Why Bros Failed at the Box Office | Carl R. Truman | Techno Glob


threehe new gay rom-com, Bros, has exploded at the box office. Director Nicholas Stoller and star Billy Eichner, in full Nightscene anger Mods are in little doubt as to why the film flopped: homophobic weirdos are refusing to go and see it. Anger reveals a lot about our immediate cultural moment. This is typical of today’s political discourse: each side attributes its failure to garner popular support to the ignorance or misery (or both) of ordinary people. It easily removes the need for any soul-searching while reinforcing a sense of moral and intellectual superiority. Hillary Clinton offered a masterclass in this approach after the 2016 presidential election, and the game is now well established across the political divide.

In the case of movies, one might reply to Stoller and Eichner that entertainers should provide what the viewing public wants to see. This may be the surprise behind the team’s dictation Bros That most of us watch movies to entertain, not to preach, see them as brief, small moments of escape from the drudgery of daily life, not as an opportunity (as the Victorians would have said) to “improve” ourselves. But even though it turned out to be an abject commercial failure, the film is nonetheless instructive in how it is changing our culture. And both its productive value and its failure are potential signs not of the LGBTQ movement’s waning influence, but of its remarkable success.

First, the fact that the entire cast of the film identifies as LGBTQ. “Making it up” was once the very essence of acting. It didn’t matter that Laurence Oliver wasn’t a North African when he played the lead shallow. Nor was it concerned that Leonard Nimoy, despite not having a Vulcan father and a human mother, actually played Mr. Spock. star trek. Acting, acting, was a game of deception and belief. Demands that the castings reflect real life—or at least as real life as the tastes of identity politics demand on any given day—show how obsessed our captains of culture industry have become with faculty lounge politics. . That acting is no longer about “faking” is patently silly, a fundamental contradiction in terms, and yet it is unreservedly praised by those in the acting industry. For them it is not only meaningful but positively virtuous. It shows how the new identity politics has colonized the mind.

Another problem, of course, concerns the possibility of a romantic comedy in today’s climate. That fact aside Bros There is a gay entry into the genre, the question of whether romantic comedies can be commercially successful today is one worth asking. The promiscuous lifestyle that the sexual revolution has promoted, especially as manifested in gay men, is certainly militating against romance. Indeed, the concept of sex as a way of life, rather than as a seal on a unique relationship that takes time, effort, and self-sacrifice to establish, seems to negate any notion of romance.

Romance depends on sex being valuable. It was the difficulty of achieving sex, the need for that delicate, complex and unpredictable mutual dance between two people, that was the very essence of what it was to be romantic. In a world where sex is not only comfortable but remarkably cheap, the concept of romance is dead. A certain kind of culture is needed to understand romance. The world of hookups, one-night stands, and all pervasive pornography is not one that gives people the cultural grammar and syntax to understand it. The film apparently contains scenes of sex and nudity that are hardly unusual these days. But that’s the point: a world where sex and nudity are shown on screen is not a world where romance has no place. Just as explicit rap lyrics reflect the transgression of the world in which Frank Sinatra sang “Fly Me to the Moon,” so the endless tedium of explicit sex on celluloid is not that of Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire. funny face. Romance depends on restraint and modesty of social rules, and on the idea that sex is not something ordinary but something special, even sacred.

The same point can be made about what we can call romantic tragedy. Take Tolstoy Anna Karenina. The story can’t just be set in modern America, because Anna, married to the annoying Karin but falling in love with the dashing Vronsky, only to file for divorce and move out of Karin’s house and into her lover’s house. The tragic romance is rooted in the impossibility of Anna’s situation, the way sexuality is viewed through the powerful moral lens of nineteenth-century Russian society. The romantic tragedy genre depends on a specific moral framework. So is the romantic comedy genre. But the sexual revolution has destroyed that moral framework.

return to BrosMaking a rom-com in the 21st century is as ridiculous as hiring cast and crew based on modern-day identity rather than professional competence. And, while Bros The team may consider its box office failure to be encouraging, perhaps as easily a testament to the triumph of the LGBTQ movement in wider society as it is to the same residual resistance. Please don’t blame homophobia for your business failure. Romance is dead. And you helped to kill it.

Carl Truman is a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College and a fellow in the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

First things first It depends on its members and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Click here to donate.

Click here To subscribe First things first.

Image by Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images for Yahoo News licensed under Creative Commons. The picture was cut.



Source link