The (Much Needed) Therapeutic Evolution of Media (Patreon)

*thank you to JigawattMcFly for the banner image! 

INTRO - IN WANT OF A TURTLE

Sometimes I wonder if we have it all wrong.

Well, not wrong per say, but essentially flawed. Like we’re missing some crucial element of understanding that would make movies more meaningful or effective. And a few months ago I saw a tweet that crystallized something I’ve been thinking about for years…

“i’d watch a movie that’s no conflict, just a few guys hanging out with a pet turtle or something”

- @RaxKingIsDead 

I think this tweet is capturing an instinct that’s becoming more and more popular. Both in terms of what consumers want and some of the shows that are being created (think of good hearted shows like Ted Lasso, Parks & Red, Bob’s Burgers, later seasons of Schitt’s Creek). But I feel like people are also missing a key part of how that “nice and light” media is actually functioning. Because it’s not that people actually want to see a two hour recreation of the conflict-less Teddy Bear Picnic or something (or maybe you do! Honestly, I’m more using this as a prompt to dive into the subject). And that’s because these pieces of “good vibes media” are not really about the absence of tension. It’s more about the steady relieving of tension throughout a film, often by deploying constant therapeutic solutions.

And it's fascinating to unpack why we often do the opposite…

1. ACTION PACKING

Warning: talking about movies is never simple, but this essay relies on a discussion of many complicated larger frameworks. It may seem a bit too macro, but they’re really important to understanding the central thrust of this argument.

Because first, we really have to understand why tension exists in the first place. The simple reason is that tension makes audiences more invested in what’s happening on screen. You like someone + they’re suddenly in danger = you instinctively going “oh no!” and then rooting for them to get out of said danger. And the better the storyteller is at creating that tension / the moment of relief that follows, the bigger the catharsis will be for the audience. Seriously. In hundreds and hundreds of years, this is basically the ONE THING we’ve really learned about how storytelling is most effective. Even those who don’t like super tense media still say “it’s too hard to watch!” and really that’s often just showcasing that they are SUPER affected by it.

But it’s important to understand that tension and conflict exist in every kind of storytelling, just with different modes of relieving that tension. In an action film, you hold tension then have the bad get punched out. In a horror / slasher, you hold tension then have a killer catch his prey with a gnarly kill. In a comedy, you hold tension then give a funny, unexpected result. In a dramatic journey, you hold tension and then create meaningful catharsis. In a tragedy, you hold tension and then watch the character implode as a result of their ability to change. Heck, sometimes tension exists when you *think* something bad could happen, but it ends up being fine. Yes, these are all simplifications, but they speak to the core instinct of what audiences want in terms of the catharsis moments of those respective genres. And with most of those stories, you are taught to hold the tension as long as possible and drive it into as many aspects of the film as you can. And sure, it makes you more invested…

But we never thought about the real consequences.

For instance, there’s been a lot written about the problematic aspects of romantic comedies, but so much of that comes out of the way these movies were just trying to maximize tension. For instance there is the “they hate each other and grow to love each other!” trope or the belief that “opposites attract.” This was especially common of the screwball era where two people would basically be fucking horrible to each other and then give into lust to relieve that tension. The reason it works is because it gives the biggest arc / most catharsis to the problem created. They start so far away and come together. I admit, to this day I fucking love most of these movies, but I understand their aim of a heightened unreality. They’re often cut-throat funny and disconnected from normal behavior. But there’s no denying an obvious, horrible lesson that’s being taught. And you can draw a line from these films through time, right to the 80’s movie bully. The dude who, sure, makes a good villain, but is largely a projection of aggrieved nerds and their possessiveness over women. The truth is romantic comedies have, like, a 100 years of teaching us really, really bad lessons about love and relationships. Often because they were trying to maximize tension and rooting interests (from a very one sided place).

But it’s more than romantic comedies, too. Changing standards and practices allowed for general comedy to get more angsty and meaner, especially for the so-called “solutions” that came out of the tension. Action films gave rise to an onslaught of set pieces that require more danger and death than ever before. In horror, the rise of “torture porn” fostered stories that were basically two hours of turning the screws on a person’s pain in a way that almost too much to bear. In one way, all these developments are alluring because they maximized “the most intensity” of the media experience. But in another way, these tactics undermined their own intentions by not understanding that all that tension has to build to SOME kind of meaningful catharsis. Which gives way to the push / pull that really gets down into the DNA of what media itself is really “for.”

