Who IS Mr. Rogers?

I didn’t grow up with Mister Roger’s Neighborhood. For one, I’m Canadian. Two, he passed away when I was young. And three, with the exception of a Family Guy gag, I had no idea who he was until later on. Still, having caught some clips of the show in recent years, especially since the release of Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, I really do appreciate, in hindsight, how special Fred Rogers was. He was non-judgemental, and while he definitely had limits, it’s easy to romanticize him because of that. If you want proof, the myth of him having served in the military still circulates from-time-to-time.

I mention this because I was excited when Tom Hanks was announced to be playing the legend in a biopic. Not only do I consider Hanks to be one the greatest living actors in Hollywood, but he really does seem like the best person to play him. So now that A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood has debuted, the question looms: is this the portrayal that Mr. Rogers deserves? Well…yes.

A while back I wrote a critical piece on Joker and how it romanticized mental illness. I shared some dark and unsettling facts about me that I won’t reiterate, but that trauma made me the right candidate to appreciate this story. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood’s technically a biopic about the children’s television performer, but it’s not really about him. Instead, he’s a catalyst for the real protagonist, a miserable journalist with a scarred past, to reconcile his own pain. In truth, Fred Rogers is a supporting character in his own story.

And yet, it works. It works because it never romanticizes Mr. Rogers, even reinforcing how he had to work on his kindness and compassion, but it also highlights the effect he had on people. I strongly think this movie wouldn’t have been as effective otherwise. That, and the protagonist, Lloyd Vogel, has a far more relatable character arc. Seriously, he’s great.

That’s the beauty of the late-Mr. Rogers: that he could heal people by showing them empathy. Lloyd starts off in an uncomfortable place, coloured by the broken relationship with his father. The movie even begins with Mr. Rogers asking a question: can you forgive someone when they’ve hurt you on the inside? Even though Lloyd’s father’s never resolved of his past, the movie suggests that the answer is “perhaps”.

It’s probably why I was so deeply moved. For one, family complications are universal. You know that saying, “You can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family”? Ignoring semantics, it’s true: so many of us are born to less-than-perfect situations with people who may love us, but aren’t good at showing it. For some, they can’t seem to show it all. And even in healthy families, there’s always some kind of underlying tension.

And two, we’ve all been Lloyd. We’ve all had squabbles, big or small, with those close to us. Some of us have been able to smooth it out. Others, well…they weren’t so fortunate. Given how many families won’t even talk to one-another, it’s easy to see why Lloyd doesn’t trust his dad. It’s that relatability that really makes his struggle to be open and honest about his pain, even around Fred Rogers, so personal.

Yet that’s okay. It’s okay to have these feelings. It’s okay to be frustrated. Because that’s human. And anything human is manageable. Even mortality, which is something that’s brought frequently, is no exception.

Of course, the movie also uses clever techniques to help familiarize the audience with Mr. Roger’s world. Whenever he’s performing his show, the aspect ratio changes. And all of the scenery shots, moments that’d normally be reserved for second-unit cameras and stock footage, are painstakingly rendered to look like the background sets of Mister Roger’s Neighborhood. The film even shows how they were made in the credits.

But the message about self-acceptance and love really makes this movie wonderful. People are flawed, and they can sometimes hurt one another in unsettling ways. Fortunately, that can be mended if all parties are willing to put their pride aside and try. Even Mr. Rogers acknowledges his own struggles with his family, suggesting that he too wasn’t perfect. That’s not something I expected from this movie.

I feel like I’m repeating myself a lot, but it goes without saying that A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is great. It’s not without flaws, parts of it feel like a Hallmark movie, but that’s not enough to drag it down. It’s touching, it’s heartbreaking, it’s sweet and it’s uplifting. And it gives you new perspective on one of the world’s greatest men to ever live. This is the movie that, despite being a biopic, actually gets you thinking amidst the tears. That pretty much speaks for itself.

