The Woman Joke? Rape Victims in Storytelling

Confession time: I’m not a fan of Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke.

I’ll admit that the shock appeal was ground-breaking at the time, highlighting the lengths The Joker will go to break Batman, but the concept behind it doesn’t strike me as appealing or interesting. At least, not like this. I recognize that it has fans, but, save that brilliant monologue in the finale, it’s not something I attach to.

Here’s a general synopsis of this comic. By the way, there’ll be spoilers:

The Joker, who’s escaped from Arkham Asylum once again, rents out a funhouse at an abandoned carnival to try and break Batman. He makes an unannounced trip to the apartment of Barbara Gordon, aka Batgirl, with a gun, a camera and a tourist’s outfit. He shoots her right in the pelvis, rendering her paralyzed, and knocks out her father, Commissioner Gordon, to be taken to said funhouse. Once there, he strips Gordon nude, straps him to a cart, places him in a straight-jacket and inundates him with photographs of Barbara being raped. Batman makes his way to the funhouse, whereupon The Joker monologues about Batman being a stick-in-the-mud before confronting him in the rain. The comic ends with The Joker telling Batman a joke, which gets him to finally laugh at him for the first time.

Sounds heavy, huh? Well, it was, and it began a path for Barbara that’d eventually lead her to don the persona of Oracle in another comic. It was also another example of how twisted The Joker was, on top of another comic where he’d murdered Jason Todd, aka Robin #2, for shock value (albeit, this time, as a response to fans voting for it.) The Killing Joke remains a favourite to this day, such that an animated film was released this year…that added controversy to the already controversial story by way of a sex scene.

Like I said before, I’m not a fan of the comic. I’m not a big comic reader as is, so part of it might be that too, but I couldn’t help finding it vapid when I read it all those years ago via a YouTube video that probably doesn’t exist anymore. It seemed like it had no reason to exist other than shock value, and that it dragged Barbara Gordon, who’s one of my favourite DC characters, into this for no reason irked me. Because, really and truly, why Babs? Why her specifically? What was it about her that warranted a crippling from The Joker-actually, it’s The Joker, I understood that.

But in the years since, the idea behind the comic irked me even more. It’s especially bad because women in comics, let-alone storytelling in general, have a tendency to get shafted when it comes to depth and fairness of character. They’ve been subjected to torture, violence, death, kidnapping and even sexual abuse in ways that their male counterparts rarely see. So to have Batgirl, one of the most-iconic superheroines in comic book history, go through a traumatic event for the sake of “shock value”, well…it makes her a cheap, disposable pawn.

I know what some of you are thinking, and no, I have no problems with violence and/or rape stories…when done with nuance. To demonstrate what I mean, I’ll use two stories based on comic books as examples. Once again, there’ll be spoilers:

First, Rose from Fullmetal Alchemist. This is a show loosely based on a Manga by a woman named Hiromu Arakawa, and it’s become so famous that the controversy surrounding its existence is best left for another day. Rose initially appears in a town called Lior, and she believes in its corrupt priest’s alchemy because he’s promised to revive her dead boyfriend. It isn’t until the main characters, Edward and Alphonse Elric, reveal the priest’s scam that she realizes that she doesn’t need men to be happy. This also leads Lior into civil war, causing the military of Amestris to intervene with guns and violence.

The last we see of Rose in the first-half of the show is her defending some innocent children from Amestrian soldiers while being told to surrender. She doesn’t, boldly shouting words of defiance. It isn’t until Edward and Alphonse return to Lior in the second-half of the show that we find out Rose had been raped, impregnated with a child that she’d given birth to and lost her ability to speak. She’d become the figurehead of the Lior resistance, most-notably via Scar, one of the show’s antagonists, using her as a pawn for his revenge against Amestris and Lyra, an alchemist’s apprentice who’d bounced jobs several times, as a pawn for the resistance in Lior. Both turned her into something she’s not, and it’s through Ed and Al that she regains her voice and humanity long enough to escape the creation of a Philosopher’s Stone.

Fast-forward to the final arc, and we see that Lyra’s using Rose once again for her own, selfish gain. This time, however, it’s though her baby, whom is revealed to be a gateway to the door to truth. It turns out that Lyra’s actually a crooked alchemist named Dante, who’s desperate to live forever and will swap bodies with innocent people. Once again, Rose has had her humanity stripped to serve someone else’s agenda, and once again she’s freed by Ed and Al when they foil Dante’s plans.

This sounds not that much different from Barbara being shot, but there’s a huge difference: Rose being stripped of her humanity is a plot-point that’s properly explored in Fullmetal Alchemist. It isn’t used solely for shock value, Rose’s pain is validated in-show on multiple occasions. We see the aftermath of her being raped, used, abused and nearly made a host for Dante. She also gets a happy ending in the final episode, raising her son surrounded by people who care for and love her. Barbara Gordon never gets that reconciliation in The Killing Joke.

Then there’s Hope Shlottman from Season 1 of Jessica Jones. Jessica Jones’s main theme is about the psychology of abusive relationships anyway, but Hope gets crapped on the most. She’s introduced in Episode 1 as a hostage of Zebediah Kilgrave, who can control people’s actions briefly through words. He uses Hope as a tool to get back at Jessica for breaking free of his hold and nearly killing him all those years ago, deciding that a pretty face with a clean track-record is the way to do it. Kilgrave’s hold on Hope also comes with a caveat of her murdering her parents in-front of Jessica and forcing her to go to go jail as a fall-girl. Once there, we find out that Hope’s pregnant with Kilgrave’s baby, which she opts to abort.

