Nobody Wants This?

Netflix content is a lottery of quality. Sometimes, like with Stranger Things, it’s fantastic. In other instances, like with Cowboy Bebop, not so much. And then there are times where it isn’t only bad, but offensive. Such is the case with Nobody Wants This, which isn’t out yet, yet has already made me uncomfortable.

For context, this is the brainchild of Erin Foster, a Jewish convert who based this show on personal experience. The show’s about a female podcaster, Joanne, who dates a rabbi, Noah. Despite not being sure what to think, they hit it off and find out they have plenty in common. Unfortunately, their relationship’s frowned on by those close to them, causing friction. Will their relationship survive, or collapse?

A disclaimer needs to be made: this isn’t out yet. Only the trailer’s been released, and trailers are meant to cater to the lowest common denominator. It’s possible the show in question will be good, so take what everything with a grain of salt. Still, that doesn’t mean I’m not frustrated. Because I am.

My general concern so far is that this is playing into a trope known as “The Shiksa-Goddess”. That’s when a Jewish male falls in love with a non-Jewish woman because his family is toxic. He wants to escape the judging of his family, and the girl, who’s really attractive, provides that. This insidious trope’s based in disdain for the male’s Jewish roots, yet it’s so covert that most outsiders, and some insiders, won’t understand what’s wrong.

I have no issues with Jews dating, and ultimately marrying, outside the faith. I have relatives who’ve done so. I also am not against converts, and I welcome those daring enough to join our group. What bothers me, however, is when a Jew-to-non-Jew relationship is used to air dirty laundry about Jews. And this story appears to be doing that. That it’s coming from the perspective of a convert makes everything worse, as it feels like she’s romanticizing her relationship while trashing the “ugliness” of Judaism.

Essentially, this is the convert’s version of “I’m not like other girls”, or The NLOG Trope. The NLOG has come under intense scrutiny, and for good reason, but The Shiksa-Goddess has a long way to go before people stop using it. To have both tropes in one show, and simultaneously, is troubling considering that it’s 2024. Sensitivity readers exist to catch this, and it baffles my mind that this wasn’t vetted. Never mind that the novelty of being a “Jewish-centric” story would allow it to bypass that, as we don’t get enough of those.

Except…is this really Jewish-centric? I know Foster’s Jewish, but “Jew meets non-Jew who’s better than Jew’s social circle” goes back to The Jazz Singer in the 1920’s. Jews aren’t a big group, we’re roughly .25% of the global population, and the chances of not dating or knowing non-Jews are incredibly slim. So when a story like this gets framed as “Jewish-centric”, despite being written by a Jew, it’s insulting because it doesn’t accurately portray us. Why would Jews be nasty and boring? Have you been to a simcha? We’re fun and welcoming too!

I wouldn’t be as frustrated if this premise didn’t already exist in a non-offensive way. Keeping the Faith tells this same story, but respectfully. Ben Stiller’s character, who’s also a rabbi, falls in love with a non-Jewish woman, except not to escape his repressive family. Plus, his non-Jewish lover takes an interest in Judaism, even converting by the end. I have issues with the movie, including how parts are boring, but it tries. That’s more than I can say here.

I know some of this seems weird to my non-Jewish readers, but remember that we’re still a minority with frequently toxic portrayals. Like prosthetic noses and downplaying our Jewish roots, having us ashamed of our roots and wanting to escape through non-Jewish women is offensive and insulting. What’s wrong with being Jewish? And why must we be portrayed as catty to non-Jews?

Yes, Netflix’s target demographics aren’t Jewish. But that’s not exclusive to Netflix, and we Jews have frequently had to adjust our stories in other places. It’s exhausting, especially when authentic representation of cultures and ethnicities is now accepted. So for Jews to not be allowed to tell stories with sensitivity and respect feels like a kick to the groin. It’s bad enough that Antisemitism’s on the rise without this making everything worse! Especially when representation in media has an impact on how we perceive ourselves!

Perhaps I’m reacting too harshly. Netflix doesn’t have a great track-record of quality, even if they’ve made plenty of winners over the years. This is also a Hallmark-quality story in a Netflix package, so it could end up sucking for different reasons. But that Hallmark-quality storytelling’s exactly the problem. And that it’s being told by a convert, one who’s stated that dating a Jew “was the best decision she’d ever made”, makes it all-the-more egregious. Because we deserve better, right? I think so.

A Mega Mess

I wrote a piece on Megalopolis some time ago about why I wasn’t watching or supporting it. I’d hoped that’d be the end of it at the time. Yet since life’s a joke sometimes, that isn’t happening. Because the situation surrounding Megalopolis isn’t getting better. If anything, it’s getting worse.

