Kill the tech bro, save the world: how CEOs became Hollywood's new supervillains
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Even in this headline, there's some pretty interesting equivocation happening between techies and CEOs overall. The article makes a decent case for why there's collective anxiety about tech companies, but neglects the question of "why only tech?"
The ~1990s had a whole string of movies with bankers and investors as villains: American Psycho, Rogue Trader, Glengarry Glen Ross, Wall Street, Boiler Room, and so on. Lately, we had had Wolf of Wallstreet and The Big Short, but in a post-2008 world where banking already has trashed the economy we're surprisingly short on bankers-as-villains films.
We got a couple of global warming films in the 2000s, and a couple more in the 2010s, but I can't think of one which makes a serious attempt to cast oil CEOs as villains - certainly not in the sense that e.g. tobacco companies have been. Avatar is probably the closest thing to "CEOs trashing the environment" that's been a hit.
Pharma companies lend themselves to human-interest tragedies, and we did get Dallas Buyer's Club. But there's no whole genre here like there used to be with "the bank takes the farm".
So there's the missing question: why tech companies specifically? The most obvious answer is just "more impressive visuals". I'm not sure we're talking about a particular anxiety of the moment, or if it's just that banks and oil companies work better on the page than on the screen.
What about "Erin Brockovich"? PG&E is a power company, though the hexavalent chromium was used to fight corrosion.
I did not see the movie, but the Wikipedia summary says the decision was traced to upper management.
I guess it depends when the article starts its timeline. I was trying to think of movies from the 2010s or so, because I can think of a lot of tech CEO villains in that span but not many non-tech CEO villains. My best guess at why is that action films with corporate villains look better with tech companies. (For instance, Robocop is way older than the article's timeframe, but fits the same villain narrative.)
It seems to support your observation.
I see a handful of very on-topic films there, Trouble in the Peace in particular looks like an environmental version of Hell or High Water (mortgages) or Legends of the Fall (local government corruption and mistreatment of Native Americans). But those were high-profile films with famous casts, while Trouble in the Peace looks like a sleeper labor of love.
Honestly, I'm really surprised we haven't gotten any good "oil companies ruin our lives" dramas this decade, you could do fracking or sea level rise or drought or... It feels like a weird gap in the set of popular narratives.
Don't forget the Fugitive!
Becuase they're the top of the food chain where they came from.
I came from a small, poor town. I was never a "tech bro." My parents stressed humility, and in particular, my dad said, "All work is honorable" which isn't true exactly, but the point was not to look down on people. I'd also had jobs at Walmart, Subway, etc. before college...
At about 26 my income went from NOTHING to low six figures in the early 2000's. I made more money in a day then I made in a month. I was living in a nice house, driving a nice car. For the first time in my life, I walked into a dealership and bought the car I wanted, not something I could afford. I took a loan for a modest sports car because I'd never had a loan before. But I could have paid cash.
Having come from a small, poor town-- that was a big deal to me. Most of the people I grew up with were just trying to make rent each month.
It is so easy to let that go to your head. I am sure I did a few times.
Thank you for sharing your introspection! You seem like a great person.
My ex wife would disagree, but thank you. :)
The typical SF tech bro stereotype: Youngish white guy, BS in CS from Michigan, lack of self awareness, enjoys Pliny the Younger, Barry's Bootcamp, standup, rides a boosted board to work in SOMA.
(This is not meant as a critique, I probably satisfy a number of these checkboxes myself...)
A fresh grad, new to SF that doesn't yet realize he can't unironically like trendy beers, workout routines or gauche means of conveyance?
That's not a bro! You guys just needed a word for cultural immigrants that haven't assimilated yet without making yourselves sound like bitter townies, didn't you?
But you do strike a chord with "a word for cultural immigrants that haven't assimilated yet". I know one person from the rural midwest who studied CS, landed in the Valley, and ended up leaving for some midwestern company - earning less money for work he liked less - because he couldn't assimilate. He swore teaching English in Japan had been less stressful and shocking than trying to keep up with the demands and hostility of SF culture, and honestly I don't find it hard to believe.
I've had people quite sincerely tell me that there's no such thing as "Bay Area culture", just an expectation that people do the right thing. I suppose it's one of those "fish in water" situations, but I still have trouble understanding the amount of hubris required to say "oh, other people have cultures, we just have the right way of behaving".
I think it is mainly seen in SF or huge cities that's why I proposed the numbers thing. I haven't heard the same comments from Seattle for example. Also, if you live in SF maybe explicitly ask carsharing drivers and waiters about them, they will start ranting.
Probably the same reason that it's never the most popular kid who's the bully, but someone a couple rungs down. People who feel insecure about their status need to make a big deal of asserting it.
