#and the movie is a critique of the for profit prison system

[obscurecharactershowdown]

Group C Round 1

[image ID: the first image is of Bob Sparker, a man with a long pointed nose, with short, light colored hair, wearing a suit and tie. he's holding a microphone and is standing on stage in front of a crowd. the second image is of Kirinda, a robotic eye attached to a mechanical stalk in a futuristic-looking room. the closed caption on the image says: "thank you for the description." in all capital letters. end ID]

Bob Sparker

Bob is a guy who runs a gameshow called shock till you drop, where he straps people in an electric chair & increases the amount of electricity until the person gives up. He constantly shocks himself with the chair & seems to be able to withstand any amount of electricity. In fact, it seems to energize him, and he even stood on a lightning rod during a storm with the purpose of getting struck. Apparently (don't quote me on this) he was partially the inspiration for both Mettaton of Undertale and Spamton of Deltarune.

Kirinda

Kirinda is a "space-time transmitting machine" in the shape of a giant kirin. His job is to take the main characters to Novel Worlds (worlds that contain every story, myth, or legend ever created by humans) so that they can figure out what's corrupting them, and then he comes in at the end of the episode to clean up by purifying the monster responsible. However, he is no ordinary giant robot. He is sentient and speaks to the titular Rangers (with the world's most hokey and out of date Kansai/Southern accent to boot) through a camera shaped like an eye, and is often the one explaining the story of the world the characters are going to visit, as well as choosing which characters are going by the way of a roulette... which may or may not be complete bullshit. You see, while his role is incredibly important, he is very irresponsible and is constantly just dropping the characters off in a haphazard, dangerous manner without finishing explanations, screwing around with the roulette just to see what will happen, teasing the other characters (or subjecting them to horrible puns) and generally being incredibly vague and unhelpful beyond the bare minimum job requirements. At the end of the day though, he does really like his job (so much that he gets very salty if his screen time is threatened), and when push comes to shove, will go above and beyond to make sure everybody is safe. ( he also has an incredibly catchy image song and everyone should go look up Kirinda Ondo! on youtube right now)

[ladyloveandjustice]

I just watched Pop Culture Detectives critique as superheroes as reactionary and defending the status quo and villains as disruptors (even when their goals are wrong and authoritarian), and I think it did a fine job summing up the MCU, but I think it would lose something when if you’re doing a conversation outside that specific focus if you don’t acknowledge that there’s very significant times that WASN’T the case in early superhero comics.

For example, several early Superman comics have him actively disrupting society. He wasn’t a friend of the law early on. He destroys an entire “slum” and forces the government to rebuild better housing, and the police come after him for this.

He infiltrates a prison to expose its systemic abuse of prisoners.

He forces war profiteers to experience the terror of war firsthand until they stop.

But as the tweet thread I linked notes, this stops. Modern Superman often states he can’t interfere in wars because humanity has to sort out their own conflicts, that he can’t use his power against systemic issues because what if he becomes the power hungry god imposing his will on humanity? It’s interesting some comics posit that if Superman was more active about social change, he’s become the ‘invader’ Lex Luthor says he is. Especially if you consider Superman’s roots as an immigrant allegory, which makes it come off like he has to avoid being too disruptive or he’ll be labeled a ‘bad immigrant’.

There’s sometimes callbacks to the roots of Superman still, like the issue where he fights that cop probably (I was out of comics by the time that happened) but of course it’s pretty absent from the movies.

It’s also worth noting that Clark Kent is an investigative reporter (often exposing the crimes of billionaire CEO) which is an inherently disruptive job. PCD mentions that heroes do tend to be creative in their civilian identities but says it doesn’t seem to connect much to their superhero selves, but  I don’t think you can separate Clark Kent the reporter from his superhero activity, because they’re often closely tied together, I mean he literally took the job so he could get leads as Superman.

Then there’s Wonder Woman, who was definitely a disruptor in her early incarnation. She was absolute here to spread Marston’s idea of feminism and have others follow her. She wanted to make more Amazons. She wanted a society where women had power. She would literally take her female villains and introduce them to the pleasures of femdom and BDSM  reform them, convert them to her ideology, get them to join her ranks. The comic was CERTAINLY reactionary in other ways, and Marston’s feminism was flawed, but he wrote the comic explicitly because he was hoping for social disruption, that Wonder Woman would be the building block in the utopia he envisioned.

And there was some of that in SOME modern WW comics when I was into them- I was drawn to Greg Rucka’s Wonder Woman because there was a huge emphasis on the fact she’s an ambassador for her culture, and diplomat actively working to change the world, someone who’s seeking social reform and has an ideology. However, it is true that even those comics were mostly about her reacting to threats in her superhero life. (And then in the movie’s that’s entirely absent- feminism isn’t bought up, she goes into hiding rather than mounting a social justice campaign.)

And then on the Marvel side of things. Cap fighting Hitler actually didn’t reflect the status quo of America when it came out. In-universe it did to a degree, because America had entered the war in the universe of the comic, therefore Cap was doing patriotism, but out of universe America HADN’T entered the war yet and it was controversial to take the stance we were definitely going to and sauy Hitler was bad. We all know the story of nazi-sympathizers coming to harass the creators and Jack Kirby declaring he would fight them. So there’s a very interesting dichotomy there!

Anyway, it’s interesting to see this discussion because it’s definitely a very minor theme in my own book about a girl who becomes a supervillain. Look forward to that, I guess!

[dnmeinster]

Why The Last Jedi Fails

I've debated whether it would be worth spending time writing this, as I know there are many critical takes out there about The Last Jedi.  But I figure it's time to gather up all my critiques and criticisms of Star Wars Episode 8 and put them into one (hopefully) coherent post.  Warning: I will be praising some parts of this film.

