Munich on Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/11 in Reflection

 Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 began as a normal school day. I woke up, got changed, ate breakfast, got driven in carpool and began classes. Halfway through the morning, however, my principle told everyone to head to the parking lot. Once there, she asked the following question:

“Can anyone tell me what the names of the famous skyscrapers in New York City are?”

I’d watched a Popular Mechanics for Kids episode on skyscrapers two days earlier, so I raised my hand.

“The Twin Towers?” I responded, half-expecting a prize.

My principle nodded.

“Correct,” she said. “They’re on fire right now. You’re all dismissed for the day.”

It was surreal. But that was 9/11 to anyone old enough to understand what happened. Even watching the news that afternoon, the same image of the planes hitting the towers over and over, was hard to process. Why would anyone drive a plane into a skyscraper, let-alone The Twin Towers? It didn’t make sense.

25 years later, it still doesn’t make sense. I understand more about the day, including the motivations of the people behind this, but why The Twin Towers? Why not The Empire State Building, or The Sears Tower? Why not even The Statue of Liberty? Why these towers specifically?

I have no answers. At least, not good ones. But what bothers me more is how the collective psyche’s processed it. There were claims of American unity, but the truth painted an entirely different picture. The United States became a testing ground for The Patriot Act, which allowed for increased surveillance of individuals and organizations. Media was afraid to mock airport security, and references to The Twin Towers were scrubbed altogether in entertainment. And, of course, there were Afghanistan and Iraq, both leading to many senseless deaths and long-term injuries.

I could soapbox about how the world has weaponized this day for malicious reasons. How it’s become a justification for bigoted politics. Or how conspiracy theorists have ranted about details that “don’t add up”. Or how fringe voices have pointed fingers at marginalized groups, using “evidence” to imply an underground conspiracy. But none of that would do this tragedy justice. Nor would it be respectful to the nearly-3000 lives lost on that day.

So I’ll keep it personal. Because I was young enough to be impressionable, yet old enough to somewhat understand what was going on. My outlook has also changed a lot since. Not only have my personal politics evolved, but 9/11 was the beginning of me realizing that adults didn’t always have the answers I needed. In some cases, they didn’t have answers at all. As I’d learn the following year on a trip to New York City, sometimes they didn’t know period.

But while that lack of knowledge might be comforting, it’s also dangerous. Realizing over time that Iraq had been invaded on false pretenses, and the lie justifying it was toxic, is something that’s sit with me for a while. Recognizing the leaders of the world didn’t have the commoner’s best interests at heart has shaped my adult mind. In many ways, 9/11 was the catalyst for our broken present.

On the flip-side, I also think it’s made my peers overly cynical and pessimistic. I’ve frequently heard of “accelerationism” and “apathy” lobbed at the political system, that there’s no point in fixing anything because it’s designed to be broken. That’s equally as unhelpful as the power structure leeching on 9/11. If people fought for the right to be politically active, that sacrifice must be respected. We owe the dead that much.

I also think we need to keep ourselves in-check. Because 25 years is enough time to become numb. Yes, Al-Qaeda was responsible. And yes, not stopping this was reprehensible. But no one had to die over it. Let’s respect the dead, even if we hate the power structure. Acting holier-than-thou helps nobody.

This is all stuff I’ve come to appreciate over time. Because 9/11 was horrific, even if you take the perpetrators out of the equation. It was something that didn’t need to happen, but it did. And behaving otherwise ignores the lessons we can learn, for better or worse. That much is for certain.

Finally, I think we should extend some grace, if you can call it that, to those too young to understand what happened. Whether it was being a kid, a teenager, or simply not being born yet, the world did, in fact, change. And not necessarily for the better. That so much of our fractured mindset can be traced back to 9/11 explains why young people feel the world has failed them. If I shouldn’t be blamed for being 11 years old at the time, then someone else shouldn’t be blamed for not being alive yet and coming into a traumatized world after the fact. Because 25 years is both a long time, and not long enough. I can’t stress that enough.

Perhaps, ironically, I’ve gone on my own soapbox tangent after all…

Wile E. Won

Every so often, life works out.

