Quit Bugging Me!

This Summer I reviewed Paper Mario: The Origami King. Despite enjoying it, I wasn’t fully-engrossed. A part of me missed the first two entries, which I longed for. So it was no surprise that I downloaded the Paper Mario imitation, Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling, for my Switch. Now that I’ve beaten it, I have many thoughts. 

The premise is pretty straightforward: you play as Kabbu, a beetle, and Vi, a bee, as you fulfill the request of Queen Elizant II and find the Everlasting Sapling. You also encounter a moth named Leif early on, and they then search the kingdoms of Bugaria to access this sapling. It’s a game eerily reminiscent of the first two Paper Mario entries, but that was intentional. Go figure.

I was really impressed by how simple the game was to play. Like the Paper Mario games, Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling has two parts to its gameplay: the over-world and the combat. The former has a flat, storybook-like world with cut-out characters and sections connected via pages. The characters interact with text bubbles, and the enemies can be seen in advance of your battles. The latter, also like the Paper Mario games, involves fighting 1-3 enemies and switching back-and-forth between Kabbu, Vi and Leif to dish out damage. It’s a style that still works outside the Paper Mario games, and I’m itching for more RPGs to try it out.

Speaking of gameplay, I like how the combat’s more expansive than Paper Mario. Instead of two partners in battle, Mario and a partner, you have three. Instead of your characters’ turns being fixed, you can alternate. This includes switching the order they fight, having different party members battle at different times, or forfeiting a party member’s turn in favour of another. This allows for interesting strategies not present in Paper Mario games, and it’s welcomed in my books! 

The over-world allows for interesting strategies that you can exploit. Each of the party members has unique moves to access specific sections. Kabbu can burrow in the ground, cut bushes, break rocks and move objects. Vi can fly and use her boomerang to stun enemies and activate bridges. And Leif? He can freeze enemies and make bridges on water with ice. Switching back-and-forth isn’t only fun, it’s critical for progressing through the game.

Then there are the communities. The Ant Kingdom feels different in tone than Defiant Root, the former a jovial grassland and the latter a harsh desert, but they’re both still part of the same game. Even when the situation’s bleak and foreboding, which happens quite often, you never feel like there’s an abrupt tonal shift. I like that.

I also like how investing the story is. Like the Paper Mario games, the setup isn’t elaborate, but it keeps you engaged with its characters. Even the boss fights are memorable, with each one having strengths and weaknesses. There’s also plenty of post-game material once you complete the main story, which is nice. There’s no denying how much of a labour of love this was, and you feel it! 

Unfortunately, the game has problems, or “bugs”, that keep it from being better. Perhaps it’s my bias for Paper Mario talking, but if they’re being used for comparison, then I should be consistent.

The first complaint is the combat. Not because it isn’t good, but because it could’ve been better. I don’t like how strong the enemies are, and how you level up so slowly. Even with your optional ability to override weaker ones with a badge, which is helpful, I could be facing bosses with 70HP and have a party that wasn’t even at 20HP. Also, the level grinding becomes more frustrating as you progress, since the target for levelling up also increases.

This game is also much harder than the Paper Mario entries! I died on the same bosses routinely, even with the ability to start again each time. And the over-world had me tied to walkthroughs for certain sections, and even then I got stuck. I’m unsure if that’s indicative of my poor gaming skills or the game itself, but it led to plenty of frustration. 

Finally, the game has various “little bugs”. Like how you can’t have more than three party members. Or how you have to “Spy” on an opponent successfully to learn their HP. Or even how special moves, while making sense narratively, can only be accessed at specific points. These aren’t game-breakers, but they do feel like lifts from the Paper Mario games without any thought of how they could’ve been fixed or expanded on. At least the Paper Mario games had in-game reasons for these mechanics! What’s Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling’s excuse?

I’m being way too hard on this game. For what it is, I enjoyed it! I even plowed through a sleep-deprived migraine near the end, which rarely happens. That alone should be something, right?

Is Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling worth your time, even if you’re not a Paper Mario fan? I guess? It won’t convert you to the format, but it’s definitely an interesting take. Whether it’s the hummable tunes, the gameplay, or how it takes advantage of its core concept, it was worth the play-through. It’s too bad it was offset by those “bugs” that kept me frustrated despite my enjoyment, or else I’d replay it immediately.

