Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Inclusion of The Matrix

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should The Matrix be listed with other films at white savior narrative in film? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The Matrix should be included because there are multiple sources that identify the white savior trope in the film:

• Vera, Hernán; Gordon, Andrew M. (2003). "The Beautiful White American: Sincere Fictions of the Savior". Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4616-4286-2. Finally, two recent films, The Matrix (1999) and Three Kings (1999) demonstrate how the myth of the white messiah persists in Hollywood cinema, except now that the white hero has a racially diverse team of helpers... Nevertheless, the movie's potential critique of white racism is contradicted by the mythic plot, in which the black characters—Morpheus, the Oracle, and Morpheus's crew members Tank and Dozer—are disciples who serve the white Messiah Neo.
• Hughey, Matthew (2014). The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-4399-1001-6. [a white protagonist] entering... the multicultural landscapes outside computer-simulated reality [and] must begin, through his grace, to save nonwhite people from an impending disaster. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (Hughey lists The Matrix as part of nearly 90 "white savior films")
• Eng, Michael (2013). "'Born into Bondage': Teaching The Matrix and Unlearning the Racial Organization of Knowledge". In Bloodsworth-Lugo, Mary K.; Flory, Dan (eds.). Race, Philosophy, and Film. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. Routledge. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-415-62445-9. By having Neo occupy the time-honored role of white male savior, the racial and gendered otherness of the rebels is paradoxically underscored and dismissed while also being appropriated because their cause is now his.

