The Hollywood Writer's Wokescore™ - A Geiger Counter For Filtering Out Irradiated Garbage
We all know it when we see it. Audiences are experts in sensing – and ignoring - the intentions of writers and filmmakers when they attempt to surreptitiously program their perception of reality. Stalin became fascinated with it and made the industrial capture of the art form a top political priority. Until now, we haven't had a measuring rule, or even a cheatsheet for grading screenplays on how deeply the unnamed Gnostic political religion has corrupted their content.
Looking at YOU, Netflix. And every other writers' room in this town where writers are required to undergo neo-Marxist "re-education" before they can even type a word.
Bad Ideas = Bad Movies = Angry Audience
Patronising or insulting your audience is the stupidest thing you could ever do.
Audiences universally hate this crap. They make their views clear in box office figures, online voting, commentary, and plenty of anecdotal outposts. The critics, however, love it. It's extraordinary to see the inverse relationship between audience and critic scores. The chances are if it has a critic score of over 90%, it will have an audience score of less than 10%.
Naturally, these embarrassing punishments for narcissistic Hollywood people have to be discredited as the malicious activism of "trolls", "misogynists", "white supremacists" etc. Because all they can see is activism.
Until you read the comments, which are all telling the same story. The audience hates the agenda, the engineering, the propagandizing. The CREW hate it. They want a good story, not a sermon. They want art, not politics. The message is so clear it's like a baseball bat to the face, over and over again. The 70% of cinemagoers have always been aged 15-25. 17 year-old boys do not want to spend $40 on two hours of being told they don't deserve to exist sitting next to their date.
They want to escape the politicization of everything. Through romance, adventure, wonder, tragedy, awe, and emotion. Not take a Marxist sociology lecture.
If you're a member of the cult-which-definitely-doesn't-exist-you-bigot, these foolish simpletons HAVE to be deprogrammed from their "false consciousness", by FORCE. As Mao declared, they must be rid of Old ideas, Old Culture, Old Habits, Old Customs.
Unfortunately, they're also the people paying for the tickets.
If you're a writer, you probably think these preposterous "tests" studios, production houses, and writers' rooms adhere are laws of science. The truth is they come from left-wing crackpot sociology departments at universities and have about as much relevance to science as fairies or unicorns. They do, however, help studios pander to the 15% of the population on Twitter, who took those courses.
Social Science "Scholars": Failed Artists Turned Imposter Academics
One browse through the most ridiculous sociology "journals" makes something clear almost immediately: they are unofficial publishing outposts for creative fiction writing. Bad fiction. Horribly written, miserable garbage.
There are a lot of frustrated romance novelists doing psychology and sociology courses. A a lot of sci-fi fantasists doing "gender studies".
- "My diary": https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077800420960157
- "My poem": https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800419857753?journalCode=qixa
Being a film critic, of course, is closely related to Critical Theory, as it's criticising and undermining everything to death until it is ruined. These unemployable sociology graduates who miss out on the HR department have few options left after that, and end up blogging for unscrupulous wannabe digital outlets, like The Verge or Buzzfeed.
Sadly, most of them are women. And effeminate men.
Almost all of the film-related irradiation comes out of "feminist film theory", which is prima facie a grievance sociology neo-discipline seemingly populated by resentful lesbians who write fiction nobody wants to read. These "theorists" reify abject nonsense such as the "male gaze" and "final girl".
A key idea of feminist film theory, the concept of the male gaze was introduced by scholar and filmmaker Laura Mulvey in her now famous 1975 essay, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Help experts spread facts Adopting the language of psychoanalysis, Mulvey argued that traditional Hollywood films respond to a deep-seated drive known as “scopophilia”: the sexual pleasure involved in looking. Mulvey argued that most popular movies are filmed in ways that satisfy masculine scopophilia.
Big wow. Men like looking at women. Women also like looking at women.
Mulvey is an utter lunatic: a failed Marxist filmmaker obsessed with the idiot Jacques Lacan (featured in "Fashionable Nonsense") and directly plagiarised the even worse Jean-Paul Sartre. It's barely a hypothesis, let alone a "theory". Her films are unwatchable shit.
"Feminist film theory" is a journey through the mediocre, to the preposterous, to the resentful, to the unwatchable, all the way to the insane. All a long diatribe about why the audience are to blame for not wanting to watch their shit films. It must be an unconscious pathology they don't know they have.
