Christmas? Bah, Humbug!

One of the annoyances about December is putting up with Christmas’s excess. I have no issues with Christmas as a holiday. Everyone has their pleasures, and I’d be remiss to not acknowledge that as one of them. What bothers me, however, is how Christmas gets shoved in my face from the last moments of Halloween and right to New Year’s Eve. If it weren’t for my brother’s birthday being on Christmas Eve, I’d consider the holiday nothing more than a paid vacation day.

I think why Christmas bugs me has to do with its marketing. We see it everywhere. It begins with Mariah Carey’s annual “I’m back!” video, and it ends with TV marathons of classic Christmas movies prior to December 24th. Honestly, it’s exhausting. Especially since other holidays take a backseat.

I’ve spent most of my adult life in service industries. From 2017 to 2019, I worked in a storefront that played nonstop Christmas music every December, such that it wouldn’t leave my head after my shift ended. In December of 2020, I started at a grocery store, and the music I’ve heard every December has been Christmas-related. For both jobs, I’ve also seen the excessive selection of Christmas-related merchandise. And let’s not forget my courier job, with the rush of deliveries leading up to when it closes down until January. It’s hard avoiding Christmas when it’s everywhere.

Additionally, many people are really sensitive about Christmas. Wish someone a “Happy Holidays”, and there’s a chance they’ll get offended for not saying “Merry Christmas”. The “War on Christmas” every year amounts to adults whining about diversity initiatives. And whenever someone tries being inclusive to me, they wish me “Happy Hanukah!” throughout December. What do I tell them? Should I mention how Chanukah’s only eight days, and that they fluctuate because of The Lunar Calendar?

It sounds like I’m being petty, but that’s because my own holiday gets shafted. Progressive Christians flaunt that Chanukah coincides with Christmas, but aside from not necessarily being true, you wouldn’t know it from how it’s portrayed in pop culture. Be it TV shows or songs, Chanukah’s an afterthought. I know there are more Christians in the world than Jews, but how can I be happy about The Festival of Lights when it’s not promoted heavily?

The litmus test is looking at how Chanukah’s advertised. The Hallmark Channel, known for their Christmas originals, did some Chanukah movies several years ago that were basically covert Christmas movies. The number of big-budget Chanukah movies that are well-known begin and end with Eight Crazy Nights, starring Adam Sandler and his wacky antics. The number of well-known Chanukah songs, outside of those in Hebrew, also begin and end with Adam Sandler’s wacky antics. I don’t need to endure Sandler’s vulgar variants of Jewish Geography, especially considering how I can’t stand his brand of humour most of the time. Can’t holidays like Chanukah get their time in the spotlight?

It's not like I’m alone. Remember the “War on Christmas”? Many of the Christmas classics had Jewish hands in the pot, be it financing for movies, or Jewish composers writing the songs. If you’re really big into Christmas, chances are you’ve absorbed a Jewish-made product somewhere. That’s what we’ve had to do to survive. And whenever people complain about the “War on Christmas” and reference Christmases past, I can’t help rolling my eyes.

It also makes Jews feel incredibly-insecure about Chanukah. Four years ago I wrote a piece on a tone-deaf editorial in The New York Times discussing that. In it, I said the following:

“I’m also confused as to why Judaism, particularly Chanukah, is considered embarrassing. Not only is it one of the holidays the non-Jewish world actually understands, but it’s also beautiful on its own.”

I’m no longer confused. When Chanukah isn’t recognized as the important holiday that it is, it’s inevitable that unaffiliated Jews are going to be embarrassed by it. Why bother celebrating a holiday about Jewish identity when that isn’t promoted properly? Chanukah might be well-known, but that’s because it traditionally falls around the same time as Christmas. Had Chanukah occurred in the Summer, I doubt non-Jews would’ve cared. 

This’ll sound bizarre, but Christmas’s ubiquitous nature is why I secretly wish Jews ruled the world, or actually had the power Antisemites claimed. Because then Christmas wouldn’t be oversaturated. Like Jewish holidays now, there’d only be about two weeks of Christmas hype, and those would be the ones leading to the holiday. You don’t need to celebrate the holiday for a month, that’s ridiculous.