And what is it for, anyway? Why do we seek it out?

The obvious answer is escapism. You have a long day, you want relief. You want to laugh or scream or emote. Basically, you want a good or thrilling time that makes you feel some bigger feelings outside of your own routine life. But within that, there’s two radically different forms of escapism: there’s self-suppression escapism and self-expansion escapism. With self-suppression escapism you’re looking to not engage with the media on any thematic or soul-affecting level. In fact, you are actively choosing to shut off your engagement on a deeper level. The obvious problem with this is it often makes you twice as susceptible to the messaging within said media. And therefore it often makes you seek out media that caters to your own pre-existing forms of toxicity. Most importantly of all, it makes you deny the ways these pieces are really affecting you. Which is why those say “just turn your brain off!” or that they “don’t want politics in video games!” and often the ones playing most propaganda-laden jingoistic games imaginable. Really, they don’t want to turn their brains off at all. They just want to remain unchallenged. Which is just one of many reasons why self-suppression escapism can be such a troubling thing.

Meanwhile, self-expansion escapism is critical to the function of life.

I know some people roll their eyes at this, but the idea of stories / media on the whole are essentially to “prepare you” for life. Really. From Aesop’s fables, to Shakespeare’s plays, to even the most modern of abstract art films, we watch media that is directly engaging with lessons of life. The truth is that much of the eye rolling comes from the fact that people are confusing “being didactic” with “having a point’ or even offering some kind of insight. No one wants to be didactic, that’s why we put these stories into dramatized form (I mean, if even someone as abstract as Tarkovsky is saying that art is about preparing people for life in Sculpting In Time, then maybe it’s an idea worth getting on board with). In fact, I argue most people instinctively understand this, which is exactly why so many teenagers watch media in an aspirational sense. They watch a drama to “experience” loss and death. They watch war films to feel like they’ve gone to war. They romantic comedy or melodrama and want something to learn about love. They watch sex comedies to feel like they’ve had sex.

Spielberg and Lucas said that thing that’s often been true that kids most gravitate toward media where the kids are “5 Years Older” and it absolutely speaks to that aspirational sense. Even when people in their early / mid 20s, so much of what they consume is about putting their stake in some aspirational adulthood. But as they get older and experience those things, they want those things to reflect their own experiences and feel true to the way it's been for them (which is why opinions change with time). And within all that, they want catharsis through the act of watching. But this means there can often be two different groups: 1) those watching the media aspirationally and 2) those watching from a place of experience. Which, again, is why it is critical to understand what we want from tension and conflict.

First off, the following is a HUGE generalization, but the people who tend to seek out / like the most fucked-up / intense cinematic experiences? Well, they tend to be white males who have not personally experienced those things. Again, a generalization, but I’m trying to highlight a dynamic. Because they often go to the movies to watch them in a place of safety and have the experience. It’s not that they’re utterly disconnected from the pain on screen, it’s that they’re going to want to have an experience that evokes their sympathy (which is often related to pity) or make them feel just about anything. Keep in mind, this is exactly why so many stories about gay romance stories made by straight people end in tragedy. Because it’s not about giving solace to those who have actually had the experience and telling them “you deserve a life that’s not tragedy,” it’s about making straight people feel bad and maximizing the drama of their experience. There’s obviously a critical difference here.

Because the people who have experienced those things on screen are thus intensely more sensitive to the depictions (especially the ways that the conflict is often maximized). Now this comes with the admission that 10 years ago I was the kind of idiot who used to slightly worry that content warnings were “spoilery” and ugh ugh ugh. IDIOT. But now I hate when people bristle at content warnings. Because it really can be harrowing in a completely different way than people understand. No, it’s not about growing more conservative or not wanting to avoid subject matter. In fact, engaging that subject matter can be cathartic! Some “fucked-up / intense cinematic experiences” can be incredibly validating! (which is why that white male generalization I made above is so reductive, sometimes it’s the damn opposite). It’s just about being prepared to go into that space and avoiding being caught off guard by a triggering moment. And the very importance of reaching this audience is NOT that it’s an aspirational projection. It’s that they can speak not only to the veracity of the depiction, but speak to whether or not the media experience is actually crafted for their supposed benefit.

