Black Betty Boop

One of the most left-field bits of news in animation lately involves the announcement of a Betty Boop reboot. While reboots of classic IPs aren’t new, especially with animation, the twist here is that Quinta Brunson of Abbott Elementary fame is heading it. Yes, a 1930s IP is getting new life with a black actress. Surely that’ll be universally praised, right? Right?!

Since film discourse is plagued with bigots, despite claims otherwise, I’ll nip this in the bud now and discuss the elephant in the room: Betty Boop isn’t real. She’s a fictional character meant for kids and horny men to frequent the theatres during The Great Depression. She basically appeared in 90 shorts between 1930 and 1939. That’s it.

I’m aware Betty Boop was influential in animation, enough that many characters would be inspired by her. But has Betty Boop been relevant for decades now? Better yet, how many people alive know who she is? And don’t mention her cameo in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as a gotcha. That movie’s almost 40 years old, and it had Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse too. It’s also not the point.

Anyway, I don’t see this as a terrible idea. Betty Boop has been out of the cultural mindset long enough that reintroducing her could work. I’m not sure what kind of story could be told, but that’s why I’m not in Hollywood. And nor do I want to be. Regardless, I’m intrigued.

The “issue” will centre around race-swapping the character to match Brunson. As with any IP, the complaint will be that this is “cultural erasure” serving the “woke mind virus”. We’re seeing that with The Odyssey too. To that, I remind people that Betty Boop is fictional. She’s not a stand-in for a celebrity, so race-swapping her is fine. Especially when minorities are still underrepresented.

Ignoring that, wasn’t Betty Boop based loosely on black culture? I can’t verify this 100%, but I’ve read that her creators were inspired by a singer nicknamed Baby Esther. While Betty Boop’s design draws heavily from Jewish tropes, the Afro-centricity of her origins makes her a perfect candidate for Brunson. It’d also be interesting, especially if this movie takes place in the 1930s. The South had Jim Crow, but The North wasn’t exactly a saint either…

You know what else is worth mentioning? The racist caricatures of supporting characters. There are several instances of “Little Black Sambo” drawings in her shorts, and Betty Boop has engaged in cultural appropriation. In 1934’s “Betty Boop on Trial”, one of the characters even adopts blackface! But Brunson’s most-likely aware of this, so reinterpreting the IP might actually be good!

Outside of that, I find it upsetting and annoying that reinterpretations get slammed for race-swapping. We saw this with The Little Mermaid too, even though that remake’s problems had nothing to do with Halle Bailey. Simply put, people treat fictional IPs like gospel, and changing a character’s race is a crime. Equity be damned, how dare minorities get roles not meant for them? This is outrageous!

It’s here I ask that the complainers get a life. Betty Boop might not have originally been black, but there’s no rule saying she can’t be. Also, it’s not set in stone! This is one interpretation, much like how Velma was one interpretation of Velma Dinkley. The classic Betty Boop shorts, as well as any adjacent media, aren’t going anywhere. If you’re that bothered by a black Betty Boop, go watch them instead.

I also wonder why this is getting people riled up. Betty Boop hasn’t been culturally-relevant for almost 90 years. She’s not “dead”, even having an official VA, but as I said, when was the last time anyone cared about her? I only know of her because I like animation, and I haven’t watched her shorts. If you only became a fan of the IP now, then you need to grow up.

I know it’s a dramatic change to have a black Betty Boop. I also know it can be unsettling to those used to the status quo. But it isn’t worth spilling tears over, I promise. Not only is Brunson’s take not even out yet, we have no clue what the end result will be like. For all we know, it could be fantastic! However, in the event that it doesn’t come together, race-swapping won’t be why. We owe that much to Brunson.

Essentially, keep an open mind about this. Minorities regularly have an uphill battle with proper representation, or even any representation. And even when the end result is “bad”, it deserves to be on its own merits. There’s no reason we should be scrutinizing something because it’s race-swapped for a modern context. It’s not fair, nor right, to do that.

I think we should all take a step back and breathe. Betty Boop isn’t worth getting worked up over, and giving a unique take a chance could be beneficial. Or not, I don’t know. But we should be open to it. I promise you’ll be more fulfilled that way.

Or…you can continue whining about it. The ball’s in your court.

Batman & Superman

March marked the 10th anniversary of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Plenty has happened since then. A month after releasing, I became an uncle. Since then, my niece has had two siblings, while my brother has moved cities. On a grander scale, we’ve seen three presidential switch-overs, as well as many wars. We’ve outed many sexual predators, leading to a rethinking of how power operates. And we’ve had a plague, one we’re still feeling the impact of.