Maybe I’d be less cranky if other religions got advertised as heavily. Removing the Jewish aspect, why not celebrate Kwanzaa too? I’m not familiar with Islam’s holidays, but why can’t people spotlight those? There are other religions with holidays in December, and it’s only fair to recognize them, right? Right?!

To reiterate, I have nothing against Christmas as a holiday. December’s tough because of how cold it is, and we all need festivities. For all my complaining about Christmas, I see its appeal and beauty. I’m not going to detract from its religious significance either, even if my only connection to Jesus is that he was Jewish. I get it.

Nevertheless, Christmas needs to chill out. There’s no “War on Christmas”, the marketing’s excessive, and the acknowledgements of other holidays need not make Christmas look better by default. I know I can’t change anything myself, but a little sensitivity’s all I ask. Because it’s not easy. Also, screw The Salvation Army.

RT VS IMDB

Movie reviewing, truthfully, isn’t an exact science. There are some general criteria, but most of the time it’s subjective. That’s why aggregator sites exist, as you’re bound to get a wide variety of opinions on a piece of entertainment. People aren’t monolithic, and neither are reviewers. We cool?

Why’s this so hard to understand? We can argue semantics forever. We can also debate whether or not you agree on an overall consensus. But when you remove the finer details, reviews are opinions. You’re not obligated to agree, correct?

Such is the situation whenever Rotten Tomatoes’ credibility’s brought up. I don’t agree with much of how the site operates, and I’ve mentioned this before. However, their scoring system’s self-explanatory. Their job isn’t to be completely-objective, but rather give an outline that helps consumers know what to look for. This isn’t rocket science.

Whenever Rotten Tomatoes gets brought up, people trash it for petty reasons: they gave X a good score. They weren’t fair to Y. They were “bought off”. The last claim’s absurd, as reviewers aren’t normally bribed, but the conversation then turns to how IMDB’s better. And I couldn’t disagree more.

For those not in the know, IMDB’s a site that’s also an aggregator, but in a different way. Whereas Rotten Tomatoes measures what critics say, IMDB measures what moviegoers say. There’s also a section for user reviews, as well as a now-defunct forum section. Sounds good, right?

Not entirely. While user reviews might be more democratic in theory, in practice they lead to many problems. IMDB isn’t regulated like Rotten Tomatoes, hence anyone can write a review. Additionally, it’s rife with clique-y behaviour, where people with chips on their shoulders review-bomb good movies. This leads to jealousy and resentment, which is also unmoderated. Because how could it?

I’ve become skeptical of IMDB’s authenticity over the past decade or so. It has some useful trivia and news, like any good database, but does that warrant the vitriol? It also democratizes user reviews, but at what cost? What good is a database that encourages toxicity? Is it worth the headaches?

This is why I prefer Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, it’s subjective. And yes, removing the forums and user comments was a good idea, considering the abuse that festered there. But it has a verification process too. At least it screens who reviews what, and why. IMDB doesn’t have that.

It’s also good because professional reviewers are trained to be critical and honest. They’re (mostly) not reviewing based on arbitrary checklists or vendettas, unlike IMDB. It’s that detachment that allows for more insightful and honest reviews, something we need more of with movies that aren’t immediately-approachable. Rotten Tomatoes allows for mid-sized projects with potential to shine. Everyone’s going to be interested in Wicked Part 1 or an MCU project based on word-of-mouth, but what about movies that are more obscure? I’d have never seen Thelma without Rotten Tomatoes, and it ended up as one of my favourite movies of 2024! That required gambling on a lesser-known movie, one I’d have missed without it featuring it on the front page with glowing praise. That’s something IMDB would never do!

One more gripe with IMDB is that it favours immediate press over long-term press. This is most-obvious through its IMDB Top 250 List, as that’s mostly newer and more-popular movies. It has obscure and older entries on it, but you’d be hard-pressed to find hidden gems. Especially not when it’s reliant on user reviews. Rotten Tomatoes, being reviewer-centric, doesn’t have this problem.

