Is Our Film "Controversial" or "Problematic"?

How gatekeepers filter what you watch

Recently, my wife and I submitted our latest movie to one of the most important figures in the world of documentary film. You could describe him as a producer or a sales agent, and if anyone in the industry has the Midas touch, it’s him. Oscar gold, financial success, cultural impact—his titles attract it all. 

We asked this producer to consider representing our film to potential distributors, and we figured we had a good case. 

Our film, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” is based on The New York Times bestselling book by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.

It tells a powerful story through the eyes of a diverse group of engaging 20-somethings. They explain how they escaped from one of the world’s biggest threats—the sudden and unprecedented explosion of anxiety, depression, and suicide among Generation Z. 

And how about the potential for earned media?

The Coddling of the American Mind began as a cover story in The Atlantic, President Obama referenced it during a speech, and the piece became the second most read cover story in The Atlantic’s 166-year history. 

Next came the book, which remained on The New York Times bestseller list for nine weeks. 

It was named one of the best books of 2018 by The New York Times, The London Evening Standard, and The New Statesman. The project attracted a massive amount of earned media, including Real Time with Bill Maher, CBS This Morning, and The Joe Rogan Experience. 

Many regard Lukianoff and Haidt’s book as controversial, but we think the book and our film are controversial in the right way at the right time. So far audiences agree, although our sample size is small at this pre-release stage. 

We also noticed some signs of warmth after the great chill that swept through the industry in 2020. All kinds of Americans have been telling pollsters that they’re tired of cancel culture’s stifling ways, and maybe weak-kneed entertainment execs were finally willing to follow their lead.

Witness how Netflix responded to the Dave Chappelle saga. 

Not only did the company refuse to buckle to the employees and activists who demanded that Chapelle’s comedy special “The Closer” be pulled, but execs took the unusual step of affirming their commitment to artistic expression. 

Here’s how The Wall Street Journal put it last May:

Netflix has a new message for its employees: Be prepared to work on content you may not agree with. And if you don’t like that, you can quit. 

In an update to its culture guidelines, the streaming giant added a section called “artistic expression” which details how the company offers an array of programming for many audiences. 

“We let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices,” Netflix says in the updated part of its culture memo. The company added that it supports offering diversity in stories, “even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values.”

“Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful,” Netflix says. “If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

It was like John Stuart Mill had come back to life to work in PR!

---

Then a week after submitting our film to the producer, I read a piece in Variety about how film festivals are shying away from controversial movies. The article addressed a theme my wife and I encounter often—self censorship within the entertainment industry. 

In the article, I came across a quotation that delivered a pang of queasiness to my stomach: 

“If we see something that we think is going to be problematic, we might shy away from it, even if we think it’s a good film … Everyone is probably a little more attuned to what could end up being problematic. There’s ‘controversial,’ and then there’s ‘problematic.’ I think that’s a fine line.”

That quotation would have made me feel queasy any day— the films my wife and I make and consult on often address topics and themes that the entertainment industry regards as problematic. 

But this time the queasiness felt especially strong. That’s because the quotation came from the very same producer we hoped would lead our film through the maze of distribution. 

Today the distribution process stands between us and large audiences, and to reach those audiences our film must attract some key gatekeepers. That can be tricky for a film like ours that criticizes certain aspects of academia. These days the world views of academia and the entertainment industry have become almost indistinguishable. Criticize one’s sacred beliefs and you criticize the other’s as well. 

So yes, when you’re peddling a film like ours, it’s a bit of a stomach turner to read about such an important figure signaling such caution and dividing between films that are controversial and problematic.

So will our film be deemed controversial or problematic? Stay tuned.

Ted Balaker is a filmmaker whose recent work includes “Little Pink House starring Catherine Keener and Jeanne Tripplehorn,” “Can We Take a Joke?” featuring Gilbert Gottfried and Penn Jillette, and a forthcoming feature documentary based on the bestselling book, The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.