Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 2

Satire?
It seems like at least a couple of the films are making fun of the concept, "Indiana Jones" for instance. And then there's The Man Who Would Be King (film). Although Rudyard Kipling was certainly a supporter of British imperialism and a racist (although it's more complicated than just that), his Hindu/Buddhist influenced personal philosophy rejected the idea that a person can save anyone else. See The White Man's Burden and If—. I don't know if the movie producers got this, but I think they did.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Man Who Would Be King is explained despite its irony; it is because of the natives being portrayed as being in need of a savior. As for Indiana Jones, I have not come across any irony about its narrative. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting take them out. Do the sources really take Indiana Jones seriously?  I've always thought of him as a satire of old adventure movies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source did mention the movie's "tongue-in-cheek retro mode." Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

To me Indiana Jones always seemed more like James Bond. He's more into beating the bad guys, not so much saving people. Although they both do save people. Not sure why Bond is not mentioned. Borock (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Temple of Doom is the specific Indiana Jones film mentioned, and not the other ones, due to Indiana rescuing natives from the cult (according to the sources). I found no sources about James Bond as a white savior. I presume it is because there has been no comparable storyline. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could Quantum of Solace (film) perhaps be an example of James Bond being a white savoir? He is the reason Bolivia gets its water back in the film. --50.126.155.52 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research
I removed original research as seen here because the write-up makes claims not present in the source. Writing "However, scholars like..." is weasel wording since the source is strictly from the named scholar. Furthermore, reviewing the material, it focuses on how "left-wing radicals" want to perceive Avatar specifically. It does not critique the white savior film label in general. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

McFarland, USA
There have been some rumblings about whether or not McFarland, USA is a white savior film. Here are some reliable sources commenting on this narrative: Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * USA Today: "Fortunately, this is not a film where a white savior is sent to rescue underprivileged darker-skinned folks. Locals in the community help Jim as much as he guides the high schoolers to success and confidence. A scene in which the residents throw Julie a traditional quinceañera (celebrating her 15th birthday) warmly celebrates Mexican-American culture."
 * Los Angeles Times: "Coach Jim White (Kevin Costner) roots for Johnny Sameniego (Hector Duran) in 'McFarland, USA,' which director Niki Caro helps keep from playing like a white savior film... 'McFarland, USA' may sound like a white savior movie, but it doesn't play that way in part thanks to Niki Caro... As written by Christopher Cleveland & Bettina Gilois and Grant Thompson, 'McFarland, USA' may sound like a white savior movie, one of those stories of light-skinned individuals improving the lot of their darker-skinned brethren, but it doesn't play that way in part because of the director involved... That would be Niki Caro, who has not made many films since her 'Whale Rider' became an international sensation in 2002. As that picture demonstrated, Caro has a feeling for minority communities, and her empathy for the students of McFarland High and, equally important, their hardscrabble families, give this a caring, emotional core."
 * Daily Herald: "'McFarland, USA' also rigorously follows another formula, that for 'white savior' movies -- most fact-based -- where white protagonists enter into a minority's world, then protect downtrodden minority members and teach them how to achieve success or a sense of self-worth."
 * The Hollywood Reporter: "At first glance some might object to the idea of another white savior, who is actually named Jim White (the source of many running jokes throughout the movie), coming to the rescue of minority misfits. But the concept works because White is presented as far from a paragon, a man with anger management issues that cost him many earlier jobs... The white-man-as-savior trope is also mitigated by the fact that the kids are feisty and completely unimpressed by their coach."
 * The Republic: "Every sports-film cliche is on full display here, settling alongside the Great White Savior trope that's evidently so difficult for filmmakers to avoid. And it's hard to think of anyone who might be more obnoxious in such a role than Kevin Costner... Yet he's not. Like just about every other element in Niki Caro's film, he shows a lot of heart... Yet Caro's direction, Costner's performance and the winning cast, along with the shining of a sliver of light on the plight of field workers, however thin that sliver may be, combine to make 'McFarland' a much better movie than it has any right to be."
 * The Times-Picayune: "Caro's film can probably be criticized as yet another 'white savior' movie, and there's some validity to that. There are, after all, countless heroes of varying skin shades whose stories could be told as well as a white guy whose actual name is White. But that's an issue for Hollywood as a whole to deal with. Caro and Costner's job here is to tell this particular story, and they do that well. In their hands, 'McFarland, USA' is a winner."
 * The Washington Post: "Critiques of the movie as one more 'white savior' story are not wholly wrong, but not wholly fair, either. It's about a teacher and students who save one another."
 * The Dissolve: "Let’s be upfront about this: McFarland USA takes the familiar form of the Disney inspirational sports movie—cynical white coach in need of redemption, minority misfits in need of hope and guidance, a little fish-out-of-water comedy, a big-game ending, waterworks, postscript, FIN... In ways large and small, McFarland USA seems to recognize the problems inherent in the 'white savior' premise and does what it can to address them, to surprisingly affecting ends. And while the film isn't wiped clean of paternalism and condescension, nor does it shed that feeling of outsiders looking into another culture, it has a humility and big-hearted earnestness that sets it apart from its predecessors. A New Zealand native working in Hollywood, director Niki Caro (Whale Rider) seems to understand the mingling of cultures better than most, and her persistent tweaking of expectation gives the film a little extra texture and feeling."


