Revisiting Gen 4

The Pokémon franchise recently turned 30 years old. It’s weird saying that, as I remember spectating over people’s shoulders at recess in Grade 1. I have my own Pokémon story, but my fondness for the franchise slowly soured with each generation. Aside from being frustrated with level grinding in Gen 2, Gen 3 was a chore challenging The Elite Four, and Gen 4…was where I lost interest. I remember ceasing my play-through before traveling to The Elite Four because it no longer hooked me. I even wrote about that on Nintendo Enthusiast, and I received push-back over my thoughts.

I was dreading going back to Pokémon Pearl because of this. Sure, my copy of the game had its save file intact, but I wasn’t sure if my concerns were still valid. Nevertheless, I figured it’d been long enough, so I gave it another try. And you know something? I was wrong. The game’s still good!

What had I missed? Was I an arrogant teenager when I first played it, clouded by angst and impatience? Could it have I needed time to mature? Perhaps I was letting my thoughts on the previous generations ruin this too? Or was it something else?

The answer’s all of the above. And I don’t think that was fair. It wasn’t the game’s fault that I had fading fondness of the franchise! Given my love of Pokémon Yellow, I doubt that was helping. I know that game off the back of my hand, to the point of obsession. It was inevitable that Gen 4 wouldn’t hold a candle to it.

What made it easier this time was continuing where I left off, as opposed to starting a new file. It was an adjustment, but I managed. Adding to this was how I still had many trainers to fight, as well as Pokémon to catch. This included legendary Pokémon, of which Mesprit was the most annoying. Seriously, why all the chasing? And why did Mesprit keep fleeing?

I eventually caught Mesprit with my Master Ball. I didn’t have to, online research suggested I could’ve used Mean Look to help me, but I figured it was less stressful than constantly traversing Sinnoh and praying that this time it’d stay put. Ironically, using my Master Ball to catch Mesprit meant my later chances of catching Cresselia, who relied on chasing too, were lower. Ah well!

(Note: I eventually caught Cresselia with a Master Ball I imported through Pal Park. I don’t like chasing after legendary Pokémon.)

The battles with The Elite Four, and Cynthia, were a challenge, but they were made better by two details: one, the level cap of wild Pokémon was more practical, with them going beyond level 30. And two, I could rematch trainers with an app I’d acquired, allowing me to grind and collect money for supplies. Both of these made the experience reasonable, and for that I’m grateful. It also made fighting The Elite Four, and Cynthia, less of a chore.

You know what helps? The map opens up a lot post-game. I was initially put off that there was a section of Sinnoh I couldn’t access, but beating the main game helped ease my concerns. The post-game content is also great…save chasing Cresselia. It’s like the cave where Mewtwo hides in Gen 1, except with several legendary Pokémon. Those battles were some of the highlights, even though they led to many sweaty palms and fake-outs.

This game takes full advantage of its post-game content. Whether it’s finding stronger wild Pokémon, battling legendary Pokémon, or even seeing the new paths, it really felt like Gen 4 addressed many of my complaints with Gens 2 and 3, as well as some from Gen 1. And with The National Dex opening my encounters further, it was a bonus! It was worth the additional 40+ hours I spent over the past week. Why was I so hard on this game?

There’s plenty about newer Pokémon generations that’s turned longtime fans off. The main mechanics haven’t evolved much since the mid-90s, even if the technology has. The Pokédex has become too expansive, with some Pokémon now being event-specific. Even complaints of newer entries being rushed and unfinished are prevalent! It feels like what was once a risky franchise is now playing it safe, with too few new ideas. That’s a problem, one Nintendo hasn’t fully remedied.

However, that doesn’t mean my thoughts on earlier entries haven’t evolved over time. Because they have. Gen 4, particularly Pokémon Pearl, is one example, having recaptured my interest after all these years. Perhaps I was being too hard on it? I’m rectifying that now.

I doubt my love for Gen 1 will ever be eclipsed. It’s hard to surpass the rush I get from seeing Kanto again, even as a remake for the Switch. However, my fondness can’t and shouldn’t be used solely as an excuse to dismiss newer entries. Because every generation has something to offer, and if it’s fun? Well, that’s what matters to me, and it should matter to other people too.