Carol Clover, in her popular and influential book, Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (Princeton University Press, 1992), argues that young male viewers of the Horror Genre (young males being the primary demographic) are quite prepared to identify with the female-in-jeopardy, a key component of the horror narrative, and to identify on an unexpectedly profound level. Clover further argues that the "Final Girl" in the psychosexual subgenre of exploitation horror invariably triumphs through her own resourcefulness, and is not by any means a passive, or inevitable, victim.
You wonder why people don't listen to you, don't read your fiction, and don't watch your films?
It's extremely common to hear female film "graduates" try to "educate" others on these notions as if they are declared scientific fact or an article of religious faith.
Boys do not like "strong female leads". Neither do girls, particularly. The viewing numbers are clear. Neither do they dislike them. They simply prefer the other one. It's not because they are socially conditioned that way and need to be re-engineered as people, and immiserated in the process.
The simple truth, as even infants know, is men and women are different. They are interested in different things, think differently, and respond differently. Boys love fast cars. Girls like romance. Really successful films marry the two things, weaving adventure and heroism with love and longing. Two year-old girls love Disney princesses and Cinderella. Two year old boys like steam engines. Faces vs objects; feelings vs things. Not all of them, but most of them.
If you're a lesbian feminist film "theorist", you've never had kids. If you had, it would all be rather obvious.
The Idiotic, Censorious "Bechdel Test"
You've probably heard of this one. "Feminist film" graduates everywhere demand it's included in screenwriting software; studio executives drop it into conversation to try and sound "intellectual".
The Bechdel Test is a litmus test for female presence in fictional media. The test is named for Alison Bechdel, creator of the comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For, who made it known to the world with this strip.
In order to pass, the film or show must meet the following criteria:
- It includes at least two women,
- who have at least one conversation,
- about something other than a man or men
You know, like lesbians do. Ordinary women spend a rather lot of their time talking about men. And they apparently enjoy it very much.
The "Bechdel Test" is a gauge of whether your film would appeal to bulldykes who hate men, and whether the women they bully will be brave enough to defend liking it when being threatened by them. Not exactly the broadest demographic.
It's not a "test"". It's not scientific. It's not academic. It's not anything. It's the spiteful, self-important ranting of a butch lesbian cartoon writer that university graduates misrepresent as an established academic literary gate. It was a comic strip.
Why do studio execs talk about this nonsense like it's some kind of philosophical academic notion?
The Vituperative, Censorious "Vito Russo Test"
Failing this one will get you blacklisted and hounded by those loving compassionate people over at GLAAD. Never to be outdone in the Stalinist stakes, this tragedy is described in the most tyrannical terms you're ever likely to find anywhere:
Taking inspiration from the "Bechdel Test," which examines the way female characters are portrayed and situated within a narrative, GLAAD developed its own set of criteria to analyze how LGBTQ characters are included within a film. The "Vito Russo Test" takes its name from celebrated film historian and GLAAD co-founder Vito Russo, whose book The Celluloid Closet remains a foundational analysis of LGBTQ portrayals in Hollywood film.
To pass the Vito Russo Test, the following must be true:
- The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender.
- That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity. I.E. they are made up of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight characters from one another.
- The LGBTQ character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect. Meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline. The character should “matter.”
A "test" created by its founder. How humble. Russo died of AIDS in 1990. He was a rabid activist who thought in strange terms which may or may not have had him banned from school playgrounds:
"In his zeal to tear down closet walls, Vito seemed to spot homosexuality in unlikely sources, trumpeting his “jubilant conscription of new and hitherto unsuspected recruits.” Intentionally or not, the word “recruits” cast Vito in the unfortunate light of an alley-lurking pedophile, waiting patiently to lure “innocent” films into his net."
What is wrong with these people who think they can tell artists what to include in their art to be "acceptable"? These are the exact same requirements made by the communist parties of Asia and the Soviet Union.
If a writer wants to include an LGBT character, it is their choice and their choice alone, for their reasons. It's not for advocacy groups to determine what makes art pass a political "test" or be considered meritorious based on what a Politburo scores it for compliance with their doctrine.
Nobody has the right to demand "representation" in works of art. It's narcissistic in the extreme.