The Church of Prattology

The past few days have had several events that’ve given me mixed reactions. For one, Disney released a teaser of Raya and the Last Dragon, which was exciting. Then there were a couple of US House Reps live-streaming games to secure votes, which is cool, but I think people might also be normalizing these politicians too much. And then there was Chris Pratt’s coworkers defending him from accusations of homophobia and bigotry. Let’s talk about that. 

Pratt’s become a superstar while under The MCU umbrella. How could he not? He’s charming, charismatic and funny. And he radiates a likability that keeps him in the public eye. I enjoyed his turns as Star Lord, Emmet, Owen and Barley, and I’ll probably enjoy many more of his roles. There’s no denying it, Chris Pratt’s talented!

Which is why some of his personal views are upsetting. To be clear, my issue isn’t that he’s conservative. Contrary to popular wisdom, there are many conservatives in Hollywood, even in acting. Besides, acting technically overrides personal politics. I also can’t control what someone believes, nor should I try.

My concern stems from how open Pratt’s been with his views. It began when Ellen Page came out as a lesbian and went on to criticize a homophobic church in The US. Pratt, a member of that church, went on the defensive, stating that while he didn’t condemn its stance, he was more than willing to accept Page anyway. Even if Pratt wasn’t direct, his claim was still homophobic. It was also a bad attempt at damage control. 

This was already bad enough as is, not gonna lie. Yet despite receiving flak in the years since because of his tendency to passive-aggressively quote Bible verses on Twitter, Pratt’s general politics remained low-key for a while. It’s only in recent weeks that everything got out of hand again. Aside from an ill-timed swipe at voting in The US, especially with gerrymandering and voter suppression being real issues, Pratt was also a no-show at a Biden fundraiser. This got him into hot water again online.

And now, as if that wasn’t distressing enough, Pratt’s co-workers, namely Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, have also taken heat for coming to his defence. Ignoring personal issues with Ruffalo having broken ranks before and not now, it feels like a selective defence given criticism against Brie Larson, Zendaya and the likes in the past. Why were they silent about the criticism directed at these women? Why the double-standard?

Think about it: a few years ago Brie Larson stated that diversity was lacking in Hollywood. Irrespective of her phrasing, she received plenty of backlash from the comic and film nerd community. Despite support from the talent at DC, the only Marvel cast member of note to defend her was Don Cheadle. So now that Chris Pratt’s being criticized for valid reasons, like homophobia, why are his cast-mates suddenly rushing to his defence? 

This is why I don’t “stan” people, especially celebrities: not only are they human and prone to disappointment, but they routinely form cliques that make it hard to sympathize with them. They also shield their own way too frequently. This is yet another example of that. Besides, stanning people is creepy.

I’m not sure why people are surprised that Ruffalo and RDJ are defending Pratt, though. I’m sure they mean well, but it was inevitable. That’s why we should keep an arm’s length distance and revere Brie Larson instead. Or, rather, revere her until she also goofs and ruins her reputation. I didn’t make the rules, I simply follow them!

***

I think another update about my collab is in order, this one with more explanation of why it’s taking so long:

Initially, I had someone lined up for September. But then this person had to cancel on me, so it got pushed to October. Since then, for reasons I won’t divulge, I’ve cycled through two more candidates and almost gave up. It was only then that the first person got back to me again. But that meant pushing the collab to mid-November. What can you do, right? 

I don’t begrudge anyone involved for this. They have lives too, so these situations happen. However, time away from the collab means that I can work on other projects. And one of those is on a new game that I purchased for my Switch. I won’t give it away, but I’m enjoying it a lot. Maybe not as much as most people, but still a lot.

And my other projects? For starters, I’m now the proud owner of a boxset I’ve wanted for some time, so I might discuss that in the near-future too. I also have some Disney ideas on my mind, assuming I get around to them, like one on Soul. Outside of that, though? I’ll play it by ear, since my collab kept getting pushed back. Basically, if I think of anything, I’ll write about it. I owe my fans that much.

Anyway, that’s about it for now. Sorry for another update shortly after the last, and I’ll see you next time!