It's hard accepting when a movie you like is trashed, or vice versa. I know from personal experience, as I’m a Star Wars Prequels fan! I’m also not saying IMDB’s worthless, as it’s not. The site has useful information and obscure trivia I wouldn’t have considered otherwise, as it’s compiled into one, easily-accessible source. Databases are valuable resources, irrespective of quality. But there has to be scrutiny involved in how they operate. I’m not seeing that with IMDB.

Additionally, I don’t like how much of a popularity contest IMDB becomes during awards season. We saw that with The Boy and the Heron winning an Oscar over Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I liked the latter more too, but I have no qualms with the former winning the gold trophy. And yet the IMDB pages for both movies indicate a rivalry that those not in the know will form unfair opinions on. It’s not good practice.

In the end, there needs to be a line drawn. I don’t agree with everything Rotten Tomatoes aggregates, and I wish studios wouldn’t flaunt its credentials so objectively. I also think IMDB can be useful for information I would’ve skipped otherwise. But I still would rather a site designed for professionals to review movies, where you understand how and why they got where they did, than one designed for people who don’t always know what they’re talking about. Because the former has some level of critical reasoning. And isn’t that what matters?

Made for Television?

There’s something unsettling about movies originally meant for television. Not that they can’t be good, but that the creators feel a big screen movie is the solution rubs me the wrong way. Even on a good day, it shows. It shows because the movie lacks the quality of a theatrical film, and because you can’t shake the feeling of it originally being for a different-yet-similar medium.

Take Inhumans. Released in 2017, it was a two-parter. Despite its production history, switching back-and-forth between TV and film, it ultimately felt too rough for theatres, yet too condensed for TV. That was later reinforced with the show proper, which was cancelled after one season and trashed critically. To-date, it’s the worst-reviewed MCU-adjacent production, more than Iron Fist. I say “adjacent” because it was grandfathered into The MCU.

There were many issues at play, including bad production design, but the biggest was it releasing as a two-parter for the big screen. Why did Marvel do that? Why not trust the TV format? It’s not like TV can’t do original movies, or even original events, so not taking advantage of that’s certainly a choice. And not a good one.

I wouldn’t be confused if multi-part event movies were incapable of working. But they are. Not only is Wicked being chopped into two parts, but The MCU has made an art out of serialized movies. In both cases, the end result worked. So why not Inhumans? Possibly because it wasn’t designed from the ground up for theatres, instead making the jump near the end of production.

Let’s use another example. I love Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I think it’s cleverly-written, emotionally-driven, funny and elevates The Prequels significantly. However, its premiere was a film that wasn’t well-loved. Despite the decent voice acting, the animation was cheap, the editing awkward and the pacing off. And its decision to introduce Ahsoka, a character now loved by fans, as a teenager who’s almost as annoying as Anakin was derided. It’s hard to imagine now, but this wasn’t a great start.

Having seen the movie, it’s not the worst experience ever. I wouldn’t even call it the worst episode of the show, as there are worse. But the movie’s biggest crime is feeling like an overlong TV episode. It’s not even a good one, revolving around returning Jabba the Hutt’s baby son. Essentially, it’s a rescue mission.

It stands out because Star Wars: The Clone Wars ended its run on a four-part movie for Disney+ that was great. It might’ve been paced like TV, but it didn’t feel it. It also had high-production value, with animation that could’ve passed as theatrical. I know the show’s animation budget kept progressing, but it could never boast technical beauty until these episodes. That’s something the pilot, an actual movie, couldn’t attest to. Such is the curse of turning a TV pilot into a theatrical film at the last minute.

One more example. I’ve discussed Batman: Mask of the Phantasm before. I even dedicated an entire piece to it, which you can find here. It actually works as a theatrical movie! But only slightly, as its production quality’s pretty rough.

It makes sense that it’s a halfway point between TV and film. It was meant as a standalone movie in the universe of Batman: The Animated Series, shifting gears late to capitalize on Batman Returns a year earlier. This gave its animation and voice acting a slight edge, but not enough to compare to some of DC’s later direct-to-video movies. It’s an awkward halfway point between the show and a movie, right down to the character movement. I’ve seen this movie many times, and I can’t help noticing how rushed and stiff it looks.

