Winnie the Who?

“…Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh, fuzzy little buddy all stuffed with fluff. He’s Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh, and now he’s in the public domain…”

Oh, you thought I was referring to the Disney character? *Starts laughing maniacally*

In fairness, I can see that. But while Milne’s classic character’s now public domain, thanks to his copyright expiring, the Disney iteration isn’t. You can do whatever you please with him…provided he’s not wearing a red shirt and voiced by Jim Cummings. And people are taking advantage of that, with the sky being the limit. One example even involves slasher horror and-wait, what?!

I’m starting to regret this. It was recently announced that such a movie was in the works. Despite being really bizarre, especially given the IP, this could be funny in the right hands. Maybe if Sam Raimi or John Carpenter were involved, we’d see something interesting. Maybe we’d even get a subversive masterpiece about how the world fell in-love with an apex predator.

Unfortunately, that’s not what this is. While little’s known at the moment, since it recently finished production, the director of Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, Rhys Waterfield, stated in a Variety interview that:

“…Christopher Robin is pulled away from them, and he’s not [given] them food, it’s made Pooh and Piglet’s life quite difficult. Because they’ve had to fend for themselves so much, they’ve essentially become feral…they’ve gone back to their animal roots…they’re like a vicious bear and pig who want to go around and try and find prey.”

I wish I could make up something like this, and I make stuff up all the time! But while “tamed animal goes feral” could work theoretically, there are two issues at play. The first is that it feels tone-deaf considering the number of mass shootings in The US. And since the media keeps downplaying and reframing the shooters as “misunderstood victims”, this is in really bad taste. Especially since “neglected and misunderstood” were words used to write-off Columbine in 1999.

The second issue comes from one of the released stills. In it, Pooh and Piglet creep up on a young woman swimming in a jacuzzi, complete with no cares. The implication is that they’re about to kidnap and eat her, not unlike Jaws. Except that unlike Jaws, where the shark was simply behaving like an animal, here the monsters are anthropomorphic. They have agency, which makes this unnecessarily creepy. I’m unsure what Waterfield was going for...

It’s too late to rewind time. But while a slasher film about “misunderstood” monsters based on a cuddly children’s IP is depressing as is, it speaks to a bigger issue: dark and gritty reboots of children’s properties. This has been covered before by people with a better understanding of film, but the idea that something can’t be taken seriously if it isn’t mature is insulting. What’s wrong with light and fun? Pixar and Disney movies are usually light and fun, and they’re excellent! They’re also appropriate for all ages! In some ways, that’s preferable to dark and edgy!

It bugs me that light and fun isn’t taken as seriously as dark and edgy, the latter of which only transcends taboos for shock value. The Michael Bay Transformers movies featured substance abuse, profanity and gratuitous nudity and violence, despite being based on a toy line for young boys. Michael Bay’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles-produced duology was the same. And let’s not forget that Battleship, a movie based on a game, was a war film. It’s as if the people behind these movies were ashamed of the material.

Besides, what’s wrong with a little fun? There’s a reason A.A. Milne wrote these books for children: he was a war vet suffering from PTSD. By centring the books around a bear and making him a cuddly plushie who talks, Milne disguised his trauma and lost innocence in lighthearted stories about growing up and his own childhood. Even when adaptations of his book featured “grown up material”, like that live-action Disney film, they leaned into that lost innocence. In other words, less carnage and abductions, more lighthearted allegories about lost youth!

If it sounds like I’m being harsh…I am, but only because I don’t think Waterfield understands Winnie the Pooh as a character. I could be wrong, as dark re-imaginings of kid’s properties, like Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers, have proven successful when those involved actually cared. For all we know, Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey could end up a hidden gem, one equal parts clever as gory and weird! But that’s doubtful right now.

