End-Credits Scenes SUCK?

Despite disagreeing with some of his takes, I have great respect for Patrick H. Willems. Even when I don’t agree with him on movies, which is often, I appreciate how much thought and research actually went into his videos. Nevertheless, I was dreading his piece on end-credits scenes, as I had many preconceived ideas I knew would clash with his. But I gave it a watch. And while he did a good job, I think that I should respond. Here goes:

Now, I don’t have the time, or patience, to research as extensively as Patrick. I’m not only not paid, but researching online can become tedious because of my Autism. Therefore, I’ll take his history on post-credit scenes at face value. It’ll be less of a headache for me that way. My response will instead focus on my personal experience with post-credits scenes. That doesn’t mean I’ll go easy on him, though. I never do.

Also, Patrick’s video making style can be…gratuitous. He’s a stickler for intros and storylines that go on for too long. This was especially true with The Charl Saga, which dragged on and was concluded with a mini-movie on Nebula. Ignoring how I don’t have Nebula, (why would I pay for videos when YouTube exists?), Patrick’s ambitions as a filmmaker frequently outpace his essay sensibilities. He enjoys making movies, or he wouldn’t have one premiering soon, but the bleed-over into his general content makes him another victim of YouTube bloat.

I mention all of this because Patrick oversimplifies and overcomplicates a nuanced subject like post-credit scenes. He’s right that there are an excess of them, and many are done poorly. But comparing them to an addiction, aside from trivializing addictions, ignores why people like them. I don’t think it’s a shallow “X person’s in here!” reaction with them. At least, not from me.

See, I used to not be a fan of sticking around for the credits. Occasionally I’d challenge myself and play games with friends to see how many Jewish names we spotted, but I usually got up and left. When the movie ended, so did my interest. And, naturally, I’d go home. That was the case for years, even when movies reused the musical motifs in their credits.

But then I matured. I think it was around the time I got into movies seriously, but I stayed behind to soak in what I’d watched. This was also around the time I had more disposable income, specifically my early-20’s, and movies were a far cheaper hobby than video games, so seeing them meant saving money. I also figured that since I paid out of my own pockets, I had more of an investment, and therefore should milk the experience for its worth. Staying for the credits, even if I didn’t remember who worked on what, was me staking my claim.

This is something I’ve only become more and more invested in since then, made easier by movies having end-credits scenes regularly. It’s my reward for sticking it out after the movie, reflecting on what I’d watched. Even if the end-credits scene “sucks”, it’s extra minutes I don’t mind wasting. And yeah, theatre employees have to wait longer to clean theatres because of that, I had a theatre job for a year and a half. But that’s not so much a problem with the movie as it is theatres shoving as many screenings in as possible in one day.

Another aspect of post-credits scenes that I like, and this wasn’t mentioned by Patrick, is that they’re transactional. To use a loose comparison, around the time I got into movies, I also got into anime movies. Anime movies frequently have something in the credits to keep audiences from leaving. Perhaps there’s a cultural reason, but if audiences are expected to stay through the credits, there might as well be something to sweeten the deal. Having post-credits scenes might be the North American equivalent of this phenomenon. We wait out of respect for the staff that worked on the movie, even if we don’t remember them, and in return we’re rewarded.

I like this. It might be frustrating for some filmmakers in the industry, which Patrick mentions in the video, but filmmakers aren’t most filmgoers. They look for different experiences than the average person, and they’re trained to be more critical. What may be a “cheap stinger at the end of a finished story” to them is a nice bonus to most people. And unlike Patrick’s insinuations, rather rudely too, moviegoers don’t only talk about the post-credits scenes. I think he gives them too little credit.

The post-credits scene “epidemic” correlating with the rise of franchised blockbusters isn’t accidental, especially with the decline in theatregoing experiences. Simply put, movie theatres aren’t fun to be in anymore. The ticket prices are outrageous, the concessions are a rip-off, the patrons lack etiquette, the trailers and pre-shows take forever and the movies themselves are increasingly-bloated. Also, many theatres are accessible to the bare minimum, leaving people with hearing or vision problems out of the equation. The movie star might be “dead”, which doesn’t bother me, and the sex-appeal of movies might be “dwindling”, which also doesn’t bother me, but there are real issues with modern theatre chains. Issues that, honestly, I only started noticing more with the pandemic and scaling back trips for new releases.

