Uh-Oh Wars!

Celebrities are routinely told to “not get political”. Ignoring how loaded and infantilizing that claim really is, because it’s almost always about their left-leaning political stances, it’s a popular claim that floats around many conservative, and even some liberal, circles. That said, sometimes celebrities do make claims or statements that are politically-charged, yet incredibly-ignorant. And nowhere is this more apparent than a recent controversy surrounding a voice actress and potential SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

I try to keep my stances on political figures off of The Whitly-Verse unless unavoidable, but it’s impossible to detach celebrity culture with political figures this time. For those not in the know, The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the US, only has 9 seats max. Each time a seat becomes absent, be it due to a death or retirement, it’s up to the current president to choose a successor. And since SCOTUS picks are lifetime picks, the candidates are vetted by the senate.

Earlier this year, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who’d been serving as a SCOTUS judge since 1988, retired. This left his seat, known as the “swing seat”, open for replacement under Trump. Trump, ever the crafty devil, decided to pick Brett Kavanaugh, an extremely-conservative judge whose track-record was already questionable: ignoring his dodgy stance on Roe V. Wade, he had close to 200000 pages of records during Bush Jr.’s presidency that’d fallen into a black hole. That alone was enough to ruffle people’s feathers, but then we get the cherry on top in the form of a sex predator allegation from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. According to Ford, Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school at a party while drunk, failing at rape because she escaped in time.

Recent information that Kavanaugh may have successfully raped two other women while intoxicated, and possibly more, has also surfaced in the last while. Kavanaugh’s neither the first politician, judge or SCOTUS pick to be accused of sexually-inappropriate behaviour, but what makes this situation so difficult is how it’s being handled in the senate. There’s a lot to unpack here, but since it’d take too long, I’ll go straight to what everyone wants me to discuss: the voice actress controversy.

See, the first trailer for Star War Resistance, an anime series co-produced by Disney, was released this past week. Star Wars is always a conversation starter, but this particular trailer was marred by one of the voice actresses, Rachel Butera, deciding to mock Ford’s voice in a short video. She quickly took it down, but you can find everything you need to know about it right here. Regardless, her infantilizing remarks about Ford’s voice, which she called “vocal fry”, didn’t sit well with people. Some have even called for Butera to be fired.

To be clear, I don’t think an actor or actress saying something insensitive alone is grounds for dismissal, especially when they’ve openly apologized. During the press tour for The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Chris Evans insensitively called Black Widow’s character “a total whore”, to which he promptly apologized the next day. People aren’t perfect, and they sometimes say hurtful remarks. So long as they make amends, which Butera doesn’t seem to have done, I can let it slide. After all, I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t.

The issue with Butera’s video is two-fold: first, Butera is representing a brand, that being Star Wars. Like Kazuyoshi Yaginuma and Roseanne Barr, there’s an expectation that comes with being involved in a collaborative effort, be it PR or having your name attached. Butera, by participating in a Star Wars project, has a responsibility to Star Wars fans. And some of those fans do, in fact, care that she’s being insensitive to an assault victim.

Second, Star Wars, contrary to what many male nerds will say, means a lot to young girls and women. Some of them are, inevitably, survivors of rape and sexual assault. Some of them, also, follow Butera on social media, as they want to keep up with the goings-on of their favourite celebrities. (Admit it, we’re all guilty of it.) By Butera openly deriding another woman, and a survivor of sexual assault, over vocal fry, it reinforces an image of survivors and their inability to be taken seriously. Why would you want that kind of controversy surrounding Star Wars?

I also consider it disrespectful of Princess Leia’s legacy in pop-culture. Ignoring what the character stands for, it spits in the face of the late-Carrie Fisher, a woman who was routinely subjected to the worst Hollywood has to offer before her death. Princess Leia, while not real, isn’t a role you take lightly or tarnish through such blatant and overt disrespect. Butera needs to understand that.

Besides, what’s wrong with sounding younger than you actually are? I’m currently 28 years-old, but I sound like I’m 15. Even by voice acting standards, Dante Basco, the voice of Prince Zuko, still sounds like he’s 15, and he’s a lot older than me! Implying that vocal fry is detrimental to being taken seriously only reinforces how disrespectful we are of those who don’t meet unrealistic standards of maturity. I know this all-too-well from personal experience.

Finally, Butera mocking Ford’s voice disrespects her credentials as a PhD and adds fuel to the pyre that is survivor’s guilt. Survivors of trauma already receive enough flak from the world for being survivors, and Dr. Ford’s no exception: she’s endured 36 years of humiliation, numerous therapy sessions, a polygraph test by The FBI and the realization that her attacker won’t only potentially preside over future cases like hers, but that the committee nominating him doesn’t believe the validity of her case. You’d figure that the Me Too aftermath would empower Ford more, but here we are!

So what now? The obvious solution would be to fire and replace Butera. It’s not like VAs haven’t been before, as evidenced by TJ Miller’s voice being retroactively dubbed over by a nobody in a Mucinex commercial following sexual misconduct allegations. Nor is it beyond Disney to fire people for tarnishing their image, be it justly (Roseanne Barr) or unjustly (James Gunn). It might be costly to find a replacement, but Disney has the money. Especially if they’ve recently purchased 20th Century Fox.