Hope lives with the agony of being one of Kilgrave’s victims until Episode 10, when she’s released from prison on hopes of a court hearing. Kilgrave gets to her first, and he takes her to a diner, along with several other victims, to stage his ultimate revenge against Jessica. When Jessica arrives, Hope seizes the opportunity, grabs a knife and slits her throat. In her dying breaths, she makes Jessica promise she’ll kill Kilgrave, which Jessica reluctantly accepts. The episode then ends.

Like Rose, Hope is more than a pretty face. She’s tortured and robbed of her humanity, even being sexually assaulted and impregnated. Like Rose, Jessica Jones also doesn’t skimp out on developing Hope. She has a personality, made an integral part of the story and has her frustrations and pain validated. She doesn’t get a happy ending, unlike Rose, but she gets justice when Kilgrave’s neck is snapped by Jessica in the season finale.

You see the pattern? Like The Killing Joke, both shows have a woman put through trauma. Like The Killing Joke, both are horrifying. But unlike The Killing Joke, these shows don’t skimp out on the aftermath. They don’t abruptly end, or even leave it up to the viewer what happens. They show and discuss what happens after the victim is violated, the former on multiple occasions, and their inevitable fates. In both cases, the victims feel like real characters, not simply a plot device.

Which is more than I can say about Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke, a fact made worse in the film with her having a romantic affair with Batman. This is meant to signify their bond, but even ignoring the questionable subtext of a father and daughter figure having sex, it makes Barbara an even bigger pawn by objectifying her for the sake of Batman’s personal motivation. And Barbara Gordon not getting reconciliation for her trauma until years later, under the helm of a different team of writers altogether, is especially troublesome because she becomes another victim in a medium that’s already cruel enough to women.

Remember, to paraphrase Anita Sarkeesian (yes, I’m going there), you can enjoy something while still acknowledging its problematic elements. I don’t doubt the influence The Killing Joke has had on comics and mainstream geek culture, and it’s definitely a well-crafted piece of work. Additionally, if you like it, that’s fine! I simply don’t connect with it for the aforementioned reasons, which is a shame because there’s potential in-story for an exploration of the aftermath of rape and violence on women. It’s simply unfortunate that they’re not explored until years later, and by different people.

Reflections on Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Movies have a weird effect on me the second time around. Sometimes I like them more, having gotten over the initial reaction and moved to a deeper appreciation of what’s being presented. Sometimes I like them less, having gotten over the initial reaction and realized how bland or unimpressive they are. And sometimes I like them about the same. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the former, being a movie that left me initially cold, to the point of even harshly criticizing it in my review, yet respected enough to enjoy for what it was. Since the movie’s available on Netflix, I figured I’d revisit this film.

FYI, there’ll be spoilers, so be on guard.

Let’s get the biggest elephant in the room out of the way: Rey’s character. Detractors have pegged her as a Mary Sue, meaning that she’s super good at what she does and has no flaws. I don’t agree. Rey has fears and concerns throughout the film, most-notably using her family as an excuse to avoid attachments, and she does make mistakes, like when she accidentally releases the rathtars aboard The Millennium Falcon. Rather, I think Rey’s a victim of a different problem. It’s one that I normally expect more from Hollywood’s most-infamous stink-writer, aka Damon Lindelof, than Michael Arndt and Lawrence Kasdan, and that it appears here is annoying. Essentially, Rey’s a “mystery box” character, a character where everything about her is riddles and secrets meant to be revealed in the next film.

To be fair, Luke Skywalker had minimal development in the original Star Wars film. And, like Rey, he was innately and unnaturally skilled. But that movie didn’t hide who Luke was from the audience. We knew who he was, what he wanted and how the war had impacted him. We get a bit of that with Rey, especially with the revelation that she’s a Jedi, but most of her character remains a mystery. I’m willing to suspend my disbelief if it means her being fun and relatable, but I’d have liked to not have more questions after watching the film than when I started it. If she doesn’t have a payoff in the sequel, I’ll be disappointed.

Speaking of which, the montage when Rey touches Luke’s lightsaber, which I’ve seen a few times on YouTube, bugs me for that same reason. I’ve heard theories as to what it means, but it’s never resonated. It never directly makes sense in the context of the film, and it leaves too much open for interpretation. I always scratch my head when it happens, and while I know that film is all about show-don’t-tell…there’s a fine line between that and being vague for the sake of it. Also, the movie brushes off how Maz Kanata acquired the lightsaber in the first place, which is lazy…even with the film’s time constraints.

The destruction of Hosnian System remains a mixed bag, even after seeing that part of the movie multiple times on YouTube too. The reason why is the reverse of Alderaan in the original movie; where as that had the emotion from Leia’s end, at the expense of seeing it from the people of Alderaan’s point of view, the Hosnian System has the emotion of the system, but no reason to emotionally be invested in its destruction. This is because there’s no build-up. I wouldn’t have even known why the Hosnian System was so important without a YouTube video’s explanation. MYSTERY BOX INCORPORATED!

Finally, little details leave open questions of in-story character decisions. Questions like, “Why did Kylo Ren turn to the Dark Side?”, or, “Why did R2-D2 turn on at the exact second that he did?”, or, “Why didn’t Leia accompany Rey to Luke’s location if she was so insistent on finding him?”. Considering that film has such progressive leads, i.e. a woman and a black man, for its franchise, that Leia gets shafted for the fourth time in a Star Wars film is starting to get grating. We see that she’s become a general, so why relegate her to the sidelines?

Also, Finn’s character development is rushed.

So what do I like about this movie that I didn’t pick up on before?

Well, pretty much what everyone else has praised: the acting, the effects, the music and the sense of scope. I’ll forever remain steadfast in my belief that Star Wars, up until now, was never known for A-list acting. People give the Prequels crap for being badly-acted, but guess what? So were the original films. They tried, but I can think of a dozen moments where the acting was off or bizarre. The Prequels merely upped the ante, such that it was overtly apparent. But yeah, this is the first film with actual, genuine performances.

