Grandma's Gone Wild

If there’s anything I’m guilty of on The Whitly-Verse, it’s neglecting lesser-known movies. It’s not like I haven’t touched on them before, but I’ve never written full-length pieces (with one exception). And since that hurts my niche appeal, especially with those who don’t fit my conventional demographic, it’s a missed opportunity. So let’s change that. Let’s talk about Thelma.

I’d heard about this movie in passing, but it wasn’t until it was recommended to me by a close buddy that I looked into it more. Sure enough, the trailer had me sold. It’s an action movie starring a nonagenarian! Why don’t more movies go that route? Instant gold! Not since Up has a senior citizen been this engaging!

The premise is straightforward: June Squibb plays Thelma Post, a 93 year-old widow and grandmother who’s scammed out of $10000 by someone pretending to be her grandson. Her daughter and son-in-law think that old age is settling in because of this. But since Thelma’s unsatisfied by the police’s investigation, she take matters into her own hands. Armed with an old frenemy, a motorized scooter and a pistol she’d “borrowed”, Thelma tracks down the scammer to reclaim her money. Shenanigans ensue.

Squibb makes this movie. She broke out about a decade ago with her role in Nebraska, and she ups her game here. Squibb’s Thelma balances age and spunk with ease, and it’s interesting that she’s only now getting attention. She’s also really funny, transitioning from “I’m proactive!” to “I think I recognize her!” on a dime. She reminds me of my 91 year-old Bubbie, sharp as wit despite her physical decline. She might need a walker these days, and she underlines words in emails when it isn’t appropriate, but she remembers dates and events that even I can’t. It’s an endearing quality only works with her cohort, and Squibb taps into that energy consistently.

This also lends for excellent comedy, physical and conversational. For a typical action star, you’d think explosions and fistfights would be standard. But Thelma isn’t capable of that because of her age. Sure, she’s inspired because of Mission Impossible: Fallout, which she watches on her tube TV, but stakes for her are sneaking up the steps without tripping, or driving a scooter without getting caught. It’s these little details we take for granted that drive the action, and they’re as funny as they are riveting.

Amidst this is a sad and depressing movie about old age. Seeing someone you love decline is heartbreaking, and society encourages us to abandon the elderly without recognizing their experience and wisdom. It’s frustrating teaching your grandparents how to open and close emails, but they’re not dumb! They can carry on conversations if you let them, you simply have to do it their way. Also, many people aren’t fortunate to live that long! Like my Bubbie says, “Getting old isn’t for sissies!”.

The clever balance of humour and excitement with reality makes Thelma engaging. I credit the director, Josh Margolin, for not only making a movie based on his own grandmother’s life, but also directing it with sincerity. This could’ve easily failed to resonate, or been too preachy, but Margolin knows how to blend drama and comedy well. Not a single joke feels forced, and while many may fail to land with someone who isn’t of Squibb’s generation, I nevertheless was laughing hard here. This is despite me and my friend being the youngest people in the theatre.

Thelma also says everything in a lean package. This movie’s roughly 98-minutes, and it never feels too long or short. That’s impressive given many movies fail with that Goldilocks Zone. It has big ideas, says them without overstaying its welcome, and leaves you satisfied. Plus, it has another Oscar-worthy performance from Squibb, and I’ll be disappointed if The Academy doesn’t capitalize on that.

I can’t recommend Thelma enough. Not only because it’s an action romp meant for 90+ year-old women, but also because it’s a heartfelt story about getting older that everyone can appreciate. For grandparents, it’s a reminder that old people can contribute to society. For parents, especially those with elderly parents, it shows not taking your aging relatives for granted. And for grandchildren, particularly those who are adults, it’s a lesson in not giving up on your dreams. If Thelma Post can go on an adventure at 93, then it’s not too late!

Please go see Thelma. It won’t be the flashiest movie of the year, or the most ambitious, but it’s a contender for one of my favourites so far. I say that knowing the year’s only half-over, and that Blockbuster Season’s only starting to pick up now. If this silly, 98-minute movie about a grandmother reclaiming stolen money can qualify as one of the best of 2024, then we’re in good hands. And the director also has a bright future ahead of him, assuming he capitalizes on this properly.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go help grandmothers who’ve been scammed out of their pensions. Wish me the best!

