I'm Spirited Away

You’re probably wondering why I’m discussing this movie now; after all, wasn’t Spirited Away’s 25th anniversary in July? Well…yes, but I needed a cleanse. Also, it’s October, and this is the perfect Fall movie. It also helps that it was recently re-released theatrically. Moving on.

I’ve mentioned this on Infinite Rainy Day, but for those unaware, Spirited Away, and by extension Studio Ghibli, helped me get through university. My alma mater’s TA union went on strike in my first year, and it took 3 more years to recover mentally. I was contemplating dropping out altogether in my 3rd year, which was when I found a DVD of this movie that my brother’s friend had left at our house. Despite part of the first-act being badly scratched, I fell in-love with it. The rest was history.

I say this movie helped me get through university because it became my go-to whenever I was stressed and needed a reprieve. There was something magical about it, much like the Disney and Pixar movies I’d grown up with. Maybe it was that the protagonist, Chihiro, was scared, timid and bratty? Maybe her being afraid was reasonable for being in a world of spirits? Or maybe it was that the movie’s bizarre imagery was grounded in logic? Either way, I dug it.

The bizarre-ness of this movie being grounded was what hooked me. I haven’t discussed this in years, but I’m not a fan of bizarre storytelling. It’s why I couldn’t get behind Alice in Wonderland, and why the film adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are was disappointing. But Spirited Away was different. Even if you removed the foreign elements, there was a coherent narrative about a girl separated from her parents who learned to be more independent.

That’s what makes this movie special: that it’s not trying to be. I love Hayao Miyazaki’s films, but I find he sometimes goes overboard with the whimsy. Here, however, I don’t feel that. Chihiro’s journey from spoiled and scared to selfless and confident is earned, even with the tribulations she experiences. It’s impressive that Miyazaki showed such restraint.

Nevertheless, this movie is bonkers in the best way. Between a sentient spider, a sumo radish, a witch who becomes a crow and a dragon that’s also a boy, there’s enough here to mystify and terrify the demographic of preteen girls. It also doesn’t hold back on the fear and violence, including a moment where said dragon, Haku, vomits blood from an internal wound. That’s intense and hardcore.

But the movie also has a lot of real heart and depth. The bathhouse Chihiro visits is a commentary on the Japanese economy in the late-90s, particularly how it dealt with its fiscal crash. Chihiro’s parents turning into pigs parallels gluttony and excess. No-Face becoming corrupted by food parallels the negative influence of wealth on people. And the scene with The Stink Spirit alludes to human pollution, even if it’s not really doted on much.

There are also some genuinely tender moments. Much has been made about the train scene, but I also think Chihiro revealing she knew Haku once is touching. Especially with how they hold hands as tears fall from Chihiro’s face. I also think Chihiro crying while Haku offers onigiri is sweet. Considering all she’d been through, having someone console her was nice.

The music here is fantastic. It’s Joe Hisaishi returning as composer, and he gives it his all. My favourite pieces are One Summer’s Day and The Dragon Boy, which are Chihiro and Haku’s leitmotifs. Chihiro’s Waltz is also good, even if it’s no Merry-Go-Round of Life. This isn’t my favourite Hisaishi-Miyazaki collaboration, but it’s still excellent. It also stands on its own, and it’s great more people are recognizing that.

I have to give credit to the dub, particularly the late-Daveigh Chase as Chihiro. Chase was fresh off of voicing Lilo in Lilo & Stitch, and she brought her naturalistic charm here too. There’s the odd moment where she screams a line too forcefully, but the character’s meant to be afraid. I think I can let it pass. Especially when the dub was how I was introduced to this movie in 2010.

I don’t believe in perfection. Art is a product of human hands, and humans are flawed. However, this movie comes close. Spirited Away’s dialogue is occasionally wonky, and some of its pacing is slow, but those are minor nitpicks you have to really think about. For the most part, this is a tough movie to find fault with.

And people noticed, with this being first anime feature to win an Oscar. I think not nominating it for Best Picture was disappointing, as it deserved it, but The Academy’s views on animation are such that I’ll take it. Besides, getting the trophy at all is special, indicating that people were starting to recognize Hayao Miyazaki’s work. We’ve seen that with him receiving two Oscars since, one being honorary.

I can’t recommended this movie enough. And thanks to Studio Ghibli agreeing to streaming, it’s not hard to find on Netflix or HBO Max. It might be over 2 hours, but it’s worth it. Besides, that argument no longer holds water when Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and Wildwood are as well. So please, judge it for yourself! What do you have to lose?

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.