Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Inclusion in list

Requiring only one source for films in the list is not enough because many people here fringe theories on what they consider to be a white savior. To avoid that, we need to require multiple sources for inclusion on the list I'm going to start to remove some of the films from the list that only have one source. Personally, I would be in favor of removing the list from the article all together because I don't really see much encyclopedic value in it, but I don't think that would be a popular idea. JDDJS (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC) JDDJS (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to require multiple sources for every film. It is especially appalling that you would reject films with the trope as identified by the Journal of Popular Film & Television, for example. Considering the expressed belief that the list should be removed in its entirety, I would encourage avoiding this bias in articulating reasons to cut down on this list. If a film seems to have a problematic source, then find a better source. For example, the authoritative sociology book The White Savior Film already lists many of the films that are here, and it is not even being used as an inline citation presently. Furthermore, this is not a fringe topic. It is a topic of sociology and film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the whole idea of white savior is a fringe theory. I'm saying that when it comes to certain films, the idea that it's a white savior narrative is a fringe theory. There are plenty of films that clearly fit the idea of white savior, but it seems that every film that features a white person helping somebody who isn't white is included on the list. I don't think the list is encyclopedic for the same reason that I don't think a list of every film accused of being racist is encyclopedic. When a film is accused of being by multiple sources a white savior narrative, I'm all for prose in the article going into detail about it, but when you put in list form, it lacks proper context. JDDJS (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Fringe theory does not apply to individual instances, it applies to fields of research. So while you can argue that the White Savior narrative is a fringe theory (which it isn't) you can't remove films on that basis. The inclusion criteria needs to be challenged in regard to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. While I think there is a valid case for removing a film when say just a single review (by a critic with no background in social science) makes such a claim, I think you are on shakey ground when it comes to removing films that are cited by academic texts specifically discussing the phenomenon. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see how WP:FRINGE applies to individual films? It is about mainstream ideas in a particular field. If you mean something like due and undue weight, this article focuses on the trope completely. A stand-alone film article will range in how much it covers the trope. Maybe only a link in a "See also" section is appropriate, or maybe a full section in the article could be devoted to it. Here, though, I do agree that if we list a film, we need to include full context. For example, Mississippi Burning is listed simplistically, where details related to it (that I added) were moved elsewhere by another editor. Same thing with McFarland, USA. I've been meaning to fix this because I do agree that all points and counterpoints should be combined when it comes to mentioning a film that is tied to the topic. You can see the older version here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I will go ahead and add The White Savior Film as an inline citation for all the relevant films here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I will relent that one source from an academic text is enough for inclusion. However, many the entries in the list are sourced with things like columns from the Atlantic, many of which only briefly mention the film. Multiple sources of that type should be enough, but I strongly feel that the ones with just one of those sources should be removed. JDDJS (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources need to be reliable, not necessarily scholarly. Please gain consensus before removing entries. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with The Atlantic as a reliable source? It is not Joe's Movie Blog at all. You've already expressed your distaste for having a list of films at all even though many sources, including the academic The White Savior Film, identify films in such groupings. Do not cite your feelings here; WP:NPOV says, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking including extraterrestrials is pretty fringe. Seriously? As if they're a real 'race'? We haven't discovered anything yet, so they are fictional, & who cares who 'saves' them? Also think that if an event is documented history, it's not a white savior narrative, as it can be proven that these things actually occurred. ScarletRibbons (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you are taking a very one-dimensional view of the subject: aliens are often metaphors for various races. For example, Avatar tackles the theme of colonialism while District 9 is essentially an allegory for apartheid. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Woman Walks Ahead redux

Referring back to Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 3#Woman Walks Ahead, this mentions Woman Walks Ahead being a white-savior story. Will look for additional sources to reinforce the commentary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion/total rewrite of entire page

I seriously think this entire page should be either nominated for deletion, or undergo a total rewrite. The page content is in no way neutral, with some of the films listed pushing the limits of credibility for an encyclopedia. Just because one of the main characters of a film is white, (for example "Amistad", "Cry Freedom", "Glory"), does not necessarily mean that that character is meant in any way, shape, or form, to be a "savior". Regardless of what some may claim, sometimes even white people can "do the right thing" just because it is the "right thing" to do. In "Amistad", John Quincy Adams was portrayed as a white attorney who argued before the United States Supreme Court for the Amistad African prisoners because Adams was indeed white, and, he did in fact argue the case in favor of the Africans before the US Supreme Court. The same reasoning applies to "Glory"; Robert Gould Shaw was in fact a white officer in the US Military, who commanded, and fought and died with the all-black 54th Massachusetts Infantry. In "Cry Freedom", real-life white journalist Donald Woods did not "save" anyone - he did only what reporters do - he reported the truth of what he had learned and seen, at great personal risk to both himself, and his family.