*****

Apologies for interjecting with another update, but my retrospective series is Scheduled in Blogger. Expect a new entry every 4 days, with the finale in-time for New Year’s Eve. I figured that’d not only give me the time to post other pieces in-between, but also help you absorb each entry. Look forward to it, and I’ll see you next time!

Lukewarm on Frozen II?

2013 was terrible for movies. There was the odd gem here and there, but until Oscar Season, a little over ¾ of the way in, you’d be hard-pressed to find many tentpole releases that were anything special. Nowhere was this more-apparent than in the animated film department, as most of them were, to put it bluntly, mediocre-to-awful. I actually saved money that year, which was disappointing because movies are a favourite past-time of mine. They’ve been one for a while now.

Perhaps that explains much of the popularity of Frozen, which debuted in November of 2013 and shattered many box office records. It was so big that “Let It Go” became a hot song for several years, to the annoyance of many. It was so big that it also upset fans of The Wind Rises by winning the Oscar for Best Animated Feature in March of 2014. There was no stopping it, and it remains the highest-grossing animated movie to-date (barring The Lion King remake). It was a juggernaut, and its impact can be felt in how the sequel, which released last week, was marketed as a darker follow-up.

I was always curious how Frozen II would actually fare as its own movie. It had a daunting task, following up one of the biggest events of the past decade, and the odds were against it from the get-go. Would it live up to what its predecessor had to offer? Or would it fall flat on its face instead? Ultimately, the answer appears to be a bit of both.

Frozen II takes place three years after Frozen. In this time, Queen Elsa has been doing a good job ruling Arendelle. Yet lately she’s been plagued by a voice that won’t leave her alone. What’s worse, this voice is gaslighting her, making her wonder if she’s imagining it. When it finally becomes so powerful that it puts Arendelle in danger, she, together with Anna, Kristoff, Sven and Olaf, decides to figure out what’s going on.

There’s a lot of great content here that expands on the lore of the first film. The animation looks amazing, with an attention to detail in the environments that could only be possible with CGI. The voice acting’s excellent, feeling like a homecoming for everyone. The songs are also really good, and I’m positive that “Into the Unknown” will overtake “Let It Go” as the most-sung Disney tune at karaoke bars. And I like the characters, especially with how they expand the lore.

The problems come with the movie’s plotting and themes. Both are solid on their own, but in execution they feel incomplete. There’s an excellent story about the sins of the past in relation to colonialism, but I don’t feel like the filmmakers had enough confidence to go all the way. It leaves me wanting.

Perhaps the best example is the film’s ending. It isn’t even a bad way to end the movie, either: it ties together everything that’s been built up prior, and it resolves most of the thematic plot threads. But, without ruining too much, it’s too clean. It even falls into the same, anticlimactic trap its predecessor suffered from, though to a lesser-extent, of a character presumed dead coming back. I like how it moves its protagonists forward in positive ways, akin to Ralph Breaks the Internet, but I still feel it left little to the imagination. I know it’s a Disney movie, but being more open-ended with some of its plot threads could’ve made for a better experience.

Some of its side-threads are also there to create unneeded tension. The most-obvious is Kristoff’s solo number. Not only is it out-of-place, feeling more like a Queen ballad, but it’s unnecessary. These are several minutes that could’ve been better spent elsewhere. Though I guess it’s worth it if it means watching Kristoff bounce off of Sven?

I honestly feel bad for even pointing these issues out, since the parts that work do so beautifully. But I can’t lie: Frozen II’s a mixed bag. It’s good enough, and I definitely think it’s worth watching, but considering that even my grandparents, who are averse to animated films, watched Frozen in theatres, I’m worried that the sequel might be a victim of its own legacy; after all, how could you top one of the biggest surprises of the 2010’s?

