About Melissa Barrera...

The situation surrounding Melissa Barrera’s exhausting. I say that not because she did anything wrong, or because her situation is unique. Plenty of celebrities have done and said worse, many without consequences. However, her becoming the poster child for Palestinian self-determination and being the “perfect victim of cancel culture” is aggravating as a Jewish person burned by isolation brought on from October 7th and the invasion of Gaza. But let’s backtrack, shall we?

Recently, Variety did an expose on Barrera’s comeback after being fired from Scream 7. I’ve already covered my thoughts here, so I won’t go into too much detail, but I’ll admit that David Ellison jumped the gun. It’s to be expected, yet the ripple effects led to a massive derailment the end result never recovered from. Barrera, apparently, was blacklisted, with her talent agent dropping her and roles drying up. In short, her outspokenness for Palestinians cost her.

Variety has done exposes like this on people before, some more controversial than Barrera. (They did one on Hasan Piker a while back.) However, their refusal to push back on spicy takes is a problem. And nowhere is this more-apparent than their expose on Barrera. She’s not a loose cannon on par with Piker, but some of her thoughts feel disingenuous.

Perhaps this is clearest with her thoughts on Israel and Gaza. I know that’s become hot button issue, even at the expense of other conflicts, but Barrera repeatedly referred to Gaza as “an open air prison” and tokenized Jewish historians who called out Israel. These aren’t red flags alone, but the tokenizing of Jewish voices, even if they’re correct, is a problem. Jews aren’t monolithic, and it’s important to get varied takes on conflicts they agree with. Unfortunately, as with Jonathan Glazer, that’s not happening.

Anyway, Variety also mentions co-star Jenna Ortega. Ortega resigned from Scream 7 in solidarity, but Barrera didn’t have anything nice to say about her. I originally thought she was simply reaching for sour grapes, yet the expose suggests that Ortega might not have been the ally I thought. Fair enough. I still think it was rude to throw her under the bus, though.

I’d like to push back on Barrera feeling “isolated” over her views, however. She mentions there’s a sexist double-standard in Hollywood surrounding politics, with her and Susan Sarandon not getting away with what Mark Ruffalo and Javier Bardem do. It’s true, but gender alone isn’t an excuse for bigotry. Ruffalo and Bardem have tangoed with Antisemitism before, whether willfully or unintentionally, and they’re not the allies I’d want to have. Especially Bardem, who made his presentation on Best International Feature Film about Palestine while ignoring how one of the movies was about the Iranian regime at this past year’s Oscars. That level of disconnect made many Iranian expats quite angry.

Outside of that, is Barrera not aware of what many Jews have felt for almost three years? Without chastising her specifically, Jews in and out of Hollywood have been attacked by gentiles for existing in public spaces. Some have also been murdered, with activists finding ways to cheer on their murderers in the name of “justice for Palestine”. It’s frustrating because many of those Jews do care about Palestinians. You wouldn’t know that from how they’ve been pushed out of progressive circles, though.

Speaking personally, life hasn’t been peachy. My synagogue was shot at early one Shabbat morning, hence I can no longer access the main entrance. Security has also ramped up significantly. I’ve been scared to have my yarmulke visible in public spaces, lest I become a target. And I’ve been recording the posters and graffiti on my Friday routes that’ve been spreading pro-Hamas or anti-Israel propaganda.

Whenever I mention this publicly, I’m gaslit and mocked. And yes, right-leaning Antisemitism’s dangerous, and many conservative pundits have been exploiting this uptick in vitriol for personal gain. I wasn’t born yesterday. However, at least they’re pretending to care. What’s your excuse?

Returning to Barrera, she mentions wanting to surround herself with pro-Palestinian voices from now on. What does that entail, I wonder? Will she box Hollywood talent into like-minded groups, weeding out those who don’t live up to her standards? Will she do extensive screening? And what’ll happen if said individuals disappoint her? Will she drop them completely?

Barrera’s remarks are a double-edged sword, made worse by the people she wants to work with. Susan Sarandon’s an obvious red flag, but Boots Reily wrote a dissertation online hand-waving Hamas’s Antisemitism. And Hannah Einbinder, who happens to be Jewish, signed a petition demanding The New York Times and other publications not document what Hamas did on October 7th. If Barrera wants me to feel bad about her, which I do, she’s not making a convincing case for herself here.

