Is it okay to hate Chris Pratt?
Chris Pratt pissed a lot of people off this week when he posted this onto Instagram:
Most people would probably fail to see an issue with the upload. Pratt and his wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger, look like a wholesome, albeit boring couple in the photo, and the caption from Pratt at least claims to be a loving tribute to his other-half and their life together.
Others, myself included, find the sentiment of his words both cringe-worthy and covertly toxic. Pratt portrays the worth of his wife as being rooted in her devotion to him (her positive attributes are listed as follows: she looks at her husband adoringly, gives him an amazing life, birthed his “healthy” child, and helps him with everything–her “pure” heart “belongs” to him), then offers his half-assed praise of her spousal achievements as if it’s a gift to her. “If I don’t get [her a birthday present],” he writes, “I’ll tell her to look back on this post.”
If your favorite thing about your wife, the thing you must tell your millions of followers about, is how self-sacrificial her love for you is, I don’t think you need to pass off your own ego-trip as a romantic gesture.
Some, however, took an even more pointed objection to Pratt’s caption, zeroing in on his use of the word “healthy” to describe his daughter and pointing out that Pratt does not have only one child. His son, conceived with Pratt’s former wife, actress Anna Faris, was born nine weeks premature, causing a cerebral hemorrhage in the infant upon birth as well as health complications that will presumably affect him for the rest of his life. Faris has been open about her son’s health battles, prompting some to believe that Pratt’s comment praising the “health” of his child with another woman was a dig at his former family.
Given that Faris has spoken publicly about the blame she placed on herself for her son’s premature birth, Pratt’s comment was unnecessary and insensitive. Does that mean it was an intentional dig at Faris or that Pratt doesn’t care for his ex-wife or his son? No, definitely not.
Faris and Pratt have at least portrayed their split as amicable. On her podcast, Faris celebrated her ex and his now-wife upon the announcement of their engagement, claiming to have privately given Pratt her blessing prior to his proposal. The exes have always publicly stated that they maintain a supportive and loving post-divorce friendship and there’s absolutely no evidence that Pratt “left” Faris due to their son’s health problems (despite rumors), nor have there ever been reports of him being neglectful to either of his children.
Insensitive or not, bashing Pratt’s wording on behalf of Faris does not help her. She deserves the right to control her public narrative, and Faris’s chosen narrative is that she and Pratt are on good terms and successfully co-parenting their son. The Internet deciding to add some drama into that narrative by implying Pratt resents both his ex and their son is not productive for anyone involved–especially the son who thankfully I don’t believe is old enough to read all the tweets from strangers about how his daddy secretly hates him.
But there’s another element to this story we need to acknowledge. You might notice that in all the tweets I embedded above, commenters either name other shitty things Chris Pratt has done, or imply he has a longer list of transgressions (words like “once again…” or “besides all the reasons we know…”).
Pratt’s been involved in controversy before, with the backlash significantly heating up last year when the name “Chris Pratt” became a trending topic on Twitter following a prompt to oust the worst Hollywood Chris.
He has a laundry list of problematic behaviors, his biggest infraction to date being his public support of Hillsong Church, a Christian megachurch that has infamously deemed homosexuality a sin. (As a total aside since this is my blog and I can go off-topic as I please, Hillsong Church also has connections to Mercy Ministries, a Christian residential program that performs “exorcisms” and LGBTQ conversion therapy on young girls and has ties to Britney Spears’ conservatorship. Email me, I’ll tell you all about it!)
When Elliott Page called out the church’s anti-LGBTQ stance and Pratt’s attendance to their services, Pratt seemed unreceptive to the criticism, claiming his church “opens their doors to everyone”–as if you can’t “open your doors” to someone and shame their perceived “sins” simultaneously (you know what else “opens their doors” to LGBTQ people? Conversion therapy camps). It was a non-response; Pratt neither outwardly approved of his church’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, nor did he outwardly condemn it–or admit it existed for that matter.