*****

So I think an update is in order now. Firstly, my decision to cut back on content last month helped with my burnout. Even though my blog suffered in Views, something I’m still struggling with, it gave me time to think of new ideas for The Whitly-Verse. Now that I’m back on-track, I can gear up for my next project…

…Which leads me to an announcement: this December will be themed! What about? You can check the Pinned Tweet on my Twitter profile for the answer. But it was an ambitious undertaking nonetheless. I only hope I can figure out how to pace it so it doesn’t overwhelm everyone. I know my series on the Smash Bros. games did...

Anyway, take care, and I’ll see you all next time!

Quit Jerkin' Me Around!

How’s Disney+ been treating you? I haven’t subscribed yet, I can’t afford another streaming service right now, but it seems to be a big hit…outside of lacking certain titles. And cropping shows. And how it crashed on launch day. Come to think of it, is it worth getting Disney+ right now?

Either way, for as happy as I am that people are talking about The Mandalorian (no spoilers!), I’m a little miffed at the anti-Disney snark floating around the internet again. To be fair, anti-Disney snark’s nothing new. And I’m not innocent, either. But in light of the critiques, I have to wonder if a lot of this is reactionary or toxic. (It’s probably both.)

Now, I grew up on Disney content. I was born in 1990, during The Disney Renaissance, so it was easy viewing material. I remember wearing out my VHS tape of The Little Mermaid from overwatch, and many of my VHS covers have bite-marks from young me chewing on them. I still have a Perdita plushie from when I was 4, and she’s seen lots of love. I even remember seeing Toy Story in theatres at a birthday party, and it made an impact. In short, Disney was a big part of my childhood!

I mention this not to sound biased, though I probably am, but to understand where I’m coming from. Disney was a part of my formative years, and even now I enjoy much of their output. But I’m not a blind fan. I don’t worship the ground they walk on, and I’ve been critical of their business decisions. I’ve even avoided movies they’ve made that didn’t interest me, including many of their recent live-action remakes. So when I mention “Disney snark”, it’s not like I don’t understand it.

That said, it still bums me out that so many people are vehemently anti-Disney. And not in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation” kind of way, though that’s true. I’m talking in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation, therefore you shouldn’t support them” kind of way. Also, I’m talking in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation, so we’re gonna make you feel miserable for supporting them” kind of way. Both of those attitudes aren’t only unhelpful, they’re actively harmful.

And I hear them constantly. Whenever Disney exceeds, it leads to a reminder that they’re evil. Whenever they swallow another entity, there are guilt trips lobbed at fans for being “part of the problem”. And whenever they fail, the “Karma Police” are on full-force. It’s never-ending.

Why are so many of the anti-Disney individuals self-righteous anyway? So Disney’s shady? I’ve got news for you: all corporations are. So Disney’s made decisions that’ve been “wrong”? Again, so have all companies. It doesn’t mean blindly defending the firing of James Gunn over old Tweets he’s long since apologized for, but it doesn’t mean that I’m Satan for still watching MCU films. There are more-effective ways of expressing your frustrations than making people miserable.

Also, what happened to “There’s no ethical consumption under Capitalism”? If everything we consume is mired in some form of dishonesty, then shouldn’t that apply to “purer forms of art” too? This doesn’t mean not advocating for change, but sitting back and condemning people who watch Disney media as a form of escapism doesn’t help your cause. If anything, you’re a jerk.

Look, life sucks. Work’s hard, politicians are corrupt, we’re depleting natural resources at an alarming rate, and attempts at advocating for change are met with disdain by those with power. Between fighting for equal rights and wanting a better tomorrow, we occasionally need to relax and recharge. Entertainment does that. And for many people, that’s in the form of Disney content. Why, then, are people making Disney fans feel guilty over that? Isn’t it hypocritical? Isn’t it self-righteous?

