The Whale - March 11

 Obligatory disclaimer: real life sucks, so let us talk about something unusual: the 2022 movie ‘The Whale’.

Where to begin? Ah yes, ‘The Whale’ is 2023’s ‘Velma’ more obtuse cousin, geometrically speaking, and I feel like I can prove it. Let us start.

MK’s ‘Velma’ was a cartoon TV show aimed to irritate everyone in general… that is it. MK felt that this is the right way to stir controversy and discussion… and she was right, to a point: for a while, ‘Velma’ was the talk about the town, until it stopped, and everyone is doing their best to forget that it’d even existed: i.e., Ms. Ming-Na Wen, who is usually trying to milk every teat – from AoS to ‘Mulan’ to SW and beyond has never mentioned that she was a voice actress in ‘Velma’: the cartoon was that bad! Where were we?

Ah yes, Ms. Wen’s presence in ‘Velma’ – I have been honestly shocked to learn that that is the case – ‘Velma’ might have been renewed for a second season, (why, for the love of God?), but Ms. Wen still is not mentioning her presence on that show. Bully! However, what about ‘The Whale’?

One of the differences between the two is in the degree of their approach to controversy and co. – whereas ‘Velma’ aimed at everyone, and so her contents were diluted… period, ‘The Whale’ tries to talk about one specific group: the overweight people. Right.

Zoom out, and you can see that the issue of weight has always been ambiguous in human history, with each of the biological sexes reacting to it differently. For a start, being overweight slash fat meant that you are successful enough, socially and financially speaking, to afford being so – a peasant and a soldier/warrior were two different social strata themselves in the past, (up to the WWII period), but both were lean; Hell, by the time of the first half of the 20^th century the human society had evolved enough to move past such social labels as ‘peasant’, ‘soldier/warrior’, ‘merchant’, but extra weight was still equated to social success, as it can be a liability, illustrated clearly by Charlie, the main character of ‘The Whale’. Regardless, extra weight is usually tolerated in human men… in human women, not so much. Indeed, most of the discourse regarding weight that arose in the 1980s and 90s up to now, (the early 2020s - and beyond?) is usually dominated by women… and men who love them, of course. As a result, a lot of such discussion is sexualized, fetishized, and so on.

…Going back in time, you can see that while a man was expected to be lean, (unless he was a successful merchant, or moneylender, or something), a woman was not. Rather, she was expected to be robust… why? Because both biology and gender politics: for a good long time, until the second half of the 20^th century, a woman’s worth was most often that of a mother and a child-bearer, which meant that a certain amount of ‘extra weight’ was the norm, actually – if a woman lost too much weight her worth as a mother and a child-bearer was jeopardized, which was bad. It was also sexist and patriarchal in the worst meaning of that word, so when in the second half of the 20^th century women finally won their equality with men officially, they began to slim down – and then the models arrived, women who slimmed themselves down to a point that they began to resembled animated trophies – you know like the ones presented at the Oscars and similar ceremonies – another case of a good enough idea taken to excess. As a result, the human society again began to discuss just what was the norm of a woman’s weight, a discourse that continues into modern times (2020s) and will probably go on beyond.

And now we got ‘The Whale’, whose main character is a notably overweight man. In addition, the issues of sexualisation and fetishisation of weight are nowhere near in sight in the film. Therefore, there was some controversy and discussion about ‘The Whale’, but very little, and the film mostly got accolades rather than criticisms, but…

…But they ring hollow and most critics seem to admit that it was BF’s acting as Charlie that kept the film together, and that is not really good news for the film. See, just as ‘Velma’ has nothing going for it beyond mockery of… everyone, ‘The Whale’ is in the same boat, only while ‘Velma’ went for everyone, ‘The Whale’ tried going for the overweight – on one hand. On the other, while ‘Velma’ didn’t hold any punches, ‘The Whale’ didn’t have any: whereas ‘Velma’ was acute and angular, ‘The Whale’ had all of its’ angles ground down. Pause.

