I don’t think it’s fair to place all of the moral/psychological responsibility of upending white supremacy onto any one individual creative production, especially not a mindless blockbuster film.
I don’t believe anyone except sickos are buying tickets to Gladiator 2 to explore/reaffirm their perceptions of hierarchy or cultural exceptionalism.
Imagine you’re performing with a mixed race improv group, and you’re touring America. Would you restrict the black actors from portraying villains, due to fear that the imagery might nebulously reaffirm white supremacy? Would you restrict them in certain scenes, like ones involving Roman politics?
I’m not trying to straw-man your arguments, and I know improv is very different than film. But I think my explain explains how your piece is also advocating for personal creative restrictions, which would also affect black creative professionals. I mean, Denzel is extremely good at playing villains, and your biggest critique is the negative racial imagery of Denzel’s villain being slain by Mezcal. So would it be better if the heroes and villains were all white? Or would you suggest that Denzel can only play the hero? And how would that benefit the future of diversity in blockbuster castings?
Thanks for engaging with the piece—there’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s take it step by step!
First, I’m not arguing that Gladiator 2 (or any one film) carries the entire moral and psychological burden of dismantling white supremacy. That would be absurd. What I’m pointing out is that media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Films, especially big-budget blockbusters, reflect and shape cultural norms in ways that often go unnoticed precisely because we dismiss them as “mindless entertainment.” It’s less about intent (what the filmmakers or audience consciously aim to do) and more about effect—the subtle ways in which imagery reinforces or challenges dominant ideologies.
Second, the idea that “only sickos” would consciously buy tickets to explore racial hierarchies misses the point. The vast majority of people absorb cultural narratives subconsciously. Audiences don’t sit down thinking, “Ah, yes, I’m here to reaffirm my belief in cultural exceptionalism!” But a story where the noble white hero overcomes a villain coded with racial or cultural markers of the “Other” still reinforces those hierarchies, whether anyone notices or not. That’s the whole point of why these dynamics matter—they work below the level of conscious awareness.
Now, let’s talk about the improv hypothetical. Restricting actors of color from playing villains isn’t the solution I’m advocating, and frankly, it feels like a bit of a leap to suggest my critique is calling for that. The issue isn’t that Denzel is playing a villain—it’s how the story frames his villainy and the imagery it invokes. It’s about context and power dynamics: how does the narrative treat his character? What symbolism is baked into his defeat? What broader narratives are being reinforced by those creative choices?
The problem isn’t that Denzel can’t play a villain—it’s that in certain contexts, his villainy can be coded in ways that play into long-standing tropes about race, hierarchy, and power. That’s not about restricting creativity; it’s about recognizing the cultural weight of these choices and being intentional about them. Representation isn’t just about casting—it’s about storytelling. If the only way we can imagine diversity in blockbuster films is by slotting actors of color into roles that unintentionally prop up harmful narratives, that’s a failure of imagination, not progress.
This is a pretty reductive take. Of course Black people can play villains. You have to take the themes and cultural narratives that a given cultural product reinforces into context.
While it is not the current views, it is interesting that most, if not all of the ethnicities of the main actors and/or characters would be considered 'non-white' or 2nd class citizens by the rationale of the turn of the previous century. I suppose Maximus from the original would be an exception, as he was a Spaniard. Is it better or worse that the primary black character in the sequel has been elevated to that of the villain, rather than relegated to the sidekick, like Djimon Hounsou's character in the original?
As to the Pauls', I'm pretty sure Jake would have tried to fight Rocky if he were a non-fictional character. And scumbag grifters knows no bounds beyond that of the divide between con artist and the ones being conned.
Liv Agar
Sounds like y’all were *Not Entertained*
if anyone would prefer a different pale Irish dude from the same town as Paul to root for I'm right here btw ✌️
I don’t think it’s fair to place all of the moral/psychological responsibility of upending white supremacy onto any one individual creative production, especially not a mindless blockbuster film.
I don’t believe anyone except sickos are buying tickets to Gladiator 2 to explore/reaffirm their perceptions of hierarchy or cultural exceptionalism.
Imagine you’re performing with a mixed race improv group, and you’re touring America. Would you restrict the black actors from portraying villains, due to fear that the imagery might nebulously reaffirm white supremacy? Would you restrict them in certain scenes, like ones involving Roman politics?
I’m not trying to straw-man your arguments, and I know improv is very different than film. But I think my explain explains how your piece is also advocating for personal creative restrictions, which would also affect black creative professionals. I mean, Denzel is extremely good at playing villains, and your biggest critique is the negative racial imagery of Denzel’s villain being slain by Mezcal. So would it be better if the heroes and villains were all white? Or would you suggest that Denzel can only play the hero? And how would that benefit the future of diversity in blockbuster castings?
Thanks for engaging with the piece—there’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s take it step by step!
First, I’m not arguing that Gladiator 2 (or any one film) carries the entire moral and psychological burden of dismantling white supremacy. That would be absurd. What I’m pointing out is that media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Films, especially big-budget blockbusters, reflect and shape cultural norms in ways that often go unnoticed precisely because we dismiss them as “mindless entertainment.” It’s less about intent (what the filmmakers or audience consciously aim to do) and more about effect—the subtle ways in which imagery reinforces or challenges dominant ideologies.
Second, the idea that “only sickos” would consciously buy tickets to explore racial hierarchies misses the point. The vast majority of people absorb cultural narratives subconsciously. Audiences don’t sit down thinking, “Ah, yes, I’m here to reaffirm my belief in cultural exceptionalism!” But a story where the noble white hero overcomes a villain coded with racial or cultural markers of the “Other” still reinforces those hierarchies, whether anyone notices or not. That’s the whole point of why these dynamics matter—they work below the level of conscious awareness.
Now, let’s talk about the improv hypothetical. Restricting actors of color from playing villains isn’t the solution I’m advocating, and frankly, it feels like a bit of a leap to suggest my critique is calling for that. The issue isn’t that Denzel is playing a villain—it’s how the story frames his villainy and the imagery it invokes. It’s about context and power dynamics: how does the narrative treat his character? What symbolism is baked into his defeat? What broader narratives are being reinforced by those creative choices?
The problem isn’t that Denzel can’t play a villain—it’s that in certain contexts, his villainy can be coded in ways that play into long-standing tropes about race, hierarchy, and power. That’s not about restricting creativity; it’s about recognizing the cultural weight of these choices and being intentional about them. Representation isn’t just about casting—it’s about storytelling. If the only way we can imagine diversity in blockbuster films is by slotting actors of color into roles that unintentionally prop up harmful narratives, that’s a failure of imagination, not progress.
This is a pretty reductive take. Of course Black people can play villains. You have to take the themes and cultural narratives that a given cultural product reinforces into context.
Nice job all !
While it is not the current views, it is interesting that most, if not all of the ethnicities of the main actors and/or characters would be considered 'non-white' or 2nd class citizens by the rationale of the turn of the previous century. I suppose Maximus from the original would be an exception, as he was a Spaniard. Is it better or worse that the primary black character in the sequel has been elevated to that of the villain, rather than relegated to the sidekick, like Djimon Hounsou's character in the original?
As to the Pauls', I'm pretty sure Jake would have tried to fight Rocky if he were a non-fictional character. And scumbag grifters knows no bounds beyond that of the divide between con artist and the ones being conned.
great read! thanks for the insight, Lolo and Liv!