It’d be so much easier to improve the world if we stopped being jerks over stuff we have no control over. And yeah, Disney isn’t saintly. Between their monopolistic practices, their worker abuse, their constant attempts at whitewashing their shady past, their attempts at performative wokeness presently, or even how they had ties to The Trump Campaign, Disney has, and will continue to have, lots to answer for in their backlog. I won’t claim otherwise. But if we’re not on the same page about how people are still entitled to enjoy Disney content from-time-to-time, especially if it’s well-made, then why even bother fighting for change? What good will that do?

For as much as we strive to make the world better, we should never deprive people of their happiness. Whether it’s letting an activist buy a Starbucks drink, or letting people who can’t drive Uber to a union strike, or-yes-even letting people unhappy with the state of the film industry enjoy a Disney film, there’s enough anger that a little joy is needed too. So let someone have that, okay? Life’s way too precious for people to be dicks, even over Disney content.

Junk Drawer: Nazis, Streamers and Predators

Contemplation in 3…2...1…GO!

I finally saw Jojo Rabbit in theatres. This was after waiting weeks for its official release window. It seemed like a movie that’d get people talking, especially after it was almost shelved. Plus, it was a satirical drama about Nazi Germany, one showing said Nazis as reckless, incompetent oafs! What’s not to love?

Naturally, it was really enjoyable. I wouldn’t call it amazing, I don’t think it’s as good as the director’s previous movie, but it definitely did the trick. It even harkened back to The Producers on some levels, originating from the mind of a Jew and mocking the pretentiousness of Hitlerism without feeling vapid. That’s not to everyone’s liking, but I dug it!

I think the film’s biggest draw, aside from its premise, is that it melds sympathy with mockery expertly. Holocaust movies are so often super-serious, as they’re award-grabbers, but Jojo Rabbit takes the opposite approach. And yet it’s equally compelling: you loathe what comes out of Jojo’s mouth, as well as some of his decisions, but the movie never stops reminding you that he’s a kid. He’s as much a product of brainwashing as he is struggling to find his way. So even while you laugh at how ignorant he sounds, you still understand why he sounds that way.

This is also what one of Jojo Rabbit’s contemporaries, Inglourious Basterds, failed at. I’ve made no secret that I’m not terribly fond of that movie, and part of that’s because it makes me uncomfortable. The movie wants me to cheer at the carnage of Nazis because “evil”, but I don’t find that they behave like Nazis at all. I, honestly, think that the Jewish heroes are more Nazi-like in that film.

Jojo Rabbit never has that issue. It’s a farce that’s often funny, sometimes moving and occasionally unsettling. It knows what it is, in order words. And it has a Jew playing Jojo’s imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler. You have to admire how gutsy that is.

Did you hear the one about Disney+? Yeah, it’s coming out in under a week! And it’s only $7 US a month! Isn’t that crazy? I think so!

There’s been a lot of talk about Disney+ ever since it was officially unveiled at The D23 Expo. Finally, a streaming service curated for Disney content! And for such a steal! This’d sound like something novel…were it not for Netflix already existing. And Amazon Prime. And soon to be HBO Max, not to mention the dozens of other services.

Honestly, I’m concerned. Ignoring how the three services that appeal to me most-Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max-cost approximately $35 a month US when combined, the range of options makes keeping up with everything so…well, tedious. It’s good to have competition, yes, but this much? Do these platforms all expect to do well, or only a few? Because I’m not so sure.

It doesn’t help that, aside from killing cable, it makes physical media even more obsolete than it is. Not that I’m complaining, physical media can definitely be a hassle, but there’s something pristine about owning a proprietary format. Not to mention, there’s the issue of ownership. It makes me long for the days of rental chains, as at least you got to ask people for recommendations. And at least you knew you were holding a physical copy of something, limitations and all.

I long for the days of that simplicity. I get that this is where home entertainment is headed, and I can see a few advantages, but it’s not the same as having access to everything with the press of a remote. I was never a fan of how cable packages added useless channels as part of their bundles, but at least you weren’t paying up-the-wazoo for it. Given that the median wage in The US is still $7.25 an hour, charging for all of these streamers separately could also be a deterrent. But I guess that’s capitalism, right?