This understanding matters so much because as a society, we’re becoming more acutely aware of both the grander forms of trauma that exist in society and our own personal experiences with it. The audience is absolutely 100% shifting in this regard. The “aspirational pain” audience is shrinking. The “from experience” audience is growing and gaining more of a voice (not to mention the endless forms of intersections of identity that play into this). But no, the whole “being in want of the turtle,” isn’t about seeking conflict-less good vibes, it’s about the specificity of language that’s employed in the dramatic action on screen. It’s about sensitivity and insight.

Really, it’s all about therapeutic language.

2. UNPACKING ACTION

From the start, I want to be clear about a few things: 1) Finally going to therapy saved my life and I will speak its good graces until eternity. 2) While it’s such a great resource for dealing with mental health, like so many aspects of society, it deals with problematic intersections of class / race and doesn’t prepare one for (or even really understand) many important sociological developments that one needs to navigate in the modern world. And 3) Therapy is not some magic cure all, nor a shield. It takes doing the work outside of therapy to actually enact ideological lessons into practice.

It’s really that last part that best characterizes the importance of “therapeutic solutions” in drama. Because it’s not about saying all the right therapy-sounding lines or literally putting characters through therapy (though if you’re looking for a stalwart example, My Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is the one of the best things ever made). It’s about the way you approach / deal with the conflict itself. As we covered above, traditionally our media uses funny or over the top ways to end a given conflict in a conflict. Often it gets worse! And sometimes the only real “resolution” to an entire movie is that the fighting is over and we get a button of “eh, it’s fine now!” Of course, there are much more therapeutic ways of dealing with that conflict.

I first started thinking a lot about this way back with Mike Leigh’s 2008 film Happy Go Lucky, specifically how much it flies in the face of romantic comedies. It’s not doing this in a meta way, nor is it calling out tropes. Instead, it is a very simple slice of life story in the tradition of his other films (and he’s probably my favorite director). But the expectations of “romance in movies” still hangs over the piece, as they do all films, really. Everyone tells her Poppy she’s too trusting and too silly. Her driving teacher often chastises her loose and goofy approach. But you also catch these little bits of how he actually likes her, like when he glances at her legs or is caught staring at her from across the street. In another film, this would be “awww, he likes her! He’s just another misunderstood, socially awkward guy who needs the love of an understanding woman to change him” You’ve seen it so many times before.

But instead of catering to the trope, these behaviors get dramatized realistically. Because the driving teacher can’t process the conflict of his attraction / disdain for her. So he lashes out at her in those familiar and oh so possessive ways. And she rightfully confronts him about how he needs to get help. We see the way she employs therapeutic solutions for both for him and a student having trouble in her classroom. Speaking of which, she ends up dating this incredibly handsome social worker who helps her with the student. He would be “the villain” in classical romantic comedies, but instead he’s also well-adjusted and grounded in empathy. It’s one of those things that helps you realize how often these stories are written from “the driving teacher” perspective. The truth is that Leigh never lets those gross tropes appear because they get in the way of the more important truth of these behaviors. But Poppy is indelible in her positivity, which is what rubs off on so many people around her. And please notice the way he is utterly acknowledging some ugly tensions of the real world, but in doing so it helps Leigh makes such a beautiful, understated, and life-affirming film.

But perhaps this “therapeutic solutions” thing is more evident in a film like Magic Mike XXL, itself a sequel to Magic Mike. Now, the original film is certainly good, for it capitalizes on Channing Tatum’s charisma and hot ass dancing, but it’s a bit more about diving into the dire and seedy world of its story. But the second film is a damn revelation. It takes that male stripping world and instead tells the story as a rambling odyssey into society’s need for a more sensitive understanding of / honoring the larger spectrum of sexuality. One of exemplary lessons about being comfortable in different intersections of society, being good guests, taking responsibility, and ultimately disarm toxic masculinity itself. In a scene where two characters have to hash out a conflict from the past, Mike yells for him to “punch me!” And after goading him enough times, the friend finally does. “Feel better?” / “No man, no.” They pull back and then finally talk about it, realizing that using a simple “anger release” is a toxic solution to something that needs a different, more therapeutic solution.

