AND ALSO chiwetel ejiofor turned in a stellar performance!! he took a script that had some good moments but ultimately dragged and delivered cinema!!! i keep seeing folks wah-wahing about how talking about the movie's racism is a moot point because the actors were "hired for their talent" or whatever. fucking duh!!!! ejiofor oscar WHEN!!!
edit: to be clear bc more people are engaging with this than my other critiques: the movie was racist. ejiofor still killed it 👍
really funny how much people love to vagueposts about criticisms of the movie in regards to racism acting like we are some evil aggressors. like yeas it helps u a lot to depict the people calling the movie racist as people who are making shit up and bad at media literacy and clearly didn't actually watch the movie
It is So wild to me that some people saw an apparition of abusive self-destruction as a white body with a Black person's face and do not think the backrooms movie was racist
now, to some extent, I do agree with this. Yes, Clark as a character was not written to have a specific race. Yes, if he had been played by a different actor who was a different race, he’d still have the exact same lines, the exact same directing, the exact same clothing, the exact same beginning, middle, and end, the same character traits, the same fate, all of it. That is true! He COULD have been played by a man of any race. But he wasn’t.
It’s not as though Kane and everybody else involved with the movie intentionally made it have racial implications. They didn’t. But if you have a movie set in 1990 where the protagonist is a black man, you are inevitably going to have UNINTENDED implications no matter what. Sometimes these implications are good, sometimes they’re bad, sometimes they’re neither. I might not be properly articulating myself here, but I think that if your protagonist is a black man, that’s going to create implications about the way the world treats him and about the way the world expects him to be. Especially if his wife is a white woman whom he treats very poorly, and his therapist is also a white woman whom he treats very poorly, EVEN if you did not intend for it to be that way at all!
I’m not saying you can’t write a black character who is a bad person; every racial group should get nuanced portrayals from all across a morality spectrum. But what I am saying is that there are going to be racialized implications that would be different if the movie was redone, shot for shot, line for line, with a white guy instead of a black guy. (Side note, but we’d see different treatment in fandom, too; Clark would probably have a lot more people focusing on him and a lot more people excusing his actions/shipping him with mary than there already are)
I’m not trying to cancel Kane Pixels or anything. I don’t think a whole lot of people think it was done on purpose, either. But stereotypes are srill applied to different races in different ways (applied to black people in ways they wouldn’t be applied to white people), even if the inclusion of said stereotypes was entirely accidental. So I don’t think looking at the movie through a racial lens is necessarily wrong. And it’s okay to consider & criticize a piece of media’s more unfortunate implications about race or gender or ethnicity or disability or what have you when you’re analyzing it.
"Art is up to personal interpretation!" But then the moment race is brought up it's suddenly "not that deep" or "stop bringing politics into everything" or "It's the Backrooms movie..." That second quote annoys me especially. The moment I see anyone liken race or sexual identity to politics? Instant red flag and block.
I agree with this. I highly doubt there were any bad intentions behind Clark as a character, but as a black person, I couldn't help but notice that he could be seen as falling into negative stereotypes about black men.
Perhaps that was intentional to a degree. I've already since a post or two that intertwined his race with the narrative and how that could have interesting implications for Clark as a character.
At the end of the day, we can't know what the people behind this movie were thinking. Maybe Clark being the only black man in a 1990's setting has some implications. Maybe it doesn't. Regardless, people are going to naturally notice these things and point them out, whether it be in a positive or negative light. Death of the author and all that. I don't think it's a bad thing at the end of the day. It's not like anyone is trying to cancel Kane or anything like you said. It's just a bit peculiar is all.
like there are so many more criticisms to make about backrooms (2026) that would have been really fun to engage with. like how heavy-handed parsons was the whole time about "confirming" fan theories and how he could've (should've) relied on his own storytelling and world-building; how he should've trusted fans of the series (and newcomers!!) to understand that the backrooms mirrors and bastardizes reality as its "memory" degrades without making its characters literally monologue about it, twice!!