Also, if we’re talking “Winnie the Pooh gone savage”, Robot Chicken already pulled that off in less than a minute. So I’ll end with a quote from the late-Roger Ebert on the Godzilla Criterion Collection that sums up my thoughts:

“…Watching them again, reminded me of the spectacle that I enjoyed as a kid, and that’s what I really associate this series of films with: enjoyment. Yes, they’re often incredibly poorly made—watching them with kids born in the ‘10s was a fun experiment given how much kids were SO confused at what they were looking at—but that’s part of the joy. They’re goofy, fun, and over-the-top in ways that overly calculated blockbusters feels like they can’t be anymore.”

Sometimes, even when poorly-made, “silly and fun” is more enjoyable than “dark and edgy”. And if being public domain means we have to endure more of the latter, then so help me!

Rescuing Disney's Credibility?

Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers.

You ever watch a trailer for a movie you’re not sold on, yet are positively surprised by anyway? That’s happened to me a few times. Most-recently, it happened with this movie released on Disney+ that I was sure would be the biggest, cheapest and most-shameless nostalgia plug ever. I was so sure it wasn’t going to be good that I wrote it off and buried it in my subconscious. Then the reviews popped up, people were praising it, and I was thrown for a loop.

In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have been so quick to judge. I was one of three people willing to give Ready Player One a chance, and look how that ended up. Besides, sometimes movies you have no expectations for end up being good, so it was unfair to be so harsh. This despite it being a self-obsessed Disney product, right down to the cameos.

I won’t give away too much, since it recently came out, but the premise of Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers is that Chip and Dale are actors who’ve been struggling to make ends meet since their show was cancelled. When an old cast-mate gets kidnapped, Chip and Dale are forced to put their animosity aside and search for him. Together, they uncover a plot that involves all cartoon characters, and even discover some truths about the industry that were kept under wraps. Basically, it’s 2022’s answer to Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

I’m not kidding, as the film includes a cameo from Roger Rabbit himself. But while this concept, the washed-up actor(s) trying to stay relevant, has been done to death, and the constant cameos should warrant an immediate dud, Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers doesn’t let any of its self-referential humour get in the way of its story. Then again, with the writers and director on-board from Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, I guess that’s to be expected. Still, Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers uses its cameos not as shameless fan-service, but as a way of commenting on the homogeneity of modern Hollywood. This is a movie where “CGI surgery” is the new trend, cheap nostalgia’s a hot commodity and Ugly Sonic (you read that correctly) is an important character. Go figure.

And the film never wastes its cameos and references. The Indiana Jones gag from the trailers? Its serves an in-film purpose. The gag involving Uncanny Valley CGI? Same deal. Even the remade model of Pumba from The Lion King becomes a clever roast of actor Seth Rogen’s over-exposure in animation. You have to see it to believe it.

But outside the gags and jokes, Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers is a darkly-cruel and poignant film. At its heart, it’s about irrelevancy and the psychological damage that can have. It’s also about how fame and diversifying your portfolio can damage relationships, and how difficult it is to fix that. Most-importantly, it’s about how Hollywood commodifies society’s inability to grow up, which is fitting given that the villain’s Peter Pan.

And it works! It works a little too well, such that some jokes are too clever for the movie’s target audience. Nevertheless, adults familiar with these jokes and their hidden meanings will have a great time, myself included. It’s rare that a Disney movie transcends its intended demographic in a clever and poignant way, but Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers pulls it off! Bonus points for incorporating all those cameos, even those from other studios, in a disparaging way without it feeling nasty. (I’m shocked that half of them were even approved.)

Is the movie perfect? Not at all. Aside from the villain being a slap in the face to Peter Pan’s actual voice actor, and the central allegory raising some questions, I found that the emotional moments didn’t land as effectively as they could have. I also think one or two payoffs needed better setups, even if the movie did them well enough. And it would’ve benefitted from being about 5-10 minutes longer, despite being thrown together during the pandemic.

As it stands? This was pleasantly engaging. I laughed a lot, was shocked on a few occasions by its brazenness and even saw potential for a follow-up. It’s rare that a movie that I have almost no expectations for ends up being better than I originally anticipated, but Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers was exactly that. That it’s a lean 98-minutes helps, as that’s not a huge ask as is. I’d say to check it out, but it looks like people already are.

