Mrs. NC-17 Doubtfire

Zack Snyder’s version of Justice League is out on HBO Max. I’d make a snippy remark about how that doesn’t change how I feel about him, but I can’t because HBO Max isn’t available in Canada. Essentially, I couldn’t show my apathy even if I tried. Still, I’m glad fans finally get the version of the movie they wanted…even if it’s 4 hours long.

I mention this in light of #ReleasetheSynderCut getting another movie thrown into the conversation. It was a comedy from the early-90’s, and it still has a fanbase. It also stars the late-Robin Williams. I’m referring to Mrs. Doubtfire.

Mrs. Doubtfire never interested me all that much, even as a kid. I’ve seen bits and pieces over the years, but, outside of watching a comedic great don a dress and fake a Scottish accent, it never appealed to me. Additionally, the “how do I keep my secret?” aspect had already done so frequently by then that it was boring and unoriginal. But even now the movie has awful attitudes about the trans experience, making it a joke that isn’t funny.

So yeah, no real connection. But that it was recently revealed that Robin Williams had improvised so many of his lines that there were four cuts of the movie, including an NC-17 one, is interesting. And with Snyder’s version of Justice League seeing the light of day, this NC-17 cut intrigues me. It’s not like the flood doors haven’t been already been opened!

I’m not sure what to make of this news. On one hand, the possibility of this actually releasing is no longer 0%. Justice League proved that with enough interest (and lots of complaining) we could get a Director’s Cut of any movie. You simply have to demand it, and voilà: release of the “true ” film. If it’s being asked of Suicide Squad, a movie that, like Justice League, was heavily-altered for theatres, then why not Mrs. Doubtfire too?

On the other hand, I don’t think I want an NC-17 version. Ignoring how past “Director’s Cut” releases of comedies have been really unsettling-see Wedding Crashers-an NC-17 rating of the film wouldn’t really have that big a market. Remember that NC-17’s the closest a movie gets to porn, and porn has a niche market. By taking a kid’s movie and making it “almost porn”, you risk alienating what gave it mass-appeal.

Also, do we need an NC-17 version of a Robin Williams movie? I know the guy loved improvising, and some of his outtakes in Aladdin are quite funny, but there’s a reason why not everything made the final cut. Length aside, some of his jokes wouldn’t fly with theatre-goers because of how charged or offensive they are. Mrs. Doubtfire was a movie released in 90’s, when attitudes toward trans folk was still mostly deceit and/or disgust. This was the same decade that gave us the scene in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective where Ace makes police officers vomit because he reveals the antagonist had gender reassignment surgery and kept her male genitalia. With all that baggage, and especially given Mrs. Doubtfire’s premise, do we really want that?

I’m fine with a “director’s true vision”. I encourage it. But there’s a difference between telling the best story possible and understanding what doesn’t work. If George Lucas and Star Wars is indication, sometimes saying “no” to something is the right call. You can’t include all of your ideas and expect them to land, after all!

I get it: it’s tempting to see what we missed out on. I understand that, especially with a comedic legend like Robin Williams. I adored him as The Genie in Aladdin, constantly adding life to the scenes he was in. But part of what made that work was that, while many of his lines were improvised, the final cut knew what to keep and what to discard. Besides, you can always watch what didn’t make it on YouTube.

Perhaps that’d be a good compromise. Like with Aladdin, compiling the best lines and jokes from Mrs. Doubtfire that didn’t make it and including them as a bonus feature could be the right course of action. I know that’d mean being selective, but remember: this is Robin Williams. The man was famous for mile-a-minute jokes, so there’d never be a shortage of material.

It’s possible that I’m out of my league, or that I’m overthinking this. I’m not a marketer, so I don’t have my pulse on what’s appealing. I’m also not an expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I do know art, being a writer myself, and I know that not every idea is a good one. An NC-17 version of Mrs. Doubtfire, as tempting as that may sound, doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.