The listing of the film was first criticized, then the sources have been criticized with layperson arguments, e.g., "The source is wrong because I saw the film, and this happens which refutes the source." I don't find it appropriate that such personal opining should override the sources, but that is what is happening here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's more: The Persistence of Whiteness: Race and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema, Race and Contention in Twenty-First Century U.S. Media, Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender. The content can be shaped, but the identification of the trope in the film is inescapable. Hughey explained that the trope is not a zero-sum definition, meaning that because the trope exists, does not mean that there cannot be other elements of the film. This trope is only one of numerous elements of the film, and in the context of this article, the film is worth listing to understand how the trope has been identified by sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your sources were criticised because they are a tiny minority of all critiques of the film. None of the sources you cite are professional film critics, all are people who primarily write about racial issues and look for examples of that in every medium. Whereas hundreds of professional reviewers have written articles and books about The Matrix and none, to my knowledge, referenced your trope. Thus your presentation of sources that support your claim as if they were a majority opinion violates WP:DUE. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is presumptuous to believe that film critics will consistently review a film through every kind of sociological lens. This article is about the trope, so that means The Matrix can be discussed in this particular scope, provided that there are good sources about it. At the article for The Matrix itself, it would be undue weight to discuss it more than the other elements of the film. If I shoehorned in a big "White savior trope" section at that article, that would be undue weight. This article is instead the space to include related commentary. And your statement about "people who primarily write about racial issues and look for examples of that in every medium" is rather telling. You appear not to want to tolerate any discussion of racial issues because you perceive such people as too obsessed about race? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your sources were criticised because they described things that did not happen in the film, a film which we have all seen so these discrepancies are evident, even to "laypersons". At least the film critics, unsophisticated as they are, did not make up facts to support their theories. Similarly to how you assert I am intolerant of discussion of race, despite my earlier citing reviews that discussed racial themes in other films. I object to your inclusion of films that only your handful of sources, people who only discuss films to reveal their racial subtext, can see the "trope". You are not "discussing" films in your article, you present only an unrecognisable description of the plot that supports your thesis. A discussion normally includes other points of view. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think the issue is so much the inclusion of The Matrix, although this is quite clearly a borderline case (the consensus in the above section is that it involves a saviour narrative, and that that saviour is white, but that ethnicity is irrelevant to the film), as it is the whole structure of this article. I'll grant you you seem to have found sources for this one film, and so this borderline case has three times as much information about it as anything else on the list. This article as a whole to me seems like nothing more than a list of films that Erik has found personally objectionable. It frankly needs to be burned to the ground and started over using prose and reliable sources discussing the subject critically, rather than being one editor's laundry list. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  Mattbuck, are you seriously saying I add films that I find personally objectionable? The Matrix is one of my favorite science fiction movies. I do not bring my personal feelings about movies into editing. The list of films is based on other people identifying the white savior trope in films. Many of these entries have multiple sources available, and they just have one here for simplicity's sake. We can certainly add more sources across the board as needed, but your claim that this is my personal list of objectionable movies is nonsensical. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Erik, since The Matrix is a favourite film, and you are also invested in labelling it a white saviour" film, you should have no problem explaining to us how it fits the definition you put in the lead para of your article. I know that logic has no weight in Wikipedia, any asshole who can get his opinion in print is a reliable source and you can continue to thumb your nose at anyone who disagrees, but your inclusion of The Matrix has been questioned on this page many, many times over the two years since you created this list. In particular, your definition says "the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight" WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR? The whole point of your trope is that the "savior" is white and the "people" he rescues are not. But Neo is NOT different ethnically or culturally from "the people". He's more or less white and so are most of the humans we see. In fact, I could make a better case that Morpheus is a (black) saviour who rescues Neo from his plight as a human battery living in a dream world. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not invested in it. I am invested in going with the sources on this even if I disagree with sources. If you're calling Professor Matthew Hughey just "any asshole who can get his opinion in print", then I can tell that you're not interested in using sources on Wikipedia. Your continued personal opining demonstrates this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't call Hughey an asshole. I just said anyone, even an asshole, who can get in print is by definition, a WP:RS; some RS are assholes (even Adolf Hitler is actually cited in his article), but not by any means all, and not anyone in particular. I should have known you would avoid the question by taking umbrage at trivial wordplay. So I restate my question: WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX? Your trope definition states they are necessary, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the film. I thought since it was one of your "favourites" you might enlighten me on this key part that I (and all the reviewers, evidently) must have slept through every time I watched it, only spotted by your eagle-eyed sociologist. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not willing to recognize that Hughey is authoritative in his role as a sociologist to identify the trope in films. Your rhetorical questions do not trump his assessment and actually miss the point entirely in regard to the sociological approach to films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking a "rhetorical question". I'm asking a simple question that you, despite the thousands of words you have written here, still refuse to address: WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX?. Your trope definition requires them. Hughey's definition requires them (he called them "natives"). I must assume that both he and you refuse to identify them despite being asked multiple times because you can't, they do not exist. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rhetorical question. It's "a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer". You're asking questions to make points. I'm not bothering to answer because this kind of general discussion is irrelevant. Our opinions about whether or not the film has the trope does not matter; the source is what matters. You keep trying to interject yourself as an equally valid authority to identify or deny the trope, but you are not. I am not either; I am only following the sources, irrespective of my feelings on the interpretation made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a real question. I'm asking you to answer it, not grandstanding. You're just looking for ways to avoid answering it. It's the reason I posted on this talk page to begin with. I do not understand how this film fits the definition you put in your article. You created this the article and several others on similar topics. You went to a lot of trouble to do that and object to anyone else changing a word in them. You aren't a disinterested editor, you have a strong personal investment in these issues. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but don't pretend you are neutral. So yet again, my real, non-rhetorical question is: WHO ARE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR IN THE MATRIX?. Your trope definition requires them. Hughey's definition requires them (he called them "natives"). You can and very likely will just keep blowing me off. But after this page is archived, a few months later someone else will come across the article, say WTF? and ask the same question. It's happened several times already. If you can provide a rationale for your list other than "This professor put it in his book, so suck on it" then you would not attract this controversy. If you won't explain how your definition applies, it would be more honest to replace the lead para with what the definition is in practice: "In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope that includes any film that Matthew Hughey says is a white savior film.". 202.81.248.232 (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. On the grounds that this analysis of the film is supported by only a handful of sources, while unnoticed by the vast majority of professional reviewers and authors of books analysing the film. Thus it is WP:UNDUE to list it unequivocally, and very prominently, since it now has the largest section in the table. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  WP:UNDUE does not apply like that. It says, "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." (I would argue that this is not a minority viewpoint because the trope is not a zero-sum definition like the Flat Earth concept, used as an example, would be.) This article is about the trope, so it is appropriate to discuss the trope as identified in The Matrix. It would be undue weight to devote too much prose in the film's article itself about the trope when there are a lot of other elements that are written about in the film. At minimum, there should be a link in its "See also" section. At most, it would depend on the entire universe of commentary related to the film, but I could see a few sentences about it in a reasonable section about the film's portrayal of race. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You switch rationales from one sentence to another. First it's appropriate because it's a minority viewpoint, then because it's not a minority viewpoint. It's undue to talk about in The Matrix, but not undue to label it as such. All I can see is that you refuse to justify your inclusion except by citing a sociologist whose built a career out of finding racism everywhere he looks. 202.81.248.232 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll explain. I do not think the white savior trope is comparable to the Flat Earth concept example. It is a topic assessed through a sociological lens and not at diametrical odds with a "majority viewpoint" (which is simply mute on the matter). In contrast, the Flat Earth concept is at diametrical odds with mainstream science. This does not mean there is no weighing to do here. I think that at the film's article, the content should be weighed much more toward other elements such as philosophy. At this trope's article, the weighing does not apply because it is within the confines of this topic. I am not finding The Matrix to be outside the cutoff especially when it is explicitly listed as a "white savior film" in Hughey's book. If you think the source is just "finding racism everywhere he looks", that's a gross over-simplification and rather insulting that that is the particular conclusion you're drawing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is talking about "Flat earth"? Anyway, that is a question of physical fact. This article is about opinions. You cite a couple of people out of thousands who have written on the film who share your opinion. That's all you have. You also have a definition, written by you, which you ignore if you want to include a film regardless. Still smells pretty much like WP:UNDUE to me. 202.81.249.148 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Include with more concise summaries of the WS claims and Nama's counterclaim. The fact that numerous reviews overlooked an archetype is irrelevant. Link to an appropriate section of The_Matrix_(franchise)#Influences_and_interpretations (or create one there). Nothing is wrong here except that the description is a bit unwieldy for a list.--Carwil (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  Carwil, I had expanded the blurb as seen here since there was criticism of the original version. I am okay with putting most commentary in your suggested article. Do you think the original version was fine, or somewhere between the original version and the newer unwieldy version? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  ErikI like the new text (although I would definitely omit the last sentence from Nama), but it seems unduly long for this page. Either footnote all of the commentary after a sentence attributing the WS narrative to the authors, or edit for length. I think much of the text can be incorporated into the synopsis.--Carwil (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Remove I think the analysis done on this movie, while published, was done backwards and arguably for attention as commentary on the film was extensive. The film is not a narrative based on needing a white savior, as Will Smith was offered the role. This is an example of race-neutral casting where the protagonist happens to be white. The film would be exactly the same if Neo were not a white male, unlike the WSN films like Avatar, Dances with Wolves, Last Samurai, etc, which are dependent on this trope. Including bad examples, such as The Matrix, actually harms the credibility of the article and by extension WP as a whole. Yes, some sociologist published something that says The Matrix is a WSN but that doesn't mean we should leap to define the list as simple as "if anyone ever says anything put it in", but, "if a movie meets the criteria established and there is published mention", otherwise we are sanctioning minority crackpot and tinfoil opinions. We might not find a source that says it is not, but it's an unreasonable expectation to find sources stating that the film is not an example of the White Savior Narrative because who bothers to write unprompted counterfactuals? We should define members of the category narrowly, by including only films which meet the rules established, not wantonly and widely including any movie any one ever mentioned fits. JesseRafe (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Remove indeed. Not only was Neo character offered to Will Smith, Morpheus was supposed to be Russell Crowe, Gary Oldman and Chow Yun-Fat. While Jada Pinkett Smith auditioned for the role of Trinity, Janet Jackson was offered the part, and Michelle Yeoh was also considered. The entire "white savior" analysis of The Matrix is based on confirmation bias and reading in things that are simply not there nor were they intended to be. Including nonsense just because there is a source which claims some personal theory should not be a good enough reason for inclusion.