we could've discussed how it wanted to be two different movies the whole time: one aesthetic-driven, classic analog found-footage horror, and a more introspective commentary on the themes of mental illness, oppression, and the ways we are unintentionally and intentionally caught up in their spirals. we could've discussed the themes of hyper-consumerism; how we discard the still-warm husks of our society as we endlessly chase after new and shinier things while discarding and disregarding the people that can't keep up. that could have never kept up due to how society is structured top-to-bottom to keep them down. even fucking- the series constantly touches on corporate greed and how corporations and governments constantly put innocent lives in danger to pursue the tiniest advantage over their competition. where was that? async was kinda just thrown around a little at the beginning and end with no further exploration. when you think about it, it wanted to be three movies. it wanted to be found-footage of what happens when a group of people stumble into the backrooms. it wanted to be an introspective and suspenseful thriller that meaningfully engaged with its themes. it wanted to be a commentary on the inherent horror of corporate greed. ultimately, it could not get away from its shallow roots in true aestheticism. it failed, but it still clearly wanted to be more.
but it's literally not even worth it to engage with it on these levels because ultimately parsons and soodik and whoever else was responsible for the choices made in this film made racist art. casting a Black actor and then refusing to analyze the script any further was a racist choice that ended in making a caricature out of the only Black character and was so disgusting and hateful to watch, that it completely ruined whatever goodwill i had left for the movie.
and i'm literally sooo sorry but i actually don't think it's worth it to engage with racism with any artistic merit. actually i think the only thing worth saying about the movie is that it's ultimately racist, period.
I think you may have the best take on this discussion around race in the backrooms yet. I wasn’t fully certain what my stance was, since I saw people on one side being all “omg shut up nothing is political about it NOBODY in a million years is going to ever interpret this film this way!” And disregarding the people out there who actually would for the sake of justifying their own biases (confirmation bias. It’s more common than we think according to my psychology research. I’ll come back to that later).
Then on the other end we have people saying “This film is so trash Kayne must be super racist why is nobody else seeing Clark as being this written way BECAUSE of his race like I do, this film hates black people! His character is aggressive with a large ego and he happens to be black which makes this movie evil!”
It’s a breath of fresh air to see a structured argument that goes more into detail as to how these potential issues of race could end up arising unintentionally in fan-spaces and how they could have been avoided, without ignoring that the film was always intended to be about psychological horror which it does well. Apparently the script was written in 2023 and casted in 2025, so I highly doubt they wrote this with the races of actors in mind.
You made a really good point about how we already find ways to consider how gender could be thematically significant without it being a sole focus of the film, and how there isn't really anything stopping race from joining the discussion, which hadn’t even occurred to me! But you’re right, people could easily pick into that. Like I said, confirmation bias is when people almost exclusively focus on information that reinforces already existing opinions. So there are probably going to be viewers who are already racist who watch the movie and completely look past the intended themes of memory and trauma and the nature of humans to become obsessed with what they don’t truly understand if it allows escapism, just to be all “See! Black man bad! I’m right to be bigoted!”
Plus, you made another good point in how depending on the time period the film is set in, Clark’s behaviour may be impacted by his race and being conscious of how he is perceived by a white therapist. Again, I study psychology, and there’s a massive emphasis on racial bias within psychology, especially in the diagnosis of disorders and how mental health is treated due to cultural differences that may arise from race even in households that aren’t immigrants. Which is even more reason that as a black man, Clark may have likely been more conscious about who he went to regarding his mental health like you said.
As much as the idea of casting actors based on their race when the film doesn’t consciously have that as a topic feels a bit off to me, I think you’re right that they could’ve avoided unintentionally portraying black people this way by having other black characters who didn’t spiral into aggression and cruel behaviour. This seems like an unfortunate case where the writers and director hadn’t considered the possible implications of having one black actor be the (turned) antagonist of the film.
Ideally that’s how it should be, casting people for who best understand a character when race isn't intended to be important to the media and audiences don’t think twice about a character who is personality and story first and racial/sexual/gender identity second, but we are still at a point in time where it does still matter, and people love to knit pick for justification of their views of other people.