Other Preposterous Soviet Science "Tests": Finkbeiner, Mako Mori, Sphinx, Josephs, DuVernay, Kent, Make It Stop
Another key characteristic of the fraudulent social "sciences" is their penchant for one-upping each other: black lesbians can't let white lesbians have all the limelight; queer activists can't let the black lesbian feminist vegans have the "scholarly edge" in ImaginationLand.
Dig a little deeper, and lo and behold, every nutjob group is demanding they are "represented" in art. Because artists are cowards, and lunatic bullies are onto a safe bet swinging their weight around these featherweights with no downside to their nastiness.
It's interesting to note how few of these "tests" ask s a more pertinent question: do our ideas make the story better?
Female scientists this time and "gender bias" in journalism.
A checklist proposed by freelance journalist Christie Aschwanden to help journalists avoid gender bias in media articles about women in science. To pass the test, an article about a female scientist must not mention:
- That she is a woman
- Her husband's job
- Her childcare arrangements
- How she nurtures her underlings
- How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
- How she is a role model for other women
- How she's the "first woman to...
So, a man, then.
Anything else before we start writing?
The Mako Mori Test
An upgrade to the Bechdel "test". It's a low bar.
The Mako Mori test was suggested by fans of the film Pacific Rim as an alternative to or extension of the Bechdel Test for analysing the inclusion of female characters in media. The rules of the Mako Mori test are:
- There must be at least one prominent female character
- Who has her own narrative arc
- Which is not about supporting a man's story
So, a woman who lives on a planet without any interaction with the opposite sex, because men and women support each other.
What is about people who can't write and have no understanding of literary theory that makes them think the more "narrative" makes them sound more intellectual?
The Sphinx Test
More Bechdel rivalry.
Given the persistent inequalities of the theatre profession, Sue Parrish, artistic director of the Sphinx Theatre, the UK’s longest running women’s theatre company, launched the ‘sphinx test’. The idea for the test was proposed by Rosalind Philips and developed with Helen Barnett and Parrish.
PROTAGONIST: Is there a woman centre stage? Does she interact with other women? DRIVER: Is there a woman driving the action? Is she active rather than reactive? STAR: Does the character avoid stereotype? Is the character compelling and complex? POWER: Is the story essential? Does the story have an impact on a wide audience?
More importantly, does this play suck because of our stupid tests, and is that why nobody buys tickets to shows by a women's theatre company?
The Josephs' Test
Next up, Jews. As if this group needed representation in Hollywood. They built the place. However, it's more of an internal fight.
Therefore, I’d like to propose what I will call THE JOSEPHS TEST: (which I have named after Jew in the City founder and director, Allison Josephs). This can be a quick checklist for creators and viewers of media of Orthodox Jewish narratives, themes and characters to see if a reasonable and accurate depiction has been created.
Are there any Orthodox characters who are emotionally and psychologically stable? (Half a point if they occasionally smile. Two points if you’d want to hang out with any of them.)
Are there characters who are Orthodox whose religious life is a characteristic but not a plot point or a problem? (Half a point if they can get through an entire scene without touching a religious object, mentioning a Torah verse, or speaking pedantically to the other characters.)
Can the Orthodox character find her Happily Ever After as a religious Jew? (Or does it ONLY come about through leaving observance, and then all of her issues magically resolve?)
And if the main plot points are in conflict due to religious observance— are any characters not Hasidic or Haredi and have the writers actually researched authentic religious observance from practicing members of the community they are attempting to portray?
The DuVernay Test
Otherwise known as the "diversity" test. Ava DuVernay directed "Selma" about Martin Luther King. The New York Times, that paragon of integrity who covered up for Stalin, proposed the Bechdel Test be racialised:
in honor of the director and Sundance alumna Ava DuVernay, what might be called the DuVernay test, in which African-Americans and other minorities have fully realized lives rather than serve as scenery in white stories.
You mean like Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, or just the democratic-voting fetish black victims used as a human shield by extreme left media?
The Kent Test
Yep, another one for "racial consciousness", aka Race Marxism. It has points. God help us.
Culture critic, Clarkisha Kent, created a test "The Kent Test", a test similar to the Bechdel test aimed at women of color.
Anyone else want to set their political terms for art?
You can't help but notice there is a sense of bitterness and/or "tantruming infant" about the so-called "authors" of these pseudoscientific "tests". They all want films made the way they want; they demand the art be made to their wishes and customisations. The entitlement is staggering.