That’s not to disparage the experience. For all my issues production-wise, it’s not bad. If anything, it’s the best example of a made-for-TV film that was upscaled to theatres. The animation has that filmic vibe, and the late-Shirley Walker’s score is definitely movie-quality. Warner Bros. Animation cared when moving it to theatres, and it looks better than the show it’s based on. (A show that already looked great.) Still, it feels like a padded episode of TV, given its runtime, and it does little to distinguish itself outside of some exterior polish.

I mention these examples in light of Moana 2. It’s been criticized for many reasons, chief among them cramming several episodes of TV into a feature-length film. It looks amazing, thanks to Disney’s budget, but no visual polish compensates for bad pacing and condensed writing. This all shows in its reception. But it’s making lots of money, so what do I know?

It's true that films like this can be enjoyable. I’ve seen Cowboy Bebop: Knocking on Heaven’s Door several times, and it feels like an elaborate TV episode. Yet while not amazing-its story’s unwelcoming to those unfamiliar with the show-it manages to be a pleasant distraction. It’s the anime equivalent of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, even upping its production value.

Ultimately, movies originally made for TV can’t really escape that reality. Whether it’s the production quality, the pacing, or not taking advantage of the medium change, the curse of this kind of movie’s as painful as it is obvious. One would hope a movie beginning as a TV show would utilize that change. But most don’t. And that’s worrisome.

Wicked's Nessarose Problem

I’m cheating here. Not only am I able-bodied, but wheelchair-bound individuals have discussed this in more depth due to their lived experience. Still, as someone with Autism, therefore experiencing ableism myself, I feel I can somewhat discuss this with the knowledge I have. So let’s do that. Let’s talk Nessarose.

Like I said before, I love Wicked. I love the play, I love the music, and I was surprised by how much I loved the movie adaptation. I understand the criticism surrounding the CGI and lighting, but as it doesn’t bother me more than other movies, especially since bright colours have bothered my eyes since I got glasses, I’m willing to tolerate it. It’s also not a dealbreaker. But I digress.

In my piece on Wicked Part 1, I mentioned the following:

“…[E]nough dazzles and surprises that it’s a shame I have to wait another year for the darker, more uncomfortably-aged second-half.”

I still hold this thought to be true: the second-half of this story’s much darker, but it also has a scene that hasn’t exactly stood the test of time. (I’d argue it was bad even in 2003, but that’s a separate issue.) I didn’t think it was worth discussing without ruining an otherwise-fantastic story…until I discovered that Marissa Bode, who plays Nessarose, is a wheelchair user. Since disabilities aren’t something you can turn off, her casting’s a big deal. I applaud her for breaking down barriers in an industry that, sadly, still doesn’t get disabilities like hers.

So yes, I was excited and scared. I was excited because Jon M. Chu and the writers had a new challenge to work with, but also scared because I’m unsure if they knew what they were up against. Because Nessarose…is a functionally-awful character in the second-half. And for that, I have to discuss some spoilers. You’ve been warned:

In the second-half of the second-half of Wicked, Elphaba, now The Wicked Witch of the West, checks in on Nessarose to plead with her and call off her arrest warrant. Nessarose, having inherited their late-father’s role as Munchkinland’s governor, has influence, but the encounter proves futile. Nessarose blames Elphaba for their father’s death, and she’s revealed by Boq to be a tyrant. Her resentment over her disability has also made her envious of Elphaba, and, seeing Elphaba’s magic book, wishes for her legs to work.

It gets worse when, after granting that wish, Nessarose curses Boq and removes his heart with a spell, nearly killing him. Elphaba remedies the situation with a counterspell before leaving, and it turns Boq into a tin man with a vendetta against Elphaba and Nessarose. Boq gets his revenge on Nessarose when Dorothy’s house kills her, but he doesn’t get his revenge on Elphaba. We wouldn’t have The Wizard of Oz if he did!

