My first exposure to this was during the original airing of Breaking Bad, where Anna Gunn got death threats for her role as Skyler. Made no sense then, makes no sense now.
i think there's a strong relationship to stan culture here (something i've just never understood). we think we know everything because we see the public versions of people, and somehow forget that there's things that are *intentionally* not displayed in public by celebrities (or in shows and movies, because people should be trusted to follow along anyway!). with the way that celebrities now can share more about their lives instead of relying on publicists or magazines, and the way they show up on our phones (much more intimate than a movie screen), we somehow seem to think we know everything about them? we simply do not!!
I completely agree about media literacy. I also can’t tell if this is a new problem, or if the constant access to terrible art criticism online is only exacerbating the scale of illiteracy. Like were some people residually fearful of talking to Marlon Brando after the movies, thinking that he was *literally* the Godfather? I have no idea, but I’d love to read more on historical media/art literacy if others have recommendations!
Media Literacy professor here, chiming in to suggest Stuart Hall, a founder of what's referred to as "British cultural studies" who has a whole theory of encoding/decoding and audience meaning-making. He wrote mostly in the 70s and 80s, and one of his most famous pieces is about news/journalism reception. But google some of those things & you'll have a hearty rabbit hole!
It's absolutely wild that people are behaving like this. There are some actors that always play bad guys to the extent that you see them on TV and can say confidently "oh, he did it, definitely" - Owen Teale is no.1 on that list for me (Alliser Thorne in Game of Thrones for US readers!). But if I was to meet him in real life I wouldn't be shouting "help! Murderer!" because OBVIOUSLY he's an actor! I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining it to someone who doesn't get it!
Didn’t the actor playing Joffrey also get a lot of heat and hate on the street? Ffs he was a kid at the time who just happened to be really talented at his job
Hm, but that's now got me thinking about what Tarantino covered in Once Upon A Time In Holliwood and then in his book Cinema Speculation about McQueen: McQueen was veeery mindful of what characters he plays because that was key to his "king of cool" image with the public. You can't be the king of cool if you play a pathetic baddie. He even didn't wanna play a cop because he was worried that his hip audience wouldn't take it well. So, I do wonder if that clash between the real person and the character(s) they play isn't older than the internet 👀 (But maybe not much older than pop culture as such? 👀👀👀)
I think about this a lot, especially when fans fail to separate an onscreen relationship from an off-screen co-star situation...I'm SO glad it's being talked about.
Oh, the Bridgerton bubble was wild because fans found it hard to distinguish between on-screen chemistry between characters and off-screen friendship between the actors. They were so pissed when the male actor was seen with his girlfriend that wasn’t the actress he starred opposite
I couldn’t agree with this take more! I just started watching the show recently and was shocked at some of the lack of media literacy surrounding the material online!
The Bridgerton fandom really went hard the last week or so as well absolutely annihilating the show runner and actors that they feel have “wronged” them with changes that were made. To the point where someone made a change.org petition to release “an unreleased montage of sex scenes” that they believe exist? Stan culture is a real slice.
This reminded me that back in the 1960s many viewers were unaware that Gilligan's Island was a scripted program, and they started contacting the Coast Guard demanding they stage a rescue. Heaven knows how they thought it was being filmed (complete with laugh track) 60 years ago, but they did. Enough that it became a problem, apparently.
You would think those living near their entire lives in the digital age would have a better understanding than those who only had televisions for 10-15 years, but it appears not.
Excellent post! I couldn't agree more. It's difficult to read and see the illiteracy, only adding to my variable intensity, though continuous, sense of dread for humanity.
Somehow, our shortening attention spans seem mutually exclusive from separating reality from fiction and passively absorbing media (good or bad).
i just don’t understand why?? maybe it’s their emotional intelligence and ability to regulate their emotions, in their heads they know that they’re different but they need somewhere to express their hatred and it doesn’t occur to them that maybe it’s not the best idea to be commenting that on the actual actors posts as if he is him. but idk it’s probably a mix
I feel so bad for him. He deserves praise for making his character SO unbearable — not harassment! I think Olivia Cooke has said she’s had similar issues :(
Clara, I’d love to read your thoughts on Rebind, a new app (currently in beta testing) to make books interactive by adding an AI chatbot that contains an analysis by either a writer or a professor. There was an article about how it works on Wired recently but after reading this post I’m very curious to hear your take on it. I agree that we’re headed towards a regression in terms of basic skills that shape our ability for analysis and critical thinking. No wonder people have trouble distinguishing reality from fiction...
