Super(ior) Art?

I’ve noticed that a lot of my blogs have been me defending superhero movies; in fact, of the 101 entries I’ve written prior, the number dedicated to chewing out critiques of them stand at 11. This doesn’t include pieces that reference my frustrations, as that’d up the number. Regardless, this has taken up way too much of my time and energy. So why do I keep at it?

Recently, actor Ethan Hawke opened his mouth about superhero movies. He called them “overrated”, stating that they’d never be serious films. While this annoys me on a nerdy, superficial level, it really shouldn’t bother me at all. Because it’s an opinion. A rather ill-stated opinion, but it’d be hypocritical to jump on him considering some of the nonsense I’ve written on The Whitly-Verse…

…Or it would’ve been, had he not said the following:

“Now we have the problem that they tell us Logan is a great movie…it’s a great superhero movie. It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands. It’s not Bresson. It’s not Bergman. But they talk about it like it is.”

What?!

I know some of you are groaning in preparation for “yet another whine-fest about superhero movies”, and you’re right. But where the miscommunication comes from is in the assumption that I hold any criticism as invalid, irrespective of content. That’s simply not true. I’m not against criticism of any kind of movie, as I do a lot of it myself. The issue merely stems from framing, and how that framing is used by the person offering it. I’m not the kind of person who demands a long-winded rant on why something doesn’t work, but if you frame it in a way that respects the strengths of the material while still being critical, then it doesn’t bother me. This is how I could stomach Cosmonaut Variety Hour’s lengthy analysis on The MCU, even if a lot of what he said I didn’t agree with.

Unfortunalely, a lot of the critiques are snobbish and pretentious, even if unintentionally, because they lack that lens. Which leads me back to Ethan Hawke’s criticism. Because by saying that superhero movies can’t be on-par with the greats, he’s boxing in films that are incredibly-flexible and range in quality. He’s being ignorant, in other words.

It’s easy to become bored of a genre of storytelling. The Western, for example, was a staple of Hollywood for decades, to the point where the 1950’s saw over 150 of them by its end. Even in the 1970’s, when Watergate destroyed the trust Americans had in government, the Western didn’t go away, but rather morphed and became more-introspective. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the bubble popped. But yeah, we survived 50+ years with a single genre of film, and I’m sure people got sick of that too.

It’s worth noting that because superheroes have been compared to Westerns, especially in how they’ve managed to capture the populace’s psyche. At the same time, however, there’s a key difference between the Westerns of old and superheroes of now: the internet. The internet’s become increasingly dominant in how information, and criticism, gets relayed, such that superhero films have evolved and accelerated their trajectory at speeds not seen before. We’re at a point where superhero movies are more widely-discussed than most other genres, even though they aren’t released any more frequently than horror movies, traditional action films, comedies or Oscar dramas. And while that doesn’t worry me, it worries some.

Where Ethan Hawke’s criticism becomes pretentious is in his insinuation that a genre of film can never be “high art”. Ignoring that “high art” is subjective anyway, I don’t think this is a fair claim. Because superhero films have had their moments of cultural weight. I’m not only including The Dark Knight, but also campier fluff like Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man 2, The Avengers and Wonder Woman. Even Black Panther from this past year was enough to send cultural shockwaves, to the point where Marvel’s considering submitting it for a Best Picture nod at The Oscars. Even if they don’t fit the definition of “high art”, superhero movies are equally as valid as an Oscar drama.

Additionally, does it matter if they’re not “high art”? Does it matter if The Incredibles isn’t on-par with Bresson or Bergman? Why is it relevant if Logan classifies itself as a post-modern Western? And can The Avengers still be fun and culturally-relevant, even if it’s not deep? Is this really that much of an issue?

The flaw with going down this rabbit hole is that it opens a can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened: that of cultural relevance. Ignoring The Oscars’ decision to include a Best Popular Film category, the fact remains that the “more serious films”, the “Oscar-baits”, don’t get the same coverage as superhero movies because they lack the oomph of their lighter, fluffier colleagues. They’re thinking pieces, movies of the head, whereas superhero movies are more crowd-pleasers, movies of the heart. It’s not as easy to sell a thinking piece, hence it’s not as appealing.