 * I am unsure what you are arguing here, Erik. Are you saying that the film should be added to the list, or saying that it should not be added? If you want my take, the article is called "White savior narrative in film", not "Films that sign up wholesale to the white savior narrative". The narrative itself (or at least some of tropes) is obviously present in some form if critics are picking up on it, albeit the filmmakers seem to be intentionally subverting it. Personally I would add it, and the debate surrounding the issue can be summarised in the description column. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Betty, I am leaning towards including it, but some of the sources were giving me pause. I was sort of wanting to wait for a sociologist to apply the definition, as opposed to a film critic, but you make a good point about the form being present anyway. I will probably go ahead with The Washington Post for the source since that is more of a high-level assessment than the other sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The filmmaker of McFarland, USA herself is probably not the authority to reference, but she talks about avoiding making a white savior film here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Vox covers the narrative here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Attribution
Regarding the description of the topic, it is properly sourced, and per WP:YESPOV, the assertion is not "seriously contested" by reliable sources. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The footnote that accompanies this passage specifically says, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." This means that there needs to be a sociological counter-claim to the assertion. If you can provide that, we can include it. Otherwise, layperson contesting is not permissible. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Matrix
Please quote it to me where it mentions explicitly 'White savior narrative' pertaining to The Matrix. Tutelary (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Matrix is one of ten films listed at the beginning of the chapter titled "The Beautiful White American: Sincere Fictions of the Savior". The section devoted to the film is titled, "The Matrix: The White Messiah and His Multicultural Disciples". It opens with, "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." Nor is this the only source categorizing this film. A quick Google Books Search shows this, this, this, this, etc. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sociology professor Matthew Hughey's book The White Savior Film also lists The Matrix among a sample of fifty films fitting this narrative. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * The Constant Gardener
 * Khartoum
 * Sahara
 * The Substitute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.119.116 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Crash - racist white cop saves black woman (who he earlier sexually assaulted in front of her husband) trapped in burning car — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reducing "what links here"
User:Stumink, who was once involved in a dispute here, has since gone on a campaign to remove links to this article from the movies listed here. I thought regular editors of this page might be interested to know that. I came across it thanks to having one of the movies on my watchlist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will address these. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restoring some of the links, ., all these films have reliable sources establishing this particular categorization. It is not at all undue weight to provide a link in the "See also" section, which is intended to provide related links. It would be undue weight to write at length about this particular narrative on a film's article when it is not warranted. Some films may have themes or structures that have much greater prevalence than this particular narrative (e.g., The Matrix has been analyzed in many other ways), while others may warrant a fair amount of white-savior coverage (Avatar, The Last Samurai). These links ensure cross-navigation so readers can come across the general description and see a film's specific WSF characteristic as well as other films' such characteristics. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding a sub-section on Television Shows
Can we add a sub-section on television shows that embody this trope also? I particularly had Game of Thrones in mind, as Daenerys Targaryen clearly demonstrates this trope as a white woman who has to inspire POC to want freedom. 78.17.28.174 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if there is enough content about the white savior narrative in television for its own full section. What we could do is add a "See also" section, which per WP:SEEALSO allows linking to tangential topics. This can be one of them. Do you want to add that, or should I? See List of films featuring the United States Navy SEALs as an example (since the film in that section does not directly match the subject matter). Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