I’m not alone. You know how the average moviegoer ventures to the cinema a few times each year? A big reason, aside from cost, is that streaming and home releases have made cinemas increasingly obsolete. I see pre-show trailers begging people to see movies in theatres, the “way they’re meant to be seen”, but movies don’t have a specific “way” to be seen. If you want to go to a theatre to see a movie, good for you! But don’t shame people for lacking the time, money, or patience.

If movies are to justify theatre trips, they need a hook. That’s where post-credits scenes, particularly from The MCU, come in. Kevin Feige knows how to get people pumped for another entry. He knows people will be talking if they have something to look forward to, or he wouldn’t keep doing this. Patrick can complain all he wants, but end-stingers are good business decisions. They also make The MCU feel bigger than one or two movies, as if we’re only seeing a fraction of the story.

Honestly, the problem’s less “end-credits scenes” and more “bad end-credits scenes”. Because there are too many of the latter nowadays. It’s a problem even Marvel movies are starting to struggle with, focusing on shock value more than quality storytelling. End-credits scenes need to enhance what’s come before and hype what’s to come, not be there “because”. Or they can be a humorous pay-off to something, that works too.

I don’t intend to purposely demean Patrick’s frustrations, or anyone else’s. He’s entitled to be annoyed here, and he’s not alone. But I think he’s letting his personal biases get in the way of a trend that, for the most part, doesn’t ruin anything. The modern movie landscape has many other, more-pressing concerns, truthfully. Like how movie theatres aren’t conducive to patrons, something I’ve yet to see him actually address.

Studio A.I. Ghibli

The worst part about having a cold in the early-Spring is the weather finally being decent, but you can’t enjoy it. It doesn’t help when passing the time involves doomscrolling and checking for something worth writing about. Fortunately, I found a story from the past week surrounding the IMAX re-release of Princess Mononoke. You know, that ultra-violent Studio Ghibli movie about tree-hugging and environmentalism? The one over 2-hours long? What could be controversial about that?

I’ll back up and point out that this isn’t about Princess Mononoke per se. I love that movie, but this is more about the studio. Studio Ghibli, aside from being fantastic, has a distinctly-recognizable style in the world of anime film production, which is a step up qualitatively from anime television production. Not that the latter doesn’t have great stuff, but when the budget of a 26-episode series gets shoved into a single film, there’s going to be a noticeable upgrade. Doubly-so from a studio anal on that front.

Basically, Studio Ghibli has a noticeable style. Specifically, they have a noticeable visual style, one that stays consistent from director-to-director. They even have a distinct colour style, courtesy of the late-Michiyo Yasuda, one they tried emulating with The Boy and the Heron. Studio Ghibli’s known for repeating what’s worked, and that includes being anti-A.I. If you want proof, the studio’s most-famous director, Hayao Miyazaki, once unloaded his thoughts when an animator suggested it as a test sample. If Miyazaki doesn’t approve, then the studio itself doesn’t approve!

Recently, an A.I. prompt of the “Distracted Boyfriend” meme, along with other famous images, with Studio Ghibli’s visual style was revealed. That alone should raise eyebrows, but the prompt also went viral. A.I. prompts of famous directors isn’t anything new: there was one of Lord of the Rings in the vein of Wes Anderson. But like with any prompts, there arise two issues. One centres around misunderstanding the IP, and the other centres around misunderstanding the limitations of A.I. Let’s tackle both.

For the former, transposing an IP into different styles might be “neat”, but it doesn’t do justice to the IP and what it’s being grafted onto. Going back to my above example, Wes Anderson and Lord of the Rings don’t mix, even if A.I. believes they can. Anderson, despite making cartoonish movies with silly premises, is a profoundly-depressing director. His movies tackle regret, loss, the destruction of innocence and other upsetting themes. Lord of the Rings, in contrast, is about war, the battle between good and evil and hoping for a better tomorrow. The two couldn’t be any more different.

It doesn’t end there. I’ve seen many A.I. grafts over the past few years, as if to suggest that “they fit perfectly”. It might be “cool” seeing Marvel characters as Harry Potter characters, but that doesn’t mean they could work together in practice. This isn’t childlike roleplaying, where you pretend that unrelated IPs exist on the same plane. Ignoring cost limitations, thematic appropriateness is a big concern here.