Oh, and BY THE WAY... while we're throwing around labels of race and racial determination of characters and plot based on actor's race - google Samuel Nowlin Reeves. Then reconsider the race of the actor playing Neo.

Is Barack Obama white or black? Keanu Reeves has the same sort of "racial mix" - only his father was of Asian descent, so he only got the facial features, not the skin color. Talk about racist people being blind to other people's racial heritage and features. How about we rename the article to "Yellow Savior"? Or "Racial Savior"? "Savior of a race that kinda looks white"? "Savior of non-minority race whose racial mix contains more than 50% non-minority blood"?--89.146.179.127 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• The article can be renamed white savior in film or white savior trope in film to widen the scope. The opening sentence's reference actually says "cinematic trope" instead of narrative. (However this RfC turns out, I can request a move.) However, the rest of your points are still personal opining that cannot be interjected to "debunk" the published source. As for inclusion, you acknowledge that a sociologist identified the trope but then worry about "minority crackpot and tinfoil opinions... including any movie anyone ever mentioned". The book The White Savior Film hardly matches this gross over-simplification; see positive book reviews here, here, and here. In short, The Matrix is part of Hughey's table listing "white savior films" that meet the criteria under his sociological approach. The Matrix should not fall outside of some cutoff imposed by Wikipedia editors because they think they made the case to invalidate the sociologist's categorization. We don't even need a sociological source (other valid sources exist), but the availability of one strengthens the case to include this film. Lastly, the sociological lens is independent of the public perception, not in contrast of it. Sometimes they can overlap, and if they do, the film's own article should cover the trope in detail. Within the confines of this space, though, it is appropriate to identify and list the film since reliable sources have done so. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) (I realize that I am bludgeoning the process now and will disengage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC))

