Whisper of the Heart and the Creative Process

This year marks the 25th anniversary of Whisper of the Heart. I completely forgot until I saw this trailer:

*Hums “Country Roads”. (Courtesy of Madman Anime.)*

It’s surreal to think that not only has it been 10 years since I purchased this movie, but that it’s officially 25 years old. For relative figures, it came out when I was 5. It’s the same age as Pocahontas and Toy Story, two movies I also remember fondly from then (though Pocahontas not as much). It’s also the first and only feature-length film from the late-Yoshifumi Kondō, who died from complications of a brain aneurysm in early-1998. And it’s one of my favourite Studio Ghibli movies.

To better understand why this movie’s dear to me, I should start with what drew me to it. See, university was tough. I’ve covered this on Infinite Rainy Day, but my alma mater went on strike for 85 days in my first year. This not only lost me 3 months, it also threw off my adjustment period. I lost my entrance scholarship because my grades slipped, and my second year was catch-up. By the time Summer 2010 rolled around, I was a mess.

Interestingly enough, Summer 2010 was the year I discovered Studio Ghibli, beginning with a scratched copy of Spirited Away my brother’s friend accidentally left at our house. Within a month of finishing it the first time, I’d purchased as many of their films that I could find. Whisper of the Heart, together with My Neighbors the Yamadas and The Cat Returns, I found during a trip to HMV that I’d made after sneaking out of a class with a professor I didn’t get along with. (Don’t worry, I got plenty of crap for that!) 

Whisper of the Heart was also the movie of the three that I gravitated to most. Who could blame me? It might’ve thrown me off initially by not being a true fantasy movie, contrary to the cover, but it spoke to me. It’d take a few years and several viewings to fully-grasp, but the film had more to say about my experiences of all the Studio Ghibli movies. That’s because, Whisper of the Heart’s about the creative process.

Think about it: Shizuku Tsukushima’s a scatterbrained bookworm with insecurities about her own talent. She’s inspired to write a novel when the boy she has a crush on travels to Cremona Italy, making it a goal to finish it before he returns. While writing, her chores get neglected, her appetite dwindles, her schoolwork suffers and her sleep is disturbed by her flow. And once she’s done and gets an audience, she recoils at the positive feedback.

I relate to all of this on a personal level. I was obsessed with fantasy growing up, to the point of neglecting schoolwork. I often get obsessive during my flow, often neglecting chores, food, other work and sleep. And whenever I receive positive feedback on my work, I recoil and feel insecure. Shizuku is me, to the point of feeling attacked. And I don’t know how to feel about that. 

But at least she’s able to sing, like me. It’s one of the few, non-writing skills I picked up with little effort, even if my Tourette’s Syndrome makes it hard. Her singing ability plays a big part in the film, resurfacing at several points. It’s silly, yes, and perhaps even embarrassing, but singing makes you vulnerable. It’s a lot harder than speaking, and it forces you to be honest in ways that other communication doesn’t. That’s something captured brilliantly here.

Another area of the creative process that’s captured wonderfully is creative obsession. Aside from neglecting reality because of her writing, there’s a scene where Shizuku falls asleep at her desk and her leg starts twitching. That hits home hard as someone who’s been up late writing and can’t shake off ideas for new content before. I like that Whisper of the Heart touches on this, but I also kind of don’t. Because it’s painful to watch.

On the flipside, it’s refreshing to see Shizuku acknowledge the power of writing itself. This past Summer I took up an online novel writing course through Coursera, completing a 20-Chapter manuscript that amounted to almost 50000 words. It was a daunting, often unforgiving experience, especially during the Table Reads where I listened to how my characters sounded from the mouths of other people. Still, like Shizuku says herself, I’m glad I pushed myself. I know myself a little bit better now. I only wish I could detach myself enough to revise my manuscript, but… 

It’s a shame that Yoshifumi Kondō died so young. Like Satoshi Kon, he was in his prime, only starting to show the world what he was capable of. Unlike Kon, however, he never got to follow-up Whisper of the Heart, making him more under-appreciated. Especially since, final scene aside, his movie was practically a masterpiece! But I guess life sucks like that, huh?

Either way, I think this movie’s amazing. I even think its English dub enhances it, showing how awkward and embarrassing the creative process can be for young people. If Kiki’s Delivery Service helps me with burnout, then Whisper of the Heart amends and refreshes my spirit. It reminds me why I enjoy writing, and I can’t thank it enough!

So here’s to 25 years, and 25 years more! May it continue to inspire!

Ready Player Deuce?

Life likes being annoying, huh? 

Ernest Cline’s a controversial figure. Personal opinions aside, his writing’s love-it-or-hate-it. His most-famous book, Ready Player One, is where it’s most-apparent, being touted as either engaging, or a slog-fest of pop culture references. So, naturally, his book was turned into a movie.