Take Coyote VS ACME, which almost didn’t see the light of day. I’ve written about it before, but the circumstances surrounding its release are as relevant as the movie. It was going to be a tax write-off, only to be shopped around and saved by Ketchup Entertainment. This wasn’t a minor “oopsie”, either: the film came close to not releasing, only doing so at the 11th hour. Like with James Gunn and Disney, this movie escaped death because people wanted it to happen.

It’s fitting because that’s emblematic of the movie. Coyote VS ACME is about Wile E. Coyote, who keeps failing at catching The Roadrunner, suing The ACME Corporation over their products. Initially, both Wile E. and his lawyer, Kevin, think little of the situation: Wile E. wants his prize, while Kevin’s a washed-up lawyer used to small settlements with ACME. However, as both of them do digging, they uncover a conspiracy spanning decades that has impacted hundreds of cartoons. It’s surprisingly deep and might even be this generation’s Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

I don’t say that lightly. Whereas that movie was an allegory for the dark underbelly of Los Angeles, this movie directly tackles the negligence of corporate deregulation. Given how modern Americana has suffered because of deregulation, that a studio movie was brave enough to discuss this is gutsy. It might even be too gutsy! But that’s a whole other can of worms.

What makes this movie compelling is that, despite being angry, it has an immense love for its material. Coyote VS ACME doesn’t hate the Looney Tunes, but rather how Warner Bros. has mishandled them. These were the gems of the studio until the 1970s, but in recent decades no one’s known what to do with them. As a result, they’ve starred in a string of ambitious and not-so-ambitious flops, including Space Jam: A New Legacy a few years ago. This movie’s commenting on that, and it isn’t hiding it.

It’s telling that Warner Bros. almost shelved it. It’s equally telling that the movie’s tracking to make double its budget at the box-office. Considering word-of-mouth movies don’t always equate to successes, for this to do well financially because of fans is welcoming. It shows that sometimes we see positive outcomes, however rare they are. I should applaud that.

It helps that the commentary has real teeth. It argues that even if cartoon characters “tolerate pain”, that doesn’t make it right. Because it can cause them psychological damage, as we see throughout the movie. It’s something you don’t think about until you make the real-world parallels to minority injustices. Sure, marginalized groups might “tolerate their abuse”, but do they really? Or are they pretending and putting on a brave face?

I can’t help relating to this personally. Jews, particularly American Jews, were subjected to Antisemitism for centuries, and many were forced to blend in. Even after WWII, they fought for acceptance and integration, possibly at the expense of their unique identity. They might’ve integrated too well, such that we’re now witnessing a wave of extreme backlash and resentment over it. In that sense, Jews are The Looney Tunes.

Soapbox aside, this movie’s commentary is exactly what’s needed right now. The amount of corporate neglect is prescient, and distrust of the power structure’s at an all-time high. This correlation isn’t accidental, either: decades of cutting corners in the name of a quick buck has led to this. And attempts at whistle-blowing by individuals in the corporate world have resulted in legal and fatal consequences, something the movie comments on. It doesn’t hold back, and I welcome that.

It helps that this movie’s really funny. Whether it’s reworking classic tunes with Looney Tunes-centric spins, or using cartoon slapstick to generate laughs, this movie has no shortage of wit. I remember laughing out loud quite frequently, which says something since I find slapstick humour to be a cheap form of comedy. But it works. Against all odds, it works! And part of that is because the cartoon characters are treated with respect.

Does that mean everything about the movie flows? No. Aside from small quibbles here and there, the animation style is more CGI than conventionally-drawn. It has the illusion of traditional animation, but you can spot the difference. I genuinely think going the extra mile to draw the characters by hand would’ve added an additional layer of charm. I say that because they’re voiced by real voice actors, as opposed to celebrities.

There are many movies with plenty of hype that I’ve had different reactions to. Some, like Mad Max: Fury Road, I didn’t think were worthy of their praise. Others, like the animated ventures from Phil Lord and Chris Miller, were absolutely worthy of their praise. Coyote VS ACME falls in the middle, though closer to the latter thanks to its release history. Ironically, in an attempt to get rid of it, it was made more relevant. For that reason alone I’d recommend it.