References to use
References to use. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Virunga's White Savior Complex at Foreign Affairs, March 5, 2015
 * Perspective: The Atticus Finch effect at the movies: Do we still need a white savior? at Los Angeles Times, July 15, 2015
 * Dangerous Minds, 20 years later: The real-life LouAnne Johnson, screenwriter Ron Bass on why the film doesn't quite work at Slate, August 11, 2015

The Green Inferno
The Green Inferno (film) may be a candidate for inclusion. There are sources like this highlighting the matter. When the film comes out, we can look for specific sources that explore the narrative. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Schindler's List
Schindler's List exactly fits this trope - members of an oppressed minority are saved by a good member of the majority. Most viewers of the film are members of the majority (gentiles, not Germans) and so can learn about the historical injustice, while still feeling good about themselves. Schindler is the focus of the film, as much or more than JQ Adams is in Amistad, for example.

If it is objected that Jews are white, I would note that they have not always been so considered in American culture, and of course were considered racially alien in the time and place in which the film takes place - and that Arabs, other hand, are considered whites by the US Census Bureau, though Lawrence of Arabia is included here.

Ricardianman (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And if you want a source, see  https://books.google.com/books?id=lMGoAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT22&lpg=PT22&dq=gentile+savior+films&source=bl&ots=5hFVLUUFle&sig=WRsvhF8_YhPdMK6MQZUis2jnZwY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAWoVChMIqc2IgO6XxwIVhDU-Ch1Q_g3h#v=onepage&q=gentile%20savior%20films&f=false

Film and the Holocaust: New Perspectives on Dramas, Documentaries, and Experimental Films Aaron Kerner

Ricardianman (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Matthew Hughey identifies this film in his list in his sociology book The White Savior Film. There are a few more in his list that are not on here (since his book is not directly referenced... yet). Feel free to add Schindler's List with the reference you mentioned or look it up in Hughey's book. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the reasoning above that Schindler's List is a "white savior" film (and to be fair we are more interested in the underlying narrative rather than the actual color/race) Ricardianman's source refers to it as a "gentile savior" film. I'm not familiar enough with the terms to know if are equatable, but if there is a source available that explicitly identifies it as a "white savior" film then that avoids potential OR. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it really a trope in Schindler's List though? Oskar Schindler was a real person. He was actually German and really did rescue 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust. There is really no other way to tell his story than the way it was told in the film. Also, even though he rescued Jews, it should be noted that they were Polish Jews and were as white as any other European. They were not Middle Eastern Jews. Yes, they were outcasts in society, but they were also white. If we're going to list Schindler's List, why not list Inglourious Basterds as well since it's about a white man who leads a group of (white American) Jews to overthrow Nazi Germany?TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The categorization is valid if it is one of the films listed in a sociological study of the genre. It is not about whether or not the film is historical. After all, 12 Years a Slave and Lincoln are white savior films. It is about the choice of subject matter for which to produce a film. Selma, for example, goes against the grain by centering the film on black characters, which led to backlash about LBJ not being portrayed as enough of a white savior. I'll pull out the book at home and see what Hughey says about Schindler's List. We need to follow reliable sources in what they say. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any other sources besides Hughey? It seems kind of weird using the opinion of one sociology professor as the basis of an entire article. The opinion of one man is hardly consensus. Also, are there any online sources? Your only source is a textbook that other editors can't read. Also, the backlash on Selma wasn't that LBJ wasn't portrayed enough as a white savior, but because it was very historically inaccurate about LBJ to the point of slander. TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Richardianman's source counts as another. Tablet here mentions the categorization. It's worth noting that Hughey applies a sociological framework to analyzing the films. It is not armchair musing. There are distinct characteristics that he outlines and applies to the filmography, so Schindler's List apparently falls under the characteristics. Being unavailable online is not a reason for not using it, either. It's more convenient but not grounds for disqualification. We can discuss the Selma situation on our user talk pages if you want, since it does not apply here. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although as Betty Logan pointed out, he's listed as a gentile savior in Richardianman's source instead of a white savior. There's also the fact that the Jews that Schindler rescued were European Jews from Poland as opposed to Middle Eastern Jews, so they were, in fact, white. Yes, they were being persecuted for being Jewish, but Judaism is also a religion and culture as well. The Jewish race comes from the Middle East, not Europe. And yes, I'm aware that Adolf Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race, but that doesn't change the fact that the Jews in Poland were white. At best Oskar Schindler was a German savior.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One -Race is a social construct, and in North America at various points, Jews, like Italians and Irish, were not considered "white". Now its true that Jews were considered white in the USA when Spielberg made Schindler's List, but that is original research in this context - if our sources call it a white savior film so it is. If the sources do not say that, it should be included since it fits the trope here - but with a caveat that it is a gentile savior film.


