Wait…Why Are Progressives Attacking ‘A Quiet Place’ ???

I recently watched Steven Crowder’s latest video “A QUIET PLACE’ MOVIE REVIEW: Why Liberals HATE It…” and thought to myself “this doesn’t sound right”. A Quiet Place got pretty solid reviews across the board and I even gave it a 4/5. Not to mention that both John Krasinski and Emily Blunt are liberals themselves and I don’t see them making a movie that would offend their own point of view. Well, it turns out it isn’t liberals that have a problem with the film, it’s their problematic inbred cousin, the progressive left, who if left alone for more than 3 minutes will find offense in something.

Paramount Pictures.

So what is bothering progressives about this film? Well in their own words, it’s the lack of progressive messaging in the film which is code for a movie that promotes a “Pro-family, pro-gun, or pro-life” narrative. So you are probably asking yourself, how could any of those things be offensive? Let’s get an answer from the sources themselves starting with The New Yorker who says and I quote:

“A Quiet Place” is the story of a white family living in rustic isolation that’s reduced to silence because of a bunch of big, dark, stealthy, predatory creatures”

Oh boy, here we go…he continues,

the idealistic elements of gun culture while dramatizing the tragic implications that inevitably shadow that idealism. The one sole avowed identity of the Abbott parents is as their children’s defenders; their more obvious public identity is as a white rural family. The only other people in the film, who are more vulnerable to the marauding creatures, are white as well. In their enforced silence, these characters are a metaphorical silent—whitemajority, one that doesn’t dare to speak freely for fear of being heard by the super-sensitive ears of the dark others. It’s significant that when characters—two white men—commit suicide-by-noisemaking, they do so by howling as if with rage, rather than by screeching or singing or shouting words of love to their families.

Related image

You are probably thinking ‘This has to be a joke, a troll article to trigger conservatives’. I wish that was the case. But it’s not. According to Richard Brody, the film is problematic because the family is white and the creatures represent “Brown people” (because this notion isn’t racist in of itself). Brody wasn’t the only loon, The Economist also had a problem with the films “Pro-gun’ message:

“One of the fondest fantasies of Second Amendment obsessives is that a private citizen with a box of ammunition could fend off the US Army, should the need arise, and that fantasy is endorsed by “A Quiet Place”, in which gun-toting farmers fare better against the aliens than the entire American war machine. Defenders of the right to bear arms will also see flattering reflections of themselves in the film’s heroes, a photogenic white (There is that word again) family that lives on a backwoods farm.”

Image result for sighs gif

Where to start here? The writer of this piece proceeds to throw Krasinski and the NRA  (Because CLEARLY Hollywood really has an agenda to support the NRA…) under the bus because Hollywood promotes the idea that having a gun can save your life in the worst case scenario. Keep in mind, this is a movie where giant fast-moving monsters that hunt BY SOUND and are IMMUNE TO BULLETS that Nicholas Barber is accusing of being NRA propaganda because why would you need a gun when the military can protect you? A small spoiler for those who haven’t seen the movie, but the weapon that works against the monsters isn’t guns, the monsters weakness is high pitch frequency due to their hypersensitivity to sound. That is the only reason a gun is even effective on them so the writers complaints aren’t even founded in the realm of the story that he is complaining about. As I talked about in my Death Wish review, progressives are so terrified that anyone would look at a gun and not immediately have a nervous breakdown that they savage a film in an attempt to undercut a message that may or may not exist.

Paramount Pictures.

Now finally you have Impulse Gamer, who took offense to this film because the gender roles didn’t live up to expectations. Damien Straker writes

“John Krasinski (The Office) stars in, co-writes and directs A Quiet Place. It is a horror film that lacks the articulateness to create unique, progressive statements for its characters”

Now what does he means by “progressive statements for its characters”? When progressives complain about ‘gender roles’, 9/10 times it’s because women aren’t allowed to be women and men aren’t allowed to be men. Movies where masculinity is toned down if not non-existent and ‘strong female leads’ (also known as masculine roles) are put at the forefront is what equates to progressive statements.

Reading the piece confirms that fact that when the writer took exception to Krasinski representing the typical patriarchal male lead and strong action female Emily Blunt is reduced to the wife/mother despite her character in the film being anything but weak. So essentially the progressive left rejects the idea of a traditional family and traditional values. Again, it’s important to keep in mind that both Krasinski and Blunt are liberals so there is no hidden message of patriarchy propaganda, but progressives have moved so far to the left of liberals that a father that protects his family by any means and a mother who is the nurturer and protector of the family is deemed unacceptable to them even if it comes from someone who would likely agree with them on most of their points.

Paramount Pictures.

