On the more "right-wing" interpretation of the fictional romance between Rose and Jack from the film Titanic (1997)

 The original synopsis of the fictional romance in James Cameron's film Titanic (1997) is about Rose, a young Englishwoman from the "elite" and the fiancée of an American industrialist, who falls in love with Jack, a talented but poor artist, during the tragic maiden voyage of the Titanic in April 1912; how she never forgot her love for him, many years after the ship sank and Jack's death. It is a simple but no less impactful love story that has moved and continues to move many people since the film was released. However, in recent years, a more "right-wing" interpretation of this romance has emerged, let's say, in which Rose is characterized as a spoiled young woman from the "elite" who falls in love with an unemployed bum, and is ungrateful because she does not reciprocate the "love" (toxic feeling of possession) of her rich fiancé; who keeps for herself a valuable jewel that she received from her ex-fiancé, and who, instead of donating it to charity, one night, when she returns to the place where the Titanic sank, on the Canadian coast, throws it into the sea. Not to mention the contempt she would feel for the man who lived with her all her life. So, Rose's nonconformity regarding the hypocrisy of the social environment in which she lived is reclassified as a defect and not a virtue of character; her love for Jack as impulsiveness and recklessness; her sentimental attachment to that jewel, her only memory of her great love, as selfishness, and the fact that she was unable to nurture the same affection for her ex-fiancé and her husband as ingratitude.

Yes! This is what some people have been thinking about this fictional novel, and it is not limited to it, since this impoverished emotional understanding seems to be the modus operandi of those who only think about money, status... and treat feelings, such as genuine love and friendship, without material interests, with coldness or suspicion. And that, even in relation to a fiction, they cannot understand or accept that there are people who sincerely fall in love with others, or who maintain true bonds of good feelings without greater pretensions, who do not treat life only as obligations, rules, rankings and accumulation of "wealth".

Furthermore, it is also a somewhat hypocritical interpretation, when dealing with people who tend to put money or material wealth above life, and who, if they had possession of a very expensive piece of jewelry, it is very likely that they would use it for themselves.

Why didn't I root for the movie "I'm Still Here"?

 Why didn't I root for the movie "I'm Still Here"?

Because it would be the same as rooting for hypocrisy, cynicism, fanaticism...

Because it would be the same as rooting for the victory of a billionaire director, heir to a bank, who profits from the misery of many Brazilians, and who "fights against fascism" by making films that also make them money, which he already has plenty of...

His "class consciousness" seems quite impractical, because if he was truly progressive, he would seek to _help_ NGOs, individuals or groups directly, which, in very capitalist language, means "with LOTS of money" (which he has plenty of)...

Because it would be the same as rooting for an average actress, the daughter of privilege and nepotism (who benefited immensely in her career from being the daughter of well-known actors), and who is only interested in the fires in the Amazon and the Pantanal or the suffering of the Brazilian people when the government is "right-wing"... Extreme selectivity of indignation that many of his ideological peers have They also practice it. And that says a LOT about a person's character...

Because it would be the same as rooting for yet another mediocre film to win an award undeservedly, and which, let's say, has lost much of its prestige in recent years (or decades?), because of its very "subjective" way of evaluating film productions, prioritizing the political character of the film over its objective qualities, and which has become even more biased recently, practically a private "party" for "rich and fake progressives"....

Because it would be the same as continuing to honor an award that has been dominated for a long time by a certain "tribe" and that, currently, also dominates a good part of politics, education and the Western media, not for our delight, practicing its ethnic nepotism in a shameless manner in this award (see certain suspicious "victories", such as the one for "best actress", this year), while practicing other of its evil deeds* (slaughter of a certain people; brainwashing of ideologies) harmful, especially in Western countries, and the imposition of such policies with serious consequences, such as mass immigration and "multiculturalism", two extremist or radical policies that aim to destroy the cultural and ethnic homogeneity of nations in order to establish atomized, excessively individualistic societies, while remaining united and cohesive**...), with the almost absolute complicity or connivance of precisely the "institutions" in which it has wrapped its arms ("connections")...

* Obviously they are not the only ones, in fact, it is difficult to find a human population that does not commit irrational acts that can be classified as unnecessary, senseless, extreme and/or cruel. But, as politically hegemonic in our time...

** Even if it were the case of building more plural and/or less collectivist societies, it would be done correctly and not as has been imposed, in which an exponential increase in conflicts can be seen.

Because it would be the same as rooting for a film that rightly speaks out against the military dictatorship, but knowing that its creators, and many of those who supported it until its "victorious" Oscar run, also blatantly support "left-wing" dictatorships, as well as dictatorships that, without a clear ideological position, place themselves politically against US interests, instead of coherently positioning themselves against any type of totalitarian regime... Not to mention that they also support other types of dictatorship, more indirect, such as the thought police in force in the Western world...

In short, because it would be the same as endorsing the chorus of this hive of absolute conformity and lies posing as "emotional blackmail"...