But that’s the problem: it’s easy to say that Barrera was wronged. I agree with that. It’s harder to sympathize with her going forward, though. Because remember, victims are people. And people often have flawed, unhelpful reactions to trauma.

I also don’t know if Barrera being the face of pro-Palestinian activism is a good idea. Palestinians have definitely received the short end of the stick, both from Hamas and Israel’s government, that much I can’t deny. But you can hear that directly from Palestinians, many of whom take issue with The West’s views on their government. Considering how celebrities co-opting a political cause also leads to gatekeeping, it’s something I’m not sure Barrera’s ready to deal with.

Does this mean she shouldn’t care about Palestinians? Of course not! I care about Palestinians, and I’m Jewish! But that’s being ignored because a Jew’s nuanced views on Israel isn’t something gentiles wish to hear. They see “Jewish” or “Israeli”, think “Zionist scum” and immediately disassociate altogether. That’s dehumanizing.

Perhaps I’m over-projecting my insecurities onto Barrera. I’m sure much of what I’m saying can be read into as such. However, this is a problem, and one that needs addressing. Because Israel isn’t going away. Nor are Jews. So while what’s happening in Gaza is horrendous, that reality should be acknowledged. I only hope Melissa Barrera understands this.

Streaming's in Peril?

Did you like Season 2 of Daredevil: Born Again? I did! I liked it more than Season 1, and I liked Season 1! And while it ended on an anticlimactic note, it clicked enough to be excited for Season 3. Because there’s definitely a Season 3 happening. The Wikipedia page confirms that.

Nevertheless, there was some disturbing news that recently surfaced. Luminate, which tracks analytics, revealed that Season 2’s viewership was down by almost half from Season 1. I won’t go into the details, you can read more here, but this is alarming for a series that’s been praised by critics and fans. Simply put, the audience is dwindling. That is worrying if you’re an investor, right?

I’d go on to spell out doom-and-gloom here, but I think an asterisk is necessary. Because it isn’t exclusive to this show. Streaming numbers are down all around, and it’s impacting everything. Basically, people are burnt out on streaming. That’s the real story here.

Which begs the question: what does it say about the landscape when the hot commodity’s drying up? Remember that “infinite growth” isn’t real. New formats and industries come and go constantly, and even within cycles there are ups and downs. However, since Disney recently gutted its home media division, that a Disney+ series isn’t showing the same returns is alarming. Is streaming in peril?

It’s also alarming because this is bleeding into movie releases. You know how The Mandalorian & Grogu is debuting at the end of this month? It’s already on track to under-perform financially. This is despite being the first Star Wars movie in 7 years. Not even the Sequel Trilogy did as poorly as this movie’s projected to. For a franchise that redefined the modern blockbuster in the 70s and 80s, that’s alarming. But that’s because audiences are so used to streaming they’re not in a hurry to see the movie on opening weekend.

This situation feels self-cannibalizing: physical media’s struggling, so people are turning to streaming. Streaming’s too expensive and oversaturated, so the audience retention’s dwindling. Even movies, once big events, are becoming less exciting as streaming’s catching up to theatres, and that in turn is making audiences hesitant to see new releases. Combine that with theatre tickets and concessions being expensive, as well as theatre experiences being less compelling, and-my God, that piece I wrote on Dune is getting too much exposure!

Nevertheless, this is a problem. I’m not anti-streaming, but shareholders in Disney+, Netflix and the like definitely need to adjust their expectations. It sounds harsh saying this, but growth isn’t forever. Sooner or later, your product will peak, plateau or diminish. In some cases, it might even disappear. That’s a sign for reinvention. As the saying goes, “adapt, or die”.

What now? I’m no stakeholder in Disney+, nor do I claim to be an expert, but I know that if a product’s peaking, that means its novelty’s wearing off. With Disney+, that couldn’t be clearer now. Does that mean investors should panic? Not necessarily. However, it does mean they need to be more realistic going forward.

Perhaps I’m biased because I’ve seen my own numbers plateau before. I’m fortunate that my Views are currently exploding, but that wasn’t always the case. There were months on end where I was struggling to get eyeballs on my work, and I still don’t know the secret to site traffic. But that’s okay. I’m writing this because I want to.