The theme is art must conform to a political orthodoxy. That has a name: propaganda. It does matter what other politburo naming you give it; it's an old idea. Ask the king of the hippies, Frank Zappa:
"Every socialistic type of government where the government theoretically owns everything and everybody does their little part to help the state, produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government."
"My Afternoon With Frank Zappa" by Larry Rogak, May 8, 1980
China doesn't have any artists. Neither does North Korea. Communists kill artists because they tell the truth, which makes them first to stand towards the wall.
And one thing is clear: any application of this political crap to art makes it suck. The politicisation of art is the death of art. Applying any of this - and assuming you ever had a right to in the first place - ruins and corrupts it. Art exists to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, not affirm your psychosis.
The "Topside Test" for transgenders: https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/is-there-a-transgender-text-in-this-class-1-1_pages.pdf
The "Native Bechdel Test" for indigenous tribespeople, or something: http://nativeappropriations.com/2014/10/is-it-time-for-a-native-bechdel-test.html
In fact, why not list all of them in a nice list, entitled "how to make a film completely unwatchable so you have something to complain about in your next gender studies essay":
In all of these, nobody asks the simple questions of a slightly better test:
- Does it make better art?
- Do audiences like it?
- Does it spur and inspire other artists?
- Do people place a value on it by paying for it?
We all know the answer to all four: NO. Audiences hate it. But it makes lunatics feel better and gains them attention like screeching adult children.
Audiences do not go to galleries or theatres to see two women talk about something other than a man or to raise their "racial consciousness". They want a story; to be transported away from all of this kind of nonsense.
Your film sucks because it's politicised garbage. That's it.
What Do We Mean By "Woke"?
"Woke" is a catch-all term which is nebulous and evasive. In this context, we're referring to the neo-Marxist worldview of "critical (theory) consciousness" as propagandized by Critical Theorists such as Herbert Marcuse.
The term "woke" arose within music during the 1960s and referred to being "highly aware" or "enlightened" to social injustices towards black people. Neo-Marxist "scholars" weaponised these injuries in order to create a new Marxist proletariat that would replace the old one (the working class) who didn't show up for the revolution. Herbert Marcuse advocated for the coalescence of "ghetto" populations: unemployed blacks, resentful women, social rejects, and the "undervalued" intelligentsia.
These incompatible groups: women, black nationalists, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, animal/environmental activists, and so on, were forged together with the doctrine of "intersectionality" (aka the pyramid of oppression/victimhood) in the late 1980s. The new Marxist conflict replaced bourgeoisie with the common enemy of cis straight white Western men and their "systems", and the proletariat with the people they rejected: society's apparent victims.
The spread of this virus was driven through the American education system by tenured communist radicals (critical pedagogy etc) and found its home in Big Tech's Stalin-esque social media platforms. Never wanting to be left out, HR departments and Environmental & Social Governance (ESG) infected the corporate world with it in their quest to gain immunity from the bad PR threatened by Twitter mobs.
Hollywood's always been a haven for communist union guilds and had a sanctimonious cancel culture for a century. However, this apocalyptic iteration has been driven by Big Tech's financial swallowing of the industry and Californian universities embedding their sociology into corporate media offices.
Simply put, "woke" is the neo-Marxist worldview that straight white men are an evil, oppressive class who have "constructed" the modern world for their own benefit and need to be "dismantled" on behalf of the minority groups they and their institutions oppress. The vindictive revenge of the revolution is "social justice".
All of this is obviously batshit and defies basic reality. It's so nutty you barely know where to start. It's a Gnostic religion emerging within a generation raised without any sense of life meaning by USSR-apologists and New Atheists.
But that's the problem. Writers live in their imagination and are cowardly. When they've been indoctrinated into this idiocy by ideologues possessing the same moral certainty as Hitler, there's often no way back psychologically or artistically.
What happens after that is a lifetime of screenplays with Gnostic dualism where their art has to promote activism to contribute to resolving this class struggle.
Their screenplays are crap. Their stories are tedious. Much like their masters' prose at the Frankfurt School.
The Wokery FICO Score: 80+ Questions
The first issue which needs to be addressed is three entire genres are, in most cases, artistically exempt from examination because their entire premise is the characters' existence in a fictional world which does not correspond with reality.