Speaking of Disney+, I have to mention Jeff Goldblum. Yes, that loveable, huggable Jeff Goldblum. The Jeff Goldblum who, like Christopher Walken and William Shatner, has vocal affectations that are so wacky you can’t help but laugh and enjoy them simultaneously. Yeah, Jeff Goldblum is so-wait, what?! HE DID WHAT?!

Yeah, Jeff Goldblum’s been the talk of the town lately. And not for good reasons, either. In an interview with i newspaper, the Hollywood star much stated that Woody Allen, a man who married his then-underaged daughter, deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the sexual allegations lobbed his way. If that’s not bad enough, he’s also had recent allegations of his own.

Me Too is a tough and often-misunderstood issue, even though it shouldn’t be, so this needs stressing: it’s not about shamelessly lighting fires under famous people’s butts. Victims, women specifically, have nothing to gain, especially in a world where they’re often not believed by the public at large. While some allegations have turned out to be false, most are rooted in genuine frustrations. They’re also rooted in anger at the public for not doing anything.

I know because I’m also a victim of sexual assault. I won’t reiterate my story, but it’s annoying that so many people have written off my trauma. It as if they don’t care, and that hurts. It really does. So I understand why so many people still feel helpless.

Either way, Jeff Goldblum has a lot to answer for. I know he’s slated for a Disney+ documentary series, but, like with John Lasseter and his intros to certain Studio Ghibli films, I can’t watch it now without feeling dirty. I don’t like that, as I’ve always thought of Goldblum as the perfect narrator. But I guess life hates me, so…

I also feel really awful for his victims, assuming these allegations are true, as to be expected. People routinely mention how draining and toxic Hollywood culture is, and this is why. If predators can attack the vulnerable and get away with it, then why bother dealing with entertainment? Why bother doing anything, honestly? What’s the point when people cheat to get ahead?

So yes, goodbye Jeff Goldblum. Goodbye to his filmography, goodbye to his jokes, and especially goodbye to his funny vocal affectations. Goodbye in general, and good riddance! Maybe now we can find female equivalents that are less creepy? I’d like that.

That about wraps up another Junk Drawer episode. Thanks for reading, as always, and I’ll see you next time!

My Toxic, Chemical Romance

For my last piece, I deconstructed a really toxic debate over the artistic merits of Marvel movies. In it, I mentioned why I thought the back-and-forth was reductive. I still think that, though it hasn’t exactly “died down” since. Yet there was another claim that was mentioned that didn’t get as much coverage, and that’s courtesy of director Pedro Almodóvar. In an interview with Vulture, he outright stated that Marvel movies “lack sexuality”.

There’s a lot to unpack, but it’s worth noting that Almodóvar didn’t say these movies were “bad” or “boring”. He did, however, say that they were “neutered” because they lacked romance and sex scenes. The characters kiss, on occasion, and are in relationships, but we never see them bed one-another (with the exception of Iron Man). They never actually become intimate. And, according to Almodóvar, that’s a flaw.

A “lack of sex” in newer movies isn’t a new complaint. One of my local newspapers wrote an entire editorial (which I can’t find anymore) on this a while back. Additionally, it was lobbed at director Makoto Shinkai’s work by one of the biggest pioneers in the anime industry. Sex, at least in entertainment, is “dying out”. But is that necessarily bad?

Sexuality in film has been a rollercoaster of highs and lows. Initially, in the medium’s heyday, edgy and innovative filmmakers constantly tested the waters to see what they could get away with. This eventually caught the attention of purists, which led to The Hays Code. The Hays Code is complicated and worthy of its own discussion, but one of its restrictions was that it made open displays of sexuality, with the exception of Biblical epics, forbidden. This was eventually abandoned following the collapse of Old Hollywood in the 1960’s, and the chastity belt was removed.