Now, does it suck when something I’ve worked on isn’t an immediate success? Yes. Do I wish some of my better pieces had gone viral? Again, yes. But since gaming the algorithm involves selling out, something I’m not comfortable with, I’ll take my successes wherever possible.

Not to toot my own horn, but shareholders in streaming, and those in theatres, should take a page from me. It sucks when investments plateau, but that’s not alarming. If anything, it’s an indication to keep making quality output. You might not get the gangbusters numbers you were hoping for, true. Yet many classics nowadays were initially “failures”. Life is like that.

As for Daredevil: Born Again? Be grateful it’s been well-received! And be grateful its second season is better than its first! Many shows lose steam over time, so that this is still relevant despite a viewership drop is a major accomplishment. Isn’t that what matters?

I can’t predict the future. I’m also terrible at reading trends. But while it’s disappointing that streaming isn’t the “forever cash-cow” investors were hoping for, that it’s done as well as it has for as long as it has is impressive! So much could’ve derailed it at any time, so that it’s maintained a level of consistency for this long is a testament to, at least for now, its staying power. I only wish we had options that weren’t needlessly-expensive or siloed to different platforms because of licensing agreements...

Basically, let’s not panic that Daredevil: Born Again has shed viewers. It was bound to happen, and I’d prefer quality output. I hope you do too.

LED the Way!

The most irritating aspect of film bro culture involves whining about old-fashioned film-making that went out of style: too much CGI nowadays? Practical stunt-work is often dangerous. Sex scenes are sterile? Many older ones were coercive. Digital film-making looks cheap? Real film-making is costly and erodes easily. But the complaint that bugs me most, enough that I’ve covered it before, involves lighting. Especially since I understand more about why modern films look “dull”.

Apparently, movies of the 1970s to 2010s used different lighting, thanks to old-fashioned light-bulbs. Once the world started using LEDs, and movies followed suit, the look of films changed. That shiny gloss we were accustomed to became what we have now. Makes sense, as LED bulbs are made differently. Unfortunately, many people started to notice, and they began complaining.

Here’s my counter-argument: grow up. Not only are LEDs cheaper, they’re more eco-friendly. While old-school light-bulbs had a certain feel, they also produced plenty of excess energy and heat. If you ever needed proof, recall what’d happen if you touched one by accident when it was on. Better yet, recall what’d happen if they came in contact with water. Old-school light-bulbs were “cool”, but they were also quite dangerous.

LEDs aren’t only less dangerous, they’re also more efficient. Yes, they give off “flatter lighting”. But if it means not burning or hurting myself, I’ll gladly take it. That matters more than if a movie lacks a classic feel. I’d hope that’d be common knowledge, but...

LEDs also aren’t as harsh on the eyes. Ever since I started wearing glasses, I’ve found that traditional light-bulbs jolt my retinas whenever they suddenly turn on. They also leave a glare that I still see for minutes afterwards. Much like the Sun, they even give me headaches when at full capacity. I don’t need that.

LED bulbs are easier to deal with. You can set the tint to any colour or brightness, but they don’t overwhelm my corneas. If that means they aren’t flashy, then guess what? It’s a trade-off I’m willing to make. That goes for films too.

Truthfully, this is the pettiest whining I’ve heard from film bros. And I’ve heard plenty! So what if films don’t look like conventional films? Modern movies also have sheens to compensate for digital film-making. Compare the original Indiana Jones movies to the most-recent ones. It’s as noticeable as the drop in the franchise’s quality.

I get it, you want to experience the films of yore, back when “movies meant something”. You want the pomp and circumstance of a simpler era. Sorry to burst your bubble, but life wasn’t simpler. You also have to stop living in the past. It’s that false nostalgia that’s led to many problems geopolitically.

You’re also not giving modern film-making enough credit. The barrier to entry is shrinking with each year, such that you can even make professional movies on smartphones. That wasn’t possible 20 years ago. Shouldn’t we be praising that? Why is it so scary?

There are definitely problems with the modern film industry. On the theatrical side, I’ve gone into depth about that in a previous piece. And I’m not alone! Steven Spielberg, Ryan Gosling and the CEO of Sony Pictures have all expressed similar frustrations as me about modern film-making! But they’re still engaging in the now. They’re doing it out of love for the industry, not to shamelessly project their insecurities onto it. I wish many film bros would do the same, however much it kills them emotionally.

