Kirk & Kimmel

I’ve largely kept my nose out of the situation surrounding Charlie Kirk. It’s not like I haven’t expressed my thoughts, but any statement will get me into trouble. While I recognize that Kirk was an awful human being, I also think the discourse surrounding him has become toxic. Essentially, while I’m disgusted that people are making him into a martyr, I’m equally disgusted that people are overlooking how he died.

Let’s be clear: Charlie Kirk was a bad person. Seriously. The interactions I had with him weren’t direct, but they always smelled of insincerity. This was someone who routinely abused the contemplation emoji to prove non-existent points that could be refuted without much research. He also was a January 6th insurrectionist, and he mocked George Floyd’s murder. Kirk was no different than Candace Owens in many ways, save being a white man who occasionally played nice with Jews and Israel. The latter was something Owens couldn’t even do.

Simultaneously, being shot wasn’t the right approach. Yes, he wouldn’t have batted an eye if someone on the left had been shot. And yes, people on the right, including his widow, have been feasting off of his death. But no, vigilante justice isn’t the answer to combatting his hate. Considering the nature of his death, and how it’s been warped, it’s much more telling of the gun violence issue in American society generally.

The Charlie Kirk situation’s beyond my pay-grade. What isn’t beyond my pay-grade is late night host Jimmy Kimmel’s stance on it. Kimmel’s statement was incredibly milquetoast. He not only didn’t take a side, he also chastised those who did. In particular, he jabbed President Trump’s response, citing that using his death to segue into a different topic was insensitive. That, and clamping down on freedom of speech was wrong. To quote Kimmel directly:

“We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

I don’t see how this is worth the backlash from the right, especially since Kimmel was showing more respect for Kirk than most of his allies. He also was right in calling out Trump segueing to talking about a ballroom in The White House. Even if you didn’t like Kirk, using this moment to focus on yourself is childish. A friend of yours died, show some respect! Is that really too much to ask?

Kimmel’s statements received plenty of backlash, including a suspension of his show from ABC. I get why Disney, the parent company, felt like this was the right call; after all, they’re currently in the middle of a mini-merger, and they want the approval of the current FCC. Disney, who’ve gotten in hot water with Trump before, felt pressure to make nice and not ruffle feathers. Even if Trump didn’t directly make a threat, Kimmel’s jab was probably a bit much, so they stopped the leak before the dam burst open. That much I understand.

Nevertheless, it’s frustrating that Disney, who won their fight with Governor DeSantis over the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida, hasn’t shown more backbone. Disney isn’t some smalltime studio. They’re a corporation that’s been around for over a century, and they have a bigger base than the MAGA movement could ever dream of! So while it’s not unexpected for them to follow the money, this is really cowardly. It also reeks of desperation.

Naturally, their decision to fire Kimmel has backfired, accruing financial losses as longtime fans and people on their payroll have shared dissatisfaction. It’s gotten so bad that both Ted Cruz and former Disney CEO Michael Eisner have expressed disapproval. Cruz being anti-Disney on this is already telling, but Eisner? Given how Eisner left Disney on bad terms, that’s saying something! Your move, Bob Iger!

I probably won’t be cancelling Disney+, especially considering what I paid to renew my subscription. Nevertheless, the backlash is warranted. This reminds me of when Disney fired James Gunn over Tweets he’d apologized for years prior, as well as the backlash that resulted there. Ironically, that too happened when Trump was president. It also didn’t last long, as Disney immediately recognized their mistake and quickly made plans to remedy it. It also allowed Gunn to become an employee of Warner Bros. This sort of knee-jerk decision from Disney blew up in their face once before, so you’d think they’d have learned their lesson.

In the meantime, I’m not shocked by the aftermath. Nor do I think it’s unwarranted. Will the proposed boycott of Disney, and the subsequent decline in shares, make them reverse their decision? Considering Disney prides itself on their reputation, probably. At least, I’d hope so. The precedent’s there historically, and Disney knows this.

This is a case of jawboning on the part of Disney. It’s not censorship, as Trump didn’t make the decision for Disney, but it’s pretty close. And yes, jawboning’s a real word. It also is self-explanatory. Look it up.