On Theatre Etiquette...

Let’s talk theatre etiquette.

Karsten’s someone I’ve discussed before. It hasn’t always been positively, but that’s not because I dislike him. I think his opinions have merit, and he tries being reasonable whenever possible. He also occasionally makes videos I agree with, hence this response. I think he nailed it with this video:

This! (Courtesy of Karsten Runquist.)

YouTube videos discussing theatre etiquette aren’t new. You can find them readily, and many individuals have discussed this issue prior. But while it’s cliché at this point, there’s one aspect here that I think resonates: theatres are trying to make the experience like being at home, and people are abusing that. This is a real problem, and it’s one I’ve had for a while.

I don’t think movie theatres are like being at home. Nor do I think they should be. Not only are they an investment, especially given how un-enticing they’ve become, they’re also not your home. They’re establishments that make money, usually for the owner(s). You might be welcome as a guest, but the second you cause problems? Don’t act surprised if you’re kicked out.

That needs to be reemphasized, as it’s not always so clear. While home theatres allow you to act however you choose, movie theatres have rules. Rules regarding how they function, but also about how you, the patron, should behave. These aren’t written down, but they’re expected like any social contract. And there are social consequences for violating them.

Let’s take the most obvious rule: no talking during the movie. No one can force you to be quiet, especially since movie theatres lack ushers patrolling them, but it makes sense. Remember, people go to movies to watch them, and talking can be distracting. It’s also rude. Also, unlike home theatres, movies theatres lack the ability to pause movies. When the movie starts, it plays until it’s over.

Yes, movies can sometimes be boring. I’ve seen quite a few of those over my lifetime. But even still, I’ve tried my hardest to not disrupt people. In the worst-case scenario, I’ve simply fallen asleep. That takes plenty of discipline, but it’s part of the social contract.

This extends to being mindful of others. It includes individuals who have trouble staying quiet. Some might be too young to sit still, in which case they’re probably not old enough to be there. Others might be babies, which isn’t optimal, but many parents don’t have the luxury of babysitters. And then there are those who are neurodivergent or have a disability, to which staying quiet is impossible. With that group, I recommend that everyone else mind their own business.

That doesn’t stop at movie theatres! A while back, a child had an outburst during a production of The King and I because a tense moment gave him anxiety. When it was revealed that he was Autistic, one of the performers wrote a post about how the audience was being disrespectful by shushing him. The kid couldn’t help it! And as someone who’s Autistic, I can assure you that meltdowns are the most stressful for the person experiencing them. Essentially, show some sensitivity.

While there are patrons who don’t know how to behave, there are also patrons who can be overly-judgemental. I remember watching IT: Chapter 1 and clapping at a moment that made me giddy, only to have someone leer at me because they were annoyed. I wasn’t doing anything wrong, but that was insensitive. I even apologized, something I shouldn’t have had to do. Because who are they to judge me?

And that’s what needs to be understood about a movie theatre: it’s not meant to be a home. There are rules of conduct, and there are rules of compassion. These rules, like I said earlier, aren’t written down, but they exist as a social contract. When they’re broken, they lead to social consequences. Remember that.

Everything about theatre etiquette circles back to this: not talking? It’s rude. Not texting? It’s rude. Not being rowdy if you can help it? It’s rude. Even cleaning up your mess, assuming that’s possible, fits into this social contract.

So yes, theatre etiquette’s important not only because of the social element, but also because you’re a visitor. Like any visitor, the host reserves the right to kick you out for whatever reason. That doesn’t mean you should be disrespected, but definitely try to be on your best behaviour. After all, if you want to come back, you should make a good impression, right? Right.

Finally, theatres need to set expectations of how people should behave. And they should be reestablished regularly. Because patrons frequently act entitled, and it’s irritating. I understand if the theatre violates your individual rights, which does happen, and you shouldn’t let that slide, but when it comes to the social contract? You should follow it out of respect, not because it’s what’s expected.