 * The inclusion of gentile savior films (and perhaps more related subgenres) is important in that, without doing OR, it demonstrates the actual cause of the phenomenon here - not structural racism in the film industry (sure Spielberg is not antisemitic) but the need, for commercial reason, for films to have leading characters with whom viewers identify. Ricardianman (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I would add that The Life of Emile Zola belongs here too, though I do not have a source calling it a savior film.

Also Gentleman's Agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Rwanda may belong as well, since it is about an apolitical Hutu who saves victims of the Rwandan genocide (who are mostly Tutsis - Hutus were targeted only if they had been opponents of the Hutu Power movement)  and so makes the audience feel good (it might fit the trope more narrowly, since the white executives of  Belgian company Sabenas help as does a white UN commander)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A few more films

 * Three Amigos - 3 white Hollywood screen actors save a Mexican village from bandits.
 * The Magnificent Seven - 7 white cowboys save a Mexican village from bandits.
 * A Time to Kill - a white lawyer defends a black man who killed 2 white men for raping his daughter.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of The Magnificcent Seven is interesting - compare Seven Samurai, in which Samurai save peasants (whom they look down on) from bandits. Of course that is a class/caste distinction, not race. Ricardianman (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

At last, a different take
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/white-savior-films-mcfarland-usa

I may try to include some things from this article (TPM is a reliable source, no?) when I have time, but since you know the topic so well, maybe you should take a stab, eric. Ricardianman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source is reliable for this purpose. When you a dealing with film theory or sociological analysis we should at the very least be limiting commentary to qualified experts i.e. noteworthy critics and academics that have published onthe subject. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Its a point of view, expressed seriously, about the meaning of the WSN, and AFAICT the POV is not contradicted by any academic research. I know of no Wikipedia rules making it out of bounds. And what formal credentialing is there for film critics?  Yes, if there were a richer academic literature giving all sides of the issue that would be better to source - but  has not drawn that kind of discussion, either because this is a barely noteworthy subject, or because these particular academic disciplines have become ideologically narrow.  Ricardianman (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a sociological topic, so the core of it should be based on scholarly material. This article needs to benefit more from Hughey's book and the Journal of Popular Film & Television article, as well as similar sources available elsewhere. The journalistic articles are less important and should be phased out. However, the commentary from them are in line with the sociological descriptions of this narrative. This particular POV from TPM has no basis in scholarly material, so per the policy of due weight, I would not include it. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also add that while reliable sources are generally reliable for facts, opinions and viewpoints are also subject to WP:WEIGHT. Any commentary about the trope that cannot be sourced to scholarly discussion or publications by recognized experts—either in film theory or sociological studies—risks being WP:FRINGE. When it comes to simply identifying the presence of the trope in various films, several reviews by legitimate critics are probably sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this by Robert C Bulman, a professor of sociology at Saint Mary’s College of California, which perceives the narrative more as classism. There's apparently a revised edition of his book Hollywood Goes to High School that is showing up in Google Books Search when searching for "white savior film", though there is no preview being shared. It might be that there is commentary in the book to leverage. The article itself may not be usable since I don't think it has a reliable publisher. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The author of that wrote it for TPMCafe, and I believe went on to work for CNN. Nor is it propounding a theory, let alone one that contradicts that cited here. It merely gives a personal reflection on it and its potential significance. I guess I am not sure that wiki standards on giving an alternative viewpoint on an "academic subject" apply the same way to Sociology, whose subject matter includes things in society that can be, and historically have been, discussed outside the parameters of academic sociology. Film in particular, has often been discussed by uncredentialed critics. This seems like subject matter imperialism - in the service of a point of view, that, quite frankly strikes me (and clearly many other wikipedia editors) as fringe.   I suppose we will have to wait until the current obsession with identity and with discourse fades from the softer social sciences. 152.120.132.59 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Another TPM article about the narrative here, this time about how Straight Outta Compton could mark the end of it. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this another trope?
"white protagonists having "racially diverse" helpers." So far the list does not include many films like that. But this seems to be a complain about films with diverse casts that still reserve the main role for a white. This is not limited to films with savior-type narratives. Any film with a non-white sidekick could still qualify. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the case of The Matrix, there is an abundance of sources discussing the white savior narrative. I don't think it extends to nonwhite sidekicks in general, though brief research shows that this could be a valid sociological exploration (not just race, but gender as well). Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A half Chinese man with a racially diverse cast of supporters saves Humanity from robots. Of course it's a White Savior film. Apparently everything is. I know because I read it on Salon.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.102.26 (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Our Brand Is Crisis
Our Brand Is Crisis (2015 film) may or may nor fit the narrative; I wanted to mention it here. Vulture says, "Judging from this trailer, the movie mixes Clooney's liberal cynicism with the white-savior tropes of Bullock's The Blind Side." Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vanity Fair mentioned the narrative, so I've included the film in the list. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Indiewire also mentioned it. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