Above all else, this is proof that, like I said earlier, life sometimes works out. Because it did here, and we should applaud that. It’s a shame other ventures won’t see the light of day because of similar write-offs, but at least it worked to the public’s advantage here. So celebrate. And Warner Bros. should be ashamed of themselves, even if I doubt they care.

Hollywood's Weight Problem

I haven’t played the God of War games. Ignoring their excessive violence and sexuality, I don’t own Sony consoles. My thoughts, therefore, are ancillary, with little to say about the franchise. However, I know about body image, having been underweight my whole life, so everything I discuss will be viewed through that. Which leads me to the live-action TV series based on the franchise.

During FanExpo in Toronto, Christopher Judge, who had a role in the recent God of War entries, was asked if he was interested in joining the show as Kratos. He had the following to say:

“We had talked, and I thought, ‘God, what a great legacy to leave for my grandson.’ So I started working out. I got bigger. Then, just the reality of it... because I did read! I did read for it. It was so hard for me to memorize my lines, which I never had a problem with. And that was my mind and body starting to tell me, ‘You don't want to do this.’ I was one of the leads of Stargate at 33 to 44 and then stopped. Now, at 62, to be the lead, I just have no desire to live that way again.”

It’s easy to be disappointed; after all, Judge isn’t a stranger to the material! But when you stop and think about the amount of work that goes into the role, as well as the toll it takes on the body, it makes sense. Bulking up for roles isn’t new, yet doing so rapidly and in short order is exhausting. It also isn’t healthy. And Judge didn’t want that again.

I’m sure some of you don’t know this, but the human body isn’t designed to quickly bulk up or slim down. It’s easier with men, for reasons I don’t understand, but changing body mass too quickly can destroy you physically. It’s especially true with weight loss, as your body feeds on your reserve energy, though rapid weight gain also isn’t healthy. It’s why I’m concerned for method actors who do it to get into a role, as who knows what harm they’re doing long-term?

This isn’t only me speaking. There have been plenty of stories from celebrities recounting the exhaustion they’ve experienced from dieting. Christian Bale lost so much weight for The Machinist that he was at risk for osteoporosis. Even now, I’m not sure what damage he’s done to himself long-term. Basically, it’s not a good idea.

Hollywood has many roles that require certain weights, but rapid transformations are why I have no interest in entering the industry. It’s not the only reason, but my time’s better spent enjoying the end-result. You can call me selfish for saying that, but it’s true. Besides, I dare you to do better. Honestly.

Anyway, I don’t blame Judge for saying no. It’s not like he’s doing another video game either, as that can be counterbalanced with animators and VFX artists. No, Judge would have to work out frequently, change his diet and have the time and energy to memorize lines. As he’s indicated, it didn’t work for him. You can claim that he tried, but if it’s not working…

However, that’s the problem. Outside of Hollywood’s ridiculous beauty standards, such that being too old can cost you roles, audiences are too detached to understand or appreciate what goes into making what we consume. It’s the sausage effect: we’re so busy eating them that we don’t think about how they’re made. And if we did, would we want to eat them? I’m not sure we would.

This issue is why I respect Anthony Hopkins for opting for a fat suit with Hitchcock. You can argue the ethics of fat suits forever, I’m not a fan of them either, but the principle remains intact. Because Hopkins refused to change his body for a role. Given his attitude toward acting generally, it’s also not surprising. So yes, props to him.

Overall, we should recognize this isn’t something Judge wanted, and we have to respect that. It’s not like there aren’t other actors who’d love to work on one of these roles, especially ones younger than Judge, and many are struggling C-Listers waiting for their big breaks. If anything, we should celebrate new talent coming onto the scene! Isn’t that what happened with Ellie in The Last of Us? It worked to Bella Ramsey’s advantage, no?

I know rapid weight loss or gain will remain an issue in Hollywood. I’m not even saying that working out is bad, as I do it twice a week! But while valid, doing it recklessly is dangerous. The human body isn’t designed for drastic change, and we can’t anticipate the long-term damage. Kumail Nanjiani’s a perfect example, having bulked up for Eternals and regretting it. It’s really unhealthy.