Super Cynicism

I’m not a fan of my last post. My issue wasn’t my points, which I still agree with, but that it came off too strong. That, and it bummed me out post-facto. So let’s lighten the mood and discuss something more fun and exciting. Let’s talk superhero fatigue. 

Superhero movies have been around for a while. One can argue that they existed pre-Superman: The Movie. Yet while they really took off in the 21st Century, thanks to X-Men and Spider-Man, only within the last decade have people started complaining about their dominance in Hollywood. More specifically, it’s only post-The Avengers in 2012 that people started complaining. Given that movie’s dominance in the pop culture zeitgeist since, that’s unsurprising.

My issue isn’t with the complaints per se. I don’t take umbrage with people not liking superhero movies as a concept. I have issues with these movies too, as I’ve stated in the past. Rather, my concerns are over the nasty and cynical backlash from film fans, that they’re “awful because they’re juvenile”. That’s what bugs me.

Perhaps the best example comes with the recent news that Season 2’s finale of The Boys had a moment mocking the A-Force homage in The Avengers: Endgame. For those not in the know, that’s where all the female Avengers line-up within the frame during the battle with Thanos. It’s a neat moment in a battle filled with them, but people are definitely split on it. Personally, I’m split on it as well. 

The parody rings hollow not because a woman approved it, but because it cheapens the mood of the scene. Not only was said moment about a superheroine fighting a fascist, it also doesn’t feel like a sincere parody. The Boys may be a deconstruction of superhero reverence, but this goes beyond that. It, rather, feels like an attack on a moment of intrigue in another action film. It’s also unneeded cynicism. And I don’t like that.

It doesn’t help that this opened the doors for people to air their unneeded dirty laundry about The MCU on Twitter again. Because I see lots of ill-founded discourse on superhero films, and I’m tired of it. They’re made out to be blights by detractors because of their dominance, when it’s far more complicated in reality. And I really do mean more complicated. As in, “this is an issue with Hollywood in general, not superhero movies specifically” levels of complicated.

It’s almost as if people are shouting down a moviegoer’s right to enjoy something. Remember, life’s frustrating. The world’s a mess right now, and it’ll most-likely remain one for a while. But even before the pandemic, there was an energy to seeing movies in theatres that, aside from being a distraction from life’s problems, made the experience worthwhile. So what if that also comes from superhero movies? They’re not hurting anyone specifically, are they? 

A while back, I wrote a piece about the populist appeal of The MCU. I likened the franchise to Shakespeare, as he also wrote entertainment for the lowest common-denominator. And, like The MCU, he routinely was thought of as “commoner’s trash”, despite writing plays for The Queen of England. We think of him highly now, but that’s several centuries of hindsight. The superhero movie, frustrating though it may be at times, is no different.

We can argue superhero films for days. We can discuss their cool moments. We can debate their racism and sexism. We can talk about their neoliberal politics. We can even bicker over which studio makes better movies. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter. They still fill a populist niche, and they’ll continue to do so for a while.

I think we need to step back and realize that being overly-snobby and cynical isn’t helpful or healthy. Does Hollywood have issues worth fixing? Yes, though they’re not simply superhero-related. Is it a crime to criticize them? No, I do it all the time! But being an Anton Ego isn’t the solution. Because remember, Anton Ego was defeated by ratatouille, a “peasant’s dish”. 

I know I won’t change anyone’s mind with this. Nor do I intend to. You’re entitled to think what you will about entertainment, irrespective of what others may say. But being nasty isn’t helpful. Nor is belittling someone. That simply makes you rude and selfish, and no one likes that.

As for that parody in The Boys, I can’t help but find it insulting. Was the moment with the A-Force lacking? A little, if we’re being honest. But I don’t think it was worth mocking either. Not only do many A-Force-like moments already exist in superhero movies, particularly in team-up films, but most are male-centric. The fact that the female versions of those shots are expected to walk on water to justify their existence comes off as sexist. And this is despite franchises like The MCU currently struggling with female representation.

So yes, cut the scene some slack and dial back the cynicism. We have enough problems without either of those getting in the way.

She's Quite the Gal!