After I saw The Last Jedi opening night, my immediate reaction was that I loved it.  It is a beautifully shot film with some great scenes.  My initial trepidations were ones I've come to accept: Rey's parents are nobodies and Snoke was killed off without a backstory.  However, in the hours after watching, my critical brain turned back on and started to dissect every other bit of the film.  After seeing it a second time, the problems became more apparent.

Let's start with the film's greatest problem and a huge missed opportunity: Canto Bight.  Everything surrounding this whole plot point and locale is misguided from the minute it's mentioned.  It starts by wasting Maz Kanata, a potentially interesting character who is given little more than a cameo to send Finn and Rose off to the casino world.  Even worse, Maz's short amount of screen time includes a dig at the prequels, when she dismisses any notion that they'd be interested in her union dispute.  Here, we get some insight into how this film will approach politics in the Star Wars galaxy.  But director Rian Johnson misdiagnoses what was wrong with the prequels.  Space politics can be interesting!  See:  Star Wars Bloodline.  Johnson's decision to shy away from it compounds the problems when they actually get to Canto Bight.

It all goes wrong from the moment they land.  Literally.  Finn and Rose "park" their ship in a spot they're not supposed to.  Then they enter the casino, in what is apparently an homage to the cantina but on a grander scale.  This diverse set of gamblers are apparently war profiteers, as is briefly mentioned.  But their only interaction with any of them is when they are approached and arrested for parking illegally.  Seriously.

In prison, they encounter DJ, who will eventually join them on their mission to disable the First Order's tracker.  But first, they have to go back to the casino area and release enslaved creatures so they can trample and maim these profiteers we are told are bad.  This is a very long sequence that ends with Finn saying how glad he was to hurt them.  Huh?  Hurt these people you don't know and haven't spoken to?

The entire Canto Bight subplot lacks any depth.  It's completely superficial, and maybe that would've worked if they didn't spend so much of the movie there.  But it ends up being a whole lot of time wasted on what amounts to finding a way to get DJ with Finn and Rose.  This could've been so much better.

HOW TO IMPROVE CANTO BIGHT

Honestly, this should've been caught when someone was reading Johnson's drafts, because we're basically stuck with a chunk a TLJ that degrades it while simultaneously expanding its running time.  But it could've been fixed, starting with Maz.

 Instead of having Maz phone in her appearance, they should have met her on Canto Bight.  Right there, we lose one prequel crack and give Lupita a slightly larger role.  While there, they interact with these profiteers, engaging in a moral debate about the First Order vs. the Resistance, while finding out how the conflict is viewed through the galaxy.  Were there a lot of systems missing the Empire?  How do they feel about the New Republic's destruction?  Eventually, that moral debate is what leads to fisticuffs and their subsequent imprisonment, as opposed to a parking ticket.

Johnson doesn't touch on any of this in TLJ.  His take on the morality of the conflict is restricted to two lines involving DJ.  First: 

DJ: Good guys, bad guys, made-up words. Let's see who formerly owned this gorgeous hunk-uh. Ah, this guy was an arms dealer. Made his bank selling weapons to the bad guys. (Hologram shows a tie fighter.) Oh... And the good. (Hologram shows an x-wing.) Finn, let me learn you something big. It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.

And second, when DJ betrays them:   

DJ: They blow you up today, you can blow them up tomorrow. It's just business. 

Finn: You're wrong. 

DJ: Maybe.

This is the extent Johnson is willing to go when it comes to morality in the Star Wars universe, and it's just not enough.  Either dig in or don't mention it.  Short changing it is a disservice, but that's exactly what happens.

If the entire Canto Bight sequence was redone, it would not only be a better Star Wars movie, but a better movie in general.  It doesn't have to be exactly as I think it should be, but it needs vast improvements.  If Disney were to ever special edition the sequels, then Canto Bight should be singled out.  And yes, I do think they should special edition them, along with the prequels.  But that's for another time.

MOVING ON

The second greatest issue of The Last Jedi is how immensely it fails at being a sequel to The Force Awakens.  I am undoubtedly biased when it comes to discussing TFA because JJ Abrams is one of my favorite directors and I absolutely loved his take on Star Wars.  Now, one of JJ's favorite things to do is to approach plots as mystery boxes, whose contents are slowly revealed over the course of a TV series or movie.  And don't say he didn't have any clue as to where TFA was going, as he had an outline prepared for the sequel, and an idea for who Rey's parents were.  Along comes Rian Johnson, who, instead of opening that mystery box, takes a hammer to it.

So much of what is hinted at, left unsolved, or teased in TFA is either ignored, brushed aside, or poorly answered in TLJ.  This is a problem.  TLJ is supposed to be a direct sequel, not a spin-off or an unplanned continuation.  When Yoda suggests there's another hope in Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi provides an answer to who that is.  Imagine if it didn't.  Well, I suppose you don't have to cause this basically happens with TLJ.

There was a lot of set up in TFA, but Johnson used TLJ to tear all of that up instead of building on it.  Rey's lineage, strongly hinted to be significant through multiple scenes in TFA, is made to be meaningless in TLJ.  Maz Kanata teased having a story about how she came to possess Anakin's lightsaber, but that's ignored in TLJ.  Snoke is treated like a disposable villain, even though he somehow managed to stitch the Empire back together and tempt Ben Solo to the dark side.  The Knights of Ren are mentioned in an offhand comment in TFA and are completely missing in TLJ.  I could go on.

Okay, I will.  Why would Luke leave a map for his friends to find him in TFA if he went to Ahch-To to die?  And why did Luke leave it with Lor San Tekka?  (Johnson's answer:  stfu, Luke is emo now.)

The Last Jedi also feels like a smaller movie.  There are two new locations introduced: Canto Bight and Crait.  It revisits Ahch-To from TFA, and the rest takes place on ships.  This is not necessarily a problem, except it fails to show both the dominance of the First Order and the scope of their battle with the Republic/Resistance.  Star Wars is a big universe.  Shouldn't it feel that way?