Also, sorry for the yap session! I wanted to contribute to the conversation and bring up a few points in real life applied human psychology that your discussion reminded me of, how they could’ve been used to look at character behaviours in film and how we may see this confirmation bias appear in audiences when the film marinates for a bit or goes deeper into release. But I was scared of just typing a comment or reblogging since people on both sides of this debate seem really intense and eager to dogpile and behave aggressively towards others who disagree with them even slightly. Some notes under other posts have been ROUGH 😅
I appreciate the yapping, as a yapper myself. And thank you for this message.
I want to start off by saying I won't disparage anyone (and I'm not accusing you of doing this, anon) for not liking the film for a couple of the reasons I listed in that post (or more I missed or didn't add), considering the history the US has of depicting marginalized communities as inherently "bad" and "up to no good". Particularly the Black community. We should hold those to task who have the opportunity to shape or uphold the popular zeitgeist in culture. It can lead to or further enforce stereotypes (and confirmation biases, as you've pointed out) that can incite and inspire actions that cause harm. Because they have historically and presently.
More thoughts under the read more because we love reading and diving deeper because it is that deep.
In Clark's case, the "Black Brute" stereotype and caricature have always been a harmful image used in popular US media for decades. Centuries even. It was used as a justification to hunt, torment, and murder Black people, particularly men. It was also used as justification to keep Black people enslaved. Of course, Black Audiences will be hypersensitive to anything that may flirt with that depiction, and unfortunately, the Backrooms movie didn't do its due diligence to avoid it.
It may seem "extreme" for some Black folk to wonder if those who produced the film are racist, but... Clark and the Still-Life that represents him do fit the very harmful and racist "Black Brute" caricature. That's the icky feeling.
Clark's Still-life was a caricature of him. But it was real for the characters in the story. And it eventually chased after Mary, the lone white main female character in the story, another key feature or racist American White fears of the "Black Brute".
I think what helped in making sure Clark wasn't the only protag turned antagonist that harmed his non-Black counterparts was Async's involvement and violence through inaction, and "watching" everything unfold to learn more about the Backrooms. They didn't even really "save" Mary there. We don't even know what happens to her now that they have her. It was even implied that they might not let her go either... and this coming from the white male scientist who saw Clark not just once but twice with his furniture commercial. Async being present showed a systemic violence that's greater than Clark's. It's more insidious but harmful all the same.
That and another reason that helped me to suspend my disbelief and critical race lens is for me to view the casting as a "color-blind" one though I have my gripes with that because it conveniently still reads as "white", which I agree with you about (the casting after the script); it seemed like the script was done first, then casting, but I bet Clark did have a default "race" in mind for him... because it was written as such. Chiwetel Ejiofor, again, played Clark fantastically and brought something to the character that casting liked. I recognized it in his performance.
That said, had Clark been a white man, I could definitely dig into the statement of unchecked violence that society allows (white) men when they're angry at the world and... don't want to change. And want to be told it's not their fault. And with Bobby also being white, that commentary or interpretation would be an easier pill to swallow because we get to see another depiction of a white man in this story that was different from Clark. There's even a part of me that wishes that reality happened because we could easily point to the Patriarchy of it all. How it not only harms non-men, but it also ends up consuming the men that feel they still must pledge their allegiance to it in casual or overt ways. Clark's character, had he been white, would still be very believable.
It also helped that my partner pointed out that he works with plenty of men who have Clark's mentality and thought processes—no matter the race. And... stories like that also need to be told. I just think it would be handled with more care and nuance from their respective cultures.
Now, this might be prejudiced of me to admit, but, oh well~ To be completely honest, I am not expecting white creatives to do Black characters nuanced and complex justice when they have us in their stories. I've been alive for 33+ years, and with the history of Black characters in white writers' hands—much has been desired. That's not me giving a pass at the clear lack of care either. I just do not have the confidence that white people can do it because they are not people of color; you don't know what you don't know.