The inclusion of some of the films listed would seem to indicate to me that there are those who possibly have "an axe to grind' against whites in general, bordering on reverse racism. While I don't doubt the existence of a "white savior" sub-genre in film, this article, (and the included list) go well beyond an honest examination and explanation of the phenomena. Writers and directors often take "Creative liberties" with historical truths and characters, (for example making the lead character "larger than life"), because the viewing public is normally not interested in paying to watch a totally accurate documentary - they go to the movies to be entertained, and people like to watch a "hero" win in the end. Looneybunny (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was already nominated for deletion but was kept resoundingly because it is a notable topic. Some of the running prose is a little sloppy, agreed, but it does not invalidate defining the trope. All the films you mention have had the trope authoritatively recognized, and our layperson opinions are not valid for overriding it. Furthermore, like you said, the trope definitely exists. It is not going to be disputed as a whole, but wherever there has been a counter-point to the trope in a specific film (e.g., a director saying it's not so), that has been included where applicable. There is probably more content from the book The White Savior Film that can be included in the article and also address the concerns you have. For example, in regard to historical accuracy, films do warp reality in problematic ways. For example, in The Blind Side, the black character has to be taught how to play football, where the real-life person already knew how to play. I recommend checking out the book. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the topic is noteworthy, but inclusion of some movies in the list feels very subjective. I suggest removing the list and keeping the small list of well known examples of the white savior narrative that exist in the copy above the list. I don't understand what purpose the list serves. Is it meant to be comprehensive? It just feels like a wall of shame, which is something that right or wrong doesn't belong on Wikipedia. (Narkstraws (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC))

To sir, with Love

I think it would be good to mention as a contrast how the movie To Sir, With Love portrays an African American teaching struggling working class white kids. I'm not sure how the context would be so I didn't add it but believe it's worth mentioning for this article. 2605:E000:8A41:9B00:65BC:4DE5:64CF:A67 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Poiter's character is not an 'African American'. He's from British Guiana, and is a British subject, just like every other character in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, but the fact that the character is not African-American does not have any bearing on the inclusion of that counter-example in this article. There are a number of examples already listed, where America is not involved in the slightest, and the plot revolves around non-Americans in non-American places. 162.223.105.154 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Get Out

Jordan Peele mentions the trope here and that he avoided it for Get Out. Perhaps this and Ava DuVernay's effort to avoid the trope in Selma could have a place in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Basmati Blues

• Brie Larson Is Getting Backlash for Her New Movie, Basmati Blues

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

Someone mentioned Quantum of Solace (film) here, and there is now a detailed source to support the listing here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Matrix revisited

Deloop82, please see a past discussion about Keanu Reeves here. Race is a social construct, and Reeves plays characters described as white, not half-Asian. A rare exception would be 47 Ronin where that multiracial background is defined. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Downsizing

Downsizing (2017 film) may be a candidate to list. See this as well as other results here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous Article

This is the most ridiculous article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. After many turgid, incomprehensible paragraphs of pure, unadulterated psychobabble, it reaches the remarkable conclusion that White people who (1) sincerely want to help others, some of whom just happen to be "of color," are "racist," or who (2) want to follow Jesus' teaching and remove the beam from their own eye first or simply want to remove unease among ethnic groups in the interest of building a harmonious society are, again, "racist," or who (3) want to just treat other people as fellow citizens on an equal basis regardless of race are, again, "racist." This entire article would not even be worthy of criticism, only laughter, were it not for the fact that this brand of smug postmodernism itself promotes "racism," a word which, incidentally, is used erroneously throughout this worthless article. Gunnermanz (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommend reading The White Savior Film for a book-length approach to this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Mission

How did the 1986 "The Mission" avoid getting on the list? Does a film get any more white-savior than that? I can only imagine that the reason is because this film is considered too morally-sophisticated to be marred by "the white-savior trope" term, because it is used so frequently as a pejorative. But is it true that this term automatically connotes harmful racism? If so, this pejorative dimension should be articulated somewhere. If not, the subtlely-positive dimension of white-savior racism should be articulated (i.e., along the lines of "the white-savior narrative can promote racial openness in primitive white cultures").72.226.4.175 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The Economist

• The rise and fall of the award-winning white-saviour film

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Half Nelson

Film Energy, per WP:BRD, I've started this thread for listing Half Nelson in this Wikipedia article. As I stated in my edit summary, the authoritative book The White Savior Film lists Half Nelson among the set of films it analyzes. The Medium.com link is merely a blog entry by a layperson who has no comparable credentials. In addition, even if a credible source disputed the presence of the trope, we would still maintain the listing and fold the points and counterpoints together per WP:STRUCTURE. This was done for The Matrix in this article, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: This is also another article that supports my argument for adding a counterpoint. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5638037 Film Energy (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: Also, isn't the summary for the movie you give in the list a contradiction? If the black student he befriends helps him with his drug addiction, wouldn't that be the opposite of a white savior film?