Scream for Me

I’ve never been into the Scream movies. I’m not much into horror, but those films specifically have never caught my fancy. So when I dedicate a piece to them, it isn’t because I have any positive or negative attachment. Understood? Good.

  

So the most-recent entry, Scream 7, has negative reviews already. This isn’t surprising, as it refused to pre-screen, but it’s especially troubling given that it’s the worst-reviewed in the franchise. It’s even more troubling given its production history, having derailed its original plans by firing Melissa Barrera over remarks made a few years ago. And not even the worst kind. This was during the height of the Israel-Gaza skirmish, and Barrera’s exit kick-started a chain of events that forced the movie to be completely retooled.

I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about Gaza: yes, Hamas has been subjugating its citizens for years. Yes, October 7th was a massacre, and anyone claiming otherwise is being naïve. Yes, Netanyahu’s partly to blame for that massacre, and refusing to hold himself accountable sucks. And yes, Israel’s actions in Gaza haven’t been great. All of this is true.

There’s been plenty of misinformation circulating about this war, and it’s led to group-think from everyone. There’s a possibility I’ll be criticized for my opinions on it, with both extremes chastising me for not “picking a side”. I don’t care, though. This isn’t a football match, it’s reality. And people have died, whether or not you want to acknowledge that.

Barrera’s remarks, irrespective of whether or not you agree, didn’t warrant her dismissal. Perhaps they were ignorant, I don’t know, but at best they warranted a reprimand. It’s also troubling because many actors have said far worse and haven’t been penalized. And if they have, like with Susan Sarandon, it was after years of warnings. Because the industry is like that.

By dismissing Barrera, Paramount shot themselves in the foot, as it caused Barrera’s co-star, Jenna Ortega, to also leave, followed by the director. This forced the movie to be retooled to meet its deadline, leading to the current mess. Which begs the question of whether it was worth it. I know The Sunk Cost Fallacy is real, but was this chain of events warranted? Could it not have occurred differently?

I don’t know the answer in hindsight. However, this debacle has raised uncomfortable truths about the divide on Israel-Palestine. On one hand, there’s the financial side, which has taken Israel’s side for years because, good or bad, it’s beneficial. On the other hand, there’s the social side, which has been pushing back and made the conversation toxic. Both sides have caused ripple effects that are negatively impacting Jews and Palestinians, with a rise in hate crimes all around.

It’s been frustrating navigating this conflict for the last few years. My Jewishness was always something I couldn’t hide, but October 7th only exacerbated that. I’ve been covering my yarmulke in public. I’ve taken note of graffiti and posters all over the city, snapping screenshots of the most-egregious examples. Even conversations about the war have varied depending on who I’m talking to, as people’s biases are on full display. Factor in an increase in Antisemitism, and gentiles weaponizing Jewish trauma, and it’s been bad for me mentally. I say that knowing that many Jewish organizations have made discussing it difficult.

Barrera’s comments might’ve warranted a warning, but firing her derailed an entire movie franchise. It’s frustrating because while many celebrities have run their mouths off before, and some about this conflict, they’re not puppets. They’re entitled to political views, and they’re allowed to share them. It’s especially prescient because they can move the needle if they back their words with actions. We’ve seen it happen.

I know actors have a responsibility to their jobs. It’s important to not make your employers look bad. But shouldn’t that go for the reverse too? Actors are employees, and they’re human beings. They deserve to be treated as such, complete with dignities and rights. Wrongful dismissals are bad, especially when they implode a movie’s production. That can’t be overstated.

So what now? For starters, a serious conversation about Israel-Palestine needs to happen. And it needs to happen without anyone’s egos involved. Whether it’s acknowledging how Israel hasn’t always exerted its authority correctly, or how Palestine’s leaders haven’t helped their own cause, or even the generations of trauma on both sides, this reconciliation has to occur. Because it’s been long enough. We’ve let preconceived notions dictate everything, and if Scream 7’s an indication, not having this conversation is also bad. Basically, we need to do better.