By Disney jawboning Kimmel, they’ve made this leak into a massive fissure. And it’s entirely deserved. Ignoring how Disney can afford the financial losses, they’ve kowtowed to a politician who has thin skin. Disney can’t and shouldn’t pretend Trump won’t go after them at some point too, as he will. He’s that insecure.

I’m also worried about the state of late night comedy. Trump’s lashed out at corporate media outlets for criticizing him before, and he brought The New York Times to court for shedding light on his behaviour recently. Comedians, particularly political pundits, are supposed to ridicule and keep politicians in-check. It’s important for a healthy democracy, one Trump’s intent on ruining. Besides, who’s to say this won’t happen again?

I’ll end with a point of comparison: in 1985, during President Reagan’s inauguration, several comedians, like Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield, were brought in to roast the returning president. Some of their jokes were hard-hitting and personal, touching on Reagan’s stint as governor of California and his time as a Hollywood actor. But while Reagan could’ve been offended, he took it in stride. He was willing to laugh at his own expense, as he knew the importance of comedy. It pains me to praise him, considering how much damage he’d do to The US, but it highlights a stark contrast between Reagan and Trump. And if what happened to Jimmy Kimmel and Charlie Kirk is indication, it shows how far The US has fallen in 40 years. That’s more telling than anything anyone could say politically.

Stranger Than Fiction

I didn’t get into Stranger Things right away. Unlike most fans, it wasn’t until my former dental hygienist recommended it in 2017 that I caved, roughly several months after its second season’s conclusion. And because I’m not a big horror fan, I wasn’t invested that quickly. Nevertheless, there was something that grabbed me amidst the messiness of later seasons, something personal and grounded. So when I saw that Billiam, someone I’m subscribed to, was doing a retrospective on its “downfall”, I was dreading the worst. I don’t agree with everything he’s made, I’m not big on the Mission Impossible movies, but he’s an interesting commentator. Which is why his video, which I saw, was worth responding to.

I have nothing against Billiam. He’s entitled to feel like Stranger Things declined after Season 1, even if I don’t agree. Future seasons weren’t perfect, particularly the character assassination of Hopper in Season 3, and how Evan Rachel Wood received flak for criticizing that. Nevertheless, there was always something to come back to, particularly as someone who felt isolated and marginalized growing up. That’s always been the show’s anchor.

Season 2’s major thread, for example, was in the relationship Hopper and Eleven shared. Preteens aren’t easy to parent because they test boundaries, and Eleven’s a super-powered preteen with a literal way of thinking. So when she and Hopper butted heads over her freedom, it made sense that she’d run off. The episode where she met a fellow psychic and joined her gang is considered a low point for many, but the lessons and growth she experienced there came back into play in when she had to close the portal to The Upside Down in the finale. Plus, she and Hopper reconciled.

Season 3 took flak for making Hopper overly-aggressive, especially in how he treated Joyce and Will early on. I don’t like that, honestly. However, it’s not the main focus. The heart of Season 3 was Eleven and Max’s friendship, as well as Max’s rocky relationship with her stepbrother. It’s here we received a backstory for why Billy’s abusive, and by season’s end I felt bad for him. It also made his death at the hands of The Mind Flayer tragic, as it was how he felt he could make amends. I still can’t watch that without shedding a few tears.

Which leads to Season 4, a season I’ve covered already in a Top 15 list. It sucked that each episode was a movie-length event, but that gave the story time to unfold naturally. It also helped flesh out Vecna as a villain, including his four-twists-in-one reveal. I’m skeptical of most twist villain reveals, especially when done poorly, but this one had enough time dedicated to it that it didn’t feel out of place. It was also really creepy.

And now we’re getting Season 5, which promises to build off the cliffhanger of Season 4. Nevertheless, I think Billiam underestimates the show’s popularity. It’s Netflix’s biggest hit, and each new season feels like an event. It’s also not Game of Thrones, where the story ran out of material and spiralled into a black hole qualitatively. Stranger Things isn’t based on anything, and while it could always end up crashing and burning, that won’t sour fans of preexisting source material. The disappointment would land on The Duffer Brothers, who still care about something they created 9 years ago.