, see these sources as well for Our Brand Is Crisis. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It doesn't overly bother me, but it seems somewhat counterproductive to have a see also that casts negative aspersions on the film that is actually unreferenced in the article. Either it was a notable criticism of the film and should therefore be covered and referenced in prose in the critical reception section, or it wasn't and the see also link is unnecessary. Just my two cents. Jenks24 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Blind Side
Question - how does The Blind Side fall into this trope, if it is based on the real events? Can the story of that guy's life be described as narrative in film or cinematic trope? --BoleynSRB (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for asking. In his book The White Savior Film, Dr. Hughey answers this, "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 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." On the next page, he writes about The Blind Side, saying that the film was dramatized in certain ways, such as Oher having to be taught the basics of football when in real life, he had been studying the game all his childhood. Hope that answers your question. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions
"lilies of the field" - black man saves white nuns "to sir with love" - maybe as well Perhaps this article needs renaming to something like "people of privelege who give it up and help the underpriveleged". Then this article becomes a subsection. I'm sure that internationally there are many examples of this sort of thing - note that most bollywood stars seem to have a certain look and feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.85.240 (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We would need reliable sources covering that kind of topic. It would probably be along the lines of classism. That can intersect with the racism of the trend here, but that does not mean this topic needs to be merged. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
I reverted here a couple of unsourced additions: Beyond Rangoon and The Power of One (film). If sources can be found for these, they can be re-added. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This would source the latter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In the same vein, this mentions The Emerald Forest and A Man Called Horse as having this narrative. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Name change
I have reservations about the name change. The scope of this article is limited to film and doesn't include other mediums such as televsion and literature. Unless the intention is to extend the scope of this article then I believe the title needs to be clear that the article only covers film Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree and have reverted. I have thought about creating a general article because I have seen some white savior elements out there for television and literature, though not enough for their own articles. There is also the real-world application. Teju Cole's "The White Savior Complex" is an article that is constantly referenced ever since its publication. We should have a broad-concept white savior article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Problematic definition
It seems to me that a major failing in this page is no real differentiation between fictional film and those based - even nominally - on real events. Putting a fictional white protagonist into a fictional scenario where they "save" fictional non-whites is, it seems, somewhat different from the dramatic presentation in which a real white person or persons in a real life scenario affecting real-life non-whites. Maybe at the very least the list needs splitting. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is not much of a difference, according to sources. Someone asked a similar question under, and I quoted the academic perspective from the book The White Savior Film. In essence, films based on real-life events betray a "white savior" narrative even more so. With The Blind Side, they wrote it so that the black character didn't understand football and had to be taught it by the white character who adopted him. This also happens with Glory Road and other sports films, according to The Journal of Popular Film & Television. History is muddled to present the white coach more moralizing than the real-life person. Lastly, the historical films contribute to the sociological trend of there always being a white-savior agenda in films produced. The film Selma is considered to avoid being a white savior film by putting the black agenda upfront and the white agenda in contrast of it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

