Don't Tokenize Me!

While receiving his Oscar at the Academy Awards, director Jonathan Glazer said the following: 

“We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and The Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict…”

You can watch the full speech here, but Glazer’s words became a Rorschach test, with people on both sides of the political aisle weaponizing them. Unfortunately, that’s unhelpful because, despite Glazer later doubling down, it reveals how political discourse views Jews. Agree or disagree with Glazer, he’s an example of gentiles not understanding or appreciating Jews in the fight for justice. If anything, they care only to further their personal goals. That’s worrying.

I know some of you are feeling like I’m attacking you. I’m not. At least, not directly. Instead, I’m directing attention to something that’s bothered me for a while, yet has become increasingly aggravating post-October 7th, 2023 and Israel’s invasion of Gaza. It’s made having conversations online next to impossible, and it’s caused plenty of stress. It’s also reductive.

Jews are an ethnic minority. At roughly 16 million people, we’re .25% of the global population. That sounds shocking, as we frequently gravitate toward specific areas, but it’s true. We’re a minority. We simply are.

Additionally, we’re not monolithic. Ignoring religious observances, we’re diverse politically and culturally, as well as racially. We hold a vast range of beliefs and stances too. And some of us are ignorant or intentionally misinformed. After all, as human beings can’t be experts in everything. That’s impossible.

Basically, you can find a Jew, alive or dead, who agrees with you on anything. Jews are notorious for being opinionated and argumentative, as well as stubborn. We’re referred to as a “stiff-necked people” in our own texts, constantly causing trouble. Having thoughts is inherently Jewish, and it’s important to know when they’re harmful. Are we clear?

Why does the non-Jewish world not get this? Why are Jews tokenized to prove a point, even when it’s non-existent? I’d give an answer, but I’m not sure I’d be satisfied by it. Especially since pointing this out is grounds for debate. Do you want that?

Additionally, Jewish celebrities, especially in Hollywood, are often clouded by fame and wealth. Like anyone else, Jews having power frequently impacts their worldviews negatively. Also, look at how people talk about Jeffrey Epstein. It’s gross! And I’m not even a fan!

Unfortunately, tokenizing Jews is a favourite pastime of the politically-active. It’s gotten so bad that whenever it’s called out as “performative”, people inevitably come out of the woodwork and prove why that is. This is especially true of Israel, Antisemitism and The Holocaust, sometimes simultaneously. Consider how Jonathan Glazer’s words were received by the general public. Seriously, search his name online. I’ll wait.

What gets me going is that this is unacceptable. I know the internet loves being angry, but life isn’t the internet. Life is messy, frustrating and lacking of easy answers. I’ve written about this before, but not everything fits your worldview. It’s important to understand that.

This leads me to the current situation in Gaza. On one hand, discussing Israel’s actions is important for many reasons, most-notably because they highlight how Palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick in political conversations. On the other hand, generalizing isn’t helpful. Israelis, even soldiers, are as flawed as any other human beings, and ignoring their humanity is also tokenism. Except that this is worse, as you end up dehumanizing them.

Whenever I bring this up, people try to prove me wrong or twist my words. Sometimes, they’ll even use a famous, dead Jewish person to prove their point. That too is tokenism. It’s also disrespecting the dead. Because why think critically when you can use a Holocaust survivor to shame Jews?

Since I’ve already gotten people riled up, here are some more points I wish to mention:

Firstly, The Neturei Karta are terrible allies in fighting against Zionism. Not only have they been excommunicated by most Jewish sects, they don’t even believe what they say. They’re also not anti-Zionist, but rather anti-secular Zionist. They’d drop gentiles in a heartbeat once The Messianic Age arrives, as that’s the Zionism they aspire to. You’d be better off listening to groups like Satmar, as they practice what they preach.

Secondly, one famous Jew doesn’t the collective make. Jonathan Glazer having an opinion on Israel, however valid, doesn’t mean he’s the de-facto expert. It might be true that Israel’s current government has weaponized The Holocaust. But so has much of the gentile world while advocating for Palestinians. Considering Palestinians are also people, that’s dual-tokenism. People need to do better.

And thirdly, tokenizing a Jewish voice is Antisemitism. It’s also “court Jew ally-ship”, and it’s not helpful. I know calling out Antisemitism is difficult, but don’t do that. Especially when said Jews are wrong. I shouldn’t even have to point that out!