But that’s me. And I thank Karsten for initiating the conversation, even if there’s a chance he won’t read this.

No, Bad Jeremy!

I’ve never gotten behind “hate-watching” conceptually. I’ve dabbled in it before, but it’s usually been to educate those who read my work. I also don’t deliberately go out of the way to watch something I don’t like. Even with my least-favourite movies, one of them, The Passion of the Christ, I only watched for university. Considering it’s basically Biblical torture porn, I regret that. And why wouldn’t I?

It's no shock, therefore, that I’m frustrated by the recent hate-watching for The Acolyte, a show I’m looking forward to, but waiting until it’s near the end of syndication to actually watch. It doesn’t look that bad, and it’s been critically well-received, but the scrutiny it’s getting from Star Wars fans for “woke messaging” is rivalled by the hate-watching with each new episode. This alone is a turn-off, but YouTuber Jeremy Jahns is also doing that. Yes, that Jeremy Jahns.

Now, I have nothing against Jeremy. I’m even Subscribed to him! But while I enjoy most of his content, and agree with him occasionally, I find certain videos he makes are unnecessarily edgy. He’s entitled to opinions, but he’s definitely guilty of hate-watching. Especially with Star Wars, a franchise I’m positive he hasn’t had anything good to say about for 8 years.

The most obvious sign Jeremy’s not a fan of The Acolyte is the shot of a whiskey glass in his episode thumbnails. The second most obvious sign are the video names, which sound like nitpick-y clickbait titles. I know he’s unhappy, and ranting isn’t necessarily a bad way to garner clicks, but he has a responsibility to be honest to fans while also being fair. I should know, I’m one of them! But he’s not being fair.

I haven’t watched his videos on the show yet. I don’t plan to until it ends. But getting drunk to whine about a show you don’t like sets a bad precedent. Unlike many reviewers, Jeremy’s under no obligation to watch this show. He might get occasional early screenings, but he’s made it clear he gets to choose which movies he watches. He’s also had the discretion to admit when something wasn’t for him, like when he refused to rate to Dunkirk. So wouldn’t it make sense to steer clear of The Acolyte if it’s not engaging him?

I’m serious. I’ve seen several YouTubers use alcohol to “numb the pain” of hate-watching, something I think is edge-lord behaviour. If you’re already not a fan, why get drunk? Better yet, why persevere at all? Your experience might be “more enjoyable”, but life’s too precious to waste. It also sends a bad message to fans that getting plastered is the only way to enjoy “trash”, which isn’t true. One person’s trash is another’s treasure, after all!

I wouldn’t be as frustrated if Jeremy’s fans didn’t act entitled as well. I remember calling out his criticism of She-Hulk twerking in the comments of one of his videos, and immediately people were “presenting me with an L”. Ignoring how I didn’t really care, Jeremy not jumping in to stop this is telling. He can delete nasty comments, I know that because I can too on the few videos I’ve uploaded. Why isn’t he?

It doesn’t help that in attempting to stay course, Jeremy can sometimes misread what he’s watched. This is especially true about his rant on The First Order being “a joke”. Firstly, The First Order are Fascist wannabes who are incompetent, that’s the point of their existence. And secondly, The Empire’s Stormtroopers were too. They might’ve shown restraint, but they couldn’t do their jobs efficiently outside of Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin. They couldn’t even aim, something lamp-shaded frequently with quips about not being able to see through their helmets. This is all surface text.

I’m not even sure why this is an issue. George Lucas has stated multiple times that The Empire’s a thinly-veiled allegory for Nazi Germany set to the backdrop of The Vietnam War. It makes sense, as he lived through the latter and was an active critic of it. Star Wars borrows much of its politics from real-life Imperialism, and that includes the incompetence of the villains. The First Order isn’t supposed to be “cool”, and neither is The Empire.

By complaining about this, Jeremy missed the point of the Star Wars Sequels. As did his fans, with many comments calling out Disney for “being too woke” and “making fun of fans”. Putting aside how “woke” is vaguely defined online, this is dog whistling to bigots. Again, Jeremy was hate-watching, something that hasn’t let up with The Acolyte. It’s disappointing.