I wrote about the bias of progressive critics a while back ago and it’s important to point out that not all liberals are insane like some of the critics I’ve pointed out, hell the response from most people who saw this movie is overwhelmingly positive so even in the scope of this film, they are in the minority. But their influence does have a big impact on how movies are viewed and marketed. If we have gotten to the point where family, gender roles, and skin color are going to be viewed as negatives to a film’s reception even if that isn’t even the film’s intention, then it’s time for some of these people to look at the definition of subjectivity and objectivity and decide what parameter they are going to use because you can’t have it both ways.


Don’t forget to Subscribe for Updates. Also, Follow Us at Society-ReviewsYouTubeInstagramTwitterOdyseeTwitch, & Letterboxd

13 thoughts on “Wait…Why Are Progressives Attacking ‘A Quiet Place’ ???

  1. Can we even call the person who wrote that article (The New Yorker one) progressive left? Cos I think the accurate term is “Raging idiot”. I mean you have to actively try to find a racist message in the movie. I consider myself to be fairly far to the left, anti-gun and all that but… yeah, if someone is actually trying to take offense at this movie, their opinions are not worth taking seriously for even a second

    1. Perhaps, you aren’t as ‘progressive’ as you thought because finding racist messages where they don’t exist is par for the course with many on the progressive side of the left.

  2. I almost can’t help but laugh.. As a proud liberal – and in the words from Joe Biden that I always love.. that is complete Marlarkey!! 🙂 btw.. thanks for this.. and proud to say I enjoyed the film.

    1. I watched this one, I agree there are things to nitpick, the reason why I didn’t was the premise allows you to forgive alot of cliches in the movie because they do them better than the majority of films. Them getting preganat was a big issue with me

  3. I was so annoyed by that New Yorker article on A Quiet Place that I needed to write a long-winded Facebook post on it, which is replicated below:

    A Quiet Place is old news by now, but this take from The New Yorker was too imbecilic to not share.


    Where to begin?

    A. If the writer had been paying attention, and he clearly wasn’t, he would have noticed that the traditional family structure depicted in the film, and at which he sneers, is inverted by the story’s end (the son is doing the stereotypical woman’s work of protecting his infant brother, while his tech-savvy sister and mother successfully confront the monster) and that this development is clearly foreshadowed earlier in the film when the son hesitates to go outside with his father to gather food while the sister enthusiastically volunteers. This aspect of the story’s development doesn’t necessarily secure its progressive cred in perpetuity, but it does complicate any critical assessment that would have you believe the film is simplistically cheerleading for the traditional two-parent led family unit. To me, the inversion at the end suggests that the father’s strategy had some utility for survival but was limited since it had no means of actually confronting the monsters. It’s only after the father departs the scene that an effective strategy of resistance emerges. This seems to imply that survival in difficult times involves recognizing both what is useful in traditional ways of doing things as well as what has fallen into obsolescence and needs to change.

    B. The daughter’s sense of guilt isn’t a one-off moment but the film’s central emotional arc that takes up a significant chunk of screentime. It has a very clear and linear path of development (its pretty much the subtext of all the father-daughter interactions in the story), so the reviewer’s dismissive attitude and general obtuseness about it is baffling.

    C. The claim of a gun-culture subtext is just bizarre. It wasn’t a large stockpile of military-grade firepower (what I usually think of when I think of the more troublesome aspects of US gun culture) that saved the day, but the daughter’s cochlear implant. That’s what effectively revealed the monsters’ vulnerability, and the fact that a shotgun finished the creature off is incidental; they could have easily used an axe or improvised explosive. It was established early in the film that guns by themselves were useless against the monsters. Furthermore, all available evidence suggests that the family has, at most, a couple of shotguns at their disposal. Are a couple of shotguns in a frakkin’ rural environment all it takes to signify ‘gun culture’ now?

    D. Related to the former point, the daughter’s disability is central to the family’s survival and eventual victory. Empowering depictions of disability are no sane individual’s idea of ‘regressive politics.’

    I could probably go on, but that will do for now. This review is a disaster.

  4. Okay, put the political junk aside. It’s not a scary movie. There is no story. The creatures don’t act consistently with the rules established in the film. It’s PG-13. Pg-13 horror movies are trash. Any self respecting horror fan would laugh at this movie. It’s trash. This has nothing to do with politics at all.

  5. Racism as any form of evil has evolved up with the modern times. It used to be very unapologetic about itself, it’s perpetrators would willingly call themselves racist. Today, all the evil hides itself much better. Racism won’t call itself racism. I’d say very often they go out of their way to call someone else a racist who likely isn’t. People now can be racist to others because “it is meant equal the playing field” or because “it’s the morally good option”. I believe this is a much more dangerous strategy. When this behavior will reach its peak extreme (equivalent of the inpact of slavery) it could be much more devastating. These people think they are right, claim they are not what they fight against and people support them while the more sane opinions get no promotion, instead get shunned down.

Leave a Reply