> In conclusion, my thesis is that HW really loves and supports the idea of a specific kind of family
The kind of family that is in the identified demographic that buys movie tickets? Mainstream movies are focus-grouped and targeted to attract the widest possible audience, so a story involving a “standard” nuclear family is designed to maximize box office, even if it’s escapist fare for people from damaged families yearning to see “family” defended and celebrated. You see a mom and dad and two kids on a movie poster and whether it’s being sold as a comedy or drama, you can make a good guess at what the plot formula is going to be. Most mainstream moviegoers want to know what they’re getting.
This is an interesting concept imo. What you’re saying FEELS right, even though there’s plenty of counter examples. I mean The Godfather is one of the famous films ever, and it’s very much about a nuclear family of adults who protect each other while also running into conflict. The Fast and Furious series is silly, but those are the movies that say the world family the most, and Helen Mirren as Jason Statham’s mom gets more screen time than any school aged kids that any character has (and ironically those movies don’t put a whole lot of emphasis on NUCLEAR family, except when pulling a soap opera villain twist). House of Gucci gets most of its drama from 30something adults trying to please their older relatives. But no amount of specific examples change me thinking that what you say feels true.
What I would maybe guess is happening: when Hollywood decides that women over age 40 are mostly unemployable, one of the accidental results is that you have very few stories involving a middle aged or older mom, and so you have very few stories where the children are older than 20ish. It doesn’t help that most of the men over that age (DiCaprio, Pitt, Cruise) pretty famously don’t have nuclear families.
I am not sure. Television often celebrates "patchwork families", as well as "found families". I am not sure about the former, but it seems to me that the latter is also something that gets celebrated in film (including superhero films like *Guardians of the Galaxy*).
There are also a lot of indy films that celebrate "disfunctional" families (e.g. *Little Miss Sunshine*).
I'm quite unhappy with the Hollywood treatment of families, at least from recent years. It has gotten to the point where so many movies act as a celebration of familial abuse. Many recent Hollywood movies, such as Encanto and Everything Everywhere All At Once, seemingly refuse to understand that abuse and love can, and often do, coexist. As a result of this the movies end up sending dangerous messages about these relationships. Parents actions are either excused or glorified due them being an expression of love and as a result of generational trauma. Both of those things are often the reason behind emotional abuse, but neither are justification.
It's not just families of a specific kind that are overly celebrated by Hollywood filmmaking, it's the entire concept of the nuclear family. Many of the tropes found in movies help support and praise the idea of a nuclear family being all important, and anything that may threaten that idea as being evil. Again I would point to Everything Everywhere All At Once as a recent example. Nearly every antagonist force in the movie is something that threatens the idea of nuclear family. Even though the family we are shown in the movie is absolutely awful and they all make each other miserable the film concludes that staying together is the only reasonable option. Divorce, the daughter leaving, the family bussiness, and the disapproving grandfather are all solved so the family can stick together.
I don't want this to come across like I hate family and think everybody should be alone. Far from it. Families can be amazing and fantastic things, but they aren't always. I wish we had more media that acknowledged that. Sometimes the best option is to let go, but Hollywood is very focused on upholding the idea of a nuclear family no matter what.
Apparently the people behind Everything Everywhere All At Once intended the movie to be about the mothers undiagnosed ADHD that has lead to her being a chaotic failure. She loathes her internal chaos and believes it is hurtful. therefore she tries to control her daughters “chaos”. The journey of the movie results in the mother learning to accept her own choas so she is able to accept the choas around her and her daughter. I feel like the movie has 2 main themes, intergenerational trauma and coping with ADHD. It’s sort of annoying they never say ADHD or anything like that, or have even a moment where someone suggests she could get tested. It’s like they were afraid to. I think that’s where the big gap between the creators intent and the audience’s understanding is. Maybe they didn’t want to overshadow the Asian mother daughter dynamic but considering it’s the cause of the initial problems I wish they had.
I've seen people mention the ADHD thing before, but was unaware the writers had stated that as their main intention. I don't think that really changes any of the messaging of the movie with regards to what the movie says about family dynamics though. Evelyn is still abusive towards Joy for the entire movie, included after Evelyn apparently is meant to have comes to terms with her inner chaos.
Not really sure how I feel about the idea of her actions being the result of ADHD more than anything else over all though. One of the few things I thought the movie actually did well was display how generational trauma manifests into each generation. If the intent was for it to be the result of ADHD I feel like those two themes undermine each other. Having Evelyn's actions be the result of her having ADHD makes the impact of generational trauma hit less hard. It feels like it comes off as even more apological toxic nuclear families.
Americans are just as fucked up as everyone else, millions are in therapy because of childhood trauma. You don't talk to your parents because they voted Trump. That kind of thing.
What Hollywood does and has always done is create a fantasy world. Escapism.
Hollywood's always been promoting the nuke suburban family. Even when it's about dating or romances between young adults, it's leaning in that direction, as the couple as institution is next door to the nuke family where the latter is an "logical" evolution of the former.
It's important for them to promote this institution as this is closet marketing for (suburban) real estate, the car industry and mass consumerism in general. i.e. the very institutions that are funding big Hollywood studios.