But that doesn't mean white creatives can't ever have non-white characters in their stories. That's ridiculous. You live in a diverse world; of course, reflect that, but do your research. Why? Because as a white person, it is not required of you to care or be mindful of those racial and cultural components of a non-white character. And it tends to show because non-white characters are typically written... like they are white. White is typically seen as the "correct" "default," so why would you go a little further than "necessary" by being mindful of race relations? That is considered "extra" or "unnecessary" bonus work. There's also a fear that it might "distract" from the story (or it might be done wrong—but if adequate research was done and other non-white creative writers were present to assist, that fear wouldn't be as major a concern).
And that's frustrating as a Black person. Our race is not extra or unnecessary to any story. It adds to it. It can up the stakes. It can add even more tension or danger to a situation because being Black in an anti-Black environment is an extra layer of terror (from a horror movie point of view)! It can add more complexity to a character's motivations, fears, goals, etc.
It's why I enjoy Jordan Peele's horror work so much. Blackness is integral to the story.
So—sidebar—I'm in Atlanta. In my theatre, we all groaned at Clark doing something that definitely pricked at our disbelief: he called out to the danger at one point in the classic horror protag's, "Hello? Who's there?"
But we don't do that! That's like, one of THEE Black jokes when it comes to horror: there wouldn't be a horror movie because we don't call out or adventure into the unknown, thus alerting the danger, "Here we are!" We're not looking for what's going on. We're not looking for or trying to understand a strange occurrence. We're trying to get out of known and unknown danger.
We're trying to stay out of trouble. We always are because we're expected to cause trouble, and we're hyper-aware of the eyes on us at any given moment.
In Jordan Peele's films, because he knows us, he makes sure we can't get out... that easily, at least. But he makes a point to show how our first action tends to be "Get outta there!" That's terrifying to us, but so good and further bases the world in reality for the audience.
But in the Backrooms movie, Clark went back. He was chased out, yet he still decided to go back. I had to suspend my disbelief there because he's recently divorced, this is happening in his store, and... again. He's an architect. Fine. But I still knew, "Ah, he's not a Black man in this story. He's a 'raceless' man."
But do you see how that can limit your story when, again, he is clearly a Black man visually?
I say all of this to say, if you do have a non-white character in your story, the least you could do is make sure you're not adding to already preconceived notions that further the subjugation of a marginalized group. And what's damning in this case, there was a psychology consultant in the credits of this film! So...?????????
But, as you stated, anon, racial bias is prevalent even in psychology. There was a time when we were diagnosed as wanting to escape slavery.
Anyway, we have to have these uncomfortable and honest conversations. Especially in times like this, where our rights are being stripped away as we speak. If there are Black folks who absolutely hated the Backrooms movie because of the careless handling (at best) of the lone Black male character in the film, because of very real, and well-documented caricatures like the "Black Brute" and thus further adding to that horrid belief—that's fine. That's fair. Those feelings are valid.
The filmmaker in question—who is known for diving super deep in research for environments, technology, and making sure his Backrooms world is very believable and nuanced—he has to eat the critiques for dropping the ball when it comes to his Black lead character.
niggas only response to the backrooms movie being racist being "umm it cant be racist bc none of the characters actions wouldve changed based on race they could've all been any racist so it can't be racist" like ok the characters don't have to look at the camera and go "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" to be racist. you do realize that. maybe you should self reflect bc y'all be publicly admitting that you have awful media literacy & do not want to think on it bc it'll ruin ur fun while never once considering how a lot of minorities that y'all got power over don't get to have fun bc they be hurt by the shit that y'all be entertained by.
so yeah. follow up question to y'alls dumbass excuses: if the race doesn't matter, then why exactly did they cast a Black man in that role? why did they cast a white woman as his therapist? why did they cast an asian girl as his employee? why is the ex-wife a white person? do you think it was all random? and do you think that the actor's race therefore has 0 impact on the movie even if the plot makes no mention of race by name?
genuinely shocked why the fuck is nobody talking about the racism that is present throughout the entirety of the Backrooms. i know this website is white as fuck but holy fuck. ive seen more posts talking about fandom racism/sexism and people choosing to thirst over the white stoner in the movie (which, yeah, is awful) more than i've seen posts about how deeply fucking racist the plot of that movie was. what the actual hell.