12 Years a Slave
@,, , : Regarding removal of 12 Years a Slave (film), reliable sources support its inclusion. See this and this. Beyond what is in the article, there is also this and this and probably more. It is pedantic to use the article title to try to exclude the film. If anything, you should be arguing for "White savior in film" or something of the like. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, this does not mean that 12 Years a Slave is a bad film. It is simply part of the trend of having this kind of white role in films about slavery. Something like Selma, in contrast, is considered good and is conscious of avoiding depicting a white savior (in that particular case, President LBJ). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you seen 12 Years a Slave (film)? Because I don't think you have. If you did, the mere concept that this film is a white savior film would be insulting to you. When people say "that film is a white savior film", most of the time they mean "the entire film is all about how great this white person is for helping these non-white people". You can't just go, "while 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience..."; that fact alone automatically disqualifies it from being a white savior film. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From the lede: 'the white savior is a narrative trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight.' By this definition, 12 Years a Slave fits perfectly. If not, sources saying the contrary would be nice, per WP:NOR. Dschslava (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Key word: narrative. In order for the trope to apply, the story has to be about the white savior. And I don't need sources to say that this idea that 12 Years a Slave qualifies is bull. If any of you seen the film, you would know that: a.) the entire film is all about Solomon Northup's trying to survive his enslavement for twelve years; and b.) Brad Pitt's character only appears in one scene, in the second half of the third act. In order for this film to be a white savior narrative, Brad Pitt's character would have to be, at the very least, the deuteragonist. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, then you should argue for expanding the scope of the article. Clearly sources talk about a white savior in this film. For different films listed here, some sources write about a "white savior film", others just write about a "white savior" in a film. The latter is why the article is not just at White savior film. Would having the article at White savior trope in film address the issue? Or perhaps even just White savior in film? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't do this. The entire nature of white savior trope is that the work focuses, either mainly or entirely, on the white person. This is the main thing that people complain about: "here is this story about the struggles of the people of color, but instead of telling it from those people point-of-view, were telling from this white person's point-of-view, and we're all going to say how great they are for helping them." 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources talk about a "white savior" in the film. Is the argument that this element should not be recognized at all, based on a personal analysis despite the sources linked above? I thought the problem was with the article title. Now the problem is with something different? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the key word is narrative. Just because the film has a white guy helping out the non-white guy doesn't automatically makes it a white savior narrative. If it was a white savior narrative, the film would be all about Brad Pitt and a bunch of other white guys trying to free Solomon Northup. By admitting the film mostly focuses on Solomon Northup, you are automatically contradicted yourself in adding the film as an example of a white savior narrative. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Betty said below, your commentary is merely original research, which does not override the sources. I already suggested the possibility of changing the article title, which would take out the key word that you find so problematic. If you refuse that suggestion to widen the scope to discuss white saviors in film more generally, then I don't see any further action to take here. Sources demonstrate its relevance to be listed here as part of this topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not favor changing the title. I think "white savior narrative" directly addresses the trope, while "white savior" just captures an aspect of it. A good example of this would be The Man Who Would Be King: the "white savior narrative" is clearly present in the film, but it subverts the trope, satirizes it even, but the Connery and Caine characters are arguably not white saviors in any way shape or form. In To Kill a Mockingbird Gregory Peck technically isn't a white savior because he ultimately fails. There are probably other examples. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Because you found two sources that claims that this film has a white savior, who might be using the term wrong, this overrules all the reviews and essays that praises the film for finally telling the horrors of slavery without making it all about some white guy. You can't just reduce the trope into just meaning "white guy helps non-white guy", especially in a film where said white guy only appears once near the end of the film. Stop acting like I'm advocating in favor of changing the title. All I'm doing is removing an example that I think doesn't apply here. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've seen it, but I don't see why I should apply my personal feelings and opinions to override the sources. If there is commentary out there that goes against the "white savior" trope in this film, we can include it in the article too. The film's entry even states in the last sentence that the film mainly focuses on Northup's plight, but the appearance of the white savior at the end is part of the trend. From what I recall, it especially had a lot to do with the scene with Brad Pitt's character being very dramatic in his agreement to help Northup. It does not mean that the film is not of high quality. It just means that in the sociological sense, the white savior narrative or trope or whatever is persistent in slavery films. Though we'll see what happens with The Birth of a Nation (2016 film). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dramatic? I don't recall that scene being played out like Brad Pitt is playing Moses and he's there to liberate Northup. If anything they played it like, "does Solomon Northup finally discovered the one guy who can help him out, or are we going to get another uncomfortable scene with Micheal Fassbender?" 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