I don’t need to reiterate my thoughts on that movie. I’ve shared them before, both pre and post-release. And besides, it’s a Spielberg release. It might not have been “amazing”, but it was leagues above what people expected. But I’m getting carried away…

Anyway, because the book was successful, Cline immediately went to work on a sequel, Ready Player Two. And now it’s officially out. And people are mixed on it. Which means rolling my eyes and wishing people would chill out. But that’s never going to happen, so why try? 

Honestly, I’m not even sure what people were expecting: a masterpiece? An improvement over the original? Because I doubt you’ll be getting either, especially with prose like this:

“There it was: number 42. Another of Halliday’s jokes—according to one of his favorite novels, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the number 42 was the ‘Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.’”

These books aren’t exactly deep, and that’s okay. That’s not to say you can’t criticize them, I’ve been critical of them myself, but demanding more from something you know is trash is like expecting rotten fruit to not make you sick: what were you honestly expecting? 

My concern is that people are demanding way too much. It’d be one problem if there was a different expectation for Cline, or if he’d already proven himself. That’s not the case here, though. With Cline, what exists is a duology that feels like overly-sentimental and really trashy fanfics of what nerds think is good writing. It’s the “blackface” of fiction, essentially.

I know what this is really about: quelling a toxic mindset. And I get it, I really do. Nerds were abused and shut out for so long that they’re unable to adjust to a world that now accepts them. They’re stuck in the 80’s, not realizing that was four decades ago. Like most people stuck in the past, they can’t adjust to reality.

Still, as tempting as it might be to mock something that artificial, is it worth the energy? Is it worth slamming the novel equivalent of candy corn? It might not be healthy, or even the best kind of junk food, but candy corn has fans. So long as these fans appreciate that what they’re consuming isn’t good for them, then what’s the big deal? 

I also wouldn’t be as bitter if it weren’t for the elephant in the room: the movie adaptation of Ready Player One. When that was first announced, and well into the years that followed, the internet’s reaction was extremely negative. Perhaps it was even toxic. There was no room for actual discussion, nor room to acknowledge that books and movies are different mediums. That one of modern cinema’s greatest directors was helming it was ignored, as was the fact that the head screenwriter had experience with nerdy ensemble pieces. All of this went out the window in favour of the negatives.

I even ended up putting the title on a one-month moratorium on Twitter. It wouldn’t be the last time I’d do that, but it wasn’t an easy decision to make. I mean, it was a movie! Even horrible movies have some degree of talent behind them! So why have this much ire? Wasn’t it bad enough to claim that Avatar had no fans?

It sounds like I’m really frustrated, but I’m not. I don’t care for Cline’s books, his writing doesn’t appeal to me. I also think these sorts of stories work better as films, as film excels at this kind of fan-service more than text-based books. It’s especially true in light of Spielberg having already improved on the source material. He not only made the protagonist, Wade Watts, feel genuine, but he also made Halliday a tragic figure. He found the humanity in this story. 

That’s missing in the discourse, and it’s disappointing. Because I don’t think that wish fulfillment VR is a bad concept, especially when grounded in tangibility. It’s been done before with The Matrix, so why not video games? Is it really considered to be that farfetched? Because it isn’t to me!

Like it or not, Cline’s work provides meaning to some people. And some of them have legitimate reasons for why. Remember, life’s hard and frustrating. We all need escapism on occasion, even if it isn’t “good”. Gatekeeping that does no one favours. That’s something I’ve learned over time.

However, if that doesn’t comfort detractors, we can always wait for the inevitable movie of Ready Player Two. Because I’m sure it’ll be leagues better than the book it’s based on, right? 

*****

So I figure I owe you all another update: my planned collaboration isn’t happening. I lost my third partner due to work obligations, and I wasn’t able to find a replacement. I’m sorry about that, as I don’t like breaking promises to my readers.

On the plus side, I have another project I want to try. I won’t give any more details, in case it falls through too, but hopefully I can get that going soon. In the meantime, enjoy this piece, and I’ll see you next time!

Closing the Loop

Growing up with Autism was difficult. I wasn’t diagnosed until middle school, and I always thought something was wrong with me: why was math so confusing and tedious? Why were colours a challenge to grasp? And why did social cues not come naturally? These issues are understandable in hindsight, what with my learning style, but as a kid it was a nightmare! Why did everything have to be so hard to learn? 

I mention this because entertainment was my best teacher. I had plenty of interventions, that much I won’t deny. But that was only one part. When I wasn’t being “brain trained” by professionals, I still needed additional help that entertainment provided.

Consider it like this: narrative art, while created by humans, runs on “closed loop behaviour”. No matter how authentic it is, it’s still predetermined. Characters in a story, even a choose your own adventure, have a planned outcome. They lack true agency, making them predictable. It’s this predictability that I latched onto.

