Christians, Let's Talk...

Something I’ve realized from finally catching Omicron is that playing catch-up with Blogger’s algorithm is a losing battle. I don’t have the time and energy to fight the metrics, and what netted big Views, while fun to write, doesn’t interest me quite as much anymore. So instead of playing this game, I’ll focus on my interests. Like this book I read recently, the drama that unfolded and if the backlash was worth ruining the life of its author. Yes, you read that correctly.

A while ago I wrote about the dangers of Christian Supersessionism. To quote myself:

“These terms might sound like no-brainers to Jews, but mainstream discourse doesn’t stop to think about them. The word ‘supersessionism’ even shows up as a spelling mistake, despite being a real concept. Therefore, I should also refer to them as two facets of ‘Christian Superiority’.”

The “plural” language here refers to another term I also mentioned, but I’ll focus specifically on the supersessionist part because people get prickly when confronted over it. Yet be it the language we use, the laws we practice or the history we’re taught, it’s as much a part of life as the implications for people who aren’t Christian. Even Western atheism, which arose as a rejection of Christianity, still dabbles in Christian Supersessionism, much to its chagrin.

Enter Rabbi Mike Harvey, and his book Let’s Talk: A Rabbi Speaks to Christians. I know Rabbi Harvey is protective of his rabbinic status, especially given his pulpit being stripped, but out of deference I’ll call him one anyway. It’s the kind of person I am, bestowing respect to people and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, Rosh Hashanah has recently ended, and Yom Kippur’s around the corner, so I hope he’ll forgive me. Anyway, moving on.

Rabbi Harvey states in his introduction that he wrote this book to dispel any myths and confusion about Judaism. It’s not a long read, you can easily finish it in one sitting, but it’s chock-full of material. Rabbi Harvey tackles many sensitive issues, major and minor, in order to better create a dialogue between Jews and Christians, which he argues is necessary if we’re to understand one-another. For example, did you know that The Bridal Chorus isn’t used in Jewish weddings because of its ties to Richard Wagner? I always assumed it wasn’t a Jewish tune, but that was eye-opening to learn!

But he doesn’t stop there! Rabbi Harvey also criticizes Jewish institutions to show that this isn’t one-sided. Jews have been hurt by Christian Supersessionism, but they’ve put up barriers that’ve made dialogue tenuous at best. An example he gives is of a Christian visitor at his congregation who crossed her chest after kissing a Torah during a Shabbat service. Many congregants sneered at this, but he pointed out that her connection to something so spiritually-Jewish was strengthening her ties to Christianity. The little acts matter, something this book is also about.

Perhaps the secret of this book is how extensively researched it is. Rabbi Harvey pulls no punches when analyzing Christian and Jewish texts, showing how they evolved over time based on historical circumstances. I don’t agree with everything he argues, I don’t subscribe to The Torah being written by multiple, anonymous authors, but it’s still interesting nonetheless. If anything, he shows more respect to Judaism than many practicing Jews! (Not that he isn’t practicing in his own way, mind you.)

Essentially, it’s a solid book. So why all the blowback? I think that has to do with the domination of Christianity in the Western zeitgeist. People don’t like being taken out of their comfort zones. And here was Rabbi Harvey doing exactly that. Naturally, there was bound to be pushback.

However, was the extreme nature of it worth it? Was it worth making videos and internet posts angrily warning others to stay away? Was it worth him losing his job, his pulpit title, his original publishing agreement, and even, albeit temporarily, his Twitter account? And was it worth the endless harassment and doxing he received online? Was it worth, to use a term we’re familiar with, cancelling Rabbi Harvey?

The answer is, obviously, “no”. But while the backlash from extremists was unsurprising, what disappoints me are the moderates who let it happen. True, many didn’t know; after all, the world’s vast! Yet of those who did, passing it off as “not my problem”, or even deflecting with the phrase, “This isn’t reflective of ‘True Christianity’”, is unhelpful and enabling. If MLK Jr.’s statements about the “White Moderate” can be grafted onto any situation, it’s this. Except that instead of “white”, it’s “Christian”. This also includes those Christian-adjacent.