Look, I know this is but a minnow in relation to the bigger fish in the ocean. For all we know, Butera could see the error of her ways and make amends. But in the meantime, this is a blemish that won’t go away. Butera can’t pretend she did nothing wrong by deleting her original Tweet, and nor should she! She needs to realize that her actions have consequences, and sometimes they can be harsh. Particularly when mocking a victim of sexual assault!

So yes, celebrities can talk politics. But that also comes with a responsibility of not inflicting harm on the undeserving.

Netflix: The Last Showbender

Avatar: The Last Airbender is my favourite show. This should come as no surprise to those who’ve Followed me on Twitter since 2011, but I feel it’s worth repeating. It’s not only beautifully-animated, but also excellently acted, composed, directed and written. It’s also one of the few animated shows to win an Emmy, lumping it with the likes of The Simpsons and Batman: The Animated Series. It’s so good that even my cousin fell in-love with it. Basically, it’s really all it’s been hyped up to be.

Which is why remaking it in live-action for Netflix is so bizarre. Ignoring that a live-action remake has already been unsuccessfully attempted, more on that later, it feels like this is both long-overdue and a terrible idea. But more so the latter.

To be clear, I’m not saying that a live-action adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender will be an automatic failure. I can’t because we don’t have a trailer yet. But that a successful animated series is being remade into a live-action show reeks of nonsense. And by nonsense, I mean disrespect. It’s true that any idea can work in any medium, so long as there’s an understanding of how to do it justice, but that an animated show is being remade to “gain larger appeal” is insulting; after all, why isn’t animation a valid art-form? Why must it be dwarfed by live-action? Like Renaissance art and surrealist art, animation and live-action need not compete. Both have their inherent strengths, and both are worthy of respect.

It also implies that animation can never be taken seriously, and nor should it try. Animation isn’t only this Saturday morning, Hanna-Barbera nonsense that adults who grew up on 60’s TV still think of it as, and I’d argue that it never was! Animation’s as much an integral part to the history of visual storytelling as live-action, tracing its roots to the same century. It only became known as silly, kid’s fluff because of budget limitations, ones that no longer exist. That people still view it as kid’s fodder is ignorance, plain and simple.

That’s why remaking Avatar: The Last Airbender is troubling: not only do executives not see the original series as the beautiful work it is, but they don’t even consider that it was animated for a reason. Whether it’s the fluidity of the fight choreography, the detail of the world itself, or even the comedy, Avatar: The Last Airbender being animated was no accident: the creators, Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino, wanted to tell an epic story about war and environmentalism, as well as Eastern philosophy, and felt that animation was the way to do it. What would a live-action remake add, aside from real sets, fully-visible actors and a budget that I don’t think Netflix can afford?

Which leads to my next issue: budget. Think about how detailed the world of Avatar: The Last Airbender is. Think about the craft put into each of the episodes. Now think of Netflix’s model of planning, and how everything’s constricted budget-wise. Will this actually convert?

It’s not like Netflix hasn’t made some excellent, original content. They have. But they’ve also produced a lot of stinkers. And part of the reason why is because not every story idea works on such a tight budget. Some require massive, Hollywood-level budgets, hence the issue at play. Ignoring union demands, graphics capabilities and raw talent, how would Avatar: The Last Airbender, which is basically the animated, TV-equivalent of Lord of the Rings, work in live-action without swelling its budget to unreasonable levels?

I wouldn’t be so reluctant, too, had the previous attempt at remaking this show, in the form of The Last Airbender, not been a disaster. Remember when it was announced that M. Night Shyamalan, the guy who, up to that point, hadn’t directed a great movie since The Sixth Sense, would be the director? Remember when the trailers came out, and people were claiming it’d “be better than Avatar? Remember when it came out, and everyone realized they were wrong? Good times!

That the show’s original brains are coming back doesn’t help, as it ignores three details about Konietzko and DiMartino as creators: one, Avatar: The Last Airbender, despite being their baby, wasn’t only the success of them. The show had eight directors and twenty-five writers, and I haven’t even mentioned Andrea Romano, who voice directed, and the dozens upon dozens of VAs, artists and sound designers. Basically, there was a semblance of people at the helm, it wasn’t a two-man venture.

Two, Konietzko and DiMartino’s attempt at a sister series, Avatar: The Legend of Korra, sucked. It wasn’t the worst show I’ve ever seen, and it had moments of brilliance, but it was no Avatar: The Last Airbender; in fact, it suffered from tonal imbalances, lazy writing, awful humour (where it existed), inconsistent art direction, weak world building and a canon ending that, to this day, leaves fans (myself included) divided. It had the same show-runners, as well as some of the same writers, but it fell flat.

And three, ignoring the above points, there’s no guarantee that a live-action reworking would work anyway. Not all artists can successfully transition from animation to live-action, look at Andrew Stanton and John Carter for proof. The mediums have different rules, and while some people are able to flip-flop between with ease (Brad Bird, Wes Anderson), that doesn’t mean everyone can. I’ve yet to be convinced that the show’s creators, who got their start in animation, are those individuals.

Maybe I’m being too pessimistic, and this’ll end up working out. It’s not as if there isn’t already a low bar set with The Last Airbender, and that being mildly better won’t be an improvement. It’s been 10 years since the original show ended, after all! And maybe Konietzko and DiMartino have learned from past efforts? Maybe?