The Outsider

Main article: The Outsider (2018 film)

• Variety: "The Outsider takes a decisive turn for the problematic, ending with a final shot that places it firmly in the ignoble white-savior tradition of The Last Samurai and Dances With Wolves."

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Magnificent Seven and their sequels

Should these films be included? Seven white gunmen save a mexican village from "bandidios". (One of the seven is called "Chico", played by actor Horst Buchholz.)51.9.21.219 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Add "American" to article title, or 'Globalize' template

I added a globalize tag as this article is written entirely from an American point of view and predominantly focuses on American examples and the American film industry as a whole. This tag was swiftly removed by User:Kevin Myers saying "there's no indication this is a global topic". There's no indication it isn't, based on the title. Therefore I suggest changing the title to 'White savior narrative in American film', because 'film' itself isn't the exclusive domain of Americans, nor is 'white' as an ethnic identity exclusively American. Otherwise, a globalize tag seems reasonable to me (as - again - the white saviour narrative isn't unique to American film) 80.192.27.175 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool Runnings

I am not so sure this film fits the White Savior narrative. It looks as if the black athletes are the saviors, pulling the coach out of the squalid lifestyle into which he had fallen. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

IP editor's POV conduct

The IP editor 122.110.31.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaging in POV conduct with the following actions:

• Inserting unsourced POV wording
• Reverting someone who reverted their unsourced POV wording and calling them a vandal
• Wrote the following: "Hence why no matter how many times you correct the bias you will never win. There are bound to be a host of SJW gender studies loonies who will revert it right away."
• Removed valid sourced content calling it "heavily biased" with no real challenge of the source

This editor does not appear here to build an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've issued a POV warning. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Erik:, I agree with you. Thanks for issuing the warning. I have reported the editor to WP:ANV. Zazpot (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Is this just a random reification? Delete ion under the lack of notability criterion? CecilWard (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you're saying. The topic is notable per WP:N. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced listings

I removed several unsourced listings as seen here. If sources can be provided, the listings can be restored. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

POV?

This article seems to be a pretty one-sided critique damning as racist many movies that are usually seen as anti-racist classics (such as 'To kill a mockingbird'). Surely there must be some reliable sources out there that disagree in various ways, such as arguing that (whether unintentionally or not, or a bit of both) the thesis is a "whites can't win" scenario that is ultimately deeply racist in practice (both anti-white and anti-black) - if whites do nothing, they're wicked racists, but if they try to do something they're also wicked racists, so they might as well save themselves a lot of hassle by doing nothing? Or reliable sources that have arguments that ask questions like why isn't almost every movie about Abraham Lincoln in the list instead of just one, and indeed every movie that has any kind of decent anti-racist role model for whites? And so on...Tlhslobus (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The trope as a concept is not disputed. The book The White Savior Film has not been referenced that much in this article, and being the most in-depth source about critiquing the trope, it may have the deeper answers for you. As for listing Lincoln, the films listed here are rooted in secondary sources. There are likely more films that a viewer could easily surmise to have the trope but are not included here because no source talks about them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really all that interested in which films we do or don't list here, but in having the article give more than just a single 'party line' on the subject of the trope per WP:NPOV, and I merely mentioned Lincoln and other anti-racist role models for whites as an example of what I thought some reliable sources might be saying on the subject (mainly to possibly help editors with keywords to search for such sources). It is presumably right to only list movies that have been mentioned in reliable sources as embodying the trope, tho WP:NPOV requires that we also quote any reliable sources that dispute this, or at least disagree that this is simply a bad thing (in proportion to the weight given by reliable sources to support and criticism), of which I see some here (such as the Scott defense of 'Free State of Jones'), but surprisingly little given how many films are criticized, which seems in keeping with the fact that the article currently seemingly fails to list any more general criticism of the kind you say is likely to be found somewhere in Hughey's book, and which would seem to need to appear for the article to satisfy WP:NPOV and the related second pillar of Wikipedia (WP:5P2). Note that you call these 'the deeper answers for you', but it's primarily our article and our readers that should be given those deeper answers, not me. I could perhaps try to fix some of this myself, and it's possible that I may eventually try to do so, but not particularly likely (and even less likely anytime soon), per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, as I'm far too inexpert in the area, and not sufficiently interested to really want to spend any more time on it than is needed to raise the issue here for more interested and/or more expert editors to address the issue as they see fit. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, although this may not have much to do with WP:NPOV, I'm also a bit surprized to find the antecedents section make no mention of figures such as William Wilberforce, David Livingstone, and above all that well-known 'literary' Savior from the Bible, Jesus Christ (who was arguably 'probably light brown' (at least for those who see that as 'not-white'), but who gets portrayed as white). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

When we list films, we include points and counterpoints where available. The Matrix is one such example. Other films tend to have filmmakers defending themselves. Other films do not get that scrutinized. As for the more general context, really, the current prose sections are garbage. Some previous editor reused sources that tended to focus on individual films and synthesized their own conclusions. That's why I mention The White Savior Film as a book that can offer better context, which could in particular address whether or not a film that has the trope is considered "racist" or whatever. I'm sure it's not that simple, even though it can be projected as such. It certainly isn't claimed as such in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Lincoln and other anti-racist role models for whites" I am not certain such "saviors" are intended as role models or not. But honestly, how does modern culture depict Abolitionism and its supporters? Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The article does IMHO have a bit of a whiff of "SJW ranting": Nothing any white person does is ever noble or even honest, while all non-white people are perpetual victims.