Also, leave Jews and Palestinians alone. Most of us are trying to live our lives, and the attacks against us have made us distrustful of people. I know tensions are high, and there are real stakes involved, trust me. However, this isn’t helping. It’s a shame that it took a firing, and a subsequent movie’s disaster, to highlight this problem, but-actually, I doubt Paramount cares, given how they’ve been handling the Warner Bros. situation. Yet that shouldn’t stop everyone from learning from this. Because it was a mishap, and nothing will change unless we take action. I hope we make the right decision...

The Nostalgia Pill

Lately I’ve seen plenty of videos and articles saying “older was better”. Be it movies, TV, books, music or the like, it feels like inherent cynicism for the new is overtaking the conversation, with people pining for the past. While I’m sometimes guilty myself, it genuinely feels like the internet has embraced Peter Pan Syndrome. And it’s tiresome. It’s tiresome listening to, it’s tiresome engaging with, it’s tiresome all around. It also begs the question: what is it about nostalgic art that piques our curiosity more than current art?

First, let’s understand what nostalgia is. Taken from the Greek words “nóstos” and “álgos” (aka “a painful longing for home”), the phrase was conceived to describe soldiers abroad who had homesickness. Over time, it morphed to be about longing for the past in general. After all, the past was known, understood and fixed. The future, however, was unknown, mysterious and fluid. Since people are pathologically averse to what they can’t understand, it makes sense gravitating to the past.

Nostalgia isn’t inherently bad. Not only does the past teach us about the present, it also can be reevaluated when looked back on. That’s why art exists in “The 30-Year Cycle”, as artists mature and reflect on their childhoods. And given how political culture’s reactionary, for good or bad, having that nostalgic framework allows us to understand how societies progress or regress. Also, nostalgia, on some level, is comforting.

Nevertheless, that pining for nostalgia is dangerous when not checked with reality. There’s a twofold reason: one, it’s not healthy to stay in the past, especially at the expense of the present. And two, your understanding of the past is different than someone else’s, with biases based on privilege. Not everything about the past was great, and ignoring that hurts progress. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our current political zeitgeist.

Additionally, pop culture nostalgia, while fun, often blinds people to what’s current. Don’t like how a show ended? Claim it didn’t live up to its start. A rebooted or legacy franchise turned out differently than you expected? State that it’s lost its edge. Something’s gone on too long? Call it out. All of these responses are flooding the internet, and it makes having conversations difficult.

A while back, I saw a video analyzing how 2000s movies were more immersive because they focused first on world-building, something lost with modern storytelling. It was interesting, to but I found it reduced an entire medium to black-and-white metrics. There were plenty of 2000s movies that were non-immersive and preachy. I grew up then, after all! Subsequently, there are many modern movies that are immersive and not preachy in the slightest.

I think nostalgia played a huge factor, if unintentionally, in the underlying thesis. To reference a response to the comment I left, everyone remembers being 12 years-old. Cinematic storytelling ages, and not always the way we intend. What might’ve been revolutionary when you were younger might not hold up now. And your nostalgia sometimes clouds your judgement.

Perhaps this can be understood via MovieBob’s “Really That Good” episode on Transformers: The Movie. Bob states upfront that the movie isn’t great: it’s messy, sloppily-written and exists to merchandise newer toys. Additionally, many of its celebrity voices, like Orson Welles, clearly didn’t care, only agreeing to be there for a paycheque. However, Bob acknowledges that the movie still made an impact because it resonated with so many people. Fair enough.

However, I wonder if the movie should be reevaluated now that we’ve had two critically-acclaimed Transformers entries, Bumblebee and Transformers One, released theatrically. Both were labours of love, even if they were based on toys, and both told genuine stories. For the former, it was “a girl and her dog” premise akin to The Iron Giant. For the latter, it was a “friends to enemies” origin for Optimus Prime and Megatron. Both have gone on to become cult classics, too. Essentially, is nostalgia the only element keeping Transformers: The Movie relevant?

I have fond memories of garbage movies and shows. I loved Inspector Gadget as a kid, once watching it every day for a week, but the adult in me knows that it sucks. I loved Pokémon when I was younger, despite recognizing it pales to the games it was based on. Like Bob and Transformers: The Movie, I also have examples of art that I still connect with despite recognizing that it existed as vehicles for merchandising, the Digimon franchise being a prime example. However, my nostalgic attachments have kept these properties relevant, even if they’re not great-actually, Digimon Tamers holds up. But my point stands.

