Little Miss Marvel

Ms. Marvel’s the Disney+ MCU show I’ve been looking forward to most. Not only is the lead Canadian, hence representation, she’s also young and not another white person. Additionally, her story reflects the youths’ experience, and she isn’t exclusively tied to previous lore. Like Kate Bishop in Hawkeye, Kamala Khan’s the future of the franchise. That’s exciting.

I say this in light of recent information. A picture of Ms. Marvel was recently leaked, and it’s…something. I like her costume a lot, but there’s one detail that rubbed me the wrong way: her fists are energy-based, as opposed to elastic. Considering that Kamala’s comic trait is stretching like silly putty, that’s really odd. It doesn’t help that early rumours suggest she’s a genie, which has rubbed other people the wrong way.

Now, I’m no expert on this controversy. I’m Jewish, so I lack the appropriate insight into why this is offensive. However, I’m disappointed that attempts at scrubbing Marvel characters of their Jewish roots-Spider-Man, Moon Knight, Scarlett Witch, to name a few-haven’t received as much backlash. (Neither has able-washing Professor X by having two able-bodied actors play him.) I guess Jews are no longer considered a minority in Hollywood?

Anyway, I don’t mean to demean the backlash. Making Kamala Khan into an energy genie, aside from being uncreative, isn’t the way to go. Genies lack agency, are slaves and serve as wish-fulfillment for others. Having the first Muslim super-heroine be one is a slap in the face. Or maybe it’s a punch?

Regardless, I’m disappointed. I’m also disappointed because I don’t know why the higher-ups felt this, of all the concepts they’ve executed thus far, was a deal-breaker. Why is Kamala Khan having stretchy hands bad? Is it “too silly”? Because The MCU has a talking raccoon and a giant tree that repeats its name constantly. It also has a green monster and a rock troll. This ignores the dozens of other weird choices. Stretchy hands aren’t even that weird considering Mr. Fantastic is making his way to The MCU soon.

Additionally, this feels like a step back for representation. The Mandarin, for example, was always going to be tough to adapt because of his racist history, yet Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings pulled it off. Ditto for M’baku in Black Panther. If The MCU could make these characters functional, then why go backwards with Kamala Khan? I don’t understand.

I wouldn’t be as disappointed if The MCU didn’t have a “too big for its own good” aura constantly looming over it. The franchise has constantly expanded, and while some entries have been lesser, it’s yet to completely collapse. Even Iron Fist and The Inhumans, arguably the weakest links, haven’t tipped the scales completely. It’s bad enough that this aura’s lurking without the added racism.

Additionally, if this fails, detractors will resume the revisionism they keep flaunting. It’s annoying even without the added tone-deafness, and having a legitimate issue would be unbearable! I remember the “Is it dead?” discourse that circulated with Thor: The Dark World and The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and how insufferable it was at the time. In both cases, the franchise rebounded quickly. I can only imagine how much worse it’d be if Ms. Marvel ends up being the project that tanks everything.

I’m not saying that because of the naysayers. I like The MCU! It has problems, but it’s also responsible for generating hype for comic book properties no one cared about in large numbers otherwise. (Most people thought Iron Man was a robot before Iron Man.) If Kamala Khan’s debut ends up a disaster, can you imagine the tarnished reputation? How many comic fans would be crushed by that? It may not matter to most of you, but for Muslim fans it’d be huge if their shot at representation was blown!

Now, does this change mean I’m no longer excited for Ms. Marvel? No! As stated earlier, this is a young, fresh character in a franchise with mostly white ones. Like Black Panther and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, I’m hopeful that this’ll move The MCU in positive direction. Also, if any franchise deserves some trust by now, it’s The MCU! I doubt I’m alone there.

That doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed, though. It’s one issue for Kamala’s fighting style to be changed to energy beams, even if elasticity might be “hard to do in live-action”. But it’s another to make her a genie and remove her agency. The former’s lame, but the latter’s insulting, and The MCU’s first Muslim super-heroine deserves better. She deserves the same respect Tony Stark had in 2008. Not getting that’s irritating and a missed opportunity.

So yeah, I’m unhappy, even if I’m not the best source for why. Does this mean Ms. Marvel will suck? Not necessarily, as I’ve seen lamer work before. Am I still excited? Yes, why wouldn’t I be? But that doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed, assuming it’s legitimate (you never know). And if I have to justify why, well…I think I did a good job. I only hope I’m, once again, not alone.

The Bondian Legacy

I’ve been mixed about writing my thoughts on No Time to Die for almost a week. Not only because the movie left me with plenty to ponder, but also because my second piece on The Whitly-Verse was about Spectre. Since I trashed that film, I wasn’t sure I’d be ready for positivity about another Daniel Craig James Bond movie. But I’ll give it a go anyway. Be prepared for spoilers.

