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.

Wreck-it Ralph 2: Disney Wrecks Itself?

The newest trailer for Wreck-it Ralph 2 hit the internet this past weekend, and people went nuts over it. For some, the scene with the Disney princesses in their casual-wear was hilarious, highlighting how great it is that the movie even features them at all. For others, it was a reminder that Disney’s milking their brand to their detriment. Basically, opinions were mixed.

Which leads to a concern I have about Disney’s business practices of late and how they’ve been perceived by cinephiles. I say everything out of respect, as I’ve grown up with Disney since I was about 3 years old. Many of their films hold a place in my heart, and quite a few are classics for a reason. So if I sound like I’m being a little bitter about the criticism, it’s only because I care.

Anyway, I like Disney. Their Pixar division has made some of the best animated films, or films in general, to ever exist, and I’m sure they’ll continue to surprise me. Their general animation division, though all-over qualitatively, is pretty solid, with some entries being masterpieces. Their Marvel output has consistently entertained, even challenging the perceptions of what comic book movies can be occasionally. And while it might annoy some of you to say this, I’ve really enjoyed their Star Wars output. Only the live-action remakes have turned me off, though, even then, there’ve been a few gems too.

I mention this because there’s a growing sentiment that modern-Disney lacks sincerity, especially with their recent trend of self-deprecating humour. Disney, as we’re well-aware, owns Marvel, Star Wars and The Muppets, and are soon to fully-acquire 20th Century Fox’s film division. Their roster of content is, to say the least, impressive. Which is all the more concerning that they’ve started flaunting it while simultaneously mocking it, as if that’s enough to keep people distracted from their questionable business practices. And while I wish it were only smoke-and-mirrors, I’d be dishonest if this didn’t bother me too.

The best way to tackle this is to trace the company’s origins. A lot of the detractors of modern-Disney point to Walt himself and his approach film. Walt, they claim, was an artist, strived to make art first, and would often prefer passion over money. This reflects in the output of his company while he was alive: masterpieces like Fantasia, which pushed the medium of film to its limits in 1940, wouldn’t be made today, while live-action classics like Mary Poppins, which came out late in Walt’s life, were so ambitious that nothing could top them now. The arguments for Walt Disney as an artist are really compelling, and it’s easy to think of him that way if you’re unfamiliar with their history.

See, Walt was…well, a capitalist. He may have feigned the illusion of being a cheery uncle, something Saving Mr. Banks touched on, but he was often cold and unsympathetic. Stories of his authoritarian stranglehold on artists are well-known in the animation world, and his workers went on strike at one point to demand better pay and working conditions. Walt was also known for cutting costs when it hampered profitability, as evidenced by his scale-back on animation funds following the financial flop that was Sleeping Beauty. Walt’s contributions to animation and film are immense, but he was never the saint some people claim him to be.

It’s worth understanding this because it re-frames the context behind Disney. While there’s no denying that anyone in film has money on their mind, for Disney it’s ingrained in their DNA. Disney doesn’t only make a fairy-tale because they have good stories to tell, but also because it’s a brand. Their decision to cater to a family market is because parents will pay money to see movies that’ll entertain their children. Even the themes in their films, which are incredibly general, are done so that they’ll net big bucks. Everything about Disney, right down to their marketing, is as much about money as art, perhaps even more so.

The one difference between Walt and his company is that Walt was, to be fair, occasionally experimental. He’d make safe bets like Cinderella, a typical fairy-tale, but he’d also try experimental work, like Fantasia, and films that tackled unique concepts, like Lady and the Tramp, when he felt there was the right budget and story. He was a businessman, yes, but he also did try new ideas that pushed the medium of film. This blend of financial success and artistic success kept Disney from going stale. Yet even after the Disney Renaissance in the late-80’s and early-90’s, following The Little Mermaid, money was still a primary drive for Disney.