Saying this as a Homestuck fan is genuinely insane like you're saying this film with an interestingly written mentally unstable man who, just so happens to be black with the evil version of him being played by a tall man who just so happens to be white and was only chosen because he's tall is horrendous when Homestuck is far more racist with Dave Strider saying the n word in his blog for example and Gamzee's entire character being he's a black teen who needs to be on weed constantly or else he gets murderous. Not to mention all the shit with Sassacre, or any of Jane's bullshit. Dirk's racist too.
Think about it for a second. The movie wouldn't change at all with the characters being different races, the race doesn't fucking matter in this situation. Why are you even making things about race in the first place? Doesn't that say more about you in the first place? Media literacy, much?
Backrooms isn't racist for having a black character in the role of a not very good guy. Not every white person in the film is seen as good, not every person who isn't white is seen as bad. Take a minute to think about it seriously. You'd complain if it was a white guy in Clark's place too. Grow up.
why the fuck are you using being a homestuck fan against me when you are literally a homestuck fan yourself? are you saying its fine that racist shit happens in homestuck because you yourself are a fan of it? newsflash dumbass, homestuck is a story that while it includes a lot of bigoted themes throughout the story also includes a lot of progressive and well written themes. its a nuanced story. deciding to police a Black fan about how i am supposed to feel about homestuck because im calling out how your new favorite movie is a story that quite literally is built upon antiBlack racism is so ridiculous. if you want to have a conversation about why i choose to still enjoy homestuck despite the antiBlack views that Andrew Hussie held in the past and how her views were shown throughout the story as well, leave that conversation out of this one. don't use my enjoyment of one media to try and make it some sort of "gotcha!" for a completely fucking different media.
don't try and yell at me over media literacy when you yourself claim that race makes zero impact on this movie when it actually does. it is exactly as you say, they absolutely could've casted these roles as any race because theyre so 2 dimensional that it makes zero impact, so exactly why did they choose to cast a Black man into a role of an unfleshed out aggressive protagonist who turns into an antagonist? It is continously implied that he is some character with "deep backstory" by fans of the movie yet at most we get him roleplaying with his white therapist about him being verbally abusive towards his white ex-wife and him continously implying that he learned to push people away as a kid. the characters literally have a conversation where his white therapist tells him that he is incapable of taking the blame, something that as his therapist she should have told him sooner because its clear she already thought this but didn't tell him because she was scared of him, and that it is just the way he is wired and that he doesn't have to change. then, after delightfully accepting he is an angry Black man who is incapable of realizing when thingd are his fault, he gets killed by a caricature of himself who is played by a white man. Said caricature proceeds to chase after the white woman until she manages to escape him and then is saved from the backrooms by a bunch of white people in hazmat suits.
Explain to me how this movie is deep and complex. Because we get flashbacks where Mary, the white therapist, has trauma about her schizophrenic mother? Why is she the only character allowed to have flashbacks? Especially when these flashbacks are only relevant to explain her book, to make it more impactful when Clark scalps a redhead and puts the hair on her, and then when she beats the Black caricature to death with a piece of concrete that represents her childhood innocence? This movie is a bunch of halfassed themes and symbolism thrown together to create an awfully written movie where they then casted folks in the roles to create an incredibly racially charged movie to anybody with an ounce of knowledge about how Black men are seen as evil aggressors especially towards white women. This movie is built on the idea of a white woman, quite literally his fucking therapist, trying to help an aggressive Black man but she is too scared to tell him what he needs to hear. She is "proven right" that he cannot hear the truth and that he is beyond help, and is punished for trying to help him. Her only escape is for her to tell him to stay the angry Black man who takes no responsibility for his problems, and to tell him that he is just wired that way, implying she could've never helped him in the first place. We see this man be disrespectful towards his own employees, especially his young asian assistant manager. We see him be vague towards his young employees when asking them for help with "research", ultimately leading to their deaths, which paints him in a predatory light as he preys on their naiveness and eagerness for money. Specifically, he keeps Kat's head in the fridge after implying that he was responsible for her death. Kat's role in the movie is that of a college-aged asian girl who is helpful despite the fact she dislikes Clark's treatment towards her and she dislikes the idea of being in the Backrooms in the first place. It is racially charged as she is put in a similar position as Mary, trying to help Clark run his failing business, and in the end she dies for it. She is an asian woman whose entire role is to help her boss and then dies for it while the white character gets to survive.