I’m not even sure what warranted this. Rabbi Harvey wasn’t forcing people to read his book, he was recommending it. He also wasn’t pushing it any more than other authors. I can honestly say that I’ve been more in-your-face about my writing before, and I’ve never published a book! Even if the caustic nature of his Tweets had been a “red flag”, in which case…fair enough, that doesn’t counteract the hate he got for pointing out what Jews have been saying for a while, but nicer.

Essentially, Rabbi Harvey’s personal life getting sabotaged over a book, irrespective of what people claim was in it, wasn’t justified. Nor are the continued attacks from people who still can’t fathom Christianity not being the centre of the universe. And yes, this is a callout to the Christian world. And no, I’m, not ashamed. Because if being nice yields results like this, then why bother? Why not fight fire with fire?

What can be done to remedy this mess? For starters, buy Rabbi Harvey’s book. I got it on Amazon for almost $30 Canadian, and I don’t regret it. In the long-term, however, a reframing of how Christianity relates to Judaism needs to happen. Remember, Christians vastly outnumber Jews. We can’t do this alone, and we need your help. Even if it gets messy, it’s necessary if we’re to be better off. And believe me, we will.

Now then, I think I’ll get me some more tea…

Calliope and Abuse

One of the traps an artist can fall into is utilizing someone else’s misery. It’s true that many people with power and influence abuse people regularly, but an artist? Art communicates thoughts and ideas, so we’re more disappointed when they’re the perpetrators. Such is one of the stories in The Sandman, a Netflix series adapted from the Neil Gaiman classic. Despite being unfamiliar with the graphic novel, I think Season 1’s bookend contains a profound example of this for our times. It’s titled “Calliope”, and it’s about artists abusing others to create art.

By the way, there’ll be spoilers. And since I’ll be discussing heavy themes, I suggest turning away now if abuse is triggering.

The episode opens with author and university professor, Richard Madoc, reading from his first book. He’s asked by a student if writing a book is easy, to which he answers no. This is the dilemma that we authors face: I took a course and wrote a 20-chapter manuscript, only to realize that my writing needed lots of work. Even now, 2 years later, I struggle with polishing my content. And I’ve grown as a writer!

Richard meets up that night with Erasmus Fry, a childhood icon, for inspiration. Fry shows him his trinkets, ending his tour with the source of his inspiration: a Muse name Calliope. Calliope has been Fry’s slave for decades, and he’s been abusing her to get story ideas. Realizing the Sun’s setting on his career, Fry gifts Calliope to Richard. This is setting up the episode’s conflict: is human trafficking worth it if it brings inspiration?

Initially, Richard’s conflicted. He knows that harbouring a slave is wrong, but he’s stuck. His agent’s contemplating cutting off Richard’s book advance if he doesn’t provide. As Richard struggles with his responsibilities as a writer and a slave who refuses to cooperate, we see him feel desperation. Realizing time’s running out, he succumbs and follows in Fry’s footsteps.

We never actually see what Richard does to Calliope. But the gash on his cheek suggests that it was brutal, and that she fought back. Regardless, Richard finishes his book, becomes a household name and abbreviates his name to Ric. He even regains his self-confidence, being interviewed for his “feminism”. But is he? Is it true progressivism if you’re secretly a monster? This issue has come to light on various occasions and with several artists, each time casting their work in a new and disturbing light.

The best example of this conflict of interest is when Richard’s interviewed by a journalist. Richard cites figures like Margaret Atwood for inspiration, but the journalist notices similarities with Erasmus Fry. She mentions that their styles are uncanny, despite Richard pretending otherwise. She also infers that Fry took his life shortly after gifting Calliope, a grim reminder of what abusers often experience when their control is relinquished. It’s also foreshadowing.

Of course, Richard keeps abusing Calliope. He breaks his promise to free her, stating that she’s more useful to him as a prisoner. He also won’t let her pray for help. Remember, Richard might be outwardly-progressive, demanding equity in the film adaptation of his book, but he’s anything but. Truthfully, he’s the exact same monster Fry was, except with a kinder edge.