10 years might not be a long time realistically, but a lot can make it seem that way. It also means enough time has passed to start reappraising panned entertainment, of which this movie qualifies. And while some reappraisals are beneficial, such as Avatar and the Star Wars Prequels, I’m not sure this movie qualifies. Because while not the first entry in The DCEU, it was clear something was wrong with this franchise, enough that WB would be bought and sold several times, careers would be ruined and the perception of DC superheroes would be tarnished.

Basically, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice was the beginning of a long exercise in The Sunk Cost Fallacy, where even the occasional bright spots couldn’t salvage it. It brings me no pleasure saying this, since I like DC. I actually like their heroes more than Marvel’s, as they speak to universalist themes. So when I say that The DCEU was a mess, and Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice was a red flag, that hurts. It hurts because I never wanted that, and because I like these characters. It also hurts because discussing this movie has been draining.

We’ve seen the jokes about YouTuber Bob Chipman over-obsessing about these movies, but he raises valid points. Aside from it being his job, this franchise is soul-sucking. Also, no one, unless they’re sadistic, enjoys trashing movies. I don’t enjoy trashing movies, hence why I’ve largely stopped! But The DCEU, specifically Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, is an unusual case in that its discourse is toxic through osmosis. I haven’t seen the movie in its entirety, though I’ve watched clips here and there, but I feel its awfulness. It’s like how, despite being Canadian, I feel the energy of The US.

There’s been plenty of conversation about what doesn’t work: the jar of piss. Batman being The Punisher. Superman and Batman’s fight ending on the revelation of both characters sharing their mothers’ names. The teases for The DCEU’s future films. Even how unpleasant the movie is. This has all been talked about to death, yet I doubt it covers a fraction of the frustration.

This isn’t mentioning its critical reception and the cultural impact it’s made. And yes, time heals plenty of wounds. But has it healed this one? It might not be toxic to discuss nowadays, but that’s where the positives end. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t draining.

You know what the biggest indicator is? Every superhero movie adjacent to the IP has thrown shade at it. We saw that with Alfred’s monologue in The LEGO Batman Movie about Bruce’s emo phases. We also saw that with Batman and Superman hugging over their moms being Martha in Teen Titans GO! To the Movies. That future DC films were embarrassed to be associated with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is an indictment of its existence. Not even Deadpool’s that savage with The MCU.

I’m unsure what the future brings. While it’s easy to mock The DCEU, the world of entertainment is unpredictable. It’s possible the James Gunn-helmed DCU will one day bring back DCEU characters in the vein of Spider-Man: No Way Home, leading to reappraisals of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice from even the most-diehard detractors. But until then, I don’t think time has been kind to this movie. I don’t even think it was kind initially.

Additionally, careers have been ruined and stalled because of The DCEU. Zack Snyder went on a hiatus following his daughter’s suicide. Joss Whedon’s career imploded with revelations about his behaviour. Both Jared Leto and Ezra Miller have been outed as creeps, with Leto becoming box-office poison and Miller checking into rehab. Even “normal” people, like Ben Affleck and Ray Fisher, have made it clear that their roles were detrimental to their mental health. You can’t sugarcoat any of this.

I’m unsure what else to say. I know Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, like any art, has its fans. As a fan of the Star Wars Prequels, I get it. I also understand that these fans will go to bat for it, as I have for the Star Wars Prequels. But while said prequels have glimpses of potential bogged down by poor execution, I don’t think Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice has that luxury. I doubt it ever will.

In the meantime, perhaps it’s best if I don’t think too hard about this movie. Yes, it’s old enough to enter middle school. And yes, it destroyed WB. But no, that doesn’t mean I’m itching to watch it. I’ve seen and enjoyed plenty of bad movies, for many reasons. But I’m in no hurry to even watch this for a first time. You can blame that on its legacy, and how it’s toxic to think about. I hope that’s enough.

About Melissa Barrera...

The situation surrounding Melissa Barrera’s exhausting. I say that not because she did anything wrong, or because her situation is unique. Plenty of celebrities have done and said worse, many without consequences. However, her becoming the poster child for Palestinian self-determination and being the “perfect victim of cancel culture” is aggravating as a Jewish person burned by isolation brought on from October 7th and the invasion of Gaza. But let’s backtrack, shall we?