To start, there’s the movie’s reception. I knew it wasn’t setting critics alight, but the distributor, Lionsgate Studios, decided to gaslight people into seeing it. They used exaggerated “reviews” and called the movie “provocative”, as if to troll the critics. Smooth. It didn’t help that there was a teeny, tiny problem there:

The reviews weren’t real.

Lionsgate made these quotes up without consenting anyone prior. In the case of several reviews, Roger Ebert specifically, they couldn’t receive endorsements because those people were dead. So not only was there a mess of a movie on hand, there was also a nonconsensual campaign to boost awareness. And it gets worse. I don’t mean that figuratively, either.

If misrepresenting reviewers wasn’t bad enough, these “reviews” were also A.I.-generated. You know, that contentious issue that caused a writing and acting strike? The one that’s been scrutinized for sounding inauthentic? The one that’s also been accused of stealing from artists and making watered-down versions of their work? That A.I.?!

I wish I could be surprised. It not only would let me be naïve about what transpires in Hollywood, it’d let me pretend studio execs weren’t so desperate. However, I’m not surprised. Hollywood has plenty of nonsense, openly and behind closed doors, and studio execs are really shifty. In other words, Lionsgate using A.I. to make Megalopolis look good sits low on the list of shocking revelations.

That said, this is pathetic and unethical. It’s pathetic because it’s uncreative, and unethical because it’s putting words into reviewers’ mouths, some of whom aren’t alive anymore, and acting like they can’t sue for defamation. Because they can. Like every other A.I. scandal, this is an example of unvetted and unchecked access to something that can’t fully replace humans. I say this knowing A.I.’s also easier than hiring people.

Okay, the reviewer scandal was bad. Surely this can’t get worse? It can! Remember how the director, Francis Ford Coppola, was criticized for inappropriate conduct? That’s now coming back to bite him. Between his outbursts and inappropriate lap-dances with half-naked actresses, Coppola has outed himself as a predator. I get why he did this, he wanted to “get his actors in the right mood”, but it’s really uncomfortable anyway. Especially when he could’ve paid sex workers, he has the money. Is his romantic life really that lacking?!

Coppola also recently stated that he purposely cast actors like Shia LaBeouf and Jon Voight because he didn’t want to succumb to the woke culture mob. Lovely! We not only have an actor who has physical abuse allegations against him, we also have a far-right conspiracy theorist. All to make a statement. And not even a clever one.

At this rate, I’m almost expecting a cover-up for something. If that sounds ridiculous…can you blame me? Between trolling reviewers with A.I.-generated reviews, predatory behaviour from the director and intentionally casting people with checkered histories, Megalopolis has become a movie I actively encourage others not to support. Put aside how critics weren’t kind to it, as plenty of “bad” movies have been enjoyable for many different reasons. This is JK Rowling-levels of awful, the kind where supporting this movie is giving Coppola and Lionsgate a pass for bad behaviour!

I know Coppola’s a talented director who’s made several masterpieces. I also know he’s made great movies despite troubled productions, as evidenced by Apocalypse Now. And I know Lionsgate, like other studios, will continue to be shady anyway. I’m aware of all of this.

Nevertheless, that shouldn’t mean giving a pass to Megalopolis. This isn’t like Jack, a bad movie from an otherwise-talented director. No, this is a bad movie that also has toxic behaviour involved, all of it intentional. It feels like Coppola and Lionsgate were making bad decisions on purpose, all to test audiences’ willingness to tolerate them. I’ll have no part in that, thanks!

I know this is upsetting for many people, and I don’t blame them. If Rowling’s taught me anything, it’s that it hurts when someone you look up to is malicious. With Coppola, one of The Movie Brats, it’s especially painful because he, along with his friends, actively shaped the modern landscape of American cinema. Hollywood, particularly epic dramas, wouldn’t be where it is now without Coppola. So for him to act how he did with Megalopolis, all while being left unchecked? It’s a huge slap in the face.

Unfortunately, save for boycotting, I don’t know how to remedy this situation. I don’t have sway in Hollywood, I barely have sway online, and my critiques won’t change anything in any meaningful way. Me saying not to support Megalopolis also won’t prevent people from doing so 100%. But that doesn’t mean I don’t feel an obligation to express my concerns, as painful as they are. Because I definitely feel enough of an obligation to put off other pieces!

Still, you do you. But don’t act shocked if something like this happens again!