Nevertheless, I think the whole “self-aware meta-humour” sub-genre is overdone. It was cute when Ralph Breaks the Internet and Ready Player One did it, but that was because they played into the wild west that was the online world. Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers, on the other hand, feels a little like overkill. It still worked, and I’m grateful for that, but we need a lot more sincerity in big-budget movies. But that’s me projecting, I suppose…

"Cinema is Dying!"

Let’s do this!

I’m an MCU fan. I’m not someone who thinks the movies are untouchable masterpieces, but I generally vibe with the overall franchise. I recognize the films’ flaws, and they’re not the best action movies out there, but there’s a charm that comes with watching each entry. Basically, I know what I’m getting into.

Still, while I think film enthusiasts are too hard on the franchise, and I sometimes feel like they’re dumping their baggage, I’m not unwilling to criticize it. Case in point: the Tweet that went viral for highlighting 70 screenings of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness in a day. I initially had many thoughts, but I decided it wasn’t worth writing about this. That is, to say, until I watched this video:

Interesting… (Courtesy of Karsten Runquist.)

I have no qualms with Karsten as a YouTuber. He makes fine videos, even if I don’t agree with him often. Yet his talking points remind me of the hardened cynicism online. I know this is an unfair generalization, but there’s an unsettling vibe coming from film nerds that says “The MCU sucks, and you should feel bad for liking it” without actually saying it. It’s not always intentional, or direct, but it reeks of a “Holier than thou” mindset. It almost makes me hate myself for liking movies, too.

While Karsten’s bitterness is duly-noted, even if bringing up Martin Scorsese feels like a low blow, I do agree that 70 screenings in one day is excessive. This is AMC in Times Square, hence they can still showcase other movies effectively, but 70 showings is ridiculous even with a massive blockbuster. You don’t need to strong-arm the film industry, and it makes Disney look insecure. Then again, it’s not surprising…

While “alarming”, a lot of the backlash created from this is misdirected. This should really be an easy call-out of Disney’s monopolistic practices. However, much of the pushback is directed at filmgoers for issues they’re not responsible for. Criticizing a corporation is easy and worth it. But a consumer? Someone with an actual life? Isn’t that a little gross?

There are a few issues worth deconstructing, but I’ll focus on three. (And no, theatre tickets being exorbitantly-priced won’t be one of them, as I’ve already gone in-depth about that.)

The first issue is moviegoers not watching enough other movies. The average Joe only sees the same 4 or 5 movies a year, and they’re almost all MCU entries. Sometimes, they might even see the same movie multiple times in a row, like that person in The Guinness Book of Records for most Spider-Man: No Way Home viewings. This might seem reasonable to bring up, but it’s a form of gatekeeping. It’s also not fair.

See, life…kind of sucks. Work’s long and stressful, reality’s tearing itself apart, and the average person often feels like they’re not in control of anything. Escapism is a healthy way to cope with that. And with the choices that art has, there are many ways to do it. Movies are one such way.

However, it’s subjective and personal. If someone prefers Movie A or Movie B, that’s their choice. And if they want to watch it frequently, assuming they actually can, that’s also their choice. It’s not up to someone else to discourage or dissuade them, even if they disagree. Movie experiences are different for everyone, and it’s no one’s business how someone spends their time with them. (Provided they’re not hurting anyone.)

I’ve seen film nerds gate-keep how people enjoy MCU films. “Don’t watch the same movies over and over, it’s not healthy!” You know what’s also not healthy? Parenting people’s tastes. Also, so what if they want to watch them over and over? Are you the film police?

I know the reverse is also true, but acting like an expert on what’s good for others only works when you’re in medicine. Even then, not all medical practitioners are good at what they do. If I want to rewatch an MCU movie, that’s my choice. And if you don’t want to watch an MCU movie, guess what? That’s your choice! But don’t make it my problem.