To reiterate, I have no issues with Jeremy voicing his opinions on what he doesn’t like. He’s allowed to, and I’d be a hypocrite for calling him out. I also don’t think he’s a bad reviewer for hate-watching, especially when far more talented people have also done it. But that speaks to how big a problem hate-watching is. Because aside from not giving you joy, it often makes you misunderstand the intent of what you’re watching. I mean, why bother?

Creators of these projects also get the wrong impressions from people hate-watching. As do studios, who fund them. For creators, it sends conflicting messages about their efforts, something made worse by how difficult it is to make art. And for studios, who speak in numbers, it tells them they should green-light more bad art because it’s popular. That’s how we got multiple Transformers movies from Michael Bay before Bumblebee flopped.

You know what’s more effective than hate-watching? Avoiding what you dislike. Studios speak in money, and not rushing to see something sends a clearer message that it’s not worth making. That’s why I’m avoiding Megalopolis, among other reasons. And I suggest other people follow suit with The Acolyte if it bothers them. We deserve better.

Besides, detractors of The Acolyte, and modern Star Wars generally, need to recognize that not everything’s for them. Nothing’s stopping you from enjoying older Star Wars efforts, and review-bombing this makes you look petty and insecure. It ignores how Star Wars, the space opera about wizards with magical swords, was always a silly franchise for pre-teens. That shouldn’t prevent it from having standards, but it was never for adults. And that needs to be respected, instead of demanding the franchise always cater to you.

Because isn’t that healthier for genre fiction long-term?

Pixar and Anxiety

How do you show a panic attack with sensitivity and have it relatable to children? This is the challenge Pixar had with Inside Out 2, a movie that’s building on its predecessor. Not only was that set up with the first movie, it was inevitable given the subject matter. And while fan reactions have been positive, with a few reservations, I figured it was worth checking it out for myself. I say that despite the movie’s promotional material being garbage.

(By the way, there’ll be mild spoilers. You’ve been warned.)

Let’s address the elephant in the room: yes, this isn’t as good as Inside Out. No, I doubt it could be. Ignoring its tumultuous production history, the starting point was always going to be more interesting. That’s despite going into more detail in a sequel, too. Because while Inside Out 2’s more mature thematically, repeating the magic was like recreating lighting in a bottle. Like even most “good” Pixar sequels, it couldn’t happen.

But this movie isn’t a carbon copy. Instead, it takes a dangling thread, one played as a joke initially, and makes it the core conceit. Like Dory’s memory issues in Finding Dory, puberty is the overarching idea. We’re introduced to four new emotions, five if you include Nostalgia, and have Joy wrestle for control of Riley with Anxiety. Anxiety, despite mostly being reckless and unhelpful, genuinely feels she’s doing what’s best, and I have to give it up for Maya Hawke as her voice. Pixar’s pretty good at casting, but Hawke, a scattered fast-talker, is easily their best since Tom Hanks as Woody. She makes Anxiety work as well as she does.

The way Anxiety interacts with Joy is the heart and soul of Inside Out 2. Like Buzz and Woody, Joy and Anxiety start off in competition, yet learn to settle their differences in the end. That’s not easy writing to execute, as Anxiety could’ve easily been a villain the other emotions have to overcome. For most of the runtime she appears that way, always taking charge and overthinking when it isn’t appropriate. Like with Joy learning to appreciate Sadness, Anxiety has to learn to relinquish control of Riley.

Perhaps the best part is in the dénouement, which leads back to my original question: how do you show a panic attack with sensitivity and have it relatable to children? The answer involves building up the stresses Riley’s feeling gradually, make them reach a boiling point, and then show the unintended consequences that’s throwing onto Anxiety. Riley’s panic attack is rooted in teenage angst, but it feels real. So real, in fact, that it gave me, an adult, a panic attack watching it. As someone with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, I assure you panic attacks are scary, so I’m glad they’re finally getting the respect they deserve.