I know some of the lustre of Stranger Things disappearing is a result of events not within its control. Pandemic aside, the show has had its bumps over the years. And several of the faux-controversies the cast have been in, including Noah Schnapp receiving backlash for his statement on The Nova Festival Massacre, have made the conversation feel toxic. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still have fans. Because if the numbers are indicative, it absolutely does.

If Stranger Things has a flaw, aside from how Netflix has marketed it, it’s being a victim of its own success. Like WandaVision’s finale, which I loved, the premise was so good that there was no way anything could live up to it. But that’s an issue of expectations, not quality. Like The Dark Knight Rises, I believe people are missing out on what they got because of what they wanted. That’s not fair.

Could Season 5 still disappoint? Absolutely! I’ve seen franchises crash and burn many times! But I also think that doesn’t give The Duffer Brothers respect as filmmakers. They might not have made anything else since Stranger Things, intentionally or not, but that doesn’t discredit their work. If anything, considering how artistic burnout is real, that they still feel passionate and committed is impressive. Doubly so for the cast, many of whom have had careers because of it.

So yes, Billiam’s giving this show too little credit by saying that people’s adoration was past-tense. It’s not. The show has a lively fanbase that anticipates new seasons, however sporadic they are. And with the cast now outgrowing their roles, Joe Keery specifically, it’s fitting that this is the final season. Even if it sputters, it deserves closure.

The Anime Phenomenon

Recently my uncle shared an editorial from The New York Times about the Western anime boom. I can’t link it here, as I lack a subscription, but I was gifted access for my viewing pleasure. I especially liked how it combined Manga-style textboxes with .gifs to make the text pop. It also got me thinking about my experience with anime, as well as the impact it’s made on me. Because to say that it has is an understatement.

My exposure to anime, unlike many people, wasn’t instantaneous. It came in waves, with large gaps in-between ventures, and at times it was only a show or two. I also didn’t have access to Toonami growing up, hence my options were more limited than many Americans. It wasn’t until university, particularly my third year, that I started appreciating what anime had to offer, binging shows and movies through questionable sources. This was compounded by then-undiagnosed mental health issues, making discussing it a challenge.

There are many elements about anime, both good and bad, that I’ve noticed over the years. I’ve covered many of them on Infinite Rainy Day, but also discussed the odd piece on here. There’s too much to discuss, so I’ll zone-in on three aspects that sum up the experience. And no, the foreign aspect won’t be one of them. It’s a factor, but it’s not the definitive factor.

The first way involves expanding on the animated medium’s possibilities. In The West, animation’s still largely viewed as a kid’s art-form. This is a relic of the days when TV made animation cheap, with constantly-reused frames and stock backgrounds. Many syndicated shows and movies, therefore, looked like oversimplified, watered-down spectacles that appealed more to children than adults, the latter of whom were busy with work, family life and the threat of nuclear war. It’s silly in hindsight, but this can still be felt today.

While anime started as the Japanese equivalent of this, it quickly became more adventurous. Franchises like the Lupin III series, which is basically a hybrid of James Bond and Robin Hood, delved into violence and raunchy humour, tackling themes only present in Western animation in the underground scene. This provocativeness helped anime gain its footing in Japan, showing that it can appeal to adults. It also helped with its initial appeal in The West, catering to nerds desperate to feel “cool” and “edgy”. Whether or not that was good is debatable, but it helped with gaining an audience.

It’s also allowed for anime to test the waters in ways everyone else is only starting to. In my piece on KPop Demon Hunters, I stated that the movie feels radical to Western audiences, but only because we’re not used to storytelling like that. And yes, it was Korean-inspired. But plenty of in-between animation is done there, and there’s plenty of crossover in terms of style. I know it’s a generalization, but anime has the audacity to be more, well, audacious than Western animation.

The second feature is the attention to detail. Most anime is rendered at 12 frames per second instead of 24, and mostly due to budgetary concerns. Yet this clear handicap has made Japanese animators more visually-ambitious than many cartoonists stateside. It’s how a Studio Ghibli movie with a budget of roughly $50 million US can look so painterly and rich. Every frame counts, and anime’s no exception.