And that’s okay! As much as I don’t like the “no one will remember this in 5 years” argument when it comes to dramas, especially since they’re routinely discussed in film and history classes, people are allowed to like fluff. Even if superhero movies are the film-equivalent of sugar cereal, it’s not a crime to enjoy them. I watch all kinds of movies, and they hold different places in my yearly favourites lists.

But honestly, the issue is that, in the end, Ethan Hawke’s remarks reek of a bigger problem I’m seeing in film discourse: this idea of filmic reality being more important than that of filmic escapism. It’s no different than saying that Renaissance Era paintings are more artistic than the surrealist works that came later; after all, why should a Picasso be lesser than a Da Vinci? Why does Ethan Hawke get to dictate which films are worthy of being “high art”? He’s not an authoritative voice!

Perhaps I’m overthinking this, maybe. But it’s this level of chutzpah that bugs me. The world is already a scary and frustrating place without the escapes that art, particularly film, allows for. Even if it ends up being disposable, there’s an inherent value to a film that allows for a reprieve from the stresses of reality. Superhero movies merely happen to be the ones that are popular right now. If that bothers you, then maybe it’s not the superhero movies that need to disappear, but rather you that needs to retreat and re-evaluate your outlook on them.

Super Fan Bros.

To take a page from Chris Stuckmann, “I grew up on the Smash Bros. games”. I was 9 when Super Smash Bros. came out, and I played it at my cousin’s house regularly. I remember being blown away when I first saw Super Smash Bros. Melee in action, and I remember waiting for new updates on Super Smash Bros. Brawl at The Smash Dojo. And while I’ve only had a WiiU for about a year, my short time with Super Smash Bros. WiiU was enough to make me happy. In short, Smash Bros. is a big deal, and I’m anticipating what Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has in-store. How could I not?

I’m a little concerned, however, by the game’s developer mindset. Masahiro Sakurai, bless him, has announced that he wants to “make a Smash Bros. game for everyone”, and I respect his ambitions. At the same time, I can’t help wondering if he’s overreaching. Especially since “everyone” seems like code for “competitive gamers”, and they’re not the kinds of people who’d be interested anyway. But let’s back up and give some context.

The Smash Bros. games have a reputation amongst gamers. There’s a hierarchy in how the games are generally ranked, with Super Smash Bros. Melee being way up at the top. It’s been this way since 2001, and nothing’s changed. I get it: Super Smash Bros. Melee was a game-changer for the franchise. It expanded the roster, added various modes, upped the difficulty curve, introduced a competitive feature for tournaments and even tweaked the controls to make the gameplay more hardcore. There’s a lot more I can say here, but I’ll save my rants for another time.

Regardless, Super Smash Bros. Melee was a big deal, and nothing can top its legacy. Which is why no future Smash Bros. entry has been able to: it’s not possible to “out-perfect perfection”, no matter how hard you try. You can have the best of everything, even a more-polished end-product, but if the immediate wow-factor’s not replicated…

Which is why I’m concerned that Sakurai is overreaching. Not only in how expansive this new entry is, but also in how he wants to make everyone happy: casual fans demand easily-accessible gameplay? It has it. Hardcore fans insist challenge? It has it too. Old-school gamers request call-backs to old franchises? People wish to choose between a standard Adventure Mode and Subspace Emissary? To quote Oprah Winfrey: “You get a car, and you get a car…”

That’s no exaggeration: for one, the game has over 100 stages to use. And many of those are returning stages from previous entries. Also, every fighter in the franchise, including a few that were DLC, is now playable. That originally added up to 65 fighters, and more have been coming since. So yeah, everyone gets a car!

However, I’m worried that Sakurai’s extending an olive branch to people who don’t want it. Or, rather, who don’t care to want it. Tourney gamers are extremely picky about what they do and don’t play, and they’re not subtle about it. All you need to do is go online for their opinions.