That gets lost with A.I. mash-ups, leading back to Studio Ghibli. It might be funny to see Studio Ghibli-esque character designs overlaid with a meme, but it disregards the nuances of this mash-up. Studio Ghibli movies aren’t about petty romance and jealousy, that does them a disservice. And the “Distracted Boyfriend” meme is a series of stock images telling a story about toxic masculinity. If you don’t believe me, Google where the series ends narratively.

The other issue with these mash-ups involves the limitations of A.I. Ignoring how A.I. can’t get fingers and toes right (yet), A.I. doesn’t create, it mimics. And it mimics poorly, taking preexisting art and diluting it into less-impressive versions. There was a video circulating a while back involving A.I. creating a fancy hotel with anthropomorphic cats, and one of the stills copied a shot from Baz Luhrmann’s take on The Great Gatsby. Irony aside, as that story’s a commentary on excess, it shows how unoriginal A.I. is.

That’s what’s at stake. We complain in science-fiction about the “dangers of sentient A.I.”, but we should instead pivot to the laziness of concurrent A.I. A.I. has limitations, and they’re seen in how it’s exploited by hacks. Never mind that it’s been trying to replace real, thinking humans, hence the recent string of Hollywood strikes, it lacks the ability to think and behave like an actual person (for now). By making an A.I. prompt of a meme, one with Studio Ghibli-style faces, that lack of creativity’s reinforced.

I should mention that Studio Ghibli won’t accept this lying down. Ignoring how overprotective they are of their IP, such that they’ve engaged in draconian takedowns of movies and music without consent, Hayao Miyazaki sent a katana to Harvey Weinstein in 1999 as a warning to not edit down Princess Mononoke. If a then-largely unknown director in North America could issue such a powerful threat, I guarantee you they’ll be after this A.I. prompt. Especially given Miyazaki’s views on A.I.

I don’t think people using these prompts understand what Studio Ghibli is. They might make animated movies, but several of them are mature, dark and depressing. Princess Mononoke aside, Grave of the Fireflies is 80+ minutes of a 4 year-old girl starving to death in WWII Japan. Even with their “family-friendly” movies, like My Neighbor Totoro and Kiki’s Delivery Service, mortality and burnout are discussed in ways Disney wouldn’t dare. Studio Ghibli doesn’t warrant being mocked with A.I.

Above everything, this ordeal feels tacky. You made A.I. copy a meme with an anime skin? Okay? Why’s that impressive? And why should I care?

I don’t want people to think I’m anti-A.I. I’m not. But it should be utilized correctly, and it needs to be guided by human hands. Cheap, unoriginal prompts like these do neither, and it’s time people called them out. We deserve better, “humorousness” be damned!

Hollywood and Consequences?

If there’s one aspect I hate most about Hollywood, it’s when the fallout of a controversy keeps resurfacing long after it’s relevant. Ignoring The Oscars, I’ve seen it with the recent Snow White debacle. I won’t get into the movie itself, I haven’t seen it, and I’ll avoid retreading the “Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler hate each other” nonsense, but I’d like to zone-in on something else. Let’s discuss Zegler and Marc Platt. Yikes!

For those unaware, it was revealed through Jonah Platt that his father had met with Zegler over a now-deleted Post during the promotion of Snow White about Palestine. The Post, while harmless enough, overtook the conversation about the movie, and Platt felt it was hurting its box-office potential. I don’t know how true that is, given the end-result, but there’s no doubt Disney felt a need for damage control. And, obviously, people weren’t happy. That’s everything in a nutshell.

Allow me to clear some misconceptions. Firstly, Platt did nothing wrong by talking with Zegler privately. Whether or not he needed to fly halfway across The US is another story, especially when an email would’ve sufficed, but being an investor on the movie meant he had a say on its perception. I’ve touted before that celebrities are allowed opinions, but they’re also representatives on movies they act for and need to not set “a bad example”. This might sound like moralizing, but I’ve gotten in trouble for posting far worse than Zegler. And I’m not a movie star!

Secondly, what Zegler said wasn’t the issue. Celebrities make political statements constantly, and many are ones I disagree with. Zegler’s Post might’ve been innocent, but she shouldn’t have posted it alongside an unrelated trailer. If Zegler was so insistent on making a political statement, she could’ve done it somewhere else. Because Disney, for better or worse, are anal about their reputation. If they fired Gina Carano (deservedly) and James Gunn (undeservedly) over inappropriate social media posts, then this shouldn’t be surprising.