It’s helpful because real life runs on “opened loop behaviour”. Life’s unpredictable. People make decisions that aren’t always planned. And even when they’re planned, a lot can go wrong. This unpredictability gives little leeway for errors. There’s minimal room for mistakes, and the consequences are immediate. Sometimes, the consequences for good decisions are more immediate, not allowing time to process what I did right. 

I don’t mean to be condescending. Life’s hard enough as is, and people are bound to make mistakes. But being Autistic gives little wiggle room to learn from them. Whereas neurotypical individuals can process their wrongdoings on their first or second tries, I take a while. That’s a luxury I’m not always afforded.

Which goes back to why entertainment’s an effective educator. It functions on a closed loop, so it’s easier to predict how human behaviour will play out. And if I don’t get it right away? Well, I can always try again, assuming I have the time to do so.

This indirect education’s underrated, honestly. Parent groups often decry media as “corrupting the youth”, not recognizing that it doesn’t have to. Sure, there’ll always be garbage media. But even then it’s closed loop. It allows an Autistic individual to comprehend it without the consequences of reality. 

But I also think “corrupted media” lets me to challenge how I view the world. Life’s messy, let’s face it. A lot happens daily that’s scary and lacks a clear-cut answer. But when entertainment tackles this, it does so in a closed loop. That’s invaluable for me.

It doesn’t have to stop at visual entertainment! Books and audio recordings are also great, being based in similar, closed loop formats. The only difference is the medium: books use text to convey this, while audio recordings use sound. But they reinforce what visual mediums use pictures for.

I’ve left out video games so far, but that’s a unique angle on this. Every other medium is detached, but video games are designed to be interactive. Not only is the loop closed, but you close it yourself. This is crucial in taking the narrative into your own hands, all-the-while still detaching from the high stakes of real life. Of all my non-human teachers, that was my favourite. 

I know that it sounds strange to say all this: yes, entertainment’s no substitute for reality. True, real people are still your best teachers, as we’re inherently social. But that doesn’t mean you can’t still learn from what art has to offer. It’s still valuable in teaching people streamlined concepts about life. That shouldn’t be discounted.

That’s not to say that mass entertainment can’t have limitations. It absolutely can! I sometimes get bored by poorly-formatted books. Some movies and shows are too confusing to keep my interest. Even some video games are so difficult that I’m forced to resort to strategy guides or online tutorials, ruining the fun in the process. These are setbacks that can occur from closed loop vehicles.

Nevertheless, a closed loop teaching vehicle can still be an effective teacher. And yeah, it’s frustrating knowing that I’m forever handicapped. But that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy or appreciate them anyway, right? That doesn’t discount what they have to offer, does it? I don’t think so! 

I’ll be the first to recognize my limitations. My poor reflexes and lack of judgment will make it impossible to drive a car. My motor skill deficiencies will forever slow down my speed of production. And my information comprehension difficulties will make it difficult to process detailed instructions. These challenges and setbacks will hold me back until the day I die, and I have no shame in admitting that.

That doesn’t mean I can’t still learn how to engage with the rest of the world. Because I have, and closed loop interactions are a big reason for why. Is it always fun? No. Is it always glamorous? Again, no. But it’s worthwhile for me to try it out anyway, as it lacks the frustrating penalties of reality. The key is learning how to bridge them, though assuming it’s impossible gives me too little credit!

The IP Conundrum

Wheel of controversy, spin-spin-spin, which recent controversy’s fit to dive in? 

That’ll work!

I’ve written many pieces on Disney before, both positive and negative. But I’ve steered clear of several topics, as I doubt I would’ve done them justice. However, this one hits home as someone who hopes to one day get his work published. Let’s get started:

In 2012, The Walt Disney Corporation acquired Lucasfilm for roughly $4 billion. With this, Disney came into custody of not only the Star Wars films, but also the expanded canon (or EU). Shortly afterward, Disney did a soft-reboot and declared everything that wasn’t the movies or the then-running TV series non-canon. This angered many fans, but it also raised questions that…I won’t discuss here.

Recently it was revealed that Alan Dean Foster, celebrated EU writer, hasn’t been receiving royalties for his contributions to this EU. This was compounded by his and his wife’s declining health, leading to The Science Fiction Writers of America to take on his case. To quote Foster himself:

“I know this is what gargantuan corporations often do: ignore requests and inquiries hoping the petitioner will simply go away. Or possibly die. But I’m still here, and I am still entitled to what you owe me. Including not to be ignored, just because I’m only one lone writer. How many other writers and artists out there are you similarly ignoring?”

As expected, this whole ordeal was made big by the general public, made more-apparent by The SFWA releasing an unusual image. I don’t blame them: Foster had a contract that existed before Disney’s acquisition of Star Wars and 20th Century Fox. Foster’s contract hadn’t expired, so he was entitled to his dues. Disney not honouring this agreement, therefore, is a breach of contract. It doesn’t matter that The EU’s “not canon”, that should be respected. And it’s not.