There are so, so many moments like this in the film. There are so many moments of showing the way that sexuality and friendship can be sweet and supportive and most of all, understanding that what they do is not about their sexuality, but the giving nature and making women smile / have a good time (my god, the convenience store scene). Upon watching it, one woman I know simply said “I’ve never seen my wants so completely reflected on screen.” Similarly to Happy Go Lucky, so much of the would-be tension of this film is meta. Meaning there could be all these horrific choices, all these ways it could go wrong, instead every time an issue comes up, the film just immediately hits you with solution, solution, solution. Even a crack about another group’s Twilight routine is met with an understanding response of all the girls who grew up with it simply being older. What’s amazing, though, is how much you can see the division between the audiences. The movie got panned! It’s not even an aspirational thing, because it’s a very fantasy-driven movie. It’s more that you can see the divisions of “who it’s for” so damn clearly and there are so, so, so many straight dudes or other people who don’t speak the therapeutic sexual language of the film. But it’s a movie I love so, so much and there so many that feel the same way.

But notice how much both these films highlight a new dramatic tact. Rather than let the conflict pile up in a way that gets worse, it is essentially constantly solving conflicts and throwing up new ones, which not only allows them to cover more issues on the whole, it allows them to get stronger as a unit, bringing more and more people into the fold of that positivity

Perhaps the best example of this approach is Ted Lasso.

First, a quick note! When I know people involved in productions 29 times out of 30 I don’t write about it - but if I really feel compelled for some reason or another (usually because it ties into some grander idea I think is important to talk about), I just make a note that I know people involved. So this is me making a note that I know people involved in the making of this show. So, yeah, the fact I think Ted Lasso is completely amazing is probably biased as hell. But given that so many other people also think it’s amazing, I think we’re safe in talking about the WHY and HOW it’s so amazing, because I actually think a key aspect is being missed.

Now, I could have talked about this last section, but there’s this famous notion that “sitcoms are about purgatory.” A lot of this comes out of the fact that these shows would run for years and years and years with 22 episode orders and it meant that people wanted to tune in for the same basic experience again and again. It had to be okay that someone missed an episode (believe it or not, heavy watchers often saw 11 episodes). But this means a character would often have to be stuck in the same place again and again. It created a formula. They would want something, try to reach up for it, some fatal flaw would allow them to fail, and they’d come back down to the status quo (or learned some SMALL lesson that may have created incremental change, but nothing giant). Meaning people were literally trapped in stasis.

And yes 1) there’s something human about this in that Sisyphian sense, but 2) it’s not exact therapeutic is it? Heck, it’s not even the lack of solutions, it’s how it makes the viewer feel. It creates a position of superiority where you are looking down at these faulty puny humans with their foibles and laughing at them. It works, but it ain’t therapeutic. Luckily, my favorite thing about modern sitcoms is how much that dynamic started to change. So much of it honestly was honestly due to the relationship developments of Friends (I remember articles comparing it to Soap Opera!), but further emboldened by shows like Community and Parks and Rec. Suddenly sitcoms were allowing for real growth, better group dynamics, and more humane solutions.

Which brings us back to Ted Lasso! Because people talk so much about the film’s optimism, and positivity empathy of the character, but often misses the surgical way the show deploys empathy. Because Ted Lasso innately understands that “being nice” isn’t enough. For all his upbeat attitude, he’s never in denial about the reality around him. Notice how often he’s actually trying to get into the heart of problems and what’s really bothering people. Especially in that now renowned “be curious, not judgmental” scene when they play darts. Or in the way he slowly gets through the rough exterior of his aging captain (I love the way that character is written, btw. He’s all-time grump, not a malicious asshole, and there’s a crucial difference). It’s the kind of show that understands it’s okay to be ignorant, as long as you are aware of that and ask questions. It’s the kind of show that accepts changes in social politics and displays sensitivity (like the American Imperialism line). And in a lot of those depictions, it not only lets Ted have moments of anger, but scenes that really allow you to get the full gamut of emotional experiences, including the most accurate version of panic attack I’ve seen (personally speaking, of course, it’s always different for everyone). It shows us pathways to disarming so much toxicity, while still utterly being “a masculine show” in its own right. Which is probably why it makes sense that about the inception of the show was so much about offering a masculine alternative to the utter toxicity of Trump.  But you can’t truly do it unless you are showing a better path forward.

Please note that the ultimate lesson of these examples is not that tension or conflict should be removed. In Ted Lasso, the team faces relegation, meaningful wins and losses, and harsh consequences. In MAGIC MIKE XXL, the inciting incident is a metaphorical  “funeral” this idea of them all saying goodbye to something / each other hangs over every moment and they worry they won’t make their goodbye destination. In Happy Go Lucky, you fret that the world will make her more cynical (just like us). The idea here is that not only that tension can be different than you expect, but still employed in a classic sense and still keep the intention of the good-hearted nature.