There is suspicion online that Pratt is secretly a republican. Like with the controversy surrounding his homophobic church, evidence points to apathy more than anything else. He’s said in the past that “neither side” of the political divide represents his interests and made a joke during the 2020 election season that downplayed the importance of voting and mocked those who use their platform to advocate for it.
Given the dire consequences of politics in this country, plenty would argue that an apolitical stance is bad enough, but some of Pratt’s comments and actions also gesture to him potentially holding more conservative values. In 2017, he complained that Hollywood doesn’t often tell the stories of blue-collar Americans–a potentially fair criticism overall (it depends on what he means by that), but appeals to “blue-collar” workers have become talking points for the American right-wing to the point of feeling like a dog-whistle. In late 2019, Pratt was then spotted wearing a Gadsden flag T-shirt (the “don’t tread on me” one); while the flag has a long, complex history, it’s been appropriated by white supremacists and the far-right Tea Party movement in the 21st century. That same year, Pratt made an Instagram post thanking police officers, then in the wake of 2020’s Black Lives Matter protests, shared an article from his Governator father-in-law theoretically supporting the movement whilst appealing to the “majority of police officers, who are good” (it’s a nice sentiment, but if a majority of police officers were that “good,” you’d think the issue would have sorted itself out by now). There are also some re-surfaced tweets that are… not great.
Overall, Pratt’s vocalized political stances are mostly inoffensive in relative terms. He comes across as ignorant and indifferent more so than hateful. Leftists might claim that this inoffensiveness is part of a larger problem in which privileged folks are empowered to ignore the plight of the oppressed, but while that’s definitely true, Chris Pratt’s contributions in these political conversations appear benign enough (again, relatively) to not prompt such widespread condemnation for his mostly undefined values.
He deserves criticism, for sure, but the stance of many anti-Pratt commenters seems aimed at full cancellation rather than critical discourse. They straight-up hate him.
Is this very personalized anger toward Chris Pratt unfair? Maybe. I certainly can’t say I’m a fan of his–I disagree with him on quite a lot of things and doubt I’d enjoy his company–but becoming the Main Character on Twitter is a special Hell that I would only wish onto the most unconscionable of bigots and abusers, which Chris Pratt is objectively not. And yet, I fully understand, and perhaps even hesitantly support, the rage.
Parasocial relationships are becoming a well-worn topic on this blog, but to understand the Chris Pratt backlash, we have to acknowledge the disappointment of many of his former fans. Really, Pratt doesn’t have a noticeable fan base, but Parks and Recreation, the sitcom his name came to prominence on, does. On the show, Pratt’s fictional character, Andy Dwyer, is a schlubby, lovable dumbass who endears the audience through his earnestness. Pratt’s public persona at the time mirrored the same kind of charisma and charm–he was playful in interviews, and even beloved through candid Parks and Rec bloopers. When Pratt was hired to play the lead in Marvel’s blockbuster film, Guardians of the Galaxy, he underwent a physical transformation that only added to his star power and highly-supported public narrative–he was funny, charming, and newly muscular, making him a Hollywood hunk who retained the support of his acclaimed sitcom’s cult following. It was a Rec-to-riches story (yeah, he was already rich before Guardians, but not Marvel-superhero-rich).
Pratt’s relationship with Anna Faris helped his wholesome image further, with Faris telling James Corden in 2015 that she knew Pratt was her “soulmate” upon learning that they both kept dead bug collections–a revelation that solidified their quirky, cute power-couple status.
As mentioned prior, the split with Faris has always been portrayed by the couple as amicable, but when the controversy surrounding Pratt’s Hillsong affiliation sprouted, fan disappointment fueled a new arch in Pratt’s public narrative. Accusations of homophobia started separating Pratt from his Parks and Rec persona–Andy Dwyer would never.
Once that initial cult following began questioning their support of Andy’s real-life counterpart, Pratt’s celebrity was open to villainization in all other aspects. Perhaps the divorce wasn’t amicable. Perhaps Chris Pratt is an asshole and Queen Anna Faris deserved better.