True, there’s plenty about Hollywood that’s awful. I’ve made no secret of my thoughts on that. But while I can’t change this on my own, as I lack that kind of influence, that doesn’t mean I want people to harm themselves fulfilling a casting itch. Actors are still human beings, and they’re subject to the limitations associated with that. If Christopher Judge doesn’t want a rigorous regimen to play a beloved character, especially being in his early-60s, that’s his choice. And it needs to be respected.

Ultimately, I’m happy Judge recognized his limitations here. I think that you should be too.

My Grumpy Mentor

One of the reveals at this year’s D23 Expo was more information about The Incredibles 3. Despite having been announced years ago, many fans latched onto the image of a despondent Bob Parr. The complaints centred around him being jaded by old age, stating that it was an overused and annoying cliché. Why couldn’t mentor figures be upbeat for once? Why do they always have to be sour?

Personally, this doesn’t bother me for two reasons. The first is that complaining completely misreads who Bob is as a character. We remember The Incredibles as a funny and quirky movie, but it was profoundly sad. This was a film about an aging, washed up superhero preyed on as a means of revenge. It’s reinforced frequently, particularly when Bob discovers that his colleagues have been eliminated for sport. The movie doesn’t hold back on how disturbing that is, even showing Bob’s reaction.

The sequel had Bob struggling with balancing his family life with a chance to do good. This is his opportunity to clear the reputation of superheroes, and he has to live it through his wife? Sure, he’s trying to be supportive, but it stings. And the movie doesn’t hide this, with him eventually cracking and yelling at his kids. Bob Parr being despondent is completely in-character, especially since he’s a flawed, selfish individual.

The second reason this doesn’t bother me is because being jaded is compelling drama for an aging hero. Life frequently kicks the crap out of people as they age. It starts with physical ailments-back problems, joint issues, a shorter lung capacity-then turns into heartbreak and drama as life takes those you care about. I’ve been alive for 36 years, but I’ve dealt with both of those. I get muscle spasms from overworking myself, my stomach rebels when I eat too much, and I’ve witnessed three of my four grandparents die. That takes a toll on you, and I haven’t even gotten into my regrets.

Also, Bob being despondent makes sense, especially given what he’s been through already. We haven’t even been told why he’s like that. He might’ve screwed up, or failed someone he cares about. For all we know, he could have a valid reason for despondency, which makes for great drama. Why’s that an issue?

It’s not only Bob Parr. This sentiment extends to other properties too. Luke Skywalker being a jaded hermit who closes himself off to The Force was a huge point of contention in the newer Star Wars movies. Indiana Jones being a crabby old man was also a point of contention in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Even Logan being a jaded father figure in Logan turned some people off, despite the movie being fantastic! People don’t like their heroes bummed out or depressed.

But why? Naïve optimism only gets you so far. People frequently become disillusioned by reality over time, and not everyone takes it well. My biggest disappointment over the last few years was seeing how normalized Antisemitism is. It hasn’t broken me, but it’s made me more guarded. Again, I’m only 36.

Jaded heroes might make some audiences self-conscious, but that doesn’t make for a tired cliché. Working through regrets is compelling, especially when it allows for character development. Luke Skywalker being disillusioned is a bummer, but him overcoming that, reconnecting with his roots and becoming the legend people believe him to be is compelling and exciting. As is Indiana Jones coming to peace with his failure as a father. This isn’t bad writing.

However, the real issue here is that fans don’t want their heroes challenged. They don’t want a jaded Luke, they want a Luke that slices through Darktroopers like paper. They also don’t want a sour Indy, they want one who brandishes his whip and punches baddies. So too do they not want a despondent Bob Parr, but rather one who’s always heroic.

I’m grateful these individuals aren’t writing movies. Or if they are, they’re not big-budget. Fan wish-lists aren’t always practical, especially if they clash with compelling writing. After all, if people become more cynical as they age, then shouldn’t movies reflect that? Isn’t that art mirroring reality?