The PADDINGTON films are probably the perfect examples of this push / pull dynamic. Because as “feel good” as they are, they are full of genuine threats and dire conflict. Paddington often feels isolated and scared, he gets in serious trouble and is even thrown in jail! Hell, twice now I was convinced (in the moment) that Paddington was going to fucking die. The actual conflict of these films is immense. But what makes it “feel so nice” is not only the ultimate ways that it disarms those conflicts (through marmalade and manners), but the way he so often deals with those conflicts in stride. It’s in the way that no matter how many things seem dire, Paddington remains kind and giving. And it’s not the fact that he’s in jail, but the simpler stakes of how he won’t be able to give his aunt a birthday present she deserves (I mean I write that and it makes me cry). Paddington may be a little ignorant sometimes, but he isn’t in denial about this. He’s open hearted and sensitive and worries about those he loves. He even knows when to lay down boundaries when appropriate (less you receive a hard stare!). There is a full, humane roundness at the center of these films. And that roundness is more about sensitivity than feel good vibes.

But now, given the fact we understand that there is push / pull of conflict even within this sensitive material, it still doesn’t answer a deeper question. What are people really asking for when they say they want more of one kind of entertainment over another? Do people even really just want one kind? Aren’t there different routes to therapeutic catharsis? What is this all about anyway?

Well, it once again pulls us right into another critical framework at the heart of our ongoing movie discussions…

3. PACKING, SHMACKING. WHAT DO YOU WANT?

It’s amazing how much of our media appraisal comes down to that simple question. But I don’t mean “what do you want?” in terms of a film's style, genre, or vibe. I mean that in a given film 1) what you want in terms of catharsis? And 2) What do you want in terms of method of delivering that catharsis?

I’m actually going to start on the second question of methodology first, which is best served by an example. Now, at this point you know that I’m someone who talks on and on and on about story construction. But I do this because it’s both the element that I think creates the most thematic resonance with a viewer and also, quite honestly, it’s the arena I just happen to know best. I mean, it’s my literal vocation, but it’s also what I personally value. So of course it’s the way I come at so much of my media consumption. But I was talking once with my friend who is an editor and we started talking about a very non-therapeutic movie: Uncut Gems.

To be clear from the start, there’s a lot I like about the movie, but he was way more positive on the overall film. So I started doing my usual thing where I was talking about script level decisions, clarity of motivations for tension (especially in one big moment), and ultimate thematic points. And I’m paraphrasing, but he was like “yeah, sure, but it’s about what they do with that.” Because here is someone coming from a completely different tact. He’s been in the editorial department on so many high-profile projects and no matter what the intention of the film was, the editors’ job is “here is all the footage, great, how do we turn it into the best thing possible from this alone?”

And with Uncut Gems there are so many ways that it manufactures tension in the direction and the edit itself. Constant interruptions, kinetic scores, and grating soundscapes. But here I was saying “these things are manufactured afterwards!” and he’s like, “right! But they’re still manufactured through the construction of film itself and thus still in the end result. Is that not sound, effective filmmaking?” And he’s fucking right. The end result, and the way society responded to the film, speaks for itself. It’s so easy for me to wish they nailed on the page and focus on that, but I can’t deny the competency of that other approach. So in the end, we just have two different approaches to the same aim. That would be two methodologies of delivery that, for the audience, can often make for no real difference in terms of effect. And often when people argue about the choices a film makes, it’s often  these kinds of frames of reference that inform so much of our response. But, really, it goes deeper than that. It goes right down into the first question…

What kind of catharsis do you want?

Let’s use another example from a non-therapeutic movie, because I still think about this one interaction I had years and years ago with a reader over Wolf of Wall Street. Basically, they couldn’t believe that I liked the movie because they found it to be completely amoral. Whereas I did not. I thought it was pretty clearly about the amorality of financial society and the various ways that it is so seductive to people. Now, this kind of conversation happens around Scorsese a lot and it’s understandable why. Not just because he uses a lot of irony and brazen depictions, but because he’s honest about the way the worlds of gangsters, cons, and sharks ARE seductive. I mean, society fixates on those figures for a reason. And he doesn’t admonish, he just opens up the file on the allure. But critically, Scorsese also never pulls a punch in those depictions either. He shows the dark side, all the ways those seductive elements spin out and always lands the moral button with aplomb. I mean, Wolf of Wall Street directly points at our own complicity and the way society slaps white collar criminals on the wrist, all while having gall to be honest about why people fall for the allure of this (and continue to do so). Same or the incredible last 40 minutes of The Irishman where all the sad consequences of his ramble into an empty life alone. They almost rely on a kind of pointed anti-catharsis that is less about “punishing” and more about hollowing the seductiveness out.