It's entirely unfair to suggest "Terminator" is woke when it's dealing with a time-traveling robot, or Star Trek is politically correct when it's based on a starship interacting with aliens from other planets. It's crucial artists have the ability to play in their imagination of alternative reality without restriction.
Equally, satire which aims to exaggerate or lampoon reality for the purpose of uncovering truth cannot be considered misleading when it is self-evidently fictional or absurd.
It's also perfectly reasonable to note "Top Gun" could easily be considered neoliberal nationalistic propaganda.
To qualify and weight these infractions, whether explicit or implicit, through ignorance or conceit, each must be:
a) Specific, not broad or vague;
b) Repetitive, not incidental;
c) Intentional, not accidental;
d) Quantifiable, not speculative;
e) Objective under the "Reasonable Person" Common Law test, not subjective;
f) Reproducible opinion, not an individual interpretation;
[ X] Is NOT part of the imaginary Science Fiction / Fantasy / Satire genre(s) centered on fictional creatures, abilities, or worlds
Weighting is indicated on a scale of 1-10 in brackets at the end, like so  in reference to the overall corruption/damage inflicted on the art form.
These indicators refer to feminist political tropes aiming to falsely portray the natural state of the sexes as indistinguishable.
[ ] Misrepresents or denies biological strength differences between men and women 
[ ] Misrepresents or denies interest/value differences between men and women 
Total score: 16
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist groups who have a declared goal of abolishing the family structure, particularly feminist and LGBT lobbyists.
[ ] Significantly omits fathers from families while simultaneously portraying children as emotionally healthy as having them present 
[ ] Misrepresents patriarchal figures as irredeemably corrupt or as having an implicit desire for tyrannical behaviour 
Total score: 20
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals who form their worldview around left-wing collectivism, particularly divisive Neo-Marxist ideologues with "identity politics" as their line-of-action. This is often referred to as being "[insert group]-conscious" (e.g. racial consciousness, identity conscious)
[ ] Mandates characters embody stereotypical demographic traits for their own sake, unrelated to any plausible aspect of the story or editorial justification 
[ ] Advocates for the future predominance of a demographic group over others 
[ ] Mandates characters from a specified quota rather than the artistic context or the storyline 
[ ] Consistently generalises and de-individuates an entire demographic group as sharing identical beliefs or characteristics 
[ ] Noticeably emphasises the relevance of immutable physical traits (e.g. skin colour) of characters in a way which is irrelevant to the story 
[ ] Misrepresents or artificially inflates the occurrence and typicality of special interest groups in social settings 
[ ] Noticeably excludes demographic groups from villainy, criticism, or ridicule 
[ ] Grossly accentuates or canonises the victimhood of one or more demographic groups whilst omitting any accompanying negative behaviours 
Total score: 69
These indicators refer to the totalitarian ideology of erasing, altering, or propagandizing events to manipulate their standing in public memory for political gain.
[ ] Consistently attempts to inappropriately overlay contemporary moral thinking on depictions of historical events 
[ ] Attempts to revise or rewrite known and established historical fact(s) 
[ ] Attempts to lionize or perform apologism for historical figures credibly accused of moral depravity or serious criminality 
[ ] Omits, denies, or grossly downplays mention of serious historical harms caused by editorially-favoured characters or groups 
[ ] Deliberately or malfeasantly exaggerates historical harms caused by editorially-disfavoured characters or groups 
Total score: 47
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals aiming to create polarising division for political gain through altering public perception of dichotomous actors.
[ ] Features excessive exposition between characters misrepresenting political terminology or definitions 
[ ] Depicts inserts news sources exclusively from partisan media outlets on one side of the political spectrum 
[ ] Consistently portrays a character's political beliefs as the fundamental and predominant motivation of their heroic cause over human emotion 
[ ] Fundamentally depicts characters or events in a political "black or white" partisan fashion without nuance 
[ ] Omits depiction and/or discussion of well-known harms accompanying specific political beliefs 
[ ] Depicts characters with political views on one side of the spectrum in an overly-favourable or idealized light 
[ ] Depicts characters with political views/traits on one side of the spectrum in a disfavourable, pathological, or villainous light 
[ ] Advocates for or normalises severe sanctions or mistreatment of political enemies on the basis of political affiliation or belief 
[ ] Misrepresents partisan individuals, groups, or movements as politically neutral, impartial, or a social consensus 
Total score: 48
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals aiming to alter public perception by exploiting principles found in human group psychology.