Perhaps I’m expecting too much of audiences who can’t accept racial diversity either. It’s not like these movies haven’t also received criticism for attempting that, right? But it bothers me that people claim they want fresh storytelling, yet freak out and panic when they get that. Especially since people don’t stay young forever, and good storytelling reflects that. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

Either way, complaining about the “jaded mentor trope” being cliché isn’t fair. It’s a byproduct of getting older, and it’s a compelling reason to pass the torch to the younger generation. Logan might be jaded in Logan, but we cry over his death because we’ve gotten to know him. He’s sour in his older age, but his acceptance of Laura as his daughter/clone is compelling drama. This is more interesting than him being his usual, grumpy self.

Also, if franchises are to continue to stay fresh, they need to reasons to remain relevant. The grumpy mentor trope, for as much as it might seem cliché, is one way to do that. It also works with the limitations of actors as they age, be it physically or vocally. Disregarding that in favour of our heroes remaining forever young is selfish and irresponsible. It’s also bad writing.

So yes, Bob Parr being a despondent hero doesn’t bother me, and it shouldn’t bother you either.

There's Nothing New...

(Note: this piece was adapted from a lecture I’ve been prepping for 11 years.)

In the words of Kohelet:

“That which hath been is that which shall be, And that which hath been done is that which shall be done; And there is nothing new under the sun.”

Kohelet, considered a penname for King Shlomo, wrote this early in his scroll, which is read on Sukkot. The verse stands out because it hasn’t aged a day; after all, humans don’t invent, they reinvent. Maimonides, one of Judaism’s great philosophers, allegedly predicted airplanes during Islam’s Golden Age, calling them “iron birds”. If that happened in the 12th Century, it’s safe to say that “nothing new under the sun” is accurate. I’ve yet to see a good counterargument.

This doesn’t have to stop at inventions. It can apply to ideas too, particularly controversies. We’re plugged into the world constantly, and sooner or later its scandals and hot-button issues flock to us. I’ve seen it with geopolitics, but even minor debates have blown up thanks to the fascination people, particularly Jews, have with taboo subjects. This is a good springboard for me using four such examples. They’re weird, perhaps even esoteric, but I’ve wanted to discuss this for over 10 years. Bear with me.

    

The first one extends back to the early months of 2015. We all remember the dress scandal, right? What colour was the dress? Was it blue and black, or white and gold? The debate raged for months! However, it highlighted how something asinine could generate conversation about perception.

I won’t delve into the later scandal surrounding the owner’s relationship with her husband, as that’s not relevant. However, I want state that I never cared about the dress. Like the “Yanny VS Laurel” debate, it was wasted energy. It was a dress! Who cares what colour it was? Will it cure world hunger, or reverse climate change?

However, this debate actually got me started on this drasha, as I think it connects to a similar case about perception: tzara’at. Tzara’at, or “leprosy”, was a Biblical punishment caused by lashon hara, or speaking falsely about others. The disease was highly-contagious and covered the skin, forcing the afflicted to isolate. However, because it was difficult to differentiate from other skin diseases, it was up to the Kohen Gadol, or High Priest, to examine it and determine if it was tzara’at. As Vayikra 13:1-3 states:

“GOD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: When a person has on their skin a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on their skin, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. The priest shall examine the affection on the skin: if hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce the person impure.”

The implication here is that the Kohen Gadol is announcing “This person is contagious, stay away!” in order to protect everyone else. But why is it the Kohen Gadol’s responsibility? Isn’t it obvious that the person looks afflicted? Perhaps it’s because of perception issues, lest there be debate and everything gets worse. And now we see how this ties into the dress, if loosely.

  

Next, there’s GamerGate and Vivian James. I’ve covered this before, but for those unfamiliar, here’s a rundown:

Back in the Summer of 2014, a rumour circulated around the internet that game designer Zoë Quinn had slept with various video game reviewers to court favour for Depression Quest. Started by her ex-boyfriend, it took root in forums like 4chan and gained the attention of Adam Baldwin, who coined “GamerGate” to suggest a conspiracy ala President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal. Despite the pretense that this was about “ethics in game’s journalism”, a growing list of women, including Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, became targets of harassment and doxing.