And then there's issues with some of the returning characters.  Finn is tied down in the wasteful Canto Bight plot that doesn't do much for him.  Leia spends most of the movie in a coma.  Ackbar is murdered for no reason and with even less fanfare.  Poe gets an expanded role, though somehow it doesn't lead to much character growth.

And I can't forget Phasma.  A character with so much potential yet given such short shrift in both TFA and TLJ.  She feels tacked on in this film, when she could've been given a meatier role given how underwhelming all of Johnson's original characters are.  Which brings me to...

THE NEWBIES

The Empire Strikes Back introduced us to Yoda, Lando, and Boba Fett.  The only memorable addition to The Last Jedi are the porgs.

Johnson gives us three new characters in TLJ:  Admiral Holdo, DJ, and Rose.  There isn't that much to say about them, because, well, they're not very memorable and they're certainly not iconic.  Holdo is a one note character meant to serve as the adversary to Poe.  Her entire role consists of antagonizing him and withholding information.  She's much more interesting in Claudia Grey's novel, Leia: Princess of Alderaan.

I've already mentioned the role DJ plays during Benicio del Toro's criminally tiny amount of screen time, so that leaves Rose.  She's...okay?  Sticking her on Canto Bight certainly doesn't help her.  The most memorable thing she does is interrupt Finn's suicide run and plant a kiss on him, both of which come from almost nowhere.

It really feels like these characters are underdeveloped and the actors are wasted in the roles, and that's a shame.  But then, that's the story of the prequels as well.  It's just that it was less surprising when George Lucas was doing it.

THE WORST MOMENT IN THE LAST JEDI

Luke Skywalker is far from the Luke we remember in RotJ.  At least until the end of the film, when he leaves Ahch-To, joins Leia and the Resistance, and takes on Kylo Ren and the First Order on his own.

Except he didn't really leave Ahch-To, it's a Force projection, and the stress of creating it kills him.  What?

Han Solo's death makes sense given his son's role in TFA.  Luke Skywalker dies because Rian Johnson chose to kill him.  There is not a single reason plot-wise for Luke to die in this movie.  The Sequel Trilogy should not be about killing off a member of the original trio in each film.  And it didn't have to be.  What were they thinking?

When Carrie Fisher passed away, and it became clear Leia was not going to be in Episode 9, that should have convinced the powers that be to change the last three minutes of the film and allow Luke to live.  Yes, he can return as a Force ghost, but that's not the same.  They would've only had to cut Luke's disappearance and a line from Rey and BAM, Luke's still alive for Episode 9.

His meaningless and arbitrary death ruins this film.  (And after they spent a whole film trying to find him, no less.)

THE GOOD

Now that I've rattled off some of the major flaws I perceived in TLJ, let me list some of the good.

The Yoda Scene:  Easily the best moment of the film.

Luke tossing the lightsaber:  A hilarious and unexpected moment before there were too many "hilarious" and unexpected moments.

Hux:  The one minor TFA character Johnson does an excellent job with.  He may be my favorite character in the film.

Rey and Ren:  The development of their relationship is the strongest element of TLJ.

The Caretakers:  See Damon Lindelof's Instagram.

The Porgs: Adorable pests/wookie-fodder.

Luke flashbacks:  We needed more of these.

Artoo: BB-8 is stealing his thunder, but he can still get in a cheap shot.

Threepio: He's also in this film.

Praetorian Guards: That's some good lightsaberin'.

The Cinematography:  Seriously, this movie is gorgeous.

It feels like a Star Wars movie (minus one ridiculous ironing scene).

FAILURE

Yoda tells Luke how failure is the greatest teacher, laying out one of the themes of this film.  The other, a quote played over numerous TLJ trailers, is "Let the past die.  Kill it, if you have to."  Let's explore.

Weeks before Max Landis disappeared from Twitter following sexual harassment allegations, he described how every character in this movie fails:

REY - Turn Kylo - Fails KYLO - Turn Rey - Fails FINN - Turn off tracker - Fails POE - Save Revel Fleet - Fails SNOKE - Kill Rey - Fails LUKE - Train Rey - Fails HUX - Usurp power - Fails LEIA - Escape - Mostly Fails ROSE TICO - Turn of tracker - Fails HOLDO - Evacuate to Planet Secretly - Fails

That's a lot of failure.  Ironically, you can add one more:

RIAN JOHNSON - Make a great Star Wars film - Fails

But this theme is not why TLJ doesn't work.  It's the other one that drags it down.  The whole idea to let the past die.  If this was Episode 9, and Disney was about to start fresh with a new series of Star Wars films, perhaps it would work.  But this is the middle chapter.  The past, especially TFA, should not be killed.  It should define the entire Sequel Trilogy.

After all, this is a culmination of everything in the OT and PT.  The First Order is born from the Empire.  The Resistance is born from the Rebellion (and then turned back into the Rebellion?  Guess you can't let the entire past die, huh?)  Most of the characters come from other movies.  This is their last time to shine.

Johnson subverts expectations too many times in TLJ.  It works at first, with Luke tossing the lightsaber, but by the end, it has become trite.  Rey's parents are nobodies.  Snoke's dead.  Luke's dead.  The entire Resistance can fit on the Millennium Falcon.  (And Kylo Ren’s awesome mask is wrecked.) He's killed the past without building anything for the future.  That's left to JJ in the single remaining film in the trilogy.  Come on!

The Last Jedi is so polarizing because there’s so much to nitpick, whereas The Force Awakens mainly had only one general complaint leveled against it (it was too much like A New Hope).  One fan may be okay with Leia's Mary Poppins scene, while also despising how Luke became a cranky hermit.  Each potential negative has to be overlooked to come out of it with a positive view, but it’s a lot easier to focus and harp on the negatives.  And that's what's happened online, and, yes, in this post.  Also, killing off Luke for no reason was dumb.