Erik, I don't know how many times it has to be repeated. The main thing that people criticizes with the usage of this trope is that the "white savior" always gets to be the central character in a story that is "supposed" to be about the struggles of people of color. Please stop with this talk about renaming the article. Even if you did rename the title, people are still going to complain about having The Matrix on this list. 2600:8800:5100:38E:49D7:7E4B:58AD:59D0 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Include Reliable sources support its inclusion. Period. The fact that white savior narratives, like black lives, may be invisible to most white people doesn't matter one whit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously seriously just used the senseless deaths of Black people in the hands of the police as a justification for keeping The Matrix on this list? What the hell? 2600:8800:5100:38E:F1F3:D3EB:D326:C4DB (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Most certainly The Matrix does not fit to this trope. I think the idea comes from a fringe review that's not shared by the majority of the reviews. As the IP editor points out there are no people of color being rescued from their plight. Also I've heard Neo was one-third Cherokee Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  It's impossible to be one third anything genetically - the denominator will always be a power of two. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  I've found a RS that says someone is indeed one-third Cherokee. We follow the sources you know... Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  You are both correct. Mattbuck is correct on a scientific level in that your genetic lineage will always be a power of 2, simply because everyone has two parents. However, it is possibly to be be approximately one-third Cherokee. Say you have a parent who is half-Cherokee (50%) and the other is quarter Cherokee (25%) than that would make you 37.5% Cherokee; colloquially you would be one-third (33.3%) Cherokee. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Include with caveat As I have stated in previous discussions I believe there is sufficient WP:WEIGHT among reliable sources to support its inclusion, despite my own skepticism. I do think though that the claims are mostly based on the fact that Keanu Reeves looks more or less white so it is worth noting that Will Smith was offered the part first. The reason I think this is important is because I do not believe The Matrix was conceived as "white savior" film; I think it was conceived as a black power movement analogy and the white savior angle only came into play after other casting options were considered. Therefore I would only consider it a white savior film at the most superficial level. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Include If Reliable sources support its inclusion. Period. This is an article about the trope not the film. This claim might well be rejected on the film article per 'weight'. I agree that the use of the trope is pretty odd if there aren't black people to be rescued and if a black actor was approached for the part, but those arguments for including 'counter criticisms', not for excluding these, readers are adults and able to judge for themselves. ps 1 replacing 'narrative' with 'trope' might be good ps 2 I've never seen the film. Pincrete (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove; I tend to agree with 202.81.248.232. The white saviour narrative/theme is most certainly not relevant to this film, as it is for films such as 12 Years a Slave and others. Race is not a theme in this film by any means either. This is further confirmed by actually reading the 3 specified sources above, which are in my opinion absolute nonsense. Having been briefly covered in 3 books does not mean it is "covered in reliable sources" per policy and is therefore warranted for inclusion. We need to actually assess these sources in order to deem this relevant or not. I do agree with Pincrete that we are talking about an embedded list and not the film's article, yet I contend that these sources are heavily biased and should not be used. Have these books been reviewed by independent and reliable parties? Do they have relevant coverage and have they made an impact in their respective fields? Are their authors notable or respected in their community, i.e. have they been widely cited? If not then why are we basing our assumptions on poor sourcing? Furthermore, I don't thing the topic of this discussion has to do with the actor's heritage, but rather how the film was conceived by its creators and therefore interpreted by viewers. The genetical makeup or race of cast members, or casting arrangements have nothing to do with a film's narrative nor themes. Please focus the ongoing discussion appropriately. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Add Discussion. There are indeed cited reliable sources that discuss this film in the context of the White Savior narrative, so it's relevant material for the page. The question remains of whether the film itself is a white savior narrative, or whether it is merely a case for discussion of elements of the trope (Vera and Gordon, for example, prefix their mention of it with the words "a recent updating of the white savior myth"), but it definitely should be in the article even if it is not in the list. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove - Per White savior narrative in film - "In film, the white savior is a cinematic trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight." - Although your sources may claim otherwise, the final cut of the film does not reflect such a character. DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Note to Closing Admin: Please read the removal arguments with consideration. They fail to comment on the sources that identify the trope in the film and instead personally opine that the film does not belong. Wikipedia editors' opinions should not override reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Remove - The Matrix does not fit within the scope of white savior narrative in film. Though sources are provided, the connection is farfetched and borders WP:FRINGE. Meatsgains (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include but cut down and balance out with other opinions. God, film critics get annoying when they make broad generalizations about Hollywood, and this is a classic example. I think anyone who has seen The Matrix trilogy can agree it doesn't fit this trope (they almost cast Will Smith, the non-white characters rescue Neo on multiple occasions, etc.) Basically I think the reviewers are using the film as a coatrack to (poorly) support their thesis, when their point is too broad in this case to apply (beyond, "look, racism maybe!"). But my distaste doesn't change that fact that some experts (more than one) had their opinions on the matter published - so the opinion warrants inclusion. However, as I sincerely doubt these reviewers hold a majority view, I think the current state of section is a grave breach of WP:Balance, as the the minority viewpoint is given the whole stage. Where is the sentence reading "other critics disagreed, pointing out that the casting directors had originally courted an African American actor to play the primary hero," etc.)? Yvarta (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of removing The Matrix from the list, let's remove this disgrace of an article from Wikipedia entirely. The encyclopedia does not need an entry for each and every species of class warfare rhetoric terminology.--Froglich (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove; remove list - The films in the list appear to be included based on the published opinions of one or two academics; the sources provided do not verify an academic consensus on these films as they relate to the trope, and, based solely on those sources, it is difficult to distinguish from a fringe theory; the sourcing is certainly not sufficient for a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. If included at all, they should be included as attributed opinion; better achieved in prose text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for AfD.--Froglich (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Remove - Very obviously does not belong on the list. There are others that don't belong too, but this is definitely one of the worst and has caused the most arguing. I agree about removing the whole list too. Maybe mention a few of the movies, ones that everyone would agree about, in a paragraph. Bullminotaur44 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Same Kind of Different as Me