But there was a problem. Like any unhealthy restriction being dropped, the outcomes were unpredictable. Filmmakers, no longer bound by The Hays Code, started experimenting in extreme ways, which was supported by the institution of a film ratings system. Additionally, because an entire generation of filmmakers had grown up not seeing sexuality on film, they turned to foreign cinema for inspiration. As a result, sex started popping up left, right and centre.

I mention this because sex was less of a form of creative expression, and more a weapon of-what else-masculine dominance (because of course!). Films routinely showed men aggressively living out their desires with women because they could. And it was encouraged, with these men being portrayed as heroes/sympathetic despite their behaviour. This went on for decades, and the shockwaves can be felt even now.

So why did it stop? Well, a few factors. Firstly, new voices, many of them women, started popping up. It’s true that female voices in film aren’t exactly “new”, they’ve been there since its inception, but they were largely muted presences. Yet with the turn of the century came a desire for outspoken voices, and they weren’t happy with sex in film. It even boiled over following Me Too gaining footing in late-2017, highlighting the issues festering behind-the-scenes too.

Secondly, the target demographic of film changed. Initially, it got younger, thanks to teenagers and young adults now having disposable incomes. Then it transitioned to families, because these young audiences were now raising kids. It only makes sense that film, which is as much a business as an art-form, would evolve. Like the saying goes: “adapt, or die”.

Thirdly, and this is the probably biggest point, the internet age has led to online pornography democratizing the landscape. Sites like PornHub took the porn industry, which was once underground, mainstream, letting anyone with a computer live out their fantasies for cheap. Movies didn’t need to be “sexy” anymore, the internet was doing the legwork for them. And sex slowly started fizzling out as a result.

Which leads back to Almodóvar’s point: does Marvel lack sex? With the exception of the shows on Netflix, probably. But does it require sex? Probably not. And is that necessarily bad? Not really, because it’s not all that matters.

To be frank, I’m also relieved that traditional sex scenes are gone. A lot of them were really toxic and unhealthy anyway, and they kept sending out bad messages. For men, the implication was that “sex was a right of manhood”, while women were meant to fulfill that even when they didn’t want to. And while it’s true that movies aren’t inherently responsible for bad behaviour, they do set a precedent that can have real-world impacts. It’s happened before.

Does this mean sex in film is “dead forever”? No. It’s thriving in indie films, with some directors, allegedly, consulting experts to make their sex scenes more authentic. But I also think that sex scenes will make a comeback on their own. If The Hays Code swung the pendulum to one extreme, and its dismantling swung it to another extreme, then this is the pendulum beginning to normalize. We’ll definitely see sex scenes return, and this time they’ll reflect how sex should really be done. Not to mention, they’ll present alternative forms of sex that were long-considered taboo, like BDSM.

Also, why does Marvel need to be sexy? Ignoring beefcake/cheesecake fan-service, of which there’s no shortage, claiming that kid’s movies need to be “sexy” to be good is dishonest. You can be mature in other ways, as evidenced by Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks dominating the animated film scene. Sex is merely one facet of that, and, as I’ve stated above, it hasn’t been done properly for a long time. This is something that Almodóvar needs to understand, assuming he doesn’t.

But I guess, if all else fails, we’ll always have DeviantArt and Tumblr fan-fictions for that, right?

The Marvel-ous Debate

One of the reasons I hit burnout this month was that my lifestyle left plenty of room to get mad over nothing. This, unfortunately, hasn’t changed. Be it the world continuing to frustrate and disappoint me, or having way too much free time, I’ve resolved to not write something for the duration of the month unless it really bugs me. This is that.

I’m sure you know of the exchange between Martin Scorcese and James Gunn by now. I briefly touched on it, but it hasn’t exactly mellowed. We’ve since had Francis Ford Coppola double-down in his defence of Scorcese, Gunn get defensive again and Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, make everything worse. It’s exhausting, and it refuses to go away.