It’s this desire to capitalize on a brand that explains why Disney’s become so tongue-in-cheek lately. Because audiences, whether they were aware of it or not, were becoming wise to Disney’s formula. We can argue nuances forever, and I won’t, but Disney saw that self-deprecation could net ticket sales; after all, if Shrek could make fun of Disney and work for Dreamworks, then why couldn’t Disney make fun of themselves too? Perhaps it’s too in-jokey and insincere for a company to knowingly mock their own brand, but it’s worked for them financially, so why not? It’s not like they’re a giant corporation willfully deconstructing their own nostalgia to-wait…

Yeah, that’s what people are concerned about: they can overlook Disney being edgy in their deconstruction of themselves, but not that they’re using it to distract from their uncomfortable decisions of late. This is the same company that fired James Gunn because of some Tweets he made almost 10 years ago on Twitter. This is also the same company that kept Roseanne Barr on a leash until a racist Tweet got her fired. And this is the same company that employs Johnny Depp and is dragging their feet on John Lasseter despite what we know about both. Add the Fox acquisition, and it's as if Disney’s overcompensating.

Does this mean that people suddenly can’t enjoy that scene? No. It might be over-indulgent and fan-service heavy, but there’s no denying its cute charm. Disney princesses, as we know, hold immense weight in pop culture. Having the veil lifted might, honestly, be more important than having them as stand-ins for agendas or themes. Besides, half of them were never that interesting to begin with!

I also think it’s cynical to deny people their right to enjoy this. The world is a scary place right now, and people need escapism. Regardless of the “cynicism” presented in Disney’s fan-service, it’s helping people to cope. That alone should be reassuring, no?

But if that’s doesn’t ease the tension, we can rest easy that this isn’t the whole movie. The trailers for the first film were also mediocre, but the end-result was quite decent. I’m sure this film will be too. And if not? Fine, but it’s not the end of the world.

Finally, I want to address the hardened cynics and ask them why they’re ruining other people’s fun. Art isn’t be-all-end-all, you can like something while recognizing its awfulness. If Disney’s bringing happiness to people, then let them be happy. If these movies end up being enjoyable, then let them be enjoyable. Because your energy can be much better-spent on other, more pressing concerns than constantly raining on someone’s parade!

Gunned Down

This past week was…interesting for film fans. On one hand, there was the surprise announcement of a revival of Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Considering that I never thought one of my favourite Star Wars properties would return from cancellation, that made me happy. On the other hand, however, there was the shock of James Gunn, director of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, being fired by Disney over some Tweets he wrote many years ago. Many people, myself included, were unhappy about that.

For context, James Gunn’s an…unusual individual. He got his start with Troma Films, under Lloyd Kaufman, as a man known for his offbeat filmmaking. Gunn became a rising star under Kaufman, directing his first major feature, Slither, in 2006. He’d then go on to a slew of gross mediocrity, including the horrible Super and the abhorrent “Beezel”, before being hired to direct Guardians of the Galaxy. I remember bemoaning the decision, blasting Marvel for “killing their credibility”, yet being pleasantly surprised when the film came out.

This is important context for understanding how I feel about James Gunn: he used to be my least-favourite director in Hollywood, having been responsible for two of the worst features I’d seen in my adult life, yet he’s actually grown on me recently. I shouldn’t be surprised by the change in identity, Peter Jackson also had a weird career pre-Lord of the Rings, but it’s the rapid change that’s warmed me to Gunn as a person. Because James Gunn isn’t the wilfully bad taste individual he was 6 years ago, but rather, as his Tweets have demonstrated, a kind, compassionate and sensitive man unafraid to speak up about the injustices committed by the Trump administration. This is something I pointed out on my Twitter Feed not too long ago.

But no one gets a happily-ever-after when they’ve got skeletons in their closet, right?