, the editor was blanking sourced content. I would have issued content-blanking warnings if the IP was consistent and reported the editor for persistent blanking. Feel free to comment on the issue stated above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see that. Again, though, it would be nice if we discussed it here as opposed to disrupting the article itself. Dschslava (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor's tone was POV and in disregard of the sources (especially in the last act of blanking). I started the discussion when it became apparent that the content-blanking was going to be persistent, but I didn't expect the editor to stop and instead expected others to weigh in. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you expect the IP to continue to act but not come here to discuss it? Oh, and I suppose that a RFPP is in order. Thoughts?Dschslava (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion mainly to bring up the issue for other editors to weigh in, after reverting to the last stable version again. If the blanking editor will discuss, great, but I am not detecting this from the tone and the argument made in their edit summaries. This kind of article occasionally attracts this kind of outrage in spite of the sources. I would be fine with a RFPP if the editor persists in the blanking. The related WikiProjects could be notified, but I did not think this blanking was worth escalating to them. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , see this... Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , please don't make those sort of changes whilst this is still under discussion. Dschslava (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Looking at the back-and-forth I don't really see what there is to discuss. The IP is clearly invoking an WP:Original research argument, so what else is there to say on the issue? Watching a film and deciding it doesn't fit with some kind of personal interpretation is exactly the kind of response that WP:Original research is designed to deter. If there is a legitimate contrary interpretation put forward by reliable sources then that can be incorporated into the article. As an example, I recall a CNN article that once disputed the view that Lincoln was a "white savior" film, and effectively argued that it was an "anti-establishment" movie i.e. the film was a white man beating the system rather saving black men; that is the kind of counter-argument that can effect some kind of alteration to the article. Even if the IP came to the talk page to discuss the issue, I don't really see what other possible conclusion can be arrived at because a local consensus cannot override a core policy. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

, the editor is clearly disregarding this discussion and the new input that supports the inclusion of this film. See,. There's no place for this POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're the one doing the POV-pushing. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've noticed that you've just reverted my reverts to the stable version of the articles. Unless you provide sources which are not original research, I will continue to revert back to the stable version. Dschslava (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is based on verifiability of content from reliable sources. Sources are provided here. Betty above agrees that the placement is appropriate and that you are wanting to dismiss these sources in favor of your POV. The fact that you resumed blanking sourced content in spite of discussion going against you indicates that you will likely be blocked if you persist. In addition, the white savior element is not mutually exclusive from other aspects of the film, including its focus on slavery. Such identifiable elements can coexist. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you? The key element about the white savior trope is that the "white savior" has to be the protagonist! Just because you found two sources that have reduced the meaning to "white guy help non-white guy", neither of which are from publications whose main focus is on film, does not validate the people who are praising 12 Years a Slave for not being a white savior film. And don't accuse me of POV-pushing, when you are turning this article into your own essay for film school. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added another source to bolster the inclusion of 12 Years a Slave as seen here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is some very vague source you just found. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

, I've warned the editor for their disruptive behavior. Feel free to escalate the warnings or to report the editor to be blocked. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your personal blog! 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd probably take this to AN/I instead--AIV or AN3 doesn't seem like the right venue. Dschslava (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you in any way opposed to taking this to DRP or 3O? Dschslava (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I would really like someone to back me up on this. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Betty provided a third and well-articulated opinion above. It's an either/or situation with no middle ground, and I don't see any issue with the sources to support the film's inclusion, especially the academic one that serves as a meta-analysis of the criticism at the time. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please tell me if you are in any way opposed to taking this to DRP so I know whether or not to do so. I plan to take this to DRP as opposed to 3O, as there are more people patrolling DRP. Dschslava (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WP:DRN? WP:DRP and its talk page does not appear to have much activity. If so, I'm fine with that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, DRN. Acronyms hurt the mind. I'm taking it there. Dschslava (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to contribute tomorrow, as I'm heading out for the night. A couple of additional sources for the discussion:, . The academic source from this year (2015) likely refers to these and the ones referenced in the article. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

For everyone involved, DRN is here. Dschslava (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources
Additional sources I found. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)
 * (This is the only contrasting source I found. I don't mind including it, but other sources would need to be referenced too to ensure due weight.)