The second issue is complaining that the average moviegoer is missing out by only watching MCU entries. This is a sympathetic argument; after all, there are many non-MCU movies! Some are even better than the yearly MCU offerings! Wouldn’t it make sense to give them a chance? Yes, but…

Remember that movie tastes are personal and subjective. I’m a self-professed “film omnivore”, as I’ll watch anything, but I’m also an anomaly. And with the pandemic making moviegoing dangerous, I’ve had to cut back on going to the theatre for financial and health reasons. It’s made a big difference on how I view the experience, as I now understand why most people don’t go so often (y’know, aside from tickets being expensive.)

I get wanting to expand your palate, but it’s not feasible to watch everything. Yes, Everything Everywhere All At Once is probably fantastic! And yes, I’d love to see it in theatres! But no, it’s not practical right now, and that needs respecting. Besides, I plan to see it when it comes out on streaming, and isn’t that valid? Or is that “ruining cinema”?

This leads to my third and final issue, that being about how no one knows about other movies because Disney and theatre chains won’t let them. This is both a good point, and a misguided one. For one, that’s an issue with the higher-ups, not with patrons. And two, that’s not an excuse to discredit a patron’s tastes. Like I said, film tastes are personal and subjective, and it’s not anyone’s place to dictate them. Besides, like I also said, criticize Disney for that.

I understand peoples’ frustration. I’m old enough to remember when original IPs got wide releases, so long as they had a credible director’s name attached. In the last decade, I’ve seen that change as theatres have become less-conducive to regular attendance. But that doesn’t give anyone an excuse to be a gatekeeper. Remember, my tastes are equally as valid as yours!

Besides, what if the movies you want me to watch don’t interest me? Ignoring Birdman, I’ve seen several of these “preferable” movies. And guess what? I was unimpressed over or cold toward most of them. The ones I liked…okay, thanks for the recommendations. But those were rare.

Ultimately, film nerds need to stop punching down while addressing the modern film landscape. Cinemas are in trouble, and the 70-screening controversy’s a microcosm of why. But that’s no excuse to trash people’s tastes in film. If you really want to make a difference, then guide people to those movies you think deserve love. And, most-importantly, don’t insult them. It’s easy to talk at people, but it’s harder to talk to them.

Alternatively, you can ignore me and continue perpetuating the stigma of “elitist film nerd”. Your choice!

Multiverse of Bruh-ness

There’s no way of sugar coating this: let’s discuss Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. There’ll be spoilers.

I enjoyed the movie. Is it amazing? No, it suffers from writing and pacing issues. But I don’t consider it the garbage fire that its detractors have posited. It’s a memorable, low/middle-tier MCU entry.

There. Was that really so hard?

I’ve been hearing lots of obnoxious claims from both sides, but mostly from film nerds defending the movie because “it actually has interesting direction”. Yeah, what does that mean? I’m tempted to pull a Carla from In the Heights, but claiming that a movie’s good because “it has interesting direction” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Battlefield Earth has interesting direction, but is it a good movie? Batman & Robin has interesting direction, but is it a good movie? The Matrix Revolutions has interesting direction, but is it a-actually, some would argue that it’s underrated…

Anyway, claiming that “interesting direction” elevates a movie’s quality is misleading. Especially since it’s not true. Writing and characterization are more important, and The MCU generally does both well. Their level of consistency varies, but they know how to make their movies compelling. “Interesting direction” be damned!

Does this mean that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness doesn’t have “interesting direction”? Not at all! I loved when Baron Mordo explained night-walking, as it cross-cut with close-ups of Wanda doing that. I also thought the Doctor Strange on Doctor Strange fight with music notes was fun, as you wouldn’t normally see that in The MCU. And while the gore could’ve been toned down, I liked how the movie portrayed Wanda as a demon straight out of a horror movie. I’m not kidding, she made me uncomfortable a few times.

