Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 3

The Soloist
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that a good test to see whether a film has such a narrative is asking whether the role of the white man could have reasonably been cast as a non-white human. Please correct me if I'm missing a nuance that invalidates my point of view, but this does not seem to be applicable in case of a true story.

Regarding The Soloist, while "white saviour narrative" fits insofar as it features a white man rescuing a black man, it is in fact a true story, and if it has been the subject of a book and subsequently a film without exaggeration, there is nothing "grandiose", "narcissistic" or "exhibitionistic" about the film; it can't be any of those things if it simply reflects a reality, or tells a true story faithfully.

To label a film as such, that does not portray a white male lead in a position of privilege arbitrarily, seems counter-productive to me, for whatever purpose you can imagine.

Sapiocrat (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The categorization applies to real-life stories too; see an earlier discussion above for commentary on this. The White Savior Film lists The Soloist as part of its sampled set. There are different ways to define a genre; Screen Saviors identifies characteristics that would identify most of them. The more appropriate characteristic to consider here, I would imagine, is the teacher example where white teachers are portrayed as saving nonwhite students despite many nonwhite teachers doing the same thing. The same could be said for The Soloist where it has to be a white person saving a black person for it to be made into a movie, where there are stories of black persons helping other black persons that are not selected to put into a movie. The choice of story can matter as much as how the story is portrayed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I take your point, but there is still something amiss for me that I cannot quite put my finger on. I can see that there is a trend in which stories featuring white protagonists are disproportionately represented in media, and that the label is not meant to discredit or demean the movie, but to draw attention to this trend. However, this is like telling your children the reason they made the team isn't just because they have prodigal skill, but also because they're white (whether that is the case or not in that specific instance; being white is always a helping factor). In my honest opinion, The Soloist is an inspirational story and a well-made film, and it deserves to be presented simply as a story of a human helping another human, and not be mired in a dichotomy that isn't applicable to it. In short, in a perfect, equal world, I think The Soloist would still have made it to the big screen, and it is perhaps those films featuring a white savior narrative that would not have made it to the big screen in such a world that deserve such a label. That said, I do realize now that the page is correct to include The Soloist with respect to the established definition of white savior narrative in film, and that I'm criticizing that definition, for which Wikipedia isn't really the platform. Thanks for the response. Sapiocrat (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Something else occurs to me. White people saving other white people surely also gets disproportionately represented over non-white people saving other people. Why then don't we label such movies with the white savior narrative as well? But perhaps I digress. Sapiocrat (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Woman Walks Ahead
This mentions Woman Walks Ahead (reported here) potentially being a white savior film. Mentioning here until we see reliable sources based on the final product. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Revenant
This mentions The Revenant (2015 film) having a "white savior". Thoughts? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw that movie. Didn't see him save anyone. I also think that's a pretty low standard for a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.102.26 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Free State of Jones
Free State of Jones (film) may or may not be a candidate for this list. It comes out on May 13, 2016. We can search for reliable sources that make this connection when it premieres. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times has an article about the film that mentions the white savior element. Film comes out this weekend, so coverage can be looked up then. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Concern with topic redux

 * See Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 1.

June 2016
The article has clearly developed into a personal crusade for one single editor. There are few outside contributions other than this individual's. It hints of anti-white racism and it is almost entirely supported by one single book along with links to articles from op-ed blogs like Salon, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, and The Huffington Post, which are not sites of newspaper journalism writing articles of straight reporting. The article should be heavily modified to be focused on the single heavily cited book and citing its themes including its opinions on the topic as such. The article lists interpretations of movie plots and characters which are absolute opinion and have no place on Wikipedia. thelobbyist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, June 20, 2016