I’ll begin with a story: last year I was the only white Jew in a job training program where everyone else was black and gentile. One of them, an activist proud of her African heritage, chewed me out one day for being “a white colonizer” of Israel. Not only was this person rude about it, even if for well-intended reasons, but she wouldn’t let me get a word in edgewise. It wasn’t until the program facilitator intervened that she stopped. Still, it was nerve-wracking.

                                               

I think about this one-sided exchange regularly. I also don’t think it’s an isolated mindset amongst progressive-minded individuals. Jews have been routinely marginalized on the cultural identity front with issues of colonialism, and it’s led to lots of burnout. It also makes issues of casting in Hollywood, a place notorious for “getting it wrong” repeatedly, that much stickier. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the recent casting of Gal Gadot, an Israeli and Mediterranean native, as Queen Cleopatra, a Greek-Egyptian, for the remake of Cleopatra.

Let’s get some “takes” out of the way now. Firstly, Jews aren’t traditionally white. I know I’ve covered this before, so I’ll avoid retreading, but Jews are unique in the West when it comes to their cultural identity. Ignoring how the “white Jew” is only one type (Ashkenazi), even white Jews weren’t given white status until after The Holocaust. And even then, it was still conditional.

Secondly, Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years. In the case of white Jews, many have lived there since The Crusades. The Jewish presence in Israel goes back to Biblical times. One need only look at ancient Israelite coins, or Shekels, as proof. Ignoring that is whitewashing. 

Thirdly, the Arab presence in The Middle East and North Africa, despite commonly-held beliefs, is a relatively-recent phenomenon. With the exception of The Arabian Peninsula, most Arab countries exist on-top of previously conquered lands. This is also a fact. I’m not trying to downplay the issues of foreign intervention that keep these places a mess, that’s a fact too, but it doesn’t change that.

And fourthly, Princess Cleopatra wasn’t black. (I’d argue she wasn’t as attractive as she’s been portrayed in Hollywood in the past, but that’s beside the point.) Cleopatra, being of Egyptian and Greek stock, had more in-common with modern-Israelis than most Africans. Gal Gadot, a native Mediterranean, fits the bill quite nicely as a result. You don’t have to like or approve of her, I take issue with facets of her past behaviour, but saying she’s “wrong for the role because of her background” is also whitewashing.

I’ve mentioned all of this because it’s important context for why those attacking Gadot have done so in bad faith. Again, you don’t have to like her, and I won’t convince you otherwise. But whitewashing her origins to build a case against her casting is a form of Antisemitism. And, as we all know by now, Antisemitism is no good! 

Unfortunately, whenever Gadot is announced for a role, there are people who bring up her days as an IDF soldier. Ignoring how the draft in Israel’s mandatory, hence she could’ve been arrested for dodging it, using that as a “trump card” forgets those actors and actresses who’ve served in The American Forces before Hollywood. Why don’t people, for example, jab Adam Driver, who enlisted after 9/11 by choice, too? Double-standards much?

Even regarding Gadot playing a gentile, I’ll use Driver again as counterpoint. So Gadot’s playing a non-Jewish queen? What about Driver, a Christian, playing a Jew in BlacKkKlansman? Don’t think that went by unnoticed by those Jews in Hollywood who could’ve fit the profile of Flip Zimmerman! Why is it okay for a non-Jew to take on a Jewish role, but not the reverse? Again, double-standards much?

There are many casting choices in films that still raise eyebrows. I get that, and I’ll continue to call them out when necessary. I’ll even do it when my own people are guilty of racist casting! But let’s not go looking for issues that aren’t there. Criticizing a casting that’s easily the most-accurate in the history of the character because it’s Gal Gadot, even if she’s a Jew, qualifies as an issue that’s not there. 

I’d also be more-forgiving if this weren’t a one-sided critique of Gadot. I won’t pretend Gadot doesn’t have blood on her hands. She was, after all, an IDF commander during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War, so she probably does. But as with Yitzhak Rabin, criticizing Israelis for casualties and not The Palestinian Authority for the massacres they’ve committed against Israelis and their own reeks, once again, of double-standards. It’s bad enough that Jews have The KKK and neo-Nazis murdering them in the open without progressives trivializing their history.

I guess my takeaway is to not be a jerk. Gal Gadot, to reiterate, is no saint. She’s a human being, and she’s said and done stuff that I don’t approve of. But she doesn’t deserve Antisemitism. Because, like I said, Antisemitism is no good! And you don’t want to be thought of as “no good”, do you?