Besides, old movies aren’t going anywhere! Sure, digital streaming has made preservation of media harder, which is depressing for many reasons, but older movies still exist. Many are even available physically for anyone to purchase, assuming that’s your jam! But for the love of God, stop complaining about newer movies! And stop complaining about their dull lighting! You sound old and cranky when you do that.

Here’s a rhetorical question for you: what does an ideal movie “look” like? I ask because people have different definitions of “ideal”, and no two responses are the same. But you know what? That’s okay! Movie consumption’s subjective, despite what I say here, lighting included. If you have a problem, you can always say so. I can’t guarantee I’ll be swayed, though...

Finally, we need to collectively recognize that the older ways have to stay in the past when they’re not working. Like the coercive sex scenes, dangerous stunt work and traditional film reels of yore, classic lighting should be acknowledged for the time period where it worked, not clamoured for in today’s day and age. It’s tough, but considering how ecologically-inefficient, and dangerous, old bulbs were, I’ll take the LED option any day of the week. We’re already doing a piss-poor job at stewarding the planet, enough that the future looks bleak for humanity, so take the wins wherever you can get them. I promise you won’t die sucking up your pride.

Disney's Mass Lay-Offs

I’m not sure if you noticed, but Disney recently laid off 1000 people.

This is my issue with At-Will Employment. I know it’s effective in removing bad employees, especially when they drag down production, but there’s no long-term job security guaranteed for anyone. Additionally, many of those who were fired had been there for over a decade, even helping to shape divisions like Marvel and Pixar. In fact, one person even mentioned that he was fired in front of a Loki mural he’d created. Talk about irony!

It sucks because I was defending Disney’s decision to axe a live-action Robin Hood remake a month ago. In that, I said the following about the company’s new heads: 

“…It’s possible they’ll disappoint, especially since they have to appease shareholders, but this is a step in the right direction…”

I didn’t expect Disney’s new CEO, Josh D’Amaro, to disappoint me this quickly! However, he did. It’s as if he took everything people were frustrated with Bob Iger over, particularly cost-cutting, and fast-tracked it. It’s even more harrowing when you consider that Disney laid off their home media division, which means they’re most-likely not going to have physical media releases anymore going forward. Smooth.

It’d be easy to point the finger squarely at Disney here, but this problem has been plaguing Hollywood for some time. Between financial straits, the rise in streaming and A.I., grunt workers are always the first to get squeezed. It doesn’t help that WB being purchased by Paramount indicates a lack of government oversight, especially given Paramount’s CEO’s attitude about Hollywood in general. We already saw that with the Scream franchise…

I’m getting off-track here. While it sucks that Disney laid off 1000 employees, it shouldn’t be surprising. Like I said, At-Will Employment allows for this! It also doesn’t guarantee job security, and you’d be foolish thinking otherwise. So while I wish those impacted the best, I’m not shocked. I’m frustrated, but not shocked.

You know what sucks more? The people at the top won’t be impacted. In a healthy work environment, the CEO would take pay cuts to retain workers. That’s what Nintendo did when the Wii U wasn’t panning out financially. However, loyalty to your employees isn’t something that exists in The West, so perhaps that’s unfair to mention. I wish it weren’t, though.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed if businesses didn’t consider their employees disposable. Yes, A.I. might seem like a good choice right now. And yes, cost-cutting is a real concern. But that shouldn’t mean gutting people who made you what you are. Disney didn’t become successful based on the decisions of one or two people. They became a juggernaut because of the grunt workers who brought their voices to the table, each and every one. Be it designers, marketers or idea people, these individuals all contributed. Letting them go like this, even if they’re going to be hired now on a per-need basis, is a slap to the face.

So what now? I don’t know. Disney’s made interesting creative decisions since this development, including re-releasing several classics in ASL, but that’s not enough to turn a blind eye. If anything, it feels like a distraction. And while it’s nice to see “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” in sign language, however difficult it must’ve been to animate, it leaves a bitter taste considering many of the people involved aren’t employed by Disney anymore, going by the timeline of this announcement.