This is the frustration in trying to appeal to people who, quite simply, can’t be appealed to. Try all you want, but if it’s not Super Smash Bros. Melee, it’s not worth their time. Believe me, I’ve gotten into enough fights back when Super Smash Bros. Brawl was still new to know where they stand, and that was 10 years ago! Based on recent accounts, they haven’t changed much either.

I’m also worried because Nintendo’s tried the “everyone will enjoy this” approach before. Remember The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword? Remember how it was marketed as “the everyman’s Zelda game” following the lukewarm response to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Remember how it was going to revolutionize Zelda games as we knew it? And remember how the game came out, and people were even more lukewarm to it than its predecessor?

The “everyone” approach doesn’t work for a simple reason: because you can’t appease everyone. Nor should you try to, as it’s a waste of time and resources. Besides, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned from past experience, it’s that not everyone’s going to be satisfied with your work. You shouldn’t attempt to be all-encompassing, but rather make something unique. Because people will respect that more than if you try pandering to their sensibilities. Trust me, it happens a lot more often than people would want to admit.

Maybe I’m jumping the gun too soon here. Maybe Super Smash Bros. Ultimate will stick the landing and make everyone happy. And maybe it’ll pay off and not be wasted effort, who knows? I’m only hoping that, in the end, Nintendo recognizes their nigh-impossible gamble here, and that they stop trying to placate to a group of people who, at the end of the day, simply don’t care what they do.

The Progressive, Antisemitic Problem

Let’s get this out of the way: the right has hijacked the discourse on Israel. Like, to an unhealthy extreme. Whenever anyone has something to say, be it endearing or critical, it’s only been okay as long as they’ve said it. You dare speak up on the left, and you’re automatically labelled an Antisemite. It’s sickening, it’s maddening, and it’s time that it ended.

Now then, let’s talk about anti-Zionist Antisemitism.

I’ve been holding off writing this for a while. I always knew it was gonna be my 100th blog (speaking of which, yay me!), but I never knew if it was worth the risk. What would happen once it got out there? And would it be well-received, or blasted for existing? The answer was never concrete, yet because it’s Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey with more intense scrutiny than states twice its size, I figured I’d have to bite the bullet eventually.

I’m Jewish. Have been my whole life. I also have strong ties to Israel, as would be expected (the word “Jerusalem” appears 669 times in our sacred texts). I’ve been there three times since high school, and I plan to return a fourth time at some point in the immediate future. Israel’s kind of a big deal for me, even though my fondness isn’t uncritical (more on that later).

In the 12 years that I’ve frequented online circles, the last 7 being Twitter, I’ve noticed a strong frustration from many people over the subject. The issue of Israel is complicated, no doubt, but it’s almost a poisonous trigger word for many individuals. The number of times it’s come up aggressively is headache-inducing, but what’s worse is how frequently people tow the fragile line between critique and legitimate Antisemitism. And while this is more blatant with the far-right, I’m focusing on the left here. Besides, at least the right is honest about its bigotry, whereas the left could use a wake-up call.

I’ll begin with the most-obvious point: that criticism of Israel is automatically “Antisemitic”. As Twitter user Yair Rosenberg once stated, this isn’t necessarily the case. There’s a difference between criticizing political policies/laws/decisions that Israel’s made over the last 70 years, and simply trashing it as an apartheid state that genocides Palestinians. One of these is based in genuine concern over how the piece of land is governed. The other is slanderous.

It’s in trying to explain the difference that I routinely get pushback. Either it’s the typical “I disagree, and here’s why” rebuttal, or the blanket “you’re an idiot, and here’s why” retort that misses the point. You’d be surprised how blurry that line is, as I’ve heard varying degrees of both from people I otherwise get along with. Many well-intentioned progressives think that it’s acceptable to trash my character because I think Israel’s a multi-faceted issue. And if I tell them I’m Jewish? Well, what do I know? It’s not like my experiences are worth listening to, right?