I think these were likely the precursors of today's male and female "Tech Bros". They really were terrible. Anyway, I left San Fran and that was it for me as far as Silicon Valley living. I've had the good fortune to have had a couple of exits since, despite not living in the Bay area. But I'm positive a lot of that was just luck. Nowadays, I'm not sure it's still possible to get that lucky without having to move to the Bay area at some point. So I feel for you young guys and gals who have to just deal with the Tech Bros, (and the Tech Sis's), until your "boat comes in" so to speak.
I can't help noticing that this is the same stereotype as young finance guys in NYC, and it's not hard to imagine it's the same dynamic. Young, motivated, wealthy, but new to wealth and powerless in their field. They're working long hours, on call, making no decisions, poorly paid compared to other people in their field - but outside the office they can throw around money and make demands. And, yeah, often grossly inexperienced with acting like adults and having control of things.
Obviously there are plenty of people at the top of the finance world who are terrible, but note that the stereotypes there are different. Some end up dignified and anonymously super-rich. The ones who don't are defined by egomania, ludicrous risk-taking, and behavior that moves from rude to grotesque and illegal. Not all that different than some of the wilder SV stories, honestly.
Being the bottom of their professional world doesn't contradict that behavior, it explains it.
(Of course, I still have some major frustrations with the stereotyping of software in general as being like this. It still appears vastly less bad than a lot of less-maligned fields, but it's a newer bogeyman that's more interesting to yell at.)
You're talking about a bunch of kids who've come through a system where their core interests, skills, talents and personality types make them at best a permanent member of the out-group, at worst a constant target of derision or outright bullying.
Having navigated that system, they've now successfully got through a grueling degree or more and have landed themselves into a spot where no longer are they the out-group, they are the group. Not only that, they're making good money and are getting to do something they love to do, with people like themselves. They're more comfortable in themselves, and to be themselves, but their lack of social skills often shines through.
I've considered myself to be somewhat of a bridge between the nerds and the non-nerds throughout my life, having been in sports but also making time to code/hang out with those deemed to be the nerds, and I'm honestly sick of the constant attacks being perpetuated on these kids who've "made it" in tech by the very same types who made comments about or excluded them earlier in life.
The pilot fish of the tech industry, particularly tech "journalists", are far more toxic actors than anything deeply seated within it.
> The pilot fish of the tech industry, particularly tech "journalists", are far more toxic actors than anything deeply seated within it.
This, however, is a pretty substantial (and at least from the text of your comment, unsupported) claim. Can you elaborate?
EDIT: Phrasing, footnotes
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17257957
[1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
About the bullying and being the group, in my mind when you've been thru bad moments you understand how hard and in theory you should be making it easier for the rest when you have power since you were on the other side of the coin. That is why I can't relate, if you had a hard time you know how hard it can get. Why become the bully/idiot you hated?
They haven't gone through a downturn like 2002. Until then I thought I am the king of the world. Then I quickly realized that I am not as smart and self-made as I thought.
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_bana...
edit: woops, didn't look at the article before that. Lex is the core of the article
This article summarized things so well. I love it!
I'd argue that villains need power to have teeth and believability. Our definition of power changes over time- that's why we don't see too many communist rebel Che Guevara knock-offs, for example, as movie villains anymore unlike in Predator or Escape from LA. But if it wasn't tech CEOs then tinpot dictators and rogue generals always work, because they're always in power somewhere in the world. There's also the archetype of the sinister senior intelligence apparatchik or bureaucrat as highlighted in Mission: Impossible, 24, the Bourne movies, and a ton of others even before the Snowden revelations or the Iraq War, because that's another example of American conception of power.
I'd argue that tech CEOs also make for an easy target because their public personas are often defined by their idiosyncrasies (Jobs' turtleneck, Bezos' shaved head) and perceived social awkwardness. Sometimes, in the case of Upgraded, it just feels cruel to stereotypically awkward or neuroatypical nerds. But there's at least one major counter-example: Ex Machina was a great Hollywood exploration of A.I. and the Turing Test, and its genius CEO villain was played by Oscar Issac as a charismatic, or at least chummy, non-stereotypical nerd.
... When he isn't busy being a straight up hero (barf)
The issue here is people who are over-promoted in the media and lack ethics.
Also in the article:
It goes from the use of stereotyping to the whole liberal "companies are bad" argument.
This seems to contradict most of the information I've seen in the diversity reports from companies. Maybe there is some information covering the broader industry that supports this point?
>[tech bros are] the dominant population within tech
I think those two statements weren't meant to be linked.
The second part of that was pointing out bad journalism.