Will's WHAT Now?!

I’ve been enjoying Stranger Things 5. Yes, it continues the tradition started by the previous season of overlong episodes. Yes, some of the intimate moments are drawn out. But the stuff that works? It works! This might have some of the best character moments of all the seasons. And nowhere is that apparent in a scene that has fans upset, for some reason.

By the way, spoiler warning.

In Episode 7, Will reveals to his mom, Joyce, that Vecna preyed on him while having him spy on Max. Initially, Will’s vague, only sharing his general fears and anxieties. However, he quickly decides to drop the act and become honest. He asks his mom to gather everyone, then spills truths about his interests. He concludes by confirming what most have have known for years: he has no romantic interest in girls. It’s genuinely emotional and cathartic, and everyone’s surprisingly accepting.

Unfortunately, people watching the show didn’t feel the same. As of me writing this, this is the lowest-rated episode in the show on IMDB, lower than Episode 7 of Season 2. Far be it for me to tell people their opinions are wrong, as art is subjective, but I have to wonder if Will coming out as gay struck a nerve. Because if it did, I wonder if the internet’s okay.

I’m not saying this to shut out people’s feelings. I used to think that queerness was overexposed too, so I’d be hypocritical. However, that was a decade ago. I’ve grown and matured since my mid-20s, with newfound appreciation since for concepts and ideas that sounded foreign to me. This is one of them.

Will isn’t even the first queer character in the show. Robin came out to Steve in Season 3, and we haven’t thought less of her. If anything, her being a lesbian, while not initially in the script, was a positive change, allowing Steve and Robin to grow beyond romance. Will being gay, therefore, isn’t so radical. That needs stressing.

It’s worth noting that Will coming out in a show that occurs in the 80s was a huge risk. We take it for granted, but there was social stigma in the 80s that made being gay difficult. It didn’t help that AIDS was seen as “the gay virus” that “punished immoral sex” by those in power. Coming out was dangerous, and Will’s decision could’ve blown up in his face. That it didn’t is a testament to this show’s writing.

Besides, why is this shocking? Will’s been teased as gay since 2016, with Mike unintentionally spelling it out in Season 3. This isn’t news. If anything, it’s an overdue revelation. Considering Will’s actor, Noah Schnapp, is gay, even crediting Will for helping him feel comfortable with that, that’s doubly-cathartic. Don’t we want that?

I’m curious if those who are upset, aside from being homophobic, have had to share something this difficult before. Coming out is hard. We don’t think it is, but people often risk isolation from family and friends, especially in traditionally-minded circles. And with several global governments regressing on this issue, thanks to their leadership, the fight for acceptance isn’t over. Therefore, it’s important that entertainment, which helps normalize acceptance, has people coming out still.

It also bothers me how people don’t want sincerity in entertainment because “it ruins the immersion”. I like The MCU, even defending its recent output, but its tongue-in-cheek style of writing, which Stranger Things has to an extent, doesn’t translate to every franchise. Even within The MCU, there are moments of genuine sincerity, which is why the franchise has endured. Basically, sincerity isn’t bad in storytelling. Especially when it leads to powerful moments.

I get why this is jarring in a horror franchise, but good horror is about drama. Horror’s only as effective as its characters, as they could be in danger at any moment. The more attached you are, the scarier it is when someone’s in trouble. And since many horror stories have queer coding or subtext, a main cast member being gay shouldn’t feel out of place in Stranger Things. Especially when this isn’t the first time.

There are little details that make this scene really powerful. Like how Will acknowledges how similar he is to everyone by listing off his likes. Or how Robin’s moved the most, having indirectly coached him in an earlier episode. Or how everyone’s so accepting, even hugging him. This is excellent character writing and storytelling, so why is it an issue?

That this particular episode’s getting slammed is baffling. I wasn’t against Episode 7 of Season 2, but I get its divisiveness. Episode 7 of Season 5, however, I don’t get the hate for. At all. If anything, the backlash is petty.

