[<< | Prev | Index | Next | >>]

Sunday, February 08, 2026

Netflix Categories Revisited

On a whim, I fed the categories discovered in my first Netflix post in 2006 to Claude and asked for a pithy summary of each category. (For those unfamiliar, these summarize the most important/divisive features of movies, in terms of who likes what.) Here is the result, with the most significant categories first and declining in importance:

Blockbuster vs. Art House - Mass-market popcorn entertainment vs. independent/festival darlings

Stoner Comedy vs. Comfort TV - Transgressive/edgy humor vs. cozy mainstream sitcom

Liberal Cultural Markers vs. Conservative Cultural Markers - Progressive/urban sensibility (note: Fahrenheit 9/11 was very much a liberal touchstone in 2006) vs. traditional masculinity and anti-Moore backlash films

Male Action Classics vs. Female-Skewing Flops - Testosterone-fueled 80s/90s hits vs. poorly-received films with female leads or romantic elements

Highbrow Prestige vs. Crowdpleasers - Criterion Collection canon (with oddly inserted Seagal films?) vs. popular feel-good hits

Historical Epics vs. 80s Camp Nostalgia - Serious period warfare dramas vs. lighthearted 80s/early-90s comedies

Safe Sitcoms vs. Transgressive Adult Drama - Wholesome network TV vs. dark, sexually explicit, or violent cinema

Sitcom Comfort vs. Spectacle Entertainment - More Friends dominance vs. big-budget adventure/fantasy blockbusters

Sci-Fi Fandom vs. Diverse Mainstream - Star Trek devotees vs. eclectic mix of faith-based, urban, and workplace comedy

Critically Acclaimed Mainstream vs. Cult/Counterculture - Respectable popular hits vs. cult favorites and offbeat choices

International/Art Cinema vs. Domestic TV/Thriller - Foreign and prestige films vs. American sitcoms and psychological dramas

Genre Thrills vs. Blockbuster Spectacle - Horror/suspense on modest budgets vs. big-budget sci-fi/action tentpoles

Action/Controversy vs. Heartwarming/Safe - Aggressive, controversial, or violent films vs. feel-good romantic/family fare

---

QUERY: As an aside, any comments about how the attitude to conspiracy theories has changed since then?

CLAUDE: Great question. There's been a fascinating inversion since 2006.

Then (mid-2000s): Conspiracy thinking was culturally coded as left-wing/counterculture. Fahrenheit 9/11 and Loose Change-style 9/11 skepticism, anti-war "Bush lied" narratives, corporate malfeasance exposés (Food Inc., Super Size Me), and Big Pharma suspicion were all solidly liberal territory. The stereotype was of a college town coffee shop progressive questioning official narratives. Conservative media mocked this as paranoid leftism.

Now (2020s): Conspiracy thinking has become overwhelmingly associated with the right - QAnon, election denial, COVID skepticism, deep state theories, anti-vax movements. Meanwhile, liberals have largely become the defenders of institutional authority, expertise, and "official narratives" from mainstream media, public health agencies, and government institutions.

What changed:

- Trump's presidency made conspiracy theories central to conservative identity
- COVID massively accelerated this realignment, with right-wing movements embracing medical skepticism that would've been hippie/left territory in 2006
- Social media algorithms created right-wing conspiracy ecosystems
- Liberals increasingly aligned with institutional legitimacy as a defensive posture against Trumpism
- 9/11's distance in time reduced its salience as a conspiracy focal point

So yes, in Category 3, Fahrenheit 9/11 sitting on the "liberal" side is a perfect time capsule. Today it would likely cluster very differently, as Moore himself has become a more marginal figure and that brand of institutional skepticism has migrated rightward.

[<< | Prev | Index | Next | >>]