Recently, Variety did an expose on Barrera’s comeback after being fired from Scream 7. I’ve already covered my thoughts here, so I won’t go into too much detail, but I’ll admit that David Ellison jumped the gun. It’s to be expected, yet the ripple effects led to a massive derailment the end result never recovered from. Barrera, apparently, was blacklisted, with her talent agent dropping her and roles drying up. In short, her outspokenness for Palestinians cost her.

Variety has done exposes like this on people before, some more controversial than Barrera. (They did one on Hasan Piker a while back.) However, their refusal to push back on spicy takes is a problem. And nowhere is this more-apparent than their expose on Barrera. She’s not a loose cannon on par with Piker, but some of her thoughts feel disingenuous.

Perhaps this is clearest with her thoughts on Israel and Gaza. I know that’s become hot button issue, even at the expense of other conflicts, but Barrera repeatedly referred to Gaza as “an open air prison” and tokenized Jewish historians who called out Israel. These aren’t red flags alone, but the tokenizing of Jewish voices, even if they’re correct, is a problem. Jews aren’t monolithic, and it’s important to get varied takes on conflicts they agree with. Unfortunately, as with Jonathan Glazer, that’s not happening.

Anyway, Variety also mentions co-star Jenna Ortega. Ortega resigned from Scream 7 in solidarity, but Barrera didn’t have anything nice to say about her. I originally thought she was simply reaching for sour grapes, yet the expose suggests that Ortega might not have been the ally I thought. Fair enough. I still think it was rude to throw her under the bus, though.

I’d like to push back on Barrera feeling “isolated” over her views, however. She mentions there’s a sexist double-standard in Hollywood surrounding politics, with her and Susan Sarandon not getting away with what Mark Ruffalo and Javier Bardem do. It’s true, but gender alone isn’t an excuse for bigotry. Ruffalo and Bardem have tangoed with Antisemitism before, whether willfully or unintentionally, and they’re not the allies I’d want to have. Especially Bardem, who made his presentation on Best International Feature Film about Palestine while ignoring how one of the movies was about the Iranian regime at this past year’s Oscars. That level of disconnect made many Iranian expats quite angry.

Outside of that, is Barrera not aware of what many Jews have felt for almost three years? Without chastising her specifically, Jews in and out of Hollywood have been attacked by gentiles for existing in public spaces. Some have also been murdered, with activists finding ways to cheer on their murderers in the name of “justice for Palestine”. It’s frustrating because many of those Jews do care about Palestinians. You wouldn’t know that from how they’ve been pushed out of progressive circles, though.

Speaking personally, life hasn’t been peachy. My synagogue was shot at early one Shabbat morning, hence I can no longer access the main entrance. Security has also ramped up significantly. I’ve been scared to have my yarmulke visible in public spaces, lest I become a target. And I’ve been recording the posters and graffiti on my Friday routes that’ve been spreading pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda.

Whenever I mention this publicly, I’m gaslit and mocked. And yes, right-leaning Antisemitism’s dangerous, and many conservative pundits have been exploiting this uptick in vitriol for personal gain. I wasn’t born yesterday. However, at least they’re pretending to care. What’s your excuse?

Returning to Barrera, she mentions wanting to surround herself with pro-Palestinian voices from now on. What does that entail, I wonder? Will she box Hollywood talent into like-minded groups, weeding out those who don’t live up to her standards? Will she do extensive screening? And what’ll happen if said individuals disappoint her? Will she drop them completely?

Barrera’s remarks are a double-edged sword, made worse by the people she wants to work with. Susan Sarandon’s an obvious red flag, but Boots Reily wrote a dissertation online hand-waving Hamas’s Antisemitism. And Hannah Einbinder, who happens to be Jewish, signed a petition demanding The New York Times and other publications not document what Hamas did on October 7th. If Barrera wants me to feel bad about her, which I do, she’s not making a convincing case for herself here.

But that’s the problem: it’s easy to say that Barrera was wronged. I agree with that. It’s harder to sympathize with her going forward, though. Because remember, victims are people. And people often have flawed, unhelpful reactions to trauma.

I also don’t know if Barrera being the face of pro-Palestinian activism is a good idea. Palestinians have definitely received the short end of the stick, both from Hamas and Israel’s government, that much I can’t deny. But you can hear that directly from Palestinians, many of whom take issue with The West’s views on their government. Considering how celebrities co-opting a political cause also leads to gatekeeping, it’s something I’m not sure Barrera’s ready to deal with.

