Sacha "Mephisto" Cohen

You don’t need reminding that it’s tough for Jews right now, especially in Hollywood. Between the protests, apathetic celebrities and petitions pitting Jews against Jews, working in the industry’s a headache. The studio heads haven’t been making the situation better, only adding fuel to the fire regularly. So when something bucks that negativity, it’s welcome in my books. I mean that wholeheartedly.

Take Ironheart. I enjoyed that show, and found parts of it emotional, but it’s not remembered as one of the better series. That said, its most interesting casting choice was Sacha Baron Cohen as Mephisto. There was speculation for a while who he was playing, but nabbing the part of a demonic bargainer was fitting. Not that Cohen needed to convince people of his range, but having the actor known as a white Rastafarian, a foreigner with a funny accent and a gay Austrian who’s naïve end up with the role was nice. At least, for me.

In an episode of the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Cohen mentioned the creative team behind Ironheart approached him about Mephisto. To quote:

“…[T]hey said, ‘We want to offer you Mephisto, but we are aware of the negative association of Jews historically with the devil, and we want to make sure that you’re not insulted by us offering this.’ It was such an amazingly considerate, empathetic thing to say. And I was like, ‘Yeah, I’m good.’”

Ah yes, the decision to *checks notes* treat a Jewish actor like a human being. Sounds scandalous! It shouldn’t be a big deal, but in an industry where the bar for representation’s so low, yet is regularly not cleared anyway, that a non-Jewish casting director consulted a Jew here is a miracle. This is the same industry that thought giving Bradley Cooper a prosthetic nose for Maestro was fine, even if he didn’t need it. With all the Antisemitism in the business, treating a Jew with respect is shocking.

But I welcome it. Hollywood frequently maligns and misunderstands Jews, as evidenced by minimal amounts of sensitivity training, and someone being courteous enough to actually think about this shows not all hope is lost. Doubly-so that this was a black film crew. Black people and Jews have a love-hate relationship historically, but they’re often each other’s best allies. This is another example of that.

It also reflects positively on producer Ryan Coogler, who happens to be director of the Black Panther movies. Coogler’s one of The MCU’s best talents, especially given his filmography, and him being sensitive enough to his actors’ needs is proof of that. Remember, Coogler and his team didn’t have to consult Cohen. Mephisto was already a challenge to take on as is, and Cohen added plenty of dimension to an otherwise shallow and uninteresting character. In fact, Mephisto’s so shallow and uninteresting that the prior projects based on the comics he was in, WandaVision and Spider-Man: No Way Home, skirted around him entirely. (Not that they needed him, mind you.)

Ignoring that, getting Cohen’s input was nice to see. Associating Jews with demons and tricksters is a sensitive subject as is. We already have to contend with greed and deceit without having Hell attached as well. And given how many portrayals of Jews as demons are pretty charged, for this role to properly receive a Jew’s blessing is nice. It makes me almost have hope for Hollywood. Almost.

It’s also a sign of the changing attitudes towards Jews. If this were 10 years ago, Cohen wouldn’t have been consulted. He’d have been told to “suck it up”, or he’d have been passed over for someone else. That didn’t happen. And that it didn’t happen shows Hollywood’s evolving somewhat. I only wish it was evolving quicker…

But the biggest indicator is that it’s happening now. As I mentioned above, it’s tough being Jewish in Hollywood. Coogler could’ve not consulted with Cohen out of spite, and no one would’ve batted an eyelash. Because Jewish actors have had to run with it in the past to save their careers. That someone was sensitive enough to approach Cohen first, therefore, shows there are people in the industry who care. You have to respect that.

This is the best way to see how Hollywood isn’t monolithic. We frequently criticize it for its decisions. I know I have many times! But beneath that there’s the occasional and necessary reminder that there are actual people in the industry, and many of them actually care. A production team being sensitive enough to vet a cliché character with their actor is another example of that care. If only it was more common…

The MCU, and Hollywood generally, has a long way to go before true equity. It feels like for every step forward, it takes two steps backwards. I’m sure I’ll be criticizing this franchise’s future missteps too, even as it makes strides. This, however, is a stride without a misstep, and it’s welcomed. Because amidst the awful, if someone’s willing to consult a Jew on something sensitive, then perhaps there’s hope. It might be fleeting, but still. I need that.