So, tell me again how this movie isn't impacted at all by casting Black & asian characters into its roles?
I used being a Homestuck fan against you because you're having a double standard. I never *claimed* it was okay there.
My point here was that you're the one making it about race. It never WAS about race. YOU made it about race. That's literally all it is. I pointed out your double standard and you started seething about it.
everything is about race dipshit. its engrained into our society. claiming i have a double standard because i have a homestuck pfp is crazy. you can't even acknowledge anything i just said you just point and go "umm homestuck fan!"
there is a difference between a media which has racism present within it and another piece of media in which the racism cannot be seperated from it as a whole. i analyze the racism in homestuck actively and how it impacts the reat of the story, what the fuck is your point?
My review of the Backrooms movie. TLDR: this movie was racist as all hell, the only things slightly saving it were the performances and the cinematography.
genuinely shocked why the fuck is nobody talking about the racism that is present throughout the entirety of the Backrooms. i know this website is white as fuck but holy fuck. ive seen more posts talking about fandom racism/sexism and people choosing to thirst over the white stoner in the movie (which, yeah, is awful) more than i've seen posts about how deeply fucking racist the plot of that movie was. what the actual hell.
Saying this as a Homestuck fan is genuinely insane like you're saying this film with an interestingly written mentally unstable man who, just so happens to be black with the evil version of him being played by a tall man who just so happens to be white and was only chosen because he's tall is horrendous when Homestuck is far more racist with Dave Strider saying the n word in his blog for example and Gamzee's entire character being he's a black teen who needs to be on weed constantly or else he gets murderous. Not to mention all the shit with Sassacre, or any of Jane's bullshit. Dirk's racist too.
Think about it for a second. The movie wouldn't change at all with the characters being different races, the race doesn't fucking matter in this situation. Why are you even making things about race in the first place? Doesn't that say more about you in the first place? Media literacy, much?
Backrooms isn't racist for having a black character in the role of a not very good guy. Not every white person in the film is seen as good, not every person who isn't white is seen as bad. Take a minute to think about it seriously. You'd complain if it was a white guy in Clark's place too. Grow up.
why the fuck are you using being a homestuck fan against me when you are literally a homestuck fan yourself? are you saying its fine that racist shit happens in homestuck because you yourself are a fan of it? newsflash dumbass, homestuck is a story that while it includes a lot of bigoted themes throughout the story also includes a lot of progressive and well written themes. its a nuanced story. deciding to police a Black fan about how i am supposed to feel about homestuck because im calling out how your new favorite movie is a story that quite literally is built upon antiBlack racism is so ridiculous. if you want to have a conversation about why i choose to still enjoy homestuck despite the antiBlack views that Andrew Hussie held in the past and how her views were shown throughout the story as well, leave that conversation out of this one. don't use my enjoyment of one media to try and make it some sort of "gotcha!" for a completely fucking different media.
don't try and yell at me over media literacy when you yourself claim that race makes zero impact on this movie when it actually does. it is exactly as you say, they absolutely could've casted these roles as any race because theyre so 2 dimensional that it makes zero impact, so exactly why did they choose to cast a Black man into a role of an unfleshed out aggressive protagonist who turns into an antagonist? It is continously implied that he is some character with "deep backstory" by fans of the movie yet at most we get him roleplaying with his white therapist about him being verbally abusive towards his white ex-wife and him continously implying that he learned to push people away as a kid. the characters literally have a conversation where his white therapist tells him that he is incapable of taking the blame, something that as his therapist she should have told him sooner because its clear she already thought this but didn't tell him because she was scared of him, and that it is just the way he is wired and that he doesn't have to change. then, after delightfully accepting he is an angry Black man who is incapable of realizing when thingd are his fault, he gets killed by a caricature of himself who is played by a white man. Said caricature proceeds to chase after the white woman until she manages to escape him and then is saved from the backrooms by a bunch of white people in hazmat suits.