Does this mean she shouldn’t care about Palestinians? Of course not! I care about Palestinians, and I’m Jewish! But that’s being ignored because a Jew’s nuanced views on Israel isn’t something gentiles wish to hear. They see “Jewish” or “Israeli”, think “Zionist scum” and immediately disassociate altogether. That’s dehumanizing.

Perhaps I’m over-projecting my insecurities onto Barrera. I’m sure much of what I’m saying can be read into as such. However, this is a problem, and one that needs addressing. Because Israel isn’t going away. Nor are Jews. So while what’s happening in Gaza is horrendous, that reality should be acknowledged. I only hope Melissa Barrera understands this.

Streaming's in Peril?

Did you like Season 2 of Daredevil: Born Again? I did! I liked it more than Season 1, and I liked Season 1! And while it ended on an anticlimactic note, it clicked enough to be excited for Season 3. Because there’s definitely a Season 3 happening. The Wikipedia page confirms that.

Nevertheless, there was some disturbing news that recently surfaced. Luminate, which tracks analytics, revealed that Season 2’s viewership was down by almost half from Season 1. I won’t go into the details, you can read more here, but this is alarming for a series that’s been praised by critics and fans. Simply put, the audience is dwindling. That is worrying if you’re an investor, right?

I’d go on to spell out doom-and-gloom here, but I think an asterisk is necessary. Because it isn’t exclusive to this show. Streaming numbers are down all around, and it’s impacting everything. Basically, people are burnt out on streaming. That’s the real story here.

Which begs the question: what does it say about the landscape when the hot commodity’s drying up? Remember that “infinite growth” isn’t real. New formats and industries come and go constantly, and even within cycles there are ups and downs. However, since Disney recently gutted its home media division, that a Disney+ series isn’t showing the same returns is alarming. Is streaming in peril?

It’s also alarming because this is bleeding into movie releases. You know how The Mandalorian & Grogu is debuting at the end of this month? It’s already on track to under-perform financially. This is despite being the first Star Wars movie in 7 years. Not even the Sequel Trilogy did as poorly as this movie’s projected to. For a franchise that redefined the modern blockbuster in the 70s and 80s, that’s alarming. But that’s because audiences are so used to streaming they’re not in a hurry to see the movie on opening weekend.

This situation feels self-cannibalizing: physical media’s struggling, so people are turning to streaming. Streaming’s too expensive and oversaturated, so the audience retention’s dwindling. Even movies, once big events, are becoming less exciting as streaming’s catching up to theatres, and that in turn is making audiences hesitant to see new releases. Combine that with theatre tickets and concessions being expensive, as well as theatre experiences being less compelling, and-my God, that piece I wrote on Dune is getting too much exposure!

Nevertheless, this is a problem. I’m not anti-streaming, but shareholders in Disney+, Netflix and the like definitely need to adjust their expectations. It sounds harsh saying this, but growth isn’t forever. Sooner or later, your product will peak, plateau or diminish. In some cases, it might even disappear. That’s a sign for reinvention. As the saying goes, “adapt, or die”.

What now? I’m no stakeholder in Disney+, nor do I claim to be an expert, but I know that if a product’s peaking, that means its novelty’s wearing off. With Disney+, that couldn’t be clearer now. Does that mean investors should panic? Not necessarily. However, it does mean they need to be more realistic going forward.

Perhaps I’m biased because I’ve seen my own numbers plateau before. I’m fortunate that my Views are currently exploding, but that wasn’t always the case. There were months on end where I was struggling to get eyeballs on my work, and I still don’t know the secret to site traffic. But that’s okay. I’m writing this because I want to.

Now, does it suck when something I’ve worked on isn’t an immediate success? Yes. Do I wish some of my better pieces had gone viral? Again, yes. But since gaming the algorithm involves selling out, something I’m not comfortable with, I’ll take my successes wherever possible.

Not to toot my own horn, but shareholders in streaming, and those in theatres, should take a page from me. It sucks when investments plateau, but that’s not alarming. If anything, it’s an indication to keep making quality output. You might not get the gangbusters numbers you were hoping for, true. Yet many classics nowadays were initially “failures”. Life is like that.

As for Daredevil: Born Again? Be grateful it’s been well-received! And be grateful its second season is better than its first! Many shows lose steam over time, so that this is still relevant despite a viewership drop is a major accomplishment. Isn’t that what matters?