This unwillingness to live in the present, no matter what franchise, has ruined people’s ability to be honest about media. And while this isn’t a new problem, contrary to what some claim, I do think it’s gotten worse as the internet has become more of a mainstay. Videos that wouldn’t have been popular even 10 years ago are now mainstays for views and engagement thanks to algorithms promoting them over even-keeled analyses. It’s why so many videos complaining about Stranger Things, particularly its final season, exist versus those defending the show. Nostalgia, like anger, sells more than honesty, especially online.

What can be done? I don’t know. My words alone won’t fix anything, as I’m as guilty of looking to the past as anyone else. But I do think a re-framing of how we perceive engaging with art needs to happen. And it should happen soon. There’s only so much looking back we can do before the well runs dry permanently. That’s never a good sign, in other words.

So yes, nostalgia can be comforting, but also dangerous if not tempered with reality. The sooner we realize that, the better off we’ll be.

I'm the GOAT

I’ve become what I hate: someone who’s picky about movies in theatres. It’s not like I wanted that, as I used to see several a month, but between two jobs, my limited income and the cost of movie tickets nowadays, I’ve had to become selective. I also have a monthly movie budget that could be easily blown with one theatre trip. Basically, it takes something extra special for me to watch a new release. But this is something I’ve said before, so I’m probably being redundant.

Anyway, I recently saw GOAT, that anthropomorphic basketball movie, on the big screen. Despite looking mid-tier initially, I enjoyed it. Yes, sports aren’t my jam. And yes, the movie has a fart joke involving a CPAP. But when you get past that, it’s not half-bad overall.

This begs the question: why has movie-going become exclusive? Why do we shell out insane amounts of money on movies, only to go online and complain about them? And why do we treat them like sports, always trying to one-up everyone else? Movies are meant to be escapism, not life. So why treat them like life?

I’m not guiltless here. Before the pandemic, I went to my local cinemas regularly. Sometimes I’d go twice a week, assuming I had time. Movies were my bread and butter for years. And while they burned through my bank account, I got a lot of joy out of them. Movie-going was fun, if somewhat obsessive.

That changed in March of 2020. Not only did I stop going for health reasons, but whenever movies were shown in theatres, such as Tenet, it backfired. Simply put, seeing new releases was dangerous. And streamers noticed this, with watching movies at home taking off. It’s unfortunate, but that was the reality for over a year.

Once the restrictions lessened, and theatres opened again, the novelty had faded. Movie-going wasn’t fun anymore. It didn’t help that problems I might’ve dealt with in the past, like bloated ticket costs, were now no longer worth ignoring. After all, renting movies was cheaper! And more convenient! So why bother?

That’s when my budgeting experiment began. For one, I didn’t have time or funds to go to the theatre regularly anymore. And two, I had adult responsibilities, responsibilities like paying for groceries. So it’s no wonder that I started going out to theatres less frequently. Even if it meant skipping something I was looking forward to.

Which brings me back to my questions. It genuinely feels like seeing movies in theatres is now less a hobby and more a chore, with people pressuring others to see new releases. This includes mini-reviews on Letterboxd, as well as debates in forums and on YouTube videos. It also includes endless, aggressively-long video essays deconstructing every detail of new releases to “prove” they suck. That’s not what I signed up for.

It also makes me less-excited to see new releases. I remember getting roasted on Bluesky last year because someone discovered that I hadn’t seen Sinners yet. This individual then lobbed Antisemitic remarks, having found out I was Jewish, before promptly Blocking me. I still haven’t seen Sinners. But if this is the reaction I get for not watching it, then is it worth it?

Going back to GOAT, part of why I saw it is because I knew it wouldn’t be amazing, yet I was curious. And that’s okay. A movie doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel to be enjoyable, and I think people have forgotten that. In a sense, GOAT might be worth it as a reminder. Because we appear to need that reminding.