Before I go, I want to mention how overrated Looper was.  Interesting concept, but it falls apart at the farm.  And they gave that director a Star Wars film, while taking one away from the guys who did the Jump Street movies and The Lego Movie.  Sigh.

If JJ sticks the landing with Episode 9 and churns out a terrific film, perhaps TLJ can be viewed in a new light.  And opinions do change over the years.  But even though Revenge of the Sith was pretty good, no one looks back fondly at the prequel trilogy.

[crowcialist]

7 things I’m into this week: the Moomins are antifascists

Every week I round up the best things I’ve seen on the internet and compile them here. 

I’ve read two articles this week that were nominally about football, but really about issues and ideas that run far deeper. The crown jewel is this piece from Rembert Browne (who I’ve been a huge fan of since his Grantland days) about Colin Kaepernick and the ways he is forcing America to reckon with itself. The other, from Spencer Hall, who is technically my boss at SB Nation, is less a moral argument than a clever examination of the NFL’s perfect embodiment of late capitalism: profit that is so self-sustaining that it neither requires nor cares about a positive fan experience. The demographic that follows me on this blog is hardly the football set; regardless, I think everyone should read both. 

Chelsea Manning has been nothing short of graceful and indomitable since her release from prison earlier this year. She is a hero to me because she exposed the war crimes of the United States; this has made her a pariah in the ranks of the war-profiteering cognoscenti of this country. Fuck ‘em. (The day Henry Kissinger croaks I intend to finish off a bottle of champagne by myself.)

Let’s keep the anti-scumbag train rolling: my longtime favorite Tove Jansson is having a bit of a moment. Jansson, who “understood that secrecy and strangeness are endemic to childhood,” was also an ardent anti-fascist, besides being the creator of my beloved Moomin series. There’s a Kate Winslet Moomin TV series coming out in 2019 and an Alicia Vikander Moomin movie on the horizon as well; I’m both thrilled and a little sad that such a crucial part of my childhood is going to hit the American mainstream. (On a camping trip last weekend I finally got around to reading Jansson’s The Summer Book, and I really and truly loved it.)

We’ll take a brief break from the anti-establishment chat for some music: Rest in peace, Don Williams.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming. I’m proud to organize with the Seattle chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America; our comrades in Houston are on the ground right now mucking out homes and doing the real work of repairing their community. Solidarity. (And a shout-out to SDSA member Shaun Scott for his excellent recent critique of establishment Seattle politics.)

One more stirring profile of those who buck the system: “My Father Chose to be a Red”

Last but not least, this beautiful and haunting essay on fireflies, climate change, and the places you can’t go back to.

7 things archive here.

[rivahadi]

The Hate U Give, A Teen’s Political Awakening while in search for her Identity

The Hate U Give (2018) is an incredibly powerful contemporary epic that offers a diverse view of what it’s like to grow up black in America. It also connects to the themes of family, identity, race and justice. The use of these themes result in a narrative where the main character is brave enough to stand up to an unjust system and explore her own identity. Starr, the main character of the movie, is a young black student who is effectively living a double life. Her dad is a proud Black Panther who lives in a tough black neighbourhood, but he has now settled down to running a store profitable enough for him to send his daughter to a posh private school. It is here that Starr has learned how to pass for white culturally: nice, hardworking Starr hangs out with the Insta princesses who appear to accept her with no reservations and she has a really nice white boyfriend. Although in school she is always careful to keep any threateningly “black” mannerisms in check, when she goes to parties in her own neighbourhood, she has to avoid any “white” phrases.

Insta princesses … Megan Lawless, Amandla Stenberg and Sabrina Carpenter in The Hate U Give. Photograph: Erika Doss/AP To visually mirror the experience of switching between the worlds of Garden Heights, her home where her own family grew up and Williamson Prep, the affluent white private high school, the lighting and color of the scenes also change from warm, familiar tones (Garden Heights) to washed out blue hues (Williamson). The scenes in the Carter household look inviting and well lit, bringing to mind the comfort of a loving family. When Starr is at school, her face looks washed out and pale, as if the screen was trying to mute the colors of everyone’s skin to look the same. She tries so desperately to fit in this environment, she sacrifices who she is in more ways than just avoiding using the slang terms. The issue of racial tension—and how to deal with it— extends throughout the film. Starr and some of her white friends struggle with racism, though only Starr seems to recognize it and makes efforts to move past it. She's also willing to confront others at times regarding these issues. At one point, some white kids go around spewing crude slang. An angry Starr puts some of them in their place, stating, "You all want to act black, but keep your white privilege." It is at one of the parties in her neighbourhood that she runs into Khalil, a boy she once knew when they were both kids. Khalil disappeared for a while and ended up selling drugs for the local gang, the King Lords, in order to take care of his cancer-ridden grandmother. When a fight breaks out at the party, Khalil offers to take Starr home to make sure she gets there safely. A cop pulls them over for some unexplained reason, and Khalil gets defensive. Starr tries to coach him through her father’s warnings: hands on the dashboard, do what they say. Khalil is shot and killed by a white police officer after reaching into his car and pulling out a hairbrush. The officer then handcuffs Starr next to her dying friend. He had mistaken the hairbrush in Khalil’s hand as a weapon and shot first before asking any questions. Starr finds that she has to testify under oath in front of a grand jury, meaning that she, Khalil and her whole community will be on trial. The crisis of loyalty means her whole “white/black” identity goes to pieces, along with friendships with people who “don’t see race”. The issues confronting black Americans today are reflected in the wide-ranging ensemble, as Starr is conflicted about what to do. It challenges clichéd ideas like “not seeing color,” as Starr emotionally confronts her boyfriend by saying, “If you don’t see color, you don’t see me.” As Starr works to find her own identity, we’re exposed to a variety of diverse identities along the way. No two black experiences are the same, but the refusal to recognize the validity of any black experiences is part of the reason the racial divide in the United States of America remains so intense. Both of Starr's parents take every opportunity to protect their kids. Mav, her father, comforts his emotionally wounded daughter after Khalil's death. Mav also physically places himself between his family and drug dealing thugs as well as two cops with guns drawn. Starr's mom is willing to do the same. It's obvious that the whole family has a close, loving bond. The movie feels instructional without getting too preachy, taking time to explain various inequalities that black Americans face, typically in exchanges between father and daughter. In learning the ways of this unjust system, Starr decides not to accept things the way they are. Her outlook reflects the kind of youth-led movements that have sprung up from Black Lives Matter and the marches against gun violence in schools. An activist declares that police shootings of blacks are all equally unjustified. "It's impossible to be unarmed," Starr proclaims, "When our blackness is the weapon they fear!" The film repeatedly shows one protestor cry that, "The whole darn system is corrupt!" Starr gets angry when a friend says, "Cops' lives matter, too." For all the declarations we hear about innocent until proven guilty, the film questions why people of color so often seem guilty until proven innocent.   Amandla Stenberg in the film adaptation of Angie Thomas’s best-selling book, “The Hate U Give.”Credit Erika Doss/Twentieth Century Fox