Around this time, a group known as TFYC donated a massive sum to have a character created. Named “Vivian James”, a pun on “vidya games”, she quickly became GamerGate’s mascot. Despite the copious amounts of inappropriate fan art, due to her being a teenager, the question of whether or not a fictional avatar can be a spokesperson for a movement, especially when she had no agency, took centre stage. Was it appropriate to use a fake character as a mouthpiece?

I try not to dwell on GamerGate. I lost a lot of friends over it, some of whom I’d known for many years. However, the part that miffs me to this day is that Vivian James was being exploited by toxic gamers. And she was a teenager, one without any agency. Assuming she was real at all, where was her perspective? Was it fair to misuse her?

Such parallels are found, in my mind, in a section of The Mishneh Torah pertaining to divorce, particularly the Gett:

“When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a get written. The get is acceptable. This applies at all times and in all places. Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. If, however, the gentiles compel him to write [a get] on their own initiative…”

Honestly, the Gett is one the hardest parts of Judaism to swallow. Not because it isn’t necessary, especially since men aren’t trustworthy historically, but because withholding it causes the wife unnecessary pain. It’s boorish, and yet it happens so frequently! Not giving a Gett also creates an agunah, or a chained woman. And if this agunah ends up pregnant from another man, her child is a mamzer, a bastard whose lineage is cursed for 10 generations! That’s not something any sane person wants.

Ignoring how many modern marriages have civil prenups that automatically enforce Getts, I can’t help feeling for the woman here. After all, she’s being abused! And she’s given little-to-no agency! I also can’t help wondering what’d happen had women had an active role in formulating the Halacha, but it’s too late to fix that. Perhaps that’s why women need to be listened to…

We all remember the riots in Ferguson, Missouri. They weren’t that long ago, and they shed light on systemic abuse from law enforcement. Unfortunately, the situation hasn’t gotten much better. All the riots did was bring attention to how racist police officers can be, as well as how little accountability they have. ACAB, as they say.

Even if you don’t mind cops, the reality is that they’re human beings. And like any humans with authority, they’re flawed. They make mistakes, they screw up, and sometimes their mistakes are deadly. After all, if politicians are recognized as shady, why are police exempt from that? As Alan Moore once wrote, “Who watches The Watchmen?”.

Perhaps the weirdest ripple effect involved a cop who was dismissed for a weird reason. As The Anime Herald wrote on May 14th, 2015:

“Last night, Florida’s WFTV News reported that an officer in the Casselberry Police Department. Police officer Matthew Blunt was suspended for one shift (10 hours) without pay, after sending an off-color text message to his supervisor.”

This is putting it lightly. Blunt, apparently, had been excited about winning the local Powerball lottery, and he wanted some of the money. It wasn’t a lot of money-$32 USD-but even a sushi dinner at a Kosher restaurant is something. However, Blunt using an anime image with a racial epithet was, apparently, going too far, and he was suspended. Interesting.

When Blunt’s story went viral, a debate over whether or not his suspension was justified tagged along. The most-troubling question was “Why this?”. I’m not defending Blunt, he should’ve known better, but between the profiling, beatings and, yes, even shootings police have been guilty of, being suspended over a racist meme is suspect. It begs the question of what police can get away with.

Judaism isn’t a stranger to critiquing authority figures. King David was punished by God for seducing a married woman, having her husband killed and impregnating her. Yet the one passage that sums up this best involves Yoav ben Tsuriah. Yoav was David’s nephew, and he was his highest-ranking general. Nepotism aside, he was a formidable strategist, serving David well. But his hamartia was a bad case of wounded pride. He routinely disobeyed protocol to settle personal scores, including the tragic death of David’s son, Avshalom, after his hair got caught in a thicket. David never forgave him, and it didn’t get any easier once Shlomo took over:

“When the news reached Joab, he fled to the Tent of GOD and grasped the horns of the altar—for Joab had sided with Adonijah, though he had not sided with Absalom.

King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the Tent of GOD and that he was there by the altar; so Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada, saying, “Go and strike him down.”