Regardless, I’m cautiously optimistic, but anxious to be proven wrong.

The Case for a Black Superman

The DCEU’s in a rough spot currently. None of its entries, save Wonder Woman, have seen critical success, despite its box-office being pretty strong. And its behind-the-scenes complications have soured people’s outlook, to the point where investors even view it to be poisonous. It doesn’t help that there’s no unifying vision, unlike The MCU, which has led to Warner Bros. abandoning the shared universe idea. And then, to top it off, we have Henry Cavill’s announcement that he’s dropping Superman and moving on.

Uh-oh.

This is a big deal. Like, really big. Henry Cavill leaving the role that made him popular is like Robert Downey Jr. leaving Iron Man: irrespective of quality, they’re the lynchpins of their franchises. Except that Downey’s had 10 years to flesh-out Tony Stark, such that him leaving, while sad, would be inevitable at this point. Cavill doesn’t have that luxury, and The DCEU is in further shambles because of it.

I’d end there, however, had it not been for his replacement. There’ve been several suggestions of candidates to take up the mantle, but one in particular has people talking. And it’s not all good talk: Michael B. Jordan has a shot at Superman, and fans are furious. That’s right, people are mad that a black man might play a role traditionally reserved for white men. Oh dear.

It’s no secret that nerds are…well, insular. For a few years, gamers used GamerGate, a brand dead-set on promoting “ethics in game’s journalism”, to harass women/minority developers and gamers for the sole reason that they were women/minorities. And recently, comic nerds formed ComicsGate to do the same to publishers and comic artists. Nerd-dom loves its boy’s club and cherishes it like a prized vessel, so hearing that they’re mad that Superman might be played by a black actor doesn’t, and shouldn’t, surprise anyone.

What’s surprising is that this decision hasn’t been made sooner. Let’s face facts: the West is becoming increasingly diversified. Certain subsets might pretend otherwise, but, according to sites like N-IUSSP, the US has become increasingly diversified since 1980, with immigration and globalization playing huge parts in why. That’s not to speak of the dozens of articles on Google’s search engine that speak of this trend. So if diversity’s the new norm, then entertainment, which caters to the masses, would reflect this, right?

Well...no. I’ve covered this in greater detail, but entertainment, Hollywood in particular, seems to be taking minuscule steps at proper representation despite their claims of being a “liberal haven for all”. This trickles down to casting, which is still a big source of contention when it comes to whitewashing and ableism. It links to the concern that diverse leads “don’t sell well”, even though this year’s box office alone disproves that. Hollywood, on some level, still has one foot planted in the past, to its own detriment.

This shows up specifically in how they cast their leads: white people first, everyone else second. And it’s not only superheroes that have this problem; after all, how many people were in arms when Idris Elba was hinted as a potential successor to James Bond? A lot! According to fans, either the character they love is portrayed how they love, or they’re not portrayed at all. No exceptions!

It’s a really unhealthy way of looking at art. Ignoring the racist component, characters in fiction are exactly that: fiction. They’re not real, so “historical accuracy” is irrelevant. And besides, don’t minorities deserve their own power fantasies?

It’s especially worth noting with Superman because, let’s face it, he’s an immigrant. His creators, Jerry Seigel and Joe Schuster, were Jews living in The US and Canada amidst difficult hardships. To them, Superman was the embodiment of The American Dream, the idealized god the average person should aspire to. (You thought the reference to Nietzsche was accidental?) Superman can be whatever he needs to be to fit the zeitgeist, even if that means changing his ethnicity.

I know what this is really about, though. It’s not about what Superman represents, but rather nerds asserting their racist dominance. And it’s disgusting. It’s disgusting because it marginalizes those that don’t fit into their ideal world, and it’s disgusting because it’s based in a reality that never existed.

Yeah, the version of reality that nerds believe, one of the white, nerdy male, never really existed. Nerd-dom never had one face, Superman even states this in one of his most-famous panels:

“…And remember, boys and girls, your school-like our country-is made up of Americans of many different races, religions, and national origins. So…if YOU hear anybody talk against a schoolmate or anyone else because of his religion, race or national origin-don’t wait: tell him THAT KIND OF TALK IS UN-AMERICAN.”

This isn’t an anomaly for superheroes: Captain America, the closest Marvel has ever gotten to a Superman, had his debut punching Hitler and Nazis, and he fought for racial reform in the 60’s and 70’s. Superheroes have always been about progress, and that’s how it’s supposed to be!

I also think shaming Superman for being played by a black actor is insulting to Michael B. Jordan. Because Michael B. Jordan’s a great actor, as evidenced by Creed and Black Panther. Sure, his last role as a superhero may not have been great, but that’s more the fault of Fant4stic’s behind-the-scenes complications than Jordan himself. Besides, I’d think he’d make a great Superman, if an unconventional one. Because if Samuel L. Jackson made a black Nick Fury work…

Ultimately, I think the best defence for a black Superman goes back to an old Tumblr post on diversity that became famous a few years ago. It compared diversity to chocolate raisins at a party for two guests: a black girl and a white girl. The white girl had three times as many raisins, highlighting the gap in representation. If you took a few raisins from the black girl’s cup and gave them to the white girl, she’d, rightfully, be upset. But if you took a few raisins from the white girl’s cup and gave them to the black girl, then it’d be fair because the quantity in both cups would be more on-par. Diversity, while also being more nuanced, works similarly.

