![]() ![]() It doesn’t account at all for how the industry has, since the dawn of big studios, tanked careers for petty, close-minded, censorious, or simply capitalistic reasons. The concept of “cancelation” implies a mob of mostly non-celebrities whose takes are hot enough to tear down a career. Whatever you think about the tenability of cancel culture as a concept, the oddest part about Glover’s apparent theory is who it goes easiest on: the corporations that are increasingly monopolizing the film and television industries. ![]() In fact, Chappelle canceled himself (in the functional, television sense) back in the day, and staged his own long-awaited return in the thick of what he would himself surely deem “cancel culture” with a flourish of transphobic jokes. ( Master of None is about to premiere its third season on Netflix.) As for people whose work itself has offended, the sort of folks Glover seems to be chiefly concerned about: Dave Chappelle, to name a recent example, is still beloved and highly sought after. “Canceled” men with less serious marks against them, like Aziz Ansari, have returned to the spotlight-more out of an ability to read the room, it appears, than some outer mandate. But both have denied the full extent of the allegations against them, and it’s not unreasonable to believe that each will eventually stage returns. True, a few stars accused of abuse or misconduct have recently “parted ways” with or been altogether dropped by their agencies, like Shia LaBeouf and Armie Hammer. For the record, I think Glover is talking about that sort of cancel culture, since he also mentions movies-which obviously cannot (literally) be canceled by studios once they’ve been released to the public. Maybe close friends will stop answering your texts. But the internet seems less focused on the idea of lackluster entertainment, and more generally confused about what Glover meant by the word “canceled.” Is he saying that creators are worried about having their TV series canceled by a network? Or did he mean “canceled” as in “cancel culture,” a slippery term usually taken to mean a lot of people being vocally upset with you online? Perhaps the latter sort of cancellation also means enduring critics who write searing takes about your work and/or actions. My colleague Sonia Saraiya wrote about this last fall, offering a different theory for why such a conundrum exists. Glover isn’t wrong to point out how much uninspiring work is out there. It’s the only place you can be anonymous.This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from. I just would get hurt." Now, he prefers to use the internet in an anonymous way, free of the "Donald Glover" name. In a recent interview with Esquire, Glover further explained, "I realized that connection was too powerful for a person like me. All we’re here to do is survive and procreate, pass on our information." ![]() Hearing this, Robinson challenges Glover and asks, "So you know better but you’re keeping the truth quiet-doesn’t that make you complicit?" Glover responds, "A coward, you mean? No, it makes me human. When Robinson asks Glover why he doesn't tell people that, he responds, "Because they would kill this ni**a!" Then he adds, "Those corporations don’t want anyone to stop the money train." In a new interview with The New Yorker, writer Tad Friend tells a story about watching Glover discuss social media with Atlanta writer Stefani Robinson. Friend says Glover calls the internet "horrible in every way" and explains, "I felt like social media was making me less human, and I already didn’t feel that human." He's been absent from social media since late 2014, but longtime fans remember a time when he used to be very active and share deeply personal messages. Donald Glover's Twitter page is blank and he never personally posts on any of his other accounts. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |