Dear Hollywood, Let’s Talk About Living Your Politics

C: Hey there, Hollywood. Did you know a lot of people think you’re “too liberal”? One’s another writer for this blog, in fact. But I gotta say: I’m not seeing it when it comes to this Casey Affleck situation.

E’s the prediction guru around here, but I have one rock-solid prediction for the 2017 Academy Awards ceremony: we’re going to hear some statements made against Trump. You know, the guy who sexually harassed women who worked with him, made them feel deeply uncomfortable and belittled, came on to them despite them being married or not interested, touched them without their permission, and used his star power to get away with it all. Just like your front-running Best Actor nominee.

From football to politics, this culture has a history of overlooking men’s treatment of women because we like what they’re doing otherwise. Despite the fact that jobs like, say, being the star of a movie or the president of a country can’t actually be accomplished without working with women — women whose hard work in supporting positions is essential to the overall success of the undertaking — we still manage to class misogyny and harassment as side-issues, not relevant to the man’s accomplishment.

No one is questioning that Affleck gave a great performance. But every year, some great performances don’t take home an Oscar. That award, by the way, is “Best Actor,” not “Best Performance.” Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, what makes a good actor in your eyes? What ideal will you hold up for the American public to admire?

Hollywood, I hope you change your mind about this. Because Constance Wu is perfectly right to say that “Casey Affleck’s win will be a nod to Trump.” And your inevitable statements at this year’s award ceremony about equality, acceptance, respect, and love will ring a little false on that account.

 

constance_wu

TV actress Constance Wu: on point regarding hair + this issue

Questions I Have After Watching Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

C: Since I saw this movie yesterday, my brain’s been aswirl with pressing questions, like a dark smoky cloud with random flashes in it. Short of twitterbombing J.K. Rowling, this post seemed like the best way to alleviate that pressure.

Advanced Warning: all I’ve got here are questions, not answers, so buckle up for some heavy mental turbulence. (No, I’m not bothering with a spoiler warning. If you wanted to avoid spoilers, why did you even click on a post with this title? That one’s on you.)

beasts.jpg

  1. Is this business about “physiological differences” between wizards and Muggles* (a) straight-up midichlorian bullcrap, or (b) faulty 1920s wizard science? I’d like B to be correct as I don’t see how it makes any sense, what with Muggleborns being a thing, and since the idea that wizards are a slightly different species sounds straight out of a Grindelwald or Voldemort propaganda poster. But, if I’ve learned anything from reading and watching a lot of historical fiction, it’s that all the good people in the past had Correct Modern Ideas and only bad guys held Outdated Notions. Newt’s the one who says this, so that’s unfortunately a point for Explanation A.
  2. Is being a Legilimens like being a Metamorphmagus? In other words, is it a special skill you can be born with, that other wizards can use spellwork to approximate? That’s the best explanation I could come up with for why Queenie could just read people’s minds — sometimes could not help reading minds — even though in the books, Legilimency was presented as a thing you do with a wand and an incantation.
  3. Why Newt Scamander so bad at catching (and keeping) fantastic beasts? I mean, I get that this is the driving plot of the movie, but seriously. He is the Beasts Guy. He literally wrote (or will write) the book on them. He should probably have a case with locks that work. He should probably not be climbing a chandelier to chase a niffler instead of using his dang wand.
  4. Speaking of fantastic beasts: at what point does their intelligence make them not so much beasts as people? I’m thinking particularly of bowtruckles here, since Newt has several conversations with the one who spends most of the movie in his pocket. In the original Fantastic Beasts textbook, Rowling mentions a few that talk, IIRC. How is intelligence measured in this world? At what point does a “beast” or “creature” qualify for status as a non-human people group e.g. centaurs, goblins, or mermaids? Or is there even a legal distinction there? This whole gray area is so rife with potential problems and abuses! (Update: This is addressed at length in the introduction to the original Fantastic Beasts publication from 2001. Yay, answers! Short version: it’s complicated.)
  5. Speaking of which, what is the deal with goblins in this movie? For starters, I’m not 100% sure who was a goblin and who wasn’t (the nightclub singer, for instance?). But I’m pretty sure the shady nightclub owner was a goblin, keeping up the pattern that all goblins Rowling’s characters have dealings with turn out to shady backstabbers. So they’re a race of gold-loving shady backstabbers? Problematic, Rowling.
  6. Was that elevator operator a free house elf? Because he was definitely wearing a snazzy little uniform — a.k.a. clothes. I sort of love the idea that maybe there is a free elf community in 1920s New York, but I also wonder if it was just a mistake (or he was another species). We only got a quick glimpse.
  7. Was Ariana Dumbledore an Obscurial? I went back and reread the relevant section of Deathly Hallows and it seems possible, though she only started repressing her powers after being attacked by Muggles. She was 14 when she accidentally killed her mother** which would make her older than the recorded Obscurials mentioned in Fantastic Beasts, but they kept her condition a secret so that doesn’t mean she wasn’t.
  8. Can adult wizards stop using their powers? Is the Obscurus only something that happens if you are a kid and prone to uncontrolled magical outbursts? The only case in point I can think of is Merope, and she died, but more of childbirth and being sad I think, so that doesn’t really prove anything.
  9. How is there only one wizarding school for all of North America? You think Hogwarts has staffing problems — just try hiring professors for a school with 10,000 teen wizards.
  10. Were they making a statement by having the two leads be so awkward? Whether it’s how the parts were written, or how Eddie Redmayne (Newt) and Katherine Waterston (Tina) acted and were directed, both came across as extremely socially awkward, timid, and just odd. Obviously this wasn’t by accident, but I’m wondering about the purpose behind this atypical choice. Was this a way of differentiating them from the original, confident and extroverted HP trio? Or going even further, a kind of “awkward people can be heroes too” message? (Like, “what if Neville and Luna were the stars of HP?” If so, props because that sounds great.)
  11. Why did the rain only affect Jacob when he stepped out in it, while seeming to work on people just looking out the window? If only people who touched the rainwater had their memories wiped, MACUSA would still have a pretty big problem on their hands at the end of the movie. (Also, what about government wizards who were out in the rain? Wizards aren’t immune to Obliviation!)
  12. Related: Why the heck did they let Jacob erase his memories? When you see injustice, you don’t just say “okay, I guess that’s how it’s got to be.” Newt has already established that he thinks the New Yorkers have a backwards attitude toward No-majs. The sisters clearly came around to this viewpoint. We know that in Britain, some Muggles are allowed to know about the wizarding world (family of Muggleborns, romantic partners, etc.). I always hate the fantasy trope of “now you must forget the magic thing, or your humdrum life will be ruined,” but here it literally feels like kowtowing to bigotry!

As I hope is already clear to those who know me, I truly enjoyed this movie. But these questions need answers. And no, I will not just go look it up on Pottermore. It’s time for some old-fashioned close reading and theory-spinning, people!

*I’m going to keep calling them Muggles unless I need to refer to the U.S. wizards’ attitude towards non-magical people, because at this point I just can’t get used to “No-maj.”
**Dumbledore’s mom: one of the thousands of Victorian women named Kendra. Um, sure, Rowling.

Marvel Changes Release of Black and Female Superhero Movies to Low Box-Office Months

Image credit to collider.com

C: Well, it’s official. Marvel Studios’ first film starring a non-white superhero (no, green doesn’t count) will NOT be a summer blockbuster. It can’t be. Even though the movie has yet to be made.

The news came in the form of a “blah blah don’t mind me” appendix to the exciting announcement that the Ant-Man sequel, Ant-Man and the Wasp, will actually feature a gosh-darn woman as a co-star — right up there in the title with the man! This is big news, since Marvel has now made 12 movies which feature women only as supporting or ensemble cast members.

E: You know we Quibbling Siblings love us some Marvel Studios, but seriously, that is beyond overdue.

C: Agreed! Sadly, the press release also included two much-less-cool updates: the move of the Black Panther movie from July to February 2018, and of the Captain Marvel movie from November 2018 to March 2019. The first solo female superhero film and they’re releasing it in March? As they have done with no other Marvel movie?

M: When was it slated for originally?

C: November. Which is also an unusual month for a superhero film, though Thor: The Dark World was released then (a fact I recall since it was my first date with my fiancé!). November also has the Thanksgiving holiday — it’s a family-friendly month at the box office overall. March is more of a pensive-dramas type month.

E: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  March doesn’t compare to November for a prestige opening, although that’s when they opened the Divergent films, so we know that it’s not a total wasteland. Like February.

M: Just as a random example.

E: On the other hand, hey.  Maybe Marvel’s going to make a play to make the rest of the year viable?  They’ve been doing very well with August, after all.

C: Guardians was released August 1st, which is unusual but still leaves a fair bit of summer vacation time. Everything else so far except The Dark World and The Winter Soldier has been in that sweet May-July corridor.

M: Hmmmm… Yes, the Divergent movies opened in March. So did the first Hunger Games. I wonder if Marvel is seeing that and relying on the fact that they know female action hero movies can succeed then? Maybe they think opening the FIRST one then gives them the best chance of success (and least competition) — then, once Captain Marvel has a built-in audience, they can move it to the summer or holiday schedule for its sequels?

C: I would like to hope that’s the rationale, but I also feel like they’re letting down the side simply by being so cautious. You’re Marvel! If you tell people to buy a woman in a cape, dammit, people should buy!

M: As for Black Panther, February worries me. A lot. No one opens things they think are going to be hits in February. Yes, maybe Marvel thinks they can own any month, and wants to make it viable, but is that the more likely scenario? Or is it more likely that they’re burying it already?

C: When a studio moves a film that’s been made to February it means they expect it to tank. When they move a film they haven’t made yet to February… does that mean they’ve already decided they’ve don’t need it to make the big bucks?

E: I don’t know — it’s awful early for them to be giving up on Black Panther, isn’t it?  I mean, I don’t even think they’ve cast it yet. They have to be thinking that they can succeed with movies at other times in the year, or they’d only be making 2 or 3 a year. I’m sure you’re right, M — they must consider March a female-friendly month.  And they’ve been so smart up till now about rolling out their properties. Perhaps they want to make Black Panther the event of February. It doesn’t seem like their style to make a quick knock off; it’d hurt the brand.

C: Yeah, I really can’t imagine them thinking that way.

M: Well, the lead role is cast, the awesome Chadwick Boseman. Rumor is that the villain will be Andy Serkis (the character he played in Age of Ultron).

C: Oh that’s right, they cast Boseman to appear in the next Cap movie, didn’t they? Maybe they think that’s sufficient introduction?

E: If he’s featured prominently, he could generate a lot of positive attention…

M: I agree with everything you’re saying, but putting it in February this far out just seems like an odd choice. I know they want to space things out, not be competing with themselves, and be able to properly hype everything, and where Ant-Man was already a big hit they’re giving its sequel the primo slot. Still, you’d think with that in July they could do April for Black Panther

C: Or early May and late July, as they did with Thor 1 and Cap 1.

E: Indeed.  Well, February is Black History month…

M: That’s a good point that I hadn’t thought of! That might actually be a really successful marketing plan.

C: That is meaningful, but I’m not sure the box-office pull of Black History Month competes with the box-office clout of, you know, summer. Were it any movies other than these two that they were putting in this new February-March territory I’d put it down the reasons of “we’re Marvel, we can do anything” — but to me, this is NOT an auspicious way to premiere the two most “daring” (so sad that’s true in the 2010s…) of the upcoming projects.

M: Yeah, that’s what I’m feeling, too.

E: Yes.  I agree.  I was not actually serious about Black History month being part of the marketing plan; definitely needed the sarcasm font there.

M: You may have been sarcastic, but I think that may actually figure in. Think about it, if you’re Marvel and choosing between February and March, and you can release the first superhero movie with a black lead in black history month, or a week after it, doesn’t it make sense to try for that tie-in?

C: At the very least, I can see Marvel using that to pat themselves on the back if it does succeed wildly. Which hopefully it still will! But it’s hard to understand why they’d want to pitch this into “Special Interest Movie” territory. Superheroes are for everyone. That’s the whole point.

E: As Marvel Studios, of all studios, should know.

How I Met Your Mother: How They Let Us Down

C: What with good shows getting abruptly canceled and once-good shows outliving their watchability, it’s not often I see the preplanned finale of a series I’m invested in. And in fact, I almost gave up on How I Met Your Mother at the end of last year (we can agree, I think, that Season 8 was pretty dismal), but I hung on because I was curious about The Mother. Yes, that ploy got me. And while the premise of Season 9  — the whole season taking place over Barney & Robin’s wedding weekend — should have been terrible, there have actually been some great episodes, especially those featuring the funny and delightful Cristin Milioti. Oh, and let’s not forget Billy Zabka. The gang lacked fizz with Marshall on a too-long road trip, but once Jason Segel was back in the mix, we got some scenes as good as anything in the earlier, classic seasons. I had no fears about the finale.

As it turns out, that confidence was a mistake.

Continue reading

March 2014 Movie Preview

E: The Quibbling Siblings are crazy about March; we’ve been waiting for this month for a year.  Why, might you ask?  I’ll give you a hint for the first exciting arrival: we’re Marshmallows.

C: By the way, this preview’s going to be M-lite (increasingly as you scroll down), since he and Mrs. M have their own exciting new arrival, of a non-cinematic variety, debuting. Like, right now, as we write this!

E: That’s right – a very special ingenue will have made her first appearance just before you read this.  Our new niece is March’s most exciting release for our family.

C: Sorry, Veronica Mars!  But we’ve got lots of love left over for you — promise.

March 7th Continue reading

What “Let It Go” Is — And What It Isn’t

[Note: This post discusses plot details from the movie Frozen.]

C: When Frozen opened in theaters I wanted to go see it, but thanks to a busy Thanksgiving and Christmas season, I missed my chance — or so I thought. Two weeks ago, I searched online to see if it had come to the late-run theater in the city. With amazement, I saw there were still plenty of showings at the local cineplex.

From this, you can probably deduce that my social world is mostly made up of childless young professional types. Before this moment, the Frozen Phenomenon — its immense popularity with children, teens, and parents — was scarcely a blip on my radar, minus a stray post here and there on social media. But I was soon to learn much more.

I dragged a roommate out to see the movie, and I loved it. I loved the whole soundtrack, the story, the visuals (other than the admittedly disturbing proportions of the male and female protagonists), and especially that thing everyone’s been talking about, the cool fact that Disney finally* made a movie about a positive relationship between females.

[*If you haven’t noticed the disparity, let’s briefly list a few Disney and/or Pixar movies centering on orheavily featuring a positive relationship between males: The Sword in the Stone, Bambi, The Fox and the Hound, The Jungle Book, Pinocchio, Winnie the Pooh, Aladdin, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Up.]

But when I got home from the theater, the main thing I remembered was “Let It Go.” I cried when I heard it. Okay… while I may not cry as easily as E, I’ll admit that’s not too unheard of. What is unusual: after a dozen listens (to the original and various covers) on Youtube, I well up every single time. I can think of only two songs I’ve had this reaction to in the past, and they both come from movies. One is “My Heart Will Go On” (look, I was a kid at the time — and I maintain the tin whistle must’ve been invented by the National Tissue Board’s crafty marketing division), and the other is “Into the West.”

All three songs are sentimental, with soaring vocals and haunting key changes. But while the older two are sad, “Let It Go” is rousing and empowering. At least, that’s the effect it has, right? Isn’t that why thousands of people, mostly young girls, have learned all the words and recorded their own renditions? It encapsulates a fantasy so intense many older viewers may not have allowed it up to the surface for years. The moment when Elsa pulls off the gloves she’s worn ever since her magical ice powers almost killed her little sister and belts out the chorus for the first time — let it go, let it go, can’t hold it back anymore — seems to resonate with everyone who’s felt the need to repress a part of themselves that wasn’t accepted, and evokes the transformative bliss of not hiding anymore.

let-it-go

It’s easy to get caught up in lyrics like these, to get swept up in the emotion: “Here I stand and here I’ll stay.” “The fears that once controlled me can’t get to me at all.” “It’s time to see what I can do, to test the limits and break through.”

Have you paid attention to the next line, though? “No right, no wrong, no rules for me.
I’m free!”

Yeah, that’s right — we need to back up a second. What was that bit about the gloves? Why was Elsa wearing them again? Oh yeah. Because her sister nearly got killed. Never having learned to control her powers, Elsa is a danger to the people she loves. Why does she now feel so free? Because she is in exile. Sure, this is a song about a woman taking control over her life. But this is also a song about a woman deciding she can never be with other people ever again. “A kingdom of isolation, and it looks like I’m the Queen.”

I’m not saying we shouldn’t love “Let It Go” — that would be hypocritical. (Hang on while I go Youtube that cool “Africanized” version again.) I am saying, though, that the comments one hears from all sides about how this song speaks to personal experiences from coming out of the closet to cancer survival ought to be food for thought, and for conversation.

Goodness knows I don’t want to take anything away from a person who feels encouraged by this song to be themselves, publicly and honestly. But let’s just, for a moment, ponder the fact that this was written as a villain’s origin story. What does it mean to really let everything go? Do we really think “no right, no wrong, no rules for me” is an ideal expression of fulfillment and self-worth? Do we consider the fact that for Elsa to fully liberate herself in this scene, she has to turn her back on the country that she is in fact ruler of? “I’m never going back, the past is in the past” isn’t metaphorical. She means it.

Essentially, what is lost in singling out “Let It Go” from its context, making it a viral empowerment sensation in its own right, is the entire message of the movie: Elsa should not let everything go. She is being fearful, and she is being selfish.

Elsa has to go back and face the people whose very existence constricts what she can do. She can’t just “let the storm rage on.” She can’t live in that kickass ice palace, not if she’s going to be Queen — she has to settle for a frozen courtyard. But she makes it work, because what actually matters to her is the relationships in her life. They were stunted while she was shut in her miserable palace bedroom — but they were nonexistent when she was in exile. She had to show others the truth about her, but she also had to take their needs into account. And if she hadn’t accepted the limits imposed by considering others’ needs, she would’ve missed out on one whole aspect of her powers, the key to wielding her gift with control and purpose. Empowerment, the writers of Frozen understand, has to be in service of a stronger, better, more truly vibrant community, or it’s about as meaningful as the rulership of an unpopulated mountain.

What “Let It Go” is, is a beautiful song about the very human longing for self-expression without consequences. What “Let It Go” isn’t… is the full arc of a heroine’s origin story.