Latinx Files: The Flamin’ Hot discourse continues

Do you know how I know there is no singular Latinx experience? Writing for The Times, critic Carlos Aguilar called it a “surprisingly enjoyable crowd-pleaser,” adding that the movie “mostly works because agree on a poignant, yet not sanctimonious approach that crystallizes the specific fortitude of mining hope from dire struggle.” Critic Monica Castillo had a different take, asking the following in her RogerEbert.com review: “What does it say when we lionize a person who says they did something they didn’t and hold them up as a pillar of our community, who, if anything, perfected selling our connections to our culture back to ourselves as a form of identity consumerism?” It’s a sentiment my colleague Gustavo Arellano agrees with, who blasts the movie in a recent column. That’s what makes ‘Flamin Hot’ not just pandering but pernicious.” Despite these valid criticisms, people appear to like “Flamin’ Hot.” It currently boasts an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, and the movie is “the most-watched streaming premiere from Searchlight Pictures, an assertion made by Longoria on Twitter that’s “based on hours watched in its first three days.” Such has been the reception of the movie that even President Biden, whose immigration policy is similar to his predecessor’s, will be hosting a screening of “Flamin’ Hot” with Latinx leaders on Thursday. That much was communicated in a recent Ad Age report, “Why brands shouldn’t wait until 2026 to invest in the Mexican men’s national team.” Co-published by Major League Soccer and Soccer United Marketing — the commercial arm of the MLS and one of the key players behind all those meaningless molero El Tri matches — the report argues that companies stand to profit by associating with the most popular soccer team in America. As per “Flamin’ Hot,” I believe you should let people enjoy the movie about a snack with negligible nutritional value as a treat.