There are two problems here. The first is obvious: Nessarose, the story’s only outwardly-disabled character, is portrayed unflatteringly. This sends a subconscious message that reinforces how people with disabilities are spiteful. As someone who’s Autistic, I assure you this belief has led people with influence to either stigmatize us further, or “cure” us. I don’t need curing, and that stigmatization has restricted my independence.

The second issue involves Nessarose using Elphaba’s book to walk. The notion of wanting to “be fixed” isn’t unheard of with physically-disabled individuals, but it’s a form of internalized-ableism. People with disabilities don’t need “fixing”. Rather, the world needs to adapt to them. It’s this disconnect between what disabled individuals need and what society expects that appears in this scene.

I get it: this is fiction, and sometimes you need contrivances. Nessarose’s heel-turn to villainy’s important for Boq’s transformation into The Tin Man, and also The Wizard of Oz’s story in general. While that’s true, it’s still ableism. Nessarose becoming a secondary-antagonist, tragic as it is, can’t be changed, especially not with its parallels to how disabled individuals sometimes contradict their community’s best interests when given power. Nessarose “curing” her disability, however, is a choice.

Remember, Marissa Bode’s a wheelchair user in real life. The casting director made sure Nessarose was played by a disabled actress, a rarity in Hollywood, only to come up against ableism. And while Bode might have the limited mobility to pull this off, I don’t want her to. It’s bad enough that one ableist trope’s necessary without another one being utilized too. Bode also deserves better.

There’s an easy workaround, but it requires changing a plot beat: Nessarose doesn’t need to be cured. She can be resentful of Elphaba for their father’s death, and she’d have good cause. It’s not like he loved Elphaba the same way he loved Nessarose, and Elphaba didn’t do him any favours by turning against The Wizard. Elphaba’s already brought shame to her family without the ableism.

If Chu and Bode are to be respectful, then they need to axe that part of Nessarose’s character. It might not go over well with purists, but it’ll send a much better message to audiences. I hope that happens, but Wicked Part 2’s also a year away from release. And it’s practically finished production. I guess we’ll see what happens…

Try Defying Gravity

I remember when I saw Wicked at The Royal Alexandria Theatre. The year was 2005. I was 15 years old, and my mom, aunt and cousins had received tickets. We went to get ice cream afterward, as well as stopped by Carole’s Cheesecake to get soups. I remember seeing a woman feed her dog ice cream she’d purchased, followed by her shoving the rest in her mouth. I almost gagged. But this isn’t about that…

I enjoyed Wicked. The story was great, the songs memorable, and while our substitute for Idina Menzel paled to the genuine article, it was nice seeing the energy she brought. Yet the real testament to its staying power was that, despite not being a theatre nerd, the songs stayed in my consciousness for months, enough that I had a dream where I was in the audience singing the musical off in 2006. It left a big impact, even helping me through a depressive episode following LimeWire deleting my hard drive when I was 16.

Despite eventually moving on to other experiences, Wicked stayed in the back of my mind. When it was announced that it’d be coming to the big screen, I was excited, yet cautious. Modern musicals have been hit-or-miss, often simultaneously, and many haven’t successfully transitioned to film. Nowhere was this more-apparent than Les Misérables, a play I remember watching and enjoying, yet was intensely frustrated by in theatres due to its cinematography and performances. I would’ve left the theatre had my Zaidy not sponsored my ticket. Instead, I sat there and angrily chomped my popcorn, made worse by someone in the audience yelling at me to stop it.

It didn’t help that this movie’s production was trapped in limbo, constantly being rewritten and swapping out directors. It wasn’t until 2023 that we got stills, and the initial trailers didn’t hype anyone up. Complicating matters was behind-the-scenes drama, which practically overshadowed how Jon M. Chu, the director of Crazy Rich Asians and In the Heights, was directing this movie, one given misleading marketing that glossed over it being a two-parter. Even if it was going to be good, I doubted it’d live up to expectations.

I can now safely put my concerns to rest. It’s great! Easily one of the best this year, rivalling Thelma! It’s not perfect-the colour-grading and CGI are a little rough, and it feels padded-but enough dazzles and surprises that it’s a shame I have to wait another year for the darker, more uncomfortably-aged second-half. I especially like how, despite Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo being powerhouse singers, the leads never cancel each other out. Also, as with the theatre version, the reworked songs will probably stick with me for a while.