Let’s get this out of the way: James Gunn shouldn’t be let off the hook for his Tweets between 2009 and 2012. He wasn’t a snot-nosed punk when he wrote them, he was in his 40’s. That’s old enough to know better. It may not be fair to hold them over him now that he’s changed, but that doesn’t mean he gets a free-pass; in fact, why don’t I share some of the Tweets he’s been fired over? (Warning: some of these are nauseating.)

“RT @peteralton I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place. Shhh!”

“I’m doing a big Hollywood film adaptation of The Giving Tree with a happy ending – the tree grows back and gives the kid a blowjob.”

“Three Men and a Baby They Had Sex With #unromanticmovies”

““Eagle Snatches Kid” is what I call it when I get lucky.”

“@DrewAtHitFix Honesty’s the best policy. Tell your 3 year old you’re laughing thinking of me fucking 3PO. He’ll appreciate it when older.”

If these all share a pattern, I think you can figure it out. What’s telling is that Disney knew about these Tweets when they hired him. They had to, as The Mary Sue had already written about him. If there was ever a time to fire Gunn, it was in 2012. Firing him now, especially in light of how long they kept Roseanne Barr and the revelations about John Lasseter and Johnny Depp, feels peculiar and hypocritical. Considering that Gunn no longer holds these views, it’s as if he’s being punished for growing as a person.

It's especially troubling in-light of two complications: one, Disney isn’t so innocent. The company’s spent decades peddling racist caricatures of minorities, even dedicating a song in Peter Pan to mocking Native Americans. This continued long into the 21st Century, such that The Princess and the Frog had a black witch doctor who spouted blackface dialogue to Tiana and Naveen. That Disney refuses to acknowledge this behaviour is troubling and reeks of double-standards.

And two, as I mentioned earlier, Disney kept Roseanne Barr on their payroll knowing that she was racist. Her Tweets reflected that, constantly getting worse until she was fired for calling a former Obama aide an ape. Disney knew what Gunn had said in the past, yet they hired him anyway. Roseanne, on the other hand, continued to be awful, but she wasn’t let go until she proved “too much” to handle. Again, some double-standards.

It's not even like Gunn was another Alison Rapp situation, getting fired for moonlighting prostitution while in college. Both are sympathetic situations, but Gunn didn’t breach a contract. Gunn also didn’t lie about why he was fired, while Rapp did. And while I’m not happy with how Nintendo handled Rapp’s termination, they weren’t wrong on a legal level. Gunn’s firing, on the other hand, seems like a retroactive panic in light of who initiated the public revelations of his Tweets: Mike Cernovich.

Yeah…let’s talk about Cernovich.

I won’t criticize his speech impediment, for starters. Not only would it be hypocritical, since I kinda have my own speech impairment, but it’s ableist rhetoric. Plenty of other people have already done that too, so I don’t want to come off as unoriginal. Instead, allow me to shed light on who Mike Cernovich is, what he stands for, and why he’s so important to this ordeal. Brace yourselves.

Remember how the 2016 elections came down to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Near the last few months, Cernovich began spreading a rumour that Clinton was running a sex trafficking ring in the basement of a pizzeria in Washington DC. Known as “pizzagate”, it became so prevalent amongst Clinton haters that it led to a shooting in said shop. I don’t know why every “controversy” these days has to end in “gate”, but it was pretty troubling that one man with a Twitter account could instigate something so horrific. Then again, social media’s quite powerful.

It gets worse, though. In addition to this conspiracy, Cernovich has casually Tweeted about date rape on multiple occasions. His most tame Tweet reads as follows:

“Have you guys ever tried “raping” a girl without using force? Try it. It’s basically impossible. Date rape does not exist.”

My apologies to any of my readers who were victims of rape. It’s not your fault that people like Cernovich constantly make your trauma a living nightmare. Additionally, to everyone who read that and felt sick, congratulations: you’re sane. To everyone else: I can’t help you. Cernovich, essentially, is a social media predator whose recent shtick is digging up Tweets that reflect badly on people and using them to get them fired. This is the case with Gunn, where he succeeded, but it’s also become the case for comedian Ian Michael Black. And it’ll only happen more and more frequently as companies like Disney kowtow to his will.