Benaiah went to the Tent of GOD and said to him, “Thus said the king: Come out!” “No!” he replied; “I will die here.” Benaiah reported back to the king that Joab had answered thus and thus, and the king said, “Do just as he said; strike him down and bury him, and remove guilt from me and my father’s house for the blood of the innocent that Joab has shed.

Thus GOD will bring his blood guilt down upon his own head, because, unbeknown to my father, he struck down with the sword two men more righteous and honorable than he—Abner son of Ner, the army commander of Israel, and Amasa son of Jether, the army commander of Judah.

May the guilt for their blood come down upon the head of Joab and his descendants forever, and may good fortune from GOD be granted forever to David and his descendants, his house and his throne.

(Melachim II, 28-33.)

Clearly, Yoav staked his claim with the wrong person, which cost him his life!

The final example I wish to discuss involves Tilly Norwood, whom I’ve also written about. Tilly Norwood is an A.I. actress created by Xicoia, a division of Particle6 Group, in 2025. Her creator, Eline Van Der Velden, desired to experiment with her. Despite never intending for her to replace real actors, Norwood created an uproar in Hollywood and the online world, with people accusing her of talent poaching and performance theft. After all, how can her acting be genuine?

Hollywood has blacklisted Norwood, yet her presence touches on a bigger issue surrounding A.I. It might be a hot commodity nowadays, but is its presence warranted? And is it a tool for change, or merely a fad? There’s plenty that can be said, but I won’t bore you. Instead, I’ll keep my thoughts brief: I’m not a fan. At all. In fact, I try to not rely on it, even at the expense of errors or misinformation. It can’t match up to human ingenuity on a good day.

I had to think hard on what would be a good compliment Tilly Norwood, but I settled on this story about Maimonides:

“There is a beautiful story of a disagreement that Maimonides had with a philosopher. The philosopher claimed that he could change a cat and make him act like a person. Maimonides said this was impossible. They agreed to make a contest. When the day of the contest came, the philosopher brought a cat that he had trained to be a waiter. The cat served an entire meal, and the audience was amazed. Just as they stared and assumed that Maimonides had been proven wrong, Maimonides took out a container from his pocket. He opened it up and a mouse ran by. The cat saw the mouse, dropped the tray of dishes that he was holding, breaking them all, and ran after the mouse. Maimonides was proven right, and everyone agreed that no matter what, a cat is a cat. As much as he may be trained to act in a particular way, he is still inherently a cat and must be treated as such.”

Pretty straightforward, right? Maimonides disagrees that animals can transcend their nature, he’s supposedly proven wrong, and then he games the system and ends up being right. The obvious lesson is to not second-guess a rationalist, which Maimonides was, but further research revealed that this might not be his story. Yeah, it’s a midrash, a parable meant to teach a lesson. It’s also a remix of an Aesop’s fable! You ready for this?

“The Cat and Venus

A CAT fell in love with a handsome young man, and entreated Venus to change her into the form of a woman. Venus consented to her request and transformed her into a beautiful damsel, so that the youth saw her and loved her, and took her home as his bride. While the two were reclining in their chamber, Venus wishing to discover if the Cat in her change of shape had also altered her habits of life, let down a mouse in the middle of the room. The Cat, quite forgetting her present condition, started up from the couch and pursued the mouse, wishing to eat it. Venus was much disappointed and again caused her to return to her former shape.

Nature exceeds nurture.”

Big thanks to George Flyer Townsend for translating this. However, that Aesop had covered this prior shows that even Jewish midrashim are responses to previous texts. That’s not necessarily bad. It simply shows that Judaism was self-aware, using prior stories as springboards. You simply can’t deny that.

But this all goes back to that Kohelet verse. Judaism doesn’t exist in a vacuum, as much as we sometimes want it to. Because Jews are a byproduct of the world. This extends to how we perceive and digest media. And if these controversies are indication, the issues present, such as that of perception, aren’t new either. Our sages and texts were grappling with this, and they too were influenced by the world around them. We should definitely remember and appreciate that as we grapple with contemporary issues.