Even though this film attempts to be fair-minded, it still comes off feeling one-sided in its treatment of controversial issues. Viewers who agree with its perspective may cheer its messages. Those who don't may very well be offended by them. And for many, the film's foul language and violence will only add to that discomfort. For the other side, swearing could be seen as something powerful. When chosen with deliberate consideration, they aren't a cop-out; they're a strong way to make a statement with a particular audience. Together with the emphasis on speaking truth to power, language thus becomes the ultimate means to spur meaningful societal change. The title The Hate U Give is derived from a Tupac Shakur interview, and if you hadn’t already guessed, an acronym for THUG. But in Tupac’s original words, the full acronym was for THUG LIFE: The Hate U Give Little Infants Fucks Everybody, which is repeated throughout the film. As he said in the original interview, “What you feed us as seeds, grows and blows up in your face.” And if the seeds that are being sewn within Generation-Z are that we live in a society that stands up, like Starr, and become the voice for the voiceless, then maybe in the future we’ll have fewer needs for films like this.,but until we do, films like The Hate U Give are important. These stories haven’t been given the platform like this to be told, and they desperately need to continue to be told; very well could save lives. This movie ultimately presents blackness itself as a multifaceted identity, complicating the stereotypical assumptions thrust upon Starr, her family, and Garden Heights at large. Families who watch this will have plenty of big issues to discuss afterward; hopefully teens will also appreciate the movie's messages about standing up for what they believe in, being proud of who you are, and communicating honestly with their parents and friends.The Hate U Give forces viewers to recognize the characters as fully human and to reckon with them on their terms. With heroines like Starr at the fore, viewers can imagine not only new possibilities for black girls, but also new visions of our collective humanity.  Rising out of a space of being policed at home, at school, and on the streets, Starr carves out an identity of her own where she is no longer confined to the prison of silence and complacency. In fact, she’s found a sense of freedom in being a voice for a young black generation — even for those that are long gone.

Dear Dr. Shea, Writing a Pop culture analysis paper is something I’ve never done before, but it’s something I found myself quite passionate writing about. I really like the fact that you gave us the freedom to pick and analyze a pop culture artifact of our choice, as it gave me the opportunity to write about something I truly care about. The activities we did in class really prepared me to write this paper and make it something I was proud of. Connecting the movie I critiqued to our class themes helped me understand and see the movie from a range of perspectives. It also pushed me to educate myself more about the issues that are portrayed in this film. I included film analysis terms because ever since we did the film analysis paper last semester, I often notice the lighting, music and camera angles when watching a movie. Noticing these things has pushed me to think deeper about the meaning of what’s being portrayed on screen. I think the strongest part of my paper is the way I played with grammar and how I connected this movie to our class themes, as well as issues around the world. A weaker aspect of my paper is my conclusion. I’m not quite sure if it’s enough but I did think about it, and it did evolve into something better in my final draft. I found the writing process enjoyable as I loved this movie and even went back to watch it for a second time half way through writing my paper. I hope you enjoy reading my pop analysis paper on The Hate U Give. Sincerely, Riva

[elizas-writing]

Netflix’s Death Note: A Trailer Analysis

So Netflix released a trailer for their Americanized (aka whitewashed) movie based on the beloved Japanese manga/anime series Death Note and, what a shock, everyone and their mother hates it. I’ll be honest, I knew about the casting months before, and it’s still pretty shitty, but given what happened with Ghost in the Shell, should we be surprised at this point? And that one’s getting a theatrical release. But the problems with this Death Note adaptation go beyond just whitewashing two characters; that’s just scratching the surface of the confusing mess and even more problematic implications we might expect from this movie. Also it should go without saying that I will be going into spoilers of the original series, so if you’re one of the five people unfamiliar with Death Note until now, you have been warned.

DISCLAIMER FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS I’M BEING TOO HARSH ON A ONE MINUTE TRAILER

Okay, I know there are gonna be a few people going “Just give it a chance! Maybe there will be something good! It’s unfair to judge before it’s even released!” And with all due respect, that kind of mentality completely disregards the entire point of marketing. Trailers are supposed to draw in an audience and give them a reason why they should spend their time and money to see a movie, TV show or any piece of media ever to exist. How many of you saw the trailer for The Force Awakens and almost shit your pants out of nostalgia when Han Solo came on screen and said “Chewie, we’re home”? How many of you got chills listening to Lin-Manuel Miranda sing for Moana? How many of you got pumped to see Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman together on the big screen? That is the power of trailers when done successfully, even if the movie itself doesn’t turn out well; if film makers want to make money, they need to show that their product is worth something.