It’s possible that this decision will backfire. It’s possible that Jordan’s Superman, like Cavill’s Superman, will be yet another failure on DC’s part, and Jordan will leave. I don’t know, I’m not psychic. But we should be open to trying, right? Because I’ve seen more outlandish ideas work before!

Let's Talk About Thanos: A Response

I like Mikey Neumann’s videos. I don’t watch a ton of them, but I’ve seen a few here-and-there and appreciate his style. I especially like his Lessons Animation Taught Us piece, as it’s inspired some really strong responses, and his piece on why The MCU works so well, for obvious reasons. I initially wanted my first response to Mikey be on the former, but after two revisions and no progress, I gave up. Besides, I think that his latest, on why Thanos from The Avengers: Infinity War bugs him, deserves more immediate attention. And while I won’t outright attack him over it, I feel that a semi-rebuttal’s in order.

Be warned, major spoilers!

I’ll start with the two points I agree with. For one, I don’t think the writers and directors romanticizing Thanos is healthy. Not so much in-movie, I’ll cover that later, but more behind-the-scenes. Mikey splices footage of the Russos, one of the writers and Josh Brolin himself talking about how Thanos is a “hero”, and that his actions are understandable. To insinuate that Thanos is heroic is creepy and awful. Thanos may be sympathetic, in a twisted way, but heroic he’s not. And given how I’ve had uncomfortable conversations with people who believe that, I feel that it’s a disservice to paint him as one.

I also don’t like how Peter Quill refers to Gamora as “my girl” when looking for her after she’s taken by Thanos. As Mikey pointed out, Quill’s arc in the Guardians of the Galaxy movies has been about him learning to treat himself, and others, with respect. Considering we’d last seen him coming to terms with the death of his adoptive father-figure, and that this movie has Gamora ask him to make a difficult sacrifice, the infantilized remark feels like a massive step backward. I don’t agree on Mikey’s claim that Quill punching Thanos in rage is also bad, but I’ll cover that later.

With all of that being said, let’s talk about Thanos.

I don’t want to completely shatter Mikey’s concerns here. He should be concerned, as should everyone else. Like I said earlier, Thanos is no hero. His motivation is to reduce the population of every galaxy by half, so as to prevent over-population and wasted resources. This makes zero sense, especially since the population can easily bounce back, but he routinely ignores reason. He’s clearly made up his mind, making him scary and destructive.

And the movie reminds us of how destructive Thanos really is. It reminds us each time he obtains an Infinity Stone, and it reminds us with how he obtains them. He shows no remorse in torturing others for information. He murders in cold-blood frequently. He even, near the end, uses The Time Stone to undo Wanda’s actions and revive Vision, only to murder him again by ripping The Mind Stone, or his conscience, from his forehead. Thanos is a egomaniacal megalomaniac, and he’s a violent abuser to-boot.

It’s no accident that Thanos’s design, right down to stripping most of his armour in the beginning, is meant to evoke the image of an abusive parental figure: Thanos tortures Thor and Nebula in front of their siblings to get information about The Space Stone and The Soul Stone, even murdering Loki and Gamora when he sees no more use for them. Gamora’s death is especially painful to watch, and it’s supposed to be: like real-life abusers, Gamora’s death rings home with toxic love.

Let me reiterate that: Gamora’s death rings home with toxic love. Gamora’s relationship with Thanos is akin to that a victim with their toxic lover/parent: Gamora hates Thanos, yet she craves his affection. She wants him dead for murdering her mother, yet she feels guilty when she believes she’s avenged her. Even her death, being tossed off a cliff on Voromir as a sacrifice for The Soul Stone, is tragic because she’s being abused by her adoptive father. Even if we know that he “loves her”, which isn’t uncommon for abusers, he still gives her up to get what he wants. It might be uncomfortable to watch for Mikey, and I get it, but it’s not unlike how many real, toxic relationships play out. We’ve even seen it somewhat in other movies, like in Tangled and I, Tonya.

Thanos’s abuse extends to how he views others. He calls Gamora, a fully-grown adult, “little one”. He refers to Peter Parker as an “insect”. He patronizingly says to Quill, a fully-grown man, “I like you” when he tries intervening with his abduction of Gamora. The only character he shows some level of respect to is Tony Stark, but even then he considers him a rival and not a friend. To Thanos, everyone’s either a pawn or a child that needs reprimanding. And, again, that’s supposed to make people uncomfortable.

I think this is what holds the movie together. Thanos is the protagonist, yes, and he thinks he’s doing what’s right, but he’s not the hero. He’s no more heroic than the protagonist in Shadow of the Colossus, in that we root for him while simultaneously reviling his behaviour. As Thanos collects The Infinity Stones, the first of which he already has by the film’s opening, we revel in the horror of the destruction he leaves. We’re supposed to be angry that he’s ruined the ending of Thor: Ragnarok by slaughtering the Asgardian refugees, and that he robs Quill of his decision from Gamora. And we’re supposed to bite our nails in fear when he stabs Stark straight through the chest on Titan, almost killing him, only to witness Dr. Strange surrendering The Time Stone in exchange for his life.