Now, I’m an MCU fan, having criticized its detractors frequently. But what makes this unique is that Scorcese and Coppola aren’t young snobs who want to put down what they deem “lesser”. These are two of the most-important directors of the last 50 years, introducing new directing techniques and refining old ones. They aren’t slouches, essentially. So when they open their mouths, you’d better believe the world listens.

That said, they shouldn’t get a free pass simply because they’re well-respected. On one hand, I get it. When you get older, your filters become faulty, so you say stuff you wouldn’t have said earlier. I have two living grandparents, so I see that a lot. But while seniority might explain their remarks, it doesn’t excuse bigotry or ignorance. Nor does it exempt them from pushback.

This especially applies to film veterans like Scorcese and Coppola. They may not deserve to be shamelessly bashed by Marvel fanboys, that much is true. But I don’t think a blind eye should be turned, either. Because, like Steven Spielberg and Netflix, their remarks on The MCU are incredibly ignorant and ill-conceived. And that’s getting lost in the crossfire.

I’m not saying that either director has to love every kind of film. I’m not big on sports movies myself. But that doesn’t mean that I automatically get to write them off, because that’s ignorance. Rather, it means that sports movies have to try much harder to impress me.

And, to be fair, some have. I’m not big on racing, but Rush was an excellent character study. I think baseball’s boring, but I loved how 42 dissected the sport’s racist past. Even Battle of the Sexes, which is about tennis, managed to serve a mean game about sexism. Sports movies usually don’t interest me, but I keep an open mind anyway.

That’s what Gunn was arguing in his rebuttals to Scorcese and Coppola, by the way: that they shouldn’t be so quick to write these movies off because they’re not Goodfellas or Apocalypse Now. They’re definitely “not on the same level”, but they don’t lack artistic merits. If art’s sole purpose is to invoke feelings and spark conversations, even if it’s not always good, then shouldn’t The MCU, which does both for many people, qualify? This argument can even be thrown back at Scorcese and Coppola: I think Scorcese’s best work is experimental, while I’ve yet to see anything Coppola’s done. That doesn’t make either of them “bad”, though, because they’re inspiring their intended audiences.

You know what doesn’t help? Iger’s response to this whole mess. In recent a statement, the Disney CEO had this to say:

“I’m puzzled by it. If they want to bitch about movies it’s certainly their right. It seems so disrespectful to all the people who work on those films who are working just as hard as the people who are working on their films and are putting their creative souls on the line just like they are…[a]re you telling me that Ryan Coogler making Black Panther is doing something that somehow or another is less than anything Marty Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola have ever done on any one of their movies? Come on.”

Make of that what you will.

It’s become pretty clear by now that the debate will never resolve itself. To quote my cousin, everyone has an opinion, it’s incredibly divisive, and we’re all shouting over one another without hearing what people actually have to say. Personally, it’s also exhausting to listen to. Because the film world has real issues, and arguing over which movies are true art isn’t one of them. If it is, it’s pretty low-ranking.

I’ll spare my “this is why everyone’s wrong” rant. It’s pointless, it adds nothing to the conversation and it’d be me repeating myself. But, like how biopics are often unfairly slammed because they’re “awards movies”, superhero films, particularly Marvel movies, get routinely shafted because they’re fluff pieces. They’re mostly not all that deep, their stories are paper-thin, their plotting is littered with holes, and they’re frequently overlong. But that doesn’t mean they’re “not art”, especially when they manage to please filmgoing audiences.

Yes, your ideal diet of movies shouldn’t end at superheroes. (Nor should it end at dramas.) I’m a film omnivore, I’ll consume whatever interests me, yet even I know that arguing the technical merits of the franchise that Iron Man birthed in 2008 isn’t only unhelpful, it’s reductive. We already have enough issues in the world without debating something that’s this trivial. Not to mention, my poor head can’t take it anymore.

