The Super Mario Bros film was released in cinemas on 5 April and it shot to the top of the global box office sales. It made £304m on the first weekend, to become the best opening of an animated film ever. I watched this with my family, and we all enjoyed it; it was a simple story, comically put together. However, despite the film enjoying great success, the critics have given it some poor reviews, something which is starting to become a story in itself.
Rotten Tomatoes, described as a ‘review-aggregation website for film and television’, gave the film a score of 57%, despite an audience score of 96%. I do not understand why the Rotten Tomatoes score is that low; it is a fast-paced and entertaining film that any child will enjoy. I have heard that most of the bad reviews result from criticism of the casting. Twitter users were quick to accuse Chris Pratt, who played Mario, of failing to alter his voice at all. I understand that, perhaps, the director should have chosen an actor who is Italian; however, children are unlikely to care how the actors sound. When I went to watch the film, I did not even notice the voices, because I was there for the entertainment as was my younger sister. I also did not realise the voice of Mario was not Italian until after I saw the reviews.
It was not just the critics who were complaining. John Leguizamo–who is Hispanic and was cast in the first adaptation of the game franchise in 1993 as Luigi–wanted to boycott the film as it lacked diversity. He explained:
“They could’ve included a Latin character. Like, I was groundbreaking and then they stopped the groundbreaking…They messed up the inclusion. They dis-included. Just cast some Latin folk! We’re 20 percent of the population. The largest people of colour group and we are underrepresented.”
Diversity in a film based on a computer game is absurd. Besides which, why exactly do the actors have to fit the characters they are playing? Do real pirates have to play pirates in films like Pirates Of The Caribbean? Of course not. There are precious few pirates moonlighting as Hollywood stars these days, and even fewer animated thespians called Mario! Playing parts that are not oneself is what actors used to do – that’s why it’s called acting.
The interesting aspect of this story, is that the clamour for ‘diversity’ only ever appears to be a one-way street. While Hollywood ‘whitewashing’ is considered a faux pas these days, the ‘blackwashing’ of history is largely condoned. Anyone who dares object to historical inaccuracies is treated to the usual slurs of ‘racism’. Joan of Arc was famously portrayed on our screens as black, as were Anne Boleyn and most recently Cleopatra. While it is not unexpected, it is worth noting that the identitarian Left see no problem with this form of ‘appropriation’.
Still, you can’t argue with the box office, and it is not a shock to me or others that a film without wokeness has done so well. To be honest, this was another reason why I loved the film; it was a normal cinematic experience. Who would have guessed, a film not being woke would become profitable and more successful than its woke competitors? This is why The Super Mario Bros film, which is unwoke, is a huge success. However, Men in Black: International, which is woke, was a flop.
We can thank the original creator of the game, Miyamoto, for this fabulous, basic film as he was involved with the production and wanted to make sure that the characters and the narrative were all the same. In other words, Nintendo refused to go woke, which is unusual and quite brave considering the political age we live in. We need more people like him to prevent other industries from ruining children’s entertainment.
Jack Watson is a 14-year-old schoolboy, who has a Substack about being a Hull City fan. You can subscribe to it here.
Pingback: Tucker Tucked Up? - The New Conservative