If Will coming out bothers you, especially when it’s been hinted at for years, then I think that says more about you. You’re entitled to not like the pacing, or to think the show has “lost its way” (whatever that means). But acting like a character confirmation hurts the show, especially when it’s not a revelation, is offensive. Gay people deserve better. It sucks that that needs reiterating in 2025.

I’m not claiming that this season doesn’t have its issues. Despite my biggest counter-critique of detractors being that Stranger Things’s major flaw is becoming too popular, it’s not perfect. I can argue how the horror aspect still works, or that the writing’s still strong after 9 years, but that’s all subjective. Being homophobic, however, is much harder to accept. Because it’s mean-spirited, and it’s time we moved on.

On Tylor Chase...

I don’t normally write pieces like this. Not only do I not celebrate Christmas, I’ve made my feelings known about the holiday in the past. However, I’m making an exception. I’m making it because it touches on something I think more people should be made aware of. Here goes:

It was recently revealed that former child actor Tylor Chase, who was a recurring character in Ned’s Declassified School Survival Guide, has been begging on the streets. He’s homeless, scruffy-looking, unclean and not well mentally. After a video of him went viral, several former child actors decided to help. Among them was Daniel Curtis Lee, who played Cookie in the same show. Lee got him a hotel room, food and embraced him with a hug. It’s heartbreaking, no doubt.

It’s also a truism of many former child actors. Hollywood isn’t kind to rising stars, and especially so to child actors. It’s gotten better in recent years, but there’s still a long way to go. It’s a shame, as children deserve respect, especially as their prefrontal cortexes are still developing. So that they routinely suffer from mental health issues later in life is a damning statement about the film industry.

While Chase’s situation seems to have a happy ending right now, many stars haven’t been as fortunate. Jackie Coogan aside, the late-Judy Garland suffered from abuse well into adulthood, dying from an overdose in her 40s. Edward Furlong spiralled out of control and became unemployable. And then there’s Drew Barrymore, who had to leave her abusive mother before she could actually heal. Chase is one of many who’ve struggled with transitioning to adulthood.

I don’t want to judge Chase’s situation. His parents have already said their piece, and I’m no expert. However, as someone who’s had PTSD-related trauma of his own, Chase, even if he’s “bad with finances”, deserves some level of decency. And from what I’ve seen online, there are many people who don’t appreciate the struggles of homelessness. Because they’re real, and they’re not fun.

Most people don’t choose to be homeless. Homelessness results from many factors, including evictions, substance abuse, family drama and disabilities. As someone who struggles with money and independent living, I’d probably be in a similar situation as Chase if I didn’t have a great safety net. I’m incredibly blessed to have that. Especially since life hasn’t always been kind.

I wish more people, particularly those in power, understood this, but they routinely bury and criminalize the problem. Whether it’s government supports not covering the full cost of living, employers discriminating against the disadvantaged or institutions being rude to panhandlers, it feels like the system’s stacked against struggling individuals. It’s heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking because it shouldn’t have to be like this, and it’s heartbreaking because there are ways to minimize these situations.

One of the suggested ways to help people like Chase is raising tax rates on the 1%. I’m not an expert in economics, but it often feels like the wealthy only help the disadvantaged if it benefits them personally. By getting the wealthy to pay more, their taxes can subsidize affordable housing, meal plans and mental health services, all of which help prevent homelessness. And yes, there are no 100% foolproof options. But attempting to fix this problem is better than ignoring it.

Either way, Tylor Chase needs help, not condemnation. He’s had a rough go, and judging him isn’t helpful. I also think filming him for clout doesn’t help, but that’s a different issue. Because at least he’s getting support from his peers. He needs it, even if there’s a “reason” he’s homeless.

Nevertheless, we should be more compassionate to the needy, especially during the holidays. Christmas, despite my grievances, is about giving and making connections. Sure, the over-commercialization, as well as the debates about “The War on Christmas”, can be really exhausting, but the sentiment remains. Basically, don’t shut your heart out to the Tylor Chases in this world. They’re still human beings.