It feels like I’m rambling here, but it’s only because I like Disney’s output. They’ve made and released some of my favourite movies, and they know how to weather storms. Buying and bankrolling The MCU has benefited that franchise immensely, and their investment in Star Wars has mostly paid off. Which is all the more reason why this sucks. Considering we won’t see the long-term impacts of these firings for several years, I also shudder to think what’ll happen creatively for them.

I’m not running a corporation, I get it. I don’t have to listen to shareholders breathing down my neck. But it’d be nice if the higher ups treated grunt workers with respect. Perhaps some are worth firing, but 1000 of them? And with short notice? Could there not have been one-on-one evaluations of their performances before making this decision? Or would that have been costly?

This’d also be less irritating if A.I. weren’t such a hot topic in Hollywood nowadays. I know it’s enticing, truly! But getting rid of people for it isn’t the answer. It’s also not cheaper, as we’re now learning. Besides, why fire someone and replace them with something that doesn’t create?

Disney, specifically D’Amaro, has lots of explaining to do. It’s possible D’Amaro’s the better choice to succeed Iger than Bob Chapek, especially given how that panned out, but this isn’t a good start. Companies act as though people are replaceable, and they might be, but this isn’t the answer. Especially since human labour’s the lifeblood of a corporation, whether they want to acknowledge it or not. I only hope Disney doesn’t learn this the hard way…

Don't Tokenize Me!

While receiving his Oscar at the Academy Awards, director Jonathan Glazer said the following: 

“We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and The Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict…”

You can watch the full speech here, but Glazer’s words became a Rorschach test, with people on both sides of the political aisle weaponizing them. Unfortunately, that’s unhelpful because, despite Glazer later doubling down, it reveals how political discourse views Jews. Agree or disagree with Glazer, he’s an example of gentiles not understanding or appreciating Jews in the fight for justice. If anything, they care only to further their personal goals. That’s worrying.

I know some of you are feeling like I’m attacking you. I’m not. At least, not directly. Instead, I’m directing attention to something that’s bothered me for a while, yet has become increasingly aggravating post-October 7th, 2023 and Israel’s invasion of Gaza. It’s made having conversations online next to impossible, and it’s caused plenty of stress. It’s also reductive.

Jews are an ethnic minority. At roughly 16 million people, we’re .25% of the global population. That sounds shocking, as we frequently gravitate toward specific areas, but it’s true. We’re a minority. We simply are.

Additionally, we’re not monolithic. Ignoring religious observances, we’re diverse politically and culturally, as well as racially. We hold a vast range of beliefs and stances too. And some of us are ignorant or intentionally misinformed. After all, as human beings can’t be experts in everything. That’s impossible.

Basically, you can find a Jew, alive or dead, who agrees with you on anything. Jews are notorious for being opinionated and argumentative, as well as stubborn. We’re referred to as a “stiff-necked people” in our own texts, constantly causing trouble. Having thoughts is inherently Jewish, and it’s important to know when they’re harmful. Are we clear?

Why does the non-Jewish world not get this? Why are Jews tokenized to prove a point, even when it’s non-existent? I’d give an answer, but I’m not sure I’d be satisfied by it. Especially since pointing this out is grounds for debate. Do you want that?

Additionally, Jewish celebrities, especially in Hollywood, are often clouded by fame and wealth. Like anyone else, Jews having power frequently impacts their worldviews negatively. Also, look at how people talk about Jeffrey Epstein. It’s gross! And I’m not even a fan!

Unfortunately, tokenizing Jews is a favourite pastime of the politically-active. It’s gotten so bad that whenever it’s called out as “performative”, people inevitably come out of the woodwork and prove why that is. This is especially true of Israel, Antisemitism and The Holocaust, sometimes simultaneously. Consider how Jonathan Glazer’s words were received by the general public. Seriously, search his name online. I’ll wait.

What gets me going is that this is unacceptable. I know the internet loves being angry, but life isn’t the internet. Life is messy, frustrating and lacking of easy answers. I’ve written about this before, but not everything fits your worldview. It’s important to understand that.

This leads me to the current situation in Gaza. On one hand, discussing Israel’s actions is important for many reasons, most-notably because they highlight how Palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick in political conversations. On the other hand, generalizing isn’t helpful. Israelis, even soldiers, are as flawed as any other human beings, and ignoring their humanity is also tokenism. Except that this is worse, as you end up dehumanizing them.