Same Kind of Different as Me (film) may qualify for this list. Mentioning here to look up sources come February 2017. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Erik: I concur. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with defining 'white saviour narrative'

Is that is could easily be argued that the characters or groups at the centre of the story actually save each other. In many of the listed examples, the 'white' character will save the 'non-white' character - sorry for the use of language here - from some sort of difficult, tangible situation, while the non-white character will actually save the 'soul' of the white character. The list on this page on addresses the white saving saving aspect of it. For example, I was watching Finding Forrester tonight, and noticed the link to this article at the bottom of the page. This surprised me, as what I took from the film was that the black character saved the white character far more than vice versa. The line on the list here reads:

A white reclusive writer (played by Sean Connery) sees potential writing skill in a black high school student and helps him with his writing.

Yet, what is missing from this description is 'who in turn helps the reclusive white writer to overcome his fears and rejoin society'. I agree with what others have said - this article is incredibly skewed in one direction.203.220.186.11 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree the page is poorly balanced overall. Reading the page, it seems obvious to me that the trope is mostly intended for the highly exaggerated melodramas from old-school Hollywood, where the miserable and poor uncle Tom always need to be rescued from his/her plight by the benevolent landowner or kind white person. For these films, the trope applies absolutely. I don't think film is quite so simple, now, with characters taking on more complex, less stereo-typed roles in many cases. So forcing this trope on every film where "character of ethnicity A rescues character of ethnicity B" is a silly application, especially since studios always cast white heroes to appeal to the widest audience and make the most cash, not necessarily to make an ideological point about white superiority. But critics are critics, and if they feel they are "on to something," they will write that article and get it published, and then we have to make sense of it all. Yvarta (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Like many other articles, so much could be resolved by adhering to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and couching opinions as opinions not as fact. Yvarta, A brief question, should we distinguish between film critics and sociologists? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ryk72, at least when I'm reading an expert opinion, I personally like to know what field they align with (science , politics, art). So I don't think distinguishing is a bad thing, even if not necessary in every case. And I agree with you that most of the page's problems could be solved with better attribution, though the page really isn't that bad with that overall, I'd say. There are at least good inline references. Yvarta (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yvarta, could you actually name films from "old-school Hollywood" that fit the description you give? Your mention of Uncle Tom made me think of Film adaptations of Uncle Tom's Cabin, but apparently the last "straight" adaptation (instead of parody or allusion) was Uncle Tom's Cabin (1927). In general "old-school Hollywood" (the studio system era) was not particularly known for depicting the suffering of non-white people.

By the way, the original novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) has a tale which does not fit the trope either. Tom starts the novel owned by the Shelby family, benevolent slave owners with a friendly relationship with their slaves. The family is in danger of loosing their farm for debt and have to sell some of their slaves, including Tom, to raise money. Tom ends up sold to the St. Clare family, which is a bit more ambiguous on how they treat their slaves (a mixture of treating them as people, property, and using them to settle their own ideological disputes). Slaveowner Augustine St. Clare promises to free Tom, but is killed in a tavern fight before being able to do so. His widow does not honor his promise and sells Tom to Simon Legree, a slaveowner who actively hates and abuses him. Tom does not escape, but helps two other slaves escape and refuses to reveal their whereabouts. He is beaten to death by orders of Legree. A member of the Shelby family wishing to buy Tom's freedom arrives too late to do any good.

In the novel Tom's living situation gets increasingly worse, despite his own Christian piety and benevolence and the best intentions of most of his owners. He ends up helping several people and sacrifices his life for others, and his killers (except Legree) regret his death and find redemption. Tom himself is the closest thing to a saviour the novel has. His creator Harriet Beecher Stowe apparently intended him to be a Christian martyr and a practitioner of Christian non-resistance. The main problem critics have with the character is that he ends up being too passive and servile to be particularly believable.