Boys on Trial

I have no interest in watching The Boys. I had no interest in watching it before it finished syndication, either. For one, it was on a streamer I don’t have. And two, its brand of edgy, “aren’t superheroes obnoxious?” humour doesn’t interest me. I don’t say because I like superheroes, although I do, but because tearing down something simply because it’s popular doesn’t feel good. Besides, Alan Moore did it better.

So we’re clear, I’m not putting down anyone who legitimately likes this show. Finale aside, the people involved really did care, and one of the actresses, Erin Moriarty, was fantastic as Hope Shlottman in Season 1 of Jessica Jones. My issue is about its satire. I also think it’s brought out the worst in its fans, such that Moriarty was harassed online a while back. But I digress.

The idea that “popular = bad” is something this show’s thrived on in excess. This is most-exemplified in Homelander, who’s basically Superman/Captain America if he was self-obsessed and annoying. Homelander’s whole deal is that people love him to cult-like degree, even though none of it’s warranted. He revels in the spotlight to avoid accountability for his behaviour, which includes murdering people. I know people revere Superman and Captain America in real life, but not because they’re cynical, self-obsessed man-babies. It’s because they represent the best in humanity, however hard that is.

I’ll use the latest Superman movie to illustrate this. Yes, it has people interrogate him as the genuine article, and he makes occasionally-brash decisions, but Superman only behaves that way because he believes in people. He even tries stopping a genocide, despite doing so aggressively. Superman isn’t about the glory, he’s a boy scout, and Homelander tearing that down is mean-spirited. The same can be said for Captain America, who tries being his nation’s best and doesn’t blindly accept its actions.

Another issue I have with The Boys is its call-outs of superhero culture, specifically The MCU. There’s plenty wrong with The MCU, as there is with Disney. But believing it’s wrong for superheroes to be popular because “superheroes” ignores how even soulless corporations can make good, relevant art. The MCU’s mass-produced media, but it tackles themes like blind patriotism, race relations, familial abuse and the limitations of justice. These are all important in this day and age, however you feel about the movies.

The Boys isn’t content with letting these messages resonate, instead tearing down the movies and shows because it feels they’re tacky or shallow. This is best-exemplified by its scathing parody of “Don’t worry…he’s got help!” in The Avengers: Endgame. It’s silly to have every superheroine in The MCU show up in a single shot to help Spider-Man…but does it matter if it’s pandering to female audience members? The moment is fun, the characters get to shine and it’s genuinely exciting seeing them together. It might be “cynically-driven”, but who cares? The Boys did, with its parallel being included because one of its writers thought it was lame. I genuinely think that’s done real harm in popular culture discourse.

However, that’s this show. Never mind the irony of a superhero series failing to self-interrogate, The Boys is content with coasting on tearing down joy associated with superheroes. I don’t like that. I don’t mind dark and edgy when done well, but a little whimsy and joy goes a long way. The world’s cruel enough without genuine moments of wonder being mocked.

I also think the energy this show gives off encapsulates what’s wrong with the internet. You know that stereotype of the internet being loud, whiny and needlessly angry? That’s the vibe here. I see enough terminally-online nonsense on social media without a superhero show adding to that. I’d tell this series to go outside and touch grass, but I doubt it’d help. And that’s unfortunate.

Look, my time is precious. I can only stomach so much negativity before it starts weighing me down. It’s why I Unfollowed a popular anime reviewer on Twitter years ago, as, among other problems, he didn’t know how to not be condescending about popular entertainment. I don’t need that, so I cut my losses. I don’t regret it, either.

This series feels like that, but on a grander level. And yes, there are ways to criticize superhero entertainment. But it requires self-introspection, which I don’t think The Boys does. Or if it does, it’s minimal and ineffective. Basically, it needs to try harder.

And as for the internet’s adoration in general? Far be it for me to piss on your fun, but I think the unpleasant and snarky behaviour surrounding this series isn’t helpful. The world is a mess right now, and people need outlets for harmless escapism. Superheroes, whether you like them or not, are one such outlet, as they shine a mirror on societal woes and eradicate them with kindness and decency. If that bothers you, then I guess you’re part of the problem. I’m not sorry in the slightest for calling that out.