Was that so hard? I called out the drama and criticized what didn’t work, all while recognizing and praising the movie’s strengths. So why’s it so difficult for some people, mostly online men, to accept that? I know bigotry over anything deemed “woke” can ruin promising storytelling, especially considering The Acolyte debacle, but the notion of something not being geared toward cis, white men being awful by default is exactly why minority representation in entertainment has an upward battle. It doesn’t help that everything’s going to get worse, but I’ll save that frustration…

I don’t understand the drama. Wicked Part 1 ends on a cliffhanger? The play teetered on three hours, but it had an intermission. This movie basically ends at the same point as the first-half of the play: Elphaba’s a fugitive on the run, and Glinda’s decided to work the system from the inside. The two say their goodbyes, and the showstopper “Gravity” has ended with an applause. It might’ve padded itself out to meet the 160-minute runtime, sometimes noticeably, but it added theatrical weight to match its new format. It’s a movie, and it feels like one.

The confusion and anger over this being mis-marketed is understandable, but using that to trash people’s enjoyment isn’t healthy. Was Cynthia Erivo’s reaction to a fan poster harsh? Possibly, though I get why she was upset. Is Ariana Grande a diva? Yes, but she utilizes that former-Nickelodeon child star energy effectively. Even having the flaws of a modern, big-budget production gets cancelled by excellent singing, great dancing and plenty of tangible, practical effects and set-work. It’s a miracle this movie’s so good, since it could’ve fallen flat on its face.

As for how fans “will be annoying”, so? Are you a party pooper too? So much of that’s coming from a beloved musical successfully jumping to the big-screen, respecting its source material along the way. And like The Greatest Showman in 2017, this movie’s coming off the heels of a stressful election cycle, one we’ll probably be feeling for years. Being able to retreat into another musical, one better-received than The Greatest Showman, isn’t a crime. It’s a relief.

I’m unsure what criticizing this movie for existing, even trashing its praise, achieves. Wicked Part 1 might be flawed. It might also only be half of the story. But that doesn’t matter when so much of it works. For the second time within eight years, I get to be inundated by a big-budget musical in theatres. And for the first time within eight years, I get to gush over it too. Because my big-budget musical of 2016, La La Land, didn’t get the long-lasting love I wanted.

While I’m not surprised by the backlash, so many detractors are missing the forest for the trees. We get plenty of “dude-bro” action spectacles each year, some absolute garbage. This is Hollywood throwing a meaty bone to those women who are tired of the excessive testosterone. They deserve some attention too, and shame anyone who dares to chastise that. Basically, touch grass. Or perhaps defy gravity. I’ll see myself out now…

Fox News "Transvestigates"

(Warning: This piece discuss some heavy subject matter. Read at your own risk.)

There are many statements I can make about Fox News: they’re the propaganda wing of The GOP. Their former boss was shady. Their settlement with Dominion Voting Systems being a “business expense” is an indictment of the American tax system. But while all of this is true, it’s their obsession with celebrities that does the most damage. And nowhere is this more apparent than their “jokes” that double as bigotry.

John Krasinski’s an interesting individual. Not only is he married to Emily Blunt, arguably one of the most-attractive actresses currently in the business, he’s also quite handsome. So much so that People Magazine named him “Sexiest Man Alive” for 2024. Yet while most individuals would have no issues, even if the title’s demeaning, Fox News does. Specifically one of their hosts.

Shortly after the announcement, host Greg Gutfeld made a crack at Krasinski:

“I think it’s great that People has dominated — or announced — that a trans male can be the sexiest one alive…Krasinski never talks about it, but he’s trans. You know that?”

Ignoring how bizarre it is to claim that a magazine’s “dominated” someone, calling someone trans when there’s no evidence is cringe-inducing. How does Gutfeld know this? This isn’t public, right? And how has he deduced it? Does he know something we don’t?