Even the resolution feels natural, playing from Riley’s and Anxiety’s perspectives. Riley’s decision to rub her hand against the edge of the penalty box, a form of grounding, is a cathartic release for her and the audience. And Anxiety makes the difficult decision to let go with the help of Joy, who empathizes with her for the first time. This is really clever writing, and I appreciate it given that it could’ve easily been bungled with lesser talent. It also moved me on the same level as Riley embracing her parents in the first movie, even if I didn’t cry.

Still, the movie goes further by bringing everything full-circle for Joy too. Like the first film, Joy’s struggle is acknowledging that she doesn’t have all the answers. Yet while this was initially shown through her relationship with Sadness, here it’s through acknowledging Riley’s imperfections. She spends most of this movie acting like bad memories can be discarded and forgotten, ignoring that our mistakes make us who we are. We’re flawed, messy, chaotic beings, and that’s okay. By teaching Anxiety to actually let go, she indirectly teaches herself to let go too.

I love this. As the movie ultimately addresses, anxious thoughts and concerns need to be constantly pruned and tamed for our own mental health. That doesn’t mean avoiding them, nor should you pretend they don’t exist, but we can’t let our worries be the boss of us. That’s not healthy, and it can even lead to panic attacks. Leave it to this movie to remind us about that.

Pixar has been struggling since Cars 2, both financially and qualitatively. The studio has been at a crossroads with its identity inside Disney, and if Pete Docter’s recent statements are indication, this’ll continue to be a challenge for a while. I don’t begrudge the decision to focus more on sequels going forward, everyone has to eat and pay the bills, but with Elio being the only original work for the near-future, it’s disheartening that the company that once prided themselves on unique storytelling is now being kneecapped by shareholders. Still, if Inside Out 2’s indicative of anything, there’s hope for glimpses of Pixar’s brilliance going forward. Especially if they handle mature themes as well as they did here.

Analyzing a Supernova

On October 7th, 2023, at around 7:00 AM UTC +2, Hamas militants infiltrated The Israeli Supernova Festival in Re’im. Initially meant to mark the transition between the holidays of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret/Simchat Torah, it became a bloodbath in the ensuing hours, with the roughly 3500 attendees scrambling for their lives amidst gunfire and ambushes. By the time it was over, 364 Israeli civilians were dead and roughly 40 were taken into The Gaza Strip as hostages. This was a microcosm of the horrors that day, as the aftermath of October 7th left roughly 1200 Israelis dead, 3000 injured and over 250 taken as collateral. This began a war that, 8 months later, isn’t letting up.

That was the most difficult paragraph I’ve written here, easily surpassing my opening on The Omer. Unfortunately, it’ll also be my most controversial. While October 7th initially drew sympathy from many people, Jewish and non-Jewish, for others it was a day of celebration. I’ve covered this in my open letter earlier this year, but this day of mourning was a triumph for Hamas supporters. And now, people are acknowledging the events as an embarrassment that needs blotting out.

What the hell?!

The Supernova Festival, and the day at large, wasn’t simply an attack. It was a pogrom, one not seen since The Holocaust. Sure, Jews have been mass-murdered multiple times throughout history, but this was on Israeli soil. Israel was the home of “Never Again”, a country where it was okay to live Jewishly. 50 years after The Yom Kippur War, many believed a mass-scale attack was impossible. They were wrong.

I’ll spare the details of whether or not Israel was right to invade Gaza. The reason’s twofold: one, arguing semantics about the war is obnoxious and emotionally-draining. And two, I shouldn’t have to mention that when discussing October 7th. The war has become a red herring for the greater discussion of October 7th, as well as the spike of Antisemitic behaviour in the months since. Like with Muslims and Hamas, Jews shouldn’t have to answer for Gaza as a caveat to discuss our collective pain and trauma. But that’s what we’re being forced to do.

Anyway, the aftermath of Supernova has been ignored by pro-Palestinian activists. There’s a good chance many don’t even realize that’s what started the war, or, if they do, don’t care. Factoring in university encampments alone, which I have mixed feelings on, I’ve yet to hear anyone advocate for the release of the hostages, 120 of whom are still in captivity. It’s even gotten to the point that when 4 hostages were rescued recently by soldiers, people took to victim blaming. And I’m sorry, but how’s that helpful?