Whenever I bring this up, people try to prove me wrong or twist my words. Sometimes, they’ll even use a famous, dead Jewish person to prove their point. That too is tokenism. It’s also disrespecting the dead. Because why think critically when you can use a Holocaust survivor to shame Jews?

Since I’ve already gotten people riled up, here are some more points I wish to mention:

Firstly, The Neturei Karta are terrible allies in fighting against Zionism. Not only have they been excommunicated by most Jewish sects, they don’t even believe what they say. They’re also not anti-Zionist, but rather anti-secular Zionist. They’d drop gentiles in a heartbeat once The Messianic Age arrives, as that’s the Zionism they aspire to. You’d be better off listening to groups like Satmar, as they practice what they preach.

Secondly, one famous Jew doesn’t the collective make. Jonathan Glazer having an opinion on Israel, however valid, doesn’t mean he’s the de-facto expert. It might be true that Israel’s current government has weaponized The Holocaust. But so has much of the gentile world while advocating for Palestinians. Considering Palestinians are also people, that’s dual-tokenism. People need to do better.

And thirdly, tokenizing a Jewish voice is Antisemitism. It’s also “court Jew ally-ship”, and it’s not helpful. I know calling out Antisemitism is difficult, but don’t do that. Especially when said Jews are wrong. I shouldn’t even have to point that out!

I know discussing Palestine is trendy. I also know that Palestinians have had their voices suppressed for a decades. But picking and choosing Jewish voices isn’t the answer. That’s performative ally-ship. It’s also Antisemitism. And it’s tokenism. You need to do better.

That’s about all I can say here. My next piece will be lighter in tone than this...

They're About WHAT?!

I was initially going to discuss Disney laying off 1000 employees. I still want to at some point, but something else came up that was more pressing. Jonathan McIntosh, host of YouTube channel Pop Culture Detective, released a short video on a left-field topic. In it, he discussed the possibility that both Superman and Zootopia 2 are Palestine allegories. I’m as shocked as you are.

I don’t mind McIntosh’s work. Like Anita Sarkeesian, he holds a valid space in pop culture discourse. I don’t agree with everything he says, but every so often he posts something that gets me thinking. I’ve even mentioned one of his videos in another piece. So what I’m about to say isn’t a critique of him in general.

That said, he’s reaching.

Honesty time: Palestinian self-determination matters. For as much as Palestinians have gotten the raw end of the deal, they’re human and deserve the same basic dignities as other humans. I don’t consider them monolithic either, and there are voices within their ranks worth listening to. However, The West has largely used them as pawns to further their own goals. And nowhere is this more-apparent than the aforementioned claim.

When you stop and think about them, even for a minute, the parallels fall apart. For Superman, which I’ve covered before, the people of Jarhanpur being Palestinian stand-ins, while cute, doesn’t work because they could be any number of minority groups screwed by neighbouring powers: Armenians and the Turks. Rohingyas and Myanmar. Indians and Pakistanis and the British Empire. The list goes on.

Boravia doesn’t fit neatly with Israel, either. Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu sucks, preferring to flex his ambitions over leading his people. And yes, Israel’s an American ally. But Boravia’s leader isn’t a 1:1 parallel, since Israel, while badly carrying it out, didn’t invade Gaza for no reason. It did so to eliminate Hamas and prevent another October 7th.

Zootopia 2’s parallels fall even flatter. For one, Israel wasn’t built on “stolen land”. Jews lived there for millennia, predating Palestinians. And two, the situation between Israel and Palestine is a byproduct of European interference, notably Britain and The USSR. Britain chopped up what they acquired from The Ottomans haphazardly, completely ignoring the people living there already. Meanwhile, The Soviets were willing to weaponize Arabian nationalism against the Jews as “punishment” for not living up to their Socialist ideals, even creating the Palestinian identity.

This isn’t to diminish the power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians, particularly regarding settler violence. Nor do I wish to diminish how Israel’s current coalition has passed laws making the lives of Palestinians unbearable. This is real, serious and worth addressing. But claiming that Israelis “stole the birthright of” and “exiled” Palestinians misses how the Palestinian leadership has thrown them under the bus repeatedly. Not to mention, Palestinians have been persecuted by Israel’s neighbouring countries for roughly as long as Israel’s been independent.