But perhaps the biggest critique, one many people have expressed, is also part of the point: Quill messing up the plan to remove Thanos’s glove by angrily punching him over Gamora’s death. It’s upsetting, yes, but it’s also completely in-character. Ignoring his growth prior, he’s still an impulsive man-child. Considering that acting impulsively has worked before, it makes sense that he’d try it again, right? (As a side-note, this has been covered more extensively in a video by Bob Chipman.)

One area I think Mikey should’ve touched on, and it’s a missed opportunity, is the film’s use of score to illustrate its darker moments. Alan Silvestri returns from The Avengers, taking what he started there and adding to it: the main theme feels more energized, true, but there are additional tracks that are equally-effective. I think my favourite is the sad piece used when Thanos tosses Gamora off the cliff, but even the ominous tracks, which transform into a powerful crescendo at the end, that undercut Thanos’s Infinity Stone acquisitions are really powerful. I know Tony Zhou once made a video where he argued that The MCU takes no musical risks, but this is something that absolutely warrants attention.

But I think the part that got to me most in Mikey’s video is him mentioning that “we learned the wrong lessons from Empire” on several occasions. He’s, of course, referring to how Star Wars Ep. V: The Empire Strikes Back messes with franchise expectations by ending on a bittersweet note, and how all big blockbusters with a dark vibe copy that without understanding why. I think that does a disservice to The Avengers: Infinity War as a whole: similarly to how last year’s Star Wars: The Last Jedi openly flipped expectations on their head for Star Wars, this movie does that for Marvel movies. We expect everything to go right in the end and our heroes to save the day, so when they don’t…

Besides, I do think the movie ends on somewhat of a hopeful note: in the post-credits scene, we see Nick Fury call for help right as he evaporates. The final image is of Captain Marvel’s logo, followed by upbeat music, hinting that she’s the answer. It’s frustrating that we have to wait until next year to see this downer of an ending resolved, but Star Wars fans had to wait three years until Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi.

I really don’t feel that The Avengers: Infinity War should be chalked up as “irresponsible”. We’ve had 18 movies of build-up, and we’ve known that Thanos has been coming for over half-a-decade. Given how Marvel movies have been repeatedly scrutinized for being “formulaic” and “repetitive”, shouldn’t it make sense to shake up the formula? Audiences don’t want another “save the day” plot, as that’s been overdone. So long as it feels earned, which I think this does, why not try a downer?

That said, if there’s one point Mikey raises that does bug me somewhat, it’s that the next movie has the potential to undo everything. But I’m sure Marvel’s aware of that; after all, not only are comics notorious for retconning deaths all the time, but it’d be lazy to blatantly “fix” everything without trade-offs. I sincerely hope that sacrifices are made to bring back the “dead” characters, and that they aren’t cheap. And I sincerely hope these events have consequences in Phase 4.

I’m not trying to shamelessly call out Mikey: he’s explicitly stated why The Avengers: Infinity War bothers him so much, and I respect that. If he doesn’t love the movie, that’s fine. But I do think he’s projecting ever-so-slightly, and that worries me. I’d take it up with him in the comments on his YouTube video, but since he’s disabled them…well, I guess I’ll do it here. I only hope that he actually reads this.

Super(ior) Art?

I’ve noticed that a lot of my blogs have been me defending superhero movies; in fact, of the 101 entries I’ve written prior, the number dedicated to chewing out critiques of them stand at 11. This doesn’t include pieces that reference my frustrations, as that’d up the number. Regardless, this has taken up way too much of my time and energy. So why do I keep at it?

Recently, actor Ethan Hawke opened his mouth about superhero movies. He called them “overrated”, stating that they’d never be serious films. While this annoys me on a nerdy, superficial level, it really shouldn’t bother me at all. Because it’s an opinion. A rather ill-stated opinion, but it’d be hypocritical to jump on him considering some of the nonsense I’ve written on The Whitly-Verse…

…Or it would’ve been, had he not said the following:

“Now we have the problem that they tell us Logan is a great movie…it’s a great superhero movie. It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands. It’s not Bresson. It’s not Bergman. But they talk about it like it is.”

What?!

I know some of you are groaning in preparation for “yet another whine-fest about superhero movies”, and you’re right. But where the miscommunication comes from is in the assumption that I hold any criticism as invalid, irrespective of content. That’s simply not true. I’m not against criticism of any kind of movie, as I do a lot of it myself. The issue merely stems from framing, and how that framing is used by the person offering it. I’m not the kind of person who demands a long-winded rant on why something doesn’t work, but if you frame it in a way that respects the strengths of the material while still being critical, then it doesn’t bother me. This is how I could stomach Cosmonaut Variety Hour’s lengthy analysis on The MCU, even if a lot of what he said I didn’t agree with.

Unfortunalely, a lot of the critiques are snobbish and pretentious, even if unintentionally, because they lack that lens. Which leads me back to Ethan Hawke’s criticism. Because by saying that superhero movies can’t be on-par with the greats, he’s boxing in films that are incredibly-flexible and range in quality. He’s being ignorant, in other words.

