-
Love it when mainstream speculative fiction packages up complex social and political ideas and stealth drops them into the thoughts of a wider audience.
-
Hate it when mainstream speculative fiction makes the payload too stealthy and accidentally(?) leaves it open to interpretation.
Folks have a kind of internal censor that beats us over the head with cognitive dissonance if an overt message is too contrary to our existing ideologies. But presenting that message in a highly fictionalised or figurative way can (often, sometimes) sneak it past the censor. It's a big part of why we appreciate sf, right? Especially more mainstream, or at least bigger budget stuff, because that's where leftie/inclusive/collectivist/radical metaphors are needed the most.
But then you get maintstream sf where there's a subtext that, to me at least, seems to be expressing some leftie/inclusive/collectivist/radical ideas, but it doesn't push them far enough, and leaves it open to interpretation, even contrary interpretations.
Especially in movies, TV and AAA games, where there a lot of hands in the writing. A generous assessment would be that the creators are themselves sneaking ideas past actual gatekeepers like network execs, or that they assume they're preaching to the choir and don't want to lay it on too thick. A less generous interpretation is that they have a goal or a mandate to stick to the middle ground, and appeal to "both sides" and let them interpret it as they like. Unlike books and/or smaller scale projects were things are allowed to be more niche.
OK, here's an example... I remember a tweet or something that did the rounds a while back where the OP gave their assessment of which Star Trek series were left-wing and which were right-wing, and people were either clowning, roasting or debating it. They thought DS9, (DS9!!!) was the most right-wing. Like... my brother in Kahless, were you even watching the same show? But then Star Trek can be a bit wishy-washy sometimes. I love it, but while it sometimes wears its FALC on its sleeve (ok, maybe more like FAL[AS] or something)... it also sometimes just does not engage with critical political thought at all and has characters do Very Bad Things without exploring why. I guess it depends a lot on the writers, directors and producers of specific series and episodes. Series 3 of Discovery came very close to the Big Bad just being actual mundane capitalism, represented by a leader who was just trying to govern a people within a system, but she ended up being an evil supervillain instead and the political situation was almost circumstantial.
Or the other example, the one that was in my head and made me write this, is that I just finished the game Jedi: Survivor, and I won't spoil it, but it left me feeling like I understood how the outcome of the story was positive, but I wished that it had done more to explain it to the audience, so that it felt more like a revolutionary manouvre against a system of oppression and the people warped by it (which Andor pulls off wonderfully), and less like a personal revenge fantasy. It felt like it could have said more, but just ...didn't.
I could mention some fantasy examples too, like how LotR, and Rings of Power, both of which I also love, go a little way to say "maybe the devine right of kings is not always good?" ...but not nearly far enough. Or "maybe systemic gender bias is bad sometimes?" ...but not nearly far enough. Or "maybe enemy combatants are people trapped inside systems of oppression and violence, and thinking of them as monsters is a bit of an issue?" ... but not even close! I really think that most the criticisms against Tolkien and various LotR versions and spin-offs are reasonable critique, but also the reason for a lot of it is not that Tolkien was too much of a conservative catholic to say anything radical, but rather that he did have some ideas that were a bit radical, but they were expressed as very, very weak sauce.
Anyway, I'd watch more Andor.