Allow me to share two secrets about Zionist discourse: one, Israel’s a huge part of the Jewish experience. Like Mecca and Rome for Muslims and Christians, Israel is our history. Zionism comes with the territory of being Jewish, it’s, quite literally, in the fine-print. And while not all of us believe it, enough do that it should be regarded as second-nature. You simply can’t, and shouldn’t, separate our Jewishness from our Zionism.

Two, and this one is a harder pill to swallow, you can’t transpose Western responses to police brutality and military presence onto another part of the world without first factoring in context. That’s not only irresponsible, it’s also a form of ideological colonialism and/or terrorism. I know this might come as a shock, but Israel’s current situation with its Palestinian people didn’t blossom overnight: it’s an end-result of 70+ years of history with several thousand years of backstory. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is messy, but it was messy long before it acquired that name. All you need is to take a primer on the conflict, something many people haven’t.

That’s not to say that some elements of Western sensibilities can’t be exchanged with Israel’s history, like how many Palestinians feel like second-class citizens in Judea and Samaria, but it’s not enough to be a 1:1 conversion. Life in the region isn’t that simple, and it’s high-time progressives understood that.

I often find it frustrating pointing this out to people, as they either don’t get it, or choose not to. Regardless of how you look at it, the internet looks at a dense conflict through a shallow prism fed by the media. To be fair, Israeli media is equally biased, even “I’m ashamed to be Israeli 24/7” Ha’aretz, but by comparing sources you get a clearer picture on what’s happening. Because for all the nonsense that Trump claims about “fake news”, the media is still largely sensationalized and generated to sell stories, even when they’re libellous.

I also find it frustrating pointing out the left’s dogwhistling to the right too. Whether it’s through The Chicago Dyke March using “Zios”, a David Duke phrase, to justify their decision to ban Israel flags, or referring to AIPAC as “the Israel lobby that controls politicians”, these kinds of claims aren’t without consequences. Words have meaning, and in an age where the right is known for being stealthy and slimy, it hurts when the left stoops to their level.

Speaking of which, let’s talk Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn’s become a celebrity in post-Brexit England, having taken on the role of “progressive champion”, and he’s incredibly popular with youthful voters. However, many Jews in England, particularly those in Labour circles, have become wary of him, claiming that, whether intentional or not, he’s been breeding Antisemitism in his own party. I’m not sure how much qualifies as truth, since most British tabloids have had it out for him since day 1, but when even left-leaning papers, like “I’m not subtle about my irrational hatred of my own country” Ha’aretz, have written pieces about Corbyn’s Antisemitic ties, well…it becomes hard to take his attempts at placating to Jews seriously with his left hand when he’s dogwhistling to Antisemites in his own ranks with his right hand. It’s a case of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, which is all-the-more reason why Corbyn apologists drive me up the walls with their insistence that this is “paranoia”. Give us Jews some credit, huh?

Corbyn’s influence is, unfortunately, not exclusive to England. He’s been spoken of highly by Bernie Sanders, who is, himself, Jewish, and his methods have seeped into the cracks of the socialist wing of the Democratic caucus. I have stories of how DSA affiliates have called me a “Republican Evangelist shill” over Israel, when an in-depth conversation would suggest otherwise. And many attempts at anti-Zionist rhetoric are praised, to the point that a flyer promoting The DSA’s platforms once had the words “F*ck Israel” on it. I can make as many jokes as I want, but it’s scary that a group affiliated with social change and combatting bigotry is openly-bigoted about a minority group with conditional privilege.

It’s become a problem in some of the progressive candidates’ platforms too. I have immense respect for Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, considering their steps at breaking down barriers immense and praiseworthy, but if some of what’s been said about them is true (and I’m not confirming anything), then as a Jewish Zionist I’m a little worried. The overtly bonkers claim of “you can’t be a feminist and a Zionist” aside, supporting Israel is smart politics. Even if you don’t agree with many of their policies, Israel is The US’s biggest ally in The Middle East.