Politicians Aren't Celebrities

I think society misunderstands politicians. I say that because they’re meant to serve us, not the other way around. Unfortunately, far too often they’re deified by fans. It’s weird, it’s creepy and it’s unhelpful. It also does their flaws and limitations a disservice.

This isn’t a left or right issue. Many political figures are elevated beyond reason, sometimes to the point of cult leader status. Even nowadays, when it’s trendy to be skeptical, anti-establishment or populist leaders are revered in hopes that they’ll rebuild the status quo. And when they don’t? They’re tossed in favour of new leaders who disappoint too. I’m not sure what people expect, truthfully.

It’s gotten really bad recently. Figures like Donald Trump and Zohran Mamdani are held up on a pedestal constantly as examples of “gold standard politicians”, and how dare anyone criticize them? Not that Trump and Mamdani are remotely alike, but the levels of frustrating reverence for them is part of the problem. It robs them of their humanity to be shielded from rebuke. It’s also frustrating to watch.

This isn’t a problem exclusive to The US. In Brazil, Lula da Silva was championed as being the one to redeem the country from Jair Bolsonaro. Not that I’m complaining about Bolsonaro losing, he was a terrible leader, but proclaiming da Silva a saint isn’t helpful. I guess Brazilians learned that lesson the hard way, as evidenced by Bolsonaro’s son tying the most-recent elections.

Another example of this is Japan’s current Prime Minister. It might be unique that it’s a woman, considering how patriarchal Japan is, but Sanae Takaichi doesn’t deserve the adoration she’s received from her base, which contains disenfranchised youth. She not only considers Margaret Thatcher a source of inspiration, she’s openly xenophobic and anti-immigration. It’s a problem considering Japan views its mixed-racial population as second-class, and Takaichi’s policies don’t help.

Perhaps the weirdest example is Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine. I don’t envy the man’s situation of leading a country in the midst of a war, and I’m sure he’s competent, but the frequent platitudes feel…disingenuous. He’s not a god, he’s a comedian-turned-politician in an unfortunate situation. And he’s not without issues, too. I wish more people understood this.

If I sound overly-cynical, it’s for a good reason. Far too often, we think of politicians doing the bare minimum as being better than they are. Because they’re flawed, and they break promises or make disappointing decisions regularly. It doesn’t matter their political persuasions, they’re human beings. And they’re meant to serve the people.

I think this gets lost in the conversation about political figures. We can be happy when they make good decisions. And sometimes those decisions are worth celebrating. But that doesn’t make them gods. It simply means they’re doing their job, however rare that is.

So why do we romanticize them? What is it about them that we aspire to, ignoring the corrupting influence? Remember that many politicians, even the “good ones”, are already well-off before coming to power, which means they lack the every-man experience. And when they have it, they still regularly have an off-putting personality. There’s a reason politicians are frequently corrupt, and it’s because that’s the job. You can’t climb the totem pole without breaking hearts!

Maybe that’s why, and I’m sorry for bringing my faith into this, Judaism’s so anti-politician. They might be “necessary”, but Judaism doesn’t think highly of power systems. Important figures are repeatedly chastised and called out, and we’re warned by our prophets about the dangers of kings. Our prophets are also chastised by God, showing that they too aren’t immune to missteps. If a religion does that, why can’t everyone else?

It’s a problem because treating politicians like celebrities is unhealthy. I’d argue treating celebrities like celebrities is unhealthy too, but politicians have the potential to cause serious, lasting damage when made into celebrities. Because they’re not celebrities, they’re our employees. They’re supposed to work for us, not the other way around. Would you romanticize your employees if they sucked at their job? No, you’d fire and replace them with someone else!

That’s really my issue here. I’m not against leaders, even when they don’t live up to my expectations. But I keep my distance and know when to call them out. That doesn’t meant being unfair in my critiques of them, but it does mean knowing when to criticize them. Because they’re human. And as much as some might be significantly worse than others, in the end that humanity needs to be understood by people in general. It’s the only way we can demand accountability in times of need or disappointment.

So yes, I don’t think we should be deifying political figures, or people in general. You can disagree, but I’m holding steadfast to my remarks. Because it’s unhealthy to elevate a human being to god-like status. It’s not only idolatry, it also sets up false expectations. And besides, why worship someone who’s going to eventually disappoint you? Can you honestly handle that kind of rejection?

