Is In The Heights CANCELLED?! — Bad Question
I found my way to reading some of the criticism of Lin Manuel Miranda’s “In the Heights.” The question is whether or not he had appropriately cast given that was depicting an Afro-Latinx community in Washington Heights. The criticism is that too many of the lead characters are too light skinned for the neighborhood. I used to live 6 blocks away. This is, factually speaking, a valid criticism. 10 Wokeness points deducted from Gryffindor.
But wait. Others are saying this film should be heralded for its depiction of Latinx characters. Abuela Claudia’s story in particular is both moving and itself political. She is the adopted mother of the neighborhood itself. She cares for the children and the many adults who become her adoptees.
But in terms of Hollywood, she’s not your usual sexy protagonist. An aging poor Latina woman with no children or husband. No big dream or underdog story she’ll triumph through. Nobody is actually nobody. But by contemporary cultural standards, she is unremarkable.
So Lin telling her story is a kind of artistic philosophical expression. She matters. This kind of story matters. And by extension, the stories of people in Washington Heights deserve to be told. 10 Wokeness points back to Gryffindor.
So, which is it? Is it a film celebrating Latinx culture to be put in the cinema history books? Or is it white-washed beyond repair? A betrayal even?
This is a bad question. And it’s the same bad question Americans keep asking every tweetstorm. Every thanksgiving. Every debate.
We need, collectively, to move past this broken binary.
Both. We need both. An acknowledgement of the good of this movie. And an acknowledgement of its flaws.
I lean pretty far left and I embrace a lot of left leaning ways of seeing the world. But at the risk of having wokeness points deducted from my house, it is unreasonable to expect perfection from our artistic and social expressions.
Here’s a theorem that’s gonna get me in trouble: The Hellen Keller Theorem.
Suppose you want to raise money for a charity that helps deaf children. You make a video about this. You tell the story of your deaf uncle or your own story if you are deaf.
And then you raise a metric ass ton of American dollars. And you build an orphanage for deaf children and then you start a charitable evergreen trust to fund it for 100 years. And then you tweet about. And an Anti-Karen rises like a phoenix from the ash-heap of the last twitter fire and says…
Well actually… your charity would fail to accommodate someone who is both deaf and blind. Your lack of intersectional consciousness is problematic. I have started a petition to call for you to resign.
Can you hear how loudly my eyes are rolling?
This is the Helen Keller Theorem. The paradox of inclusivity. If you expect perfection of yourself you cannot do anything. Any expression can be complicated by adding another dimension of intersectionality.
Advocacy for the deaf needs to include the blind. We’re cancelling your orphanage unless it helps only blind, deaf, lesbian, neurodivergent, refugees.
So. In the Heights cannot be canceled. Right? Triumph. We reject the Helen Keller Theorem. We will sing along. We will pay money to the theaters. We will suppress our feelings when we notice all the background dancers are dark skinned and the leads are light, even white passing. Wait that’s odd. Hmm… I wonder if that means… but we will reject that. Can’t be an Anti-Karen. Right?
But this is way too simple. And probably everyone reading this knows that already.
The Helen Keller Theorem is not a license to ignore criticism. It’s not even a good theorem. See Elizabeth Barnes “The Minority Body.” The conception of disability that it relies on is… uh… it’s ableist and actually problematic.
The criticisms of colorism are accurate. Washington Heights is darker in skin tone than the movie would make you believe.
So… like which is it, Mr. Blog Writer Peterson?
Both. The answer is both. We can walk and chew ethical gum at the same time. Whether something is fully “bad” or fully “good” is the wrong question.
In the Heights is America. Yeah. We helped invent democracy. But that doesn’t make us fully good. We don’t pass the Helen Keller theorem. It wasn’t until Juneteenth we even thought liberty and justice for all applied to non-white people. Not to mention the systematic genocide of Native Americans to make space for our little experiment. (See my video about Bryan Stevenson and Killer Robots for more details)
But we don’t want to acknowledge the flaws. We don’t want to look at them and say that they are part of us. Because we think that it is an admission of our irredeemability. We think to say that we have failed as country means that we are a failed country. Forever.
This all or nothing mindset gives us the option of being either an angel or demon. Both are deceptions. We may be made of star stuff, but so is dirt.
It does not serve us to pretend we are perfect. If we think we are, we abdicate our responsibility to grow. But so too it does not serve us to think we are irredeemable. I can’t track the source of the quote. But this kind of self-pity also is a way of letting ourselves of the hook. We can’t accept either.
So, should you see In the Heights? Yes.
Are the critics right about In the Heights? Yes.
Can America be a great country? Yes.
Can America be inseparable from its racist history (and present). Also yes.
10 Points to Gryffindor.