We also have the issue of BDS, or Boycott, Divest, Sanctions, being used as a legitimate talking point in progressive discourse. The tag is used in many people’s online handles, even though the movement is toxic. For one, it was started by someone who wishes to see all Jews washed over. And two, it’s both oddly-specific and incredibly-vague. It attacks SodaStream, for example, without recognizing that the company has employed Palestinian workers alongside Israelis peacefully, yet it doesn’t realize that Sabra Hummus is an American product. It also ignores the that the IBM chip was co-created in Israel, and that a consistent boycott would mean not using computers ever again.

These are the issues I have to deal with on a daily basis. And I don’t want to. The internet’s already pretty stressful without having to justify Jewish self-determination. But when misinformation is widespread, dogwhistling to the right exists and political candidates refuse to renege their covert bigotry about Jews, then what does this tell me? Sure, progressives are great at tackling and exposing overt Antisemitism, especially with the resurgence of fascism in the 21st Century, but without tackling covert Antisemitism it feels like placating.

It's not like Israel’s a flawless country. Sociologically, there are inherent biases in how the country views outsiders. Economically, Israel’s a barely-functioning start-up nation, riddled with inconsistent technology, hotels that are run like circuses (have you seen how bad the showers are?) and markets that rip you off at the sound of a foreign accent. And politically, it’s a mess, with a borderline-authoritarian government that recently passed a nation-state law that’s being challenged by the courts. This is on-top of the love-hate relationship many Israelis and Palestinians have with one-another, such that I doubt a real solution will happen in my lifetime.

But that’s irrelevant if progressives won’t put aside their animosity to listen to Jews in their own circles. And not only listen, but understand and appreciate. Because while some Jews espouse the same hatred as their oppressors, thereby opting into the cycle of bigotry, many don’t. We want genuine societal change, and that begins by recognizing that we have a voice too.

Wreck-it Ralph 2: Disney Wrecks Itself?

The newest trailer for Wreck-it Ralph 2 hit the internet this past weekend, and people went nuts over it. For some, the scene with the Disney princesses in their casual-wear was hilarious, highlighting how great it is that the movie even features them at all. For others, it was a reminder that Disney’s milking their brand to their detriment. Basically, opinions were mixed.

Which leads to a concern I have about Disney’s business practices of late and how they’ve been perceived by cinephiles. I say everything out of respect, as I’ve grown up with Disney since I was about 3 years old. Many of their films hold a place in my heart, and quite a few are classics for a reason. So if I sound like I’m being a little bitter about the criticism, it’s only because I care.

Anyway, I like Disney. Their Pixar division has made some of the best animated films, or films in general, to ever exist, and I’m sure they’ll continue to surprise me. Their general animation division, though all-over qualitatively, is pretty solid, with some entries being masterpieces. Their Marvel output has consistently entertained, even challenging the perceptions of what comic book movies can be occasionally. And while it might annoy some of you to say this, I’ve really enjoyed their Star Wars output. Only the live-action remakes have turned me off, though, even then, there’ve been a few gems too.

I mention this because there’s a growing sentiment that modern-Disney lacks sincerity, especially with their recent trend of self-deprecating humour. Disney, as we’re well-aware, owns Marvel, Star Wars and The Muppets, and are soon to fully-acquire 20th Century Fox’s film division. Their roster of content is, to say the least, impressive. Which is all the more concerning that they’ve started flaunting it while simultaneously mocking it, as if that’s enough to keep people distracted from their questionable business practices. And while I wish it were only smoke-and-mirrors, I’d be dishonest if this didn’t bother me too.

The best way to tackle this is to trace the company’s origins. A lot of the detractors of modern-Disney point to Walt himself and his approach film. Walt, they claim, was an artist, strived to make art first, and would often prefer passion over money. This reflects in the output of his company while he was alive: masterpieces like Fantasia, which pushed the medium of film to its limits in 1940, wouldn’t be made today, while live-action classics like Mary Poppins, which came out late in Walt’s life, were so ambitious that nothing could top them now. The arguments for Walt Disney as an artist are really compelling, and it’s easy to think of him that way if you’re unfamiliar with their history.