Aslan's Voice Change

I sometimes feel like asking the internet to behave is futile. After all, it gave the world GamerGate in 2014! However, considering its tantrums have spillover, especially nowadays, it’s something I can’t ignore. Which leads me to Greta Gerwig’s reboot of The Chronicles of Narnia, specifically the casting of Aslan. Because that’s, apparently, backlash-worthy.

I like The Chronicles of Narnia series. It’s not high on my favourite works of fiction, but the quasi-Christian allegories are fun to go along with. I also like the first two movies from Disney. They lean heavily on being the answer to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there’s something charming about them anyway. They’re also quite violent at times, something preteen me was definitely into.

Which leads me to the reboot, courtesy of Gerwig and Netflix. Gerwig’s proven herself with IP work through Barbie, and she genuinely has affection for the material. Netflix, conversely, has shown they can make good entertainment. But while I don’t know if all 7 books will be adapted, especially given some of their out-there themes, the trailer for The Magician’s Nephew appears to already have a distinct style and tone. It also managed to sneak in “Stairway to Heaven”, which is impressive given Led Zeppelin’s incredibly protective of it.

However, that’s not what people are talking about. The controversy surrounds casting Meryl Streep as the voice of Aslan. We haven’t heard her yet, but a woman voicing Aslan has already generated pushback. Never mind that Streep’s a multi-Oscar winner, and that she elevates the quality of whatever she’s in, it’s an issue. That’s right, “a woman can’t be Aslan” is now a controversy.

Two points of note. The first is that Aslan in the books is described with a femininely-masculine voice. I know we’re used to Liam Neeson as Aslan, but that’s already pretty flexible. Considering Streep has a deep register for a woman anyway, and that we haven’t even heard her performance, I think she deserves a chance to prove herself. We owe her that much.

And second, Aslan’s fictional. He’s not Solomon Northrup or Martin Luther King Jr., where intention matters to be respectful. This also isn’t Hamilton, a hyper-fictionalized version of history. Aslan’s a lion, and lions can’t speak. If we’re already suspending our disbelief there, why can’t we suspend it with his voice?

I’m confused because gender-swapping in fiction isn’t new. The protagonist of Cybersix moonlights as a male professor, complete with Clark Kent-like glasses. Even going by animals, Moro from Princess Mononoke was voiced by a man in Japanese. We’re used to the American dub having Gillian Anderson, but Moro was voiced by a drag queen in Japan. It worked, because the character’s essence mattered more than the voice.

I’m also confused by people demanding male characters in fiction be static. I know bigots won’t acknowledge this, but gender’s performative. Unlike sex, which is more static, there’s a sliding scale to male and female behaviour. I know I don’t fall into conventionally-masculine characteristics, frequently growing my hair and nails and being sensitive. If I identify as a man despite that, why can’t a fictional lion be feminine-sounding?

Besides, what if Aslan ends up trans? Or non-binary? He’s not human, and lions don’t conform to human performances of gender, so who’s to say he can’t be male and female simultaneously? If Aslan’s this franchise’s version of God, and God’s described as both male and female depending on the context, then wouldn’t it make sense for him to be ambiguous?

Being rigid with fictional characters is a losing game. Not only is Aslan a lion, he’s not real. And arguing over who voices him ascribes intent where it’s non-existent. C.S. Lewis could’ve made Aslan a woman if he wanted, and nothing major would’ve changed. He probably wouldn’t have gotten away with it, especially considering when he lived, but it shouldn’t been ruled out given how forward-thinking he was. You’d think The Screwtape Letters would’ve been a tip-off…

Also, why does it matter? Aside from the feminine and masculine traits, changing the register of a fictional lion to that of a woman’s isn’t the end of the world. Like updating the story, there’s more to The Magician’s Nephew than its focal character’s voice. It contains allusions to Scripture, particularly the creation story. And the other 6 books contain allusions to Scripture too, albeit different parts.

It’s actually funny that Aslan’s voice bothers people. Not the ham-fisted Biblical references, not the psychedelic/punk rock aesthetic, not even the time period, it’s Aslan being voiced by one of our greatest actresses that’s a deal-breaker. I’d tell the internet get a life, but it clearly doesn’t have one. And it’s mind-numbing to try knocking sense into it.