I know discussing Palestine is trendy. I also know that Palestinians have had their voices suppressed for a decades. But picking and choosing Jewish voices isn’t the answer. That’s performative ally-ship. It’s also Antisemitism. And it’s tokenism. You need to do better.

That’s about all I can say here. My next piece will be lighter in tone than this...

They're About WHAT?!

I was initially going to discuss Disney laying off 1000 employees. I still want to at some point, but something else came up that was more pressing. Jonathan McIntosh, host of YouTube channel Pop Culture Detective, released a short video on a left-field topic. In it, he discussed the possibility that both Superman and Zootopia 2 are Palestine allegories. I’m as shocked as you are.

I don’t mind McIntosh’s work. Like Anita Sarkeesian, he holds a valid space in pop culture discourse. I don’t agree with everything he says, but every so often he posts something that gets me thinking. I’ve even mentioned one of his videos in another piece. So what I’m about to say isn’t a critique of him in general.

That said, he’s reaching.

Honesty time: Palestinian self-determination matters. For as much as Palestinians have gotten the raw end of the deal, they’re human and deserve the same basic dignities as other humans. I don’t consider them monolithic either, and there are voices within their ranks worth listening to. However, The West has largely used them as pawns to further their own goals. And nowhere is this more-apparent than the aforementioned claim.

When you stop and think about them, even for a minute, the parallels fall apart. For Superman, which I’ve covered before, the people of Jarhanpur being Palestinian stand-ins, while cute, doesn’t work because they could be any number of minority groups screwed by neighbouring powers: Armenians and the Turks. Rohingyas and Myanmar. Indians and Pakistanis and the British Empire. The list goes on.

Boravia doesn’t fit neatly with Israel, either. Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu sucks, preferring to flex his ambitions over leading his people. And yes, Israel’s an American ally. But Boravia’s leader isn’t a 1:1 parallel, since Israel, while badly carrying it out, didn’t invade Gaza for no reason. It did so to eliminate Hamas and prevent another October 7th.

Zootopia 2’s parallels fall even flatter. For one, Israel wasn’t built on “stolen land”. Jews lived there for millennia, predating Palestinians. And two, the situation between Israel and Palestine is a byproduct of European interference, notably Britain and The USSR. Britain chopped up what they acquired from The Ottomans haphazardly, completely ignoring the people living there already. Meanwhile, The Soviets were willing to weaponize Arabian nationalism against the Jews as “punishment” for not living up to their Socialist ideals, even creating the Palestinian identity.

This isn’t to diminish the power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians, particularly regarding settler violence. Nor do I wish to diminish how Israel’s current coalition has passed laws making the lives of Palestinians unbearable. This is real, serious and worth addressing. But claiming that Israelis “stole the birthright of” and “exiled” Palestinians misses how the Palestinian leadership has thrown them under the bus repeatedly. Not to mention, Palestinians have been persecuted by Israel’s neighbouring countries for roughly as long as Israel’s been independent.

I haven’t even mentioned how the Palestinian leadership isn’t the peaceful entity people believe. And yes, “The Death of the Author” is real. But so is reading into what isn’t there. It might feel good to make these parallels, but unless they hold up to scrutiny, they’re essentially head-canons. They’re not reality.

The parallels between Season 3 of The Mandalorian and the Jewish struggle in history are weightier anyway. Think about it: an exiled creed of warriors fight to reclaim their ancestral homeland from an imperial army. Sound familiar? I can go on all day here with examples, but it’d be redundant. Especially when I’ve already done that.

However, even those parallels have holes, particularly in how Mandalorians serve as mercenaries. Comparing them to Jews on that front sells Jews short. Besides, Star Wars, like Superman and Zootopia 2, is fiction. It might have real subtext, but that’s good storytelling. It’s not an absolute parallel.

By making flawed parallels like this, you not only miss the actual text, you also miss how the text can represent other conflicts too. Because that’s the beauty of fiction: it doesn’t have to be about a specific event. It can be about many, vastly different events. By rooting fiction in a specific event, you inevitably date it. Unless that’s what you’re going for…

I want to circle back to a specific point McIntosh brings up: that anyone calling out these reads is a conservative reactionary. That’s false. It’s actually offensive that he’d insinuate that, as Jewish history isn’t “inconvenient” when it doesn’t fit a narrative. History can’t be boiled down that way. McIntosh should know better, and I’m disappointed.