Let me reiterate: not everything needs to reinvent the wheel to be enjoyable. This includes GOAT, which is basically Space Jam if it wasn’t conceived for cynical reasons. The movie, save for its visuals, isn’t doing anything revolutionary, but it does it well anyway. Even visually, Sony Animation has done more interesting stuff recently. But that doesn’t matter when the movie is fun anyway.

It sounds like I’m going in circles, but I want fellow movie fans to understand this. GOAT might not rock your world. It might only be okay! However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth watching. Neither should I be judged over it being the only movie I’ve seen theatrically this year so far. Even if there are better movies out there, you shouldn’t berate me for being budget-conscious. Nor should you berate me if I wasn’t being budget-conscious. You don’t know my personal circumstances.

I’ll end with the following anecdote: a reviewer I used to be a fan of once chastised moviegoers for only seeing MCU movies in theatres. Said reviewer compared them to junk food, stressing that people needed a varied cinema diet. I didn’t agree, but at the time I got the sentiment. I don’t anymore, however, as life’s too precious to gate-keep people’s preferences. If that makes me “lame”, so be it!

So yes, I’ve become what I hate, but I wouldn’t change that. Because I feel much better about myself, if we’re honest.

She's in WHAT?!

(Warning: the following contains heavy and uncomfortable subject matter. Please read at your own risk.)

I’ve broken my promise to not discuss JK Rowling again several times. It’s not deliberate, but she somehow shoots her credibility in the foot constantly. It doesn’t help that people close to me have said they think the controversy surrounding her is unfounded. If I can’t convince them of her transphobia, then I wonder if I ever will. Especially since the HBO reboot of the Harry Potter series is still happening, with several high-profile actors excusing Rowling because they’re in it. I really don’t know what else to say.

Fortunately, life has presented an opportunity to criticize her again. This one’s worse than all her rhetoric, as it’s been in the news nonstop: JK Rowling’s mentioned in the Epstein files. You know, the ones about pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s friends and colleagues? The ones implicating many wealthy and famous individuals? Those files?

Now, being mentioned in Epstein’s files doesn’t automatically make you an offender. As Jon Stewart pointed out The Daily Show, he’s referenced briefly as a possible comedian to play a character Epstein wanted for a movie. Epstein also had many aspirational individuals in his records, as evidenced by his flight logs. What should be alarming, however, is how Rowling comes up in two instances. Brace yourselves.

The first goes back to the year 2000. Rowling, in the peak of her Harry Potter success, gives a glowing review of Lolita, a novel about an aristocrat romancing and sexually extorting a 12 year-old girl. It’s meant as a cautionary tale about pedophilia and sex slavery, but Rowling, who’s nameless, celebrates it as a “powerful tale of romance”. If you don’t believe me, read her words yourself. She’s quite descriptive.

This is upsetting. Ignoring how Lolita would inspire a sub-genre of pornography, or how Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation aged up the girl to sand off the “icky” parts, it’s obvious that the reader isn’t meant to endorse the relationship. Even in 1955, when Vladimir Nabokov wrote it, this sort of romance was uncomfortable. And Nabokov was commenting on how aristocrats use influence to extort children. This is something that was lost to Rowling, which reflects poorly on her.

But maybe there’s an argument to be made that this isn’t Rowling. The author isn’t mentioned by name, so there’s some plausible deniability here. However, the second reference to Rowling is more recent. Occurring in 2018, as Epstein’s crimes were being made public, Rowling’s team contacted Epstein to see a showing of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child on Broadway as it premiered. The unofficial sequel to the Harry Potter series, this play, about Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy’s children, was starting to take off at this time. According to the exchange, Rowling’s team tried inviting Epstein.

This is much more damning evidence against Rowling, made worse by her going radio silent for several days before denying all wrongdoing. I get that she must’ve been caught off-guard, as well as that she was probably coached by legal counsel to wait, but this is damning in its own right. Because, like I said, Epstein’s crimes weren’t a secret in 2018. What gives?

Actually, I know what gives. This is JK Rowling using her fame to court a successful financier. Except this is Jeffrey Epstein we’re talking about. Rowling could’ve solicited a dozen other people, but she chose Epstein. And given Epstein’s reputation, that’s troubling.

