Code 46 (2003) | How Woke Is It?

Our VerdictWoke

63%

Code 462003

In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected speech. These reviews reflect personal opinions and not statements of fact.

What We Think

Code 46 leans into a globalized, secular vision without aggressively preaching any particular agenda. It prizes its dystopian concept over ideological sermonizing, but traditional foundations are definitely left by the wayside here.

Score Breakdown

Compromised:Narrative Integrity

Woke

What is this?

Code 46’s narrative focuses on a dystopian romance and circles bioethics, but doesn’t overtly shoehorn identity politics or check off diversity boxes solely for their own sake. The portfolio isn’t perfect: background choices sometimes subtly highlight multicultural elements, but mostly, narrative comes first, not box-ticking.

Compromised:Cultural Foundations

Woke

What is this?

The film is set in a secular, deracinated future where family, traditional religion, and stable roots are notably absent. It doesn’t aggressively mock these foundations, but it does present a society unmoored from them, often treating them as relics, not virtues, which scores moderately high on this metric.

Compromised:Ideological Monoculture

Woke

What is this?

Alternative views and traditional perspectives are mostly sidelined by the story’s emphasis on globalized, technocratic values. There is little sincere representation of older cultural or moral frameworks, but there are no on-the-nose villain caricatures, so it’s not as egregious as some recent fare.

User Reviews

No user reviews received yet.

Please leave a review and let the world know what you think.
Your review will be kept completely anonymous.

Your Review

Comments

Users Also Viewed

Movie poster for C.S. Lewis: Beyond Narnia

12%

Disclaimer: In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected as a form of free speech and freedom of expression. The reviews and commentary on this site represent personal opinions and interpretations. They are not statements of fact and should not be taken as factual claims about any individual, company, or creative work.