Truthfully, this debate’s really more a reflection of bigotry. Because the internet’s telling on itself by caring this deeply about a Christian series for children. This is a franchise where Aslan’s both God and Jesus, where Santa Claus is friends with him and where Lilith and The Antichrist are worshipped and revered by many individuals. It’s also a series with plenty of mind-trickery and other-worldliness. With that in mind, Aslan’s voice really isn’t such a big deal.

But you do you…even if you sound ridiculous.

Mourning Warner Bros.

The inevitable happened.

I’d quip about how we went from bad to worse, but I’m too exhausted by this ordeal. Because while the Disney-Fox merger was bad, it wasn’t steered by the least-likeable CEO in Hollywood. If you’re confused as to whether or I’m referring to David Zaslav or David Ellison, the answer is “yes”. To both. Either way, however bitter I was over Disney acquiring 20th Century Fox, my bitterness is amplified here. And it’s not unjustified.

Warner Bros. Discovery being up for sale was going to be a disaster regardless. Corporate mergers rarely are good for creativity, and the people who suffer most are always the grunt workers. However, while Netflix acquiring it wasn’t a great option, at least Ted Sarandos respects the artistic process. Netflix has had many issues with how it’s run, but it also has relatively-solid output. It isn’t afraid to take genuine risks that bigger studios wouldn’t. We’ve seen that with its biggest hit of the decade.

While WB would’ve had major restructuring under Netflix, there was a chance that it’d remain semi-independent. Under Paramount that doesn’t appear to be so. Especially since David Ellison’s made his personal politics and allegiances known. True, one of the conditions of merging was that CNN and HBO had to be left alone, but do you really think Ellison will keep his word? Because I have a rickety bridge to sell you.

It’s a piss-poor reflection on politicians like Gavin Newsom that this was even cleared. Newsom’s vying for the presidency in 2028, and he’s been making off-putting decisions in the lead-up. Approving this merger is one of them, despite heavy pushback from people in the industry. Then again, when push comes to shove, money wins over integrity. It happened with Disney purchasing Fox.

There’s a lot of blame to go around. Politicians aside, Ellison’s handled this really immaturely. Whether it’s claiming that people were only critical because he’s Jewish, or threatening to leave California if the merger wasn’t approved, I never thought I could despise a CEO more. Then again, considering his many scandals, one of which I’ve addressed before, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising. You have to mess up pretty badly to get me to side with John Cusack, especially given his blatantly-Antisemitic views.

Ellison’s politics is one of the reasons I’m unhappy about this. It sounds petty, but he’s made it clear that anyone who doesn’t get in line is fit for the chopping block. We saw that with Melissa Barrera. And while Hollywood has plenty of bigots, some openly, Ellison doesn’t have the tact or sensitivity to handle them. Even on the Jewish side, we’ve had enough baggage for three years without misguided CEOs making everything worse.

Speaking of, David Zaslav isn’t guiltless. With the way he managed WB, complete with obnoxious tax write-offs, he has no sympathy from me. He’s why WB’s in this current situation at all, which says plenty given how the studio was handled before he became CEO. So yes, Zaslav gets no brownie points for stepping down from his position, especially given who’s taking his place. That he feels no remorse doesn’t help.

If it sounds like I’m being overly-pessimistic, it’s not without warrant. I’ve seen how the business side of Hollywood has ruined the creative side. Whether it’s corporate consolidations, a lack of risk, anti-competitive measures or exorbitant ticket prices, it feels like the movie industry’s at its breaking point. And yes, maybe giving my money to these giant corporations to watch movies “isn’t helping”. But guess what? Life’s hard enough without me being deprived a few hours of joy. Can’t I have that?

I know there’s a lot about the business side of Hollywood I don’t know about. I’m not business-savvy, and I barely understand finances. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t bad news. Especially since I’ve seen how these sorts of mergers have been detrimental with Disney and Fox. Never mind the public-facing nonsense that’s been aired, some of which I do understand!

I also know I’m sounding like those doom-heavy video essays YouTube. You know, the ones that pine for nostalgic Hollywood, ignoring its many problems? I get it, and it makes me ill. However, sometimes being honest means facing reality, even when it comes off as pessimistic. I can only do so much.

In the end, there’s only so much I can do. I know that James Gunn and Peter Safran are staying as heads of The DCU (for now), and it’s not like we’ll see the aftermath of this merger immediately, so I should cherish what little positivity there can be. That’s what I’ll do. Besides, I’m sure I’ll be bellyaching in a few years when WB gets sold again. It’s happened several times, so what’s to stop it from happening again? I’ll keep you updated, but in the meantime…well, that’s all I can really say. I only hope you’ll forgive me for being so pessimistic.

Endgame in Reflection

I recently saw The Avengers: Endgame in theatres again.

Despite it being 7 years, I was surprised by how well it holds up as a whole. It’s suspenseful, funny, emotional and satisfying, sometimes all at once. It’s also really well-written, something you forget with all the memes and out-of-context clips. That’s a testament to how well it’s aged, especially given how all over the place The MCU has been lately. I say that begrudgingly.

There’s a lot I can discuss here. Narrative-wise, despite the third-act, this is a relatively-restrained time heist movie. Most of the action beats are tied into the plot, and much of the tension comes from character interactions and decisions. Arguably the most tense moment, when Captain America’s in the elevator with S.H.I.E.L.D’s Strike Squad, leads to a fight scene that never happens. We know these are really Hydra members, and the movie holds on the conversation, but the fight scene never happens because it’s deflated with two words. It’s funny and suspenseful, further accentuating the writing.

Another point is how somber this movie feels. Whether it’s dealing with the fallout of Thanos’s snap, which lasts 5 years in-film, or Thor’s slump into depression, the movie has several moments where I felt emotional. This is especially true with Clint and Natasha’s fight over who gets to become The Soul Stone. Considering their relationship, seeing them squabble like siblings was heartbreaking. It was more upsetting than witnessing Thanos toss Gamora over the cliff in The Avengers: Infinity War, as their relationship wasn’t one-sided.

The time heist section still has great action scenes. The crown jewel involves Captain America facing off against himself. He’s been falsely accused of being Loki, so the two face off over Loki’s scepter. Older Captain America wins, but not before a fistfight with lots of shattered glass. It also ends on one of the movie’s best jokes.

But the part that everyone remembers is the third-act, which is a battle in the ruins of the Stark complex. Initially a fight against Thanos, it turns into an all-out war when Thanos’s army appears and all the previously dusted Avengers return. There are many fantastic moments, including Captain America picking up and wielding Mjolnir. That’d been teased in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, so the pay-off was really satisfying. Wanda going full-on vengeance on Thanos was also fun to watch. It’s the only time we see Thanos concerned.

The entire third-act could be its own movie, complete with many great moments, which is why it bums me out that people have used The Boys to discredit it. Yes, this movie’s corporate popcorn fluff. But so is The Boys. And yes, “Don’t worry, she’s got help!” was an excuse to tease its superheroines. But who cares?! It was fun!

That’s really the crux here: it’s fun. Even the added scenes, which I won’t spoil, are enjoyable. Because The MCU might be a franchise of superhero action, but it’s well-made. There’s plenty of excellent writing for something that could’ve been phoned in, and that’s why it resonates. It also explains the box-office returns it’s generating still, showing how mass entertainment can be thought-provoking. You can’t deny that.

A lot has happened with this franchise since The Avengers: Endgame. The most-notable involves Kang being replaced by Doctor Doom, thanks to his actor destroying his career. And with previously-established actors, Jeremy Renner’s seen his favourability revive and Chris Pratt’s seen his plummet. This was also the end, at least at the time, of Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr.’s tenures in The MCU. They’ve come back since, Downey as the new antagonist, but it seemed then like they were done. It made their goodbyes feel emotional, which is a sign of good writing.

There’s been talk recently about if The MCU has overstayed its welcome, which I don’t think it has. There’s also been talk about if the movies and shows since have been good, which I’d argue they (mostly) are. And there’s been talk about whether or not people are tired of Marvel content being released yearly, to which it depends on what you mean. Regardless, this particular movie’s largely remembered as a high-point, for many reasons. One can only hope The Avengers: Doomsday can live up to it.

Personally, I don’t think it matters, though. The Avengers: Endgame was a masterclass of popcorn entertainment, such that, even in the mostly-empty theatre I was in, people laughed and applauded at the appropriate times upon rewatch. They also got emotional at the appropriate times. You don’t have that if the movie isn’t enduring. That’s more important than whether or not another Avengers movie can surpass it.

It also serves as a counterargument to “superhero fatigue”. There’s lots of discussion about that lately with the diminished returns of new films, with some underperforming, but I think it ignores the sub-genre’s history. If Batman & Robin couldn’t destroy its reputation with moviegoers, then why would a string of better movies flopping do that? It doesn’t add up. And if Spider-Man: Brand New Day’s indication, I doubt it ever will.

However, that detracts from the main point. You can lament The MCU for being overly-silly and dragging on, and I can see the arguments for both claims. But if a 7 year-old movie still resonates like it did in 2019, despite audiences tastes changing, then guess what? It doesn’t matter. The MCU isn’t going anywhere, and this movie is proof of that. I think that speaks volumes more than any gripes with the 18 year-old franchise.

Movies "Feel Written"?

Every so often, a YouTube video’s clickbait title’s so bizarre that I’m tempted to watch it. Such is the case with this video:

Hmm… (Courtesy of Elliot Frame.)

I have nothing personal against Elliot. He argues his points fine, but something about this title, and the essay itself, feels…pretentious. Like another attack of modern filmmaking from someone yearning for past cinema. I don’t like that. Particularly, I don’t like the implication that modern movies “feel written”. Here’s why:

Firstly, the title’s misleading. “Why Movies Feel Written Now”? What does that mean? All movies “feel written”? I assure you the average WGA member would take offence to that claim. Not only are they not respected by the studio system, especially with the advent of A.I., but claiming their work “feels written” as an insult is really snobbish. I’m sorry, it is.

But even if you took the claim that “movies feel written now” at face value? It still falls completely flat. Compared to what, exactly? Older movies? Because a classic like The Matrix feels incredibly written. Like, to the point of being incredibly exposition-heavy. I enjoy that movie, but it’s as “feels written” as you’re going to get, even when juxtaposed with modern-day action films.

 

It doesn’t have to stop there! Every action movie released since Jaws feels “written”. It’s the nature of the genre. The first ever Star Wars movie feels so “written” that the cast and crew improvised lines and mocked George Lucas. That’s “invisible writing”? Because if so…

I know what’s really going on. Considering the examples mentioned in this video, I can’t help wondering if Elliot has a particular type of movie he likes: indie dramas. I like some of those movies too, but they’re meant to vibe with a different writing style. Action movies usually resort to stock archetypes, even when they’re executed well. Indie dramas, however, are populated with characters that feel real, despite being creations for the silver screen. That doesn’t make them feel any “less written”.

But even with the assumption that indie dramas feel more organic, that’s not true either. Elliot highlights the ending to Lost in Translation, a movie about two Americans committing adultery in Japan, specifically. They form an authentic relationship, true, but it still “feels written”. Even the ending conversation is deliberately ambiguous. That’s not organic, but rather carefully calculated on the part of Sofia Coppola.

 

I guess I’m annoyed because movies, by design, are about emotional manipulation. They’re basically propaganda, subtly and not-so-subtly pushing specific feelings and lessons on the audience. It’s why so many get flack for heavily including military technology and strong police presences: it sends a message to the audience about both of them. That doesn’t mean the audience has to accept it, and it for sure doesn’t make the movies “bad”, but it’s a choice. It “feels written”, too.

The title of Elliot’s essay “feels written” as an attack on modern filmmaking. I understand saying that modern movies “spell out the motives of characters”, as opposed to leaving it up to interpretation, but even then I disagree. Moviemaking has evolved since its inception, even if the basic techniques haven’t, and stories have changed as our understanding of reality has changed. Ideas and concepts that were accepted 50 years ago aren’t accepted now, and ideas and concepts that are accepted now probably won’t be in 50 years. That’s called “changing sensibilities”, and while older films should be respected for what they achieved, that doesn’t mean modern movies pale to them.

If Elliot wanted to reflect his thesis, that big-budget writing feels less authentic than indie writing, he should’ve said that upfront. But I get why he didn’t: YouTube’s algorithm. Clickbait-y titles grab the viewer’s attention, after all! It’s why my titles have gotten shorter and punchier over the years. Besides, would you rather have a long-winded, nuanced header, or something quick and provocative?

 

I know my preference, but it works against my SEO numbers. Therefore, I get why Elliot chose something attention-grabbing. But it feels dishonest. Especially given the video in question, which is an argument for indie dramas over big-budget action. And even that doesn’t do either justice.

Look, I’m a writer too. I’m currently working on a 13-chapter manuscript for a book I finished almost 4 years ago. Writing stories isn’t easy, as there are many variables and moving parts that have to fit together. Screenwriting’s no different. And even once the script’s ready, there are still changes and rewrites made before the movie’s released. That’s part of the job. Yet it absolutely “feels written”.

This video essay feels like another shameless jab at modern Hollywood filmmaking. And yes, there are many issues with how Hollywood’s run nowadays. However, taking it out on the screenwriters is dishonest. It’s also a bad way to get noticed, something Elliot clearly seems to be interested in. Because trust me, people take note.

 

So here’s my plea to Elliot: don’t be a jerk. I don’t think you intended it, but modern movies are still valid. And they all “feel written”. Some feel less-so than others, though that’s not an indictment of the medium generally. You may not like it, but if you want to become great at screenwriting you need to broaden your tastes. Because even movies that “feel written” have something valuable to learn from.

Munich on Trial

I’ve been dreading discussing Munich for years. Unlike Inglourious Basterds, which I’m also mixed on, it’s based on real events. 11 Israeli athletes being murdered by Palestinian terror group Black September actually happened, and it’s reprehensible that it took 50 years for The IOC to acknowledge it. However, while Steven Spielberg might’ve been the right director for this subject matter, as even his turds are interesting, the way he tackled it bothers me. Especially since it’s being reevaluated with October 7th and the Gaza incursion. However, since Patrick H Willems discussed it in his most-recent video, I guess I’m biting the bullet.

Full-disclosure: I didn’t rewatch Munich for this. A part of me wanted to, but I was genuinely scared. I don’t remember my experience, particularly the bizarre sex scene, to be pleasant. It was long, frustrating and occasionally boring. And its attempt at being even-handed felt preachy, such that I lost interest and ended up confused. Essentially, everything I’m about to mention is based on memory and cultural osmosis. Understood?

Also, this is too competently acted and directed to be “bad”. Spielberg doesn’t cop out on basic visual storytelling, even when he misfires, and this is no exception. I especially appreciate how every actor fully-commits, even if not all of them are appropriately cast. (What’s Daniel Craig doing in here?) Considering how a truly bad movie wouldn’t be like this, I think perspective is in order.

Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way: the movie’s seen a resurgence in popularity. Right around the time Israel went to clear out Hamas operatives in 2023, people on Twitter and Facebook were talking about how the movie’s biggest lesson was how Palestinians are human beings, and that Israelis and Jews don’t view them as such. This is false. I can’t speak for all Jews, since we’re notorious for not seeing eye-to-eye, but the notion that no one cares about Palestinians isn’t true. Ignoring activists and extremist groups (I’m talking about The Neturei Karta), Jews, Israelis in particular, have been advocating for Palestinians for decades. They were advocating long before it was mainstream, hence the tragedy of October 7th. (Those individuals who were murdered were peace activists.)

It’s important to remind my readers of that because that’s frequently lost in the conversation. Sometimes, as with The Nova Exhibit, it’s deliberately ignored by those who refuse to acknowledge the humanity of Israelis. But it’s true. Individuals like Tiferet Lapidot, or Vivian Silver, had done more to foster peace with humanitarian work than most keyboard warriors. And they were still murdered anyway, because life’s cruel. Saying that Jews and Israelis don’t care about Palestinians is a lie.

Even removing that from the equation, Munich ham-fistedly reminds the audience of that through its diatribes about “The Cycle of Violence”. This theory states that violence is a game of cause-and-effect, with the perpetrators experiencing retaliation from those they attack frequently. The only way to end this cycle is to break it and acknowledge the humanity of the victims. It sounds good in theory, but humans aren’t automatons. Unlike robots, we have agency in our behaviour. Trauma might also explain violence, but it doesn’t excuse it.