This episode, while disturbing, reinforces the dangers that artists can easily fall prey to if not careful. Whether it’s abusing marginalized people online or on a movie set, plenty of well-respected individuals have been reminders of how authority can be misused. As an artist myself, it’s easy to hold a metaphorical leash over my readers, for example, and demand they read my work. I was tempted when I took a break from Blogging following my Zaidy’s passing. I didn’t do it, but my metrics still haven’t recovered fully.

The situation reaches its peak when Calliope secretly prays to the Muses. They’re unable to free her, but they hint at Morpheus, her ex-husband, coming to rescue her. This is near the end of Morpheus, or Dream, being in prison for 100 years, and she gets her wish when she reads of the sole survivor of Encephalitis-Lethargica, a sleeping disorder that plagued millions of people globally, awaking from her slumber. So she writes to Morpheus asking for his help. Despite Richard catching and scolding her, her letter makes its way to Morpheus anyway.

Richard eventually comes home one night to find Morpheus waiting for him. The lighting keeps Morpheus in a shadowy veil while he threatens Richard, stating that if it’s ideas he wants, he’ll get those in abundance. The next day, while giving a lecture to his students, Richard starts spouting story premises ad nauseam. It doesn’t take long until a student discovers him at a of nearby stairwell painting ideas on a wall in his blood. It’s creepy, but Richard finally realizes what’ll happen if he doesn’t release Calliope.

The episode ends positively for Calliope, who leaves Richard’s house to freedom, but also on a downer for Richard. Upon freeing Calliope, his affliction disappears. But so does his talent, making him into another washed-up author. It’s cathartic, but sad. And it’s a wake-up call to viewers. Because it’s never worth abusing people for your art.

This hits home because, like I said, so many artists I looked up to have let me down. Even outside of that, abusing people for your talent is a Faustian bargain. We’ve seen the consequences with Me Too. It begs the question of whether or not it’s worth it. Because is it? How do you reconcile art that you love being created by awful people, even those claiming to be progressive?

If “Calliope” is indication, it’s not possible to get away with that long-term. You might think you can, and it might look it short-term, but what goes around comes around. Remember, when you make a deal with The Devil, sooner or later he’ll come to collect. If it can happen to Erasmus Fry and Richard Madoc, it can happen to you! Don’t pretend otherwise!

I’ll end with that Harper’s Magazine piece I wrote. I have issues with some of it in hindsight, but the general sentiment remains the same. Regardless of “intent”, many signatories had enough baggage that it wasn’t genuine. It read as a cover to continue their abuse under the guise of open discourse, something a response piece pointed out. And it especially felt that way with how some of them behaved since. Words without actions are empty.

Ultimately, “Calliope” is a cautionary tale. She might not be real, but we all know a Calliope. And we all know an Erasmus Fry or Richard Madoc. If their fates mimic this episode, then we should take heed.

The Prickly Sabra

Life’s a Monkey’s Paw sometimes. I’ve wanted proper Jewish representation for Marvel film characters for a while. I’ve waited, but it simply wasn’t happening. And now that it is, I regret it. Let me explain.

This is Sabra. She’s an Israeli mutant. Despite existing since the 80’s, Sabra’s remained obscure in superhero discourse for decades. And now she’s been announced for Captain America: New World Order. She’s also being played by Shira Haas, who came to prominence with shows like Unorthodox. Cue the celebrations, a Jewish character’s being played by a Jewish person…right?

Not quite. But before I get into that, I’d like to share my two concerns on this matter:

The first is obvious: her name’s Sabra. The word “Sabra” on its own isn’t a big deal, it’s the Hebrew word for “cactus”, but given that it has partial ties to The Sabra Shatila Massacre, it’s not a great look. It’d be like playing The Bridal Chorus at a Jewish wedding: technically not “offensive”, but with a negative, historical connotation. It doesn’t help that The Sabra Shatila Massacre was relatively-recent, making this a little iffy. Not to mention, calling her “Sabra” is really lame.

The second issue’s more distressing: having an Israeli Jew in a movie about a “New World Order” is…tone-deaf? Jews have been accused of being global puppet-masters since The Middle Ages. Even now, George Soros is the punching bags of Antisemites desperate to blame American democracy’s failings on him. “New World Order” contains lots of baggage, and this doesn’t help.