As for the effects, they’re good. The overhype about “practical effects” didn’t initially impress me, especially since I’m not a believer that “less CGI is automatically better”, and the idea that so much of it was supposed to “look real” was a turn-off. After all, the original films didn’t look real either, as much as people state otherwise, while the Prequels had effects that, in my opinion, looked decent. But I guess the lived-in, gritty feel is important for immersion. And it’s definitely a beautifully-realized world.

In my original review, I criticized the film’s score for being subpar by John Williams’s standards. I still hold that to an extent, but I’ll admit the orchestrations are growing on me. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to many of the tunes on the radio, and I like them a lot more now. I’ve especially become fond of March of the Resistance and The Jedi Steps, the former for being incredibly catchy and the latter as a haunting remix of one of the most-iconic pieces of music in film history. It’s not an excellent score, but it comes pretty close in certain places.

Finally, there’s the scope, both in wonder and emotional resonance. The former is self-explanatory, as the movie looks like big. I always thought that the Prequels did too, especially since they, like it or not, expanded on the Star Wars lore, but this film acknowledges its scale on several occasions, most-notably with Poe Dameron staring at the ceiling while being escorted by Stormtroopers through Starkiller Base. The emotion is made most-apparent through the relationship Kylo Ren has with Han Solo, making Han’s death that much more tragic. That the movie made Kylo Ren more interesting in one film than Darth Vader in six is also a testament to how much thought was put into him.

In my original review, I gave Star Wars: The Force Awakens 4/5 stars. It’s actually a quarter of a star higher, maybe half if I’m being generous. I still have issues that keep it from getting a higher grade, but I can’t say that it hasn’t grown on me. And who knows? If the sequel fixes some of my problems, I might like it more in the future!

(By the way, did Kylo Ren actually lose a limb in his fight with Rey? It was never clear.)

NintenD'OH! Paper Mario and Business Practices in the Gaming Industry

Let’s talk ethics.

It should be no surprise to people who’ve known me for a long time that I like Nintendo. They’ve been making affordable consoles for as long as I can remember, and I’ve been an admirer of their games for so long that I requested a Gamecube as a Bar Mitzvah gift in 2003 from my parents, which was then followed up with a Wii in 2007. Keep in mind that gifts of that calibre were a rarity growing up, so for me to request a Nintendo console meant that I clearly respected their work. This was around the time that the competition was trying to be “edgy”, so a bright spot of colour and fun was a breath of fresh air. And even after my hobby of choice transitioned to movies/anime, that feeling never left.

All the more reason why Nintendo’s recent controversy is such a disappointment. The whole ordeal stems back to something that started in 2014 called GamerGate. I won’t elaborate too much on what GamerGate is, you can read up on it if you’re so inclined, but the ordeal has lost me a lot of friends online. The movement’s goal is to promote “ethics in gaming journalism”, but words and actions are totally different. Either way, it’s not something that I enjoy seeing brought up in mainstream entertainment when not necessary, whether as a celebration or a mocking of it. It’s like I said on Infinite Rainy Day when a company called FUNimation Entertainment decided to mock it for no reason in their dub of an anime called Prison School:

“Unless the material calls for it, you don’t mess with something for the sake of airing your own dirty laundry. Especially when the original writers are trusting you with a decent translation of their work…[y]ou don’t parody your material and insult your audience, because some of them actually care and will be pulled out of it with such blatant disrespect.”

I wish Nintendo had heeded that advice. Instead, they decided to prod the serpent too, except with the exact opposite approach: mock the victims, not the oppressors. In the recent translation pics of Paper Mario: Color Splash, they decided to make a direct reference to the Five Guys controversy that ruined game developer Zoe Quinn’s career…as a joke. To quote someone I worked with at day camp, “Oh dear!”

As expected, it blew up on the internet. Some were defending the translation, calling it a “harmless reference to Five Guys Burgers and Fries” and stating that people shouldn’t get worked up. Others, however, flipped out and claimed Nintendo was demonic, stating that they’re “no better than those GamerGate monsters that keep pestering the gaming community”. Either way, it was obvious that Nintendo’s PR department would have their hands full trying to deflate the situation. Personally, I’m a little torn, but not in the way you’d think.

On one hand, I recognize this is an issue. Nintendo of America’s localization team boobed pretty badly, and the person who thought this was a good idea should either be reprimanded or fired. Because it’s Nintendo; if they’re so concerned about keeping a family-friendly image, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. If they’re so concerned about editing the cover of the most-recent Fire Emblem game so that a scantly-clad woman isn’t in plain view, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. If they’re so insistent on firing their former PR person, Alison Rapp, over moonlighting sex-work because it “portrays a negative image of their company”, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. Basically, if Nintendo is so insistent on remaining “innocent”, then they shouldn’t be condoning baseless hatred of women. Because this does exactly that.

It’s especially troubling because the gaming industry has come under fire in recent years for its horrible treatment of women. Developers like Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn have frequently been harassed for speaking up against their treatment in the workplace, while Anita Sarkeesian, host of the controversial “Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games”, has been attacked for her feminist analysis of video games to the point of caricatures ala Jewish-blackface. So for Nintendo, the beacon of family-friendly entertainment in gaming world, to suddenly include this joke, especially considering the Alison Rapp controversy I mentioned in the previous paragraph, is really not helping the situation.

On the other hand, I think the backlash against Nintendo is a little extreme. For one, it’s a localization joke that can be removed. It sucks that it snuck in there at all, but it’s not permanent. The game comes out in almost an entire year, that’s plenty of time to change the line. And if Nintendo’s smart, which I’m sure they are, that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Two…it’s a localization joke. That means there’s always the option of region importing the original game should the line still bother you. I know that newer Nintendo consoles have the option to change the country of origin in their settings, so if you really want to, as tedious as it may be, you can.