But all of these on their own don’t save a movie. A movie’s more than the sum of its parts, even when they’re fun and memorable. If Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness wants to be taken seriously, then it needs good writing and a through-line that strings its memorable moments together. I think that’s being missed here.

On the flip-side, venturing into a newfound territory isn’t something to shun or fear. While the writing needed another pass or two, bringing in Sam Raimi to direct was a smart choice. He loves comic books, and he already name-dropped Doctor Strange in Spider-Man 2. Having him direct a Doctor Strange movie is coming full circle. And I appreciate that.

Besides, Raimi’s a talented director! It’s easy to whine about the cheesiness of his Spider-Man films, but he did the character justice. Most superhero films in the early-2000’s were garbage, Marvel included. The few exceptions, like Bryan Singer’s take on X-Men, were overly-serious and ashamed of their comic book origins. But here was Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, which embraced Spider-Man’s roots while simultaneously telling good stories. There’s a reason why no Spider-Man film would recapture his touch for more than a decade after he left.

So yes, Sam Raimi was perfect Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Could the movie have been better? Maybe. But it wasn’t half-bad. And I’d love to see him tackle the character again in a sequel that fully embraces his talents. We owe him that much.

That said, it doesn’t mean that other MCU films haven’t done their characters better justice. Even this movie’s prequel, which wasn’t “as interesting” visually, did a better job with Doctor Strange 6 years earlier. It also had that Dormammu scene that, for the love of me, remains the funniest and most-creative climax of any MCU venture. Not every MCU movie will have the visual flair of this one, but that’s fine. They don’t all need it.

Interestingly enough, I wish people understood that about the Martin Scorsese situation. For one, being a visionary director doesn’t make you an expert on everything in the industry, and people need to recognize that. And two, I don’t agree that MCU films “aren’t cinema”. The whole purpose of art is to elicit a response, and MCU films have done that on a large scale. If using a snippet of one of WandaVision’s jingles can get audience members to clap, then isn’t that eliciting a response? Doesn’t that make The MCU cinema?

I’m annoyed because people love putting up fences around art. Yet if PragerU’s video has proven anything, it’s that that’s actually really toxic. Since no one wants to parrot a PragerU talking point, even if unintentionally, we really should build bridges instead of gate-keep. It’s hard, and it requires suppressing your ego, but it’s necessary. I’d say the same of people who only watch nerdy films.

Finally, I don’t like this notion that liking MCU films “is lame”. I also don’t like using other films as “better” alternatives. I’ve seen many of these “better” films, and many of them didn’t impress me. In particular, Birdman, that anti-superhero drama that won Best Picture at The Oscars, felt like a pretentious, nostalgic circle-jerk for an actor who joined The MCU a few years later. I know it’s not Michael Keaton’s fault, but it still reeked of self-righteous hypocrisy. Being “better” doesn’t mean I have to like you more…

I know I’m coming off as whiny, but my point stands. Like I said, I enjoyed Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness! I enjoyed it immensely! And I appreciate The MCU’s attempts at shaking itself up to keep from getting stale, even if it doesn’t always work. This is an example of that, and it’s unfortunate that we can’t be happy. Because, honestly, why can’t we be happy?

An Inconvenient Truth...

I recently saw Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness in theatres. I had issues with some of the pacing, but I enjoyed it quite a bit! It’s not the best The MCU has to offer, but I won’t hold that against it. However, I won’t say too much, or we’ll be here forever. Instead, I’ll share a story:

One of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’s selling points, outside of the movie, was the official trailer for Avatar: The Way of Water. Despite 13 tiresome years of internet yahoos telling me “no one liked Avatar”, I was surprised to hear audience members several rows ahead of me mention how excited they were for it. Some even cheered. It got me thinking (again) about how disconnected the internet is from reality.

Recently, based on the yearly census, it was announced that the global population had surpassed 7.9 billion. In January of this year, it was estimated that Twitter had a little under 400 million users. When you divide the latter by the former, you get roughly 19.75%. Only 1/5 of the global population uses the site. Think about that.