Soul Food

A few days ago I shared my concerns about Barry Jenkins directing the sequel to the remake of The Lion King. It made me feel bad, especially in light of this year’s film cycle. I’d like to balance that by discussing something more upbeat and exciting. Let’s talk Soul. 

In May of this year, which feels like eons now, I wrote a collab ranking Pixar films. It was nice gushing about them, but it felt premature knowing Soul was slated to release later this year. At the time, the movie had been delayed from Summer 2020 to late-Fall 2020 because of COVID, which was disappointing. But with The US botching its pandemic response and the failure of Tenet at the box-office, it was increasingly-unlikely that a November release date would happen at all. Cut to now, October 2020, and the movie’s been moved to Disney+.

This feels like both an inevitability and a victory for Disney+ fans. Not only was Soul coming to theatres increasingly looking like a bad decision, especially in-light of Disney’s financial losses and mass-layoffs, but even if it got one it’d probably still have bombed financially. There was also the possibility of delaying it to next year, but it might’ve crowded out Pixar’s 2021 venture. Naturally, Disney went with the only sensible option.

As for this being a victory for Disney+ fans? Well, it kinda is. This is a Pixar offering, and one from the director of Monsters, Inc., Up and Inside Out. Expectations were already high as is, and the odds were stacked in its favour to be one of the year’s best (though that could change upon release, you never know!) By releasing it on Disney+, which has been in need of exciting and fresh content post-Season 1 of The Mandalorian, you fill the void immediately. That it’s not sharing the same fate as Mulan and its up-charge helps. 

Win or not, I can’t help being disappointed that Soul won’t get the big-screen treatment. To reiterate what I said a short while ago:

"There’s something special about seeing movies in theatres. Sure, TVs have gotten to be so advanced that you can simulate the experience in your home, and TV movies/shows have, in many ways, rivalled the theatre experience recently. But it’s not the same. There’s something special about purchasing a ticket, buying overpriced concessions and cramming into an auditorium with dozens of people for 2 hours. There’s a certain energy there that you can’t really replicate."

It doesn’t help that Disney movies, Pixar included, are tailor-made for theatre releases. Something about them radiates “made for the big screen” energy, be it the laughs, tears or genuine applause. Basically, when a Disney movie’s funny, the audience laughs collectively. When a Disney’s movie sad, the audience cries collectively. And when a Disney movie’s exciting, well…you know.

It’s a shame we won’t have that with Soul, a movie focused, like with Inside Out, on existentialism through the abstract (in this case, life and death). That’s already pretty interesting, but seeing it in theatres? Talk about amazing! Yet we’re not getting that now. And that saddens me. 

I don’t want to bum everyone out for too long, since I want this to be light, so I’ll steer back on track with the following question: am I excited for Soul? Yes. Yes I am. It’s Pixar, and its premise is intriguing. Those two components are enough to make it worthwhile. That it’s coming to Disney+, which I have a subscription to now, is a bonus.

This is also how entertainment’s going to operate for the next while, especially as long as the pandemic drags on. It’s not like we have much of a choice, what with so many movies getting pushed to next year or being quietly moved to streaming. Like it or not, streaming’s the future. It only makes sense, therefore, to capitalize on that, and what better time than during a pandemic?

I’m not complaining. I have no intentions of going to a movie theatre any time soon, especially if it means risking my life, so this is a safer alternative. Plus, it means saving money for endeavours like getting my book published. Because that’ll be costly.                                 

So yes, I’m excited for Soul on Disney+ this December. I’m excited to finally watch it, and I’m excited to do so without a premium. But, most-importantly, I’m excited to watch it without putting my life at risk. And isn’t that what matters most? 

***

Hi everyone! A quick update: remember in my Castle in the Sky analysis piece when I hinted at an upcoming project with a friend? That friend, sadly, had to back out due to a scheduling conflict. Fortunately, I’ve found a replacement, so it’s still happening. The only difference is that this has pushed the project back a few weeks. So still expect it, but a little late.

In the meantime, stay safe, wash your hands regularly, wear a mask and try not to die if you can help it. No matter how stressful the world is, I have faith that you’ll persevere. Until then, keep reading and I hope to see you all again soon!

