Zemeckis “The Witches” Adaptation (Hathaway)

[jmc]

Honestly, the more these idiots in Hollywood keep cowering to the mob the more they paint themselves into a corner. You will always offend somebody.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hathaway apologized too. Pretty wild.

Anne Hathaway showed basic human decency and empathy, something apparently way too many people lack. If you read her apology, she makes a very acute distinction that shows the difference between being a good person, and being garbage.

Anne Hathaway apologizes to the disability community for The Witches' harmful depiction

“I have recently learned that many people with limb differences, especially children, are in pain because of the portrayal of the Grand High Witch in The Witches,” Hathaway posted. “Let me begin by saying I do my best to be sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others not out of some scrambling PC fear, but because not hurting others seems like a basic level of decency we should all be striving for.” She went on to address the film’s target audience by apologizing to the children impacted by the controversy: “I particularly want to say I’m sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I’ll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I’m sorry I let your family down.”

How come Anne Hathaway or perhaps whoever wrote this first her, can get that basic human tenet, while some of the internet is a trash fire crying about PC culture and too much apologizing, in the face of even one child who might be upset about this? It's ****ing kids. What could you possibly be losing from people apologizing to kids who might feel bad about this? What is wrong with people? Those that sit and complain so much about what they say others complain about? They are a living, breathing oxymoron, whose seemingly only battle is with those they say only live to get upset on the internet. Which is exactly who they themselves are.

 

[Captain Tired]

Moral superiority is a helluva drug.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Moral superiority is a helluva drug.

We are all adults here right, let's have an adult conversation.

Why is a lack of empathy considered a good thing in this situation? What does it provide society or the individual with here? This isn't 5000 BC. We have plenty of history to show us that siding against empathy are the actions of the stubborn, who hold society back as a whole. See the treatment of people of color, the LGBTQ+ and women in the US over time, and how treating them with empathy was considered to be an issue. Hell, look at how showing empathy to those same people is an issue in the US right now. Consider who just ran for the presidency, who won, and which side of this debate each of them falls.

So in the year 2020, what about taking the concerns of a group of people, in this case the disabled, into account is considered to be a bad thing? How is it wrong, why is to be made fun of, and what exactly is the issue with simply apologizing and trying to do better? What are you on a personal or societal level losing from that happening?

 

[Captain Tired]

Oh I'm not here to debate. I'm just here to point and laugh when people sniff their own farts. It's quite amusing to me.

 

[DarkKnight88]

You can be empathetic and still stand by your "art". In this case a film specifically about fictitious witches. Should you change the design of a villainous character, hands in this case, because you might upset those with a similar look? Possibly. But where does that end? Look for the intention. There will always be something when you're designing or creating a fantastic character. Being empathic is important, especially with something made for a family audience, but there is a limit to where you may hit up against certain elements.

In this case, it's the parents responsibility to sit their child down and explain to them why this isn't the same as what they have. That this is fantasy. That this is a fictitious witch who's hands are not the same as theirs. That's not the filmmakers responsibility, in this case. Had the film not been a fantasy, and the lead villainous character had Ectrodactyly, I could definitely see why it could be problematic. But it's no different here than when a Bond villain sports a scar on their face or has some other issue of being differently abled.

Not to sound callous, but in art, you take the risk of upsetting someone. In every instance. And you will intentionally or not. And each time, it's a case by case issue. And sometimes it could be the film or it could be the person or parent who hasn't discussed fantasy vs reality.

Anne Hathaway wasn't wrong in apologizing. But she should also stand by her choice as an artist. Because if you start to second guess, art starts to become sanitized and created by committee. Which is the last thing we need in film/TV right now, especially family fare.

WB responded in the perfect way, they apologized but also explained their intention;

"In adapting the original story, we worked with designers and artists to come up with a new interpretation of the cat-like claws that are described in the book," the statement continued. "It was never the intention for viewers to feel that the fantastical, non-human creatures were meant to represent them. This film is about the power of kindness and friendship. It is our hope that families and children can enjoy the film and embrace this empowering, love-filled theme."

That's all there is to it.