Besides, I’d rather a Director’s Cut of something that warrants it, like Batman Forever. Make it happen, Warner Bros.! You know you want to!

Defending Ralph Bohner

By the time this debuts, WandaVision will be done for almost two weeks. It, therefore, feels both too early and too late to be discussing the final episode. However, because #SaveQuicksilver was Trending on Twitter, it’s still relevant. And yes, there’ll be spoilers. You’ve been warned.

So…Ralph Bohner. Simply uttering that gets some people mad, assuming they aren’t silently giggling. But even ignoring the name, I think the twist doesn’t get enough respect. This is a character who, through no fault of the show, was thought to be someone he wasn’t. The show turned him into a non-reveal, angering many and confusing some. And it’s brilliant.

Anyway, some backstory:

Back in the 80’s and 90’s, Marvel auctioned off film rights for their IPs in hopes of staving off bankruptcy. One of their most-famous, X-Men, eventually made its way to 20th Century Fox. Despite this, there was a catch: two of the X-Men characters, Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch, doubled as Avengers in the comics, allowing them to still be used by Marvel and Disney once The MCU became a juggernaut. Desperate to capitalize on this, Fox used Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past in 2014, while The MCU had both Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch debut in 2015’s The Avengers: Age of Ultron. To keep the licensing even-keel, Fox agreed to focus on Quicksilver, while The MCU focused on Scarlett Witch. Sounds simple, right?

Here’s where it gets complicated. While The MCU’s Quicksilver was killed off on-screen, for the longest time the two studios never mentioned their character’s dual-identity as a mutant and an Avenger. In The MCU’s case, Quicksilver’s death was never mentioned in future movies, instead focusing one the romance between Scarlett Witch (aka Wanda Maximoff) and Vision. To add to that, a few years ago Disney solidified its acquisition of 20th Century Fox, absorbing everything it owned from Marvel, including Fantastic Four and all of the X-Men, into it. This remedied the Fox/Disney dispute over Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch by making it a non-issue.

Enter WandaVision. Having been in production following the merger, the show had an interesting opportunity to work with this. And they did…initially…by having Evan Peters, who played Quicksilver in the X-Men films, return as a “recast” version of Wanda’s brother Pietro in Episode 5. That it happened right after Wanda and Vision’s argument, highlighting that Wanda’s hold on Westview was falling apart, helped; after all, like the episode’s opening suggested, they were making it up as they went along!

So yes, there was a new version of Pietro Maximoff, or Quicksilver, to throw shade at, opening the possibility of a “multiverse”. The possibilities were endless, right? Well, no. While The MCU has been guilty of franchise maintenance before, it generally prefers telling good stories. And nowhere was this more-apparent than the show’s finale, where Pietro was revealed to be an actor named Ralph Bohner under Agatha Harkness’s control.

While this annoyed many people, I thought it was funny and brilliant. Funny because I’m secretly 12 years-old, but brilliant because it advances the themes of grief and accepting loss that WandaVision excels at. I don’t say this lightly, either: considering the last time The MCU pulled a fake-out was with The Mandarin in Iron Man 3, and that I wasn’t a fan of it, that I think this is brilliant says something. Especially when I’m not a fan of wasted characters.

Let’s look at this reveal through my litmus test for good plot-twists. I have a theory that a good plot-twist fulfills two criteria: it has to make sense in the context of what came before it, and it has to progress the story in a logical direction. Fake-outs are no exception, as they’re also plot-twists. To that end, Pietro Maximoff being Ralph Bohner qualifies.

For the first one, it’s obvious. Aside from Pietro’s death having an effect on Wanda’s manipulation of Westview, it also makes sense: Wanda’s so unwilling to confront her trauma, so desperate to maintain the illusion, that falling for a fake version of her dead brother is in-line with that. It doesn’t matter that he’s dead, or that his “revival” gets poked fun at, because that’s a red herring. Essentially, she’s so grief-stricken that she’s willing to an accept an imposter version of her brother.

For the second, it’s trickier, but still works. Going off of Wanda wanting to see Pietro again, him being a dead end emphasizes the need for Wanda to move on. Remember, WandaVision’s about denying grief. Wanda created her sitcom reality to cope with the deaths of her parents, her brother and, more-recently, Vision. She also created twin sons for that same reason. Wanda wants all of this, but it’s not what she needs. She needs to move on.

In that context, Pietro being an actor is brilliant. Is it disappointing to all those who wanted an MCU/X-Men crossover? I suppose, though that was never the intention. Will it be walked back? Maybe, but I hope it’s walked back without ruining the thematic depth. But is it worth the vitriol? No.

It’s worth noting that unlike The Mandarin twist, it doesn’t actually drag down the story. I liked Iron Man 3 and thought the twist was funny, especially since The Mandarin in the comics is racist, but it felt like everything built-up prior had gone nowhere. Not to mention, the “real” villain was another generic baddie who shot lasers from his mouth. It may have fulfilled criteria #1, especially since said baddie was foreshadowed, but not criteria #2!

Essentially, Ralph Bohner’s The Mandarin fake-out done right. I love it, especially since it was surprising. Considering how “predictable” and “safe” The MCU has gotten since 2008, we could use more surprises. And no, HYDRA secretly being SHIELD doesn’t count, though that was also a brilliant decision. This is brilliant on its own, not because of any previous lore.

As a side-note, Ralph Bohner’s clever for other reasons. For one, despite the name, WandaVision’s show-runners clearly had Joey Tribbiani from Friends and Nick Moore from Family Ties in mind with him. Two, his first name, Ralph, is frequently dropped by Agnes throughout the show, indicating that there was foreshadowing. And thirdly, and this is personal, Ralph’s last name being “Bohner” is a tongue-and-cheek riff on how Quicksilver’s always been, and pardon the pun, a bit of a dick.

I get feeling cheated. You never want to cheat your audience. But too many people are making a fuss for the wrong reasons. The MCU gets enough undeserved criticism for flaws it doesn’t have. Having its fanbase act entitled over a well-written twist only gives detractors more fuel for their pyre. We don’t need that, especially not when we’re still trying to convince Martin Scorsese that The MCU is “high art”.

Now then, about The Falcon and the Winter Soldier…

House of TraumaVision

In June of 2014, I received a phone call stating that my father had a massive heart attack. Despite not grasping what’d happened until several days later, it still weighed on my mind. When I finally saw how serious this was, a pit formed in my stomach. For three months, whenever I heard my mother discuss the situation and start crying, I felt like the worst was yet to come. My anxiety also shot through the roof, and my appetite decreased. I was a mess the entire Summer, essentially.

I mention this as context for Disney’s newest MCU series, WandaVision. I’d been anticipating it for some time, especially given the numerous delays that arose due to the pandemic. Additionally, it was tackling a storyline that its lead actress, Elizabeth Olsen, had been looking forward to for a while: House of M. If she was excited, why shouldn’t I be?

Now, this’ll contain some light spoilers. I’ll try to be general, but some will still creep through. Also, my thoughts are subjective. In other words, don’t take them too personally. Lord knows that’s been a problem in the past...

Taking place shortly after The Avengers: Endgame, WandaVision follows Wanda Maximoff and Vision in the suburbs of Westview, New Jersey. Initially, they play out their “perfect” lives in a TV format, but it’s soon revealed that something’s amiss. Wanda has, in actuality, taken control of Westview, held its citizens hostage mentally, revived Vision and is using sitcoms to cope with trauma. Additionally, we start to understand, and sympathize, with why she’s done this. Ultimately, though, Wanda has to make a tough decision: should she live in her utopia at the expense of others, or give it up and lose everything?

I’ve never seen a David Lynch movie, of which this pays homage. I have nothing against him, but he’s never piqued my interest. I’m also averse to mind-trips that make you to suspend cohesion at the expense of narrative, which so many stories like WandaVision do. So while I was excited and interested in seeing this, with that came with some trepidation.