Arguably the biggest frustration has been attempts at memorializing Supernova. When footage was compiled into a 47-minute clip-show, people were boycotting it as “Israeli propaganda”. When Eden Golan sang “Hurricane” at Eurovision 2024, she received death threats. Even with the Supernova exhibit, there’ve been protestors downplaying the tragedy as “justified resistance”. I fail to see how this helps the Palestinian cause...

Like it or not, innocent civilians died on that day. Sure, they were from a country that many people “don’t like”, I get that. But they were civilians. And while the footage makes some uncomfortable, remember that Hamas proudly shared it. They were happy for people to witness their handiwork. What’s so bad about being informed?

I’ve heard counter-talk about how Israelis do far worse. Firstly, credible sources please. And secondly…fine! Show that too! Human suffering isn’t an exclusively-Israeli concept. But this doesn’t justify Supernova.

I know this is tough to talk about. I’ve made no secret of how I’m a childhood sexual assault survivor, and reliving this pain through Supernova isn’t what I want. But if we’re to have lasting peace, then this can’t be brushed aside. Like the good allies you claim to be, you need to shut up and stop complaining. I’m dead serious, as no Jews wanted this.

Honestly, it’s becoming difficult to call myself a “progressive ally”. I already know people who’ve given up and turned to Fox News because “they’re more honest”. I’d like to debate them, but it’s hard to when I’m not feeling the love. I’m receiving a cold shoulder instead, and that’s hurtful. Especially when I stood up for you when you were hurting.

There’s an adage that’s really started hitting home with this war: “Jews don’t count”. After what I’ve seen, the fear-mongering and Antisemitism worldwide, it’s almost impossible to debunk this. It’s even worse when attempts at showing the atrocities of Supernova are met with open hostility from those I thought were on my side. I’m also scared to identify as Jewish at work, even though one of my jobs is in a heavily-Jewish environment. How’s that fair?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is long, messy and complicated. It’s been that way for decades, and it’ll continue to be that way for the foreseeable future. I don’t think there’s an easy solution, either. But the path to healing is acknowledging the pain of others. Remember, Israelis are people. And if they’re people, then they’re capable of vulnerability, even when it’s hard to accept that.

After all, what good does ignoring Supernova do, especially when Yahya Sinwar has threatened to repeat these atrocities again?

X-Men in Hindsight

(Warning: The following piece contains sensitive subject matter. Read at your own risk.)

The X-Men franchise holds an unusual place in superhero movie history. Like Blade and Spider-Man, it was a pivotal moment in making them mainstream, as it was unafraid to take both its audience and source material seriously. On the other hand, parts of it feel dated, especially given the strides superhero films have made since. Then there’s its major voice having skeletons in his closet. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

With Deadpool & Wolverine debuting next month, I figured now was a good time to revisit these movies. In particular, I rewatched the first two entries from Bryan Singer. I know there’ve been more entries since, even from Singer, but the original two remain an interesting snapshot of the early-2000’s. They not only helped rehabilitate the image of the superhero, they signalled a new wave of features willing to be deep and dark simultaneously. More than enough about them also holds up in 2024.

Let’s start with the obvious: the X-Men IP was always “woke”. Even in the 1960’s, when they made their debut, superheroes born with powers being shunned and marginalized was an apt metaphor for racism. It makes sense, as they came out during The Civil Rights Movement. Since then, the characters have tackled all kinds of societal injustices, including making one of their antagonists, Magneto, a Jewish Holocaust survivor. This hasn’t been subtle.

It's no surprise that Singer, an openly bisexual man, took interest in these characters after watching X-Men: The Animated Series. He was never big on the campier elements, something the films threw shade at, but the grounded drama spoke personally. It made sense, therefore, that he’d fuse his experiences as a queer male with the X-Men’s race allegory, using them to comment on homophobia in The US. (Remember that gay marriage wasn’t legal when X-Men debuted in 2000.)