And to those who’d claim it’s Chase’s fault that he’s in this situation? Give it a rest. Life is tough, and not everyone’s fortunate enough to be well-off. If you judge someone homeless, and all without getting to understand their situation, then I think you’re a cold-hearted sociopath. That, or you’ve never experienced genuine hardship before.

There’s a reason I give money to people on the streets. Not only do I feel like I’m scraping by financially, hence having the right headspace, but I also don’t need the extra change. Besides, what would I use it on? Junk food? I have cards for that. And yeah, maybe I’m “encouraging” this behaviour. I honestly don’t care.

I’m hoping that Chase’s situation alerts more people to the homeless crisis. Does it suck that it took a former celebrity to open the conversation up? Yes. But if it gets people talking about Hollywood’s treatment of child stars, the indifference we have to homelessness and the ways that we can help those who are less-fortunate, then guess what? It’s worth it. Isn’t that what we want?

Happy Holidays, and may Tylor Chase receive some closure.

Fire and Rage

I saw Avatar: Fire and Ash in theatres.

Before you make a snide remark, I don’t want to hear it. At all. This has gotten so toxic that it’s not fun having a conversation about the films. And before you chalk that up to online, it’s bad offline too. I have a life outside my computer.

I know I came off strong, but I’m not sorry. Because it’s genuinely how I feel. After 16 years of people calling the first movie overhyped, then acting like no one cared, then claiming it was overrated once nostalgia kicked in, I’m sick of listening to the same, hackneyed complaints dressed up to look new. It’s exhausting. But it doesn’t seem to be going away, with people making it everyone else’s problem with each new entry.

I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve had. I’ve been timed out of internet servers because I wouldn’t sit back and tolerate it. I’ve also yelled at people offline, though that’s something I don’t need to get into here. The bile and energy over an environmentalist theme park ride, albeit an interesting and fun one, outpaces that of The MCU. And The MCU debate was already tedious. I don’t see why fans can’t be left alone.

There’ve been claims thrown out at these movies that “validate” how “forgettable” they are. Ignoring how the box-office speaks for itself, that argument doesn’t hold up. Because it’s not true. Most of this franchise’s fans are casual moviegoers who don’t care to be sucked into the discourse. Like casual gamers and the Wii, they have too much going on to waste time arguing. I have to give them credit, as the film world regularly gives me migraines.

Perhaps the most-egregious claim involves the movies being “forgettable”. That’s not true. If your recurring argument is that something’s forgettable, then you remember it. You might not remember it in detail, but you remember it. And if you even remember one detail, then it’s not truly forgettable. Aspects might blur together, and you might not recall plot beats, but saying something’s forgettable constantly has the ironic effect of being memorable unintentionally.

Another claim involves the movies being “too long”. I can sympathize here, but recall that the final entry in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was longer than any of these movies. And that’s only the theatrical release! If you go by the extended Director’s Cuts, the Avatar films pale in runtime. Even with pacing, the Avatar movies move quicker, thanks to the special effects budget matching dialogue with action.

I’d go into comparisons to other movies, but the usual suspects, save Princess Mononoke, aren’t even good. Besides, the Avatar franchise does something unique with its premise. Visuals aside, it not only builds an entire world, with civilizations and languages, it subverts expectations with its protagonist becoming a N’avi. If anything, the most unrealistic aspect here is N’avi winning against the invaders! Considering the parallels to European colonialism, that’s sketchy.

I haven’t talked about the movie itself. While I enjoyed Avatar: Fire and Ash, even with its length, it’s definitely the weakest entry. It lacks the intrigue of the first movie, and it taking place right after the second one means there’s little new ground to cover. The new villains are also underbaked, relying on questionable stereotypes of Native Americans. The movie also meanders in the middle, and several plot beats feel recycled.

That said, it’s not a terrible movie. The visuals and action set-pieces are top-notch, highlighting that James Cameron knows how to engage the eyes. It also pays off several unresolved plot threads from the previous entry, including one that was deliberately unanswered. And the emotional moments are raw, even if the new narrator’s a little flat. Also, if this movie was going to use stereotypes for its villains, then isolating them to one tribe, as opposed to all the N’avi, was the right call.