Contrast it with the White saviour article which has a more dispassionate non-accusatory tone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with keeping the page neutral. SJW's will revert any attempt you make to remove bias within minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.31.191 (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The film doesn't mention Frederick Douglass. Lincoln is determined to abolish slavery and we don't see what happened before that. Eventually, thanks to him, it is achieved. This is WSN. It shows a narrative where a white person is the primary driver of solutions to problems that are faced by colored people. While doing so, it simplifies problems, downplays the contribution of colored people, and portrays them as dependent on whites. I don't see accusations in this article, just a note on film narratives. And not all films with white and colored actors are WSN. We would have had countless entries if that was the case. Tesatafi (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

While I know the white savior trope is a thing, some of these movies on this list are iffy at best. Django Unchained for example. The author of the source used does not seem very convincing. Just rambling about the trope but doesn't give it credence. I think there should be at least 2 sources discussing the trope. If any culture/entertainment writer decides that Forrest Gump is a white savior film does that mean it gets to go on this list? This article needs more thought. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I just checked, and Django Unchained is listed in the book The White Savior Film. Google Books shows results like The Subject of Film and Race: Retheorizing Politics, Ideology, and Cinema. This list is simple in having one inline citation per film for the most part. Pretty much all of the films in the Berlatsky source have been written about elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That book would be a better source to use then. The Berlatsky source is weak sauce IMO. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be King

The treatment of The Man Who Would Be King in this article is inadequate.

"While the narrative is depicted as ironic, the natives are portrayed in a cliched manner" is insufficient.

The film exposes the self-advancing motives of the white savior and culminates in his rejection by the people of Kafiristan (however they are portrayed).

It should not be listed alongside conventional white savior narratives without clearer indication that it subverts the trope (and imperialism generally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephraimwaiter (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

We can get into more detail about it. The listing is sourced to Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness, which has a multi-page section devoted to it. The first page is here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The author appears to conflate audience sympathy for the lead characters with general sympathy for the idea of the white savior. It is unlikely that it would be possible to tell this story (or any story at all) without lead characters that elicit emotional engagement in the viewer (see the anti-hero). The plot explicitly rejects the white savior trope. Even assuming that the film's creators implicitly approve the idea, the explicit rejection should make an inclusion on this list remarkable (requiring explanation). The author states that no one in the movie ever questions the morality of the lead characters' actions. It is fundamental to the white savior delusion / deceit that the actions of the white savior are taken for the good of the people of color (the rescuer, per the introduction to this article). This film makes no pretense that the white characters are rescuers, which could almost disqualify it from inclusion here (without annotation).

Two films that should appear here (particularly given the presence of Lawrence of Arabia and Tarzan) but do not:

Lord Jim

John Carter

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephraimwaiter (talk • contribs) 19:03, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

We don't get to override reliable sources with what we think. As for these films, they can be added if reliable sources connect them with the trope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a narrative concerning an anti-heroic white pretender who is exposed, chased, stoned, and cut from a rope bridge by people of color (literally severing ties), while he sings The Son of God Goes Forth to War; his accomplice is afterward crucified; the final shot is of his skull wearing their crown. I suggest that a source that connects this with the white savior narrative trope without qualification cannot be considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephraimwaiter (talk • contribs) 15:32, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Green Book

It appears that Green Book (film) is getting coverage as having the trope. It looks like the director and Mahershala Ali have responded to it as well. Sources are available out there to combine into a listing here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hollywood still loves a white savior: "Green Book" and the lazy, feel-good take on race

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• What’s Wrong With ‘Green Book’?