It also makes me self-conscious in light of a Tweet I wrote when The Supreme Court of the United States, or SCOTUS, passed a ruling making gay marriage the law of the land. I was so overwhelmed by the partying and bombarding of Tweets that I said, to paraphrase myself, “these pro-LGBT Tweets are too much”. (I don’t know the exact wording, but I’m sure someone could find it.) I lost 15 Followers over it and got into several arguments, eventually prompting an apology once I’d realized the error of my ways. I haven’t deleted the Tweet, as I feel my mistakes are more worth learning from than my successes, but I’m still scared that a Cernovich-type could easily exploit that.

Because that’s what this is really about: predatory Tweeters with baggage using their power to ruin other Tweeters’ careers. Cernovich has already succeeded with Gunn, though I’m sure he’ll be fine (it’s Hollywood, even rapists like Roman Polanski can still find work.) With this one victory, more people’s jobs could be in jeopardy. Because Mike Cernovich has a lot of influence. He could easily do this again and again, and that worries me.

On a final note, I don’t think James Gunn being fired from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is the end of the world. This isn’t like what happened with Phil Lord and Chris Miller for the most-recent Star Wars spin-off, as the movie’s barely even begun pre-production. Does it suck that he was dropped? Do I think it’s fair? Yes and no. But directors are fired and replaced far more often than you’d think, and there’s always someone who could fill the role. Like Nicole Perlman, who co-wrote Guardians of the Galaxy with Gunn. Considering her success in Marvel’s comics universe, perhaps she can take over directing?

So that’s all I have to say here. Does it suck that James Gunn was fired? Yes, it is. Did he deserve it? No, he didn’t. Does that make his past behaviour less-egregious? No, it doesn’t. But we’ll survive, despite the petition to rehire him currently surpassing 85000+ signatures.

Now then, about Season 7 of Star Wars: The Clone Wars…

Pixar Imperfect

As a kid, I was ignorant about sexual assault and rape. I knew it existed, having been violated young by a neighbourhood boy, but I thought it was rare. Even as an adult, hearing how 1-in-4 women will experience harassment, I still believed that claims of assault and rape were over-dramatized until fairly-recently. These acts were awful, but they were infrequent in my mind. Surely the problem wasn’t as rampant as it was made out, right?

How wrong I was.

I should preface this by saying that I like Pixar. A lot. They’re not only responsible for innovating CGI in film, but they’ve made many movies that helped shape my childhood and early-adolescence. Even in recent years, they’ve still wowed me with their bouts of mediocrity in ways that others have failed.

Which is why I’m still shocked that John Lasseter, as well as Pixar themselves, hasn’t lived up to expectations. On some level, I shouldn’t be surprised: Lasseter’s a nerd, and nerds are, at best, somewhat sheltered from reality. Considering that so many predators in the line of fire right now are nerds themselves, Lasseter’s creepy, lusty behaviour toward women shouldn’t be unexpected. But I can’t help it. Lasseter’s always prided himself on incredibly high-standards as a creator and film-aficionado, even introducing many to Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. So to find out what I know about him, well…it hurts.

I mention this because of a relatively-recent article from a former Pixar employee discussing the sexism that plagued the company while she worked there. There was a lot that was uncomfortable, but one part in particular stood out:

“Lasseter set the bar shamefully low for the overall treatment of women in his empire, which also signals troubling themes in the films he’s directed, produced, and overseen throughout the years. These projects, which reach millions of children and adults worldwide, have consistently failed to give women equal voice on screen and behind the scenes.”

This is heartbreaking in light of: 1. How much influence Lasseter’s had at Disney, both in their Disney and Pixar divisions. 2. How badly women are treated in animation in general. The latter is seen pretty much everywhere: women are frequently groomed and gaslighted (as evidenced through John Kricfalusi), denied high-ranking positions (as evidence through some remarks made by staffers at Studio Ghibli), or forced to safeguard against unwanted sexual advances from creepy men (as evidenced through Pixar). And this has persisted for decades.