Fortunately, the show, while trippy, is grounded. Despite being a run through decades of sitcom history, we soon discover that Wanda’s avoiding her past. This is someone who’s witnessed her parents die as a child, her older brother die saving Sokovia and her lover die first at her hands and then the hands of someone who obliterated her from existence. She was also experimented on by The MCU’s equivalent of Nazis. She has issues that need addressing, but is instead retreating into her mind. Under normal circumstances, her takeover of Westview would make her the antagonist. But since we sympathize, that never becomes an issue.

It’s not like she’s absolved of consequences. We routinely see the damage Wanda’s causing, and it’s made clear that she’s wrong. Even Agnes, who’s later revealed to be a witch named Agatha, states that she’s been mentally enslaving people in order to live out her dream of being a housewife. So while she’s worthy of attachment, she’s not innocent. It’s a refreshing take in a world where antiheroes are frequently botched.

It also plays into themes of grief and coping with loss. Ignoring my dad and his near-fatal heart attack, I’ve felt my share of loss. We all have, and coming to grips with it isn’t easy. It’s how we deal with it, however, that matters. As Vision says: what is grief, if not love persevering?

And the episodes themselves? They range from good to great, though the homages are the best parts. I was born long after the TV sitcom boom, so I absorbed everything through osmosis, but I appreciated the references to past shows. I liked, for example, how the opening for Episode 2 paid homage to Bewitched with its animation, while Episode 6 riffed on Malcolm in the Middle. Even the in-show commercials fit their respective decades while simultaneously progressing the narrative. This is stuff you’d catch even if you aren’t an MCU fan, although there’s still plenty there if you are.

I’d like to call out the music. Written by the songwriters for Frozen, each of the opening themes, and the villain song that appears in Episode 7, are appropriate for their respective episodes and incredibly catchy. My two favourites are “The Wanda Samba” and “Agatha All Along”, but anyone can pick out favourites. Them all sharing the same, four-note leitmotif is a bonus.

There are other details that I really enjoy. I like that Kat Denning’s Darcy has something to actually do, something missing in the first two Thor films. I also like that Wanda defeats Agatha by besting her at her own game, while that Vision wins his fight with a philosophy debate. And while I’m not a huge fan of fake-outs, I thought the Quicksilver gag was funny.

That doesn’t make this show perfect, though. Not only was Monica under-utilized, but the secondary antagonist was another “generic bad guy in a suit”. I also found the climactic fight to be another “MCU explosion” battle that didn’t distinguish itself from other, better-executed ones. Oh, and the second end-credits scene revealed too much too early.

But those are all minor quibbles. The MCU’s gotten to a point where you can find better examples of its concepts in other stories, but also worse examples. It’s not a revolutionary take on grief and loss, but it does it quite well anyway. And it goes back to my piece about damaged heroines, of which Wanda qualifies.

Now then, about The Falcon and the Winter Soldier…

"Congratulations: You're Cancelled Too?"

I was a huge fan of Dr. Seuss growing up. Like Harry Potter, his books shaped my formative appreciation for books and writing. I can recite almost the entirety of Green Eggs and Ham, and that’s only one of his books! It’s safe to say that he holds a dear place in my heart, essentially. And it’s for that reason that writing this piece hurts.

 

A while ago I discussed Cancel Culture on The Whitly-Verse. You can find the piece here, but something that needs reiterating is intent. To quote myself:

“When someone’s ‘cancelled’, there’s a reason for it. And when the cancelling occurs, it’s to hold that person accountable. It doesn’t always stick, it rarely does, but it’s an attempt.”

I still hold that, but I didn’t factor in self-cancelling, if you can call it that. Because that’s what Dr. Seuss’s estate has done to six of their books and many of their comics. And let’s be clear: the estate did this, not a mob. This wasn’t an “orchestrated hit on a beloved children’s icon”. No, this was a committee deciding that some of his works were inappropriate and pulling them from circulation. This doesn’t mean you can’t buy them, but that they’ll no longer be printed.