By the way, the novel has a bit of a religious agenda. Tom is good because he "got religion" at a camp meeting prior to the novel's beginning, and most of the benevolent characters are pious Christians themselves or find religion at some point. Simon Legree has led a dissolute life for years, rejected his mother's efforts and prayers to reform him, and supposedly "chose sin". He is either irreligious or an atheist, a big no-no in the eyes of Calvinist Harriet Beecher Stowe. Legree is also the most prominent "Yankee" in the novel. The kind masters are Southerners, Legree is a relatively newcomer from Vermont. They are landowners of some wealth and refinement , the local elite, Legree is a self-made man who earned his fortune as a seaman. Dimadick (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

HI Dimadick, thanks for the uncle Tom refresher, it's been awhile. I was using "an uncle Tom" more in sense of the colloquial slur of insult, where it more or less signifies a black person who is grateful to and loyal to white overlords, despite the abuses they've suffered and the freedoms they deserve. When referring to old melodramas, I was mainly referring to the "good" black characters in films such as Gone with the Wind, where black mammy archetypes are loyal to their "kind" white owners, even at the cost of turning on and betraying their fellow slaves. Yvarta (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a single "mammy" character in Gone with the Wind (1936) and its 1939 film adaptation and she happens to have a reason to be loyal. Mammy is the "head woman of the plantation", an authority figure in her own right. She also nursed Scarlett O'Hara from birth, raised her to adulthood, and stayed in service following the American Civil War as a freedwoman. Scarlett is the closest thing Mammy has to actual family and Scarlett tends to treat her better than she treats her actual blood relations.

I happen to love the novel due to its large cast and complexities, a strong female cast (as a male, I find most media with male-dominated casts to be rather boring and unexciting. Call it my male gaze). and for its rather cynical portrayal of the Southern United States during and after the American Civil War. The novel has its problems with the depiction of black characters (Prissy is among the most incompetent characters and most slaves are one-note characters), but there is quite a bit more going on than loyalty for loyalty's sake. The slaves who remain loyal after being freed tend to have emotional ties to their former owners, are used to some better standards of living than the average field hand, or owe some of their owners a favor or two. Pork, for example, owed the O'Hara's because they purchased the woman he loved from another slave owner and allowed him to marry her and become a family man.

I doubt either version of Gone with the Wind counts as a white saviour narrative. Mostly because the main arc is how Scarlett goes from being a relatively innocent teenage girl to becoming a ruthless woman who would do practically anything to survive and prosper and to allow her few loved ones to survive as well. She does step on quite a few people to do so. With the possible exceptions of Melanie Hamilton (who tends to believe the best about the people around her) and pious Carreen O'Hara who wants to become a nun, most characters are too sinister or flawed to care much about helping others or do so because they have an agenda of their own. Much of Rhett Butler's "good deeds" for example are part of a calculated public relations campaign to improve his notorious reputation. Even the relatively benevolent Beatrice Tarleton, who reportedly does not allow anyone to whip her horses and slaves, has the habit of whipping her own sons. Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the white savior narrative squeezes its way into almost any old Hollywood film with non-white characters, really, and only sometimes becomes a centerpoint of the plot. Some films make race a central issue, and so I think in those it becomes more obvious. But I think with Gone with the Wind, you might be overlooking the larger context of the film, and how the myth might work its way in more subtly. The film/novel occurs directly during the civil war, when slavery was a central point of issue (although the film glosses this aspect over in favor of white narratives). For Mammy to remain truly and childishly loyal to her white "employers" in this situation, when those friends still haven't made a point of disavowing slavery or inequality, means that she is in effect supporting the wrong side, i.e. the degradation of her entire community, and likely her children, lovers, parents, and siblings. But with the myth, the white heroes, even if flawed and complex, are by default so "good" and "heroic" in their core that they deserve such loyalty. Why, with Hollywood logic, the poor heathens need white intervention to improve their situations. "Without the fields to work in and the sheds provided for them to sleep in, they'd all starve! Aren't I kind." I think, personally, this sneaky racism is the most simplistic and original root of the white savior myth, though of course that is just my opinion. Now it shows up in "white teacher helps an awesome black kid be awesome," as if the black kid couldn't have achieved anything without intervention. Same idea. Yvarta (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that anybody has ever categorized Gone With the Wind as a "white savior" narrative. No whites are acting as saviors in either the film or in the novel. I honestly can't think why this was brought up. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree that any "old Hollywood film with non-white characters" involves this trope. There were far too many Westerns featuring "savage" Indigenous peoples of the Americas ("Indians"), many Fu Manchu films featuring "Yellow Peril"-type villains (Fu himself is supposedly Chinese, though his organization apparently includes people from all over Asia and even Africa), and the occasional film featuring non-white heroes. Even the poorly-received The Conqueror (1956) features a heroic Genghis Khan rising to leadership of the Mongols.