I know Palestinian identity gets the short end of the stick, even now. And I know people have gotten in trouble for expressing solidarity, whether legitimately or illegitimately. But geopolitical conflicts, particularly ones with history, can’t be boiled down to “right and wrong”. It’s reductive, and it’s a Western way of avoiding accountability for adding fuel to the fire. It also ignores nuance. So please, try to do better. I promise you’ll understand the world more effectively.

As for Jonathan McIntosh? I’ve said my piece. He’s entitled to feel what he feels, and I don’t begrudge his analysis. But he’s really off-base. That doesn’t mean I won’t watch his videos, but perhaps he’s bitten off more than he can chew here? I think so.

When Heroes Age...

One of the difficulties of serialization is the passage of time. On one hand, franchising’s profitable and allows for multi-film storytelling. On the other hand, actors age. And while Hollywood tries slowing down and reversing aging, making it a multi-billion dollar industry, you can only delay it so much. Additionally, the camera doesn’t lie, and audiences take note.

In recent years, there’s been an attempt to try and work around this. Known as “the legacy sequel”, these movies use stars aging as a way of passing the mantle to newer, younger generations. However, like any gamble, it doesn’t always pay off. And sometimes it can be divisive, as in the case of two IPs with entries released in The 21st Century. They’re also Lucasfilm IPs that purchased by Disney that’ve accrued massive backlash because of decisions fans have deemed “incorrect”. But is that backlash warranted?

The first of these franchises is Star Wars. Ever since Disney purchased it in 2012, it was inevitable that they’d milk the property for all it’s worth. It makes sense, as Star Wars has plenty of potential for serialization. However, there were early growing pains here. And nowhere was that more apparent than in The Sequel Trilogy spanning from 2015 to 2019.

I don’t need to go too in-depth here. Despite two of the entries being critical darlings, longtime fans remain divided. This division centred on many areas, but chief among them was Luke Skywalker. Luke, according to canon, had become a hermit who rejected The Force after failing Ben Solo and accelerating his turn to The Dark Side. When Rey attempted to have him confront The First Order, Luke was resistant and resentful. It was only after a conversation with Force Ghost Yoda that he projected his essence, apologized to his nephew and faced down The First Order.

While a unique and bold take on the “elder mentor” trope, many fans weren’t happy. Some considered it a “betrayal of what Luke Skywalker stood for”, claiming Disney had “murdered Star Wars”. I definitely think it’s dark and risky, but it does fit in with Luke’s human side. After all, Luke in the original films wasn’t flawless. He was whiny for two whole movies, even confronting Darth Vader before he was ready and losing his hand. And while he matured for the finale, he also snapped and nearly killed Vader because Vader had threatened to harm Leia.

Essentially, Luke wasn’t the pariah people remember him as. This is especially true because Luke didn’t even end up trying to murder Ben. He felt the urge, let it pass, and was unfortunate enough to have Ben sense it. It was a moment of weakness, and a failure of restraint, but it, while clunky, adds layers to his confrontation with The First Order and ultimate redemption. Isn’t that what good character writing’s about?

I know I’ll probably get crap for saying this, but this backlash, aside from being partially walked back with the next film, led to the Darktrooper hallway fight in The Mandalorian. That’s a fun moment, showcasing Luke’s strength in his prime, but it’s not new for Luke. It’s not new period, being a retread of Darth Vader’s massacre at the end of Star Wars: Rogue One. And while it’s cool to see Luke fight enemies not even Dinn Djarin could take on, the lack of new material is concerning. Why are we opposed to Old Man Luke being a regretful hermit, yet find this exciting?

I like Disney’s Star Wars content. I like Star Wars in general, even when I’m lukewarm on it. Jedi Master Luke Skywalker massacring Darktroopers is fun, and on some level satisfying. But Old Man Luke Skywalker going from jaded mentor to Crait hero is more fun, because it’s grounded in character growth. It also allows Mark Hamill to flex his acting chops in an age-appropriate manner. Because he’s getting older.

