Pamela McClintock, "Box Office: 'Thor 4'
Thunderous With $143M Franchise-Best Opening," Hollywood Reporter, 10 Jul. 2022; Manu
Lopez, "Cleanup in Aisle Thor: Box Office Projections Drop Again," That Park Place, 9 Jul.
2022. For the high estimates previously put forth, see Shawn Robbins, "Long Range Box Office
Forecast: Marvel Studios' Thor: Love and Thunder," BoxOfficePro, 10 Jun. 2022.
45
The scores in the case of the He-Man reboot were even more divergent—a 92 percent from the
critics, and 39 percent from the audience (working out to a difference of 53 points). Similarly
notable were the responses to Captain Marvel, with the critics' score 79 percent, the audience
score 45 percent. These figures were taken from the site on August 8, 2022.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4196062