I haven’t even mentioned how the Palestinian leadership isn’t the peaceful entity people believe. And yes, “The Death of the Author” is real. But so is reading into what isn’t there. It might feel good to make these parallels, but unless they hold up to scrutiny, they’re essentially head-canons. They’re not reality.

The parallels between Season 3 of The Mandalorian and the Jewish struggle in history are weightier anyway. Think about it: an exiled creed of warriors fight to reclaim their ancestral homeland from an imperial army. Sound familiar? I can go on all day here with examples, but it’d be redundant. Especially when I’ve already done that.

However, even those parallels have holes, particularly in how Mandalorians serve as mercenaries. Comparing them to Jews on that front sells Jews short. Besides, Star Wars, like Superman and Zootopia 2, is fiction. It might have real subtext, but that’s good storytelling. It’s not an absolute parallel.

By making flawed parallels like this, you not only miss the actual text, you also miss how the text can represent other conflicts too. Because that’s the beauty of fiction: it doesn’t have to be about a specific event. It can be about many, vastly different events. By rooting fiction in a specific event, you inevitably date it. Unless that’s what you’re going for…

I want to circle back to a specific point McIntosh brings up: that anyone calling out these reads is a conservative reactionary. That’s false. It’s actually offensive that he’d insinuate that, as Jewish history isn’t “inconvenient” when it doesn’t fit a narrative. History can’t be boiled down that way. McIntosh should know better, and I’m disappointed.

I know Palestinian identity gets the short end of the stick, even now. And I know people have gotten in trouble for expressing solidarity, whether legitimately or illegitimately. But geopolitical conflicts, particularly ones with history, can’t be boiled down to “right and wrong”. It’s reductive, and it’s a Western way of avoiding accountability for adding fuel to the fire. It also ignores nuance. So please, try to do better. I promise you’ll understand the world more effectively.

As for Jonathan McIntosh? I’ve said my piece. He’s entitled to feel what he feels, and I don’t begrudge his analysis. But he’s really off-base. That doesn’t mean I won’t watch his videos, but perhaps he’s bitten off more than he can chew here? I think so.

When Heroes Age...

One of the difficulties of serialization is the passage of time. On one hand, franchising’s profitable and allows for multi-film storytelling. On the other hand, actors age. And while Hollywood tries slowing down and reversing aging, making it a multi-billion dollar industry, you can only delay it so much. Additionally, the camera doesn’t lie, and audiences take note.

In recent years, there’s been an attempt to try and work around this. Known as “the legacy sequel”, these movies use stars aging as a way of passing the mantle to newer, younger generations. However, like any gamble, it doesn’t always pay off. And sometimes it can be divisive, as in the case of two IPs with entries released in The 21st Century. They’re also Lucasfilm IPs that purchased by Disney that’ve accrued massive backlash because of decisions fans have deemed “incorrect”. But is that backlash warranted?

The first of these franchises is Star Wars. Ever since Disney purchased it in 2012, it was inevitable that they’d milk the property for all it’s worth. It makes sense, as Star Wars has plenty of potential for serialization. However, there were early growing pains here. And nowhere was that more apparent than in The Sequel Trilogy spanning from 2015 to 2019.

I don’t need to go too in-depth here. Despite two of the entries being critical darlings, longtime fans remain divided. This division centred on many areas, but chief among them was Luke Skywalker. Luke, according to canon, had become a hermit who rejected The Force after failing Ben Solo and accelerating his turn to The Dark Side. When Rey attempted to have him confront The First Order, Luke was resistant and resentful. It was only after a conversation with Force Ghost Yoda that he projected his essence, apologized to his nephew and faced down The First Order.

While a unique and bold take on the “elder mentor” trope, many fans weren’t happy. Some considered it a “betrayal of what Luke Skywalker stood for”, claiming Disney had “murdered Star Wars”. I definitely think it’s dark and risky, but it does fit in with Luke’s human side. After all, Luke in the original films wasn’t flawless. He was whiny for two whole movies, even confronting Darth Vader before he was ready and losing his hand. And while he matured for the finale, he also snapped and nearly killed Vader because Vader had threatened to harm Leia.

Essentially, Luke wasn’t the pariah people remember him as. This is especially true because Luke didn’t even end up trying to murder Ben. He felt the urge, let it pass, and was unfortunate enough to have Ben sense it. It was a moment of weakness, and a failure of restraint, but it, while clunky, adds layers to his confrontation with The First Order and ultimate redemption. Isn’t that what good character writing’s about?