I’d rip apart Gutfeld’s claim, but others already have. And it’s not worth the brain cells, especially when Gutfeld was most-likely baiting Krasinski. Yet Gutfeld’s claim is a microcosm of a dangerous trend that adds additional stigma to an already marginalized group. It’s called “transvestigating”. Here’s why it’s bad.

What’s “transvestigating”? It’s when someone, or a group of people, claims someone’s trans based on faulty evidence. It could be physical features, their voice, or something they do. Transvestigators have no clue what they’re talking about, and in the off-chance they end up right, it’s for a different reason than they suggested. Basically, transvestigating’s horseshit.

While most people would never make such assumptions about strangers, transvestigating also has real consequences. For one, people who are trans are at risk of discovery if they haven’t come out. Two, being outed increases the chances of violence. And three, it sets a precedent that shouldn’t exist, reinforcing negative stereotypes about gender. That last point’s especially bad because trans people have a hard enough time being accepted without being exposed as “frauds”.

On the flip side, cis people are at risk too. Not only does transvestigating reconfirm harmful stereotypes, it also leads to discrimination and persecution. If you want proof, an Algerian athlete was accused of being a man recently. Despite there being no credible evidence, especially since being trans in Algeria’s illegal, it persisted, even being supported by JK Rowling. It got to the point where the athlete, Imane Khelif, initiated a defamation lawsuit, sending ripples throughout the social media world. Transvestigating doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Truthfully, it shouldn’t matter if someone’s trans. There are more trans individuals than we’d like to admit, and many are able to pass as cis. Take Patti Harrison, who showed up in She-Hulk: Attorney at Law as Lulu. Lulu was a highlight of the show, but you wouldn’t know she’s really trans unless you were told. And besides, does it really matter?

That’s another point: who cares if someone’s trans? Humans are a complex species, enough to be multifaceted genetically. Transvestigating isn’t only harmful, it’s dumb. It’s also based on incorrect observations, like whether or not Link from the Zelda franchise is trans because “vagina bones”. (And yes, that’s as ridiculous as you’d think.) Transvestigating’s based on incorrect hunches, nonsense and blatant transphobia.

Transvestigators will counter with “We can always tell”. This isn’t true. But, again, who cares? Trans people aren’t a threat in the numbers cis people claim, and using outdated understandings of masculine and feminine behaviour harms everyone. Besides, the people in power, most of whom are cis, do more damage to society than a minority of people who feel like their software (gender expression) doesn’t match their hardware (physical appearance). It’s time people recognized that.

I know what Gutfeld’s doing. He’s baiting people for engagement, as well as fear-mongering. It’s why I didn’t spend lots of time directly responding to him, instead explaining why his rhetoric’s harmful. However, he’s not an isolated incident. And while you can say “he was joking”, or even that “his words were taken out of context”, for bigots with chips on their shoulders this doesn’t matter. Also, jokes can be harmful. Especially when they punch down.

Macrocosmically, this is but a taste of the harmful rhetoric we’re going to see soon. Remember, Donald Trump won the 2024 election, including the popular vote. His time in the spotlight has led to an increase in hate crimes, trans folk included. And considering what Trump’s planning for his second term, we should be afraid for our trans friends. They need our help.

As for Gutfeld and Fox News? I’d tell them off, but they don’t care. Their base is already bigoted, and they’ll face little-to-no accountability. My only hope is that this alerts people to how the network operates. Though that’s being overly-optimistic, and I’ve been let down before.

The Toxic Jungle

On December 2nd, 1970, President Nixon signed an executive order willing The Environmental Protection Agency into being. Retroactively regarded as one of the few, positive developments of his presidency, The EPA would face a roller coaster of highs and lows with each successive president. This’d all culminate in Donald Trump, soon to be The US’s 47th president, vowing to axe the department during his campaign, something reaffirmed by Project 2025. But can The EPA be abolished? And is that wise?