The movies capitalize on this. The first one introduces “The Mutant Registration Act”, a callback to the homophobia of The FBI and The CIA during the 60’s and 70’s, and uses it as a springboard for “the outsider” with Senator Kelly. Kelly, an anti-mutant politician, lobbies heavily for this act, until he’s turned into a mutant by Magneto and dies. It’s possible to read this transformation as an allegory for HIV, and there’s a parallel with how he’s treated before and after. Even in death, Mystique takes on his persona, showing how little agency gay people were allowed at the time.

Queer coding also shows through how the different mutants interact with one another and society. Rogue, the MacGuffin of the first movie, can’t touch people without hurting them, even putting her boyfriend into a coma. Mystique, the shapeshifter, is a metaphor for masking, something she does frequently, yet feels she shouldn’t have to do. Bobby, who can freeze everything, is asked by his mother if he’s ever tried not being a mutant. Even Magneto, the extremist, behaves the way he does out of anger and resentment. His experience as a Holocaust survivor has reinforced his ideology, and he feels as though humanity’s inferior to mutants.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is the casting. Ian McKellen and Alan Cumming are gay in real life, and they bring their life experiences to Magneto and Nightcrawler. Ignore the extremism of Magneto and look at how he interacts with Professor Xavier: doesn’t their relationship scream homoerotic subtext? And Nightcrawler being a devout Christian isn’t unlike people who grapple with the uneasy marriage between faith and sexuality. It’s possible other cast members are gay too, but these are some of the more inspired ones.

Speaking of which, the casting is often spot-on. Much has been made of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but some of the others deserve shoutouts. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, who are friends in real life, as Magneto and Professor Xavier means their chemistry feels like an extension of reality. They’re Shakespearean-level thespians, yet their subdued performances heighten their characters and bring them to life. Not every other character gets to shine, but they do.

It makes sense. Singer, fresh off of The Usual Suspects, is a character director. He struggles with whimsy, but he’s at his best with the grounded and personal. That’s why Magneto and Stryker as the main antagonists works so well, as they feel like real threats. Never mind that Magneto’s one of Marvel Comics’ greatest antagonists, which says a lot given Spider-Man’s rogues gallery!

All the more unfortunate that Singer’s skeletons make enjoying his films difficult in hindsight. His interactions with his cast has soured people’s reception, with attempts to discredit his impact. I find this unfair, as not all great artists are good people. Singer’s X-Men tenure helped many gay superhero fans feel seen, and rewriting that is as much of a slap in the face as claiming the Harry Potter books weren’t influential because of JK Rowling’s politics. You can appreciate something while recognizing that its creator’s an awful person...

Besides, the X-Men movies are at their most consistent under Singer. Ignoring X-Men: Apocalypse, which had its moments, he seemed best-suited for these movies because he cared about them. You see this with the noticeable dip in quality when he left, as well as how he managed to resurrect the franchise via X-Men: Days of Future Past. Singer may have not liked the campiness of the material, but he nailed the drama. Which is why it sucks that he’s a vile man.

Like Sam Raimi and the Spider-Man films, Singer cared. And like Raimi, he was talented. But while Raimi fully-embraced the camp of Spider-Man, Singer tried to avoid it. It’s unfortunate, but these movies weren’t bad. Nor does it mean that they didn’t leave their impact.

It’s hard to reconcile Singer’s behaviour with his vision for the X-Men property, but he definitely left his mark. His movies aren’t perfect-in an attempt to veer from camp, sometimes his work is campier than the comics-but they’re fun. And they speak to the human condition in a way that only a visionary can. So while I don’t begrudge people for taking issue with his oeuvre, I think these movies are better than people give credit. They at least deserve praise for what they did right!

Cinema After Superheroes

One of the frustrations of being a “film omnivore” is that I’m stuck in this limbo of liking superhero films while recognizing they’re not the best movies out there. This is apparent when I defend them from absurd criticism, like how they’re “ruining cinema”. It’s not only untrue, it ignores why they became popular: mass appeal. It also ignores how people are calling them a “dying breed” nowadays, as they’re lightyears better than older entries. And then there are videos discussing what the next trend is, ignoring how no one has that Magic 8 Ball.