The Lyin' King

I generally steer away from the “Hollywood’s out of original ideas!” argument. For one, I doubt it’s any truer now than 30 years ago, especially since Hollywood’s as much a business as an art-machine. Two, films aren’t always successful based solely on if they’re unique or original. And three, I refuse to fall prey to “Pretentious Cinema Bro Syndrome”. However, there are moments where the temptation’s hard to resist. And nowhere is this more-apparent than what I’m about to discuss.

                         

Ah, The Lion King. It’s the highest-grossing, traditionally-animated film in existence. It stands tall as the “crown jewel” of The Disney Renaissance, that 10-year period between 1989 and 1999 where The House of Mouse released some of their finest work. So when Disney remade the movie in photorealism, it, inevitably, was also a financial success. Why wouldn’t it?

I’m not a big fan of these remakes. I liked Cinderella, The Jungle Book and Pete’s Dragon, but those either provided a new angle, or completely reworked a non-functioning premise. The rest of the movies are literal cut-and-paste jobs, except with updated winks and nods for the 21st Century. It’s tiresome!

Now, I get the appeal of remaking these movies. The originals are well-loved, so why not do them again? They don’t have to be good, only commercially-viable. What I don’t get is making these movies, watch them be successful, and then proceed to milk them for all they’re worth. I’m referring to the decision to craft a sequel to The Lion King with Barry Jenkins directing. If that made you scratch your head in confusion, you’re in good company. 

To be fair, scoring Jenkins is a big deal: he’s a talented director. He’s won several awards, including an Oscar. He’s a minority director of note, and he can draw in untapped cinema-goers. And he’s known for quiet, intimate character dramas. Having him do a Mufasa origin story could be interesting.

Conversely, I don’t want to knock Jenkins. Despite being lukewarm on Moonlight, it was well-crafted. It told a unique story about a poor black kid discovering his gayness in a world that wouldn’t accept him. So while I think there were better movies in 2017, I don’t begrudge its Best Picture win. That, and it led to a hilarious gaffe at The Academy Awards.

What bothers me is that Disney’s tapping Jenkins, a filmmaker known for intimate character stories, for a big-budget sequel to a remake that was regarded as mediocre. That’s not only unambitious for Disney, even by their standards, it’s also a waste of talent. Jenkins, like I said, is a small-scale director, and a big-budget film feels like a step in the wrong direction. It’d be like proposing to someone and then throwing a huge wedding the next day. There are some missing steps there. 

I’m sure some of you are thinking about Jon Favreau, someone who’s made the leap from small-scale to big-budget, but that ignores two points: firstly, Favreau’s career wasn’t a straight line. In-between Elf and Iron Man he directed Zathura, and he’d later direct Chef. Secondly, not every director’s as blessed as him. Not every small-scale director transitions successfully to blockbusters. Simply look at Ava DuVernay and A Wrinkle in Time.

I’m also concerned because I’d love to see Disney take more chances. I’d love to see more movies like A Wrinkle in Time, except with actual coherency. I’d like to see Jenkins direct a drama for Disney like Moonlight or If Beale Street Could Talk, if only to prove that Disney’s not afraid to be different. Working on a sequel to a shot-for-shot remake of a beloved classic, and one that wasn’t even well-received, isn’t exciting.

It’s possible that this could end up working. Maybe Jenkins will pull this off and we’ll get something special. But as it stands? I’m not convinced that he’s the right fit. It makes me want to shout that “Hollywood’s out of original ideas!”, irrespective of whether or not that’s true. That’s not a good sign. 

Perhaps I’m also overthinking this? This is, after all, Barry Jenkins. He’s a high-profile director with trophies under his belt. Disney might be desperate, but I doubt he is. He probably only accepted this role so he could green-light another, better, more-ambitious project later on. This is all pure speculation, true, but I’ve seen weirder happen.

Still, I’m not sold. It seems too fast and too big for a man who hasn’t proven he can do this sort of a project. Is it possible that he pulls it off? Yes, it is. But it’s also possible that he won’t, and that it could ruin his future prospects. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Then again, I’m probably bitter because the one project I’d love to see in live-action hasn’t happened yet. Seriously Disney, remake The Black Cauldron! Lean in on the darker imagery! Give us a PG-13 story! Make Princess Eilonwy the free-spirited, no-nonsense tomboy she was in the books! And don’t compromise on your vision! It’s been 35 years, that’s long enough!