Despite this dip in fluidity, anime production is more detailed visually than most of what’s released here. Spongebob Squarepants can get away with quick gags, but it can’t disguise its limitations. Anime, however, frequently has details not normally present in the aforementioned series, including proper limbs and character features. It’s not 100% realistic, anime gave up completely emulating human details decades ago, but you can imagine the characters being real people in their shows. There are exceptions, though.

This attention to detail shows in how the characters move and act. They say the secret to animating a character is in their walk, as no two people move the same way, and anime embodies that even in cheaply-made shows. This is true of their movements and their injuries, as both are drawn to be weighty. In some ways, it adds to the immersion, something I picked up on as a young child watching Pokémon or Digimon. After all, it sucks being lied to, even in fiction!

The third way anime stands out is in its serialization. Western animation has only really caught onto this recently, but having a long-running story arc can make your audience feel invested. Even anime’s episodic shows have a continuity of sorts. And yes, that includes Pokémon. Who’d have thought?

Serialization gets overlooked when discussing anime as a medium. People, even kids, enjoy a story that spans multiple episodes. Whether or not these storylines drag is debatable, but not having everything wrap up in one episode is radical. It gives the viewer something to look forward to, anxiously awaiting what happens next. I know it does for me!

But that’s what anime, particularly shows, does best. And yes, often the shows aren’t terribly long, consisting of 13 or 26 episodes. Yet that restriction means being creative and making sure the stories have a beginning, middle and end. Spike Spiegel’s story in Cowboy Bebop has to be crammed into the escapades of The Bebop Crew, and each of his colleagues need their arcs concluded by show’s end too. Anime has shown plenty of creativity in spite of this limitation. It’s something Western cartoons can learn from.

These three attributes, in my mind, make anime unique and appealing. And yes, I recognize anime’s limitations. In particular, I find the over-exaggerated facial features characters sometimes use for comedic effect, known as “Manga Iconography”, off-putting, especially since the human body’s plenty expressive already. But that comes with being an anime fan, for better or worse, and it adds to its charm when done well. It’s also not a dealbreaker.

So yes, I’m glad that The New York Times can recognize the boom in anime’s popularity. That doesn’t mean that I want to subscribe to The New York Times, but I’ll take my victories wherever I can.

This Isn't Funny

(Note: The following deals with sensitive subject matter about a portion of the show at hand. Read at your own risk.)

I know The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya hasn’t exactly been relevant for years. I also know it’s weird to be discussing it now. To that end, blame my train of thought. Besides, what I’m about to discuss bothers me still. I’ve also wanted to update my thoughts on this for some time.

The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is a series that ran from 2006-2009 in Japan. Set in high school, it follows Kyon and his various escapades with a girl named Haruhi Suzumiya. Haruhi has all the hallmarks of a weird person: she spends most of her time daydreaming, she undresses in class, she has energetic outbursts constantly and she’s fascinated with the supernatural. When Kyon’s roped into her desire to start a club called The SOS Brigade, he realizes he might be in over his head with Haruhi. Especially since her behaviour crosses several boundaries.

This sounds like a cynical synopsis, but nothing I’ve said so far is false. Besides, it had a big fanbase for years, even inspiring a dance. It was also one of Kyoto Animation’s first success stories, and they’d make many more before an arson incident consumed their headquarters. Essentially, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya was everywhere for a while, even showing up at anime conventions. The 2000’s were an interesting time, basically.

I have nothing personal against Kyoto Animation. They’re not my cup of tea, but they built their reputation on consistent output. Plus, they were one of the few studios to employ a significant number of women in prominent roles, treating them with respect and paying them decently in an industry where that isn’t the norm. Kyoto Animation were trailblazers, so anything I’m about to say isn’t an indictment. We clear here?

I’ve never been big on this show. Even before I reconciled my personal trauma, the show’s stance on assault and infantilization of teenage girls never sat well. Unfortunately, saying that aloud for years warranted backlash. Even people who should’ve known better dismissed my concerns, claiming it “missed the point”. But did it? And is calling out the show’s humour that big a deal?