If all you have to show is shit, then people will think it’s shit. This is increased exponentially when doing an adaptation of a pre-existing work because there’s already an audience with their own visions on what everything is supposed to look like down to the smallest of details. Most everyone I’ve seen who’s into Death Note now has low expectations for this movie. It’s fine to give the benefit of the doubt and hope some good will come out of it, hell, I always want to hope I’m wrong in some cases. But there is a fine line between (sorry live-action Beauty and the Beast, I just have to) going “Okay, maybe this will be a good Disney remake and they’ll do something new” and “Oh my fucking God, Emma Watson can’t sing. Please fire someone.”

So yeah, I’m still judging the trailer. I’m a Taurus, I’m stubborn, and I got some grievances.

From the get-go, the most glaring issue we can tell is that it is not going to follow remotely close to the original story at all. When is Light running from the police in his early days as Kira? And what even is up with the Ferris wheel bullshit? At that point, they might as well have created original characters; it would have saved themselves a lot of criticism of whitewashing and turning Light and Misa into absolute edgelords even when it’s so out of character, and topping it all off by giving them 4Kids dub names as a way to rub the salt in the whitewashed wound. At least Ghost in the Shell had some decency left to leave Motoko’s name alone. But thanks for getting rid of Light’s literal juxtaposing name of light and darkness to emphasize the moral ambiguity of his actions.

It’s only made worse when in fact an Asian American actor, Edward Zo, did audition for Light and was rejected for “being too Asian.” TOO ASIAN FOR LIGHT YAGAMI, A JAPANESE CHARACTER. What the fuck does that mean “too Asian??” So these filmmakers went out of their way to NOT cast any Asian American actors since apparently people still think American equates to whiteness (spoiler, no it doesn’t) and instead get that kid from the Naked Brother’s Band and some obscure HBO actress.

Not only are Light and Misa unrecognizable because of the whitewashing, they don’t even match on the same damn personalities. Yes, Light becomes a sociopath, but he doesn’t start off as some misunderstood loner or whatever vibe I’m getting from Natt Wolf (by the way, wash your damn hair, it looks greasy). Light was actually a very popular student with good grades, good manners and could easily get dates with any girl he wanted. And he’s very clever to hide his true intentions and manipulate. He’s your average, unsuspecting young adult which works well for the series to show how no one is above this kind of descent into madness. This white kid looks like fucking Dylann Roof, it’s so unsettling and ruins any subtlety to Light’s character. Even this whitewashed Mi(s)a suffered the edgelord syndrome with the image of her against grey colors smoking a cigarette. “Look at me, I’m so fucking dark and edgy.” You’re not making Heathers, give me back the hyperactive idol.

But what about Keith Sutherland, a black actor, as L? On one hand, I’m not too bothered with this change since L is canonically only a fourth Japanese so casting him as a black person isn’t too much of a stretch even though it takes away the iconic image. But at the same time, it lends itself to a lot of problematic territory when setting up a black character as the antagonist to the white character. L is killed in the original series, he loses, and his fight is picked up by his successors. So now we’ll potentially have a case of a white male serial killer with a god complex killing a black man who we’ve only seen so far in shadow and in a hood. Because that is not familiar to cases of racially motivated crimes of black people being killed because they looked “suspicious.” Classy, real motherfucking classy. I can only hope that they change up L’s fate like the Japanese live-action movies did, but this is already looking like a slippery slope to racist tropes as old as time.

And what the series chose to Americanize and to leave alone is just a set up for confusion as they left some of the original Japanese elements. For starters, the hell is Ryuk still doing here? Yeah, I want to see Willem Dafoe as Ryuk, it fits perfectly, but what is a JAPANESE god of death doing in SEATTLE, WASHINGTON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Like how will you explain yourself out of this one, because I doubt your typical white American teenager will be familiar with Japanese spiritual beliefs. There’s also some graffiti briefly seen that says “Justice of Kira,” but in the original series, Kira comes from the Japanese pronunciation of the English word “killer.” So where do these Americans get Kira from? Explain, movie! Explain!

The themes will also not carry over well in this adaptation because of the differences in justice systems between America and Japan (this one I borrowed from @tadasgay‘s critiques, and it really puts into perspective the problems of Americanizing a Japanese story; giving credit where credit is due). A major driving force of Light’s motivations in the original series are because of criminal cases that don’t even make it to court. Therefore, criminals who are obviously guilty get away with their crimes despite the evidence against them. With the Death Note, Light acts as the prosecutor to "properly” deliver justice because of the facts he can obtain from police records. We don’t know if they will follow through with this, or if this Light will just kill whoever because they are bad. To top it all off, the American crime narratives tend to be biased on race, especially given the disproportionate amount of people of color in the for-profit prison systems. Japan doesn’t have that because it’s a mostly racially and culturally homogeneous country. Just a reminder that our protagonist is now a WHITE guy with a god complex and a black man as his antagonist. This is a slippery slope to twist the original narrative into something horrible and potentially racist. I’m sure I’m not alone when I hope I’m wrong on those aspects, but the fact is that we don’t know, and we won’t know for certain for another few months. These thoughts will be lingering over our heads until then.

At this point, we can only hope that the filmmakers will come out and explain themselves, and more trailers can be released to see more of the story and characters. At best, it will probably just be mediocre, but at worst, it could probably be another shitty American adaptation of an already great Japanese manga/anime. We won’t know for a while, but for now, we still have the original and I think we can all agree nothing will ever top it.

[fabelgis4680]

Module 7

Malcom X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” – I appreciate the prologue on religion differences and how though their practice is different and may be conflicted over, the true conflict that needs to be united over despite differences is the overall oppression black people are experiencing under the white men in power. It is immediately stated right after that it does not mean that they are anti – white, but that they are anti-exploitation, anti-degradation, and anti-oppression. If white men don’t want to see it as them then they should stop exploiting, degrading, and oppressing. 1964 was only a few years before my parents were born. This illuminates the reality of post slavery oppression that continues to today. I have heard before of Malcolm X’s opinion on voting. What I am understanding is that he considers voting as a waste because their vote will give them nothing in return because the system is not in their favor and is under means to oppress them. I haven’t heard of a dixiecrat before.