I can’t predict the future. I’m also terrible at reading trends. But while it’s disappointing that streaming isn’t the “forever cash-cow” investors were hoping for, that it’s done as well as it has for as long as it has is impressive! So much could’ve derailed it at any time, so that it’s maintained a level of consistency for this long is a testament to, at least for now, its staying power. I only wish we had options that weren’t needlessly-expensive or siloed to different platforms because of licensing agreements...

Basically, let’s not panic that Daredevil: Born Again has shed viewers. It was bound to happen, and I’d prefer quality output. I hope you do too.

LED the Way!

The most irritating aspect of film bro culture involves whining about old-fashioned film-making that went out of style: too much CGI nowadays? Practical stunt-work is often dangerous. Sex scenes are sterile? Many older ones were coercive. Digital film-making looks cheap? Real film-making is costly and erodes easily. But the complaint that bugs me most, enough that I’ve covered it before, involves lighting. Especially since I understand more about why modern films look “dull”.

Apparently, movies of the 1970s to 2010s used different lighting, thanks to old-fashioned light-bulbs. Once the world started using LEDs, and movies followed suit, the look of films changed. That shiny gloss we were accustomed to became what we have now. Makes sense, as LED bulbs are made differently. Unfortunately, many people started to notice, and they began complaining.

Here’s my counter-argument: grow up. Not only are LEDs cheaper, they’re more eco-friendly. While old-school light-bulbs had a certain feel, they also produced plenty of excess energy and heat. If you ever needed proof, recall what’d happen if you touched one by accident when it was on. Better yet, recall what’d happen if they came in contact with water. Old-school light-bulbs were “cool”, but they were also quite dangerous.

LEDs aren’t only less dangerous, they’re also more efficient. Yes, they give off “flatter lighting”. But if it means not burning or hurting myself, I’ll gladly take it. That matters more than if a movie lacks a classic feel. I’d hope that’d be common knowledge, but...

LEDs also aren’t as harsh on the eyes. Ever since I started wearing glasses, I’ve found that traditional light-bulbs jolt my retinas whenever they suddenly turn on. They also leave a glare that I still see for minutes afterwards. Much like the Sun, they even give me headaches when at full capacity. I don’t need that.

LED bulbs are easier to deal with. You can set the tint to any colour or brightness, but they don’t overwhelm my corneas. If that means they aren’t flashy, then guess what? It’s a trade-off I’m willing to make. That goes for films too.

Truthfully, this is the pettiest whining I’ve heard from film bros. And I’ve heard plenty! So what if films don’t look like conventional films? Modern movies also have sheens to compensate for digital film-making. Compare the original Indiana Jones movies to the most-recent ones. It’s as noticeable as the drop in the franchise’s quality.

I get it, you want to experience the films of yore, back when “movies meant something”. You want the pomp and circumstance of a simpler era. Sorry to burst your bubble, but life wasn’t simpler. You also have to stop living in the past. It’s that false nostalgia that’s led to many problems geopolitically.

You’re also not giving modern film-making enough credit. The barrier to entry is shrinking with each year, such that you can even make professional movies on smartphones. That wasn’t possible 20 years ago. Shouldn’t we be praising that? Why is it so scary?

There are definitely problems with the modern film industry. On the theatrical side, I’ve gone into depth about that in a previous piece. And I’m not alone! Steven Spielberg, Ryan Gosling and the CEO of Sony Pictures have all expressed similar frustrations as me about modern film-making! But they’re still engaging in the now. They’re doing it out of love for the industry, not to shamelessly project their insecurities onto it. I wish many film bros would do the same, however much it kills them emotionally.

Besides, old movies aren’t going anywhere! Sure, digital streaming has made preservation of media harder, which is depressing for many reasons, but older movies still exist. Many are even available physically for anyone to purchase, assuming that’s your jam! But for the love of God, stop complaining about newer movies! And stop complaining about their dull lighting! You sound old and cranky when you do that.

Here’s a rhetorical question for you: what does an ideal movie “look” like? I ask because people have different definitions of “ideal”, and no two responses are the same. But you know what? That’s okay! Movie consumption’s subjective, despite what I say here, lighting included. If you have a problem, you can always say so. I can’t guarantee I’ll be swayed, though...

Finally, we need to collectively recognize that the older ways have to stay in the past when they’re not working. Like the coercive sex scenes, dangerous stunt work and traditional film reels of yore, classic lighting should be acknowledged for the time period where it worked, not clamoured for in today’s day and age. It’s tough, but considering how ecologically-inefficient, and dangerous, old bulbs were, I’ll take the LED option any day of the week. We’re already doing a piss-poor job at stewarding the planet, enough that the future looks bleak for humanity, so take the wins wherever you can get them. I promise you won’t die sucking up your pride.