Enter Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, directed by Hayao Miyazaki. The movie, inspired by the manga of the same name, foresees a futuristic world where Earth has been devastated, humanity has been forced into small, warring kingdoms and a foreboding forest called The Toxic Jungle, ruled by giant insects, encroaches on civilization in an attempt to purify everything. When The Valley of the Wind, led by an ailing King Jihl, is invaded by the Tolmekians and their princess, Kushana, The Valley’s heiress, Princess Nausicaä, must make a difficult choice: help a Giant Warrior’s corpse be revived, thereby aiding the Tolmekians in their defeat of Pejite, or risk her people’s destruction. It’s a tough decision for Nausicaä, who values all life, even The Toxic Jungle.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind’s manga started in the early-80’s to help convince Topcraft to gamble on this film. It’s easy to scoff with decades of hindsight, but environmentalism was niche in the 80’s. The world was experiencing neoconservative backlash to the hippie movement, brought on by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and caring about the planet wasn’t a priority. Yet here was a 40-something socialist, someone with the optimism of a teenager, pushing back. He needed an aggressive pitch, and a book adaptation was the most-viable way.

It worked! Despite a limited production schedule, team and budget, Miyazaki triumphed and created a timeless work of art. More than that, he made a nearly 2-hour film that spoke to people the same way Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did in 1937: by appealing to emotion. Never mind it was loud with its conservationism, lacking any subtlety, its message of hope and optimism remained a dose of adrenaline in dark times. Like the environmentalist movies succeeding it, it wore its sincerity on its sleeve, setting the trend for the Solarpunk sub-genre. And I think that’s exactly what we need nowadays.

Perhaps this movie manifests its message best through Princess Nausicaä. She’s tough, yet kind. She can fight, but routinely chooses pacifism. She cares about everyone, even those who wish her harm, and she isn’t afraid to express that. She’s a Punk Rock princess in a warrior’s clothes, leading with an open hand.

There are many instances where Nausicaä extends grace. When a Tolmekian airship crashes in The Valley, carrying with it the princess of Pejite, she not only buries its dead, she calms and escorts an angry insect back to The Toxic Jungle. When the Tolmekian ship she’s held hostage in is attacked by an enemy pilot, she risks her life convincing him to stop firing, then helps escort Princess Kushana off the aircraft when that fails. Even the Ohmu, considered a threat to humans, she shows dignity toward, apologizing for encroaching their domain and calming them down when one of their own is used as bait by the Pejites. The message is clear: everyone, no matter how awful, has basic dignities that must be acknowledged. Since rage is often a byproduct of fear and uncertainty, making the unknown known is the answer for peace.

Much criticism has been lobbed against this movie over the decades. For Nausicaä, she’s been described as overly-judgmental, unfairly calling the Pejites equals to the Tolmekians in their intentions. While definitely warranted, Nausicaä doesn’t see nuance in destruction. To her, as with the planet, destruction has no distinctions, especially when it ends with our extinction. In that sense, her perspective holds up.

Nausicaä has also been criticized for being too perfect, or a “Mary Sue”. For one, a movie rooted in grand emotions being criticized over its “perfect” protagonist misses the mark, as that’s the whole point. Two, Nausicaä’s prone to anger and internal conflict throughout, making her the opposite of a perfect heroine. And three, the Mary Sue label has sexist implications, as it’s not associated equally with men. You wouldn’t see this critique lobbed at Prince Ashitaka, despite being a more-refined version of Princess Nausicaä.

The bigger critique is its ham-fisted message about the planet. While not the most-refined movie on the subject, that’s not necessarily “bad”. Yes, the Jesus allusions with Nausicaä, especially toward the end, aren’t subtle, I agree. But given this movie’s emotional logic, that’s not a flaw. It appeals to the moment, and it works. Because you can’t win against nature, no matter how strong you feel.

There’s much to be discussed about this movie relation to Miyazaki’s later works. Personally, it lacks the fun of Castle in the Sky and the maturity of Princess Mononoke, both of which I enjoy more. It also feels more childish than some of Miyazaki’s actually-childish movies, like Ponyo. Yet that doesn’t diminish from its “student activism”. It’s loud, brash and in-your-face, and it owns that! I think that’s often more-effective than stepping back and using subtlety. And in a time when many leaders haven’t learned this movie’s lesson, accelerating the planet’s destruction, having that activism mentality’s necessary for change.

Nevertheless, wear your mask anyway.