People act like James Cameron went off the deep end with Titanic, and that he never recovered. I disagree. Cameron was never high-class, and I think the only difference between his old and new work is his budget. Seriously, rewatch his old movies. They might be fun, but they’re really silly. I should know, I’ve seen most of them!

To those who’d get defensive over my critiques, saying “it’s not a crime to express displeasure”, I’m not only aware, but I think that’s a cop-out. I don’t even love these movies! But I should be allowed to express what I did and didn’t like without the conversation devolving into the usual nonsense, which happens often. It happens offline too, the internet’s not special.

I’m tired. I’m tired of defending what are essentially B-tier movies. You don’t have to like James Cameron. You don’t even have to like his work post-True Lies! But the lack of civility surrounding his newer work is, frankly, disheartening. And I say that knowing he’s a prick to the utmost degree. That’s not news.

So yeah, I’m tired, and I don’t want to hear your takes. Can we please move on? I’d appreciate that.

All About Tarantino

There are several reasons why I put off discussing the controversy surrounding Quentin Tarantino. For one, I wanted to process my thoughts. Two, I’ve been preoccupied with an NSO GameCube game. And three, life happened. Factor in the recent shooting in Sydney, Australia, and I needed time.

Quentin Tarantino’s a solid filmmaker, even if I’m not his biggest fan. I’ve discussed personal frustrations with his work before, but the most-prevalent one is that his movies are shy of brilliant because he lacks restraint. I’ve yet to fully-love anything he’s directed, even if he’s come close. However, this isn’t about Tarantino’s oeuvre. That’d be too easy.

I don’t think that having issues with a director’s style is a problem. I’m not big on Tim Burton either, but he’s talented in his own right. What I take umbrage with is that Tarantino’s a prick. I don’t think that’s a secret, but between his use of racist lingo, his political takes and his relationship with Harvey Weinstein, he’s not exactly someone I’d associate with. But I’ve thought that for years, so…

Recently, Tarantino took swipes at Hollywood talent. In an interview with Bret Easton Ellis, he singled out Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano’s acting. He even claimed that Dano ruined Paul Thomas Anderson’s body of work, and he mocked his dick size (apparently). I get directors having preferences, they have tastes too, but trashing actors for no reason is nasty and disrespectful. Especially when said actors hear what you say.

The backlash against Tarantino’s remarks was instantaneous, with Lillard openly saying they were hurtful. And yeah, that it took bashing white men, as opposed to a minority, to get people reacting says plenty about society, and it’s not good. But while there’s a hierarchy of privilege in Hollywood, this is still a low blow. Especially since Lillard and Dano are working paycheque to paycheque. It’s unbecoming of a director to punch down like this.

My thoughts here aren’t some big revelation. Yes, Tarantino’s in the wrong. Yes, what he said was uncalled for. Yes, he owes Lillard and Dano apologies. All of this is true. However, there’s one facet most people overlook unless you’re Jewish:

Tarantino’s married to a Jewish Israeli woman. He’s been outspoken about his love for Israel, with October 7th, 2023’s massacre in Israel as part of why he hasn’t made his “10th film”. This has led many Zionists to call him an ally, which I understand to an extent. However, I can’t simply shrug off his behaviour. Being a Zionist doesn’t automatically make you a good person.

I know this seems inconsequential, but it ties into a bigger problem I have with many conservative-leaning Jews. A person can be as gross as possible in every area, but the second they use the right buzzwords about Jews and Israel, all of a sudden they’re “allies”. I understand the need for allies, but this isn’t the hill people should die on. Especially when, in the cases of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, these “allies” can’t keep up the charade.

Tarantino being married to an Israeli means nothing to what I think of him. Even awful people occasionally do good, and vice versa. David Koch was a philanthropist for prostate cancer research, yet his dark money’s partly why the American political system is so disjointed. The late-Fred Rogers, ever compassionate, was averse to openly discussing queerness on his show. People are people, and they’re multifaceted. So while I appreciate Tarantino’s ally-ship superficially, that doesn’t mean he’s a good person.

