{"id":40982,"date":"2026-04-04T14:14:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-04T14:14:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/?p=40982"},"modified":"2026-04-04T14:14:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T14:14:12","slug":"why-a24s-the-drama-sparked-criticism-from-anti-gun-organization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foreignnewstoday.com\/?p=40982","title":{"rendered":"Why A24’s ‘The Drama’ Sparked Criticism from Anti-Gun Organization"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

[Editor\u2019s note: The following story contains some spoilers <\/strong>for \u201cThe Drama<\/a>.\u201d]<\/em><\/p>\n

Now, there\u2019s some real-life drama. A24<\/a> and director Kristoffer Borgli\u2019s film<\/a> \u201cThe Drama\u201d is facing scrutiny over its marketing that conceals a major element of the film\u2019s premise.<\/p>\n

Specifically, the gun control advocacy group March for Our Lives has shared that the marketing that makes \u201cThe Drama\u201d resemble a dark romantic comedy is \u201cdeeply misaligned with the reality it engages. We expect better from A24 and the artists behind it.<\/a>\u201c<\/p>\n

In a statement posted to Instagram<\/a> on Thursday, April 2 ahead of the film\u2019s release this weekend, March for Our Lives issued a content warning for \u201cThe Drama,\u201d saying it contains themes of a school shooting. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to spoil the movie, but we have to,\u201d the post reads. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\"The<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The controversial element of \u201cThe Drama\u201d that serves as the film\u2019s crux is that, ahead of the wedding between Robert Pattinson and Zendaya\u2019s characters, Zendaya\u2019s character Emma reveals that she once planned a school shooting when she was a young teen. The confession is shared during a dinner with friends, who each share the worst thing they\u2019ve ever done. Emma notes that her plan included practicing with a firearm to the point that it blew out her ear drum in one ear, writing and videoing a manifesto (seen in flashbacks), and even bringing the rifle to school. She, crucially, never carried through with the act.<\/p>\n

The revelation rocks the impending nuptials and causes Pattinson\u2019s character Charlie to rethink everything. In his review, IndieWire\u2019s David Ehrlich wrote<\/a> that \u201cit\u2019s rare to see a mainstream film so eager to stick out its tongue and lick one of the last genuine third rails of American discourse.\u201d <\/p>\n

Much of the entertainment press has done a sensitive job covering the controversy that has stewed around the film as a result of its subject matter, acknowledging that the film\u2019s strength lies in how it asks us to \u201ctemper our knee-jerk reactions<\/a>\u201d and pose questions about \u201cwhat does unconditional love actually look like?<\/a>\u201d A large majority of the people reacting to the film\u2019s plot have yet to see it for themselves, and it\u2019s those presumptions that are, ironically, what Borgli and \u201cThe Drama\u201d are commenting on.<\/p>\n

But March for Our Lives argues that what<\/em> the film discusses and how<\/em> the movie is presented by its distributor are two different stories, and A24 may have missed the mark in starting a bigger conversation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe film may be attempting to engage real questions about accountability and change, but A24\u2019s marketing does not meet it there,\u201d the organization wrote. \u201cWith a subject this serious, especially in the U.S., that conversation cannot begin and end on screen. It has to carry through in how the film is presented. We understand that art can provoke discomfort and use humor to approach difficult subjects. But when something like a school shooting is treated lightly or played for irony, it raises a deeper question: what kind of conversation is this meant to start?\u201d <\/p>\n

March for Our Lives Executive Director Jaclyn Corin in a conversation with IndieWire expanded on the issue, clarifying that the organization\u2019s problem is not with the film itself or its content, but with how that conversation has been presented to the public. Corin, who has not seen the film herself, told IndieWire that school shootings are a reality for many young Americans, and it\u2019s important for a film to examine questions of accountability or who a person is after an event like that. <\/p>\n

\"WASHINGTON,
Activist Jaclyn Corin speaks in front of reporters at an installation of body bags assembled on the National Mall by Gun Control activist group March for Our Lives on March 24, 2022 in Washington, DCGetty Images<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To that end, the group is not going as far as to advocate against seeing the film, but several comments on March for Our Lives\u2019 post have said knowing the film\u2019s subject matter has made them choose not to see it.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s where the tone, perspective, and intent really matter; a concept like this can either really deepen understanding or feel really misaligned with the weight of what it represents,\u201d she said. \u201cWhen you\u2019re engaging with this subject as complicated and complex as gun violence in America as school shootings, there is a responsibility, in my opinion, on behalf of the artists, directors, the studio, the actors and actresses involved, to make sure that conversation is not only happening in the film but in the marketing, so it\u2019s productive. I think leaving it up in the air and not taking responsibility and discussing how heavy and real world that topic is is a missed opportunity at best, but harmful at worst.\u201d<\/p>\n

When reached by IndieWire, A24 had no comment.<\/p>\n

Corin is also not the first to take issue with how the film\u2019s marketing has eluded mention of the school shooting plot. Last week, Tom Mauser, whose son was killed in the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, spoke to TMZ<\/a> and told the outlet he thought it was \u201cawful\u201d the film used that idea as a twist. He was also bothered by what he perceived to be Zendaya laughing off the plot point during a recent appearance on \u201cJimmy Kimmel Live.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a survivor herself, Corin sympathized with Mauser\u2019s experience and understood that, for him and others, gun violence is not a theoretical fear.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not going to see the film personally, because I know that in the film there are flashbacks, and those will bring up really intense and hard feelings for me as a survivor that I am choosing to opt out of,\u201d she said. \u201cHe was so valid for sharing that he found the premise awful, because I think engaging with gun violence in the movie with a framing of humor and irony does require the off screen conversations to engage with it with seriousness and intention, but that balance was not met.\u201d<\/p>\n

Corin said A24 is an expert at building intrigue for a film, protecting a film\u2019s revelations, and making that a part of their brand. Yet she believes there were ways the marketing team could have still signaled the film\u2019s emotional turns more clearly or made audiences aware of its theme without fully revealing the plot. But, in this instance, hoping people would just enjoy the plot point when it comes to something so personal, is \u201ctoo much ambiguity can feel like a misdirect.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moving forward, she points A24 to another gun violence prevention organization called Brady that advises Hollywood types on how to showcase safe gun use and stories of violence in films. But she also says that A24 should not \u201cgo silent or double down\u201d and should instead engage in a larger conversation. <\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019d acknowledge the concern directly, not defensively, but just a clear recognition that people are having this reaction, because it\u2019s real. When families and survivors are expressing discomfort, that should be met with respect,\u201d Corin said. \u201cOffering more clarity on tone and intent, giving audiences a better sense of what the film is actually trying to do. The claim that they hope this film sparks conversation, they can maybe host a conversation themselves with the director, filmmaker, or the actors and actresses involved, actually exemplifying what a productive and serious conversation about gun violence looks like.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n