Lo and behold, according to American critics, a rich man or woman’s daughter, Nicola Peltz Becham in this particular case, now cannot feel sympathy for the poor. According to one critic, the whole of the project is utterly untenable because a rich person's daughter has decided to write the script and direct the movie. Do these critics, without any gender bias and class bias at work, seriously believe that rich folks cannot even research their chosen subjects well enough? In all honesty, do they genuinely believe that a rich girl cannot even research the topic of poverty and hardships faced by destitute groups with the help of her somewhat middle-class support staff? The project should be doomed from the announcement phase as these rich youngsters, surrounded by dozens of support staff, cannot even thoroughly research one such topic. Some phenomenal thinking on their part.
As most of the critics whose opinions Yahoo’s article has decided to include have an issue with taking advantage of a poverty-stricken girl”s state, therefore, they have decided to call it ”Poverty Porn.” If the depiction of a destitute girl’s problem by a rich, young girl resembles taking advantage of a particular class of people, then what about all of the movies that rich American male producers have financed that focused on the issues faced by black slaves or the dire problems faced by Korean minorities living near black and Caucasian areas.
For example, what about La Amistad where an already rich Caucasian actor, namely Anthony Hopkins, comes to the rescue of a group of Black slaves who had been brought to America and now were claiming to be free citizens? Why was that given a label or called “Slave Porn”? Someone must have financed that project and made at least very good money from it. When you have Anthony Hopkins as part of the cast, at least good returns are usually guaranteed. What about Kevin Costner’s Dances With the Wolves which won him plenty of Oscars? Why was that not ridiculed and derided as an effort to abuse the indigenous folks and their problems for personal gains? What about an already extremely rich Clint Eastwood film that used the Korean minority as its subject matter? Why was his effort not called out as a brazen attempt to use an underprivileged minority group for personal gains? Instead of facing ridicule, it resulted in more wealth and a couple of more Oscars for Clint Eastwood. What about Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby”? Clint relied on a destitute girl’s desire to become rich by entering boxing to make a mega-hit movie. Nobody felt the need to denigrate that as brazen abuse of a poverty-stricken person’s standing in society and her desire to become rich. Why not? At least a few rich men must have, with a 100% guarantee, been involved in all these projects, but nobody decided to talk about their disconnect from the reality of the poor folks.
When men weave narratives for their personal gains that rely purely on the hardships faced by one spectacularly underprivileged group of people or another, no critic goes up in arms that you are trying to take advantage of them without diverting any profits in the direction of the underprivileged group. A rich father’s young girl does it, and all of a sudden the whole of America’s critics have come out blazing against the effort. Some sensational levels of duplicity on their part. No matter how callous most of the rich people may be, if the critics were to run a thorough, properly comprehensive, analysis on the behaviors and spending habits of all of the rich folks, they would be able to find rich people with a track record of helping underprivileged people, or even groups of such people.
A rich father’s daughter born and brought up in America is now not even allowed to see and feel the realities of the poor folks around her. Sensational reasoning for censuring and ridiculing a young girl’s effort. I am feeling utterly gobsmacked after reading this, flabbergasted. These very critics should always keep in mind that most of the rich people running businesses are always using and abusing the poor and the lower middle-income groups for their benefit. Therefore, even if that was her plan and not a real connection with the poor, then in the business world, exploitation of the poor and lower middle-income groups is the core part of the business. Even that should not have been a startling factor.
People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated billions of dollars in the name of alleviating poverty, and Bill Gates was not born into poverty. Why do these very critics not ridicule these mega-rich people for running these charities just to avoid paying taxes? A young girl, whether to make money or because of legitimate concerns, has shown that she does not exist in a bubble or a fortified castle that has shielded her from becoming aware of certain harsh realities of life, and these critics have decided to trash her effort and her awareness of certain realities just because she belongs to a rich household: mind-numbingly idiotic stuff. Rich folks’ children are now not even allowed to be sensitive or remain in touch with the wider society. Stunningly preposterous reason for deriding the efforts of a young girl. I stand appalled.
Comments
Post a Comment