The Drama’s moral conundrum has been heavily debated online, but few have stopped to consider what the film says about white privilege and unconscious bias, writes Varsha Yajman.
Culture Bite is Cheek’s new weekly column tackling the intersections of culture and politics. Help us create more content like this by becoming a paid subscriber!
“What is the worst thing you’ve ever done?” That is the question at the centre of A24’s new romantic comedy turned psychological thriller, The Drama.
The widely anticipated film has dominated the discourse since it hit theatres earlier this month, and it hasn’t been without controversy. But since seeing the film myself, I feel something is glaringly missing from the conversation - the role of white privilege and unconscious bias in shaping what we view as moral.
The central question is put to the film’s four main characters at a wine tasting ahead of Emma (Zendaya) and Charlie’s (Robert Pattinson) wedding, who are joined by another couple, their maid of honour, Rachel (Alana Haim), and best man, Mike (Mamoudou Athie). A warning for anyone who hasn’t already seen the film, that this is about to get into spoiler territory!
The confessions begin when Rachel coerces Mike to reveal that he once used his ex-girlfriend as a shield against a dangerous dog, while Charlie answers the question with a seemingly made-up story about cyberbullying a child when he was 14.
On a more shocking note, Rachel admits to locking a mentally disabled child in the closet, without telling anyone, and when prodded about whether the child ended up okay, she laughs it off, saying “he’s alive”.
Finally, Emma hesitantly reveals that at 15, she planned a school shooting, but critically, that she did not end up going through with it. Her answer is framed as the acute moment that destabilises the film, becoming the catalyst for the chaos that follows. It is this admission that has underpinned the biggest question on the internet: “If you were Charlie, would you stay with Emma?”
But we’re ignoring a far more important conversation. Emma’s plans, while confronting, never actually eventuated into harm. But the actions of the rest of the did - in Rachel’s case, she endangered the life of a young boy. Ultimately, The Drama begs the question of how a 15-year-old black girl’s intention can be deemed fundamentally worse than a white woman’s actual harm.
Context matters
Throughout the film, we see Rachel’s recurring use of ‘white tears’ - a concept popularised by author and journalist Dr Ruby Hamad in 2018. It refers to white people’s (and particularly white women’s) sometimes-tactical use of emotional distress to centre their experiences while avoiding accountability.
The first time we see this is when Rachel completely absolves herself of any responsibility for locking up a mentally disabled child deep in a forest, on the basis that he was “weird” and she was scared of getting in trouble.
But Emma is not given the same opportunity. Rachel refuses to engage with the reasons Emma had such dark thoughts in the first place. In the few glimpses we are given intoEmma’s backstory, we see a young black 15-year-old who is depressed, bullied and isolated, and becomes easily drawn in by the aesthetics and power of gun culture.
The one occasion where Rachel is held accountable for her hypocrisy, her immediate defence is that her behaviour was only “an impulse” -not a plan, like Emma’s. By deflecting accountability and shifting attention to Emma’s actions, Rachel positions herself as the victim and diminishes the role Emma’s context had in shaping the thoughts she had as a 15-year-old.
Even when Charlie points to the broader systemic issues around gun violence in America, Rachel refuses to shift blame from Emma - “Oh, so it’s America’s fault?”
It’s as if Rachel cannot fathom her black friend being affected by systemic racism, nor the rampant gun culture of a country that ranks first in the world for the number of shootings committed annually.
Rachel’s proximity to blackness
Despite the clear impact of her behaviour, Rachel’s proximity to blackness makes it difficult to label her a racist, or even to question the unconscious bias that shapes her judgment of Emma’s confession.
Mamta Motwani Accapadi’s concept of “false envy” provides insight into how Rachel’s positive relationships with black people - like Emma, and her husband - not only allow her to claim an understanding of discrimination and racial dynamics, but also situate herself outside of them.
The film shows us the ramifications of false envy when Rachel assumes that Mike, her black husband, “grew up around guns” and is terrified of them.
When Mike corrects her, noting it was just his uncle who had guns because he was a police officer, Rachel becomes defensive, suggesting he is disagreeing with her because he supports school shootings.
Well, what about cousin Sam?
The audience gains further insight into the racial dynamics between Rachel and Emma when Rachel brings up her cousin Sam, in yet another example of Hamad’s white tears.
Rachel weaponises Sam, who was paralysed during a shooting, in her efforts to villainise Emma - asserting she will need to ask Sam for permission to attend the wedding, as not to “betray her”. However, neither Emma nor Charlie even know who Sam, suggesting the cousins don’t actually share the close relationship that Rachel portrays.
Ultimately, Rachel causes an implosion in Emma’s life, from the bedroom where Charlie is spiralling about whether he knows who his fiancée really is, and in the workplace where Rachel flakes on Emma for a job that Emma recommended her for. The wedding is simply the last straw: Rachel’s maid of honour speech is smeared with cruelty about Emma’s lack of friends and “complexity.”
The burden, in these cases, falls on Emma to pull herself together, apologise and smile, while Rachel remains unscathed and the centre of attention.
Rachel’s characterisation forces us to reconsider the ways that white privilege persists today and more broadly reflects the most judgmental parts of ourselves.
The Drama does not ask us to change our concept of morality, but rather to question how our unconscious biases shape our lens for what we regard as moral.
About the author
Varsha Yajman
Varsha Yajman is a lawyer, writer and advocate discussing the intersection across topics like climate justice, mental health and race.
 | A guest post by
|
This is my favourite read about the film I’ve seen so far. Spot on. Loved the film - laughed and cringed 90% of the time. Also what’s with all the vomit? 🫣
Really great critique and very well written, thank you for sharing it.