But it speaks to how dishonest Rowling is in general. She released a picture of her smoking a cigar and drinking champagne after Scotland’s Supreme Court ruled against gender-affirming care. She also got into trouble after claiming an Algerian athlete was a man in 2024, even though being trans is illegal there. Rowling’s no stranger to controversy, so why not be on Epstein’s list too? Is that such a stretch?

I’m frustrated by this. Rowling’s not the only author I respected to shoot her credibility in the foot; Neil Gaiman has sexual assault baggage spanning decades. But Rowling hurts specifically because she’s made a profound impact on millions of youth, and she has influence politically. She also has major control over the IP rights to Harry Potter, which is a beloved series. To be associated with Jeffrey Epstein is upsetting and dangerous, and I wish people recognized that.

I know that many famous authors have questionable political and personal lives. The late-Roald Dahl was an avowed Antisemite, and England refused to honour him after his death. Neil Gaiman, who I respected for decades, has sexual assault allegations. Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple, is also an Antisemite, having made frequent statements. However, Rowling surpasses them in stature and influence, so this is a frustrating series of revelations on top of already preexisting ones.

Does this mean Rowling’s a hack? No. Despite all the re-evaluations of her work, I do think she initially earned her reputation fairly. But this doesn’t mean she hasn’t been pissing away her goodwill lately. Her ties to Epstein are another example, and it’s high-time people stopped putting her on an untouchable pedestal. At least, for now. We can reassess everything after her passing.

Inglourious Basterds Revisited

In 2017, I wrote a piece criticizing Inglourious Basterds. I don’t think I was being entirely honest. After all, it’d been several years since I’d last seen it, so my memory wasn’t fresh. And with it being almost 9 years since writing the piece, I’ve wondered if my thoughts were warranted. So I re-watched it. While, yes, some of my thoughts have changed, I think it’s the most-frustrating of Tarantino’s works. I say that having not finished Jackie Brown.

Let’s start with what I liked. In a landscape where Jewish roles are frequently given to gentiles, that this movie casts Jews in Jewish roles is a miracle. That extends to European casting, with Shoshana Dreyfus going to relative-newcomer Mélanie Laurent. Laurent was in her mid-20s at the time, yet she has enough charisma to lead this film alone. It’s a shame she isn’t the focal point, but we’ll get there...

Speaking of casting, I appreciate the movie’s authenticity. German and French actors were cast appropriately, with Hans Landa going to Christoph Waltz. Waltz earned an Oscar for his take on a slimy-yet-charismatic Nazi with an ability to sniff out Jews. Landa’s the best antagonist this movie has. He’s also the true foil to Shoshana, and, again, it’s a shame their dynamic isn’t the focus.

I like how this movie has urgency and danger in every scene, even the one involving Mike Myers’s character setting up everything. This is best exemplified in the opening, where Landa, using clever language and interrogation techniques, murders Shoshana’s family. This is easily its crown achievement, and it could’ve been a short film had it ended there. I’d argue the remainder of the movie never tops it, too.

Finally, this is a Jewish-centric story. It figures that it would be, it’s a Holocaust story, but it centering around Jews specifically is nice. Holocaust movies, particularly in Hollywood, often show gentiles helping Jews, robbing the Jewish characters of their agency. Inglourious Basterds doesn’t do that. Small moments like Landa getting Shoshana to eat strudel with non-Kosher cream, despite Jewish law allowing that to save your life, feel weighty because the movie makes it so. It’s nice to see this.

Unfortunately, that’s where my praise ends. But before I rip it apart, a disclaimer: I don’t have Holocaust survivors in my family. I’m the rare breed of Jew who’s third-generation Canadian, having three grandparents born in Toronto and one in Washington D.C. My experience with the Holocaust is through friends and acquaintances. I volunteered at a geriatric facility with survivors, but none were related to me. So anything I say should be understood through that lens.

The best way to summarize my thoughts would be in one word: frustrating. Inglourious Basterds’s pivotal scene, the theatre massacre, has many moving parts that need to fall into place to work, and on several occasions it nearly collapses. It’s only through a combination of plot armour and story contrivances that it works, and even then it feels forced. There are several moments where I wondered if the the Nazi officers and their associates were dumb enough to gather in a small, sketchy revue like this. Then I remembered that many Nazi officials were that dumb, and I stopped questioning it.

