Thursday, 24 August 2023

The Misplaced Creativity of Modern Representation

The Misplaced Creativity of Modern Representation


In today’s era of cultural consciousness, inclusivity and representation have become buzzwords dominating conversations around media and storytelling. However, what is often presented as progressive inclusivity in mainstream media frequently feels shallow, commercialized, and ultimately a disservice to the very communities it claims to uplift. The trend of reimagining established fictional characters—such as casting an African actress as Ariel in The Little Mermaid or a Hispanic actress as Snow White—highlights a troubling pattern where marketability is prioritized over genuine creativity or cultural authenticity. 

Inclusivity vs. Commercial Strategy 

True inclusivity stems from celebrating diverse identities and narratives, but when representation is reduced to altering existing characters to fit a diversity agenda, it raises questions about intent. Are these choices made to reflect society’s evolving values, or are they calculated moves to capitalize on a growing demand for inclusivity? 

The reality often leans toward the latter. Recasting characters like Ariel or Snow White might generate buzz and controversy, but it seldom results in a meaningful connection with the audiences these changes are meant to represent. Instead of taking the risk to create original stories that authentically showcase underrepresented cultures, studios lean on familiar properties to ensure commercial success. The result is a brand of inclusivity that feels more like tokenism than true representation. 

A Shortcut to Representation 

Reimagining existing characters is not inherently problematic, but when it becomes the default approach to representation, it risks diminishing the value of diversity. By retrofitting characters into narratives where they lack cultural resonance, creators inadvertently suggest that underrepresented groups need to inhabit pre-existing roles to gain recognition, rather than being celebrated for their unique stories. 

For example, casting an African actress as Ariel or a Hispanic actress as Snow White does little to elevate African or European cultural narratives. Instead of exploring myths like Mami Wata—a richly symbolic water spirit in African folklore—creators opt to rework a European fairy tale, placing diversity in a context where it feels out of place, or instead of reimagining Snow White as Hispanic, why not adapt captivating Hispanic folklore such as La Llorona or El Sombrerón? This not only distorts the original story but also fails to provide authentic representation for the community being showcased. 

The Problem of Misplaced Authenticity 

Take the 2010 remake of The Karate Kid as another example of this misplaced creativity. Despite being set in China and focusing on Kung Fu, the movie retained its original title, The Karate Kid, a nod to the brand recognition of the 1984 classic. While the film succeeded commercially, its title raised questions about cultural accuracy. Was the decision to call it The Karate Kid a genuine tribute to the original, or was it simply a marketing move to attract nostalgic audiences? 

This kind of decision-making undermines authenticity and perpetuates confusion about cultural nuances. It demonstrates how creators prioritize marketability over the integrity of the narratives they present. If studios cannot commit to fully adapting stories to reflect their new contexts, how can they expect audiences to take these representations seriously? 

A Question of Creative Depth 

Representation becomes even more problematic when it begins to distort the essence of the stories themselves. Critics of reimagined adaptations might point to potential inconsistencies, such as questioning whether Frozen would still make sense if set in Greenland or the Himalayas instead of Scandinavia. Supporters may argue that these are just fictional stories, and producers have the “creative license” to reinterpret them as they wish. 

But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While fiction allows for flexibility, it does not absolve creators from respecting the cultural and historical significance of the stories they adapt. By neglecting authenticity, creators risk alienating audiences who recognize these distortions as shallow attempts to pander to modern sensibilities rather than genuine efforts to celebrate diversity. 

Inclusivity Should Be Nurtured, Not Forced 

Forcing inclusivity into existing frameworks often comes across as artificial, and audiences can sense when representation is more about optics than substance. Inclusivity should be a natural byproduct of storytelling that values human diversity in all its forms. When creators prioritize authenticity, representation becomes an organic and enriching aspect of the narrative, rather than a box to tick for marketing purposes. 

True representation also requires a willingness to take risks. It involves creating new stories, new characters, and new worlds that reflect the richness of human experience. By relying on established intellectual properties to achieve diversity, creators miss the opportunity to introduce audiences to the untapped wealth of global cultures and perspectives. 

The Responsible Approach to Cultural Appropriation 

Cultural appropriation is another layer to this discussion. While often criticized, not all forms of appropriation are inherently negative. When done responsibly, cultural borrowing can foster cross-cultural understanding and appreciation. The key lies in intention and execution. 

Appropriation becomes problematic when it reduces cultural elements to mere aesthetics, stripping them of their deeper meanings. For example, many traditional practices or symbols have been commodified for tourist markets, creating distorted representations that cater to outsiders’ expectations rather than honoring the culture itself. 