I’m not the biggest fan of the James Bond franchise. The early movies, while well-made, have aged badly, while many of the later entries are so bonkers they lost any semblance of coherency. Even GoldenEye, which was fine, was followed by three really boring sequels, and I was turned off again with Die Another Day. The only ones I’ve attached to were Daniel Craig’s, and even then two were garbage. I think it’s because Craig’s Bond was the first time I felt like the character was more than a cold-blooded killer. He was human, wounded and tragic, three traits I never thought I’d see.

I should elaborate on that last part. Craig’s tenure has been hit-or-miss, that much I can’t deny, but at its best it’s always been tragic. Not because Bond himself witnesses someone close to him die, but because the character has allowed himself vulnerability. In Casino Royale, Bond falls for someone who breaks his heart and drowns. In Skyfall, he witnesses M, someone he respected as a maternal figure, die in his arms. And now, in No Time to Die, Bond has reconcile his desire for a regular life with the enemies his job creates, causing him to sacrifice his own life.

I mention these three movies because they made me cry. James Bond has 25 canonical movies, all ranging in quality, but these were the only ones to move me emotionally. You can take away the scores, the (mostly) brilliant theme songs and the action, but if I don’t care about the hero, well…what’s the point? You might as well make James Bond into John McClane, and even then that undersells the latter. I mean that wholeheartedly.

What made Craig’s Bond run so interesting, even when his movies were frustrating, was that he evolved the persona beyond what was expected. Sean Connery started it, but he was the suave gentleman of The Cold War Era. George Lazenby made him into a tragic lover, but not much was explored. Roger Moore’s take was way too cartoony, while Timothy Dalton was too extreme. And then there was Pierce Brosnan, who fit the role well, but never took significant risks.

Daniel Craig’s Bond took a little of everything that worked from his predecessors: the suaveness of Connery, the tragedy of Lazenby, the silliness of Moore, the extremeness of Dalton and the tailor fit appearance of Brosnan. He also made that into someone I could relate to. For the first time, I actually could see the thought process behind the man. He wasn’t a prop, but rather a person who had a lot to juggle. And his movies were aware of this, with all of them tying together.

I say that with no irony. Take the Bond-ness out of Craig’s portrayal, and you still have a satisfying story about an assassin whose attempts at opening up keep ending badly. This is a man who’s seen literal Hell, yet keeps wanting connections. He’s witnessed people he cared about die-his parents, his girlfriend, his mother-figure, his best friend-and while it’s hurt him, he hasn’t given up that need for intimacy. He’s human. And I didn’t get that with the previous iterations.

It helps that Craig’s had excellent people to bounce off of. These individuals have felt equally human, and in some cases received given arcs of their own. This is especially true with Madelaine Swann, whose backstory’s opens No Time to Die. I was shocked by that when I sat down in the theatre for the first time since March of 2020: like the opening of Casino Royale, I’d never seen this before from James Bond. Was I watching the right movie?

In hindsight, it was intentional. Craig’s Bond established itself as unique out the gate, and having a side-character be the focus continued that. It helped that this was the longest timeframe of any Bond movie before the opening credits, which were complimented by Billie Eilish’s haunting, soft-spoken vocals. It’s a bit of waiting, but it’s worth it. Because like Casino Royale’s black-and-white opening, this was leading to something important.

The kicker is that this is the finale to Craig’s tenure. And he did that gloriously! Not only were there fireworks (or explosions, in this case), there was also an emotional hook. This Bond is a tired Bond. He’s had enough pain and suffering to last him a lifetime, and he wants no more. It’ll mean breaking someone else’s heart for a change, but if it ends the pain, so be it. Like a wounded deer, he’s ready to be put out of his misery.

I also like how this movie delved into Bond’s parental side. For the first time in Bond history, he’s allowed to be a dad. I wasn’t fully-sold on Matilda, I didn’t feel like she had much to do, but her interactions with Craig were genuine anyway. And considering how young she was, and how hard it is to get good performances from child actors, that’s impressive. It also added emotional stakes outside of saving the world, something we’ve seen ad nauseam by now.

Is this to be the best of the Craig era? No. Aside from minor pacing issues at the beginning, as well as an underdeveloped villain and a plot MacGuffin that needed consistency, the film feels over-ambitious. It not only has to cap off everything, it also has to wrap up the Vesper Lynd story and the Spectre thread. It does an admirable job, but even at nearly three hours it falls somewhat short.