But it raises a bigger issue, one that I still hold by now. Most of the Nazis in the movie don’t act differently than standard soldiers. They wear their SS garb, which isn’t flattering, but there’s little differentiating them from The Basterds Brigade. On that front, said Basterds, a group of Jews, are more evil than the Nazis they’re sent to kill. With one ripping out a sleeping SS officer’s tongue, and another one, nicknamed “The Bear Jew”, bludgeoning a Nazi officer to death with a baseball bat, Quentin Tarantino misses the mark in making these characters feel sympathetic.

Even Shoshana, the one exception, loses me in the finale when her silhouette laughs maniacally at the chaos she’s created. On paper, this should be satisfying, especially since Shoshana has experienced so much misery and grief. But it’s not. Not only does Shoshana not survive, being shot by a Nazi who keeps pestering her, but the image of a Jewish woman laughing demonically as her face is engulfed by flames is…aggressive. It feels Antisemitic, even if that wasn’t the intent.

I could continue ranting all day about the theatre massacre, including how Hitler’s face being riddled with bullets makes me uneasy. And yeah, you could argue how that massacre is Tarantino commenting on the audience’s appetite for excessive violence, something mirrored in the movie the patrons are watching. But because this is Tarantino, a man whose next movie, Django Unchained, involved one of the bloodiest shootouts I’ve ever seen, I can’t help recognizing the irony there. It’s patronizing, essentially. It’s also annoying.

Another sequence that irks me involves the bar shootout. One of the Nazis there, a low-ranking officer named Wilhelm, has recently become a father, and he’s celebrating by getting piss-drunk. As that’s happening, the plan involving the movie revue, which is discussed with German spy Bridget Von Hammersmark, is run down at a neighbouring table. The situation turns when a high-ranking SS officer joins said table, leading to a shootout when someone gives away that he’s a British spy. It’s a gunfight that you’d expect from Tarantino, ending with Hammersmark being badly-injured and Wilhelm surviving the onslaught.

And then, as Wilhelm surrenders to Lieutenant Aldo Raine, Hammersmark shoots him anyway. Even if you’d argue that he might’ve squealed to The SS, it’s still excessive for Wilhelm to be shot. Like Miss Laura’s death in Django Unchained, it’s gratuitous. It also doesn’t serve a purpose outside of giving Tarantino another chance to flex. In short, I didn’t like it.

The part that pisses me off the most is the ending. Specifically, how Shoshana isn’t present. Not only did she not deserve to die at the hands of her stalker, she also should’ve been the one to carve Landa’s head. It’d not only be satisfying, tying her arc to her direct tormentor, it’d make what feels like another, run-of-the-mill art piece into something layered with meaning. I know it’s too late now to suggest that to Tarantino, but it definitely feels like a missed opportunity.

That’s my issue with this movie in general, namely that it refuses to get out of its own way. It’s a problem Tarantino would have again with Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood’s finale, as that would’ve benefited from Sharon Tate killing her failed intruders. After all, that was as much about Tate as this is about Shoshana, so why not? Tarantino’s already making a revisionist piece, so why not go all the way? Or does gratuitous violence override layered storytelling?

When I wrote my initial critique of Inglourious Basterds, I got plenty of flak from people. Specifically, from the “punch Nazis” crowd, who claimed that I was “both sides-ing” what should be straightforward. However, I remain steadfast in my frustrations, even if I no longer romanticize Nazis. And in a time when Jews are harassed and attacked over something they never asked for, that crowd could stand to listen to us even when it makes them uncomfortable. Essentially, “punch Nazis” should include “and listen to their victims, too”.

As a final note, the reason I prefer Django Unchained is because while that movie’s also gratuitous, it doesn’t detract from Django getting closure. Yes, it deals with American slavery. And yes, it has Samuel L. Jackson playing a stereotypical, Uncle Ruckus-type villain in Lawrence. But it lets Django have the last word. Inglourious Basterds, however, doesn’t extend that grace to Shoshana Dreyfus. That matters, and it bothers me. It should bother you too.