Responsible appropriation requires a deep understanding and respect for the culture being borrowed from. It involves collaboration with cultural representatives and a commitment to preserving the authenticity and significance of what is being shared. Without this responsibility, cultural borrowing risks perpetuating stereotypes or trivializing the traditions it seeks to highlight. 

A Better Path Forward 

To truly embrace diversity, creators must move beyond the safety of established brands. The world is full of untold stories, myths, and characters waiting to be brought to life. Rather than relying on retrofitted narratives, creators should focus on crafting original works that celebrate the unique beauty of different cultures. 

Consider how much richer the storytelling landscape would be if filmmakers explored African water deities like Mami Wata, Southeast Asian folklore like the Aswang, or Indigenous American legends like the Thunderbird. These narratives would not only provide authentic representation but also offer audiences something fresh and innovative. 

Representation should not be about visibility alone; it should empower underrepresented communities by giving them the platform to tell their own stories. By embracing originality and authenticity, creators can create narratives that resonate with diverse audiences while honoring the cultures they depict. 

Conclusion: Creativity Over Marketability 

The misplaced creativity of modern representation often prioritizes marketability over meaningful storytelling. While well-intentioned, the trend of reimagining existing characters as a means of achieving diversity often feels hollow and performative. 

True inclusivity demands more than casting decisions; it requires a commitment to authenticity, originality, and respect for the cultures being represented. By moving away from recycled narratives and investing in fresh, culturally rich stories, creators can foster a deeper appreciation for the diversity of the human experience. 

Representation is not about forcing diversity into pre-existing molds. It is about creating space for new voices, new ideas, and new stories that celebrate the richness of our shared humanity. In doing so, we can move beyond tokenism and build a storytelling tradition that is as inclusive as it is creative. 

Sunday, 6 August 2023

They’re still clinging to that “fundless” fund whatever it takes

They’re still clinging to that “fundless” fund whatever it takes


This note wouldn’t be surprised that as the current administration continues to cling to this fundless fund of theirs that this may also serve as a biggest source of corruption in the country’s history. By having it not open to public scrutiny, both the final text of the law as well as the operations and investment decisions of the officers involved in this “sovereign wealth fund” will always raise concerns especially over conflicting provisions and potential legal and constitutional issues.

How come? Other than it is signed by the current administration prone to corruption and crony capitalism, the Maharlika Investment Fund, being “fundless” and “shouldered by loans”, has to depend on funds from state-owned banks and corporations despite the fact these agencies having limited funds for its intended clients to begin with. 

In an instance, the Philippine Chamber of Agriculture and Food Inc. worried as while Development Bank of the Philippines and the Land Bank of the Philippines have limited access to its intended clients, will contribute to the fund itself- and that interprets as directing funds away from agriculture and other important needs. 

Even the Church, the academe, and Civil Society expressed disapproval on the controversial fund and suggested that whatever funds are to be allotted to it would better serve Filipinos by strengthening existing poverty alleviation programs of the government. 

There are other groups that also expressed concern  in that sovereign wealth fund Marcos and his circle bragged about, as businessmen and economists still find the newly-passed law as having a “lack of clear focus” if not questioning its intentions, particularly its target to finance development projects, saying it may “render redundant” existing government programs; if not seeing “vague” about expected financial and economic returns.

To cut this thought short, seeing that controversial law being signed by the president shows that the administration doesn’t mind about the sovereign while claiming that the fund is meant for “them”. The funds meant to invest in that entity will always be coming from the working public, and really concerning that these might go to waste if mismanaged. Is the Santiago principles enough to prove that the sovereign wealth fund be managed properly? Not even, especially when people, the very sovereign who’s worried about their taxes and savings as sources of funds, wanted sound good governance and development strategies as well as having people’s participation and support- and these are seemingly absent in this current situation. 
Apologists of the fund, however, may still cling to their thought that the fund meant chances of making the country not to depend on international loans, if not a panacea for the ever-yearning for “nationl development” - despite the fact that the fund itself also includes those from borrowings both local and abroad. Even the President’s certification of the bill as urgent despite the absence of a public emergency or calamity as countered by that of the recent pandemic and global events being necessitated for “urgent action” even with lack of surplus funds from the national budget nor having responsible managers to begin with.        

Again, as said in earlier writeups concerning this “fund”, that amid rising prices, low wages, acute joblessness, rural dislocation and economic dispossession, seeing the Marcos regime prioritizing their own interests as well as that of his cronies and their foreign partners as a mockery of the promises being said to the people the way it downplays the truth the country experiencing inflation as “not that high” if not failing to fulfill making 20 pesos for a kilo of rice.