Mario X Luigi

If there’s one Mario sub-franchise that’s remained elusive, it’s the Mario and Luigi games. I’d played the Paper Mario games plenty growing up, and I’d tried bits of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, but the Mario and Luigi games…not so much. I knew they existed, and had several entries, but they never interested me. So when it was announced that the Switch was getting an entry with Mario and Luigi: Brothership, I decided to go with the most-accessible title: the original via Nintendo Switch Online. And now, two weeks later, I have some thoughts.

I should mention that the above paragraph has a caveat: I’d briefly played Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga as a teenager. My cousin let me borrow it around the time he purchased a DS Lite, and I was curious what made the game so beloved. I wasn’t impressed. Perhaps it was coordinating two characters’ movements, or the “shameless” callbacks to the Paper Mario games, but I got nowhere before calling it quits. So it’s possible my adult play-through was partly coloured by that.

The premise is that Princess Peach’s voice is stolen by Cackletta and her minion Fawful. The two plan to use it to wake a super-weapon and conquer Beanbean Kingdom. Since Mario and Luigi are aware of the implications, they team up with Bowser and travel to The Beanbean Kingdom. Along the way, they find a world filled with enemies and characters, leading to hilarious hijinks. They also learn that their special bond is needed to fight Cackletta.

This game presented me with a challenge I’d never faced in a Mario RPG: synchronized movement. I’ve made no secret that I’m terrible at video games, and that I despise games that make me feel like I’m doing homework, and this is proof of both. I’m chronically uncoordinated thanks to my learning disabilities, so playing this game tested my limits. It’s bad enough that Mario and Luigi have to work in tandem without being tethered on and off the battlefield. This goes double for avoiding enemy attacks.

I can’t begin to describe how many times I got stuck on a fight, particularly a boss, because of this. It might come easily for some to remember that Mario’s mapped to the A button and Luigi the B button, but I’m not that skilled. I frequently forgot who was who because my brain’s used to a full range of control mapped to one character at a time, and I kept getting punished for that. Yet it kept happening again…and again…and again, such that I frequently rage-quit the game. This was especially true of the final boss, Bowletta, whose second form is a nightmare. Bowletta’s underling, Fawful, might’ve been more irritating, but Bowletta’s final form tired me out.

I feel like I’m being unfair to this game. Ignoring my gripes, Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga isn’t bad. It’s actually good! And it has elements and moments that are fantastic! Even the timed mini-games, which’d normally be frustrating, are eased by being re-playable with little to no consequence. Factor in how easy it is to level grind, as well as the rhythm I occasionally fell into, and I could see why this game has a fan-following. It helps that the writing and characters are expressive and funny.

I guess my frustrations are personal. But that’s not to detract from this game at all! It simply means it’s not really for me, and that’s okay. There are plenty of more coordinated gamers who’d get a kick playing this series, and I’m not judging anyone. But I’m not one of them, despite enjoying the experience.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not this game warrants praise is moot: of course it does…assuming you don’t mind the coordination aspect, that is. Putting that aside, this was an interesting RPG that took a little over 40 hours to beat. It’s not time that I regret either, even if I’d have preferred a shorter experience. But as far as this franchise goes, I think this first entry is enough. Unless Mario and Luigi: Brothership tweaks the mechanics or streamlines them, I don’t see myself purchasing it in the near future. Sorry.

*****

It’s been a while since I’ve written something, hasn’t it? My archive shows August 4th as my last Post, and that’s over 2 weeks ago! The obvious reason for that is…see above. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have ideas for pieces, because I do! I simply have to play catchup with an algorithm that doesn’t favour my mental health, as well as a hustle and bustle culture that loses interest when you’re not productive.

Irrespective of the reasoning for why I haven’t written in a while, I’m glad to announce I’m still alive and ready to make up for lost time. I owe it to myself. As always, I’ll see you all next time! And remember to check this game out yourselves, as you might disagree with my assessment!

Entering the Merry-Go-Round

Joe Hisaishi’s one of my favourite composers. He’s not only composed for 12 movies from one of my favourite anime houses, but his work, which spans over 4 decades, is thematically rich and varied. You can trace his evolution from synth to orchestration over time, but none of his work evokes as much passion and emotion as The Merry-Go-Round of Life, a long, dense and multi-layered waltz that feels like you’re at a carnival. Fitting, then, that it’s associated with one of my least-favourite Hayao Miyazaki movies.

There are many questions I can ask here: why’s it a waltz? Why’s it so long? Why does it have so many layers that still work beautifully? But none are more curious than its name. I’d like to offer a theory on why it’s called The Merry-Go-Round of Life.

Wars are…messy. Let’s put it that way. They’re part of the human experience, and they occur often, but that doesn’t make them any less upsetting or frustrating. Between the violence, chaos and bloodshed, wars are as devastating to the environment as they are the human psyche. But you don’t need me to tell you that, as Miyazaki has already done so.

