The enemy of progression is three steps forward, and two steps back. In the case of Hollywood, we may be seeing the end of those three steps in the right direction.In recent years there has been a strong uptick in conversations regarding politics in the film and television industry. The implementation of politics in movies and TV has been not only apparent but also deliberate during production. This increase has gradually become visible since 2016 and has prompted a great deal of discourse in both publications and social media.

Winds are changing; although the political commentary in movies and TV has been primarily left leaning since 2016, mass firings and announcements from multiple studio heads have indicated that Hollywood producers may now be leaning in a different direction.

Verna Myers, the first woman to head a diversity and inclusion initiative for Netflix, was recently replaced by Wade Daves, a former employee under Myers. Myers’ departure from the company happened shortly after Netflix lost more profit in 2023 than in the company’s entire existence. 

After the addition of advertisements within their content—a policy that Netflix CEO Ted Saran had previously sworn to never implement—it is safe to say that her departure from the company is related to a financial pivot in the company’s overall stance on inclusion. Myers has since stated that she intends to return to her consulting firm where she can utilize her skills in implementing diversity and inclusion at smaller media companies. 

Another example is the departure of Latondra Newton, Disney’s chief diversity officer. She departed the company after CEO Bob Chapek’s lackluster response to threats made by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. In 2022, DeSantis terminated tax breaks given to The Walt Disney Company due to progressive moves made by the company in recent years. 

Another notable example was the firing of Victoria Alonso, the executive vice president of visual effects and post-production at Marvel Studios. Alonso was outspoken and adamant about diversity and inclusion in Hollywood, saying in a 2023 interview with Variety, “We’ve worked so hard to get here and we’re not going anywhere.”

Consistent political statements gradually went against Disney’s PR strategy put in action by the higher ups, especially under DeSantis’s threats, and eventually she was let go in 2023 by CEO Bob Iger.

Newton and Alonso’s removal has also been credited to the company’s recent financial issues. Post-pandemic Disney movies are struggling to break their typical box office benchmarks, especially against films that cost at least $250 million. 

Whether it is the pandemic, gradual inflation in ticket prices, or simply poor scripts that are causing production companies to take such significant losses is a mystery—or it could be all three. The firing of these politically minded executives seems to be an attempt to get customers back and increase revenue to recover from the obstacles the movie industry has faced since 2020.

I do not believe the movie industry will eliminate its diversity and inclusion policies altogether. After all, in the case of Myers’ replacement, Davis’ plans for diversity and inclusion at Netflix are quite aligned with how Myers was running things. Davis formerly headed the Diversity and Inclusion Initiative in the National Football League, and Myers stated in the Variety interview, “I’m so excited for the talented Wade Davis who will be taking the lead of I&D [inclusion and diversity] work along with our incredible Inclusion Strategy team and I can’t wait to see the continued progress we all will make together.”

I do not believe we are returning to the days of “Lawrence of Arabia,” a movie hailed by critics as one of the best of all time despite having no female actors at all. Back when “Lawrence of Arabia” came out, Hollywood was in a very different place politically. The pendulum is swinging, yes, but it is not going all the way back. Films yet to be produced are going to land somewhere in the political middle, maybe even making an attempt to be entirely apolitical. 

Films like “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Deadpool, and Wolverine” avoided certain political talking points, and in turn were some of the biggest economic successes of the years in which they were released. For example, “Top Gun: Maverick” was a military movie that avoided any mention of the nation the main characters were fighting against. Whichever side of the fence one’s personal politics land on, it’s hard to be offended when the strive is for complete and total neutrality. This may upset viewers on both sides—those who long for the days where Jason Voorhees would only kill pot-smoking non-virgins and those who believe “Rocky Horror Picture Show” is the best film of all time. But in the end, a good compromise is one where both parties leave a little upset. 

It may be a good thing that movie executives stop thinking that their made-up stories have the power to sway the tides of the human zeitgeist. Stories can be good, and there is still a market for these movies, but politics have the potential to alienate those who disagree. Whether we like it or not, we live in a capitalist society, and alienating your customers is a great way to lose them. I think movies are going to have less and less politics in them, because sometimes the only way to win a game that never ends is choosing not to play.

The Berkeley Beacon’s opinion section operates separately from The Beacon’s newsroom. Viewpoints highlighted in the opinion section do not influence how the newsroom covers news at Emerson, in Boston, and beyond. This is to maintain and protect the integrity of the newsroom and opinion section. To submit an opinion piece, contact [email protected]. To learn more about the opinion section, click here.