W.E.B. DuBois’ “Strivings of the Negro People” – 1897 – I can compare the oppressed question that DuBois is given of “How does it feel to be a problem” to being persisted to today with people of color and specifically and almost identically to the book “How does it feel to be a problem” by Moustafa Bayoumi on being young and Arab in America. I had to google shades of the prison-house and it took me to a poem called “Immitations of Immorality.” He recounts the double consciousness and struggle of being black and an American. DuBois states over 50 years before Malcolm does “The power of the ballot we need in sheer self-defense, and as a guarantee of good faith.” To quote “there is to-day no true American music but the sweet wild melodies of the Negro slave; the American fairy tales are Indian and African; we are the sole oasis of simple faith and reverence in a dusty desert of dollars and smartness.” Is this contributing to the truths of music / stories being sourced from African Americans but not given the rightful accountability or profits?

Frantz Fanon’s “Reciprocal Bases of National Culture and the Fight for Freedom” – 1959 – The whole first paragraph lends to a lot of information on colonialism, disrupting and conquering people, a cultural obliteration that is over simplified. Occupying power and banishing natives and systematically enslaving. Fences and signposts being an basic factor. Brings me to reflect on the start of property and claiming land just by fencing it off. Can be compared to the idea of walls that are a buzz of today. “The poverty of the people, national oppression and the inhibition of culture are one and the same thing.” And “Colonial exploitation, poverty and endemic famine drive the native more and more to open, organised revolt.” Then it goes into literature and colonialism and the different narratives and consciousness and national consciousness.

Stokely Carmichael’s “From Black Power to Pan-Africanism” – the listen is different from the read, but in the listen he states, “Brothers and sisters” uniting being African in America because there is unity from America’s history of all being stolen and brought to America and experiencing the same struggles and oppressions under slavery and post slavery. He is calling the fighting an extended war that America. Revolution relying on truth and justice. The read delves into many critical comparisons with pan Africanism, Malcolm x, Marxism-Leninism, Muhammad Ali getting paid substantially less, and continued consequences under capitalism.

Melvin B. Tolson’s “Dark Symphony” – “Thorns of greed on labors brow” and “Black slaves singing” their verses give visualization to the words. These rhymes remind me of what DuBois was talking about with original music / stories being sole from African Americans. The poem is expresses the grim, bloody, and pain. “Barricades of Jim Crowism” and calling to advance past.

Amiri Baraka’s “Black Dada Nihilismus” - *May I just add I really appreciate the audio reads* There is low New York Art Quartet music playing in the background with Baraka in the recording. The website gives highlighted words with given definitions are very useful. It is explained that Baraka doesn’t actually want the gruesome stated lines to be true, but the gruesomeness needs to be accounted for to understand / hear the narrative that is given a shy eye when black people have been systemically fallen victim to the gruesome. It stated in the side bar “The New York Times critiqued the song for its violent imagery, specifically in these lines. The article goes on to describe Baraka’s “highly-political avant-garde” as a “call for black revolutionaries to rape and murder in the service of liberation.” I don’t think they understand.

three poems by Aimé Cesaire – To the Serpent – A little hard to read, searching for the right animal to adore then it gets to the serpent. “God gives not you hold supremely.” And “Serpent delirium and peace” going to how the serpent is a threat and that though “threat a sagacious hand that does not pardon cowards” I do not quite understand this poem or what it may be critically analyzed to be compared to. There may be euphemisms beyond my awareness. It sounds a little religious mentioning the fig and altar.

At the Locks of the Void -  This poem is more understandable than To the Serpent. There is more imagery and metaphors. There are a lot of comparisons. Cesaire is giving full amounts of detail to the text. Things that stick out to me are thirst, hunger, blood, disease, graphic, religion, and Europe. “Europe, eminent name of the turd”

Forfeiture – This poem is interesting. Closing with the line, “ay I am standing and in the sole whiteness that men have never recognized in me.” But preceding this includes mentioning genitalia, gruesome descriptions involving urine, snakes, the planets, and earth.  

“Bread” by Kamau Brathwaite – I do not understand this poem. The lines touch a little on a realistic bread “adding water” or kneading.  But I do not understand what the words are making around it. The ending states “rolled into night into night w/out morning rolled into dead into dead w/out vision rolled into life into life w/out dream” which I think is comparing the rolling of bread to these. I will search for a guide / explanation to this poem.

Decolonising the Mind by Ngugi Wa Thiong’o – Language and Culture. I remember in class talking about how language should be saved and continued through natives. I think written language differentiated from spoken language was also conversed about of importance. Like how Ngugi states him and his family speaking Gi kuyH in the fields and at home and the importance of telling and retelling stories. After some schooling with his native language, colonizing and nationalism had the schools taken over to formal English education. Because of the declaration of a state of emergency over Kenya in 1952, others had to “bow” before English in differences involving corporal punishment for using native Gi kuyH.

excerpt from Aimé Cesaire on Negritude – a revolt against the European feeling of superiority and the result of an active and attitude of the mind on the offense. Stating to refuse oppression and to be against inequality. The system to revolt against is “characterized by a certain number of prejudices, of assumptions which generate a very strict hierarchy” For Africa to forward on from colonialism.

Jean Michel Basquiat paintings – I really enjoy his art. I believe I have been exposed to Aaron Douglas’ Birth of the blues before or at least its color scheme style may have been used as inspiration elsewhere. I did a project on an artist Chris Ofili who also uses culture and music aspects in his art similarly.

“The Radiant Child” by Rene Ricard – On tags, graffiti, rapping. “Graffiti refutes the idea of anonymous art where we know everything about a work except who made it” therefore comes the tag. As talked about in class, Basquait’s was “SAMO”.

material on Aaron Douglas: - a part of the “New Negro Movement” or “Harlem Renaissance.” Used silhouette forms in a friezed format, is this like a “freeze” or paused picture? The commotion in his art does look like a paused moment. Aspiration itself shows many chained hands all paused in an upward reaching moment.

