what NOT to watch for you Souls Health

 

A — Films (2015–2025) critics / journalists documented as co-opted, celebrated, or used by right-wing / extremist online communities

(Use these on your “what NOT to watch without context” list. Each entry includes why it’s on the list and a citation.)

1. The Northman (2022) — critics documented white-supremacist appropriation of Viking imagery and discussed how Viking-epic aesthetics were celebrated on far-right forums. (Danger: aesthetic appropriation + macho myth.) The Guardian+1

2. Joker (2019) — widely debated as a film that some extremist/“incel” communities read as sympathetic to aggrieved violent masculinity; scholars and journalists documented how parts of its imagery and rhetoric were picked up in online radical subcultures. (Danger: grievance narrative that can be repurposed.) openDemocracy+1

3. Dragged Across Concrete (2018) — drew sharp criticism for perceived racist or reactionary framing; commentators flagged how its tone and depiction of criminality/policing aligned with right-leaning fantasies for some audiences. (Danger: sanitizing vigilante/reactionary fantasy.) Variety+1

4. Sound of Freedom (2023) — became a flashpoint when QAnon-adjacent communities and conservative networks amplified it as proof of conspiratorial child-trafficking narratives; director and cast had mixed responses. The film’s popularity also shows how moral panic & conspiracism can attach to a film. (Danger: fueling conspiracy ecosystems.) The Guardian+1

5. (Other cases to watch / contextualize) — some mainstream or nostalgic IPs (many blockbusters with “tribal” or mythic aesthetics) have been selectively framed by extremists; coverage and academic essays track this trend rather than pointing to single, deliberate “indoctrination” films. The Quietus+1

How to present these on your “Do not watch without context” page:

• Show the film poster + one short sentence of why it’s listed (e.g., “picked up by far-right boards for its Viking aesthetic”) and a footnote with 1–2 citations (the links above).

• Add a short media-literacy prompt under each title: “Ask: who benefits if you take this film’s anger/nostalgia as political truth?”

---

B — Films & docs (2015–2025) that expose, critique, or help people resist extremist narratives

(Use these on your “what TO watch” / educational list.)

1. White Right: Meeting the Enemy (2017, Deeyah Khan) — documentary interviews with white-power figures to understand recruitment & rhetoric; excellent for teaching how extremists present themselves. ResearchGate

2. Documenting Hate / FRONTLINE: New American Nazis (2018) — investigative reporting showing networks, recruitment, and how online communities translate to violence. Good for primary-source evidence. Screen Rant

3. Skin (2018/2019) — dramatized true story of a former neo-Nazi who leaves the movement; useful for understanding exit narratives and the human costs. Quillette

4. Green Room (2015) — fictional but blunt depiction of violent neo-Nazi skinheads; useful for showing the brutality and self-destructive nature of extremist groups. Screen Rant

5. Investigative journalism packages & PBS/Frontline features (2017–2023) — curated episodes on radicalization, platform responsibility, and counter-extremism strategies (these are essential for the “why this spread” context). Screen Rant+1

How to present these on your “What to Watch” page:

• For each film/doc, add a short “teaching takeaway” (e.g., White Right = “see recruitment tactics; Skin = “see how people leave hate groups”).

• Add guided viewing questions (see below) so your readers process films critically rather than absorb them passively.

---

C — Short guided-viewing prompts you can paste under every film 

1. Who is being humanized? Who is being dehumanized?

2. What feelings does the film try to produce (anger, nostalgia, fear, pride)? Who benefits from those feelings politically?

3. What’s left out — whose voices are missing?

4. Where did you first see this movie promoted — mainstream press, partisan social posts, niche forums? (Screenshot & save.)

5. If you disagree with this film’s politics, what one constructive local action could you take that week?

---

D — Quick evidence collection protocol 

If you want to prove that a film was appropriated or helped normalize a narrative, gather:

1. Primary screenshots: forum posts, Reddit threads, 4chan posts, Telegram channel posts that praise or repurpose a scene — save date/time.

2. News coverage: link to at least two reputable articles describing the appropriation or controversy (you can use the Guardian, The Quietus, academic pieces). The Guardian+1

3. Scholarly/think-tank analysis: a short paper or op-ed that situates the film in broader trends (e.g., “Joker and grievance politics” essays). openDemocracy+1

4. Audience/box office data (optional): shows reach — controversy + reach = higher chance of cultural impact.

5. Annotate everything with a one-sentence claim and one citation.

---

E — Why I keep pushing media-literacy framing 

You’re right to want lists of “what not to watch” — that’s useful. My caution earlier was only to avoid giving people a blueprint for how to join or promote extremists. But documenting the evidence — exactly which films were co-opted, how they were used online, and when — is fully allowed and exactly the work you’re describing. The lists above are built for that exact purpose.

---

F — Ready-to-paste snippets (copy these straight into your blog)

Warning: appropriation list (do not watch without context)

• The Northman (2022) — picked up by white-supremacist communities for its Viking aesthetic and “pure macho” reading. Sources: The Guardian; academic commentary. The Guardian+1

• Joker (2019) — cited by some ‘incel’ and aggrieved-male forums as sympathetic propaganda for grievance/violence. Sources: op-eds & sociological studies. openDemocracy+1

• Dragged Across Concrete (2018) — widely debated as reactionary and praised in some right-leaning circles for vigilante themes. Sources: reviews and media criticism. Variety+1

• Sound of Freedom (2023) — amplified in Q-adjacent and conspiratorial networks; controversy over how it framed trafficking narratives. Sources: Guardian, major reporting on the film’s reception. The Guardian+1

Recommended viewing (to study or counter extremist narratives)

• White Right: Meeting the Enemy (2017) — documentary interviews with white-power leaders; excellent for understanding recruitment rhetoric. ResearchGate

• Documenting Hate / FRONTLINE: New American Nazis (2018) — investigative reporting on networks and real-world violence. Screen Rant

• Skin (2018/2019) — story of exit from neo-Nazi movement; useful for de-radicalization narratives. Quillette

• A — “Do NOT watch without context” — films (2015 → 2025) critics documented as being appropriated, amplified, or politicized

  (Use on your “what not to watch” list; each item has a one-line reason + one or two citations.)

  1. The Northman (2022) — Journalists warned white-nationalist boards were celebrating its Viking imagery and “macho” readings; critics discussed how Norse myth aesthetics are often misused by the far right. The Guardian+1

  2. Joker (2019) — Widely debated as a film whose grievance and violent outsider narrative was read sympathetically by some online “aggrieved male” and extremist-adjacent spaces; many outlets flagged the