For all the reasons people go to war, there always need to be distractions and levity to balance that. Thinking about war 24/7, especially in the middle of one, is unhealthy, so escapism’s necessary. There are many ways this is achieved, but perhaps the most interesting is the amusement park. The carousel, or the merry-go-round, in particular. Merry-go-rounds have a long history surrounding war, and they’ve been a popular distraction in battle. I even recall a poignant moment from the Holocaust book Jacob’s Rescue, where one of the characters asks his father about the placement of a carousel outside of The Warsaw Ghetto.

Carousels and war go together like peanut butter and jelly on bread. But that brings us to this particular tune; after all, if Howl’s Moving Castle’s about the chaos and destruction of war, why’s this song called The Merry-Go-Round of Life? And why’s it the movie’s leitmotif, articulated and reticulated constantly? What about this naming choice fits in such a layered and chaotic experience? I think it has to do with the carousel’s history and what it represents, as well as how this motif subverts that.

If you look at the objects on a carousel, you’ll notice they’re mostly soldiers on horses rotating in a circle. This isn’t accidental, as the 12th Century Arabian and Turkish warriors from which it originates were alluding to military conquests. The carousel has seen many changes and evolutions over the centuries, even eliminating the scented perfume balls they were once associated with. Yet the iconography of mounted horses heading to battle never went away. If anything, they’ve become so baked in that people have forgotten their history.

War aside, carousels are, quite simply, fun. True, the circular motion might be a problem for conditions like vertigo, but carousels, or merry-go-rounds, are popular with children. What better to briefly distract kids than with a repetitive contraption that has roots in military conquest? And for cheap? If anything, I’d benefit from that!

Okay, we’ve established the connection between the merry-go-round and war. But then…why’s this motif not called The Merry-Go-Round of Death, especially when that’s more fitting? I think the name’s an ironic commentary on war. If war’s about death and destruction, why not commemorate life? Innocent lives are frequently lost in war, and many are because of negligence. We’ve seen so many innocents die in war that The Geneva Conventions have labelled civilian deaths as “war crimes”.

This fits the running commentary of Howl’s Moving Castle: that war’s pointless. Whether or not you agree, it’s poignant considering that the war this movie’s commenting on, The Iraq War, is regarded as wasteful and meaningless in hindsight. So much bloodshed occurred over the false pretence of WMDs that once The US pulled out during The Obama Administration, over 4400 people had died. This movie was calling out the war before it was popular, with Miyazaki arguing that life takes precedence. He even missed his previous movie, Spirited Away, winning an Oscar in 2003 in protest!

Calling this The Merry-Go-Round of Life is perfect. As is its length and messiness. Wars are often long and have long shadows, their impacts felt decades and centuries later. All the more fitting that this came from Japan, a country devastated by war and The Atomic Bomb. I don’t think that’s accidental.

Outside of that, the motif’s romantic nature, and the part that gives me chills, is also not accidental. Howl’s Moving Castle’s messy, and it’s not one of my favourites from Miyazaki, but the element that works best is the love story between Howl and Sophie. Their chemistry’s as natural as their situation is dire, and the war taking a backseat to their bond is why this movie works at all. If anything, Howl and Sophie are Miyazaki’s best-written couple, surpassing Ashitaka/San and Pazu/Sheeta. With that in mind, it’s brilliant.

It helps that this motif has many variations, or reticulations, that can be romantically-suspenseful and romantically-tragic when need be. As the expression goes, “If you can’t handle me at my worst, then you don’t deserve me at my best!”. Life and love have ups and downs, like a merry-go-round, and all the more during war, which can turn both upside down instantly. By referencing a merry-go-round, using the word “life” in the title and reticulating to meet the chaos of war, The Merry-Go-Round of Life is sending us a message. It’s telling us that life’s cyclical, messy and filled with ups and downs, but also romantic, beautiful and powerful. I think that’s what Joe Hisaishi was going for, and it’s why I consider this his best piece of music.

There’s plenty going against Howl’s Moving Castle in general: it’s overlong, poorly-paced and messy narratively. It has too many underbaked plot-threads that are dropped or rushed. Its antagonist, though thematically coherent, isn’t well-developed. And its structure, story-wise and visually, is gonzo in all the wrong ways. Yet despite this, the music consistently works. If everything I’ve said is indication, that’s the highest praise I can give. Because Hisaishi has many compositions that are masterpieces, and this being my favourite’s no small feat!

If you don’t believe me, listen to it and say I’m wrong!