Perhaps the litmus test for my problems happens early on in the show’s run. There’s a scene where Haruhi decides that The SOS Brigade needs a state-of-the-art computer. She drags Kyon, and an insecure student named Mikuru Asahina, to the computer club to acquire one of theirs. When they refuse, Haruhi stages a faux-assault of Mikuru by grabbing their president’s hand, forcing it on Mikuru’s breasts and snapping photos to use as extortion. She then threatens the remainder of the club to keep their mouths shut, stating she’ll spread a rumour about them gang-raping Mikuru if they don’t comply.

On its own, this’d be disturbing. And in any other scenario, it’d be a horror story. But The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya plays this up for laughs, and Haruhi faces no accountability for her behaviour. Why? Why subject the show’s audience to this? What’s this trying to prove?

I know some people defend this as a commentary on how teenaged boys are taught to be passive. I don’t buy that. Firstly, what’s the source for that? And secondly, even if it’s true, why is this scene considered humorous? If Japanese men are “docile”, then wouldn’t this be framed as disturbing?

There’s also the implication that Mikuru’s purpose is to be humiliated and babied, as opposed to someone with wants and needs outside of Haruhi. This is made obvious not only in her speech, but also in how she’s animated. Despite being older than Haruhi, Mikuru’s framed as a child in every sense, and she’s treated like one by everyone else. Not to mention that Haruhi trots her around like her own doll, dressing her in revealing clothing constantly. It’d be upsetting if it weren’t depressing.

In a video on sexual assault from a while back, Jonathan McIntosh states that framing sexual assault from a female’s perspective doesn’t automatically invalidate the trauma it creates. Essentially, a woman assaulting a man, or even a woman assaulting another woman, isn’t automatically funny. After all, not all women are good people, and they can be violent too. So taking a male issue and flipping the gender roles doesn’t mean it’s not horrid.

I have several issues with McIntosh as an essayist, but he’s right. Haruhi assaulting and infantilizing Mikuru is still a problem. If anything, it’s more upsetting because Haruhi’s playing into a male fantasy. That no one calls her out for it, even other girls, is also a problem because it too plays into the male fantasy. It’s additionally ridiculous that Haruhi would get away what she does, even ignoring the power dynamics at play here.

Another defence used is that of “Japan being Japan”. “This is how Japanese people are!” Not only does that romanticize Japan, it’s incredibly racist. Japan might have different social norms than the West, but it’s still a society. And human societies have various issues, sexism being one of them. Besides, how do you know no one in Japan has spoken up about sexual assault? Do you have statistics?

The problem with the “Japan being Japan” claim is that Japanese people aren’t monolithic. And they do, in fact, listen to people outside their borders. This isn’t only true financially, but also artistically. It’s how one famous artist can get into trouble for Antisemitism, while another can get into trouble for calling people “too woke”. Saying that Japanese people are oblivious is insensitive at best and a lie at worst. It also doesn’t give them enough credit.

This extends to Kyoto Animation and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. Kyoto Animation may be comprised largely of women, but so what? Ever heard of internalized misogyny? It exists. Especially in a country like Japan, where gender parity’s a big issue.

I know I’m digging up old wounds, but this isn’t the hill worth dying on. You’re entitled to like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. I enjoy many pieces of media that are insensitive, and I’m not shy about that! But part of maturity involves recognizing the flaws and issues in what you’re watching. It also means knowing when to call them out. And it especially means learning to take criticism in stride.

In the end, I think it’s worth acknowledging that The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya glorifies assault and infantilizes young girls. Is it weird to drag a 19 year-old series into the mud now? Possibly. But does that mean it’s not worth criticizing? No! Because if we can’t critique art fairly, then how can we grow as artists? How can we improve?

Something to think about.

Understanding Pixar "Sequalitis"

If there’s any Western animation studio I can be accused of “shilling” for, it’s Pixar. I grew up with their movies, and I’ve enjoyed most of their output. Even now, new Pixar movies feel like an event, even if their teasers aren’t so great. It sucks that the studio has largely been on sequel autopilot since 2011, with original films few and far-between. It also sucks that the reactions to Pixar’s sequels have been divisive. Especially since they’ve been toxic.