Explain to me how this movie is deep and complex. Because we get flashbacks where Mary, the white therapist, has trauma about her schizophrenic mother? Why is she the only character allowed to have flashbacks? Especially when these flashbacks are only relevant to explain her book, to make it more impactful when Clark scalps a redhead and puts the hair on her, and then when she beats the Black caricature to death with a piece of concrete that represents her childhood innocence? This movie is a bunch of halfassed themes and symbolism thrown together to create an awfully written movie where they then casted folks in the roles to create an incredibly racially charged movie to anybody with an ounce of knowledge about how Black men are seen as evil aggressors especially towards white women. This movie is built on the idea of a white woman, quite literally his fucking therapist, trying to help an aggressive Black man but she is too scared to tell him what he needs to hear. She is "proven right" that he cannot hear the truth and that he is beyond help, and is punished for trying to help him. Her only escape is for her to tell him to stay the angry Black man who takes no responsibility for his problems, and to tell him that he is just wired that way, implying she could've never helped him in the first place. We see this man be disrespectful towards his own employees, especially his young asian assistant manager. We see him be vague towards his young employees when asking them for help with "research", ultimately leading to their deaths, which paints him in a predatory light as he preys on their naiveness and eagerness for money. Specifically, he keeps Kat's head in the fridge after implying that he was responsible for her death. Kat's role in the movie is that of a college-aged asian girl who is helpful despite the fact she dislikes Clark's treatment towards her and she dislikes the idea of being in the Backrooms in the first place. It is racially charged as she is put in a similar position as Mary, trying to help Clark run his failing business, and in the end she dies for it. She is an asian woman whose entire role is to help her boss and then dies for it while the white character gets to survive.
So, tell me again how this movie isn't impacted at all by casting Black & asian characters into its roles?
genuinely shocked why the fuck is nobody talking about the racism that is present throughout the entirety of the Backrooms. i know this website is white as fuck but holy fuck. ive seen more posts talking about fandom racism/sexism and people choosing to thirst over the white stoner in the movie (which, yeah, is awful) more than i've seen posts about how deeply fucking racist the plot of that movie was. what the actual hell.
anyway real talk i don't recommend the backrooms movie. at best most charitable interpretation, it was still thematically and physically violent towards its black "protagonist" in a way that was just completely unnecessary, and while maybe it stands as novel visually, that can be easily substituted by just like, watching backrooms videos on youtube. at worst faith reading, yeah that was racist as shit. warning for discussion of said racism?
like it had some interesting set design or whatever but you CANNOT have the white woman 3rd-act protagonist beat the black man's monstersona's head with a narrative symbol of her childhood innocence. holy fucking shit. especially not MOMENTS after her telling that same black man that he is Fundamentally Incapable Of Not Being Violent, He's Just Wired That Way. why the fuck am i seeing this movie getting recommended by anyone? did you watch it with your eyes closed? what?
genuinely shocked that people are leaving the theaters after watching Backrooms thinking anything but "that movie was disgustingly racist." did we not watch the same movie where the Black protagonist is made out to be an angry unreasonable unstable Black man throughout the entire movie who preys on his college-aged employees (one who is an asian girl) and is verbally abusive towards his ex wife and quite literally during the plot twist of the movie where he kidnaps his white female therapist (and becomes an antagonist) she tells him that he cannot ever accept responsibility and cannot ever accept fault and she just tells him he doesn't have to change and he's happy that he doesn't have to change and become a better person and then proceeds to get killed by a caricature of himself who is played by a white man. that movie did everything it could to paint the Black protagonist who turned antagonist as a dangerous, angry, stupid Black male stereotype and people are praising it like A24 created some masterpiece. what the actual fuck.
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
theartofmadeline
dailybridgerton
janainaart
discoholicmusic
jacobvanloon