It’s especially bad because, as the article states, it doesn’t have to be this way. There are plenty of talented women who deserve to have their stories shared, instead of being sidelined with the pathetic excuse of “finding the right story”. Like I alluded to in my last piece, you never know if someone’s worthy until you give them a chance. Art isn’t be-and-end-all or all-or-nothing: it’s possible, as “Bao” has demonstrated, to give newcomers a voice and have a quality end-product. This isn’t rocket science.

It’s also bad because hearing stories of predatory behaviour makes me feel incredibly self-conscious. I, like every other man, have desires and urges. Some of them, unsurprisingly, are sexual. But there needs to be an understanding that my urges shouldn’t interfere with others. There needs to be a societal appreciation that, at the end of the day, consent is key in contact with others. Yet there isn’t.

And it’s incredibly-stressful. It’s stressful because it frequently makes men look like creeps, further adding to the “not all men” backlash. It’s stressful because it highlights my own insecurities as someone with anxiety stemming from a learning disability. It’s stressful because it triggers my own memories of being sexually assaulted. But, most of all, it’s stressful because we can, and should, do better.

It also plays into the aftermath of Me Too, and how this is deeper than I, and many others, would like to admit. True, there’ll always be false positives with word-of-mouth allegations. It’s word-of-mouth, after all. But that doesn’t mean that the accusers are lying about their experiences either. Because victims of abuse are too diverse to conspire on such a large level.

The women at Pixar, and animation in general, deserve better. Until they get that, this’ll never be resolved, if at all. I’m not sure if there’s a long-term, foolproof solution, but there are definitely a few suggestions that can be made. The most-obvious one is to hire more women in positions of power, something Disney seems to have already done with Jennifer Lee. I only hope Pixar does the same.

As for John Lasseter? I don’t know. I feel conflicted, knowing that he’s both had a hand in many great films and was largely instrumental in bringing Studio Ghibli’s repertoire to the West. I’m glad he’s gone on a “sabbatical”, even though it’s possible he’ll return, but the damage is already there. It’ll take more than a replacement to fix that.

I’ll end this with a quote from the aforementioned article, one I feel drives home the issue:

“Female narratives are worthy of world-class storytellers, and women deserve to be treated as respected equals in any creative community.”

It’s definitely something worth contemplating.

Transface: Hollywood and MISrepresentation

*Breathes*

Let’s talk “transface”.

About two years ago, Scarlett Johansson, a well-known Jewish actress, was cast as Major Motoko Kusanagi in the live-action remake of Ghost in the Shell. Despite the movie ending up being mediocre, the backlash surrounding her decision to play an Asian character was so poorly-received that it marred her credibility. I even wrote three separate pieces on Infinite Rainy Day preceding its release, as well as an emergency blog on The Whitly-Verse and a follow-up post-release. It may seem like overkill, but the disturbingly-racist undertones of the whole ordeal, as well as how it was handled, really warranted introspection.

I wish that was the end of it, but director Rupert Sanders and Johansson herself haven’t learned from this debacle. It was recently announced that the two would team up again, this time in a biopic where Johansson would play a transgender man. As if that wasn’t bad enough, her defence of the decision involved bringing up Jeffrey Tambor, who’d played a transgender woman in the show Transparent. And yes, this is the same Jeffrey Tambor who wound up in trouble when it was revealed that he’d sexually-harassed his transgender assistant. Cue the disappointment.

I know some of you don’t understand why this is a problem; after all, a few probably think that calling someone a “trap” isn’t a big deal. Besides, it’s acting! None of this is real! If Johansson’s job is to be a mimic, then why can’t she play a trans man? It’s not like she’s taking on another race, right? Right?!

If only it were that simple.