Thirdly, Zegler doesn’t deserves harsh criticism for her Post. Was it the wrong place? Perhaps, though I’ve seen much worse from other celebrities. But it wasn’t that offensive. All she said was “#FreePalestine”. She didn’t criticize Israelis, she didn’t say anything overtly-charged, she wrote a generic statement that many have already written. Plus, she’s young. She’s not experienced enough to know when to bite her tongue, and she deserves to learn and grow as an actress. So while she might’ve messed up here, it’s not that big a deal.

Fourthly, Jonah Platt needs to be left alone. Arguably the most insulting headline about this incident came from Cosmic Marvel:

“Nepo baby and failed actor Jonah Platt responds to reports that his dad, Marc Platt, traveled to New York to convince Rachel Zegler to delete her tweet supporting Palestine:”

How’s this remotely-relevant? I get that Jonah Platt’s the son of producer Marc Platt, but being a “nepo baby” is a red herring. And “failed actor” does unnecessary heavy lifting for something that doesn’t correlate to this. Ignoring the New York flight, neither point’s important. I’m sorry for flogging a dead horse, but this is Pop Tingz-levels of journalistic malpractice. All that’s missing is “Zionist” in the headline. Did no one look over the Bluesky Post before publishing it?!

And fifthly, I have a suspicion that Platt was singled out because he’s Jewish. Like Gal Gadot, he’s been outspoken about Antisemitism and his Judaism for months, which has made many people unhappy. By dragging him into this controversy, silly or not, Platt’s become a target for hate remarks. As with Zegler being the “virtuous heroine”, Platt’s “the monstrous villain” here. It’s a reductive binary that isn’t necessary, especially when Antisemitism’s at an all-time high.

I don’t want to dismiss legitimate frustrations, however. While Zegler’s Post could’ve been better-timed, and Marc Platt could’ve emailed her in private, the fallout has overshadowed the movie in question. Additionally, many have gotten in trouble for their thoughts on the war, for understandable and nonsensical reasons. It’s a heavy and sensitive topic that requires a respectful conversation, and the online world isn’t the place for it.

It's timely to have this conversation given both Israelis and Gazans are fed up. For the former, tens of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets to decry Netanyahu weekly. And for the latter, there’s been an uptick in protests over Hamas’s leadership. People are tired and want something else, and this deserves to be spotlighted. I wish more activists over here were up to that…

In the end, it isn’t worth drawing out a controversy that’s caused people to spill more ink on than the actual movie. I had no hopes for Snow White. Like most Disney remakes, it looks like an overly-faithful, yet uninspired retelling of a classic movie. The 1937 original might be “old”, but it holds up! By allowing this controversy to suck up more space than shamelessly capitalizing on nostalgia, this more-pressing conversation’s getting ignored. It’s unhealthy for the industry at large, and it’s time to change that. Don’t we deserve better?

Weinstein's Big Break

Ever since being outed as a predator, Harvey Weinstein’s been attached to choice words. For some people, he’s a creep. For others, he’s as everything wrong with Hollywood. For the Antisemites out there, he’s even compared to a goblin. But above all else, people have reevaluated the damage he’s done, going back to the 90’s. That’s what I’d like to focus on.

Joe and Anthony Russo have had an interesting co-directorial career. Beginning with comedies and TV dramas, they were quickly tapped for The MCU with Captain America: The Winter Soldier in 2014. Since then, they directed one more Captain America movie, two Avengers movies and departed from Disney for Netflix. Unfortunately, their Netflix stint hadn’t born the same fruit, resulting in several critical failures. It’s gotten so bad that they’re returning to The MCU, leading people to wonder if they were a flash-in-the-pan. I don’t agree, I think they’re talented, but it’s hard to ignore their unusual trajectory.

I mention this because while promoting their most-recent venture, The Electric State, Joe Russo shared his frustrations with Hollywood. Particularly, he had unpleasant words to say about Harvey Weinstein. Sitting down with The Sunday Times, he said the following:

“Popular films were winning Oscars before the mid ’90s, then Weinstein started mudslinging campaigns…It affected how audiences view the Oscars, because they’ve not seen most of the movies. We’re in a complicated place. Things we should all be enjoying collectively we instead punch each other in the face over.”