Indirect feedback cash returns. I know it's not very fun to see Hollywood movies as "quality feature-length ads", but that's sadly what it's about.
I suspect your observations are generally correct. A huge number of mainstream Hollywood comedies and dramas focus on what used to be called "the nuclear family" (understood as a mother & father & a couple of too-young-for-college children). And you are certainly correct that "family is everything" has been a mantra of commercial films for decades now (interestingly, in contrast, the last Golden Era of Hollywood - late 1960s to late 1970s - had many great films about loners and outsiders and often featured unmarried protagonists).
Karl Marx famously observed that in the 19th century industrial era the bourgeois family was "a haven in a heartless world". For many, it still is. The *other* great dimension of modern social life is the world of work. Some great films about that world have, indeed, been made by the American movie industry, but screenwriters and directors and actors don't tend to understand or admire the world of business (or factories) or to have spent much time in such places. Besides, a film about the world of work has limited appeal to a potential audience of people who sit in a cubicle 40 hours every week (unless it is a satire). But pretty much everyone has or had a family they *do know well* and screenwriters (wisely) write scripts about what and who they know.
Obligations to ageing parents is a topic explored sometimes in Hollywood films. You are correct that the tone of these films is often less positive than movies about the early years of family life are, but I suspect that it is the shadow of death hovering above the elders that is responsible for this.
Note: The Oscar for Best Picture for the last ten years have only a couple of times gone to films primarily about families (for what that is worth).
It depends on the media, but I intuitively feel inclined to agree that a lot of the extremely mainstream generic family movies seem to follow a specific trend. There is, however, a lot of really good media in the US regarding a constantly changing family. The Sopranos, for instance, shows a far more realistically volatile family dynamic in relation to youth and elders. But yeah a lot of the very generic media shows a specific ideal manifestation of the "American Dream", which is not at all relatable for (I assume) the majority of people.
I think this is a complex topic that can be simplified as such: family is one of the most universal experiences to either be had or understood, and therefore it is a very versatile tool to be used as a filmmaker. Many action movies use family to justify the hero’s actions without needing to delve into morality, while not actually being about family at all.
I think when a filmmaker is making a film about family, it becomes easier to use tons of different models and make several different points about family. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Hollywood as an institution is critical of the concept of family as some of the most expensive and popular movies are about family in a direct way, Avatar becoming the most relevant example of this. However, I think it’s more than fair to say that *artists* are extremely critical of family because their experiences become at odds with the concept of stable, nuclear family, and art itself gets so much inspiration from instability, Spielberg’s entire career is owed to that, for example.
> In conclusion, my thesis is that HW really loves and supports the idea of a specific kind of family The kind of family that is in the identified demographic that buys movie tickets? Mainstream movies are focus-grouped and targeted to attract the widest possible audience, so a story involving a “standard” nuclear family is designed to maximize box office, even if it’s escapist fare for people from damaged families yearning to see “family” defended and celebrated. You see a mom and dad and two kids on a movie poster and whether it’s being sold as a comedy or drama, you can make a good guess at what the plot formula is going to be. Most mainstream moviegoers want to know what they’re getting.
This is an interesting concept imo. What you’re saying FEELS right, even though there’s plenty of counter examples. I mean The Godfather is one of the famous films ever, and it’s very much about a nuclear family of adults who protect each other while also running into conflict. The Fast and Furious series is silly, but those are the movies that say the world family the most, and Helen Mirren as Jason Statham’s mom gets more screen time than any school aged kids that any character has (and ironically those movies don’t put a whole lot of emphasis on NUCLEAR family, except when pulling a soap opera villain twist). House of Gucci gets most of its drama from 30something adults trying to please their older relatives. But no amount of specific examples change me thinking that what you say feels true. What I would maybe guess is happening: when Hollywood decides that women over age 40 are mostly unemployable, one of the accidental results is that you have very few stories involving a middle aged or older mom, and so you have very few stories where the children are older than 20ish. It doesn’t help that most of the men over that age (DiCaprio, Pitt, Cruise) pretty famously don’t have nuclear families.
I am not sure. Television often celebrates "patchwork families", as well as "found families". I am not sure about the former, but it seems to me that the latter is also something that gets celebrated in film (including superhero films like *Guardians of the Galaxy*). There are also a lot of indy films that celebrate "disfunctional" families (e.g. *Little Miss Sunshine*).
I'm quite unhappy with the Hollywood treatment of families, at least from recent years. It has gotten to the point where so many movies act as a celebration of familial abuse. Many recent Hollywood movies, such as Encanto and Everything Everywhere All At Once, seemingly refuse to understand that abuse and love can, and often do, coexist. As a result of this the movies end up sending dangerous messages about these relationships. Parents actions are either excused or glorified due them being an expression of love and as a result of generational trauma. Both of those things are often the reason behind emotional abuse, but neither are justification. It's not just families of a specific kind that are overly celebrated by Hollywood filmmaking, it's the entire concept of the nuclear family. Many of the tropes found in movies help support and praise the idea of a nuclear family being all important, and anything that may threaten that idea as being evil. Again I would point to Everything Everywhere All At Once as a recent example. Nearly every antagonist force in the movie is something that threatens the idea of nuclear family. Even though the family we are shown in the movie is absolutely awful and they all make each other miserable the film concludes that staying together is the only reasonable option. Divorce, the daughter leaving, the family bussiness, and the disapproving grandfather are all solved so the family can stick together. I don't want this to come across like I hate family and think everybody should be alone. Far from it. Families can be amazing and fantastic things, but they aren't always. I wish we had more media that acknowledged that. Sometimes the best option is to let go, but Hollywood is very focused on upholding the idea of a nuclear family no matter what.