Now then, time to dump the garbage:

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been going on for decades. It’s messy, unpleasant and has victims and perpetrators on both sides. It’s led to wars and casualties, and has gained the attention of the world. The discourse has also been poisoned by bad-faith actors of all stripes, sometimes with lethal consequences. But I’ve covered this in greater detail…

One of the biggest fronts has been online, particularly with PR. Twitter alone has dozens of dummy and propaganda accounts ready to take innocuous situations and warp them to fit an agenda. I should know, I’ve witnessed it firsthand! But it’s the lack of regulations that makes it so easy, and Shira Haas in an MCU film is another example of that. She’s the new Gal Gadot, but without the baggage.

As you’d expect, this led to intense arguing. On the Israeli side, people were calling this a win. On the Palestinian side, people claimed it whitewashed Palestinian self-determination. I can see the frustrations of the latter camp, Palestinian voices have long been marginalized, but it’s ridiculous that a woman who’s Israeli is being boxed into a reductive binary; after all, Haas might be anti-Zionist! We don’t know yet!

But I doubt that matters to her detractors. In their mind, Haas is the enemy because she’s Israeli, nothing more. It doesn’t matter what her political leanings are, she’s a supporter of Israeli occupation. There’ve been pushes to boycott Marvel until she’s removed. Never mind that Natalie Portman and Ayelet Zurer have been in Marvel roles prior...

So yes, Shira Haas is “bad”. This bothers me immensely. I’d expect this kind of open bigotry from the far-right, but progressives have increasingly disappointed me by not factoring in nuance to their critiques of Israelis. Israel has over 9 million citizens, and not all of them are Jewish. Many of them are Palestinian! And their views, as shown through surveys and videos, on Israeli society aren’t monolithic.

Not even Israelis are monolithic! There are so many viewpoints in that tiny country that despite there being a far-right extremist issue, as with most countries, the population’s quite diverse. And so are the politicians, with the most-recent government containing 7 political parties of different persuasions before it fell apart. Israelis don’t all think alike, and Haas is no different. Like I said, she could one day come out as anti-Zionist!

My concern is that people are overreacting based on minimal information. It’s not like there isn’t already a Palestinian Marvel character named Hayyan Zarour, because there is. It’s that Sabra’s Israeli, therefore Marvel “supports oppression”. This logic is biased and doesn’t make sense. It’s also tiresome.

I’m not sure what’d satisfy her detractors, other than her disappearing altogether. I support Palestinian self-determination! And I won’t act like Palestinian voices haven’t been shafted for decades! But silencing Israeli voices helps no one. Nor does dehumanizing them.

I get that this is a complicated position to be in. For as much as I wanted proper, Jewish representation in The MCU for the longest time, instead of empty lip-service, this wasn’t what I wanted. I also have no doubts that including Sabra was largely a calculated and financial decision. But that doesn’t excuse the backlash the character, and subsequently her actress, is receiving. There’s no shortage of other kinds of representation in The MCU thus far, so why not give someone else a turn for a change? What do you really have to lose with Sabra?

Mario's Galac2ic Adventure

I know what you’re thinking: “Didn’t you already write this Blog piece?” No, as this is about Super Mario Galaxy 2. I also tweaked the title. But since you’re already here, allow me to share with you how challenging video games are for me. I’ll use an example from this game. Here goes:

The objective was simple: obtain the Boulder Shroom, an item that turns Mario into a boulder, and roll along the narrow lanes to the gold-coloured Star. It sounded easy enough, but was it really? I was notorious for bad judgement when it came to depth perception, thanks to my Autism, and my reflexes suffered because of my tics. Factor in that this required exact timing, and it’d be a real test of character. Still, a game was a game.

With a deep breath and my attention focused on the screen, I gripped my Wiimote and Nunchuk, the plastic, remote-like controller and joystick attachment, and began.

It started off well. I grabbed the power-up, flicked my wrist and knocked down the platform to begin the trek. I then blitzed down the ramp. Everything was going fine…until I veered too sharply to one side and fell to the abyss. Mario’s scream, coupled with the infamous music cue, informed me that I’d died.

Okay, maybe I panicked and turned early. I wouldn’t make that mistake again though, right?