What’s worse is that, honestly, it’s not surprising either. Disney’s a corporation. Corporations are, by nature, out for the bottom-line, which is money. That Foster was subtracting from that was concerning. So, naturally, they cut him.

It’s also not surprising when you factor in some of Disney’s corporate decisions historically. This is the company who invented Mickey Mouse when Oswald the Rabbit couldn’t be brought over because of copyright issues. This is the same company who used a public domain story for their first feature-film for that same reason. And this is the same company who fought to have American copyright laws extend the ownership of Mickey Mouse. Essentially, Disney’s draconian behaviour with their IPs is well-documented.

But it begs the question: what if Foster loses his case? Remember, Foster has a progressive and aggressive form of cancer. He might not live to see closure. And even if he goes to court, who’s to say he’ll win? And if he loses, what’ll happen to the royalties of other authors who’ve licensed copyrighted material for tie-ins? 

Part of why this is so upsetting is because this stuff happens all the time: someone licenses a property to make content, only for the owner(s) to turn around and renege on the initial agreement. It’s wrong, but it should surprise no one. Doubly-so with Disney on the reneging end.

So what now? There’s already been a push for Disney to abide by their end of the agreement. There’ve also been several reminders that Mickey Mouse becomes public domain in 2024, and that American Congress should be pressured into not renewing the lease. But I don’t think it’s enough to stop there. I also think that the systems of licensing and copyright need changing, as they’re not currently favourable to small-time creators. To quote myself from an IRD article on copyright:

“…[I]f I wanted to copyright a tune I’d made, under the current rules I’d have 70 years past my death to hold the patent…Additionally, should I have composed that tune with a fellow Infinite Rainy Day writer, the copyright would expire 70 years to the day of that person’s death…[T]hat’s not factoring in a renewed patent from my successor of an additional 67 years, whether or not I end up getting married and my spouse acquires custody of my tune after I die, or if I’d bought the rights to my tune from another licensor and modified it for my own needs…”

You can see why this’d be frustrating, right? I haven’t even mentioned licensing laws! Regardless, this is what’s at stake if Disney gets their way. And they shouldn’t. Because it sets a bad precedent for small-time writers looking to make a name through licensed fiction. 

It also, as a side-note, really sucks for Foster. This is a sick man who’s also looking after a sick wife. He doesn’t know how much longer he has. Even with The SFWA backing him, it might not be enough. He could lose this case, and that’d be awful.

I’d be less-invested if I didn’t see the impact these cases have on small-time creators constantly. But I do. I see it with fiction all the time. And I see it on YouTube and Twitch with DMCA claims and takedown notices, even when they have no legal basis. It’s a problem for many people. And it shouldn’t be this difficult to get corporations to relent.

Ultimately, a choice needs to be made: does Disney honour a previously-established agreement with a beloved author, or do they renege and look bad in the eyes of the public? They’ve made many bad choices in the last few years, so I doubt they’d want another headache. Especially since they care about their reputation.

I hope they come to their senses and do what’s right. It’d mean losing a little money, but so what? They can afford it, even with COVID making matters difficult right now. Besides, Foster’s dying. And his wife’s sick. Surely they don’t want this kind of PR nightmare, do they? James Gunn being fired was already bad enough!

Johnny Depp and the Problems of Abuse

Johnny Depp. 

If ever there was a profile in nonsensical, Johnny Depp would fit it. Truth be told, it’d be warranted. For as much as Depp rose to fame in the late-80’s and early-90’s under director Tim Burton, his roles in Cry-Baby and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape showed his range as an actor. He was the heartthrob whose charm and charisma won over audiences with his turn as Captain Jack Sparrow, which helped him stay afloat amidst terrible decisions and a declining career in the 21st Century. Couple his marriage to and divorce from actress Amber Heard, as well as the controversy surrounding it in the years since, and this once-promising actor became a has-been. But was it all for naught?

I’ve always been mixed on Johnny Depp. He’s talented, but he’s always struck me as weird. Whether it’s the movies he’s been in, or his fashion choices, he’s always seemed off. I feel bad saying that, as he clearly has demons he’s never fully-addressed. I’ve been there, so I know what it’s like.

It’s equally weird how his career’s swerved back and forth over the last 17 years. With the success of Jack Sparrow in 2003, and his subsequent role in Finding Neverland, he was going places. His Oscar nods were proof of that, even if he didn’t win. Unfortunately, Jack Sparrow’s popularity quickly typecast him, and he’d spend the next decade playing quirky characters. Some of them, like Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Lars in Rango, I quite liked, but many felt like caricatures in a bad way. It was only after his turn as Whitey Bulger in 2015’s Black Mass that his career appeared rehabilitated, this time as a villainous character actor. 