I’m split, honestly. On one hand, Dr. Seuss’s work contains racist and dated stereotypes. This is the author who drew a Chinese side-character in yellowface. This is the same author who called attention to Tibetan characters’ eyes. And this is the same author who drew African characters as Black Sambo stand-ins. The man clearly had a history here, and it’s important to acknowledge that.

On the other hand, doing this is tricky. Not only does it act like there’s no merit to teaching these works in their historical context, it also acts like they have no merits on their own. Racist material can still have lessons to teach people, even if their racism is inexcusable. I should know, I loved the Harry Potter books!

Still, I understand why this decision was made. Dr. Seuss made harmful material that influenced decades of readers. Like Walt Disney, his work had an impact that’s still being felt. And like Walt Disney, he showed no remorse while alive. It’s only in death that both their estates have started doing course correction, with varying degrees of success.

This doesn’t mean this decision was a hit piece, though. From what I’ve gathered, this was a decision years in the making. The bodies of work in question, six books and a smattering of cartoons, had been scrutinized for many years. While it might’ve taken a while, clearly someone thought it was time to remedy this. It was a careful decision on the part of the wrongdoer, not on the part of those wronged.

I’m also tired of people assuming that whenever something beloved gets changed, removed or discontinued, it’s automatically “cancellation”. True, many pieces of consumerist art have content that wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny over time. I’d argue that all art’s like that, honestly! But when the creator, directly or indirectly, decides retroactively that that content’s no longer suitable for mass consumption, that’s not “cancelling” so much as introspection. It’s not unlike the debate to have “Baby It’s Cold Outside” play on the radio during the Christmas season, or pulling Mark Twain’s novels from circulation because they casually mention the N-word. Yeah, these works were a “product of their times”, but times change. And what might’ve been “acceptable” then might not be now.

Besides, “acceptable” varies depending on who you talk to. Blackface might’ve been “acceptable” to the upper and middle classes in Hollywood for decades, but to the marginalized, in this case black people harmed by Jim Crow laws in The US South, this was never “acceptable”. The Birth of a Nation was even so insidious in its use of blackface that it led to a revival of The Klu Klux Klan, which went on to lynch, harass and murder many black people. Art has ripple effects, regardless of what someone thinks personally of it.

Which leads me back to Dr. Seuss: is removing his works the best idea? I don’t know, I’m no art historian. Do I support it? Only partly, as I’m a fan of accountability in art. But do I understand why they were pulled? Yes I do. And is it “Cancel Culture”? No, unless self-cancellation qualifies.

A lot of the backlash is also rooted in bad faith. Much like the decision by Hasbro to change Mr. Potato Head’s name to Potato Head, pulling these works from circulation is calculated and not part of some “Democratic SJW agenda”. Because the world’s changing, and what was considered “acceptable” in the 1930’s isn’t necessarily in the 2020’s. That’s not an issue, it’s progress. And I’m sure more decisions like this will be made in the future, especially as more minority voices speak out on popular subjects.

Finally, I want to stress the difference between genuine remorse and retroactive remorse. Dr. Seuss never apologized for his work while alive, nor did he make attempts at reparation. It’s only decades after his death that his work is being re-evaluated. That’s the piece of the puzzle that’s being ignored here, and it shouldn’t. Because it’s important in the discourse.

I don’t like that Dr. Seuss was racist. I enjoy Green Eggs and Ham and The Cat in the Hat, and I think The Lorax is seminal in the discussion on environmentalism. I also appreciate that Hop on Pop led to The Berenstain Bears, as they also helped shape me. Like Harry Potter, I want nothing more than to enjoy these books the same way I did as child. But I can’t do that, because that’s being naïve. And part of being an adult is breaking free from that.

If it helps, at least this decision’s bringing awareness to more people. That’s always good, isn’t it?