Attempt #2 put that to the test. As I grabbed the power-up once again, I felt my body tensing up. My focus narrowed, my brain telling me to get it right. I was concentrating so heavily on not missing the first turn that I forgot to jump over the upcoming chasm. Mario screamed yet again as he plummeted to his doom.

I groaned, having now wasted two attempts at this challenge.

Perhaps attempt #3 would do the trick? After all, events often happen in threes, with the final one breaking the curse. As I started yet again, I tried avoiding my previous mistakes. I even snagged the extra life as I jumped over an early gap. If I kept this up, I might win? Unfortunately, I swallowed those words as I failed to make the final jump to the goal, causing me, yet again, to plummet.

I began screaming internally. I’d almost made it! What happened? With my anxiety flaring up and my tics kicking in, I’d underestimated how easy this was. Concentrating would now be tedious with my tics acting up. What’s worse, I was sweating from nerves, which was making me itchy. But if I timed my tics and scratches properly, I could make it out in one shot.

Easier said than done! As anyone Tourette’s Syndrome will tell you, fighting tics makes them worse. I couldn’t suppress them, I had to compromise with them. That not only meant not ignoring them, but making sure to release them so they wouldn’t throw me off. And it was hard, as my frequent plummets to the abyss would remind me. The constant failures even made my tics, sweating and itches worse.

Come on, I said after a while, remember mindfulness. Don’t fight the anxiety, work with it. I tried doing that, but it wasn’t helping. I’d become so engrossed in the moment that stopping to breathe was hampering everything. Plus, my perception was off, and I was making mistakes more and more frequently. Even ones I hadn’t made prior, which was irritating me. Why was this game so punishing?

Before long, I’d missed enough jumps and turns to get a Game Over. So I started the objective from scratch, returning to where I’d had trouble. The game was now giving me the option of letting it help me, that silhouetted shadow of Rosalina standing there. It knew I sucked, and it wanted me to throw in the towel. But I wouldn’t let it, I’d persevere until I…I…I…

Not now, I’m trying to concentrate.

Great, I had urine building in my bladder. I have a strict no-bathroom policy during tasks, so I decided to suck it up and hope I didn’t wet myself. Besides, my failures were staring me right in the face. Life hated me right now.

Attempt #12. I’d missed the sharp turns at the end at least 4 times by now, 2 of them back-to-back.

Attempt #15. I forgot to jump before the extra life.

Attempt #20. My tics were at full-force, my itching at maximum. I felt my bladder filling up. And what’s worse, now I had an urge to crap too.

Attempt #24. I’d gotten my second Game Over because of a sneeze. I glanced at the clock on my TV’s digital box and realized I’d been at this for over an hour. It was almost dinner, and my stomach was growling. Lovely.

Attempt #25 was going to be the one. I’d beat this once and for all. I’d done everything right, and I was nearing the end…only to hear my mom’s reminder from upstairs that dinner was in 10 minutes. In that split-second where I responded, I lost focus and plummeted yet again. Dammit!

It took 5 more attempts to regain what I’d lost. This was it for real. I’d timed my jumps. I knew when to turn, when not to veer and when to stay the course. I even made it past the final jump and into the pen where the gold Star was waiting. All I needed was to jump up and-

-The dreaded notice that my Wiimote had run out of power popped up. And I didn’t have any AA batteries on hand. 30 tries, 29 failures, and 2 Game Overs, and for what? A dead Wiimote?

This is why I don’t drive a car.

In the end, all my persistence was for naught. The game was taunting me, and in the end it bested me. I’d return eventually, but for now I had to dart to the bathroom and eat dinner. That, and buy new batteries.

Lemme Twerk It!

I haven’t seen She-Hulk: Attorney at Law yet. I plan to, but I like waiting until Disney+ shows are almost finished before binging them. Anything I say about it, therefore, is based on hearsay and second-hand information. Besides, this piece will be less about the series than people’s reactions to it. In particular, it’ll be about one moment that’s garnered…unwanted attention?