There’ve been several videos discussing this, most-notably from a YouTuber named “Cartoonshi シ”, but I think my own take is warranted. Because while I agree that Pixar sequels haven’t been that bad, I’d go further. I think they’ve been largely excellent, showcasing world-building in ways only a sequel can. That’s what I want to zone-in on. So let’s do that.

Let’s get the main reason for division out of the way: expectation. Save Toy Story 2, Pixar sequels are never released within a few years of the original. Even the ones for Cars took at least 5 years, and those are considered Pixar’s worst. Generally-speaking, Pixar sequels debut many years later, leading to plenty of hype. In some cases, as with Incredibles 2, it’s overhype.

It's a problem. Sure, Pixar not rushing out sequels means they can take their time perfecting them. However, this also means that fans have too much time to be excited, which is dangerous when not checked by reality. When hype isn’t checked by pragmatism, it’s no wonder there’s disappointment. That’s unavoidable.

That said, I think it clouds people’s judgement. Sure, the movie was disappointing, but was it bad? Not necessarily. You merely have to adjust your expectations. It’s not like I haven’t been let down by movies that weren’t still good. I’m a fan of The Dark Knight Rises!

Because this is the internet, where hyperbole rules, people’s disappointment becomes extreme. It’s not enough that the movie’s disappointing, it has to be bad. It’s not enough that it’s bad, it has to be awful. And it’s not enough that it’s awful, it has to be horrendous! It sounds ridiculous, yes, but is that really far off?

This is especially true of Pixar films. Unfortunately, it also leads to nonsensical and nasty critiques that don’t hold weight: Bonnie gave up on Woody in Toy Story 4, leading him to “abandon his friends”? Never mind that it’s unrealistic for a 5 year-old girl to keep a promise to a stranger, the movie’s “bad”! The same goes for Finding Dory focusing on Dory finding her parents, even though it’s building on a throwaway line from Finding Nemo. And let’s not forget Incredibles 2 retreading plot beats from the first movie, despite having new ones surrounding Helen and Jack-Jack!

The tendency to over-exaggerate how bad the Pixar sequels are is worrying, and harmful, for public discourse. I’m not a blind defender of them, either. I wasn’t big on the sequels to Cars, and I think Monsters, University’s overrated. But I know they’re not the worst movies ever made. Gorgeous animation aside, they have strengths that make them worth watching at least once!

Such is the peril of being balanced online. I get being disappointed by a sequel. I also get being spoiled by time, something not exclusive to Pixar. But acknowledging that these movies are good despite their flaws makes me susceptible to hate and targeted harassment. It’s not helpful, and I wish it’d stop, even if I know it won’t. I can dream, though…

It's not worth the vitriol because these are movies, not political events. I’ve seen my share of really awful movies over my lifetime, some of which I’ve discussed in great detail. But while I loathe them, enough to feel intensely-negative reactions, I’ve learned that dedicating energy to hating them isn’t worth my time. And I’ve learned that through bad experiences and encounters.

So why can’t people do that with Pixar? My guess is that toxicity sells more than levelheadedness. But I also think there’s an element of “in-group, out-group” going on. Like how bigots marginalize people for followers and social credit, so to do in-group, out-group people. It’s easy to categorize people that way!

Nevertheless, it’s also reductive. You don’t have to like these movies. I’m not a fan of many popular movies too. But labelling Pixar sequel fans helps no one. Especially since they’re not that bad, they’re simply disappointments. That’s the key.

I think this was missing from Cartoonshi シ’s analysis. I get that not everything can be covered, especially in 20+ minutes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth talking about. Not when this kind of extreme backlash does a lot of harm. We need to be better than that.

Essentially, the toxic backlash toward Pixar sequels has to stop. You don’t have to like them. You don’t even have to think they’re good movies! But that’s no excuse to be jerks. Because they have good aspects, and it’s not the end of the world if someone likes them. I like them, even if I recognize that they pale to their predecessors.

Except for Toy Story 4. That movie’s fantastic.