YouTube playlist of Black political music – The variety in this playlist is very wide. With Billie Holiday, Kendrick Lamar, NWA, Beyonce, Sun Ra Jazz, Sam Cooke and many more.

On NWA – I’ve heard Fuck The Police, Seen Ice Cube in the family movie “Are We There Yet” and in 21 Jump street, Heard Dr.Dre with some 2000’s hits but that just might be all I know. Reading into the socially conscious rap I perceive the wave returning and persisting with Kendrick Lamar, Vic Mensa, and Beyonce to “expose the truth” as well.

Fela Kuti – Lagos Nigeria, in the 70’s created the bold Afrobeat music. A style and movement inspired by the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, voiced anger and protest against military rulers and corrupt oil industry. Music for revolution.

Amiri Baraka articles – Diz, or Dizzy Gilliespie, the late 40’s to 60’s music to Sun Ra with Afro American Jazz with Brazilian Samba styles, Pan American Funk, and orchestras making music that drives itself and transforms.

Music & black – the Black Power playlist shows substantial music that is meant for revolution and exposing the truth on an artistic platform. With the political messages in soul, funk, and jazz  this music expressed problems that need accountability and change.

[trenton-woodcox]

"13th” Critique

13th does a lot in the way of shedding light on the situation regarding black Americans experiences not just with the US justice system, but with racism as it functions in our broader political and social world.

The film begins by clearly defining the status quo for the viewer, showing America's staggering prison population relatively to other developed nations, as well as throwing up stats that illustrate just how overwhelmingly black the US prison population is (we later get a factoid that says 1 in 3 black men will face prison time, a truly staggering statistic, to really drive this point home).  

After defining the here and now, the documentary proceeds to walk us through the historical context that delivered the status quo—beginning with black flight from the war-torn South to impoverished ghettos in the urban North. We learn about the replacement of slavery with indentured servitude, then Jim Crow, and later the dog-whistles we see today. One of these dog-whistles is the stand-in of “tough on crime” for “tough on black people”. The conditions of poverty that lead to crime afflicted black populations far more than other demographics, on account of the legacy of slavery saddling black families with generational poverty. Conservatives realized this, and thus the dog-whistle was born; after all, no one wants crime, right? It was an electorally feasible way to institutes polices that would disproportionately negatively impact black people. This was later amplified as “Tough on crime” became not just an electorally feasible platform, but a necessity for any candidate seeking public office—the kind of thing each candidate had to lay claim to. Thus, the entirety of the mainstream political spectrum was subscribed to functionally anti-black policy positions—from Nixon’s excessive policing to Reagan’s War on Drugs.

We also learn about many black leftist leaders, and how public institutions like the FBI worked tirelessly to quash their movements—driving activists out of the country, labeling them terrorists, and sometimes killing them outright.  

This double-threat of institutional racism and state-sponsored uprooting of grassroots leadership helps explain how the situation got as bad as it is today; there are other factors brought up as well that fit into this picture, from the effects these polices have had on creating a kind of self-hatred among balck people, to private organizations like ALEC and the companies it represents manipulating the policymaking process for profit at the expense of black people.

Needless to say, by the end of the film, we can identify a wide array of problems that explain today’s crisis with prisons and their primarily black populace. Overall, I think this movie does a very good job of communicating the situation and its causes to the average viewer; while a multi-faceted issue, I didn’t find any of this too difficult to follow or otherwise poorly presented.

Additionally, the claims made are very well sources; whenever significant claims are made or data presented, we’re usually given the information by an on-screen expert who has their name ad credentials/occupation displayed. This makes it easy to understand the authority these claims are founded on. I never felt like I was being fed nonsense, and generally thought the evidence provided was sound.  

One aspect I found interesting was how the film incorporated the conservative perspective; they include representatives from conservative boards, Alec, etc. While I’ve little sympathy for these people, I think including their perspectives is extremely valuable towards building effective rhetoric. After all, with most left-leaning individuals, this film is preaching to the choir; it should be aiming to be effective at raising awareness and buy-in from centrists and right-leaning moderates. Allowing more right-leaning speakers to relay their perspective will make that target audience feel heard and more open to what the film has to say. This was doubly effective, I think, as the representatives that were on-screen did (I think) a fairly poor job of defending their views, if at all, which works in the film’s favor.

There are two areas where I think the film falls short; the first is clearly defining solutions to existing problems. We can infer some solutions based on the issues the film highlight, to be sure; obviously Alec getting its hands out of policy would be beneficial, prisons having a profit-motive is probably not good, etc. However, fixing these things does not fix black poverty (though it would definitely help the situation), and at the end of the day we have a strong connection between poverty and crime that must be acknowledged. Additionally, while we recognize that our prisons are built for punishment rather than rehabilitation, and this is pointed out by the film, we are offered no picture of what effective rehabilitation for prisoners looks like. I understand these subjects may be tangential or out of scope for this film, but these are complex and interconnected issues. Plus, if we want people to go out and demand change and fixes, I think it's important to show them what a fix looks like—to give them a vision to advocate for.

Which brings me to my other big gripe; where’s the call to action? You’ve shown us all these problems; now what do you want us to do about it? Call our representatives? And say what? Protest? How, and where? It’s very frustrating to see such a developed piece on issues and watch it give no call to action for viewers. Without that, most people are going to watch the documentary, be upset for a few hours, and move on with their lives. I don’t understand why the authors of the film have handicap themselves in such a way.  

Regardless of the lackluster call to action/proposed solutions in this film, I generally thought it was very good. It does a wonderful job of showing where we are and how we got here. I’d recommend it to anyone seeking to understand our current situations with regard to the prison crisis.