However, that was short-lived. Following his casting as Gellert Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, stories about his failed marriage to Amber Heard began surfacing. Rumours of him being verbally and physically-abusive to her also surfaced, which soured his reputation. It seemed like Depp couldn’t escape from his demons, and it showed in his declining popularity. That is, except with diehard fans.

I largely believed these claims about him. I was coming to terms with my own trauma at the time, and the 2017 Weinstein incident, as well as the surge of Me Too, made matters worse. He was guilty, I figured! No questions asked! Never mind the arguments I got into with fans, fetch the guillotine!

In hindsight, while I’m sure Depp wasn’t a saint, I feel bad for being naïve. As court proceedings and recorded tapes have shown, Amber Heard might have been the abuser after all. Documented evidence of Depp’s finger being crushed and Heard’s threats that “no one would believe him” muddied the initial assumptions people had about him. That I’d had about him. Suddenly, Depp went from villain to victim. Suddenly, his diehards could breathe a sigh of relief. 

And now Depp’s retiring from his Grindelwald role and handing it to Mads Mikkelsen. To be fair, this isn’t a bad trade-off. Mikkelsen’s a terrific character actor, and this is right up his wheelhouse. Plus, it’d earn him recognition with Harry Potter fans, irrespective of what one thinks of JK Rowling. It’d also give Depp some time away from the spotlight, which he needs and would help him.

Still, I can’t help feeling like two issues arise from this. For one, if Depp’s being replaced in the Harry Potter universe, then shouldn’t Amber Heard be replaced in the DC universe? Ignoring that Depp’s had plenty of roles since his allegations, this seems like a glaring oversight. If Me Too is to have weight as a movement, then shouldn’t Heard also suffer consequences?

And two, Depp’s being made into a martyr. And I don’t think he is one. Even if you cast doubt on his behaviour, he has addiction and alcohol problems that’ve made him difficult to work with. Like Ben Affleck, he needs help. He needs to get his life together before resuming acting. 

I also feel bad for being so critical of him. Me Too’s ripple effects are still being felt, and even with the good it’s done there’ll still be occasional false positives. Plus, if this situation’s to be believed, then female abuse against men should be taken seriously. It’s not as common as the reverse, but it exists. And because it exists, it needs its fair dues.

As for Depp himself? I don’t know. I know he lost a defamation case in England, but I’m sure the battle to clear his name is still going. And regardless of any “wrongdoing” he may have committed, he deserves some semblance of closure. It might not be the kind he or his fans want, or possibly deserve, but it should still happen. Especially considering his own demons.

I’d also like to apologize to Johnny Depp for not taking his trauma seriously. Do I still think he’s weird? Yes. But even weird people don’t deserve abuse. They’re still people, and people deserve better!

My Indypendant Analysis

This past week and a half has been stressful for…obvious reasons. Let’s keep it at that. And because it’s been that way, I figured I’d distract myself with a goal I’ve been meaning to achieve. So I watched the Indiana Jones quadrilogy for the first time. And I have many thoughts. But I figured I’d do something a little bit different with my analysis this time. Here goes. 

The Good

Let’s start with positives: these movies all look amazing, right down to their special effects. Even the fourth movie, with its uneven lighting, has lot of talent there. Whether it’s the 30’s aesthetic of the first three films, or the 50’s aesthetic of the fourth, they all have an old-time vibe that makes them unique while still feeling different. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, in particular, references James Bond right in its opening, which makes sense given that Indiana Jones was based on the character.

Indiana Jones himself is also a compelling screen presence. I have some issues with his character, but, be it a combination of his “everyman adventurer” feel and Harrison Ford’s charisma, Indy screams “I want to be with this character”. Similarly, I like how he bounces off of Marion in the first movie, Willie and Short Round in the second, his father and Dr. Schneider in the third and Mutt and Marion in the fourth. There are strong dynamics when the characters are together on-screen, warts and all.

I like the fight choreography in these movies, even in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. A lot of them were done practically with real stunts, and it shows in the passion they ooze. Whether it’s Indy in the truck in the first movie, or even Indy in the jungle in the fourth, there’s no denying the appeal of these fights in an industry now dominated by special effects.

I also like some of the jokes. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, there’s the infamous moment where Indy shoots the swordsman and calls it a day. In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indy’s father mentions that Dr. Schneider talks in her sleep. These are human moments that make for pleasant laughs. Not every joke lands, admittedly, but when they do...

I really like the scores. It’s John Williams, so you know it’ll be good, but he definitely shows his range here. Even The Raiders March, which I consider one of his weakest themes, is catchy and hummable. I should know, I’ve hummed it before! 

Finally, these movies are fun! They’re not “deep”, but they don’t have to be. They’re the epitome of “popcorn fluff”, complete with moments where I can see people getting excited. It’s good stuff, and Spielberg and Lucas know how to pull it off. And I mean that as a compliment.