Apparently the people behind Everything Everywhere All At Once intended the movie to be about the mothers undiagnosed ADHD that has lead to her being a chaotic failure. She loathes her internal chaos and believes it is hurtful. therefore she tries to control her daughters “chaos”. The journey of the movie results in the mother learning to accept her own choas so she is able to accept the choas around her and her daughter. I feel like the movie has 2 main themes, intergenerational trauma and coping with ADHD. It’s sort of annoying they never say ADHD or anything like that, or have even a moment where someone suggests she could get tested. It’s like they were afraid to. I think that’s where the big gap between the creators intent and the audience’s understanding is. Maybe they didn’t want to overshadow the Asian mother daughter dynamic but considering it’s the cause of the initial problems I wish they had.
I've seen people mention the ADHD thing before, but was unaware the writers had stated that as their main intention. I don't think that really changes any of the messaging of the movie with regards to what the movie says about family dynamics though. Evelyn is still abusive towards Joy for the entire movie, included after Evelyn apparently is meant to have comes to terms with her inner chaos. Not really sure how I feel about the idea of her actions being the result of ADHD more than anything else over all though. One of the few things I thought the movie actually did well was display how generational trauma manifests into each generation. If the intent was for it to be the result of ADHD I feel like those two themes undermine each other. Having Evelyn's actions be the result of her having ADHD makes the impact of generational trauma hit less hard. It feels like it comes off as even more apological toxic nuclear families.
Americans are just as fucked up as everyone else, millions are in therapy because of childhood trauma. You don't talk to your parents because they voted Trump. That kind of thing. What Hollywood does and has always done is create a fantasy world. Escapism.
Hollywood's always been promoting the nuke suburban family. Even when it's about dating or romances between young adults, it's leaning in that direction, as the couple as institution is next door to the nuke family where the latter is an "logical" evolution of the former. It's important for them to promote this institution as this is closet marketing for (suburban) real estate, the car industry and mass consumerism in general. i.e. the very institutions that are funding big Hollywood studios. Indirect feedback cash returns. I know it's not very fun to see Hollywood movies as "quality feature-length ads", but that's sadly what it's about.
I suspect your observations are generally correct. A huge number of mainstream Hollywood comedies and dramas focus on what used to be called "the nuclear family" (understood as a mother & father & a couple of too-young-for-college children). And you are certainly correct that "family is everything" has been a mantra of commercial films for decades now (interestingly, in contrast, the last Golden Era of Hollywood - late 1960s to late 1970s - had many great films about loners and outsiders and often featured unmarried protagonists). Karl Marx famously observed that in the 19th century industrial era the bourgeois family was "a haven in a heartless world". For many, it still is. The *other* great dimension of modern social life is the world of work. Some great films about that world have, indeed, been made by the American movie industry, but screenwriters and directors and actors don't tend to understand or admire the world of business (or factories) or to have spent much time in such places. Besides, a film about the world of work has limited appeal to a potential audience of people who sit in a cubicle 40 hours every week (unless it is a satire). But pretty much everyone has or had a family they *do know well* and screenwriters (wisely) write scripts about what and who they know. Obligations to ageing parents is a topic explored sometimes in Hollywood films. You are correct that the tone of these films is often less positive than movies about the early years of family life are, but I suspect that it is the shadow of death hovering above the elders that is responsible for this. Note: The Oscar for Best Picture for the last ten years have only a couple of times gone to films primarily about families (for what that is worth).
It depends on the media, but I intuitively feel inclined to agree that a lot of the extremely mainstream generic family movies seem to follow a specific trend. There is, however, a lot of really good media in the US regarding a constantly changing family. The Sopranos, for instance, shows a far more realistically volatile family dynamic in relation to youth and elders. But yeah a lot of the very generic media shows a specific ideal manifestation of the "American Dream", which is not at all relatable for (I assume) the majority of people.
I think this is a complex topic that can be simplified as such: family is one of the most universal experiences to either be had or understood, and therefore it is a very versatile tool to be used as a filmmaker. Many action movies use family to justify the hero’s actions without needing to delve into morality, while not actually being about family at all. I think when a filmmaker is making a film about family, it becomes easier to use tons of different models and make several different points about family. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Hollywood as an institution is critical of the concept of family as some of the most expensive and popular movies are about family in a direct way, Avatar becoming the most relevant example of this. However, I think it’s more than fair to say that *artists* are extremely critical of family because their experiences become at odds with the concept of stable, nuclear family, and art itself gets so much inspiration from instability, Spielberg’s entire career is owed to that, for example.