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: Probably worth adding to the main article now, given all the reactions to it winning at the Oscars... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Be my guest. :) I've worked with this topic way too much. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that Green Book shouldn't be in this category since its mostly media gossip yet no one is mentioning what's inaccurate or wrong with it to justify calling it a so-called "white savior" film.Justbecause5 (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Single Sources/List

I'm not going to edit anything or stir this hornets nest of an article. But it would be nice to see more than one source on some of those items in the list for reasons of verifiability, especially since some of them appear to be single opinion pieces by critics and journalists. Wikipedia needs to be better than that. The article itself is perfectly notable and there are films on that list that clearly fit the trope, however I'm concerned it appears to be linking (tenuously) to an increasing number of films. I would also argue the topic could be addressed excellently without resorting to lists, discussing examples within the main body of the article text. Jw2036 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the majority of these films are also listed in the authoritative book The White Savior Film by Matthew Hughey. It is fine to discuss the topic in prose more in depth, but it does not mean we should avoid having a list. The only reason to avoid having a list is to not get personally-opined complaints, and this avoidance is not appropriate per Wikipedia's policies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's basically a single source and controlled by a single obsessive editor, Erik, the creator and owner of the page, who uses that source ("the authoritative book The White Savior Film" as he loves to say) to support his own POV. So because one wanker wrote some articles and a book listing a bunch of movies he though were racist, Wikipedia now amplifies that. Erik can add any film with a white (or whitish) protagonist he can find anyone ever using the term "white savior" about, and that's enough for him. The concept of "white saviour" is clearly a real thing but many of the films cited here also clearly do not fit the definition stated by the Reverend Hughey. You can see 8 pages of Talk since 2014 archived here, all full of people familiar with the films who tried to point out the absurdity and lack of logic of this and who all eventually gave up in the face of the unrelenting obsessiveness of "Erik", who just says time and time and time again "Hughey says it's so, Hughey is God. I have a citation and nothing else matters". I hope Erik thinks it's worth devoting years of his life to protecting this page of racist slander; in the knowledge that the moment he stops it will be gutted of all his crap, and reduced to a footnote on a cinematic tropes article. 202.81.249.131 (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel this way. I've cited policies and guidelines all this time. It does not matter what you or I or other editors think about the topic; we don't get to project our personal views to reject a film being defined to have the trope. (I wouldn't have added The Matrix if I had to make my own such list, but sources discuss the trope, so I follow the sources.) Also, it is false to state that the article is based on a single source. While Hughey wrote, yes, "the authoritative book", on the topic, it was preceded by years of coverage about this topic, generally piecemeal, and more succeeding the book. Furthermore, the topic as a whole is not going to be disregarded. Wherever available, if a film is defended against having the trope, that has been (and should be) included. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably a hundred people over the last 4 years have commented here, all saying basically the same thing, just more politely (usually), and you still "don't understand why you feel this way". At this point, it's clear you have chosen to not understand, or at least pretend to. Either that, or you enjoy screwing with people, feeling superior to all who don't see the world the same way as you, and Hughey, do, while we all refuse to admit out own biases. Maybe I'll check back in a couple of years and no doubt see another 8 pages of comments and you still failing to understand how everyone else is so stupid and un-woke. 202.81.249.131 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If people comment here that the topic is not valid, they are simply wrong. It meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in every sense. It has survived three AfDs without issue. If people comment here about a specific film, there could absolutely be very good cases argued against listing a film, but it does not matter because their arguments are not published. The Matrix stayed listed despite all the unsourced arguments against its listing. When I say that I don't understand why you feel this way, I mean to say I don't understand why you cannot grasp that about how Wikipedia functions. If you have edits to suggest, please make them. You are also completely welcome to pursue the options at WP:DR to have a wider audience involved. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No one publishes about this concept except those who support it, because challenging it publicly labels you as a KKK/Nazi/Alt-right sympathiser, so you can ignore any editor pointing out logical inconsistencies, as that is classified as OR. Would not matter for most movie trope articles: if a film is called noir by one reviewer, that's enough to put that label on it regardless of how unlikely it might seem to most viewers; big deal, no one really cares. But when you insist on putting a film in your as "white savior narrative" list, you malign the film, the writers, the actors; and everyone who says anything positive about is thus as a racist white supremacist. You know that. That's why people are angry, why you have hundreds of comments here. You have responsibility for this. You created the article. You insist on including every possible film in the list. The most marginal ones, you devote the most space to to justify the idiocy of their inclusion, thus making them the focus of the article instead of all the blatant and undisputed examples, weakening the central idea. But you know the rules well enough to protect your article and fight off any challenges to your use of it to demonise as many film makers as possible. People like you are why I stopped editing WP. The final say always goes to the most obsessive if they know how to work the bureaucracy. 202.81.249.173 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no version that could ever exist that would put an end to talk-page complaints, especially when it involves popular film. Editors at Star Wars: The Last Jedi keep getting messaged by people who hated the film and want the article to reflect that accurately (in their eyes). Articles related to nationalist topics get a similar kind of flak. To complain that the cast and crew get maligned is a stupid argument. You're okay with maligning them when the trope is "blatant and undisputed"? By what standard would that be the case? The ones that there are no talk-page complaints about? Such films aren't made with racial malice. If you want the article to better reflect the good intentions, using a source like this, then that is completely fine. The article definitely needs more prose to explore the topic more in depth, but somehow, I don't see the complaints stopping. As for the list of films, there could always be additional criteria. Like List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes does not list all the films that have 0% ratings. The challenge is how to do that here. But if you're dismissive of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I am not seeing this thread being conducive to that end. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Dissing a Star Wars film is not the same as labelling film makers as racist. You know that, do not be disingenuous and make such false equivalencies. No one is shamed by working on Star Wars, no matter how silly it is. Being called a racist is a serious charge and you are gathering every such charge you can find and giving the legitimacy, as long as you can cite it it's true. You choose to do that. Following the rules of WP does not make it moral. 202.81.249.173 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The role of Neo in The Matrix was originally offered to Will Smith, who passed on the film . Keanu Reeves has several ethnicities in his heritage, including Chinese, Hawaiian, English, and Portuguese . Saying he "passes as white" is extremely subjective. 73.136.144.143 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Clearly, the role of Neo was never intended to necessarily belong to an actor of any ethnicity, and wasn't actually portrayed by a white actor. The Matrix should be removed from this list.