[ ] Consistently implies or asserts false mainstream consensus regarding fringe or controversial socio-political views 
[ ] Portrays characters being shamed, ostracized, or suffering adverse social consequences for their dissent in a positive or sympathetic light 
[ ] Attempts to disguise extremist political/ideological notions in a lighthearted, heroic, or virtuous way 
[ ] Repetitively depicts one or more characters gravely correcting or policing the speech of others for its socio-political unacceptability 
Total score: 35
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals aiming to normalise immoral behaviour any reasonable person would find otherwise repugnant.
[ ] Consistently attempts to create or assert self-evidently-false equivalence between relationships and sexual/moral behaviours 
[ ] Grossly downplays harmful effects of controversial social behaviours 
[ ] Glamourises or attempts to intellectualise interest in pre-pubescent sexual development or activity 
[ ] Suggests or advocates minors are sexually mature at a younger age than commonly assumed, or have sexual agency in interactions with adults 
[ ] Misrepresents extreme depravity, superfluous licentiousness, or obscenity as intrinsically possessing implicit artistic merit due to its "subversive" nature 
Total score: 36
These indicators refer to the false depiction of political tropes and cynical authorship within the educational system as legitimate and epistemologically unquestionable.
[ ] Misrepresents human beings as exclusively existing as a "blank slate", an exclusive product of nurture or social conventions, or explicitly denies the existence of human nature 
[ ] Attempts to normalise or grossly downplay symptoms of serious, medically-recognised identity/personality disorders as harmless, virtuous, or simply political 
[ ] Grossly misrepresents unreliable or fictional statistics as established fact outside the context of farce or parody 
[ ] Misrepresents or reifies fringe hypotheses or paralogical notions from the social sciences as established fact outside the context of farce or parody 
[ ] Misrepresents or reifies fanciful pseudoscientific notions as established fact outside the context of farce or parody 
[ ] Reifies esoteric or Gnostic concepts as established fact outside the context of farce or parody 
[ ] Consistently includes obscure political neologisms, buzzwords, jargon, or pseudery during dialogue or voiceover 
Total score: 52
These indicators refer to the politically partisan beliefs of extremist individuals aiming to undermine and attack the existence of "systems" referred to in sociology. Criticism is often justified.
[ ] Portrays institutions solely as faceless, irredeemably authoritarian, monolithic forces with malicious intention towards interest groups 
[ ] Includes casual disparagement of nations, iconic figures, or population groups which are unrelated to the story or the character themselves 
[ ] Attempts to create or support a defamatory Black Legend of a nation or culture 
Total score: 29
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals which have been inculcated during higher education.
[ ] Constructs its premise as a conceit derived predominantly as a simplistic interpretation of Franco-Germanic ideology published by philosophical idealists, particularly :
[ ] Hegel 
[ ] Rousseau 
[ ] Marx 
[ ] Lenin 
[ ] Freud 
[ ] Marcuse 
[ ] Foucault 
[ ] Bell 
[ ] Crenshaw 
Note: there are too many individual "scholars" on a list like this to mention individually, so we go to their shared roots. For example, Judith Butler's nonsense is derived almost entirely from Freud & Foucault, and feminist theory is derived from Freud & Marx.
Total score: 90
New Left Apologism
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals which have been adopted unquestioningly through partisan university indoctrination or adoption of cultural consensus tropes.
[ ] Predominantly centers its plot or excessively features dialogue around themes of: 
[ ] Institutional minority oppressor (1%) vs majority oppressed (99%) 
[ ] Tyrannical nationalistic imperialism 
[ ] Men being tyrannical or unnecessary 
[ ] Capitalism being indistinguishable from monopolistic/exploitative corporate greed 
[ ] Men and women being indistinguishable 
[ ] Traditions being "backward" or "outdated" 
[ ] Social conventions and categorisation being implicitly cruel 
[ ] Nuclear family being unnecessary or harmful 
[ ] Liberation of social victims lacking personal agency 
[ ] Demographic groups deserving historical blame or group guilt 
[ ] Utopian societies achieved by ideology 
[ ] Equivalent validity and interchangeability of cultures with different value systems 
[ ] "One dimensional" life caused by consumerism 
[ ] Human nature being irrelevant to outcomes 
[ ] Sexual practices and genders being interchangeable 
[ ] The primacy of the unconscious mind over reason 
[ ] Morality being socially relative or subjective 
[ ] Reality being defined exclusively through perception, categories, or use of language 
Total score: 174
These indicators refer to the political beliefs of extremist individuals regarding the preferred use of the arts to promote or advocate partisan or radical causes over truth or art for its own sake.