And three, the boycotting of Nintendo as a whole is ridiculous. Not only did said boycotters forget to boycott when Rapp was fired because Miitomo was launched the next day, I’m sure they’ll forget to do so again. Also, what good will it do, other than potentially harm innocent workers? Because trust me, when it comes to boycotts of big corporations, the average Joe is usually the first to go. I know because that’s what happened with Ma’ale Adumim’s Sodastream plant when the Boycott and Divestment Sanctions group, or BDS for short, began protesting Israeli products over their perceived treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and The West Bank.

I think we forget that sometimes, especially in the modern-Capitalist world. Like it or not, boycotts of corporations often do more harm than good. You might think you’re sending a message to the higher-ups, and it might work in the short-term, but in the long-term it hurts the grunt workers and employees trying to make an honest living. That doesn’t mean that those who are upset shouldn’t express concern, but not like this.

Rather, it should be directed in a more helpful manner, i.e. a petition, letter or email requesting to revoke the joke. Alternatively, writing a piece about it, like I am right now, or expressing concerns via Twitter, Facebook or Nintendo’s website are options. Because while Nintendo might be a business, they’re run by people! If enough people speak up, then they might be obligated to fix the problem if it means keeping an audience. It’s worked on a variety of other controversies, so why not here?

Nevertheless, to the person who thought this line was a good idea: you’re a jerk. I’m still planning on buying a WiiU at some point, but it won’t be because of you.

Why I LOVE Finding Dory

Finding Dory is a film that had all of the cards stacked against it. Not only was it the “unnecessary” sequel to Finding Nemo, but it was of a line of sequel mandates from Disney that included Cars 2, Monsters, University, Toy Story 4, The Incredibles II and Cars 3. Additionally, given the track-record of every Pixar movie in the last 6 years that wasn’t Inside Out, there was concern that this’d be another disappointment. Fortunately, it isn’t. Is it the original? No, but that doesn’t mean it can’t stand on its own.

Remember that throwaway line about Dory’s family from Finding Nemo? This movie does, and after another throwaway line about the importance of family, Dory’s subconscious is sparked and she remembers her parents. She goes on a search that leads her to an aquarium in California, with Marlin and Nemo trailing closely behind, but it comes with a catch: Dory’s memory is hazy, so not all the clues and pieces of information are reliable. In that sense, the movie plays like a wacky scavenger hunt, with Dory sometimes remembering details and other times forgetting everything. It’s this confusion that leads to the real fun, as you’re often left in the dark.

I’d normally go on to discuss the film in a review-like format, but that’d do my thoughts a disservice. Instead, I’d like to zone in on something many reviews haven’t been talking about, yet I still feel is equally relevant. It’s a pressing theme throughout the 100-minute runtime, and glancing over it is disrespectful to why this movie works: let’s talk disabilities.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever mentioned this before, but I have several disabilities. When I was 7 years old, I was diagnosed with ADHD (or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). This began a trip down the rabbit hole that later included Asperger’s Syndrome, Social Anxiety and Tourette’s Syndrome. All throughout my childhood, I felt I didn’t belong. I was shunned by my peers, ignored by my teachers and at constant ends with those who wanted to help, yet didn’t know how. In short, I was miserable growing up.

Which is all the more reason why, even before she had her own movie, Dory spoke to me. Finding Nemo came out around the time I’d hit teenage-hood, and here was this fish, a fictional character, who was quirky enough to be funny, yet grounded enough to be relatable. She was constantly the butt of jokes, but she compensated with her spontaneity and hopeful optimism. She wasn’t the focus, Marlin’s relationship with his son was, but she definitely stole the show. In short, she was every kid with a disability who hadn’t given up hope, making her an exemplary role model.

On the flip side, Finding Dory takes full advantage of Dory as a character. At first, this sounds like a potential disaster; disabilities, after all, are often misunderstood and misrepresented in mainstream culture and society, so there’s a chance this could backfire. But the movie never strays from what it’s trying to do: shed light on Dory without demeaning her. There are plenty of jokes at her expense, don’t get me wrong, but more often than not the movie recognizes the severity of Dory’s short-term memory loss and plays it sincerely. Humorously, maybe, but never ironically.

I love that. Far too often, society hears “disability” and thinks “distraction”. It views it as a negative, something that needs to be rectified. Alternatively, when it’s acknowledged, it’s over-glamourized. Both approaches are grained in some form of truth, but Finding Dory takes the middle ground. It recognizes that Dory’s presence can be uncomfortable in excess, yet it also respects her as an individual. It even frames her disability as something positive, something to learn from and work with as a strength. After all, Dory’s best quality has always been her spontaneity, so why not cater to that?

But it gets better! One of Finding Nemo’s sub-themes was overcoming adversity. Nemo had a damaged fin, yet the movie had him learn that that didn’t have to stop him from achieving greatness. Finding Dory expands on that adversity theme and makes it the primary focus. Ignoring Dory’s memory, the movie introduces an octopus with a missing tentacle, a whale shark with bad eyesight, a beluga whale with a head injury, a bird with delayed cognition and two seals with missing fins, to name a few. All of them get their chance to shine, which I love. In a world that struggles with disability representation, this film excels at it, leaving Marlin, the only “normal” character, at, ironically, a huge disadvantage.

Of course, the film is wickedly funny too. If Finding Nemo was a "buddy-road trip" movie, Finding Dory is more of a screwball comedy. It has its heart and brain, no doubt, but its mostly wacky and unpredictable hijinks help disguise the bitter undertones. This is what Pixar used to excel at: masking depressing subtexts with barrels of laughs and colourful characters. I wouldn’t consider it one of their best, perhaps second-tier over first-tier, but Finding Dory is still a prime example of Pixar’s beating heart.

