By Travis Akbar
The discourse around “wokeness” in film and television has become a predictable cycle of outrage, often devoid of any real critical thought.
The same voices that bemoan the inclusion of diverse perspectives in storytelling as forced or inauthentic are the first to praise films that claim to be rooted in “realism” when those narratives align with their personal preferences.
A prime example of this hypocrisy is the reaction to Warfare, the new military thriller praised for its authenticity because it was co-written and co-directed by a veteran who was present at the events depicted in the film.
On the surface, this seems like a reasonable celebration of firsthand experience shaping a film’s narrative. But when placed in the broader context of the so-called “anti-woke” movement, it exposes a glaring contradiction: why is authenticity celebrated here, but dismissed as “woke propaganda” when it comes from marginalised voices?
Authenticity in storytelling is a concept that should, in theory, be universally respected.
Stories told by people with lived experience carry weight, depth, and nuance that cannot be artificially manufactured. I know when I wrote a film that featured a character with PTSD, it took my friend who has PTSD reading it to tell me it just didn't ring true.
Yet, when filmmakers from historically underrepresented groups tell stories drawn from their realities, they are often accused of inserting “identity politics” or “social justice messaging” into entertainment.
For instance, when Indigenous filmmakers create films about colonial violence, or when Black directors craft narratives around systemic racism, these stories are often met with backlash. Armchair Critics and Social Media Users decry them as political statements rather than simply authentic experiences.
But so far, Warfare, seems to have been shielded from these critiques because it aligns with a worldview that the anti-woke crowd finds comfortable: one that valorises the military and reinforces traditional heroism.
In reality, the issue isn’t about authenticity at all, it’s about control over the narrative. When authenticity supports the dominant perspective, it is revered. When it challenges or expands beyond that perspective, it is derided as an agenda.
This double standard exposes the hollowness of the anti-woke argument. If authenticity were truly the metric for determining a film’s value, then all authentic stories, whether they’re about war, race, gender, or culture they would be given the same respect.
The real solution to this issue is to push past the manufactured outrage and recognise that storytelling is, and always has been, political.
Stories and Films are cultural artifacts that reflect the experiences of the people who create them. Whether that’s a veteran recounting a battle or a marginalised filmmaker telling a deeply personal story, authenticity should be embraced across the board, not only when it fits a specific ideological mold.
Until critics of so-called “wokeness” start applying their standards consistently, their arguments will continue to ring hollow. If they really believed in what they say, they'd be up in arms right now about all the authenticity talk about Warfare.