Now then, if you’ll excuse me...

Keeping It on the Download

It was recently announced that Studio Ghibli would be exclusively streaming their entire library of films on HBO Max come Spring 2020 in The US. This quashed long-time rumours that their movies would never be on a digital service. It also got me thinking about how HBO Max is another streaming platform slated to launch alongside Disney+ and others. And I’m starting to get concerned. Because, in the end, is digital really the best option for content?

Let’s get some misnomers out of the way: I have nothing against digital conceptually. I remember the days of physical media. I remember how bulky and inconvenient, not to mention frustrating, it was to insert a VHS tape or floppy disk into a VCR or computer, set it to the appropriate output and pray that it actually worked. It was fickle, sensitive and often led to headaches. This doesn’t even factor in said media breaking or becoming corrupted.

Digital removes that hassle, and thank God! No more worrying about a piece of plastic breaking, now you can stream online. No more worrying about shelling out money on physical media, now you can stream online. And no more worrying about having to upgrade your media players every few years, now you can-you guessed it-stream online. This is all great!

So why am I concerned? For starters, digital streaming’s heavily dependent on the streamer. It’s not enough to have the option to stream, you also need a good-quality device. This means shelling out money on something state-of-the-art and praying that it never crashes or breaks. Because if it does…well, you’re screwed.

This is especially frustrating when your item’s downloaded to a specific source. This could be a computer, a drive, or an account. If you can navigate the source, you’re fine. But if you can’t, you’re in trouble. And since some downloads are source-sensitive, it’s even more of a hassle.

That’s another problem: a lack of true portability. Say what you will about physical media, but at least you have something tangible. At least it can be carried around wherever you want, and at least you know it’s there. It’s reliable.

I can’t say the same about digital. I own a Switch, and three of my games are download-only. I love them, but do I really own them? Considering they’re size-limited and can easily be archived, I’m not so sure. And what if my Switch is corrupted, or I have to transfer information to another one? Am I guaranteed to have my information remain intact?

Then there’s the issue of whether or not I really own downloads. With physical media, even of cruddy quality, I own it indefinitely. It sounds silly to be proud of my DVD collection, for example, but I really do take pride in it. I know that the DVDs are all mine because I paid for them, and I know that they’re mine because I don’t have to jump through hurdles to prove that. There’s no need for renewal, no need for contracts and no need for shelling out cash for subscription fees. I buy it once, and I own it forever.

I don’t have that same luxury with digital. With digital, I’m often saddled with DRM complications that restrict my downloads. With digital, I have to sign waivers that restrict who I can share with. And with digital, I’m forced to spend monthly fees to keep my membership intact. Sometimes, that also extends to what I want to consume.

To top it all off, there’s the issue of diversifying memberships in order to properly view or enjoy everything. With physical media, it’s one-stop-fits-all. With digital media, I have to dabble a little here and a little there, all-the-while praying I don’t rack up excessive bills. This is especially an issue because some media’s only available on specific streaming services, making keeping on top of all of them exhausting. Even with the aforementioned Studio Ghibli, only 21 of their movies will be available on HBO Max. The exception, Grave of the Fireflies, is currently on Hulu, because licensing issues.

I don’t want to come off as unfairly negative, though. I like the possibilities digital offers, especially on an eco-environmental level. But when it becomes needlessly complicated to use it, for all of the above reasons, then there’s a problem. And it’s one I’m not entirely sure has an easy, one-size-fits-all solution.

If it makes people feel better, I’m not against the option of HBO Max streaming Studio Ghibli’s repertoire entirely, which is where my frustrations began. I merely think that, like with anything entertainment-related, there should be the option to choose. People who like physical media should be allowed to buy physical media, while people who like digital should have the option to do so. Because, in the end, that’s not so unrealistic a compromise, right?

But what do I really know about this?