So yeah, go see it. And bring your kids, especially if they have a disability, as they might appreciate it more than you!

X-Meh?

I saw X-Men: Apocalypse recently. It was a mess. An honest and entertaining mess, it’s clear director Bryan Singer cared, but a mess nonetheless. And it appears that reactions have been all-over, with some liking it, others hating it and a few caught in-between. But the fact that it’s reignited the dronings of “critics are biased” and “give _ back to Marvel” is really annoying, so I figured I’d talk about that.

First, some context: back in the 80’s, Marvel, the giant powerhouse we know today, was on the verge of bankruptcy. In order to save its reputation, the company decided to make movies. However, since Marvel didn’t have its own studio, like it does today, it auctioned off its characters to various studios. The contracts stipulated that if a film wasn’t in production every 7-8 years, the ownership would revert back to Marvel. This is why we ended up seeing names like Spider-Man and X-Men, both Marvel properties, under the Sony and 20th Century Fox logos.

As you’d expect, the big boom of superhero properties began as the 21st Century rolled on. Sadly, while some of these Marvel characters, namely Spider-Man and X-Men, managed to make for successful films, many, like The Punisher, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, The Hulk and Ghost Rider, failed to be successful critically or financially and others, like Namor and Man-Thing, never got off the ground. I know it’s more of a concern now with the advent of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but by the time Iron Man hit theatres in 2008 most of the Marvel properties that’d been outsourced had already reverted back to Marvel. To-date, Marvel owns or co-owns all of its properties save Fantastic Four and X-Men, both still owned by 20th Century Fox and don’t look to be given back in the foreseeable future. In short, it’s complicated.

This is where the fans come in. You see, it’s not enough that X-Men: Apocalypse was critically panned. Plenty of movies, particularly comic book adaptations, have been panned, so this is nothing new. The problem is that, even if the movie had been praised, it’s a property created by Marvel that isn't owned by them. Given how Marvel’s current goal is a world-building film continuity called “The Marvel Cinematic Universe”, that mutants aren’t present makes Marvel nerds unhappy; in fact, since two of these mutants, the Maximoff twins, are both mutants and general Marvel heroes, Marvel and Fox had to compromise and only focus on one each. Essentially, 20th Century Fox focuses on Quicksilver and his relationship with Magneto, aka his estranged father, while Marvel focuses on Scarlet Witch without mentioning her as a mutant at all.

And it drives Marvel fans insane, such that many are openly boycotting the X-Men continuity in hopes that it tanks and Marvel gets the property back. This includes looking for reasons to nitpick the films too: Wolverine is criticized for overshadowing the rest of the cast, the suits are criticized for not looking like the comics, the mutants are criticized for not being identical to their comic book counterparts, the list goes on. It’d be one issue if the movies were objectively awful, as in they didn’t do anything right, but given how four of them have been critically praised, while one of the remaining films was decently-received, it’s not that simple. X-Men, like Spider-Man in the early-2000’s, has translated quite well to film, so it’s easy to forgive the darker, grittier nature of the on-screen continuity because Bryan Singer-and, to a lesser extent, Matthew Vaughn-and company know what they’re doing.

Which leads to the first of my big questions: why are fans behaving like this? Is it a shame that X-Men isn’t back at Marvel? Yes. Would I like it to be? Again, yes. But whining that this “isn’t the X-Men I grew up with”, when it’s flexible enough to be open for interpretation, and demanding that it revert back to Marvel for a “true adaptation” is exactly why the general populace has a hard time taking nerds seriously.

Perhaps the biggest, and most-unfortunate, example comes from YouTube personality Bob Chipman’s review of X-Men: Apocalypse:

*Sigh* (Courtesy of moviebob.)

For clarity, I respect Bob Chipman immensely. I like a lot of his work, and I don’t usually mind when he rants about films he doesn’t like. I also realize that art is subjective, that it’s okay to disagree, and that the X-Men films have always been divisive. But claiming that the franchise doesn’t hold up is one problem, stating that people have an ironic attachment to something they haven’t seen in years is another, and the latter doesn’t sit well with me. I hear it frequently about non-Marvel movies, that people “only love them because of when they came out”, and that arrogant notion is one of my big no-nos in film criticism.

“But wait,” you’re thinking, “I’ve read your Tweets! Haven’t you done the same with other films that people like before too?” Firstly, guilty. Secondly, I’ve tried my hardest not to, usually apologizing when I have. And thirdly, I’ve never screamed “nostalgic/ironic love” for these movies when challenged by fans. I don’t do it for either of the Tim Burton Batman films, which I can’t stand, either of The Amazing Spider-Man films, which I can’t stand either, or anything else I don’t think is any good/holds up. Because that’s cocky and condescending, and Lord knows how much I hate that!

It doesn’t help that Bob’s tagline implies that we should “let it go already”. Why? Bob not liking the X-Men franchise, save one entry, doesn’t mean that my enjoyment of these films is a lie. And what if I don’t want to let go of X-Men? What if I think Fox has done a (mostly) great job? Am I harbouring an “ironic love” for this series too?

Thus is the slippery-slope of such a claim, as it presumes too much and understands too little. I haven’t seen the first two X-Men films in years, but I doubt they’d have fans if there was nothing to connect to. X-Men: Days of Future Past, on the other hand, I’ve re-watched recently, and it’s one of my favourite superhero films of all-time. And while X-Men: Apocalypse is plagued with pacing issues, character inconsistencies, occasionally weird structure choices and tonally-jarring detours and fan-service, it’s still enjoyable and has plenty of heartfelt and well-executed moments. Ironically, it’s the entry that Bob actually likes, X-Men: First Class, that I’m not terribly impressed by. But even then I enjoy it for what it is.