[ ] Author has a background in Critical Theory or other subject corrupted by politicised sociology (e.g. anthropology) 
[ ] Author has a public track record of highly partisan behaviour or promoting radical groups/causes 
[ ] Predominantly constitutes a vehicle for partisan political messaging rather than artistic expression or entertainment 
[ ] Is promoted on its merits as a politicised work appealing to sympathetic interest groups 
[ ] Appears to be written to engender intense support for a specific fringe political worldview from the audience, or convince it of such a worldview's exclusive virtue 
[ ] To a reasonable person, constitutes politicised characterisation and/or storytelling rather than natural composition 
[ ] To a reasonable person, attempts to sermonise its own sociological conclusion, rather than ask a reasonable artistic question 
[ ] To a peer writer or processional analyst, would be considered more sociology or social science "analysis" than story 
[ ] To an impartial professional or literary critic, could be considered a one-sided political "lens" beyond artistic license 
[ ] Suppresses an audience's enthusiasm/enjoyment due to the self-evident nature of its politicised content or by disparaging the audience itself 
Total score: 100
Creating A Geiger Counter & Calculating A Wokescore
Ticking any of these boxes means a flash on the Geiger Counter. Most traditional films don't register highly, as the definitions above are designed to be as specific as possible to nasty wokist behaviours in the arts.
For example, let's look at what a reasonable person might call "traditional" films they wouldn't consider "woke" in the slightest or perceive to have partisan or ideological posturing from IMDB's top 200 list which aren't in the fantasy or satires genres: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls051781075/
- Pulp Fiction
- Silence of the Lambs
- The Hangover
- Happy Gilmore
- Forest Gump
- etc etc
Few if any of these would score on the above sheet, if at all. If they did, it wouldn't be fair to write them off on the basis of one character exposing objectionable views or an author having a dodgy personal political history.
Now let's look at some horrendously "woke" films perceived to be highly ideological:
- The Matrix
- Get Out
- Charlie's Angels
- Terminator: Dark Fate
- Santa, Inc
The more recently they were produced, the more likely they are incorporate "woke" patterns, terms, and themes. Ideally, scoring would take this into account and mark them more gravely. It would also account for age and maturity: younger writers have less life experience and tend to veer more towards open-minded left-wing ideas.
So we need to establish a tolerance threshold, because art needs room to wriggle.
The total score possible is 716, almost like a FICO score:
16 + 20 + 69 + 47 + 48 + 35 + 36 + 52 + 29 + 90 + 174 + 100 = 716
Percentage breakdowns (% / weighted points):
- 5%: 35 (some wokery, but barely noticeable)
- 10% 71 (medium wokery, but tolerable)
- --- threshold ---
- 20%: 143 (noticeably partisan, losing viewers)
- 30%: 214 (audience limited by ideology)
- 40%: 286 (overt criticism for agenda-promotional filmmaking)
- 50%: 358 (severe audience hatred)
- 60%: 430 (ridicule, boycotts, apologism by advocates)
- 70%: 501 (smear/blame campaigns and discrediting critics)
- 80%: 572 (requiring institutional support for promotion/distribution)
- 90%:L 644 (obviously manufactured for political purposes)
- 100% : 716 (extremely radioactive propaganda)
The conclusion here being: if a script or other work of art indicates a Geiger counter reading of over 10%, your project is at best going to reach less than 50% of the available audience, and at worst completely doomed.
Conversely, if the score is 10% or less, you're at risk, but within the parameters of audience forgiveness. Less than 5% is the ideal, as the woke mind virus is hard to escape in left-leaning Babylon.
If you're a writer and consistently scoring over 10%, you have some serious thinking and re-examining to do on a personal and professional level. Nothing is irredeemable, but the work of introspection will be painful. Your track record will embarrass you in the years to come. If the audience decides you deserve to be taken seriously.