1, 2, Click!

I know what you’re thinking: “Didn’t you already write about this?” Firstly, good memory. And secondly, so? Clickbait is layered concept, worthy of multiple pieces. Besides, I promise this’ll be different. We good? Good.

Have you seen Deadpool and Wolverine? I enjoyed it, but it wasn’t exceptional. It was fun, giving me well-deserved belly laughs, but outside of capping off Fox’s era of Marvel movies it probably won’t be regarded as one of The MCU’s best. (I could end up being wrong, though.) Still, I recognize that it won’t appeal to everyone. Which leads me to an IGN article that wasn’t kind to it.

I won’t go into depth on what I didn’t like. Not only is Carlos Morales entitled to an opinion, I agreed with some of his points. I disagree with the movie being bad, but still. Deadpool and Wolverine’s a reference-fest stretched to 2-hours. It’s fun, and fittingly in-character, but let’s not kid ourselves. Besides, whether or not a movie’s good is open to interpretation. That much has always been true.

My issue is more how this article was framed. It feels like a clickbait piece meant to evoke strong emotions and generate traffic, which I have experience with. Ignoring that, I don’t think it’s Morales’s fault that his editorial received negative feedback. Because IGN marketed it as clickbait.

See, clickbait’s as notorious as the internet. Websites rely on algorithms to promote and circulate information, and that’s led to a mixed end-result. On one hand, stories and voices that wouldn’t have gotten attention before are available on demand, allowing instant responses. On the other hand, that immediate attention has caused an over-saturation of brain mush, something Deadpool as a character serves as a stand-in for. It’s in the word itself, but clickbait’s supposed to be provocative.

I have personal experience. Back in my Nintendo Enthusiast days, I was constantly at the mercy of an algorithm. I was getting paid peanuts, and I often didn’t meet the threshold for the month. Add in that the site’s editors had to juggle over a dozen writers at once, and there were weeks I didn’t get any feedback on articles that made it past the planning stage. I was stressed, overworked and undervalued. And I wasn’t alone.

Additionally, I was at the mercy of said editors. They frequently made changes to my work to “meet site standards”, hence my voice became diluted. Words were changed, phrases and sentences I’d never say otherwise were added for mass appeal, and my work was at the mercy of angry readers. I hated it, despite it being a valuable learning opportunity. Yet I gained appreciation for that kind of writing, as well as the unrealistic expectations foisted on writers.

I’m much more sympathetic to clickbait writers nowadays. Selling out for clicks isn’t easy. It’s hard, and it’s soul-crushing. However, since it contributes to a writer’s cache, it’s sometimes necessary. A job’s a job!

I sympathize with Carlos Morales. He genuinely felt Deadpool and Wolverine was underwhelming, and he wanted to share his reasoning. That the end-result reads as clickbait is probably not his fault, but rather that of the almighty algorithm. It’s the opposite of “If you write an essay and the pen breaks, it’s your fault,” because the pen here is dictating the essay you’re writing. That’s how clickbait operates.

It'd be easy to say “Journalism used to be more professional back in the day!”, but I’ll refrain. Not only is outrage the standard model of journalism, but I’m positive you can find examples going back to the early days of print. Shock value sells, it triggers our “fight or flight” impulses. Clickbait’s a newer, more instantaneous version of that. If you’re oblivious to that at this point, I can’t help you.

Even going by the article’s content, critics have been hard on movies forever. Silent films in Hollywood were railed on for cheapening media. “Talkies” were criticized for ruining careers, while Technicolor was criticized for ruining the audience’s imagination. Even Jaws and the Star Wars franchise in the mid-to-late-70’s were criticized for over-commercialization of the medium, reducing it to shallow storytelling. It’s easy to laugh in hindsight, but film has always been subjected to scrutiny.

Also, Deadpool and Wolverine being a “shallow meta-narrative” doesn’t automatically negate its value. As The LEGO Movie demonstrates, if you have something to say, then the narrative being meta doesn’t matter. Storytelling techniques are only as good as their storytellers, and this movie pulls it off. Because let’s face it: superheroes are kind of silly. Deadpool’s biggest crime, therefore, has always been throwing shade at that.

I won’t pretend this is “high cinema”, even if the top contenders, like Martin Scorsese, have never impressed me. Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder, and superhero films are no different. But Morales’s editorial shouldn’t be the be-all-end-all. He was probably working within a system that chews up writers and spits them out constantly. Even if he was content with what he wrote, and we’ll never know, he deserves some mercy. As does IGN for working within the confines of the almighty algorithm.

Alternatively, you can stay mad at someone for writing an article you don’t agree with. The ball’s in your court.