Many citings here are more of a black savior with a white character. Those based on historical events have no basis for inclusion as they do not come from a white savior story per se but historical occurrences. As a black man, I see this as damaging to the idea of the page which I think is important. The Blind Side works for this, for example. Finding Forrester does not. It was the quality of the work of the Black character that ultimately saved the crazy white recluse. Trying to alter the story to fit this trope is ludicrous. How can an African-American hero of a story constitute a white savior story? These are written as the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B117:8EC5:0:4F:A01:BA01 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Matthew Hughey's explanation as to how films based on factual events are White saviour

Could someone please just put this in the article rather than just "Read his book" everytime anyone someone asks how it can be.

Particularly 12 Years a Slave which are the actual events, written by the person involved in the book, who is a person of colour, in the story line who was the main character of the movie and said in his book he was finally freed when his fathers old owner's son managed to get the letters.

If If this Hughey person is saying it is the crying scene meeting his family again after 10 years, did Hughey not think this would happen?--TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll quote a few paragraphs from the book:

Many of these films (nineteen out of fifty, or 38 percent) claim they are based on a true story or directly refer to historical events of a highly racialized nature such as the U.S. Civil War, the atrocities of Nazi Germany, apartheid in South Africa, the incident at Wounded Knee, or the U.S. civil rights movement...

Many defend the supposed lack of ideological slant or racial politics in these films by noting that they are based on actual, historical events. Such reenactments may seduce audiences into an uncritical appraisal of these films. How could one critique the film if it is real life? However, these films link the supposed authenticity of history with the standpoint of the white savior rather than with the points of view of the people of color supposedly being helped. These films do not simply retell history from an apolitical and ideologically neutral place, but subtly rewrite historical events so that white colonizers, paternalistic controllers, and meddling interlopers seem necessary, relevant, and moral.

Such an approach is tricky, as many have become savvy to the white savior trope in recent years... and are wary of an overdrawn plot device that makes characters of color little more than background props for the heroic action of the central white protagonist. Accordingly, many films go to great lengths to portray the story as anything but a white savior film, instead framing it as a needed expose of the supposedly hidden or exotic lives of people of color...

In an era of backlash against civil rights and in which increasing numbers of people (including nonwhites) believe racism and racial inequality are things of the past, these films assist in a watered-down retelling of history. Such films reegineer the past to fit within our contemporary moment of conservative racial politics. White savior tales of interracial reconciliation that warn people of color to be thankful for their select white allies while helping whites alleviate feelings of white guilty for their racist past. Stories about apartheid, slavery, colonialism, war, and many forms of racial inequality are distilled into romantic and sentimental tales of one person's heroic and well-intentioned actions rather than the actual legal, political, and social structures that reproduced racial inequality and oppression in the face of good intentions and individual heroic deeds. In so doing, these films tell a dangerous myth--that racial inequality would simply go away if more white people simply tried to save black people from themselves (read, assimilate) rather than examine and challenge the laws, customs, and traditions of a white supremacist nation-state with still-entrenched racial inequality and discrimination.

Hughey did not comment on 12 Years a Slave in his book, presumably due to timing of publication. Other reliable sources connected that film to the trope. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Extraction, A White Savior film?

I feel the movie Extraction (2020) portrays a white savior film. Saffronfuture (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the Variety review here describes it as "the white-savior version of Man on Fire". Forbes here says, "Extraction is a white savior narrative to be sure, but it's also a solid action-adventure starring one of the more charismatic MCU heroes." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

New source

The book Racialized Media: The Design, Delivery, and Decoding of Race and Ethnicity discusses this topic on page 28 as seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

References to use

• Don't Watch The Help... Or These Other White-Savior Movies at Glamour
• The Help and the Numbing Lies of White Savior Narratives at Den of Geek

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

additional white saviour movie: invictus.

additional white saviour movie: invictus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.78.161 (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

additional white saviour films: Lies we Tell | A Man Called Horse|The Magnificent Seven

A definite contender for the list. A white English man steps in to save a couple of British Pakistani women from stereotypically misogynist, violent Muslim men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.64.127 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Surely the 1970 A Man Called Horse should also be included as a White Saviour film?