She-Hulk isn’t new. She’s been around since 1980, when Stan Lee and John Buscema created a female variant of The Hulk who was Bruce Banner’s cousin. I don’t know much about her, since I’m not a big comics person, but I do know Jennifer Walters was given Banner’s blood in a transfusion. Since then, her gimmick has been that she’s The Hulk, but shorter, less-aggressive and with her cognition fully-intact. Make of that what you will.

The issue at hand here is a post-credits scene from the Disney+ show, where She-Hulk and her best-friend are twerking in her office. It’s short, silly and gained plenty of ire. In particular, it’s received backlash from people who think it’s “disgusting” and “offensive”. It’s as if, in their eyes, Marvel has “lost the plot”. And that’s “bad”.

I shouldn’t even be writing this. Not only is there real criticism with The MCU in general, some of which I’ve covered, but Marvel characters dancing isn’t new. Star-Lord danced in front of Ronan the Accuser in Guardians of the Galaxy. Baron Zemo, rather awkwardly, danced in a club in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Even pre-MCU, Peter Parker danced in Spider-Man 3 during his symbiote phase. Dancing badly is an age-old phenomenon by now.

I’d ask the obvious “Why is She-Hulk twerking any different?”, but we know the answer. It’s why Captain Marvel being overpowered was a problem, why that moment in The Avengers: Endgame where the super-heroines helped Spider-Man was too, and why Ms. Marvel existing was most of all. It’s sexism. In other words, it’s okay for males to do this, but women? No!

I’m curious how small some peoples’ worlds are if this is a controversy. The MCU has real issues. Disney, the company that owns Marvel, has more. Like I said, I’ve covered some of those in the past. You’d think those issues would get traction, right? Nope! Instead, we’re discussing the “negative implications” of a female attorney shaking her booty. The world is so cruel…

It's annoying because She-Hulk, like her cousin, is comical. She even breaks the fourth-wall repeatedly, which, apparently, is a running joke in the show. Her twerking, therefore, isn’t such a stretch. Besides, isn’t dancing a pastime of youth? Or am I the oddball here?

Female characters in fiction are routinely subjected to a level of scrutiny that their male peers aren’t: Harley Quinn can’t be in a relationship with Poison Ivy because she’s subservient to The Joker, who’s abusive. Batgirl can’t be a relatable teenager because she plays second-fiddle to Batman. Even with Marvel, Captain Marvel and Ms. Marvel can’t compete with Captain America and Spider-Man because “that’s man’s stuff”. In short, women can’t be human beings.

It’s this kind of thinking that trickles down to reality. We’re seeing that with Roe V Wade’s overturning in The US: regardless of your stance on abortion, not giving women the option to have them is creating unwanted stresses. Women deserve better, and fiction also plays a role in how society operates, even if minuscule. It also shines a mirror on societal standards and expectations. But I’ve covered that too…

Besides, She-Hulk twerking, what I’ve seen, is cute. She’s having fun, and isn’t that what matters? And yes, she does point out earlier that she hates being catcalled. But that has no correlation with her dancing, especially in private. I think that distinction’s important, as unnecessary as it is to point out.

What’s the end-goal of this anyway? Is it to validate the frustrations of male nerds? Because it’s doing the opposite. Is it to make their voices heard? Because it’s doing that, but not how they want. Or is to quiet outsiders who are now interested in their hobby? Because that’s not working either.

I don’t think nerds realize how spoiled they’ve been recently. Their passions, once niche, are now taken seriously by everyone. With The MCU, I over-heard two women discussing The Avengers: Endgame on the bus a few years ago. Our interests are widespread now! Isn’t that what we wanted? Isn’t that good?

Because if so, that means we should embrace new fans, right? And that includes women, doesn’t it? And that includes women having fun too, right? So why is it offensive that She-Hulk twerks? Especially when Star-Lord and Zemo dancing were both seen as endearing? What’s with-oh right, sexism. Never mind!

I think critics of this moment need to grow up. If this moment bothers you, and it shouldn’t, so what? The show isn’t about She-Hulk twerking, right? There are other aspects that are more worthy of conversation, like if having a superhero law division is such a good idea. That’s what we should be discussing, not if a woman’s dancing “offends” you!