Disney's Mass Lay-Offs

I’m not sure if you noticed, but Disney recently laid off 1000 people.

This is my issue with At-Will Employment. I know it’s effective in removing bad employees, especially when they drag down production, but there’s no long-term job security guaranteed for anyone. Additionally, many of those who were fired had been there for over a decade, even helping to shape divisions like Marvel and Pixar. In fact, one person even mentioned that he was fired in front of a Loki mural he’d created. Talk about irony!

It sucks because I was defending Disney’s decision to axe a live-action Robin Hood remake a month ago. In that, I said the following about the company’s new heads: 

“…It’s possible they’ll disappoint, especially since they have to appease shareholders, but this is a step in the right direction…”

I didn’t expect Disney’s new CEO, Josh D’Amaro, to disappoint me this quickly! However, he did. It’s as if he took everything people were frustrated with Bob Iger over, particularly cost-cutting, and fast-tracked it. It’s even more harrowing when you consider that Disney laid off their home media division, which means they’re most-likely not going to have physical media releases anymore going forward. Smooth.

It’d be easy to point the finger squarely at Disney here, but this problem has been plaguing Hollywood for some time. Between financial straits, the rise in streaming and A.I., grunt workers are always the first to get squeezed. It doesn’t help that WB being purchased by Paramount indicates a lack of government oversight, especially given Paramount’s CEO’s attitude about Hollywood in general. We already saw that with the Scream franchise…

I’m getting off-track here. While it sucks that Disney laid off 1000 employees, it shouldn’t be surprising. Like I said, At-Will Employment allows for this! It also doesn’t guarantee job security, and you’d be foolish thinking otherwise. So while I wish those impacted the best, I’m not shocked. I’m frustrated, but not shocked.

You know what sucks more? The people at the top won’t be impacted. In a healthy work environment, the CEO would take pay cuts to retain workers. That’s what Nintendo did when the Wii U wasn’t panning out financially. However, loyalty to your employees isn’t something that exists in The West, so perhaps that’s unfair to mention. I wish it weren’t, though.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed if businesses didn’t consider their employees disposable. Yes, A.I. might seem like a good choice right now. And yes, cost-cutting is a real concern. But that shouldn’t mean gutting people who made you what you are. Disney didn’t become successful based on the decisions of one or two people. They became a juggernaut because of the grunt workers who brought their voices to the table, each and every one. Be it designers, marketers or idea people, these individuals all contributed. Letting them go like this, even if they’re going to be hired now on a per-need basis, is a slap to the face.

So what now? I don’t know. Disney’s made interesting creative decisions since this development, including re-releasing several classics in ASL, but that’s not enough to turn a blind eye. If anything, it feels like a distraction. And while it’s nice to see “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” in sign language, however difficult it must’ve been to animate, it leaves a bitter taste considering many of the people involved aren’t employed by Disney anymore, going by the timeline of this announcement.

It feels like I’m rambling here, but it’s only because I like Disney’s output. They’ve made and released some of my favourite movies, and they know how to weather storms. Buying and bankrolling The MCU has benefited that franchise immensely, and their investment in Star Wars has mostly paid off. Which is all the more reason why this sucks. Considering we won’t see the long-term impacts of these firings for several years, I also shudder to think what’ll happen creatively for them.

I’m not running a corporation, I get it. I don’t have to listen to shareholders breathing down my neck. But it’d be nice if the higher ups treated grunt workers with respect. Perhaps some are worth firing, but 1000 of them? And with short notice? Could there not have been one-on-one evaluations of their performances before making this decision? Or would that have been costly?

This’d also be less irritating if A.I. weren’t such a hot topic in Hollywood nowadays. I know it’s enticing, truly! But getting rid of people for it isn’t the answer. It’s also not cheaper, as we’re now learning. Besides, why fire someone and replace them with something that doesn’t create?

Disney, specifically D’Amaro, has lots of explaining to do. It’s possible D’Amaro’s the better choice to succeed Iger than Bob Chapek, especially given how that panned out, but this isn’t a good start. Companies act as though people are replaceable, and they might be, but this isn’t the answer. Especially since human labour’s the lifeblood of a corporation, whether they want to acknowledge it or not. I only hope Disney doesn’t learn this the hard way…

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...