It’s doubly-frustrating because Bob’s love, and the superhero franchise most detractors seem to gravitate to, is the MCU. I like the MCU, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not flawless. It’s made slip-ups here and there in the areas Bob’s criticized the X-Men films for, yet it’s given a pass because the characters and character writing is consistently strong. That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t think the franchise hasn’t already peaked qualitatively with Iron Man and creatively with The Avengers, or even that Thor: The Dark World isn’t a colossal waste of my time. The pool of criticism runs both ways.

Which isn’t to say the other side isn’t shameless either, leading to my next question of why people assume reviewers are biased toward the MCU. Are they really? Because as far as I know, most reviewers don’t know the nuances of Marvel licensing. They see a movie, give their thoughts and share said thoughts with the rest of the world. This shouldn’t be so hard to understand, right?

Enter Exhibit B:

"Disney has been continually paying critics to attack Non MCU movies. MCU movies are safe. They're not challenging at all. Just like a comic book movie is "supposed to be". They're not divisive or thought provoking. First they bashed Batman V Superman.They cleared BvS out of the way, gave Civil War (which wasn't a perfect film) an Oscar, now they're going to work on moving Apocalypse out the way...then they get offended when they're accused of accepting gifts. Deadpool would have also suffered the same fate however it was released in February and was not an immediate threat.”

Wow…

There’s a lot I could pick apart, but I’ll simply ask why someone decided this was petition-worthy. Why do you need critical approval to enjoy something? When has a score stopped a movie from resonating with someone personally? And why can’t we accept that maybe it’s okay to like trash? I enjoyed X-Men: Apocalypse, but I admit that it’s not great. Why I’d shout “conspiracy” is beyond me, especially since, unlike Fantastic Four, the X-Men franchise has actually had good movies over its lifetime.

Perhaps I’m overreacting. After all, X-Men is a property that’s often gotten too dark for its own good, including a moment where Kitty Pryde ripped Emma Frost’s heart from her chest (look that up, it actually happened) and another where Wolverine’s spine was ripped from his body (that actually happened too), and sometimes that grimness makes the franchise polarizing. And yeah, I do think people can overlook the flaws of the MCU, even the more-glaring ones (like how Guardians of the Galaxy has sexist undertones.) But both groups are being ridiculous, and that has to stop. Because it’s not healthy for the image we want to project.

And by the way, this idea that X-Men is boring because it ham-fists its message of prejudice? It was created by a socially-conscious Jew, so it’ll always be as political as Captain America. Then again, the real complainers probably won’t listen…

Femmebusters!

Ghostbusters.

Courtesy of Movieclips Trailers.

I’ve been wanting to talk about this since the first trailer, i.e. the one above, was released about a month and a half ago. Because while I’m excited for a female-centric Ghostbusters film, especially since I liked the director’s last film, Spy, a lot, it doesn’t seem like people want to give this film a chance. And neither do Sony Pictures, judging by the way they’re promoting it to the masses: “It’s quirky! It’s girls being weird, scientist people! You’ll see it, right?”

I’ll back up and give some context: Ghostbusters is regarded as one of the greatest sci-fi/comedy films of the 20th Century. Released in 1984, it has a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and is generally well-loved by people. And how could it not? It’s a movie about fighting ghosts that also happens to be smart, funny and promotes the power of science. It’s so influential that Bob Chipman even made it his pilot episode for “Really That Good”.

Anyway, the prospect of a third entry had been floating around for a while, especially after the disappointment of the initial sequel, before being confirmed in 2014 following the infamous Sony hack. The film had a cast, a director and a release window of Summer 2016. Adding fuel to the fire was the cast being all women, which caused intense backlash. Which leads to the trailer I posted above, much to some serious criticism online. How serious? I’ll be polite and say it could’ve been better.

This brings up the bigger question, one that’s been reconfirmed with the most-recent trailer: is the backlash based in misogyny, or legit disinterest?

Let’s look at the arguments on both sides: firstly, there’s definitely some sexism going on. It’s not the only reason people are against this film, but it’s there. How do I know? Because a video was made reading the reactions in the YouTube comments of the first trailer. If you want proof it exists, here you go:

These never get old. (Courtesy of Shesellssheshells.)

I know this seems too ridiculous to be true, but I buy it. For one, this is YouTube. Garbage nonsense like this pops up all the time in the comments sections of videos. I’m actually amazed it’s not more vitriolic, especially given the people that fester there! And secondly, this guy did his research. He’s the same YouTuber who’s recently dedicated his efforts to ripping apart Cinema Sins’s “Everything Wrong With” videos, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt even if he’d concocted all of those comments as a joke. But my point is that misogyny does exist over this movie’s casting, even if people choose to pretend that it doesn’t.

On the other hand, I’m doubtful it’s exclusively misogyny that’s propelling the hate. For one, not every person, even online, hates women, that’s generalizing. Additionally, the trailers aren’t helping much. I don’t think they’re “the worst ever”, especially since they’ve made me chuckle a few times, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t weird, off-key and with shoehorned references that only make sense if you’re a fan of the franchise. They’re also unbelievably dumb, and not in the charming kind of way. They’re actually off-putting with how stupid they are, and after two failed attempts at trying to sell something that’s not easy to sell, it’s a bad sign.

It’s especially tricky because, ignoring the sexism, there are some solid complaints to be had that are being shut down. That the trailers keep highlighting Pitch Perfect’s style of dumb and offensive jabs at the film’s cast, particularly the black lead, is proof enough. Considering that black actors and actresses still get the short-end of the stick when it comes to casting, it’s sad that a “progressive” film like this one, which had the sense to give four female comedians a shot at fame, thought that racist and obese jokes were worth a chuckle or two. Not to mention, the trailers don’t understand what it means to be respectful tonally, such that Melissa McCarthy, one of the movie’s leads, called the first one “confusing”.