The Meh

I don’t consider these movies timeless, and that’s because of following:

For one, the films have little to say. The closest they get to profound is in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, as that movie touches on child slavery and wealth disparity. But even then it has…other concerns I’ll cover later. For now, the first movie is the shallowest thematically, while the third and fourth deal with family dynamics.

Moving to more substantive complaints, some of the jokes don’t work now. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, there’s a scene where one of Indy’s students keeps closing her eyes to reveal the words “love you” on her eyelids. It’s distracting. Conversely, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has a gag about Willie being horny that doesn’t work. Some of these jokes not working are personal preference, but still.

Speaking of falling flat, I don’t really buy the depth of Indy’s female companions. Marion’s routinely cited as being the best, but a lot of that seems like it’s strictly because of the fourth movie. Initially, she feels like a milquetoast deadweight, getting little to do outside of drink alcohol and bicker with Indy. She’s actually barefoot more frequently than she is helpful. I know that’s weird to point out, but re-watch the movie to understand why.

Dr. Schneider’s a bit better, but not much. She gets more to do than Marion, but after her villainous reveal she flip-flops between having a conscience and being evil. She does it so often that it gives me tonal whiplash. Not to mention, her “romance” with Indy is forced. 

Then there’s Irina Spalko. She’s boring. I know people like her for her sword fighting, but what else does she have to offer? I know next-to-nothing about her personality. And she dies in an over-the-top manner at the end. Like every overkill death in these movies, it’s excessive.

These movies defy reality and logic frequently. We’re expected to suspend our disbelief because “movies”, but it strikes me how Indy hiding in a lead-lined fridge to escape a nuke is “jumping the shark” when Indy had already fallen in an inflatable raft from a crashing plane, with no parachute, and survived. You want to talk unbelievable? Start there.

The movies also have a tendency to drag. This is especially the case with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The opening of the movie, which has little to do with the film proper outside of Indy’s relationship with his father, could’ve been shortened and still made its point. Conversely, Indy getting his diary signed by Adolf Hitler, while funny, could’ve been cut altogether. That’s not to say the exposition in the other movies wasn’t sluggish, but here the pacing problems are most-apparent.

The Bad

I’ll state the obvious now: these movies, particularly the first three, are laden with characterizations that’d never fly now. In Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indy’s an aggressive alpha-male who coerces women into kissing him. This wouldn’t fly now with Me Too retroactively dating these movies’ romances. And let’s not forget Lucas and Spielberg’s conversation about Indy’s relationship with Marion…

Speaking of dated, the original films are racist and sexist. This is especially true of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for three reasons. The first is Willie. I left her out of my companion complaints because she deserves her own criticism. It’s not that she’s a fish out of water, or that she screams a lot. Marion was a fish out of water and screamed a lot too. Willie’s problem is that she’s also written like a dumb blonde/valley girl, constantly whining about everything. Her writing’s so bad that she drags down the film’s quality whenever she’s there. 

The second issue, spring-boarding from there, is Short Round. He’s cute, but he’s the epitome of a Chinese stereotype. And I mean that in an “I take you money and girls” way. Nothing he says is funny, even when it’s supposed to be, and that’s all because of his racist accent. Like Willie, he drags down the movie when he’s on-screen. But whereas Willie had tangibility, Short Round has none.

The third, and most-egregious, issue is the film’s portrayal of India, where most of it takes place. More-specifically, the material involving the palace. There’s a scene where Indy and company are fed snake skins containing live eels, roasted scarabs, eyeball soup and chilled monkey brains. Ignoring how much of India’s vegetarian, this is more off-putting than charming. When coupled with the antagonist’s rituals and the White Saviour narrative, it actively ruins the film’s “eat the rich” message.

I also find some of these films’ deaths excessive. The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Nazis’ faces melt and explode? I know they’re Nazis, but yikes! Walter Donovan’s death in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? See above. Mola Ram ripping a guy’s heart out and watching it burn in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Are we sure about this? Perhaps I’m being stingy, but this is more unsettling than cool.

Finally, the Euro-colonial nature of these movies feels gross in hindsight. Think about it: Indiana Jones steals artifacts from developing countries and ships them to The US for safekeeping. He also skirts human rights laws in the process. And he never faces any lasting repercussions. He’s even painted in a positive light at the end of each film by “choosing selflessness over selfishness”. Ignoring the White Saviour component, that’s troubling!

Overall Thoughts

I feel bad for being critical of these films. I like them, even when they’re at their silliest! And I can see how they’ve attracted fans. But time hasn’t been so kind to them. And given that I have no nostalgic attachments, since I only recently watched them in their entirety, that’s a problem. A true classic transcends time, and these movies feel dated. 

Perhaps my standards aren’t the same as someone from the 80’s and 2000’s. Perhaps I’m a cynical coot who can’t enjoy himself. But I’ve liked many films likes these in the past, like Castle in the Sky, so maybe it’s not that? Maybe, ignoring the occasionally flat and hammy acting, there’s something about Indiana Jones that feels like he can’t work as well now? I don’t know.