Not to the point of the post, but in regards to Poor Things, I thought it was interesting that in the novel as compared to the film ~spoilers ahead for those who avoid~ the basis for the entire story was revealed to be a fiction. Bella doesn't get a turn to speak for herself until the very end of the book, in which she reveals the elaborate idea of "her creation" was a planned scheme between her and Godwin to allow her a life of her choosing and to free herself from her controlling father and abusive husband. And in a meta moment, reveals the story you just read (the one used in the film) was written by her second husband, Archie McCandless, whom she could barely stand.
"You, dear reader, have now two accounts to choose between, and there can be no doubt which is most probable. My second husband's story positively stinks of all that was morbid in that most morbid of centuries, the nineteenth. As locomotive engines are driven by pressurized steam, so the mind of Archibald McCandless was driven by carefully hidden envy. Unluckily my Archie envied the only two people he loved, the only two who could tolerate him. So in his last months he soothed himself by imagining a world where he and God and I existed in perfect equality, Then he deprived me of childhood and schooling by suggesting that I was not mentally me when I first met him but my baby daughter. He knew his book was a cunning lie."
The tale makes its points, and lands its metaphorical hits, but that epilogue also reframes the characterization of Bella entirely. And after experiencing both versions of the story, found I liked Gray's ending so much more. I re-read it. I pondered on it.
I also like that Gray was self-aware enough to do the takeaway on the idea of this being a feminist treatise. As I've seen some point out - it isn't a "feminist Frankenstein," a book actually written by A WOMAN. It's almost as if Gray was saying, "only a man would be fool enough to write this kind of tale."
I agree! I liked the movie then read the books and it's like, without Bella's additions, the whole story is completely different and if I were the author, I would have hated Lanthimis for omitting that part
Actually, even without Bella's letter at the end, she has so much more agency in Archibald's narrative than in the movie. That's what was baffling to me. I mean, she shot he first husband to protect Godwin??! Yass!
My first exposure to this was during the original airing of Breaking Bad, where Anna Gunn got death threats for her role as Skyler. Made no sense then, makes no sense now.
Omg I remember that -- demented behavior.
i think there's a strong relationship to stan culture here (something i've just never understood). we think we know everything because we see the public versions of people, and somehow forget that there's things that are *intentionally* not displayed in public by celebrities (or in shows and movies, because people should be trusted to follow along anyway!). with the way that celebrities now can share more about their lives instead of relying on publicists or magazines, and the way they show up on our phones (much more intimate than a movie screen), we somehow seem to think we know everything about them? we simply do not!!
Oh, absolutely! Stan culture weaves itself into all of these issues, it's fascinating/terrifying!
I completely agree about media literacy. I also can’t tell if this is a new problem, or if the constant access to terrible art criticism online is only exacerbating the scale of illiteracy. Like were some people residually fearful of talking to Marlon Brando after the movies, thinking that he was *literally* the Godfather? I have no idea, but I’d love to read more on historical media/art literacy if others have recommendations!
Not as relevant as I wanted it to be, but as research for this post I read The Paris Review's 1967 interview of Nabokov (I hoped it'd include more discussion of the public's response to Lolita) and it was delightfully unhinged: https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4310/the-art-of-fiction-no-40-vladimir-nabokov
👀 reading ASAP
Media Literacy professor here, chiming in to suggest Stuart Hall, a founder of what's referred to as "British cultural studies" who has a whole theory of encoding/decoding and audience meaning-making. He wrote mostly in the 70s and 80s, and one of his most famous pieces is about news/journalism reception. But google some of those things & you'll have a hearty rabbit hole!
Ooh, thank you Raechel!! (I misspelled your name on the last iteration, sorry! x)
I too would like to read about historical media literacy!
“the emotional range of 2.5 Marvel movies” 💀💀💀💀
Respectfully!!!
It's absolutely wild that people are behaving like this. There are some actors that always play bad guys to the extent that you see them on TV and can say confidently "oh, he did it, definitely" - Owen Teale is no.1 on that list for me (Alliser Thorne in Game of Thrones for US readers!). But if I was to meet him in real life I wouldn't be shouting "help! Murderer!" because OBVIOUSLY he's an actor! I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining it to someone who doesn't get it!
Didn’t the actor playing Joffrey also get a lot of heat and hate on the street? Ffs he was a kid at the time who just happened to be really talented at his job
Hm, but that's now got me thinking about what Tarantino covered in Once Upon A Time In Holliwood and then in his book Cinema Speculation about McQueen: McQueen was veeery mindful of what characters he plays because that was key to his "king of cool" image with the public. You can't be the king of cool if you play a pathetic baddie. He even didn't wanna play a cop because he was worried that his hip audience wouldn't take it well. So, I do wonder if that clash between the real person and the character(s) they play isn't older than the internet 👀 (But maybe not much older than pop culture as such? 👀👀👀)
I think about this a lot, especially when fans fail to separate an onscreen relationship from an off-screen co-star situation...I'm SO glad it's being talked about.
lol deeply weird for people not to recognize how much PR goes into promoting a movie/show!!