I know I’ll probably get crap for saying this, but this backlash, aside from being partially walked back with the next film, led to the Darktrooper hallway fight in The Mandalorian. That’s a fun moment, showcasing Luke’s strength in his prime, but it’s not new for Luke. It’s not new period, being a retread of Darth Vader’s massacre at the end of Star Wars: Rogue One. And while it’s cool to see Luke fight enemies not even Dinn Djarin could take on, the lack of new material is concerning. Why are we opposed to Old Man Luke being a regretful hermit, yet find this exciting?

I like Disney’s Star Wars content. I like Star Wars in general, even when I’m lukewarm on it. Jedi Master Luke Skywalker massacring Darktroopers is fun, and on some level satisfying. But Old Man Luke Skywalker going from jaded mentor to Crait hero is more fun, because it’s grounded in character growth. It also allows Mark Hamill to flex his acting chops in an age-appropriate manner. Because he’s getting older.

On the flip side, there’s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which I watched for this piece. I’ve made known my thoughts on the Indiana Jones movies before, but this installment, more than any other entry, tackles how its star is getting older. Harrison Ford was 81 years old when it debuted, and Indy’s age is a primary focus. The film even uses de-aging technology for the flashback scene in the beginning. Said flashback doubles as the opening act.

I won’t discuss the Uncanny Valley aspect of seeing a young Harrison Ford with an older Harrison Ford’s voice. Plenty of more accomplished individuals have done that justice. However, tying in Ford’s advanced age in general with a commentary on Indiana Jones was wise. Without sounding too ageist, there are some stunts Ford can’t do anymore. That’s not to diminish how much he loves this character, but he needs to acknowledge his limitations.

Perhaps the best example is when he and his goddaughter, Helena Shaw, are climbing a cliff and Indy starts complaining. He states that he has a metal plate in one leg and screws in the other. He also points out that Helena is “half his age”, a subtle jab at youthful vitality. Here, the film interrogates if Indiana Jones still has what it takes. Should he persevere, or hang up his hat?

This movie would’ve been a great vehicle for Helena, but there’s a problem: she’s not likeable for most of it. She flip-flops between two modes: smarmy know-it-all, and obnoxious show-off. I don’t blame her actress for this, either. Phoebe Waller-Bridge co-wrote No Time to Die, and she was great as L3-37 in the Star Wars franchise. She does her best here, but she can’t save the character. Not even in the finale, where she and Teddy are forced to play hero.

It’s a shame because the movie isn’t even that bad. It lacks some of the franchise’s more overtly-racist overtones, and director James Mangold definitely cared while making it. Considering Steven Spielberg has admitted that his heart wasn’t really in it with the previous entry, that passion’s an asset. But it’s not enough. Not when your co-lead isn’t fun for most of your runtime.

The blame doesn’t lay on Harrison Ford either. Despite his age, he clearly still cares. But people picking on Ford’s age, especially when he’s not ready to give up the mantle, is a problem. De-aging software’s getting better every day, but is it enough? And will it ever give the authentic performance of a real actor?

I know the solution for many people is to do what Star Wars did: have a younger actor as a stand-in, then graft Ford onto the body. After all, punching Nazis is entertaining! But while this sounds fun superficially, it rings hollow and might even be objectionable. Because getting older is interesting. Staying youthful forever, however, isn’t.

If an actor wants to age out of a character, it should be their decision. Let them leave naturally, as opposed to CGI continuing it indefinitely. Because the audience knows. Executives can claim otherwise, but you can’t fake authenticity. It doesn’t matter how much digital makeup you cake on.

That’s really the dilemma here: what’s the appropriate way to be respectful to aging action stars? Better yet, what’s the appropriate way to be respectful to aging actors, period? People don’t live forever, and part of the fun of life is growing older. Besides, the character of Peter Pan, while beloved, was meant as a cautionary tale. Unfortunately, many people don’t heed that warning. And it’s a shame.

If all else fails, I guess Blade Runner 2049 shows how to properly tackle this approach. Seriously, give it a watch. It’s that good! And if you’re disappointed? Well, at least it respects its aging star, right? I think so.