I digress. Are these great movies? No. Are they fun? Yes. Do I appreciate what they did for cinema? Also yes. I simply think better knockoffs exist, like Castle in the Sky. And I prefer re-watching said knockoffs. Make of that what you will.

The Corbyn Cabana

I didn’t want to write this. I can think of other, more pleasant subjects to discuss. But with the fairly-recent news, as well as how it’s been handled, I figured I’d get it off my chest. Let’s talk Jeremy Corbyn. (God help me!) 

Before we begin, let’s address some obvious critiques:

“You’re only doing this to rub it in!”

No, I’m not. Rubbing it in would be mocking the election results and how The Tories have the largest number of seats in decades. It’d also be me going “YoU gOt WhAt YoU dEsErVe!” to Labour sympathizers. I don’t plan to rub it in, because that’d make me a dick. I’m doing this because it’s on my mind, I care, and my conscience won’t leave me be.

“Great, another Tory sympathizer!”

I don’t know if you’re aware, but I’m not from The UK. Even if I were, why assume that? I haven’t voted Conservative in Canada in years, and even now I regret it. This kind of “you’re a __” nonsense is reductive, unhelpful and exactly the ideological puritanism that held Elizabeth Warren back with many DSA voters.

“You live in Canada, so what do you know?”

Admittedly, not enough. I’m still figuring out how Donald Trump became POTUS, even though part of me has given up trying to. However, I try my best as a Jew and concerned citizen to keep up on politics, and this is that. And while I’m aware that Corbyn’s Antisemitism has been weaponized, I’m also aware that ignoring it only amplifies it.

“You’re only doing this because you hate Corbyn!”

I don’t like any politicians, even the “good ones”. Not only is the job description shifty, but past experience has taught me to keep political figures, like celebrities, at an arm’s distance.

“The Tories are worse!”

I’m not talking about The Tories right now. Try again.

“This is about his treatment of Palestinians, isn’t it?”

No, but nice try. I’ll cover that in greater detail later, but there’s a fine line between advocating for Palestinian rights and flagrant Antisemitism.

“Corbyn did nothing wrong!”

Thank you, Joo Dee. The Earth King has invited you to Lake Laogai…

Anyway, on with the show.

My first encounter with Corbyn came shortly after Brexit. I knew he was unpopular in England, and I knew he had “baggage”, but I was unaware of his Antisemitism until a rabbi I trusted started writing about him on Facebook. Said rabbi was British, and he was well-informed about this. Everything was later corroborated by a journalist I Follow on Twitter, followed by an Israel-rights advocate, another rabbi, several political commenters and, finally, a black Jewish woman living in England. Take that as you will.

I was dumbfounded by what I kept hearing: 87% of British Jewry was concerned about a Labour win under Corbyn? Yikes! Jews never agree on anything, even when they do! 87%? Did I read that correctly?

Sadly, it wasn’t long before I’d start hearing some backlash: this was libel and slander. People were unfairly smearing Corbyn’s reputation. Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. Ignoring how bizarre that last one is, because racism doesn’t work that way, it seemed like something was amiss. It didn’t help that every attempt at piecing it together ended with an argument. Lord knows how many people I’ve Blocked on Twitter because of this…

I want to be clear that I don’t think the British Antisemitism problem began with Corbyn. Nor do I think it’ll magically disappear with Keir Starmer. Like Trump and the GOP, these issues existed for decades, perhaps even centuries, before they “mysteriously boiled to the surface”. If you want proof, read The Merchant of Venice. That was written a century before Jews were allowed back into England.

All Corbyn had done was allow Antisemitism to go from covert to overt under his tenure. How much was overblown, I’m not sure, but you can read this Medium post for more detail. (Seriously, she put a lot of research into it. Go check it out.)

What bugs isn’t whether or not Corbyn was aware of his Antisemitism. That’s a judgement of character that I can’t make, being in another country. Rather, my concern’s with how frequently his defenders, or Corbynistas, were quick to dismiss anything as “smears”. Like when Rabbi Sacks penned a critique against Corbyn, and was immediately labelled “a right-wing extremist”. Or when Rabbi Mirvis penned a less-refined critique against Corbyn, and he received similar backlash. Or when 68 rabbis from different denominations penned a joint letter criticizing Corbyn, and shortly afterward there were calls to attack them. Irrespective of whether or not the tabloids were feeding into this for clicks, this is nonsense you’d expect in a totalitarian state, not a democracy. 

One of the common threads here was that the “Zionists were out of get Corbyn because he supports Palestinian rights”. Firstly, cut the middleman. Don’t call them ‘’Zionists”, call them “Jews”. Be more forthcoming with your Antisemitism, okay? 