Then there’s the problem of calling out people for sexism when they might not be sexist. The prime example is James Rolfe, aka The Angry Video Game Nerd, who posted a video stating that he wouldn’t be reviewing the movie. Rolfe’s been garnering serious backlash from his critics for sexism, while his defenders have been trying to explain that that’s not the case. I haven’t been too keen on Rolfe in years, having slowly moved away from his work as I’ve become disenfranchised with video games, but for curiosity’s sake I gave his video a watch. And what did I think?

Um, eh?

I’m aware James Rolfe has made decisions that’ve irked some of his fans. But that doesn’t mean that Rolfe’s reasoning for not seeing the new movie, that it craps on a film’s legacy, is sexist. Should he have mentioned that this’ll be known as “the female Ghostbusters”? Probably not, even though the movie’s promotional material isn’t hiding that. Is his reasoning for not wanting to give this film a chance lame? Again, probably. But that doesn’t mean that he’s being “sexist”.

I get that the internet likes to blow stuff out of proportion. I also don’t like how a lot of Rolfe’s defenders are also people I can’t stand for…reasons I won’t get into. But if Rolfe should be criticized for crapping on this film, it should be because he’s not giving this movie a fair chance.

That’s the key: “a fair chance”. Remember, trailers can be misleading. The trailers for Inside Out, for example, were atrocious, especially the dinner one, and that movie ended up being awesome. I’d even argue that it’s one of Pixar’s best! But my point is that the trailers shouldn’t be the defining point for a movie that’s not out yet. And yet they are, which is sad given how much the film has to prove to cynics and skeptics.

It’s equally as sad because I don’t think this movie ever had a chance to begin with. Ignoring that the original film’s so well-loved, none of the past attempts at recapturing the magic of it were successful. Even Ghostbusters II, which came out in 1989, was regarded as shamelessly recreating the original. So that this movie is trying again, albeit 32 years later, means that it has a bumpy road ahead. It’s not like reboots haven’t worked before either, I’ve been loving the Planet of the Apes films lately, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less bumpy.

Then there’s the additional angle of preference. I didn’t grow up with Ghostbusters as a kid, having been born 6 years after it came out. I’d heard of it from people old enough to remember it, and had even seen bits and pieces here and there on TV as a child, but it never stayed in my consciousness like, say, Toy Story or the Disney Renaissance films did. I didn’t get a chance to sit down and watch it in its full glory until recently on Netflix, and while I enjoyed it…it didn’t click with me. The jokes didn’t always land, the pacing was erratic, some of the visual gags and effects looked really dated and the finale was underwhelming. I respect what it did for American film, and I even appreciate its ideas, but it’s not what I’d consider a “masterpiece”.

Maybe that’s why I’m more hopeful. Ignoring the female spin, I think this is a cool premise with a lot of potential. Ghosts are a universally-feared concept by kids, while adults can easily read into them as a metaphor for whatever kinds of paranoia we have. Plus, it’s escapist fantasy! Who doesn’t love a little bit of that?

But that doesn’t mean that the criticism isn’t there. Is some of it sexist? Yes. Is all of it sexist? No. And it’s important to differentiate between the two, as opposed to going on a witch hunt and alienating people who are doing nothing wrong. I only wish the internet understood this, instead of me having to write a blurb that’d most-likely be misconstrued anyway…

Batman: Mask of the Okaytasm

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and I have a weird relationship. I’ve seen plenty of Batman films, being a huge fan of the character, but none have left me conflicted to the same degree as this one. Usually I know when a Batman film has me hooked (see The Dark Knight Trilogy) or not (see every live-action film from 1989 to 1997), and this is especially true with the myriad of animated films, but Batman: Mask of the Phantasm remains the weird outlier that I’ve never been able to love. The combination of enjoyment and frustration always leaves me conflicted, such that attempts to write about it have often left me at a loss for words. Still, I might as well try.

Two disclaimers: firstly, this won’t be a review. If you want one, you’re better off with Marzgurl, Chris Stuckmann, Confused Matthew (whose review no longer exists), Geekvolution or, to a lesser extent, Doug Walker, as they’ve done so quite efficiently. Instead, this’ll be me sharing my general thoughts and why the movie doesn’t click with me like most. And secondly, there’ll be major spoilers. I can’t discuss it without them, so you’ve been warned.

To give a general overview, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm takes place in-continuity of the highly-acclaimed Batman: The Animated Series. It begins with a fight between Batman and some mobsters, only to turn deadly when their boss is killed while trying to escape by a shadowy assassin out for revenge. This assassin is targeting mobsters with a shared history, and, what’s worse, Batman’s being blamed for it. Complicating matters is the return of an old fling in Batman’s, aka Bruce Wayne’s, love-life, bringing back a flood of repressed memories of their doomed relationship. As Batman tries piecing together the links behind the hits, and Bruce Wayne tries understanding why his former lover, Andrea Beaumont, left him, it becomes clear that the connections are as close as the character’s dual identity.

Let's start with the positives: the story is really interesting. Not because it’s a dark mystery, that’s nothing new for Batman, or because it delves into Batman’s/Bruce Wayne’s past, that’s nothing new either, but because it touches on something never really explored in the Batman mythos to quite this extent: romance. Usually, Batman’s flings are either there to look pretty, get into trouble, or both. And in the case of the show, there’s the additional component of the love interests giving up because they see no future with him. But Andrea Beaumont gives a Batman story a chance for a real love angle to build off of. It’s not a perfect love angle, Confused Matthew’s review pointed out how dissimilar Bruce and Andrea are personality-wise, but it’s enough to feel fresh and interesting for a character who’s been around for so long that he’s been cited by detractors as “stale” and “overused”.