Now, there is a very real conversation to have about the lines of depiction / endorsement and how effective these movies are in their criticism and it’s more than fair to argue about this with his work (and I’ll come back to that). But while that was a part of this particular discussion, that’s not exactly what was happening at its center. Because in all of our discussion there was this revealing detail that I think showed the real problem of our division. He talked about the moment where Kyle Chandler’s character sits on the subway and he was so incensed that Kyle’s character was sad and that we should “put a slight smile on the guy’s face” because it would help the fight not seem hopeless to the audience. I honestly get the instinct. But of course, that’s not actually how it is for this character. The entire point is that the work Chandler does *is* thankless and unappreciated. Putting a smile on his face completely betrays the crippling reality of his plight. In other words, trying to paint a portrait of why white collar criminality persists, this reader outright wanted the film to be dishonest. So forget the notion of “hopeless.” What he really wanted was a visible catharsis to happen on screen so he (or the audience at large) could feel better. And I see this happen all the time with media. Because there are so, so many people who want their stories to punish characters…

… So we don’t have to.

I realize I may be projecting here, but I’m trying to get us to ask questions about our own collective motivations. For so many viewers it isn’t really about the morality of the given piece of media, it’s about the feelings of being unsettled and thus wanting a more placating form of catharsis in the delivery of the message. But so much of therapeutic understanding is about accepting the push / pull between safety and facing uncomfortable truths, especially about yourself. Because that moment on the subway? It stuck with me so long after, as did the film’s final image of “an audience watching an audience,” a stark indicator of our own complicity. It highlights the way a catharsis so often isn’t a smile, but a reflection. A catharsis it can be a dark moment, too. Something harrowing, strange, or even, yes, jet black and funny, too (The Sopranos was so good at this). A film like Midsommar can be just as therapeutically cathartic as a show like Ted Lasso, just in a different way. But both paths are critical to different kinds of essential release.

When it comes to the media we consume, we have to understand there is always going to be a push / pull of both methodology and catharsis. Whether maximizing conflict or exhibiting therapeutic solutions, the “what we want” is always going to be complicated. But it’s important to realize that this has been true since the beginning. A dark approach can be enlightening, but it can also just be bullshit masochism, or full of aspirational terror. Likewise, a light approach can be rather healing, but it can also be dishonest in the way it avoids a critical conflict all together. Which is why all effective approaches to storytelling are really about “unveiling an actuality” (a term Patton Oswalt used a long time ago that I still love).

What we’re really talking about with “therapeutic media” is simply about getting better at unveiling actualities across the spectrum and all the new understandings our society is finally starting to embrace. It’s an evolution of sensitivity to both the point of stories being told and how we tell them. Sure, Scorsese isn’t going to pull a punch. But I admit in this environment there are whole people who are a bit tired of all the punching. And that maybe a media diet full of incredibly tense conflict and ironic catharsis cannot have enough of the other kind of storytelling we really need. Likewise, I want us to acknowledge that all the good heartedness and nice vibes aren’t going to be meaningful unless the same story actually knows how to disarm conflict / bad vibes and has something to say about it.

So, sure, you can hang out with the turtle, but why is it meaningful to hang out with the turtle? In asking that you realize the reason you asked the question is the answer itself: hanging out with the turtle is a respite to conflict. But that yearning also reveals a deeper importance within the larger trends…

It’s not that we have it all wrong.

It’s that we’re looking at the landscape of media and saying “we need more of the turtle.” That would be the kind of media that understands the depths of existing traumas in our space and realizes maybe we don’t need so much aspirationally traumatic media to teach lessons. Maybe we need media that instead looks at the tropes of yesteryear and says “we want healthier solutions.” There’s a way this makes almost too much sense. Because so often I’ve argued that a positive character arc is really just going from what you want to what you need.

Maybe this shift is what we really need.

<3HULK