Secondly, while partly to do with Israel, it wasn’t only about Israel. Besides, who says Jewish Zionists are against Palestinian statehood? They’re not a monolith. If feminism can have gradients and still be valid, then so can Zionism. This isn’t hard.

Thirdly, and I hate repeating this constantly, criticizing Israel isn’t inherently Antisemitic…when it’s done in the context of a country. Israel, while not a demonic presence, isn’t saintly. They’ve made some really terrible choices over the last 72 years, and they’ll probably make more. But Israelis are aware of this. And Israelis are some of the country’s biggest critics. Then again, the left would know this collectively if they weren’t scared to adopt The IHRA’s milquetoast definition on Antisemitism (seriously, it’s not that controversial).

The problem with making this only about Israel is that you end up waddling in Antisemitism. While most Jews are Zionists, not all of them are. And not all of them were calling Corbyn out on that. In fact, some who called out Corbyn’s Antisemitism were also anti-Zionist. You need to read between the lines.

Arguably the biggest slap in the face was that Corbynistas were requesting that people talk about Tory Antisemitism instead. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You wouldn’t make that kind of “what about” argument with any other minority, so why Jews? Why are we worthy of such scorn?

Actually, you want to talk Tories? Let’s discuss how Theresa May was less in favour of Brexit than Corbyn supposedly was. Or how Corbyn had three elections against two Tory leaders-Theresa May and Boris Johnson-in 4 years and lost to both, especially during The Tories’ lowest lows. I know I’m breaking my promise to not be petty, but it’s embarrassing to make your already-weak opposition look good in comparison. Or maybe that’s indication that the internet isn’t reflective of real life, I don’t know.

Also, while Tory Antisemitism’s real and dangerous, to assume that Labour Antisemitism isn’t a threat because it doesn’t involve violence is one of the reasons this’ll never see a resolution. Like Louis Farrakhan, you can’t pawn this problem off to the other side in hopes that it’ll go away. Jews deserve better than that. 

Then there’s the issue of the investigation under Starmer, which involved probing The Labour Party to see if Corbyn was really the issue. To be fair, I haven’t seen it. But being Canadian, I can’t even access it online anyway. All I know is what this page’s abstract suggests:

“In April 2020, shortly after Keir Starmer replaced Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the UK Labour Party, an internal party report concerning the workings of Labour's internal disciplinary unit in relation to antisemitism was leaked to the media. This report was over 850 pages long and was intended to be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is conducting an inquiry into allegations of antisemitism in the Party. However, Labour's lawyers refused to allow it to be used, almost certainly because the content was so damaging to the Party's own defence. It confirmed many of the claims made by Jewish Party members and community organisations during Corbyn's leadership of the party, namely that the disciplinary system was not fit for purpose and cases of alleged antisemitism were ignored or delayed and punishments were too weak. When it was leaked the report caused a scandal because it claimed that Corbyn's efforts to deal with antisemitism were sabotaged by his own Party staff, who were mostly drawn from factions opposed to his left wing project. Furthermore, the report claimed that this was part of a broader conspiracy against Corbyn that even extended to Labour Party staff trying to prevent a Labour victory in the 2017 General Election. The leaked report is selective and inaccurate in many respects and ignores the role played by Corbyn and his close advisers in denying the problem of antisemitism existed. Nor does it address the reasons why people with antisemitic views were attracted to Labour under his leadership. It is most likely that it was written to allow Corbyn and his supporters to continue to claim that their project did not fail on its own merits, but was betrayed by internal saboteur”

Not the most-promising of conclusions. I don’t claim to be an expert on legal or political drama, but that this is still up in the air after an internal investigation should raise flags.

Yes: people are tired. I’m tired. I’d like nothing more than for this to be a bad dream. It’s exhausting to point out that there’s a problem, only for people to play semantics. But ignoring the issue won’t make it go away. Challenging it, however, will.

So what now? Well, Corbyn’s been suspended from his own party. I also wasn’t happy with how France’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon called Corbyn’s loss last a year “a Likud conspiracy”. Considering how it took three elections for The Likud to form a coalition government this past year, that’s insulting. It’s also Antisemitic.

It feels like this’ll never end, which is frustrating. I remember the 4 years of anxiety, and how trying to play peacemaker got me into arguments I didn’t want to be part of. Remember, Jews are people too. That long-time Jewish Labour voters had to justify why they were voting Liberal Democrat or Green in 2019, to the point of being ostracized, should be a tell-all. We deserve better.

It’s also worth mentioning that listening to British Jews is important. And not only fringe Jews or Jews who agree with you, but those who are more mainstream. Because we’re not a monolith. And if the 87% figure is to be believed, then chances are more Jews were worried about Corbyn than not worried. That’s important. 

Still, I guess Corbyn being in the background now should provide Jews some level of closure for-ah, who am I kidding? This nightmare will never end! God help us all!