On the flip side, there’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which I watched for this piece. I’ve made known my thoughts on the Indiana Jones movies before, but this installment, more than any other entry, tackles how its star is getting older. Harrison Ford was 81 years old when it debuted, and Indy’s age is a primary focus. The film even uses de-aging technology for the flashback scene in the beginning. Said flashback doubles as the opening act.

I won’t discuss the Uncanny Valley aspect of seeing a young Harrison Ford with an older Harrison Ford’s voice. Plenty of more accomplished individuals have done that justice. However, tying in Ford’s advanced age in general with a commentary on Indiana Jones was wise. Without sounding too ageist, there are some stunts Ford can’t do anymore. That’s not to diminish how much he loves this character, but he needs to acknowledge his limitations.

Perhaps the best example is when he and his goddaughter, Helena Shaw, are climbing a cliff and Indy starts complaining. He states that he has a metal plate in one leg and screws in the other. He also points out that Helena is “half his age”, a subtle jab at youthful vitality. Here, the film interrogates if Indiana Jones still has what it takes. Should he persevere, or hang up his hat?

This movie would’ve been a great vehicle for Helena, but there’s a problem: she’s not likeable for most of it. She flip-flops between two modes: smarmy know-it-all, and obnoxious show-off. I don’t blame her actress for this, either. Phoebe Waller-Bridge co-wrote No Time to Die, and she was great as L3-37 in the Star Wars franchise. She does her best here, but she can’t save the character. Not even in the finale, where she and Teddy are forced to play hero.

It’s a shame because the movie isn’t even that bad. It lacks some of the franchise’s more overtly-racist overtones, and director James Mangold definitely cared while making it. Considering Steven Spielberg has admitted that his heart wasn’t really in it with the previous entry, that passion’s an asset. But it’s not enough. Not when your co-lead isn’t fun for most of your runtime.

The blame doesn’t lay on Harrison Ford either. Despite his age, he clearly still cares. But people picking on Ford’s age, especially when he’s not ready to give up the mantle, is a problem. De-aging software’s getting better every day, but is it enough? And will it ever give the authentic performance of a real actor?

I know the solution for many people is to do what Star Wars did: have a younger actor as a stand-in, then graft Ford onto the body. After all, punching Nazis is entertaining! But while this sounds fun superficially, it rings hollow and might even be objectionable. Because getting older is interesting. Staying youthful forever, however, isn’t.

If an actor wants to age out of a character, it should be their decision. Let them leave naturally, as opposed to CGI continuing it indefinitely. Because the audience knows. Executives can claim otherwise, but you can’t fake authenticity. It doesn’t matter how much digital makeup you cake on.

That’s really the dilemma here: what’s the appropriate way to be respectful to aging action stars? Better yet, what’s the appropriate way to be respectful to aging actors, period? People don’t live forever, and part of the fun of life is growing older. Besides, the character of Peter Pan, while beloved, was meant as a cautionary tale. Unfortunately, many people don’t heed that warning. And it’s a shame.

If all else fails, I guess Blade Runner 2049 shows how to properly tackle this approach. Seriously, give it a watch. It’s that good! And if you’re disappointed? Well, at least it respects its aging star, right? I think so.

Best. Passover. Tradition.

Let’s get this out of the way: The Prince of Egypt’s a Jewish movie, not a Christian one. There are universalist themes of freedom and faith present, and I have no qualms with Christians taking something from it. But it’s a story from The Torah, the vision of Jewish artists and was meant for a Jewish audience. Considering how many Christian-centric movies and shows there are, we Jews are entitled to claim this as our own. It’s why I’m convinced Season 3 of The Mandalorian’s Jewish-centric subtextually.

The Prince of Egypt’s one of my favourite animated films. Its ambition sometimes overrides its narrative, but so did The Ten Commandments. And that’s considered a classic. Though if we’re being honest, I like The Prince of Egypt more. Yes, those are fighting words. We can take this outside...

Every time I watch this movie, I notice new details. It wasn’t until I was a teenager that I understood the Hebrew words Yocheved speaks in “Deliver Us”. As an adult, the movie’s subtext became more apparent. Late-20s me recognized its musical motifs, as well as how they’re used for effect. Even now, I appreciate the setups and pay-offs to side-character beats, even if they seem insignificant. I’m sure I’ll appreciate more details in 5-10 years.