This movie missed the memo. Munich was written by Tony Kushner, who’d previously penned Schindler’s List and would later pen Lincoln. One of its co-writers was the writer of Forrest Gump and Ali, Eric Roth, and save Dune he’s yet to write a movie I’ve enjoyed consistently. I’d expect a ham-fisted, preachy endeavour from Roth, but I’m embarrassed that Kushner fell guilty of that too. And yet, because movies are collaborative, I’m not sure who’s really to blame.

Assuming Kushner takes most of the credit, then I’m incredibly disappointed in him. I know his personal politics around Israel are complicated, something he’s confided in interviews. I also know he likes inserting his politics in his scripts, as evidenced by the out-of-place insinuation in Schindler’s List that Israel only exists because of The Holocaust. Yet while that was annoying, it was cancelled out by the remainder of the film being excellent. Here, however, his politics are everywhere, feeling tactless and preachy even if unintended.

This is most-apparent in the movie’s final conversation, where the protagonist, Avner, has a conversation with his superior while The Twin Towers are in the background. Nothing’s said of this in-film, yet the implication is that the action of The Mossad are partly to blame for the destruction of these towers in 2001. There’s room to discuss the dangers of American Interventionalist behaviour, and how that’s destroyed many countries, but drawing a parallel between Israel and 9/11 is, truthfully, insulting. It’s especially insulting to the memories of the dead, and it implicates Israelis in something they had no part in. Like the “dancing Israelis” claim, I’m annoyed.

Yet little details like this are peppered throughout, some more obvious than others. Yes, the members of Black Saturday were human beings. Yes, many of them had families. No, I don’t approve of the extreme measures The Mossad went to. But understanding isn’t empathizing. Black Sunday might be human beings, but they’re still terrorists. No one was going “well, actually” over Adolf Eichmann, even though he’s the only person Israel’s used the death penalty on, so why Black September? Why do they get away with “well, actually” because they’re Palestinian? Did the Israeli athletes they murdered get that same treatment?

If it feels like I’m over-projecting, it’s because the movie invites it. Like with Inglourious Basterds, it robs the Jewish characters of sympathy in order to show “what happened” to their perpetrators. Except this was real, not some alternate reality that rewrites The Holocaust into a revisionist tale. It also leaves me feeling icky about what happened to terrorists, something that doesn’t sit well. That’s a failure of storytelling.

Movies, contrary to what some claim, frequently parallel real life. And when Jews are being shamelessly torn down to build up Palestinians, which is insulting to both groups, for a Hollywood thriller to dabble in “those poor terrorists” because they’re from a country that currently has the world’s pity is self-righteous and doesn’t do anyone favours. It doesn’t do the dead Israelis justice, it doesn’t help the Palestinian civilians at the hands of their leaders, and it for sure doesn’t set the record straight on 9/11. If anything, this is an insulting movie!

I’d be less-annoyed if Antisemitism weren’t at an all-time high because of Gaza, but it is. It’s showing its face in how people are reacting to Robert Kraft’s mishandling of Macklemore. Or in how people are reacting to Mark Ruffalo’s feud with The Ellisons. Or in how people blamed the Ceuta situation on Israel. Or in the nonsensical petition to have Marwan Barghouti, a man with 5 life sentences, released from prison because he’s “The Palestinian Nelson Mandela”. God, I’m tired…

Between this and the rise in Antisemitic attacks, such that Jews around the world are scared, it’s no wonder I have a personal vendetta against Munich. I get wanting to portray the characters with nuance, such that you question the motives of the protagonists, but this was the wrong way to do it. If Spielberg and company were intent on a movie like this, they’d have best picked a different story. If they so desperately wished to cover what happened in Munich, which sucked, then they shouldn’t have had their cake and eaten it too. Basically, they needed to get out of their own way.

I’ll end this with something I recently read. Not too long ago, The Fuck Parade, an organization dedicated to punk rock, was asked to release a statement about Gaza. They did, and it was a rebuke of statements that ignored the victims of The Nova Festival, all of whom simply wanted to dance. While that might seem harsh, I applaud this organization for respecting Israelis as people. Because no civilians, even those from a country people deem the villain, deserved what happened. If acknowledging Israeli pain offends people, so be it!