It’s easy to become bored of a genre of storytelling. The Western, for example, was a staple of Hollywood for decades, to the point where the 1950’s saw over 150 of them by its end. Even in the 1970’s, when Watergate destroyed the trust Americans had in government, the Western didn’t go away, but rather morphed and became more-introspective. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the bubble popped. But yeah, we survived 50+ years with a single genre of film, and I’m sure people got sick of that too.

It’s worth noting that because superheroes have been compared to Westerns, especially in how they’ve managed to capture the populace’s psyche. At the same time, however, there’s a key difference between the Westerns of old and superheroes of now: the internet. The internet’s become increasingly dominant in how information, and criticism, gets relayed, such that superhero films have evolved and accelerated their trajectory at speeds not seen before. We’re at a point where superhero movies are more widely-discussed than most other genres, even though they aren’t released any more frequently than horror movies, traditional action films, comedies or Oscar dramas. And while that doesn’t worry me, it worries some.

Where Ethan Hawke’s criticism becomes pretentious is in his insinuation that a genre of film can never be “high art”. Ignoring that “high art” is subjective anyway, I don’t think this is a fair claim. Because superhero films have had their moments of cultural weight. I’m not only including The Dark Knight, but also campier fluff like Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man 2, The Avengers and Wonder Woman. Even Black Panther from this past year was enough to send cultural shockwaves, to the point where Marvel’s considering submitting it for a Best Picture nod at The Oscars. Even if they don’t fit the definition of “high art”, superhero movies are equally as valid as an Oscar drama.

Additionally, does it matter if they’re not “high art”? Does it matter if The Incredibles isn’t on-par with Bresson or Bergman? Why is it relevant if Logan classifies itself as a post-modern Western? And can The Avengers still be fun and culturally-relevant, even if it’s not deep? Is this really that much of an issue?

The flaw with going down this rabbit hole is that it opens a can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened: that of cultural relevance. Ignoring The Oscars’ decision to include a Best Popular Film category, the fact remains that the “more serious films”, the “Oscar-baits”, don’t get the same coverage as superhero movies because they lack the oomph of their lighter, fluffier colleagues. They’re thinking pieces, movies of the head, whereas superhero movies are more crowd-pleasers, movies of the heart. It’s not as easy to sell a thinking piece, hence it’s not as appealing.

And that’s okay! As much as I don’t like the “no one will remember this in 5 years” argument when it comes to dramas, especially since they’re routinely discussed in film and history classes, people are allowed to like fluff. Even if superhero movies are the film-equivalent of sugar cereal, it’s not a crime to enjoy them. I watch all kinds of movies, and they hold different places in my yearly favourites lists.

But honestly, the issue is that, in the end, Ethan Hawke’s remarks reek of a bigger problem I’m seeing in film discourse: this idea of filmic reality being more important than that of filmic escapism. It’s no different than saying that Renaissance Era paintings are more artistic than the surrealist works that came later; after all, why should a Picasso be lesser than a Da Vinci? Why does Ethan Hawke get to dictate which films are worthy of being “high art”? He’s not an authoritative voice!

Perhaps I’m overthinking this, maybe. But it’s this level of chutzpah that bugs me. The world is already a scary and frustrating place without the escapes that art, particularly film, allows for. Even if it ends up being disposable, there’s an inherent value to a film that allows for a reprieve from the stresses of reality. Superhero movies merely happen to be the ones that are popular right now. If that bothers you, then maybe it’s not the superhero movies that need to disappear, but rather you that needs to retreat and re-evaluate your outlook on them.

Super Fan Bros.

To take a page from Chris Stuckmann, “I grew up on the Smash Bros. games”. I was 9 when Super Smash Bros. came out, and I played it at my cousin’s house regularly. I remember being blown away when I first saw Super Smash Bros. Melee in action, and I remember waiting for new updates on Super Smash Bros. Brawl at The Smash Dojo. And while I’ve only had a WiiU for about a year, my short time with Super Smash Bros. WiiU was enough to make me happy. In short, Smash Bros. is a big deal, and I’m anticipating what Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has in-store. How could I not?

I’m a little concerned, however, by the game’s developer mindset. Masahiro Sakurai, bless him, has announced that he wants to “make a Smash Bros. game for everyone”, and I respect his ambitions. At the same time, I can’t help wondering if he’s overreaching. Especially since “everyone” seems like code for “competitive gamers”, and they’re not the kinds of people who’d be interested anyway. But let’s back up and give some context.

The Smash Bros. games have a reputation amongst gamers. There’s a hierarchy in how the games are generally ranked, with Super Smash Bros. Melee being way up at the top. It’s been this way since 2001, and nothing’s changed. I get it: Super Smash Bros. Melee was a game-changer for the franchise. It expanded the roster, added various modes, upped the difficulty curve, introduced a competitive feature for tournaments and even tweaked the controls to make the gameplay more hardcore. There’s a lot more I can say here, but I’ll save my rants for another time.