Can't believe Magnificent Seven is not included. It's the big daddy of White Saviour films.

The Man Who Would Be King

This doesn't seem to fit the criteria. The story is about two Brits who want to steal and subjugate, not save the people of Kafiristan.Halbared (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a parody of colonialism. They present themselves as "saviors" even though their true motive is self-enrichment. It's not really our place to argue against the sources, but I would say it qualifies: the white savior narrative is present in the film but it is cleverly subverted and de-constructed. It is such a good film, I always point to this when people dismiss Sean Connery and Michael Caine as actors. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the source says, "The Man Who Would Be King is a similar story of a mythic superhero, a great white god come to enlighten the ignorant heathen... [it] seems at first to demonstrate the delusive nature of the sincere fictions of the white self. Unfortunately, it ends up reaffirming them by glorifying its roguish heroes and stereotyping the natives." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What about the Reverse Trope ?

Just wondering, is there a case for including the reverse trope, movies where the hero "saviour" figure is a black person saving whites ? For example, "To Sir, with Love". Darkman101 (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is, as I have not seen reliable sources discuss it. My understanding of this kind of trope is that societal context matters. Because one trope is prominent does not mean the inversion of it is also prominent and has a collective meaning to also unpack. I think there is probably more coverage about how some filmmakers try to steer away from the white-savior trope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

seems like a skewed interpretation to fit a narrative

If I say Avatar is a human the whole movie doesn't pivot around race. It was an alien movie. Indiana Jones was about a treasure hunter, The Matrix was a bad actor with better actors around him. I just think that was casting on noteriety and some unintentional bias. It feels like someone on Wikipedia wanted to promote a snide phrase you'd find on Urban Dictionary as worthy of encyclopaedic credibility.Jawz101 (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"ooooh I just thought of another! How about Willy Wonka and his Oompa Loompa's" gimme a break. I literally came up with that example as I wrote the sentence- didn't know what movie I would pick but it's that easy to paint a picture. Jawz101 (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Jawz101, the cinematic trope is based on reliable sources, whether or not we agree or disagree with it. Movies can be analyzed in different ways, including ways that the filmmakers themselves did not intend. Or if they intend a particular approach, they do not realize the implications of it, like rewriting the black character in The Blind Side to be more in need of saving than he really was. And so on. The movies you name have been interpreted in other ways too, like Avatar and capitalism and colonialism. This article is just one interpretation possible. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the other comments in here?

I'll admit- after watching Stargate SG-1, I get it.

But it's also a consequence of casting known celebrities of the time to get the money. Did The Matrix, Indiana Jones, or Avatar have to be casted white heroes? Keanu, Harrison Ford, and that guy who looks like Ewan McGregor were cast. Look at Into the Spiderverse- you can drop in different people and it is the same movie without the color commentary. I like at the cited articles and think the only reason it's a trope is because someone wanted to interpret a movie that way. Jawz101 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I respect the article by keeping talk in the talk section. Most of my talk gets sidelined to "goto Wikipedia disputes." That isn't fair when the subject matter is a social science. Jawz101 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of these cases are debatable. I have always had misgivings about The Matrix, considering that Will Smith was offered the role of Neo role first. Avatar I get, because it is an allegory for colonialism, just substituting aliens for the natives and the humans for the colonists. So much of this is contextual, dependent on arbitrary casting decisions and the director's/writer's intention. But those challenges must come from other reliable sources, not from Wikipedia editors. The debate will evolve and with it the content of this page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the other comments. However, per WP:WEIGHT, we use published, reliable sources. There is also a footnote that says, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." So it does not matter for Wikipedia what we think. I do find it simplistic to say that "someone wanted to interpret a movie that way". The book The White Savior Film has a very empirical approach to the trope, literally laying out criteria and determining how the listed films meet them (and of course would not include films that do not meet the criteria).

As for The Matrix, I find it a matter of perspective, whether or not the filmmakers intended it. Films aren't released in a vacuum, so when race changes in the casting process, the new film can be reframed against the previous films and the surrounding culture. From what I've read, films are considered to shape impressions. (Like for example, Gladiator popularized its historical period but didn't portray it fully authentically. Same with Braveheart.) Only recently have filmmakers been cognizant of the white-savior trope and tried actively to steer away from it, like they have with whitewashing. Other factors are also possible, like we learned for The Matrix that Switch was originally written as a trans character, but it did not happen. Some analyses discuss race in the film (the mixed rebels versus the white agents), so it's possible that some attempts at subversion incidentally wound up the opposite of subversion. But we would need reliable sources discussing that kind of thing. We can see if that is revisited with The Matrix 4 coming out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Neo (The Matrix) white? Is Keanu Reeves white? Do the given references actually say so? --Error (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the references consider Neo to be a white character, meaning Reeves is perceived as white. People of mixed backgrounds can pass as white. While Reeves has a mixed background, from what I can tell, he has not been perceived as a person of color in his films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Talk:White_savior_narrative_in_film/Archive_2#Schindler's_List has a discussion about Schindler's List. Was it added and later removed? --Error (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The Prophet, the Gold and the Transylvanians