Touching on the usual critiques, while not unique to him, his snobbish attitude elevates all of them. His foot fetishism in particular, which, again, isn’t exclusive to him, feels gratuitous because of that. Like JK Rowling and her blatant transphobia, everything questionable with Tarantino’s work is now extra suspect. Besides, what exactly did Matthew Lillard and Paul Dano do to deserve his ire? They have mouths to feed too!

I’m going around in circles, but it’s because I’m getting all my thoughts out. It’s also emblematic of the problem at play. While it’s unfortunate that it took bashing some well-loved actors in Hollywood for people to realize Tarantino’s a jerk, he’s still a jerk. And in an industry notorious for crushing dreams, especially with newcomers, that lack of courtesy feels especially cruel. The world has enough cruelty without a bigwig director adding to it for no reason.

I have little else to say. It’s a shame that Tarantino took a dump on Lillard and Dano’s careers. It’s also a shame that Tarantino’s getting blowback for this now. However, that doesn’t mean he’s off the hook. Like Francis Ford Coppola and the production of Megalopolis, Tarantino has a responsibility to act professional with other people. He may not want that, but he has no choice at this point.

As for Tarantino in general? I think the conversation needs reframing so that people stop mythologizing him. He may have had an unconventional education prior to breaking out, but he had to work his way up the ladder like everyone else. Therefore, he should have more humility than he does. And his base needs to not treat him like a god. Once people accept the bad with good, as with anyone else, that’s when there’ll be real and long-lasting change for the better. The ball’s in our court now, so we should take it.

Netflix and WB

In 2017, I wrote two pieces about the Disney/20th Century Fox merger. In them, I discussed any pros or cons I could think of. My thoughts have evolved since, but the one constant is the lack of healthy competition. I mention this because we’re now seeing another merger occur. And like last time, I have questions I’m unsure will be answered with Netflix purchasing Warner Bros.

Warner Bros. hasn’t been doing well financially for some time. There are several reasons for that, but CEO David Zaslav hasn’t helped. The studio’s financial woes came to light when it was announced they were up for sale earlier this year, leaving everything to whichever studio was willing to bite. The odds appeared to be with Universal/Paramount, since President Trump was hoping for that merger, but Netflix swooped in at the last minute. While, as of writing this, there are last-minute details that need finalizing, given how everything’s playing out it’s likely that this’ll go through.

Which brings me to my first few questions: how long will this take? What are the next steps for the two companies? Mergers are often slow and tedious, based on what I’ve seen, so there are many variables up in the air. I know CNN and The Discovery Channel won’t be impacted, as per the agreement, but everything else will be. And it’s a lot.

How will this merger operate? Will David Zaslav remain CEO of Warner Bros.? Will he be co-CEO alongside Netflix? Will Netflix’s CEOs take over running Warner Bros.? Or will Netflix find a brand new CEO?

Will Warner Bros. retain its namesake, or will it be renamed? That was a sticking point with the Disney/Fox merger, with the latter being renamed 20th Century Studios. If that happens with Warner Bros., will its new name be something more corporate? I can see “Bros.” being dropped, since none of the brothers are alive, but axing “Warner” feels dishonest. Like removing “Walt” from “Walt Disney”, it’d be like losing a part of history.

What’ll happen to Warner Bros.’ catalogue? Recall that Warner Bros. has been around for over a century, and they have a massive library of shows and movies. Like MGM, Warner Bros. remained a mainstay through their highs and lows, and that’s been exemplified with their output. If this merger’s finalized, will Netflix treat its new backlog with more respect than Zaslav? Or will it treat it worse?

What’ll happen to the shows and projects Warner Bros. was working on beforehand? Will they be axed? Will the reboot of the Harry Potter franchise still happen as planned? Will there be more Lord of the Rings content? Will James Gunn’s reboot of the DCU continue, especially since he’s had a promising start?