Regardless, Super Smash Bros. Melee was a big deal, and nothing can top its legacy. Which is why no future Smash Bros. entry has been able to: it’s not possible to “out-perfect perfection”, no matter how hard you try. You can have the best of everything, even a more-polished end-product, but if the immediate wow-factor’s not replicated…

Which is why I’m concerned that Sakurai is overreaching. Not only in how expansive this new entry is, but also in how he wants to make everyone happy: casual fans demand easily-accessible gameplay? It has it. Hardcore fans insist challenge? It has it too. Old-school gamers request call-backs to old franchises? People wish to choose between a standard Adventure Mode and Subspace Emissary? To quote Oprah Winfrey: “You get a car, and you get a car…”

That’s no exaggeration: for one, the game has over 100 stages to use. And many of those are returning stages from previous entries. Also, every fighter in the franchise, including a few that were DLC, is now playable. That originally added up to 65 fighters, and more have been coming since. So yeah, everyone gets a car!

However, I’m worried that Sakurai’s extending an olive branch to people who don’t want it. Or, rather, who don’t care to want it. Tourney gamers are extremely picky about what they do and don’t play, and they’re not subtle about it. All you need to do is go online for their opinions.

This is the frustration in trying to appeal to people who, quite simply, can’t be appealed to. Try all you want, but if it’s not Super Smash Bros. Melee, it’s not worth their time. Believe me, I’ve gotten into enough fights back when Super Smash Bros. Brawl was still new to know where they stand, and that was 10 years ago! Based on recent accounts, they haven’t changed much either.

I’m also worried because Nintendo’s tried the “everyone will enjoy this” approach before. Remember The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword? Remember how it was marketed as “the everyman’s Zelda game” following the lukewarm response to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Remember how it was going to revolutionize Zelda games as we knew it? And remember how the game came out, and people were even more lukewarm to it than its predecessor?

The “everyone” approach doesn’t work for a simple reason: because you can’t appease everyone. Nor should you try to, as it’s a waste of time and resources. Besides, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned from past experience, it’s that not everyone’s going to be satisfied with your work. You shouldn’t attempt to be all-encompassing, but rather make something unique. Because people will respect that more than if you try pandering to their sensibilities. Trust me, it happens a lot more often than people would want to admit.

Maybe I’m jumping the gun too soon here. Maybe Super Smash Bros. Ultimate will stick the landing and make everyone happy. And maybe it’ll pay off and not be wasted effort, who knows? I’m only hoping that, in the end, Nintendo recognizes their nigh-impossible gamble here, and that they stop trying to placate to a group of people who, at the end of the day, simply don’t care what they do.

The Progressive, Antisemitic Problem

Let’s get this out of the way: the right has hijacked the discourse on Israel. Like, to an unhealthy extreme. Whenever anyone has something to say, be it endearing or critical, it’s only been okay as long as they’ve said it. You dare speak up on the left, and you’re automatically labelled an Antisemite. It’s sickening, it’s maddening, and it’s time that it ended.

Now then, let’s talk about anti-Zionist Antisemitism.

I’ve been holding off writing this for a while. I always knew it was gonna be my 100th blog (speaking of which, yay me!), but I never knew if it was worth the risk. What would happen once it got out there? And would it be well-received, or blasted for existing? The answer was never concrete, yet because it’s Israel, a country no bigger than New Jersey with more intense scrutiny than states twice its size, I figured I’d have to bite the bullet eventually.

I’m Jewish. Have been my whole life. I also have strong ties to Israel, as would be expected (the word “Jerusalem” appears 669 times in our sacred texts). I’ve been there three times since high school, and I plan to return a fourth time at some point in the immediate future. Israel’s kind of a big deal for me, even though my fondness isn’t uncritical (more on that later).

In the 12 years that I’ve frequented online circles, the last 7 being Twitter, I’ve noticed a strong frustration from many people over the subject. The issue of Israel is complicated, no doubt, but it’s almost a poisonous trigger word for many individuals. The number of times it’s come up aggressively is headache-inducing, but what’s worse is how frequently people tow the fragile line between critique and legitimate Antisemitism. And while this is more blatant with the far-right, I’m focusing on the left here. Besides, at least the right is honest about its bigotry, whereas the left could use a wake-up call.

I’ll begin with the most-obvious point: that criticism of Israel is automatically “Antisemitic”. As Twitter user Yair Rosenberg once stated, this isn’t necessarily the case. There’s a difference between criticizing political policies/laws/decisions that Israel’s made over the last 70 years, and simply trashing it as an apartheid state that genocides Palestinians. One of these is based in genuine concern over how the piece of land is governed. The other is slanderous.

It’s in trying to explain the difference that I routinely get pushback. Either it’s the typical “I disagree, and here’s why” rebuttal, or the blanket “you’re an idiot, and here’s why” retort that misses the point. You’d be surprised how blurry that line is, as I’ve heard varying degrees of both from people I otherwise get along with. Many well-intentioned progressives think that it’s acceptable to trash my character because I think Israel’s a multi-faceted issue. And if I tell them I’m Jewish? Well, what do I know? It’s not like my experiences are worth listening to, right?

Allow me to share two secrets about Zionist discourse: one, Israel’s a huge part of the Jewish experience. Like Mecca and Rome for Muslims and Christians, Israel is our history. Zionism comes with the territory of being Jewish, it’s, quite literally, in the fine-print. And while not all of us believe it, enough do that it should be regarded as second-nature. You simply can’t, and shouldn’t, separate our Jewishness from our Zionism.