Joe credits Marvel movies for “saving theatres”, by the way. Yet while it’s easy to write this off as having a chip on his shoulder, his concerns shouldn’t be dismissed. Weinstein didn’t play fair when it came to Awards Season, and his disdain for Blockbusters is widely-known. It’s no surprise, therefore, that it’s been rare seeing big-budget tentpole experiences win Oscars in my lifetime. There are exceptions, but the 90’s saw a shift in how The Academy perceived “prestige entertainment”.

After reading Joe Russo’s thoughts, several concerns, some illogical, sprung to mind. The biggest was that The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, which was initially under the Miramax label, only curried favour because of Weinstein’s name. That’s not true, but it sucks that this is what it’s come to. It doesn’t help that Weinstein has sabotaged releases before, including Princess Mononoke in 1999. If he could do that because Hayao Miyazaki had principles, who’s to say he couldn’t have done the same for Peter Jackson?

I do think a bigger issue’s at play. Chastise Russo’s recent projects all you want, but there’s definitely a divide between indie cinema fans and action fans. While crossover exists, for the most part the former looks down on the latter for being cheap and disposable, while the latter looks down on the former for being pretentious. With the two at each other’s throats, the bigger issue, how Hollywood’s current system’s unsustainable, goes unchecked. Because why would it?

I’m not a fan of the “Marvel movies are amusement parks” debate. Not only is it tiring, as it’s not rooted in facts, it’s also become a toxic conversation. It doesn’t help that celebrities, both actors and directors, have been frequently asked about it, and their responses have created teams and cheap banter. As Russo went on to say, people’s thoughts are reduced to soundbites. Where’s the lie?!

Truthfully, the “action movie VS arthouse movie” debate isn’t helpful. For one, what qualifies as either is subjective. And two, there are times where the line blurs. The John Wick franchise is clearly action, yet it’s directed like it’s arthouse. Oppenheimer’s a big-budget movie, yet it’s also a biopic that won Best Picture. What qualifies as either or isn’t always clear, and that gets lost in the kerfuffle.

Outside of that, getting mad that a director has beef with how Hollywood’s run nowadays, especially when it’s legitimate criticism, because they’re “part of the problem” feel dishonest. Are you allowed to disagree? Absolutely! But making a nontroversy into a scandal, like the online community frequently does, is childish and unhelpful. It also ignores the bigger problem, that being movie budgets swelling beyond reasonable limits. That’s not being discussed enough.

I want to return to Harvey Weinstein. Not only is he let off-the-hook here, and let’s not pretend otherwise, but his impact can still be felt with how The Academy views action films. Nominees aside, how many action movies in the last 20+ years have won Best Picture? I can only think of Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King offhand, and that debuted in 2003. (Also, Everything Everywhere All at Once.) That’s telling considering action movies, or box-office darlings, used to win that award all the time.

Whether or not Russo has an axe to grind, he’s right about Weinstein’s influence on the industry. And yes, I doubt Weinstein alone “ruined cinema”. No one person has that power. But he definitely did a lot of damage, damage that’ll take a long time to rectify. It’s irrelevant if the Russos haven’t made great movies in a while, we need to bury the hatchet and remedy the bigger problem.

I also think people should stop getting defensive because it’s a Russo calling out the industry in a different, unexpected direction. He may not be Martin Scorsese or Steven Spielberg, but he’s an experienced director. Like him or not, he’s made an impact, and his voice carries weight. He might not be your cup of tea, but he should still be listened to. If indie film fans and action film fans can’t at least try getting along, then this toxic rift won’t be repaired. And that’s bad.

Coyote VS Aliens

Arguably the worst part about having a studio’s CEO constantly deleting shows and movies for tax write-offs is that history becomes lost. We don’t think about it that way, but entertainment’s a form of artistic expression, and art’s a record of history. By removing a backlog, you’re destroying it without thought for the original creators. But I guess when your goal’s to make a quick profit, that’s irrelevant. Welcome to Capitalism!