What about HBO? Will HBO run independently? Will Last Week Tonight continue on, or will John Oliver’s late-night bloc get axed? Will all currently-syndicated programs on HBO continue, or will they be axed too? And if so, to what extent?

How about foreign licenses? The biggest one is, of course, Studio Ghibli. They already have Western distribution rights through HBO and Netflix, depending on where you live, so the custody battle will be on the table. What’ll happen? Will nothing change, or will everything change?

For Netflix, will there be an overhaul? Netflix recently put out a statement that they are no plans for price increases, but for how long? If the price increases, by how much? And if it doesn’t, does that mean HBO and Netflix will remain separate bundles, or will they be merged?

How will this impact movie releases? Will Warner Bros. release everything, or will they scale back? Will Netflix release more movies theatrically, as opposed to special events? I know Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has stated he’s never been fond of the theatregoing experience, but will that mentality change now? Will Sarandos be more receptive to theatres?

How many jobs will be cut during restructuring? This was a sticking point for Disney after absorbing 20th Century Fox, and it’s going to happen here too. I doubt the higher ups will suffer, but will grunt workers have to find new employment? Will there be pushback? And how much pushback?

How does this impact holdings? I know it sounds weird to ask that, but mergers are financially-motivated and impact shares in a company. Will Netflix and Warner Bros. see stock surges? Will one or the other drop in the short term? Will investors only see long-term payoffs?

The biggest elephant in the room, maybe the second-biggest, involves long-term retention. I think back to what caused MGM to get scooped up by Amazon: frequent sales and buybacks. The late-Kirk Kerkorian owned MGM three times, each time selling the company for spare parts to help finance real estate. Given his tenure doomed MGM, who’s to say Warner Bros., which has been sold several times, won’t suffer the same fate should another Kerkorian-like figure pop up?

Most-importantly, why’s this merger happening now? And why’s The FCC approving it, like they did Disney and 20th Century Fox? If The FCC’s purpose is to monitor corporate mergers, then why’s there no pushback here? Perhaps my personal politics are getting in the way, but isn’t this corporate overreach? Am I wrong to assume that?

It's possible that these questions, and more, will be answered in the future. I’m not a fortune teller, after all. But that I’ve posed them at all should be cause for short-term alarm, assuming they hold weight legally. I also don’t know enough about corporate politics to be an expert, so all my questions should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I’m worried about the future of filmmaking. Even if I’m not fond of how David Zaslav has managed Warner Bros., I’m not sure this is the answer. We’ll have to wait and see.

In the meantime, whether you agree or disagree, these are my thoughts. Perhaps those of you reading this will know more than me, I can’t say.

Dimly Lit Entertainment

I’ve mentioned this before, but one of my biggest frustrations with film buffs is them acting like modern cinema is dead. Not only does the whining sound pretentious, but it’s not rooted in fact. “Cinema is dead”? No, it’s not! And you’re reinforcing how little you understand about it!

I mention this because of yet another punching bag: movie lighting. Specifically, shadows and lack thereof. Apparently, modern moviemaking lacks the cinematic flair of the past, with shadows for dramatic effect being non-existent. This sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t hold weight. If we’re being honest, I’m not even sure what qualifies as “good lighting” anyway.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to use classic films for reference. Older movies had a different look than modern ones. This largely comes down to development. Film reels are time consuming and difficult to use properly, and they’re fragile. Plus, like all analogue technology, they have to be treated and developed manually, meaning there’s plenty of room for errors or mistakes. I don’t begrudge older film techniques, they were innovative for their time, but there’s a reason celluloid went out of style.

One of the consequences of manual production of film was lighting. Without going into too much detail, film strips had to be stored carefully in dimly-lit environments, and the lighting often reflected that. Add in that people would get oils from their hands on the strips, or that cigarette ash would spill from smoking, and that unintended grime would make its way onto the celluloid. This isn’t accounting for projectors stretching the reels, contributing to picture quality fading over time. Old-school film reels had a certain process that made lighting look the way it did.