"The Day the Movie Died..."

Why am I writing this? That’s the question I’ve been asking myself for a week. It’s not like I didn’t want to, especially since I had lots to say, but something held me back. And, after days of wracking my brain, it finally got me to write this:

Let’s talk about how we’ve lost a whole movie year due to the pandemic. 

A while back, I wrote a piece discussing the ill-fated movie year of 2013. It feels like eons now, but 2013 really was a lacklustre year until September. There were a lot of options to choose from, but few were high-profile. And of them, most were bloated disappointments. It felt like the only chances at good movies in 2013 were indie films, and those were hard to scout out. I actually saved money by not going to the theatre too often, which sucked because I like seeing new releases.

2020 has had a similar-yet-different situation. Except that, while in 2013 I could see movies if I wanted to, the circumstances behind this drought are more drastic. I’m referring to the global pandemic making it unsafe to go to the movies, lest I get sick and possibly die. This pandemic has also caused many delays and shutdowns of projects that weren’t already being moved to VOD, making the theatre obsolete. The exceptions to the rule, like Tenet, have seen poor box-office numbers too. Who’d have thought?

While I don’t want to detract from the reality of over 1 million people dying, many of them preventable, at the same time it’s still sad. There’s something special about seeing movies in theatres. Sure, TVs have gotten to be so advanced that you can simulate the experience in your home, and TV movies/shows have, in many ways, rivalled the theatre experience recently. But it’s not the same. There’s something special about purchasing a ticket, buying overpriced concessions and cramming into an auditorium with dozens of people for 2 hours. There’s a certain energy there that you can’t really replicate. 

I miss that. I miss laughing, crying and clapping with all those people. I also miss going to the cineplex and marvelling at the new trailers. As tacky as it sounds, movie theatres are about more than watching movies. They’re an event, and they provide social opportunities I can’t get elsewhere.

It’s not like I haven’t been occupying my time. I’ve gotten into shows I never saw. I’ve gotten, somewhat, back into video games. I’ve even taken on projects that, up until March, I wouldn’t have had time for. I’ve done quite a bit to stay busy. The options haven’t exactly been sparse.

But, again, it’s not the same. I’ve enjoyed what I’ve been doing these past months, but it’s been hard not calling up my buddies and blocking off an afternoon/evening for the latest release. It’s a level of socialization that I’ve missed and craved. And I’ll crave it for as long as it’s not safe to venture to the movies.

It also sucks because film is an escape from the harsh realities of life. The real world is full of garbage and trauma that feels overbearing, and movies have provided necessary outlets to get away from it all. It’s a sacred form of self-care that’s needed after a day of stresses and agony. While video games and TV can fill that role to an extent, movies manage it in a quicker and less-addictive manner. They also aren’t as much of a time-commitment. 

I don’t want to make it seem like I feel bad for theatre chains. While I long to return to them, I think these chains exploit consumers with tickets that routinely don’t match the moviegoing experience. I also feel no guilt for Hollywood studios, many of which use exploitative practices. But I do feel bad for the grunt workers, as they have lives and are suffering because of this pandemic. Many have even gotten sick and/or fired, which saddens me. For that reason alone, I feel awful that I can’t return to the theatre.

Look, I’m not advocating risking getting sick. That’s a terrible idea, and one with real, long-term consequences. People are also dying in large numbers from social gatherings, so minimizing them when possible is good. That includes going to movie chains. 

That doesn’t mean I can’t be sad about what’s been lost from COVID, though. We can’t go to restaurants. We can’t go to bars. We can’t have big, indoor functions either! All of these are losses for social interaction, and I crave them. Not being able to go to the movie theatre’s the icing on the crap cake. And that one hurts the most.

Still, I have hope. I have hope that a vaccine will make this pandemic more manageable. I have hope that it’ll help to return balance. And I have hope that it’ll come soon. I have hope for all of this and more.

And when that vaccine comes, I’m sure I’ll celebrate by going to the movie theatres once again. But until that time, I guess I’ll have to be a little more patient.