I bring this up because of a video recently released by Patrick H. Willems. I’ve covered his work before, I’ve even referenced his Star Wars quote many times, but this video talked about what the new trend in Hollywood might be. I’ll be honest: it was good. I don’t agree with his thesis, but it was good. Especially since he wasn’t all doom and gloom. But I digress.

Nevertheless, superhero movies receive plenty of flak from film aficionados and angry nerds. For the former, the claims of “not being cinema” ring hollow because they’re not true. And for the latter…it’s whining about “wokeism”, which falls apart when held up to scrutiny. Basically, it’s a tired charade. Yet because it keeps resurfacing, especially since superhero films aren’t the lucrative cash cows they used to be, I think it’s worth sharing my thoughts:

A superhero film “not being cinema” is a statement that falls apart upon probing. What defines “cinema”? Is it a moving picture? Because superhero movies qualify. Is it something that evokes an emotional response? Because, depending on who you are, superhero movies qualify. Or is it having a unique voice? Because I’m not sure what qualifies there, though I’d argue superhero movies have those.

Perhaps I’m overly-defensive, but superhero movies, The MCU specifically, have a voice. They’re about what it means to be super, and they tackle worldly concepts in an interesting manner. They’re not necessarily “the best” at tackling them, but they’re also not the worst. If anything, they’re the starting points for bigger issues, ones that are expanded upon in other ventures. Though that’s still in the eye of the beholder...

There’s also judging going on. Ignoring how superhero movies crowd out theatres, which I’ve covered before, cinema aficionados can be snobbish about them. I’ve seen it. I was even once patronized online for liking Marvel movies because “they lack interesting themes or styles”. To that, I ask that said individual get a life.

I’ve seen a lot of this snobbery. And it’s tiring. It feels like gatekeeping, restricting conversation because superhero fans “aren’t real film fans”. What qualifies as being a “real film fan”? I ask that because the statement reeks of pretentiousness.

It’s especially pretentious because movie tickets aren’t cheap. Even on Tuesdays, you still pay upwards of $10. I know inflation’s a factor, but if The International Day of Cinema’s taught me anything, it’s that lowering ticket costs helps. We saw it with the boost in profits on that day last year. Essentially, movie tickets are expensive, so it’s unfair to judge people for their spending habits.

Moving onto the flip-side, there are people blaming declining sales of superhero movies on “wokeism”. Firstly, define that. And secondly, what does diversifying characters have to do with it? The first Black Panther movie made over $1 billion despite having a predominantly black cast, as did the first Captain Marvel with a female lead. They were also decently-to-excellently received, so this argument falls flat. A superhero movie underperforming has less to do with being “woke” than being, to paraphrase James Gunn, badly-written. That distinction matters.

It's tedious listening to this because superheroes have always been woke. The X-Men started off as an allegory for racism, quickly morphing into being about queer activism with Bryan Singer in the early-2000’s. Wonder Woman’s about bridging the gap between sexes. And Superman? Superman’s a Moses allegory, a shining example to humanity about truth and justice. This isn’t new!

Of course, film gatekeeping and fan gatekeeping can intersect. Take the newest Captain America movie. It’s been undergoing extensive reshoots, which is normal, but people have gravitated to it introducing Sabra. Not that I’m thrilled over her being The MCU’s first, officially-Jewish superheroine, especially when Judaism’s been ignored prior, but Shira Haas has received plenty of flak despite being fantastic before in Shtisel. If this movie doesn’t impress, there’ll be people who’ll blame it on Marvel including an Israeli actress, not unlike what happened with Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman. And I’m sorry, but it’s unfair to blame a movie’s failure on someone who has no say on her place of birth.

While I’m thrilled other movies are getting their chance in the spotlight, superhero movies aren’t going away completely. They’ve been a staple of cinemas since the late-70’s, and even the bad ones nowadays are infinitely better than those of yesteryear. Superheroes might not be the big draws they were 5 years ago, but they’re going absolutely nowhere. And if Chris Hemsworth’s words are indication, it’d do everyone good, even some Marvel cast members, to show humility discussing them. After all, we have to start somewhere!