I have a question: why is this article in list form? Shouldn't this page be more along the lines like the Magical Negro article, or the noble savage article? Where most of the article is about how the title trope is used, how the trope is problematic, quotes from people discussing the trope, etc. You know, ACTUALLY ANALYZING THE TOPIC TROPE AND NOT JUST SLAP TWO PARAGRAPHS AND THEN LIST A BUNCH OF MOVIES THAT IS JUST INVITING A DEBATE ON WHETHER SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY BELONGS THERE? Except there's not a debate, because the article is under control of one guy who's armed with a bunch of (very subjective) sources that automatically cancels out the other sources that refutes that. This reads like a TVTropes page, except if it was a TVTropes page, it would actually allow discussion on what counts as an example of that trope, plus there would be a lot more detail on what the trope was about, and not "the white savior is a narrative trope in which a white character rescues people of color from their plight". Seriously, it is sad when TVTropes have, not one, but two articles that do a better job describing the white savior narrative than this page. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhiteMansBurden) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey) 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The book The White Savior Film can be leveraged to add more detailed prose to the article body. What is at TV Tropes cannot be sourced here because it is written by random people, no matter how well it is written. This article has to be based on reliable sources, and the aforementioned book would be a great reference to source. You are welcome to contest some of the sources, but many of these films are actually listed in the book. It would be good to swap out the footnotes to reference the list in the book. Regardless, it is possible to have both prose and a list. If you think there is a reliable source that contests the "white savior" label imparted by other sources, we can incorporate that. This was done for McFarland, USA, for example, where the director says it is not a WSF. I believe there is similar commentary for Free State of Jones, which could have a paragraph that draws together statements from different sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Way to avoid my criticism, Erik. Again, why is this article resembling a piss-poor version of a TVTropes page? Why do you have a iron fist control on this article? Why won't you let there be a debate on whether some of the films on this page? Why is it that most of the sources cited on this page are op-ed pieces from progressive websites and not from people who have any involvement in film? Also, I gotta wonder: do you even own the books you're citing? Have you even read them outside of the previews on Google Books? Do you even went to film school? Because it feels like you haven't. And I have to call BS on your claim that this article has prose. Again, the two TVTropes articles are doing a better job analyzing this trope than this page. 2600:8800:5100:38E:3592:B8C7:A4DD:45BA (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I did respond to your criticism. The article is based on reliable sources. I am not sure why you are saying that there is no prose; there are two paragraphs in the lead section. In addition, the current sources are not the only ones in existence; many of these films have multiple sources out there highlighting the narrative. For simplicity's sake, there is one for each entry. It would be easy to find other reliable sources to cite for a given film. From what I recall, I started the article based on sources listing films per WP:NOTESAL. Subsequent additions drew on other list sources as well as non-list sources. I do have the book and find it quite good and think that summarizing its contents here would improve the article more. I'm not sure what you mean by debates about some of the films. An editor's personal disagreement with a sourced entry is irrelevant. If sources disagree with each other about whether or not a film has the white savior narrative, then we fold that debate among sources together. Which films in particular do you want to discuss the sourcing of? What sort of prose do you think should be included? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oooooohhh! A whole two paragraphs! That clearly what prose means, right? How many paragraphs there are? And not whether or not the article is doing an decent job analyzing the trope? Seriously Erik, are you dense? And I love your reaction to whenever people points out that the sources are heavily skewed to come from op-ed pieces from left-wing websites. "People are complaining about the sources I use? Well, then! I'll just replace those sources and make this article entirely based on one book that I most likely only read the preview of on Google Books!" 2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you the same editor who personally disagreed about 12 Years a Slave being removed last December? I see that you inappropriately removed the link to here from that film's article as seen here, which erodes any good faith in your comments. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh that's is so sweet. Ignore the fact that I am not the only person who disagrees with characterizing 12 Years a Slave, a film that solely focuses on Solomon Northrup (this the main reason why people dispute having this film listed as an example; it has nothing to with the fact that Brad Pitt's character actually exists and this is all based on a true story—it's the fact that Brad Pitt's character only appeared in one scene, and the movie continues focusing on Solomon) and in the opening paragraph is stated to be based on the slave narrative of the same name. My god, Erik! Nobody is saying that a film based on true events can't be a white savior narrative! Just because people dispute having 12 Years a Slave on this list doesn't mean they dispute having Cry for Freedom, or Mississippi Burning, and especially not The Blind Side being on this list. And it may be a shocker to you Erik, but it is totally possible to both believe that the "white savior narrative" is a real thing and find this article to be crap! 2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging . Also, please see Talk:White savior narrative in film/Archive 2 for multiple sources about the white savior in 12 Years a Slave. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But none of them are saying it's a white savior narrative! That the main crux of the debate! You just happen to find some articles by people who didn't like 12 Years a Slave who accused Brad Pitt's character of being a white savior. Hell, the first paragraph states that the film is based on the slave narrative of the same name. What is it Erik? Is it a slave narrative, or a white savior narrative? It can't be both, Erik! 2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is anything else I can say that would answer your concerns. I do not mind moving the article to white savior trope in film or white savior in film since most sources are just writing "white savior" and "film" rather than "white savior narrative" anyway. We are not stuck with the current article title and can rename it accordingly. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go! Using another favorite tactic of yours! Instead of admitting that some of the films listed on this article doesn't belong there and then removing them accordingly, you decide to pout and go "fine! I'll just change the title of the page so it'll be vague enough to justify the inclusion of those films! God forbid I allow anyone but me to touch my rejected TVTrope page!" 2600:8800:5100:38E:74AC:288:F342:BD99 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to admit. I have said that there are additional sources identifying the white savior in each film. Your disagreements are personally derived. There can be white saviors in historical films; the book The White Savior Film makes this case. It would be good for this article to cover that as well. Your argument about white saviors being invalid in historical films is your own personal opinion and does not apply to including or excluding content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you? I know that a film based on true events can still be a white savior narrative. I don't have a problem including The Blind Side on this list. Why? Because the entirely of that film is centered on Sandra Bullock. My objection to including 12 Years a Slave on this list has nothing to do with the fact that this film is based on true events. IT'S BECAUSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE FILM IS FOCUSED ON SOLOMON NORTHRUP. NOT MOSTLY, ENTIRELY. IS ENGLISH YOUR SECOND LANGUAGE?2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the white savior narrative is not its defining feature, but a "white savior" is present in the film. The summary description in the table does clarify that Northup is the film's focus. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But if the white savior narrative is not its defining feature, then why is it on this list? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right that I misread what you said about historical films. Honestly, your tone has been so uncivil that I was not keen on reading closely your hostile prose. Since we are focusing on 12 Years a Slave here, there are multiple sources identifying a white savior in a film that is indeed primarily a slave narrative. The argument is that it should not be mentioned here at all because it does not apply under the scope of being a white savior narrative. We can address this matter, but since this is the main place on Wikipedia to discuss the general topic of white saviors in films, we should address it in a way that we keep mention of it. That is why I would support moving the article to a new title. The opening sentence doesn't even say "narrative" but "narrative trope", which is more narrow. (The source actually says "cinematic trope", so we should fix that.) Definitions are not arbitrary; there have been other debates about what genre(s) a particular film should fall under. Essentially, most films that feature white saviors will focus on them. 12 Years a Slave is different in that regard. One could personally opine that Django Unchained is not a white savior narrative since it does not focus on the German. So I really am fine from getting away from this whole "narrative" business. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't it be easier if we just removed 12 Years a Slave from this list? Seriously, you don't have to rename this article, just remove the films that is not centered on the white savior. It's not that hard. You'll will still have plenty of films left that are considered excellent examples of the white savior narrative, a.k.a. a story that is focused on a white character, either mostly or entirely, that is all about him or her helping out people of color.
 * Also, I have read the 12 Years a Slave (film) article and not once does the term "white savior" popped up. Don't you think it's kind of odd to have its "See Also" section linked to a seemingly unrelated topic? 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing 12 Years a Slave from this article is based on the premise that it has to be a white savior narrative. I came up with this article title very early on, not to lock in the definition, but probably because the explicit term "white savior film" did not seem commonly used. Looking at this, it says, "When it comes to race-relations dramas—and slavery narratives, in particular—the white savior has become one of Hollywood’s most reliably offensive clichés," mentioning 12 Years a Slave. So "narrative" in this article title is truly not needed, and we can fix that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, first off, way to ignore my criticism that it makes no sense to have a link to this page on the "See Also" section of 12 Years a Slave (film) when the term "white savior" appears nowhere in that article. AT ALL. Second, why are being so stubborn? You admit that 12 Years a Slave is not a white savior narrative. Shut up about this talk of "Well we can always change the title of this article" and just remove it! 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me to shut up. See WP:CIVIL. There is no reason to be nasty. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Continue to ignore my criticisms Erik. 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your name? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What the hell does this have to do with anything? 2600:8800:5100:38E:91E:30DB:9899:2EA0 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)