I’ve made no secret of my disdain for how David Zaslav’s overseeing Warner Bros. That extends to animation, as it’s not something he cares for. We’ve seen that with the removal of all Looney Tunes content from Max, effectively acting like it doesn’t exist. We also saw that with his cancellation of Coyote vs. Acme before it was scheduled for release, which offended everyone on production. It’s not like the live-action pilot of The Powerpuff Girls for The CW, where everything that’s been uncovered looks creatively-bankrupt: Coyote vs. Acme, right down to its remix of The 1812 Overture, screamed brilliance, making it a shame that it’ll never see daylight. WB Discovery’s cancelled projects are often more fascinating than what they’ve green-lit, making this frustrating.

All the more perplexing, therefore, that their most-recent animated venture, The Day the Earth Blew Up, hasn’t only been released, but was also well-received. To be clear, this isn’t me panning the movie, which I haven’t seen. Rather, I’m curious what made Zaslav give this a go, especially when Coyote vs. Acme never had that opportunity. Why was this movie worth saving? I have two theories, though I’m unsure if either holds up to scrutiny.

The first is guilt. Zaslav hasn’t heard the end of Coyote vs. Acme, and he never will. Word was that it was even well-received by test audiences. For Zaslav to cancel it, shop it around for an unreasonable price, then cancel it a second time when no one was interested was cowardly, and many people have made that known. Letting The Day the Earth Blew Up go to theatres might be him apologizing.

This sounds lovely, but a few problems arise. For one, I don’t know Zaslav’s thoughts. Saying this is him apologizing feels like apologetics for someone I don’t have any connections to. Besides, Zaslav’s cancelled other films for tax write-offs without an apology too. Look at what happened to Batgirl.

Two, I doubt Zaslav cares. He’s a businessman first. He gets paid regardless of his decisions. Cancelling a hotly-anticipated film, then replacing it with another one was business like anything else. That’s indisputable.

And three, if Zaslav were doing this out of guilt, we’d know. His tenure at WB Discovery has seen shares drop significantly since becoming CEO, and it was tanking prior. Despite this, he’s remained the CEO. Zaslav isn’t going anywhere, so using a release to re-enter people’s good graces is a stretch. It’s nice to think it, but it’s still a stretch.

The second possibility is apathy. Zaslav’s made his feelings about animation known before, and his actions have backed that up. It’s possible he didn’t think highly of The Day the Earth Blew Up, only agreeing to release it because “why not?”. It’d explain the minimal marketing on WB Discovery’s part. It’d also, at least partly, explain its poor sales right now.

This seems more in-line with reality, but there’s a lingering question tagging along: “Why this movie?”. Studios release stuff all the time, and it frequently varies in quality. Having a movie escape the “clutches of Zaslav”, and one that’s good, sounds great…but many great movies have debuted under his watch. Some, like Barbie, were massive hits financially and critically. With Zaslav, I’m sure there’s a reason The Day the Earth Blew Up was released. Movies don’t normally see the light of day unless someone cares.

Okay, we don’t know why this movie made it to theatres and not another one. But that touches on whether or not corporate heads have too much influence these days. Executives serve a purpose, even if people don’t like them, but their meddling in unnecessary places, be it script changes or marketing, is a known problem. Blacklists aside, why should the higher-ups stifle creatives and prevent risk-taking? Wouldn’t it make more sense to gamble on mid-budget movies, especially those with the potential to be big?

This is why writing off Coyote vs. Acme’s frustrating. It wasn’t only a mid-budget movie, it was also an ambitious one that could’ve helped “rehabilitate” Zaslav’s reputation. By writing it off, we're not only never going to see it, we're also never going to “reevaluate” Zaslav (temporarily) in a positive light. Doesn’t he want that? Or is quick money more important? (It probably is.)

It'd be nice if Coyote vs. Acme could be made available online for free now. After all, Zaslav doesn’t want it! And WB Discovery aren’t using it anyway! Perhaps I’m being naïve, but wouldn’t it make sense to let the public see it? I’d say so!

I’m getting off-topic. Irrespective of the situation, I plan to see The Day the Earth Blew Up. It not only looks fun, but its premise appears to scratch an itch I didn’t know I had. I mean, a buddy movie starring Daffy Duck and Porky Pig? One set to an alien invasion? And with Looney Tunes-style humour? Sign me up!

Disney's Poisoned Pill

The frustrating part about being Jewish right now is that the world doesn’t appreciate our existence. This is especially true in Hollywood, since you’re at the mercy of others’ scrutiny constantly. In some cases, as with Shira Haas, people will even protest you for making it big. I know this sounds like whining, but remember that we’re only 16 million people globally. We’re not this behemoth of a nation.

