Political correctness is a multi-headed beast that is attempting to destroy seemingly every age-old institution in America, and film is no longer safe. Every day, the bounds of what culture considers acceptable recede further inward, encroaching on the freedoms of filmmakers to express themselves, and the goal posts are always moving. Exactly what is considered politically correct and what isn't is entirely subjective, and never easy to pin down. Now, directors are called out for not featuring different minorities and women in their films, and old movies are being called out for all manner of things, including sexism, and "racism" (in the context of today's hyper-aware racial climate). This growing movement, colloquially dubbed "Cancel Culture," is a cancer in the cinema system, and a roadblock for any sort of artistic progression.
This idea of films being subordinate to political correctness seems wrong because it's not at all authentic. It cheapens the art to force the artist or creator to compromise him or herself and pander to people for no reason other then that they just want to be "represented." I'm not trying to debate the ethics of whether or not representation is important; I'm merely pointing out that it's morally questionable and almost fascistic to force a filmmaker to make their movie a certain way in order to correct a wrong you perceive in society, or to throw a tantrum when a filmmaker makes something that you don't like. Therefore, when cancel culture or the media go after a film deeming it insensitive, wrong, or any other accusation, that's fascistic, because it's trying to stop someone from exercising their right to free speech and make what they want.
This idea of canceling non-politically correct films also divisive, because not only is it assuming the artist's intent with their work, it's foisting a set of ideals on the artist that they may not have and then calling the person out for those. Take for example, Gone with the Wind. That film has been targeted for its depiction of African-American slaves as servile and mildly outlandish. Now, this film has been regarded as a classic for years, and decades even. African-Americans were obviously viewed differently at the time of the film's release, but politically correct pundits and social justice warriors refuse to view it in context, and have deemed it racist solely because there are African-American slave characters in it. Are these negative depictions, or are they just depictions baed in the social context of the time? People are now attacking a film released in 1939 for not having the social conscience that we have today in 2020, and even though they can just boycott it or not watch it, many have called for it to be banned or for bits deemed "racist" to be removed. Take another example with The Witches, a new film adaptation of Roald Dahl's children's book of the same name. Lead actress Anne Hathaway had to apologize after playing the main antagonist, a character with severe defects. Several news sources covered the incident after the "limb difference" community spoke out. Now, some are calling for no films to feature villains with birth defects. Why is this? Did this really bother people so much that we should cut off certain character possibilities for future films? Why is it wrong to portray a villain with defects? The defects aren't directly tied to her character as evil, and she's not depicted as an antagonist solely for her deformities, so why is this an issue? The beauty of movies is that you don't have to watch anything that you don't want to, but this isn't enough. Now people are pushing to not allow creators to have villains with any kind of birth defect, and the lead actress in the film was forced to apologize for portraying the character, for fear of getting canceled or receiving a boycott, despite the fact that she most likely wasn't playing the character just to make fun of people with disabilities. Now, maybe she was, I don't know for sure, but isn't it dangerous to not assume good faith until proven otherwise, and just attack someone solely because you have an issue with their film, and then try and control the way all future films get made because of it?
Another good example of this is when Spike Lee called out Clint Eastwood for not portraying any African-American marines in his film Flags of Our Fathers. Eastwood responded that that would have been historically inaccurate for him to depict them, since even though there were black soldiers in World War II, they were racially segregated from the white soldiers, which is why there were no black soldiers in this film and Letters from Iwo Jima, another WWII film he had made. Lee still came after him, saying that they were not living on a plantation, and calling him a "grumpy old man." Is this not problematic? It is quite immature and juvenile to attack someone just because their art didn't express the things that the attacker wanted it to. They are not the filmmaker, the director is. It is the director's vision, and he shouldn't be concerned with political correctness.
A director is primarily concerned with how they'll get their film made, and they're most likely not setting out to make something racist or homophobic or whatever. Unless the issue of representation is close to their heart, studios shouldn't force filmmakers to include certain characters in their films and micromanage their art. The onus is not on a filmmaker to pander or appease a people group. They're in no way obligated to make changes to their art to make social justice warriors happy, nor should they be. If culture continues to grow more and more hyper-sensitive to anything that could be remotely construed as offensive, then the bounds of what is acceptable in film will become more narrow, and soon, everything will be offensive. Should we not allow for any room for freedom of expression? At the very least, preserve movies, and don't let an age-old, reverently-regarded institution like film become subject to political correctness, or it will surely die.