There are many behind-the-scenes stories that are equally as interesting. I know it pioneered plenty of CGI backgrounds that’d later become the norm. I also know animators who fell behind were sent to work on Shrek. And I know Steven Spielberg wanted to make this movie for close to a decade, being held back by technological limitations. There’s so much about the production that, like Jaws, is more interesting than the movie. Except that I love this movie anyway.

I appreciate the use of Hebrew for certain verses in “Deliver Us” and “When You Believe”. I don’t like how there are direct inferences to God’s spoken name, especially given Judaism’s stance on that, but it adds an authenticity that you wouldn’t get otherwise. I love how Israeli singer and activist Ofra Haza voiced Yocheved. Considering she died of AIDS due to a blood transfusion, this is her legacy. I can’t imagine anyone else as Yocheved.

This movie’s subtext is striking and bittersweet. This is a Biblical story, but it’s also a human one. It’s the tale of two brothers torn apart by destiny. In Moses’s case, he’s pitted against Ramses in order to free the Hebrew slaves. This could’ve been an old-fashioned, operatic tale of good versus evil, but it’s much more. Instead, it feels like a modern tragedy.

This is best reinforced in how Ramses lets the Hebrews go. In the original text, it’s only after a series of false promises that Moses wins, and only through exhausting Ramses. Here, Moses only wins because he’s broken Ramses emotionally. It’s not triumphant, but rather quiet and sad. Moses even cries afterward.

I know YouTuber Lindsay Ellis has taken issue with The Prince of Egypt because of this. It’s hard not to sympathize, especially since God in this movie does some heinous stuff. It’s also hard not to empathize because, at least theoretically, Jews aren’t supposed to be vengeful. We see this in spilling the wine while mentioning The Plagues at the Seder; after all, human beings suffered! In that sense, I can’t fault Ellis.

While I can’t offer a satisfactory answer, as Scripture’s laden with violence and brutality, I do think this is a worthwhile movie. Besides, questioning this is healthy. If you’re not questioning your Judaism, you’re being Jewish incorrectly. After all, the original name for Jews, Israel, comes from the phrase “to struggle with God”. So this is normal.

And as for pay-offs? There are plenty. I appreciate how every detail in the story, including what each slave looks like, loops back at some point. Even the comedic goofs, like The Sphinx’s nose breaking during Moses’s and Ramses’s race, serve a purpose. They’re not all great pay-offs, but they’re definitely pay-offs.

I also, and this feels indulgent, appreciate the use of shoes. Most of the Egyptians wear gold-crusted sandals, while most of the Hebrew slaves are barefoot. Even Moses loses his sandals as he becomes in-tune with his roots, perhaps symbolic of his intimate connection with God. Little details like that don’t seem important narrative-wise, but they feel important thematically. Especially since shoes were considered a sign of wealth back then.

If I have any complaints, aside from overusing “When You Believe” in family gatherings, they’re minor. Like how the inclusion of a Boyz II Men song in the credits dates the movie. Or how some of the background animations feel constrained by the limitations of the times. Or even how most of the voice actors are Hollywood celebrities who aren’t Jewish. But none of these are deal breakers.

It’s a shame The Prince of Egypt wasn’t an immediate success. Sure, it was well-reviewed. And sure, it’s gained a cult following of dedicated fans. But initially it under-performed financially, forcing DreamWorks to rethink their strategy for success. Not even winning an Oscar at the 1999 Academy Awards could fix that. So while they’d hit their sweet spot with Shrek in 2001, this movie remains a “what if?” for the studio.

It also makes me pine for other Biblical epics. I know Hollywood’s averse to Biblical epics that aren’t Jesus or Exodus-related, but those feel cliché at this point. If Noah’s any indication, there’s potential for other stories to be told. Think of a Jericho movie, or an Esther movie, to name a few! They’re violent, especially near the end, but the possibilities are endless!

I guess I’ll have to settle for what exists, however. Even if it’s only Jesus and Exodus stories. I hope they’re not as bad as The Passion of the Christ and Exodus: Gods and Kings, though. The former was an exercise in religious torture porn, and the latter? Oh geez! As if I had further reason to never see another Exodus adaptation, right?

So yeah, that’s my take on The Prince of Egypt. Have a Happy Passover.