I love the music and art-style. On the former’s end, the late-Shirley Walker gives it her all, and it shows. Full-out, gothic-style orchestrations can be heard throughout the film’s 76-minute runtime, including gospel choir humming during flashbacks and Latin chants during the opening credits and the big finale, and they really add to the film’s epic nature. As for the latter? If these stills aren't already indicative, the art-deco style really gives the film a unique look, something complimented by the animation. I do have an issue with said animation…but we’ll get to that later.

And finally, this movie wonderfully balances funny and dramatic. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s DC’s animated division, but it keeps you on the edge of your seat with its twists, turns and bouts of feels and humour. Everything with the Joker is comedic gold, including his phone call with Batman in the third-act, while the more somber notes of Bruce’s relationship with his parents hit you where it hurts. And, of course, this movie is graphic! There’s blood and death galore, and while it’s never to the point of scarring…it’s intense. The Nostalgia Critic was right when he said that Batman: Mask of the Phantasm earns its PG-rating!

“Okay,” you’re thinking, “That doesn’t sound so bad. What could possibly warrant criticism?”

The first complaint has to do with execution. Remember how I said this is an interesting story? It doesn’t always present itself that way. For one, the pacing, particularly the first-act, is choppy. The film suffers from the same problem Batman Begins did, namely jumping back-and-forth between Bruce’s past and present to establish beats that’d come back into play in the finale. Except that it also rushes through major plot points for the sake of time. Details like Bruce’s romance with Andrea happen too fast, such that his proposal feels out of left-field and is lacking build-up. It doesn’t help that their break-off of the proposal is equally as quick and rushed, leaving little time for it to sink in.

On top of that, Bruce’s back-story has way too many conveniences for its own good. Am I really supposed to believe that Bruce would fall in-love with a girl he met at his parents’ grave three days earlier while she’d come to visit him in the backyard of his mansion? Or that their only romantic links are that they have dead parents and have taken martial arts classes? Or that Bruce proposes to Andrea at the same place he discovers a swarm of bats surfacing from what ends up becoming his Batcave? Or even that Andrea dumping him and him becoming Batman were supposed to be intertwined?

Actually, let’s zone-in on that last one: Bruce proposes to Andrea near the same rock that leads to the eventual Batcave, discovering its location because of a swarm of bats. Ignoring the on-the-nose symbolism, he goes investigating the cave, only to surface to a letter of rejection from Andrea. The next scene is him donning the guise of Batman for the first time, as if to suggest that Andrea’s rejection is what allowed that to happen. Do you realize how messed up that is? I remember Confused Matthew stating how dirty he felt that Bruce only became Batman because he broke up with a girl, but I felt that way long before that. Because it made Bruce out to be shallow, only doing what he did because “heartbreak”.

The movie’s contrivances don’t end there. For one, Andrea discovering that Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same guy is a real error in judgement on Batman’s part. He decides to visit his parents’ grave in costume while Andrea is at the cemetery, only to be noticed long enough for her to make the connection. And while I like that the Joker is in this movie, even though he takes over way too often whenever he’s on-screen, the way Bruce connects him to Andrea, smearing pink crayon over the mouth of a henchman in a photograph, is so ridiculous you’d have to be a complete idiot to not see it. I mean, really? Pink crayon?!

Speaking of which, the climax is unsatisfying. For one, Andrea, who at this point has been revealed to be The Phantasm, grabs the Joker and leaves right when the Smithsonian they’re in goes up into flames, stating that “it ends tonight”. It’s obvious that the Joker’s her last victim, but…what happens to him? He doesn’t die, as he returns in-show, but you never find out what Andrea had in mind. All you see is her on a boat with a mourner’s veil on, implying that she’s finally moved on, but when you factor in that Batman lets her go because she’s too similar to him…ugh, it’s confusing and annoying!

Finally, the animation and voice acting are a tad awkward. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm was originally supposed to be a TV movie, only becoming a theatrical release last-minute to capitalize on the success of the Tim Burton films, and it feels it. The animation is bounds better than the show, but it’s not quite film quality. It’s at times beautiful and others jarring, with character movements often clunky and hard to look at. And the voice acting is no different, coming off as too normal sounding for TV, yet too cartoony for film. It’s that imbalance that makes it hard to fully be engaged, which is a shame.

I get it: all these complaints can be waved with the justification of being a 76-minute film from a studio that’d never done something this ambitious. But I don’t buy that. 76-minutes might not seem like it, but that’s plenty of time to tell a compelling story in animation if properly-paced. Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker was also 76-minutes, and it told a wonderfully-paced story on the same budget. Even Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub-Zero, which was 67-minutes long, managed to be tighter-written, and that’s an arguably weaker film! And let’s not forget DC animated films like Wonder Woman and Batman: Under the Red Hood, both of which were also 76-minutes long! Rushing to capitalize on a brand might explain Batman: Mask of the Phantasm’s problems, but it doesn’t excuse them, not when the same team would go on to do the aforementioned.

It’s also these sorts of problems that hold me back from liking this movie more than I do. Does this mean it’s not good? No, the points I mentioned at the beginning are more than enough for why you should check it out. Does I think it’s under-appreciated? Yes, especially when juxtaposed with The Dark Knight Trilogy. But I can’t call it anything higher than a 4/5 star film, and none of my multiple viewings have been able to convince me otherwise.

But I’d recommend checking it out anyway. The above is personal and subjective, so you might disagree with me. Besides, any opportunity to hear Mark Hamill as the Joker, even if it overshadows some of his equally terrific performances in other shows and movies, is a good one!