Yet I enjoyed it anyway. It lacks the freshness of Casino Royale or the meta-introspection of Skyfall, but No Time to Die is still a satisfying conclusion to a mostly-great run. It also has one of the most-satisfying “black woman kills white man” moments to-date. Seriously, my entire theatre applauded at that point, myself included! And it was earned!

The debate over Bond never ends: which one’s the best? Who’s the best Bond? Which movie has the best theme? Who should play the character next? Personally, the only question I’m interested in has already been answered, but I also don’t care. Craig’s Bond was moving in a way other Bonds weren’t, and if that ends up as a one-off, so be it!

The Kaiju Universe Problem

I finally watched Godzilla: King of the Monsters.

I’d been putting it off because the reviews weren’t great when it debuted. But since it was going to be pulled from Netflix, I figured I’d give it a shot. And I enjoyed it! It was a heartfelt, well-written drama about a family coping with loss that-wait, it’s about monster battles? Okay then!

I’ve been hesitant about MCU-esque copycats for a while. Aside from most being terribly interconnected, the films usually suffer from bad writing. This has also been true of the “Kaiju Universe”, starring Godzilla. While the entries so far have been entertaining, updating Toho’s Kaiju boxing matches and making them contemporary, they’ve done little to impress as stories. If it weren’t for the human characters, they probably wouldn’t even work.

Let me explain.

Back when I was young, a movie didn’t have to be good for me to see it. I was so easily entertained that I could “check my brain at the door”. It wasn’t until adulthood that my outlook changed. Nowadays, with exceptions, I need more than mindless entertainment. I need good character interactions too.

The “Kaiju Universe” is one I’d have probably liked more as a kid. It has big monsters with cool designs destroying stuff! But while I can appreciate the fight scenes, especially with their gorgeous cinematography, I also don’t think that’s enough for a full-length feature. Contrary to what Geoff Thew pointed out, and I mean no disrespect to him, a movie needs more. It also needs something weighty.

On some level, these movies have that: Godzilla had an army vet trying to live up the expectations of his late-father and mother. Kong: Skull Island had, among other subplots, a Vietnam War vet trying to reconcile the war’s failure with defeating King Kong, whom he sees as a chance at redemption. And now Godzilla: King of the Monsters has a fractured family trying to reconcile their relationship with the Kaiju. I’m sure Godzilla VS. Kong has something similar, but I haven’t watched it yet.

These movies have human drama. And let’s face it, when done well it’s compelling. That said, it’s not enough here. Remove the Kaiju fights and keep the human drama, and you’d still have decent storytelling. Remove the human drama and keep the Kaiju fights, however, and you’d end up with mediocrity. This is despite the Kaiju having distinct personalities.

I feel bad for writing that! For all the beautifully-shot action and excellent visuals, they feel generic and same-y to dozens of other action movies. We’ve seen giant monsters fighting before. We’ve also seen scenery being destroyed before. And we’ve seen them in tandem as well. It also doesn’t help that, like Captain Midnight mentioned in one of his YouTube videos, we can barely make out what’s going on most of the time because of the blurred visuals and nighttime lighting.

There’s a chance some of you will be offended by my sentiments; after all, aren’t the Kaiju fights what people paid for? Maybe…but you also need the human weight. There’s a reason why Godzilla’s the only Toho production to receive nearly-unanimous critical praise: the human dynamics, not Godzilla himself, were the focus. It’s also why Gareth Edwards’ film was better received than the Godzilla movie that followed, as he focused on that as well.

It sounds counterintuitive to praise “generic human writing” over “Kaiju”, but I stand firm in my stance. I honestly think that, if anything, Godzilla: King of the Monsters could’ve had more of it! But I can’t lie when I say that human interactions are more interesting than action beats alone. Even The MCU, for all its flaws, understands that. And it’d be great if the emotional weight could be acknowledged, as opposed to dismissed.

I don’t want to belittle anyone who disagrees with me here. I know some of you would be perfectly happy with senseless Kaiju fights, and think that the human drama’s the boring part. If you get off on Godzilla ripping off an enemy’s head, or witnessing King Kong and Godzilla duking it out for supremacy, by all means go ahead! But while I can appreciate the technical showmanship, in the end I need more. I need a reason to care about the characters.

It’s tough to parse the mixed sentiments on these movies. Some, like Bob Chipman, prefer the chaotic, dumb fun because it harkens back to the cheaply-made versus matches of the Toho era films. Others, like Captain Midnight, need more than that. Personally, I lean more to the latter, but I also respect the former. If that’s makes me a heretic in the eyes of fans, then so be it!

At the least, I can safely say I prefer these movies to Pacific Rim. Sorry, Guillermo del Toro fans!