I bring that up because it demonstrates a discrepancy between the online world and everyone else. If you go online, you see plenty of clickbait and anger. But outside of that, people interact differently too. Remember, the internet prioritizes anonymity, something reality doesn’t. In life, you engage with people directly. Online, however, you can hide behind a username, a profile and a wall of text. A lot goes into pruning all three regularly.

It makes sense that the online world would react differently than reality. Is there occasional bleeding? Yes, we’ve seen it before. But until the wall is fully breached, they’ll never be accurate mirrors. And that’s important.

It’s especially so because the internet loves pretending it’s the authority on how people behave: art? It loves making generalizations. Religion? It loves generalizations there too. Politics? Don’t even get me started!

The internet flaunts its unfounded expertise so often it makes reality look more in-line than it is. Truth be told, most people are apathetic. It’s not because they’re “evil”, they simply don’t have the time. Life takes priority, and we should only be so fortunate when they do care. And when they don’t? Well, that’s a wake-up call.

I started off with Avatar: The Way of Water’s teaser trailer, but this goes beyond that. Religious debates are steeped with bias and ignorance, and it makes discussing them online really hard. It’s especially bad on Twitter, which distills thoughts and ideas into 280 characters or less. If you want to discuss religion, you have to either create a Tweet chain, or be succinct and hope you’re not misinterpreted by someone with a chip on their shoulder. There’s actual room for these conversations, but not online.

But the biggest offender is politics. Politics are already heated and polarizing, but people largely agree on more issues than disagree. Going by the recent controversy over Roe V Wade alone, most Americans aren’t even in favour of reversing the ruling. But you wouldn’t know from how this issue, and others like it, are discussed online. Again, that’s a shame.

I’m not guiltless, either. I’ve made many mistakes and have contributed to the problem often. Yet while I have “blood on my hands”, so to speak, I recognize there’s a disconnect. I don’t think many people do, unfortunately. That worries me if this problem is to be remedied.

It doesn’t help that attempts at being a voice of reason are met with hostility by, again, people with chips on their shoulders. When I recently pointed out, for example, that murdering Israeli civilians in the name of Palestinian self-determinism is detrimental, I was told that “there are no innocent Israelis”. I shouldn’t have been so shocked, but it startled me anyway. It’s not an isolated example either, as I’ve gotten off-putting comments like that on other issues.

I’m not saying that internet discourse can’t be productive. I’m also not saying that issues discussed online can’t be pressing. Both of these are possible, and they’ve happened before. It’s also worth noting that the veil of anonymity allows for information on other life experiences that you’d never have access to otherwise. In that sense, the internet and real life not syncing’s beneficial.

Sadly, that’s not always the case. While the internet can sometimes be a useful tool for dialogue and conversation, it’s more frequently not utilized that way. People make ignorant statements without thinking, and they generate impulsive responses and bubble realities. The latter in particular has ripple effects where people think reality’s like that too, until oops! It isn’t.

If anything can be gleamed from my thoughts, it’s that, like the aforementioned trailer, people online need to stop pretending that reality matches their stances on everything. Because it most-often doesn’t, and behaving otherwise is a recipe for disaster. Also, get outside and touch grass. I assure you that grounding yourself with nature is better for your well-being than being stuck in a virtual world.

Marvel and "Kippahgate"

I started watching Moon Knight. I’m enjoying it, even appreciating the care and sensitivity in addressing Dissociative Identity Disorder. I also like how the show has a Jewish protagonist, something rare in entertainment and practically unheard of in The MCU. I’d like to see more of that in the future.

Unfortunately, this isn’t pleasing everybody. In Episode 5, there’s a moment where Marc Spector has a Yarmulke, or a Kippah, on his head. It’s a nice nod to the character’s roots, and it’s an effective scene, but one particular point has generated some backlash. Without spoiling too much, Marc throws his Kippah on the ground in frustration and smears it on the gravel. Naturally, that became a controversy.