In the case of Gone with the Wind, you might be overlooking the historical context of the novel. It was written by Margaret Mitchell, a native of Atlanta, Georgia, granddaughter of two Confederate veterans, raised by a family which still strongly remembered the American Civil War and narrated tales to her, and a former journalist who wrote articles on the lives of Confederate generals. It was written and published in the 1930s, when the Dunning School was still the dominant historical school about the War and the Reconstruction Era, despite its obvious pro-Confederate bias. That the novel itself paints a rather negative depiction of the Southern United States is itself surprising under these conditions. Some of its contents were lost when adapted into film, but the novel still holds water decades later.

Mitchell's Southerners are notoriously sexist, jingoistic, hypocritical in their morality, and often unable to face reality. Take her description of Ashley Wilkes, for example: "For Ashley was born of a line of men who used their leisure for thinking, not doing, for spinning brightly colored dreams that had in them no touch of reality. He moved in an inner world that was more beautiful than Georgia and came back to reality with reluctance." Also remember Rhett Butler's introduction, when he proclaims to a crowd that the South has no chance of winning the coming war: "...I was Charleston born, but I have spent the last few years in the North. ... I have seen many things that you all haven't seen. The thousands of immigrants who'd be glad to fight for the Yankees for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines- all the things we haven't got. Why, all we have is cotton and slaves and arrogance. They'd lick us in a month."

As for Mammy, like most mammy archetype characters, she really has no family of her own and no sexuality to speak of. She does not even seem to have any friends. I went looking for an online copy of the novel to refresh my memory of her description: "Mammy felt that she owned the O'Haras, body and soul, that their secrets were her secrets; and even a hint of mystery was enough to set her upon the trail as relentlessly as a bloodhound. ... Mammy emerged from the hall, a huge old woman with the small, shrewd eyes of an elephant. She was shining black, pure African, devoted to her last drop of blood to the O'Haras, Ellen's [Scarlett's mother] mainstay, the despair of her three daughters [Scarlett and her sisters], the terror of the other house servants. Mammy was black, but her code of conduct and her sense of pride were as high or higher than those of her owners. She had been raised in the bedroom of Solange Robillard, Ellen O'Hara's mother, a dainty, cold, high-nosed French-woman, who spared neither her children nor her servants their just punishment for any infringement of decorum. She had been Ellen's mommy and her come with her from Savannah to the up-country when she [Ellen] married. Whom Mammy loved, she chastened. And, as her love for Scarlett and her pride in her were enormous, the chastening process was practically continuous."

"the poor heathens need white intervention to improve their situations". Sarcasm noted, but people of any color would generally need someone else's support and intervention to get themselves out of a difficult situation. Individualism places value on "independence and self-reliance" but few people can ever afford to be truly independent and not relying on others to get ahead. Whether the other is a patron of some sorts, a partner, or another party in a quid pro quo deal, matters little in the end. It makes all the difference between success and/or survival on one hand and failure, destitution, or death on the other.

"white teacher helps an awesome black kid be awesome,". I am less familiar with that kind of narrative, but I would suspect that the teacher is depicted as some kind of mentor. His/her superior experience or specific expertise in a certain field is supposed to help the kid mature or refine his/her own skills. It only gets offensive when you notice that the wise teachers all seem to represent the same ethnic, social, or political group. The narrative stops being one of assistance and becomes one of superiority. Dimadick (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the real problem with this rubbish article: we don't have an Oriental savior narrative article (Jackie Chan films, Bruce Lee films, Charlie Chan films, etc), we don't have a Indian savior narrative article (Sabu films, and I'm sure there's a veritable hundred Bollywood films that'd qualify that I've never heard of), and we don't have an African savior narrative article (for all those films with Morgan Freeman & assorted recent wannabes wising whitey up), etc. -- And you can bet your sweet ass you'll never see any of them either, and you know exactly why.--Froglich (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Correct, these other terms don't exist; the fact that they don't exist is why there aren't articles about them. The term "White Savior Trope" does exist, that's why it does have an article. What we need to do is write a good article, which means an article that discusses the subject fairly. Lamenting the lack of these other terms really doesn't make any difference.

The one exeption I'd make to your list is the fact that "African savior narrative" actually does exist; it goes by the term magical negro trope. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect sources and use terms actually in use in said sources, not to either express our view of the sources or to coin Wikipedia-specific neologisms. As for your-suggested titles:

• The average martial arts film probably involves one or more heroes who can kick ass and save the day, but than does not necessarily mean it promotes the racial or cultural superiority of the martial artist. In other words, Jackie Chan kicks ass because he is supposedly a superior fighter, not because he is an Oriental.
• I am also not particularly familiar with Indian films, but I would expect that they involve more Indian heroes, villains, and other character types than films from other countries. That is not in itself unusual or racial in nature. American films tend to depict American characters, British films have British characters, and so on. The characters tend to reflect the nationality, ethnicity, or other identity of their creators and/or the intended audience.
• African people does not equal black people, but I will overlook that. The African equivalent of the "white savior" trope is supposedly the Magical Negro trope, where the black character is "selflessly helping white people", is depicted as "patient and wise", and is willing to sacrifice himself/herself to rescue other people. Personally I view such depictions as closer to the nature of a hero, mentor, or savior figure, but somehow they are seen as offensive and/or racist. Because the characters do not have a self-serving agenda or are not trying to help people of color. The trope exists, but I am having trouble taking offense at a depiction which often comes off as sweet.
  • Remember the supposedly racist and offensive Song of the South (1946)? Its main offense is depicting an elderly, black sharecropper (Uncle Remus) who plays the role of storyteller and mentor, teaching life lessons to a white kid who is going through a difficult time in his life. It happens to be among my favorite films, but people keep trying to ban it, censor it, or keep it out of circulation because of its supposed racism. To quote Don Markstein's Toonopedia: "...it seems to have been decided that a depiction of an uneducated black man, forcibly prevented most of his life from reaching his intellectual potential, but nonetheless succeeding in using icons of his own rich cultural heritage to impart wisdom to a child of wealth and privilege, was in some inexplicable way demeaning to other members of his race." I miss old Don (he died in 2012) and his ability to point out the ridiculousness of a concept in a single sentence or two. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that Song of the South is unfairly categorized, but I do have to point out that what critics dislike about the film is that the black people in the film are portrayed as happy and carefree, with nothing more important for them than telling stories to white children to solve the white childrens' problems, when the reality of the time, that they were under brutally repressive conditions, was completely left out of the film. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

The summary for the film Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom may be inaccurate. While the cult featured in the film does perform human sacrifice, the village children are not being abducted for that purpose. They are actually enslaved and work in the mines. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick, I have the book. I'll get the exact wording from it when I get home, and we can revise accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick, page 33 is the list of films that Vera and Gordon reference. It is also the start of the chapter that analyzes each film. So Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is covered in pages 36-38. Some relevant passages:

• "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is similar to Stargate: another myth about the white messiah who liberates the slaves in an Eastern land."
• "Both [Daniel Jackson and Indiana Jones] put their learning to use to free the slaves (whites are not the oppressors—extraterrestrials or other natives are the villains)."
• "Most important, both these fictional characters are kind, fearless mythic heroes who risk their lives for people of an oppressed race, the polar opposite of real-life colonial masters."
• "As in Stargate, the natives are helpless to liberate themselves. There seem to be no strong men in the Indian village, only women and old men. All it takes is one enterprising American, the great white God sent by destiny, to free the people."

Let me know if that suffices to work with. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

None of these quotes appear to verify the text that we have in the article, White archaeologist and adventurer Indiana Jones (played by Harrison Ford) rescues Indian peasants from a cult that sacrifices them; the issue raised by Dimadick is that this plot summary is incorrect. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I pulled the relevant passages that mention the trope in play so we can revise the language. It would be more accurate to say that Indiana Jones frees Indian peasants who were enslaved by a Hindu cult and forced to work in the mines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Probably best to avoid the adjective for the cult. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The above quotes seem to confirm that the film features a narrative about slavery. They should be summarized and included in the plot summary. As for the cult, the term "Hindu" is not exactly descriptive. If I remember correctly it is actually a Thuggee cult. Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with changing the adjective to go with "cult". I got "Hindu" from the film article's plot summary. Although perhaps it should be reflected that the cult is in the same region as those enslaved (as opposed to a Nazi cult or something outside India). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Would prefer to avoid overly long explanations if possible; suggest a wikilinked "Thuggee cult" is sufficient. Erik, I'm assuming "region" was a typo, and meant to be "religion"; let me know if not. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Thuggee cult would be fine. I meant regional as in the local cult, not an outside one. I suppose to put it more plainly, it is not a movie where Indiana Jones defeats the "bad whites" (hence my example of a Nazi cult). Some white savior movies are like that, but this one is not, and I think identifying the kind of cult illustrates that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Merging "Classifications"

I merged the "Classifications" sub-section, which covered the countering opinions over Free State of Jones and The Matrix, back into their respective listings. While I know it was done in good faith, I do not think these two films should be used to paint broad strokes about disputing the trope. In addition, for these individual films, the countering opinions are separated from their listings to a place that readers may not be aware of (if they do not scroll down that far). I think that all commentary pertaining to a specific film should be combined together. If there is an issue with too much detail compared to other films, then we should consider explaining other films (the more "clear-cut" ones or whatever) in depth. We can provide greater context in many instances. We can go one by one to do that, perhaps. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Skepticalgiraffe, let's have text in both places. We do need discussion as it pertains to individual films especially where it can be controversial, like with The Matrix. It needs to be clear with 12 Years a Slave that it is recognized that the film focused on the black protagonist but that the narrative ultimately involved the white savior trope. In other words, proper context in which the trope is identified. We can also have it as an example in the general discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)