I mention this because Gal Gadot’s back in the news. So is Rachel Zegler, and that’s no accident since they’re starring in a movie together. I’ve covered my thoughts on that movie last year, but with the development that their “clashing political views” have caused a reduced premiere of Snow White, I figured now was the perfect time to discuss it again. And yes, I’m fully-aware I’m part of the problem. Sue me.

Let’s get this straight: Zegler and Gadot don’t hate each other. If they do, I’ve yet to see it. Not only are they professional enough to star in a movie together, they’re professional enough to appear in public together. The two even announced an Oscars category together. Considering some of the scandals involving The Academy Awards ceremony, that’s a good sign.

If anyone’s to blame for them “hating each other”, it’s toxic fans. Ever since the teaser of Snow White, people have pitted the actresses against one-another: are you Team Rachel? Surely you must be Team Gal? Let’s duke it out, WWE style! FIGHT!

This is beyond tired and ridiculous. Not only are Gadot and Zegler not enemies, but making them enemies feels desperate. So what if they’re on opposing sides of the Israel-Hamas skirmish? Many Hollywood celebrities with opposing views on that war have worked together! Picking “a side” doesn’t mean you can’t be professional, right?

I know Gadot’s been vocal in the fight against Antisemitism, appearing at the latest ADL summit. Guess what, though? She wasn’t the only one. David Schwimmer appeared at that summit too. You know, Ross from Friends? Did everyone forget he’s Jewish? Or did our attention get consumed by the “bad, Israeli woman who can’t act”?

On the flip-side, Rachel Zegler needs to be left alone. Do I agree with her? No, and it was foolish to use the teaser for Snow White as a platform for her remarks. But that doesn’t warrant the sexist and racist vitriol she’s received from folks who wouldn’t care otherwise. Like Halle Bailey and The Little Mermaid, this has overridden the movie’s real issues.

By lambasting her over her opinions, even if you disagree, you’re making yourself look bad. Doubly-so if you’re using charged rhetoric. Because while Zegler’s an actress, she’s a human being. She’s entitled to have the same voice as any human being. Like I keep reiterating, celebrities aren’t our puppets. I’ll do it for as long as is necessary.

Returning to this “feud”, I must ask if anyone’s exhausted yet. Aren’t you tired of being angry over nonsense? I definitely am, or I wouldn’t have written about it. And yes, I know anger drives SEO performance, especially over hot-button topics. But eventually you have to know when to throw in the towel. You have acknowledge that enough is enough. It’s not healthy to be angry over everything.

Additionally, I know I’m part of the bigger problem. By me writing this, I’m keeping this “nontroversy” relevant. But while most of the people engaging in it are generating toxicity, I’m engaging in it to show how ridiculous it is. Because it’s definitely ridiculous. It’s time we owned up to that.

It's especially ridiculous because this “feud” has caused Disney to panic and reduce screenings of Snow White, something I’m not sure is good or bad. On one hand, perhaps Disney doesn’t want the backlash continuing, and reporters aren’t known for subtlety. On the other hand, since Disney, and Hollywood in general, has been scaling back on DEI initiatives to appease the current POTUS, ignoring Israel-Palestine is suspicious. This was what they were afraid of?!

I know I can’t remedy this situation myself, as I don’t work for Disney. I also know this movie has a low chance of being good, if previous remakes are indication. After all, what was wrong with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? Sure, some parts are dated, but it’s a classic for a reason! I don’t care if it was released in 1937, it holds up!

If anything about this remake should be criticized, it’s how soulless its existence is. Snow White exists, like the other Disney remakes, to retell a classic story in a format that’s more “adult-friendly”. Never mind that it lacks non-corporate risks, it’s “mature” because it’s not animated. God-forbid animation be taken seriously, despite some of the best movies ever made being animated, right? Right?!

That’s what this discourse should actually be about. Forget the political views of Gal Gadot and Rachel Zegler, or even their casting decisions, for a second and focus on that! I won’t insist that this movie “didn’t need to be made”, as I’ve been surprised in the past by films that didn’t immediately excite me, but I strongly doubt Snow White exists for any reason other than cheap nostalgia. (I’ve yet to be proven wrong.) We deserve better, and yelling about the leads’ political views distracts from that.