See, Walt was…well, a capitalist. He may have feigned the illusion of being a cheery uncle, something Saving Mr. Banks touched on, but he was often cold and unsympathetic. Stories of his authoritarian stranglehold on artists are well-known in the animation world, and his workers went on strike at one point to demand better pay and working conditions. Walt was also known for cutting costs when it hampered profitability, as evidenced by his scale-back on animation funds following the financial flop that was Sleeping Beauty. Walt’s contributions to animation and film are immense, but he was never the saint some people claim him to be.

It’s worth understanding this because it re-frames the context behind Disney. While there’s no denying that anyone in film has money on their mind, for Disney it’s ingrained in their DNA. Disney doesn’t only make a fairy-tale because they have good stories to tell, but also because it’s a brand. Their decision to cater to a family market is because parents will pay money to see movies that’ll entertain their children. Even the themes in their films, which are incredibly general, are done so that they’ll net big bucks. Everything about Disney, right down to their marketing, is as much about money as art, perhaps even more so.

The one difference between Walt and his company is that Walt was, to be fair, occasionally experimental. He’d make safe bets like Cinderella, a typical fairy-tale, but he’d also try experimental work, like Fantasia, and films that tackled unique concepts, like Lady and the Tramp, when he felt there was the right budget and story. He was a businessman, yes, but he also did try new ideas that pushed the medium of film. This blend of financial success and artistic success kept Disney from going stale. Yet even after the Disney Renaissance in the late-80’s and early-90’s, following The Little Mermaid, money was still a primary drive for Disney.

It’s this desire to capitalize on a brand that explains why Disney’s become so tongue-in-cheek lately. Because audiences, whether they were aware of it or not, were becoming wise to Disney’s formula. We can argue nuances forever, and I won’t, but Disney saw that self-deprecation could net ticket sales; after all, if Shrek could make fun of Disney and work for Dreamworks, then why couldn’t Disney make fun of themselves too? Perhaps it’s too in-jokey and insincere for a company to knowingly mock their own brand, but it’s worked for them financially, so why not? It’s not like they’re a giant corporation willfully deconstructing their own nostalgia to-wait…

Yeah, that’s what people are concerned about: they can overlook Disney being edgy in their deconstruction of themselves, but not that they’re using it to distract from their uncomfortable decisions of late. This is the same company that fired James Gunn because of some Tweets he made almost 10 years ago on Twitter. This is also the same company that kept Roseanne Barr on a leash until a racist Tweet got her fired. And this is the same company that employs Johnny Depp and is dragging their feet on John Lasseter despite what we know about both. Add the Fox acquisition, and it's as if Disney’s overcompensating.

Does this mean that people suddenly can’t enjoy that scene? No. It might be over-indulgent and fan-service heavy, but there’s no denying its cute charm. Disney princesses, as we know, hold immense weight in pop culture. Having the veil lifted might, honestly, be more important than having them as stand-ins for agendas or themes. Besides, half of them were never that interesting to begin with!

I also think it’s cynical to deny people their right to enjoy this. The world is a scary place right now, and people need escapism. Regardless of the “cynicism” presented in Disney’s fan-service, it’s helping people to cope. That alone should be reassuring, no?

But if that’s doesn’t ease the tension, we can rest easy that this isn’t the whole movie. The trailers for the first film were also mediocre, but the end-result was quite decent. I’m sure this film will be too. And if not? Fine, but it’s not the end of the world.

Finally, I want to address the hardened cynics and ask them why they’re ruining other people’s fun. Art isn’t be-all-end-all, you can like something while recognizing its awfulness. If Disney’s bringing happiness to people, then let them be happy. If these movies end up being enjoyable, then let them be enjoyable. Because your energy can be much better-spent on other, more pressing concerns than constantly raining on someone’s parade!