Two, and this one is a harder pill to swallow, you can’t transpose Western responses to police brutality and military presence onto another part of the world without first factoring in context. That’s not only irresponsible, it’s also a form of ideological colonialism and/or terrorism. I know this might come as a shock, but Israel’s current situation with its Palestinian people didn’t blossom overnight: it’s an end-result of 70+ years of history with several thousand years of backstory. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is messy, but it was messy long before it acquired that name. All you need is to take a primer on the conflict, something many people haven’t.

That’s not to say that some elements of Western sensibilities can’t be exchanged with Israel’s history, like how many Palestinians feel like second-class citizens in Judea and Samaria, but it’s not enough to be a 1:1 conversion. Life in the region isn’t that simple, and it’s high-time progressives understood that.

I often find it frustrating pointing this out to people, as they either don’t get it, or choose not to. Regardless of how you look at it, the internet looks at a dense conflict through a shallow prism fed by the media. To be fair, Israeli media is equally biased, even “I’m ashamed to be Israeli 24/7” Ha’aretz, but by comparing sources you get a clearer picture on what’s happening. Because for all the nonsense that Trump claims about “fake news”, the media is still largely sensationalized and generated to sell stories, even when they’re libellous.

I also find it frustrating pointing out the left’s dogwhistling to the right too. Whether it’s through The Chicago Dyke March using “Zios”, a David Duke phrase, to justify their decision to ban Israel flags, or referring to AIPAC as “the Israel lobby that controls politicians”, these kinds of claims aren’t without consequences. Words have meaning, and in an age where the right is known for being stealthy and slimy, it hurts when the left stoops to their level.

Speaking of which, let’s talk Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn’s become a celebrity in post-Brexit England, having taken on the role of “progressive champion”, and he’s incredibly popular with youthful voters. However, many Jews in England, particularly those in Labour circles, have become wary of him, claiming that, whether intentional or not, he’s been breeding Antisemitism in his own party. I’m not sure how much qualifies as truth, since most British tabloids have had it out for him since day 1, but when even left-leaning papers, like “I’m not subtle about my irrational hatred of my own country” Ha’aretz, have written pieces about Corbyn’s Antisemitic ties, well…it becomes hard to take his attempts at placating to Jews seriously with his left hand when he’s dogwhistling to Antisemites in his own ranks with his right hand. It’s a case of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, which is all-the-more reason why Corbyn apologists drive me up the walls with their insistence that this is “paranoia”. Give us Jews some credit, huh?

Corbyn’s influence is, unfortunately, not exclusive to England. He’s been spoken of highly by Bernie Sanders, who is, himself, Jewish, and his methods have seeped into the cracks of the socialist wing of the Democratic caucus. I have stories of how DSA affiliates have called me a “Republican Evangelist shill” over Israel, when an in-depth conversation would suggest otherwise. And many attempts at anti-Zionist rhetoric are praised, to the point that a flyer promoting The DSA’s platforms once had the words “F*ck Israel” on it. I can make as many jokes as I want, but it’s scary that a group affiliated with social change and combatting bigotry is openly-bigoted about a minority group with conditional privilege.

It’s become a problem in some of the progressive candidates’ platforms too. I have immense respect for Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, considering their steps at breaking down barriers immense and praiseworthy, but if some of what’s been said about them is true (and I’m not confirming anything), then as a Jewish Zionist I’m a little worried. The overtly bonkers claim of “you can’t be a feminist and a Zionist” aside, supporting Israel is smart politics. Even if you don’t agree with many of their policies, Israel is The US’s biggest ally in The Middle East.

We also have the issue of BDS, or Boycott, Divest, Sanctions, being used as a legitimate talking point in progressive discourse. The tag is used in many people’s online handles, even though the movement is toxic. For one, it was started by someone who wishes to see all Jews washed over. And two, it’s both oddly-specific and incredibly-vague. It attacks SodaStream, for example, without recognizing that the company has employed Palestinian workers alongside Israelis peacefully, yet it doesn’t realize that Sabra Hummus is an American product. It also ignores the that the IBM chip was co-created in Israel, and that a consistent boycott would mean not using computers ever again.

These are the issues I have to deal with on a daily basis. And I don’t want to. The internet’s already pretty stressful without having to justify Jewish self-determination. But when misinformation is widespread, dogwhistling to the right exists and political candidates refuse to renege their covert bigotry about Jews, then what does this tell me? Sure, progressives are great at tackling and exposing overt Antisemitism, especially with the resurgence of fascism in the 21st Century, but without tackling covert Antisemitism it feels like placating.

It's not like Israel’s a flawless country. Sociologically, there are inherent biases in how the country views outsiders. Economically, Israel’s a barely-functioning start-up nation, riddled with inconsistent technology, hotels that are run like circuses (have you seen how bad the showers are?) and markets that rip you off at the sound of a foreign accent. And politically, it’s a mess, with a borderline-authoritarian government that recently passed a nation-state law that’s being challenged by the courts. This is on-top of the love-hate relationship many Israelis and Palestinians have with one-another, such that I doubt a real solution will happen in my lifetime.

But that’s irrelevant if progressives won’t put aside their animosity to listen to Jews in their own circles. And not only listen, but understand and appreciate. Because while some Jews espouse the same hatred as their oppressors, thereby opting into the cycle of bigotry, many don’t. We want genuine societal change, and that begins by recognizing that we have a voice too.