The Prophet, the Gold and the Transylvanians is a Romanian Red Western. It includes one of the Transylvanians freeing the slave of a former Confederate officer. However I couldn't find an academic source linking it to the white savior trope. Probably because old Romanian films are rarely subjected to online academic analysis in English. --Error (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Links to TV Tropes

I added links to TV Tropes. They are not meant as references but as collections of films that, if reliable sources are found can serve as examples. However in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18#Template:TV_Tropes, people removed the template that supports it. Do you think that linking to TV Tropes suits this article? See WP:EL for general guidelines. --Error (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think while the link is technically permissable under WP:ELMAYBE, it needs to be weighted against criteria #1, #2 and #12 at WP:ELNO. While I accept TVtropes could be a useful resource for extending this list, in principle any verifiable content at that site would be eventually added in here in accordance with our sourcing policies, which makes it questionable IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

But TV Tropes may provide unverified examples that may prompt future contributors to search for verification. When I checked yesterday, there were some films that I didn't think of. I might have looked for references and added them if I were in the mood. At least it should be in some Useful resources section of the Talk page. --Error (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #1 states "...the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page." Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Too US-centric

This article focuses mainly on American cinema. I've yet to see examples of foreign films verified by reliable sources. George Ho (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I found the following source, but I'm unsure whether it should be used: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1868/stereotypes-in-bollywood-cinema-does-article-15-reinforce-the-dalit-narrative. Seems more focused on the Brahmin savior thing compared to this. --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Jumping Jack Flash

Are we still taking suggestions for the list? Drsruli (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The list is open-ended. Anybody is free to add to it provided additions are accompanied by a source identifying a white savior narrative in the film. Betty Logan (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Witness (1985) starring Harrison Ford could also be a white savior film in a sense

Saw Witness (1985) starring Harrison Ford, and it has VERY strong elements of the white savior narrative, substituting the amish for the racial minority or indigenous civilization. Ford comes from the more advanced civilization, and goes into the local Pennsylvania Amish community to protect an Amish boy who's a witness to a murder, and to fall in love with a native Amish girl, who reciprocates the same feeling for him.

If we are to define white savior film as one about "someone from a more advanced/civilized group assists the less civilized group in some way" than Witness DEFINITELY falls under the bill.

Are there other similar movies as well? Can a film be a white savior film even though the white person is technically saving other whites from say, a "lower class" community?

I understand why you would see parallels, because the Amish are a community culturally distinct from white Anglo-sphere exceptionalism. I think Witness is more complex than that though, because even though the Ford character protects the Amish boy from physical harm, there is the suggestion that the Amish community save the detective spiritually. That said, if a reputable source existed that described it as a white savior film I would not challenge it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be King

I concur with Betty that The Man Who Would Be King is appropriately listed and cited with a reliable source. The chapter was reprinted in the 2013 Taylor & Francis book White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, so it is not obscure. Can't tell due to limited page preview, but the book Women in Game of Thrones: Power, Conformity and Resistance seems to mention it in this context as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Types of Story

Welcome Back Kotter is mentioned as a type of white savior, but should be noted that Kotter was not only returning to his own school (hometown boy makes good), but the school in question was in an almost exclusively Italian area of Brooklyn and both his class and school were almost entirely white. Not to mention that the class was not intended be indicative of non-white students (that weren't in it), but was meant to be the worst, most irredeemable kids in the school explicitly growing because the teacher was a Sweathog, "one of their own". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.235.42 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that point. Though one can say that movies that feature almost exclusively white characters can still have white savior themes. I mentioned this earlier with Witness starring Harrison Ford. 173.72.3.79 (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Counterpoints

This article lacks any critical response. By overapplying the concept a person could make any form of interracial story inappropriate. A story with a white teacher with black students where each learns some tolerance? No. How about Avatar, a movie about there being more than science and the avarice of megacorps? A soldier risks everything to help the people that he's fought. Nope, bad guy unless he just leaves them to it? There needs to be discussion and balance or it becomes a meta-trope of "white people aren't invited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.235.42 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Without being more selective with the films we include in the list, the article runs the risk of causing people not to take this trope, which truly is an offensive trope, as seriously as it deserves to be taken. Perhaps, in order to combat this issue, we could require multiple sources before a film can be added to the list. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

? The Last Samurai

What about The Last Samurai ? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:9A1:F920:6673:55F7 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It was listed before, but someone removed it. I've restored it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

How about "Australia (2008)"? 104.187.53.82 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)