This stands in contrast to digital filmmaking, which lacks the grime celluloid was infamous for. Digital isn’t only easier to work with, it’s also more “artificial”. That’s not to say celluloid lighting can’t be replicated, Knives Out pulled it off, but it’s harder to achieve because computers lack the imperfections of real people. So while the barrier for entry is lower now, the claims of something being “lost” are obvious to those who’ve studied the medium. This includes lighting.

I’m no filmmaker. My area of expertise is writing. But while I can’t tell the difference between 35mm film and digital film, I know that the change in lighting was inevitable. And I don’t begrudge the loss. Because while I admire the craft that went into manual filmmaking, especially as someone who learned XHTML during my ScrewAttack days, there’s a reason it died out. Manual filmmaking’s tedious, and with computers making it easier and safer to do visual effects work, the lighting had to change to accommodate that. Also, it’s not like the filters used in modern moviemaking existed with analogue films, right?

So yeah, claims of cinematic lighting being “non-existent” nowadays are farfetched. I also think they’re misleading, and insulting. Lighting’s an important part of a scene’s composition. It tells the audience what to focus on, it lets them know what matters in a scene and it helps the performers be noticed. It can also determine the time of day, the setting where a scene takes place and what the audience should feel. Lighting can even enhance genres, with horror and romance being lit differently. None of that’s disappeared with digital filmmaking, it’s merely adapted.

And this is why I’m confused: modern lighting pales to older lighting? Guess what? Not only did the past not have such sophisticated technology, it also didn’t have to contend with the same limitations. A movie like Avatar couldn’t have been made when James Cameron first conceived it because there were too many limitations, so he had to wait. Conversely, the original Star Wars Trilogy could easily be recreated nowadays, but they’d lack their old school feel. Every decade of filmmaking has pros and cons, and lighting reflects that.

Additionally, movies aren’t meant to be lit like reality. They’re stories that exaggerate reality, and you’re supposed to suspend your disbelief. Even with older movies, where you have to suspend your disbelief even further, I’ve never once thought something I was watching was 100% real. I might have been moved by what I was seeing, but I always registered it as fake. So why does it matter if “movies are no longer lit like movies”, whatever that means?

This whole argument is predicated on nonsense. That isn’t to say that there aren’t legitimate issues with how many movies are lit nowadays. Plenty of modern experiences are hard to see because the lighting’s bad, I’ll admit that. But that’s not a byproduct of bad lighting all around, it’s a byproduct of bad filmmaking! And bad filmmaking’s always existed!

I wish people would take off their nostalgia goggles and recognize this. Perhaps something was “lost” in the transition to digital. I grew up in the 90s and 2000s, I’m well-aware of that transitionary period. But that doesn’t mean cinematic lighting doesn’t still exist. Because what constitutes as “cinematic lighting”, other than drawing attention to what’s on the screen? I wish people had the self-awareness to answer that question.

This is also an unfair dig at streaming services. There’s plenty I don’t like about streaming, and I’ve mentioned it in other pieces. But cinematic lighting? The one element that everything that’s been filmed has? The only reason something can be seen in a theatre or on TV at all? If “cinematic lighting” doesn’t exist nowadays, then clearly reality’s been gaslighting me!

But sure, blame modern filmmaking for “ruining cinematic lighting”. In the meantime, I’m going to do something much more productive.

Hollywood's Antisemitism Problem

Despite the extreme reactions of some, Antisemitism, like other bigotries, is a problem in Hollywood. It seems counterintuitive given the industry’s history, but humans aren’t known for tolerance, especially when money and fame are involved. This issue of Antisemitism has worsened with the recent war in Gaza, however, and several celebrities have shown their true colours about Jews. I’ll give some examples, and that won’t include Mel Gibson. It wouldn’t be fair to mention him here.

The first person is Susan Sarandon. Sarandon’s been a thorn politically for decades, siding with Ralph Nader during the 2000 election, but she’s ramped up her awfulness recently. She’s also openly-confrontational, using people’s histories against them. I won’t claim I haven’t had bad political takes myself, that wouldn’t be honest, but the number of “This you?” responses she’s used to deflect are a worrying since no one sane has denied they were flawed.