I’ll let you in on a secret. Come closer. A little closer than that. Yeah…now cup your ear. You ready? Here goes:

*Ahem*

Marc tossing his Kippah on the ground isn’t a big deal.

While it might seem like an issue to some outsiders, Kippot aren’t that important to Judaism. They didn’t exist for most of history, as you weren’t expected to cover your head unless you were married. Even then, not all situations warranted it. So while Kippahgate might seem like a big deal (though I hate how all controversies end in “gate” nowadays), it’s really not. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, or lying.

Now, I wear a Kippah constantly, but while the item’s gained symbolic representation via osmosis, it’s not high on the Spiritual Object Hierarchy. A Torah scroll hitting the floor, even if by accident, requires a major fast from everyone present. Tefillin, those straps Jews wear during prayer services, have to be regularly-inspected to make sure the scrolls tucked inside aren’t damaged, and the same could be said of Mezuzot. Even prayer books, arguably the most regularly-abused items ever, must be kissed when dropped and buried when damaged. But a Kippah?

I understand: The MCU hasn’t been great with Jewish representation. Marc Spector being Jewish also feels out-of-place with his connection to an Ancient Egyptian god, given the history between The Hebrews and The Egyptians in Scripture. But getting mad that an item with little religious significance is thrown on the ground is overkill. My Kippot fall on the floor all the time, and I reinforce them with four clips!

You know what bothers me more? Marc Spector isn’t played by a Jewish man. Oscar Isaac is a lovely fellow and a talented actor, and I won’t hold either attribute against him. Yet while he cares about getting the character right, he’s not Jewish. He’s Latino, and he might have Sephardic Jewish ancestry at some point in his lineage, but Isaac’s been open about his Christian faith before. So him getting the role irks me.

This appears to be a common trend with MCU superheroes, too. Wanda Maximoff, for example, is the daughter of a Jewish Holocaust survivor, yet she’s played by Elizabeth Olson. Peter Parker, the most-iconic Jewish character in Marvel history, is currently played by Tom Holland. Even in the greater pantheon, Magneto, a blatantly Jewish man, has been played by Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender. None of these actors or actresses are Jewish.

It bugs me because while Hollywood has made strides, albeit overdue, at representation lately, Jews still get the shaft on that front. When they do get roles, however, they’re either cast as stereotypes, or non-Jewish characters. This leaves the actual Jewish characters for the gentiles. And while it might not seem so bad on the outset, it really is. Film roles have an impact on the grander culture, even if only superficially.

If you’re still confused, remember that while the line between Jew and non-Jew has blurred over time, thanks to a grander acceptance by society, Jews are unique culturally and religiously. We have our own customs, or own beliefs and, yes, even our own history. We might look like everyone else, or act like them, but that’s surface-level. And it doesn’t make us less-worthy of respect.

With that in mind, wouldn’t it make sense to accurately portray us? We don’t only exist as quirky nerds or greedy businessmen, we’re quite diverse. And we’re not only rabbis or doctors. I’m Jewish, and I’m a writer! I also suck at personal finances, something stereotypically considered Jewish-centric. So why shove us to the side-lines? Don’t we deserve our power fantasies also?

This goes back to a long-standing complaint I have with how non-Jews think of us. To them, we’re either stereotypes, or “generic white people”. That was the issue I had with Hari Kondabolu and his criticism of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon ala Hank Azaria, as Azaria’s Sephardic Jewish, and it’s one that I have with people’s assumptions of Jews, even bad apples, at large. We deserve better.

Does this mean I now despise Marvel, Moon Knight or Oscar Isaac? Not at all! I like them, and I’ll continue defending them if necessary. But Isaac playing a Jewish man on-screen, especially when he isn’t one himself, is still a problem. Kippahgate might not worth your time, but Jewish erasure’s absolutely worth calling out. And until this is properly addressed, then I’ll continue to do that.