Free Toxic City

A while back, I stumbled upon a PragerU video about the declining standards of art. I remember being confused and frustrated, especially when the narrator pointed out that his students couldn’t tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock painting and his apron. It was really meant to jab at modern sensibilities, which I get in hindsight. But while anyone with sense knows that the video is full of itself, I still feel that it’s relevant. And not for the reasons most people think.

I recently watched Free Guy on Disney+. It’s not “amazing”: the premise borders on derivative, its villain’s way too cartoony and the ending shot’s pretty cliché. It also has many contrivances, including one that, while certainly understandable in context, feels like an excuse to change a key detail without developing it. But I really enjoyed it anyway. It’s an original movie with a cool idea that’s executed well, and it’s funny.

That said, while Free Guy won’t be to everyone’s liking, I think it’s exposed, yet again, some toxicity in the film community. And I don’t mean that in a “people who don’t think critically about what they consume” way, though there’s lots to unpack there too. No, I mean that in a more insidious way. I’m finding that the movie’s existence, as well as its parent company being The Walt Disney Corporation, has led to a resurgence in gatekeeping. To quote a disgraced internet celebrity, “Thanks, I hate it!”.

For context, and this’ll mean spoilers, there’s a scene in the climax where Guy faces off against a dumber, more macho clone of himself named “Dude”. Dude has the upper-hand initially; after all, he’s big, burly and more aggressive than him. Guy keeps trying to avoid confrontation, all the while failing, until he retrieves his special glasses and whips out Captain America’s shield. The Hulk’s fist and a lightsaber follow, and for each item their movie themes start playing. To add to that, Chris Evans makes a cameo in a coffee shop and reacts to the shield.

I’ll admit it: it all feels corporate. Similar to “No Strings On Me” being a recurring motif in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, these inclusions are on-the-nose reminders that Disney owns this film’s licensing and distribution rights. It also feels like the gratuitous, intertextual fan-service Disney likes tossing into their films, a wink to the audience that’s more grating than sincere. But whereas it’d be an issue in Disney’s live-action remakes, here it makes sense because the in-movie world’s already intertextual. Free City’s a GTA-style sandbox game, so anything goes.

So yes, I get it, but I also don’t get it. And what I especially don’t get is how much of the internet’s film community has decided that this scene ruins the experience, and how I, a “film omnivore”, am a shill with no taste for liking it. Not only does that make someone a snob, it ties back to the aforementioned PragerU video. That’s not a good look.

Three points need to be understood. Firstly, the art’s subjective. Doubly-so enjoying it. What you may like, I may hate, and vice-versa. That doesn’t make me correct, nor does it make you incorrect. Me liking Free Guy, particularly this fight scene, should have no bearing on you, because it’s none of your business.

Secondly, gatekeeping art isn’t cool. This goes for corporately-made art too. While you may not like something under the Disney umbrella, and you’re entitled to, that doesn’t give you the right to dictate others’ experiences. What if the movie made someone’s day? What if it spoke to someone and encouraged them to positively contribute to society? What makes you the judge, jury and executioner of quality? Trust me, I had to learn this myself!

And thirdly, so the movie was “pandering”. Does that really disqualify it from having merit? Isn’t the point of art to manipulate you subconsciously? What makes your “high art #3454578” any better than Free Guy? Is it because it “dares to be artistic”? Because, if so, you need to return to reality.

This ties into why I disagree with Martin Scorsese’s claim that Marvel movies aren’t “high art”. I know bringing him up to “own the nerds” is a favourite pastime of people, even though it’s douche-y, but I think he ignored what “mindless action” movies can do for people. There’s a corporate angle to these films, yes, but they get people into seats more than the artsy experiences people arrogantly claim as “true art”. The Free Guy “discourse” fits into that.

I like all kinds of films. I’ll even defend biopics! But while I enjoy Aronofsky and Fincher-style movies from-time-to-time, trashing Free Guy like this is still elitist. I’ve seen the power of populist entertainment. I know it strikes a chord for moviegoers in ways that arthouse films can’t. And that’s not a problem.

When the pandemic hit last year, I did some reflecting. I knew I liked seeing movies in theatres, and I somewhat miss that, but for the ridiculous prices that movie tickets are, as well as how much I make financially, my sympathies started shifting to those moviegoers who only visit cinemas a handful of times a year. The theatre-going experience is so riddled with nonsense that it takes a lot to persuade me to keep returning. A movie has to do something special to overlook many of the issues, essentially. Having your film be an event, something corporately-made experiences excel at, is one of the ways to do it.

No, that doesn’t mean these movies are immune to criticism. Yes, we should think about them on a deeper level. But gatekeeping isn’t the way to do it. It only makes you look bad, like the narrator from that PragerU video. And, once again, that’s not a road you want to go down.