When October 7th, 2023 occurred, and many celebrities were expressing condolences, Sarandon was confronted for her stance on the ensuing war. Initially dodgy about it, Sarandon stated in a pro-Palestinian rally in November of 2023 that Jews were “getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim [in The US]”. Never mind the tone-deaf nature of that remark, or that it was Islamophobic, disregarding Jewish safety was the final straw for many Jews and Muslims, with criticism coming from both groups. Sarandon was also dropped from her talent agency afterward. It’s hard to feel bad, given her remarks since.

What’s frustrating is that, honestly, it didn’t have to be this way. Sarandon’s a public figure, and she’s most-likely worked with Jews. To go and defame the entire community feels like a slap to the face, especially since she’s so talented. She’s also an Oscar-nominated actress, and this level of prestige has now gone to waste. Was it worth it? I doubt it, but I’m also biased.

Moving on, there’s John Cusack. Cusack’s been in the limelight before for Antisemitic remarks, even sharing a cartoon implying Jews were suppressing freedom of speech. I remember confronting him on Twitter, to which he was shockingly rude. But I digress. Cusack apologized for the cartoon, but that wouldn’t be the last time he’d put his foot in his mouth.

Cusack became more brazen with Israel’s incursion in Gaza. Ignoring my personal thoughts there, which I won’t reiterate, Cusack has made several snipes at Israel and Jews since then. However, it wasn’t until this July when Cusack shared an image linking Anthony Blinken to Jeffrey Epstein that everything came to a head. The image also labelled Epstein as a Mossad agent, suggesting he was bending The US to Israel’s will. Oh dear.

As expected, Cusack quickly deleted the image and apologized. However, I have to wonder if he was sincere, or if he got caught and felt shame. If it’s the latter, I have no sympathy for him. He may be talented, even if I prefer his sister, but that’s no excuse for Antisemitism. Especially if it links a member of Joe Biden’s cabinet to Jeffrey Epstein.

Finally, there’s Guy Pearce. Pearce has been outspoken on Palestinian rights before, which itself isn’t an issue. He’s even worn Palestinian iconography on his clothing, which also doesn’t bother me. But it’s his remarks that’ve ranked him alongside Susan Sarandon and John Cusack. And they came about following-you guessed it-October 7th, 2023.

A few weeks ago, Pearce shared his disgust in Israelis for their treatment of Palestinians. While there are ongoing tensions there, particularly in the settlements, the unfair generalization was enough to get him in hot water. And then there was him sharing an Instagram post claiming that Jews manipulated casinos and pornography so as to distract from societal woes. Yikes!

While no stranger to courting controversy, what makes Pearce’s situation unique is that he not only apologized, but also has taken a social media hiatus. Considering social media brings out the worst in people, this is a start, as Pearce has a reputation to uphold. However, like with John Cusack, I’m unsure if his apology only happened because he got caught, or if he’s actually sincere. It’s not uncommon for celebrities to make tone-deaf statements, receive backlash, apologize and then go radio silent to “reflect”. I only hope that Pearce, whose remarks did serious damage, is being genuine here.

The question I have is “What now?”. How can Hollywood prevent incidents like this from happening, especially with October 7th’s aftermath forcing the Antisemitic genie out of its bottle? One such answer has been Universal/Paramount’s blacklist, where celebrities accused of Antisemitism are no longer allowed to work there. That might sound tempting, but the blacklist’s criteria is too general and has little room for nuance. Also, a scorched earth policy doesn’t seem reasonable for something so delicate.

Perhaps the solution is to tackle this at its root. That sounds patronizing, but Antisemitism is a learned behaviour tied to “in group, out group”. It need not be perpetuated, and re-education’s the perfect way to stop it. But perhaps I’m being naïve, and this is a deeper problem that can’t be so easily fixed. In the meantime, I only that hope more celebrities don’t “out themselves”.

But if everything fails, at least you have three celebrities to watch out for…right?