It’s an open secret that Hollywood, the outward bastion of “progress”, isn’t the best at marginalized representation. Whether it’s romanticizing minorities, constantly reusing the “white saviour” trope, or simply miscasting roles, there’s a long-standing tradition of “getting it wrong”, often deliberately, in an attempt to appeal to “the majority culture” that watches films. It’s baked into the industry’s DNA, and I don’t see it going away despite it not being as prevalent as it used to be. The issue of binary, or “cis”, people playing trans parts, or transface, is another log in the fire of Hollywood’s discriminatory practices.

Some facts: according to a 2016 study, roughly anywhere from .5-3% of the population identify as transgender in the US. The number has grown since then, but in a population of over 300 million, that’s a lot of people. Trans individuals are also routinely the victims of hate crimes and violence, including murder, rape, sexual assault, persecution and laws like the infamous bathroom bills. That alone is cause for concern.

This doesn’t even account for how trans people are portrayed in media. Ignoring the aforementioned bathroom bills, trans individuals are often either the punchline of a joke, like in The Crying Game and 2oolander, or played by cis people. It’s the latter that’s responsible for Johansson’s backlash: if someone would get crap for playing a character whose race doesn’t match theirs, then why shouldn’t they get crap for playing a character whose gender identity doesn’t match theirs?

Think about it this way: let’s say that someone is trans. Now, let’s say that that individual wants to act. And let’s say that a part opens up that fits them perfectly. Would it be right for them to then be rejected in favour of a cis individual because that individual’s more famous? How do you know that that trans individual isn’t charismatic or well-trained? Acting isn’t be-all-end-all, sometimes it’s good to branch out. Especially since Hollywood has no problems finding minorities for antagonists and side-characters, right?

This is the bind trans actors and actresses are in every day. According to Ranker, there are many trans people working in entertainment. It’s not like film and TV don’t attract colourful characters of all kinds anyway, so…why not give trans people more opportunities? To-date, the only trans woman I know of (who wasn’t even trans anyway) to have a big role in a movie was Jaye Davidson, who played Dil in The Crying Game. But even then, she was a needy love-interest whose transness was a punchline. That I can’t think of trans men off-hand is also pretty telling.

It doesn’t help that cis people playing trans parts lead to the stereotype of transness as “a choice” that can be turned off, inciting further violence against trans people in real-life. (Yes, it does actually happen.) Because let’s not pretend that films can’t have real-world reverberations. Especially when Ordinary People, the 1980 Best Picture winner at The Oscars, helped destigmatize depression. Or when Black Panther became such a hit at the box-office that it prompted producer Kevin Feige to take note. And those are only two examples!

This also wouldn’t be as big an issue if: a. Trans talent had more roles in Hollywood. b. If transness wasn’t the discourse in Hollywood right now, yet trans roles weren’t frequently snatched away by cis individuals. c. Transface weren’t as frightening as any other kind of whitewashing for the aforementioned reasons.

I recognize that I’m not the authority on this matter, being a cis man myself. But I do recognize that, as a cis man, I have more privilege than many trans people because “I’m not biased to the cause” (whatever that means.) Since I have that privilege, I figure I might as well use it to help those less-fortunate. Arguing for proper representation isn’t me being “an SJW shill” either: it leads to better writing, a wider net for audiences that don’t normally see movies and more money for execs. And don’t studio execs love money?

Yes, acting is tough. And subjective. And you’ll never 100% get everything right. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Especially if Hollywood’s made progress in so many other fields.

As for Scarlett Johansson? I don’t know anymore. I still think she’s a capable actress, but she’s definitely worthy of the backlash she’s been getting (except for an Oxfam SodaStream critique someone on Twitter lobbed, because that’s more nuanced than you’d be led to believe.) If Johansson thinks she’s doing nothing wrong by playing a trans man, then she’d better be prepared to take criticism. Especially if she looks up to Jeffrey Tambor in the Me Too era.