Actors and Acting

I recently mentioned that I normally stay away from Oscar controversies unless they’re near and dear. I obviously used that line to discuss “No Other Land”, but it applies to general concerns too. Because someone had criticized Guy Pearce for wearing a Free Palestine pin while playing a Nazi who sexually assaults Jewish women. It was ignorant, but it got me thinking about how people accuse Hollywood celebrities of being the characters they play. Because it happens frequently.

Let’s clear this up now: similarly to how actors are allowed to have political views, as they’re not puppets, they’re also not necessarily the characters they play. Robert Downey Jr.’s a high school drop-out, yet he’s played educated geniuses on multiple occasions. Samuel L. Jackson has no personal connection to slavery, despite him playing a slave in Django Unchained. Actors are in the business of pretending. That’s why it’s called “acting”.

Many people don’t seem to get this. Gal Gadot served in The IDF? Her role in Wonder Woman 1984, particularly the scene in The Middle East, is therefore “autobiographical”. Kevin Spacey was outed as a sexual predator? His role in American Beauty was also “autobiographical”. This isn’t to pass any more judgement than has been already, but come on!

Why does this belief get tossed around? The most-obvious answer I can surmise involves politics. People have a bone to pick, and an actor might be the face of an issue. Ideological purity tests are the flavour of the day, so it’s easy to place people into boxes. Why not also do it with the rich and famous?

This leads to my next possible answer: scapegoating. In-tandem with politics, scapegoats provide an easy out for people. I’ve seen this frequently with The Nova Festival Massacre and the hostages in Gaza. Ignoring the war for a minute, any celebrities daring to speak out have been labelled mouthpieces for “IDF propaganda”. Specifically, Gadot was singled out for planning a screening of the footage from October 7th, made worse by her not attending. She had legitimate reasons for that, namely safety concerns, but many people were calling her a “plant” anyway.

The unwillingness to be critical of biases allows for scapegoating, linking an actor to their filmography, to thrive. Never mind that actors are paid to play characters, some of which contradict other roles. Essentially, being a specific character doesn’t mean they agree with or believe what they espouse. It simply means they’re willing to embody the character’s headspace. Ergo, scapegoating’s unhelpful.

Perhaps the biggest reason’s that most moviegoers, and even some film enthusiasts, aren’t movie literate. If they are, they choose to ignore film literacy to serve an agenda. I touched on this with my dissection of movie villains, but a good performance brings life to any role, irrespective of beliefs. That’s not “selling out”, it’s “being authentic”. That’s part of being film literate.

Does that mean actors can’t sometimes bring in personal experiences? Not at all! Jason Isaacs recently stated that the Antisemitism he experienced in his youth helped prepare him for villain roles. The late-Rita Moreno’s trauma with rape prepped her for both adaptations of West Side Story, as both Anita and Doc’s Wife. Actors can, and should, embrace their life experiences. It’s how we end up with great performances.

However, that doesn’t automatically mean that they’re the characters they play. Not only is that impossible, it gives them too little credit for being able to pretend. Actors are pretenders, fakers who can fool people into believing they’re not faking. That’s a real skill, and audiences conflating that with reality is a further testament to it. Regardless, actors should be given the humanity to not be what they play in movies.

I’m not saying you have to like or agree with everything they embody. There are many actors in Hollywood that I don’t like, and I’ve made that clear before on this blog. Actors are people, and people are flawed. Sometimes, those flaws are so great that I can’t support them, even if they’re talented. You absolutely are allowed to not like an actor’s personal beliefs.

At the same time, actors need room to be human. Because like I said, they’re not puppets. They’re also not necessarily the characters they embody, and conflating the two is disingenuous. I know that that’s not easy to hear considering that “in group/out group” is an easy out for people, but it’s true. And I don’t think that can be stressed enough.

So yes, Guy Pearce playing a sexual deviant isn’t necessarily related to his Free Palestine pin. Do I agree with his decision to wear it? Not really, especially given his personal views. Do I like him as a person? I honestly don’t know anymore. But that doesn’t mean him playing a Nazi who assaults women on film also makes him a Nazi who assaults women in real-life. He deserves more credit than that, and it’s high-time other celebrities in Hollywood are given that same benefit of the doubt.