With how private Faris and Pratt’s divorce was, by the choice of all involved, the speculation around their relationship and its imagined toxicity is the ickiest part of Pratt’s cancellation. Like defenders of John Mulaney will maintain, public figures shouldn’t have to garner harassment for private turmoil that never involved their audience. But also like John Mulaney, the growing distaste Pratt now inspires has far more to do with what his celebrity persona represents in the public narrative than it does with his private actions.
Since he rarely gives insight into his political beliefs, the accusation that Pratt is a republican is mostly speculative, but his public image reads to many as distinctly conservative. In addition to all the political faux pas of his career, Pratt has verbalized a love for guns and hunting. Neither of those things has to be seen as a specific political stance–liking guns doesn’t necessarily mean one is against federalized gun control, and even if animal rights activism was a core principle of the left, killing your own meat is objectively kinder than contributing to an abusive meat industry–however, those attributes are still associated with republicans far more than democrats. Most liberals might not be vegan, but most vegans are liberal. There are plenty of other non-political signifiers that have become culturally associated with political and social ideologies: conservatives like country music, liberals drink fancy lattes, online “social justice warriors” have blue hair, etc. Chris Pratt’s public persona happens to fulfill a lot of right-wing stereotypes–from loving cops to hunting animals to constantly wearing baseball caps.
There’s no explicit political statement in his recent Instagram post (though some claim the “healthy” line is ableist, as if “disabled” and “unhealthy” are synonymous), but the insight viewers got into Pratt’s and his wife’s private dynamic is reminiscent of family values that many consider anachronistic. I’ve seen Twitter users refer to Schwarzenegger as a “Stepford-wife” and though that’s harsh (we know so little about the woman), the idea of being happy to receive approval for being a self-sacrificial spouse does imply a marital power imbalance women have long been pressured to accept and most modern feminists reject.
Pratt intended to make a post celebrating his wife and for that, we can say he made it in innocence. Nonetheless, the sentiments within the caption exhibit a cultural split that’s slowly coming to a head. I wrote something about the caption on my own Instagram story. Friends of mine responded in agreeance that the post was gross and quietly misogynistic, but I know plenty of people from my rural, conservative hometown that would read such a caption as sweet and romantic–two of them even liked the original Instagram post and coincidentally (IT’S NOT A COINCIDENCE AT ALL), both of them are women who have or have had homophobic boyfriends. This tweet explains the issue perfectly:
Pratt has since vaguely responded to the controversy, posting a video to his Instagram story on Friday where he admitted to feeling “upset and depressed.” He decided to lift his spirit in the most Chris Pratt way possible, saying “I knew that if I put on my Christian music playlist and I got out in the woods and ran that I’d feel better… and gosh was I right, it felt amazing.” It’s like the guy is now playing a parody of himself, wearing a camo baseball cap and American flag hoodie on camera, proclaiming “all glory to God” and telling his followers that a low mood can be solved with “getting the word in.”
Pratt finds his Christian faith personally moving and good for him, but many know what that brand of Christianity and blue-collar values often implies–traditional family dynamics that oppress women, tolerance for bigoted rhetoric that pervades religious institutions, and admiration for power structures that yield violence.
As much as Pratt tries to maintain an apolitical persona, his attempted centrism enforces values progressives are working to eradicate. In that way, while Pratt might not personally deserve the level of backlash he’s currently receiving, his reputation is collateral damage in a culture war that ultimately needs to take place. Someone with a massive platform shouldn’t ignore their church’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric out of personal convenience. The racist violence of our criminal justice system can’t be solved by appealing to “good cops.” Women shouldn’t be content to receive their spouse’s ego-driven praise as if it’s a gift to them.
None of this is to even mention the also necessary culture war against big-name actors overpopulating animated films.
So yeah, go ahead and hate Chris Pratt.