Oh, the Bridgerton bubble was wild because fans found it hard to distinguish between on-screen chemistry between characters and off-screen friendship between the actors. They were so pissed when the male actor was seen with his girlfriend that wasn’t the actress he starred opposite
It's so uncomfortable to see 😭 I can't imagine what it's like for the actual spouse/partner
I couldn’t agree with this take more! I just started watching the show recently and was shocked at some of the lack of media literacy surrounding the material online!
It's so uncomfortable (to say the least)!
The Bridgerton fandom really went hard the last week or so as well absolutely annihilating the show runner and actors that they feel have “wronged” them with changes that were made. To the point where someone made a change.org petition to release “an unreleased montage of sex scenes” that they believe exist? Stan culture is a real slice.
Plus the things they read into Luke and Nicola’s interactions for PR for the show?!
This reminded me that back in the 1960s many viewers were unaware that Gilligan's Island was a scripted program, and they started contacting the Coast Guard demanding they stage a rescue. Heaven knows how they thought it was being filmed (complete with laugh track) 60 years ago, but they did. Enough that it became a problem, apparently.
You would think those living near their entire lives in the digital age would have a better understanding than those who only had televisions for 10-15 years, but it appears not.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-movies/that-time-americans-demanded-the-coast-guard-rescue-the-cast-of-gilligans-island/
Excellent post! I couldn't agree more. It's difficult to read and see the illiteracy, only adding to my variable intensity, though continuous, sense of dread for humanity.
Somehow, our shortening attention spans seem mutually exclusive from separating reality from fiction and passively absorbing media (good or bad).
i just don’t understand why?? maybe it’s their emotional intelligence and ability to regulate their emotions, in their heads they know that they’re different but they need somewhere to express their hatred and it doesn’t occur to them that maybe it’s not the best idea to be commenting that on the actual actors posts as if he is him. but idk it’s probably a mix
I feel so bad for him. He deserves praise for making his character SO unbearable — not harassment! I think Olivia Cooke has said she’s had similar issues :(
exactly, it shows they’re good at their job. a similar thing happened to jack gleeson also from game of thrones
I find actually that some of my favorite actors are the ones that play awful characters!! They deserve allllll the praise
Clara, I’d love to read your thoughts on Rebind, a new app (currently in beta testing) to make books interactive by adding an AI chatbot that contains an analysis by either a writer or a professor. There was an article about how it works on Wired recently but after reading this post I’m very curious to hear your take on it. I agree that we’re headed towards a regression in terms of basic skills that shape our ability for analysis and critical thinking. No wonder people have trouble distinguishing reality from fiction...
Maybeeee some people don't need to comment every single thought ever on other people's Instagram posts........ 😔😔 maybe just maybe........
Not to the point of the post, but in regards to Poor Things, I thought it was interesting that in the novel as compared to the film ~spoilers ahead for those who avoid~ the basis for the entire story was revealed to be a fiction. Bella doesn't get a turn to speak for herself until the very end of the book, in which she reveals the elaborate idea of "her creation" was a planned scheme between her and Godwin to allow her a life of her choosing and to free herself from her controlling father and abusive husband. And in a meta moment, reveals the story you just read (the one used in the film) was written by her second husband, Archie McCandless, whom she could barely stand.
"You, dear reader, have now two accounts to choose between, and there can be no doubt which is most probable. My second husband's story positively stinks of all that was morbid in that most morbid of centuries, the nineteenth. As locomotive engines are driven by pressurized steam, so the mind of Archibald McCandless was driven by carefully hidden envy. Unluckily my Archie envied the only two people he loved, the only two who could tolerate him. So in his last months he soothed himself by imagining a world where he and God and I existed in perfect equality, Then he deprived me of childhood and schooling by suggesting that I was not mentally me when I first met him but my baby daughter. He knew his book was a cunning lie."
The tale makes its points, and lands its metaphorical hits, but that epilogue also reframes the characterization of Bella entirely. And after experiencing both versions of the story, found I liked Gray's ending so much more. I re-read it. I pondered on it.
I also like that Gray was self-aware enough to do the takeaway on the idea of this being a feminist treatise. As I've seen some point out - it isn't a "feminist Frankenstein," a book actually written by A WOMAN. It's almost as if Gray was saying, "only a man would be fool enough to write this kind of tale."
I agree! I liked the movie then read the books and it's like, without Bella's additions, the whole story is completely different and if I were the author, I would have hated Lanthimis for omitting that part
Actually, even without Bella's letter at the end, she has so much more agency in Archibald's narrative than in the movie. That's what was baffling to me. I mean, she shot he first husband to protect Godwin??! Yass!
that is fascinating, i might have to read the book now…
But with Gosh, how do they cope with the "existence" of dragons etc ?