Steven Spielberg's EGOTmania

I’d like to continue the positivity, because we badly need it:

Steven Spielberg’s one of my favourite directors. I know it’s cliché to say that, and even more cliché to praise his work, but he’s able to release two movies a year and have both be well-received. He’s also a workman’s director, able to tackle various subjects in a common and relatable way. In short, he’s quite talented. And actors love working with him.

I mention this in light of recent news. The Grammys were this past week, and one of the big moments was Spielberg receiving a Grammy for his producer role on a video about John Williams. I don’t watch The Grammys, I only have time for one schlocky ceremony, but this is huge! It grants Spielberg the coveted EGOT status, something only 28 artists have achieved. And since Spielberg’s turning 80, it gives me hope that I can still achieve success.

Truthfully, this was a long time coming. Spielberg’s one of the greats, having broken into the industry when Hollywood was receptive to talents like him. He’s one of the longest and most well-respected Movie Brats, right up there with Martin Scorsese, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. But what makes him unique is his refusal to pigeonhole himself, instead oscillating between dramas, action movies and thrillers, often in the same year. He’s also had a career as a producer, helping directors like Barry Sonnenfeld, Robert Zemeckis and Michael Bay. And let’s not forget his friendship with composer John Williams, who’s scored most of his work.

For Steven Spielberg to achieve EGOT status is a big deal and overdue. Spielberg isn’t normally one to brag about his achievements, but it’s worth remembering that he won his first Oscar with Schindler’s List. That means he went over three decades without one, despite having plenty of movies that warranted it. He now has 3 Oscars to his name. So that he was able to wow audiences despite overdue recognition says something, and that goes for his other awards too.

There’s been much debate about Spielberg in film circles: is his dramatic work better than his action work? Is he the best? Is he even that good a director? The answers vary, but I don’t think it matters long-term. Spielberg’s work is so varied that all you need to do is watch it. It doesn’t matter if it’s Jaws or Saving Private Ryan, it’s easy to pick favourites even if you prefer other directors. I think that’s more important.

I also should admit that not everything about Spielberg’s flawless. He’s directed and produced bad movies before, and he’s made out-there statements that sound whiny. His conversations with George Lucas about Indiana Jones, particularly Indy’s romantic life, also haven’t aged well. But that’s irrelevant to his achievements. Even “bad Spielberg” has more to say than many movies from other directors, and his missteps are minimal compared to his colleagues. That most audiences still recognize his work speaks volumes, especially when big, expensive blockbuster IPs are household names as opposed to the people directing them.

There’s not much to discuss that hasn’t already been touched on. He’s a master of one take scenes. He’s a pro at executing Chekhov’s Gun. He rarely directs sequels, and even there he’s made some greats. And the franchises he started have suffered once he handed the keys to someone else, the Jurassic Park movies specifically. Even directing Ready Player One, which was controversial, felt like a natural choice, and I can’t imagine anyone else doing it in retrospect.

This is to say that, in spite of anything positive or negative, Spielberg achieving EGOT status is well-earned. Not every artist is as accomplished or busybody as him, so to finally get to that level is should indicate that no one should give up hope. Remember, Spielberg’s turning 80. If an artist can be working at the twilight of their career and still receive recognition, then you can be adventurous in your youth and not worry about peaking. So go, live out your dreams! What have you got to lose?

Personally, Steven Spielberg receiving EGOT status has renewed the passion in my own work. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m working on a novel that’s really personal to me. It’s been tough, and tiring, and there were moments where I felt like I’d stagnated. I know novel writing isn’t easy, and I was probably being too hard on myself, but the feeling of exhaustion has crept in several times. There were even moments where I wanted to give up.

So that one of my favourite directors could achieve something only 27 other artists have achieved, and at his age? It renewed my passion. And yes, I’m aware I still have a long way to go to being published. I’m also aware that it’ll be a difficult road. But thanks to this news, I’m willing to persevere. I only hope the passion continues for years to come.

Here’s to you, Steven Spielberg! May you one day achieve the more-illusive PEGOT status, and I’m looking forward to seeing Disclosure Day.