One Musical Scene: Remembering Laputa's Forgotten Robot Soldier

Music’s integral to the moviegoing experience. It not only enhances its energy, but when timed correctly it also helps set the mood. There are plenty of great composers out there, but my money is with frequent Hayao Miyazaki collaborator Joe Hisaishi. Hisaishi’s worked with Miyazaki since the mid-80’s, giving 10 of his 11 movies to-date a distinct sound. And while Hisaishi switched from electronica to orchestrations in the 90’s, it’s his controversial rescore of Castle in the Sky that I want to focus on. Specifically, I’d like to zone-in on one of my favourite tracks: The Forgotten Robot Soldier.

Two notes: one, there’ll be minor spoilers. I know the movie’s almost 40 years old, but I want to be fair. And two, this track deserves to be listened to on its own. So I’ll share it upfront:

Beautiful, isn’t it? (Courtesy of Chellon88.)

A lot of beauty exists in these almost-5 minutes of music. But it’s what they do in-conjunction with the scene they’re matched to that makes the difference. It plays right after our protagonists, Pazu and Sheeta, have landed on the floating island of Laputa. It’s strange that we spend a short time exploring before everything goes awry, but those precious few minutes are enhanced by the music itself. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

It begins as Pazu and Sheeta are greeted by a robot. The last time we saw one was when it caused destruction, so the calming melody eases the tension. It also highlights the innocence of the Laputian robots by having it remove The Crow’s Nest to reveal a bird’s nest. These robots aren’t inherently good or bad, they do what they’re programmed to do. Do I detect some of Miyazaki’s trademark character ambiguity?

With the nest saved, the robot requests that Pazu and Sheeta follow it to the garden. Which they do, and we get cuts of the wildlife going about their lives. We see tadpoles swimming in the pond, bugs flying and land mammals, particularly fox babies, scurrying along the grass. The music is somber, as if it’s sad that this once-prosperous kingdom’s now an empty forest. The question looms: what happened to Laputa?

We don’t get an answer right away, yet the music turns triumphant as Pazu and Sheeta wander into the garden. While it looks barren and empty at a passing glance, the ecosystem of Laputa’s really complex. So complex, in fact, that the opaque walls on the outside are fully-transparent and reminiscent of a greenhouse on the inside. Even with Laputa no longer having people, it’s still rich with life. It’s reminding the audience that nature doesn’t need humans, so we should be more respectful of it.

The music becomes haunting again as Pazu and Sheeta stumble upon another robot near a tombstone, this one motionless and covered in moss. Sheeta’s shocked, confirming that Laputa has been long-abandoned. The music then changes to somber as Sheeta’s offered a flower by the robot from earlier to place at the graveside, which she accepts and thanks it for. As she places it, she asks the question on everyone’s mind: what happened here, and is this the last robot? Again, we don’t get answers right away, but the feeling of isolation lingers. It’s as if this robot’s been forgotten?

And then, as if providing a bit of hope, we witness the foxes from earlier scamper up the robot and rest on its shoulder. It’s cute, but it brings closure to Sheeta’s concerns. Because while the robot might be “the last of its kind”, it has all the animals for company. That’s another lesson the movie imparts: you don’t need companionship solely from humans. Sometimes animals are enough. Think of all the pets people have in real-life…

As the music comes to its harrowingly-optimistic end, the movie zooms in on Sheeta wiping tears. She’s clearly moved by this encounter, and she’s not afraid to show it. I don’t blame her, as this is melancholic in its own right, displaying the beauty of isolation while reminding everyone of the loss tagged with it. It’s helped by the music, emphasizing the calm before the storm (in this case, an explosion caused by the military). It’s not exactly a long scene in general, but it’s effective.

Much has been made about whether or not this movie needed rescoring. One of the biggest points against it is that the movie had moments of musical silence to enhance the background noise, moments that are “ruined” by a Hollywood-esque score. While I can see that, I still think the orchestrations help anchor Castle in the Sky as a movie in the vein of Star Wars or Indiana Jones films. It has all the hallmarks of both, right down to the hokey storytelling, so why not? Especially if it gives us the aforementioned track?

Either way, this is the epitome of an orchestral stroke of brilliance. And it warrants itself as one musical scene!