What exactly ‘The Whale’ is about? It is about Charlie, an overweight English professor who hates himself, does not do anything about it, and lies, claiming that he has not had any money to do anything, while he actually does. He also does not appear to be leaving his apartment – in part because he is overweight, but it part because he does not want to – he has no life. The problem with that is that it is his choice. The problem with the problem is that he is overweight and some people are upset about it, i.e. how ‘The Whale’ represents the overweight people. Mr. A, the movie’s director, flat-out dismissed it, but…

…But the thing is that ‘The Whale’ is about a man, depicted actually in a bland, non-controversial and uninspiring manner, which is why most ‘social justice warriors’ (or whatever the proper term currently is) have ignored it – as have a lot of other people, both associated with the WG/WL communities and not. Yes, Charlie is overweight. Yes, his last relationship was with another man, (though he has an ex-wife and a daughter). However, both of those factors are tacitly underplayed, leaving Charlie mostly as a depressed anti-social loser who doesn’t want to leave his apartment and whose only friend is a female nurse named Liz. Next?

Here is the thing. Mr. A is not wrong when he rebuffed his critics – ‘The Whale’ is not entirely about the weight. Only in a certain way it is – the movie is named ‘The Whale’ for crissakes, therefore the excessive weight should play some sort of a critical role… otherwise, why include it? ‘Waiting for Godot’, for example, is minimalist to an extreme, but you do not have actors in fat suits in it either, because it would just distract from the rest of the movie/play/etc. Mr. A tried to play it smart regarding any controversies, (in a manner not unlike Disney/MCU post the first seasons of AoS and the CA: CW film), and he succeeded: ‘The Whale’ of his film’s title doesn’t apply just to Charlie, but to the entire film, as just like the metaphorical whale and Charlie, it is big, grey, and doesn’t go anywhere. But, hey, accolades galore! Yay, really!

…This is it for now, though. See you all soon!

PnP and 'Velma' - Jan 12

Obligatory disclaimer: real life sucks, but for the moment it is tolerable, so let us talk about ‘Pride and Prejudice’ instead.

Ok, no, first a shout-out to the new cartoon show ‘Velma’, which is a latest reboot of Scooby-Doo, in which Velma is a lesbian or bisexual and in a relationship with Daphne, while Fred is an oblivious idiot, and Shaggy… is just himself, because he’s an Afro-American, just as Velma is, and to openly mock him as in case of Fred is… risky? Bad? Liable to give you a Will Smith treatment, if you’re lucky?” Well, one of those, anyhow.

Let us try again. The Internet, and especially YouTube, is full of people who talk how this or that reboot is bad, and how being ‘woke’ is bad, and so on. That is fair, and the other people’s annoyance at them/with them is fair, and the fact that professional reviewers/critics and lay members of audiences do not often agree is fair as well. But! “Velma’ manages to hit all the politically appropriate notes in all the politically appropriate ways, and the result is a trite, predictable mess, where male WASPs, (such as Fred), are mocked and belittled with impunity, and everyone else rises up at their expense. Pause.

Now, some have already been comparing ‘Velma’ to a different cartoon show – ‘Daria’, a show that was popular during the 1990s. It starred, well, Daria, a girl from a well-to-do, (semi-Jewish) family, who was smart, sarcastic, and hopelessly in love with an older ‘bad boy’ – well, a young adult, (early to mid-20s), Trent Lane, an elder brother of her best friend Jane, who was a latent lesbian herself, (albeit in denial). Sadly, because the show was made during the 1990s, this was never acknowledged, and instead, the showrunners tried to make Daria straight by introducing a character of Tom Sloane – and this backfired rather badly and after about 5 TV seasons and a couple of TV movies, ‘Daria’ ended, though it still got a fan base. Now, in 2023, we got ‘Velma’, where Velma and Daphne are like Daria and Jane out of the closet, Fred is a Tom-like figure, and Shaggy/not Shaggy… well, no one is sure what he is doing on ‘Velma’, especially since… there is no Scooby-Doo.

…I, for one, care little about Scooby-Doo – the dog was annoying at best and intolerable at worst… but that doesn’t change the fact that he is the franchise, and without Scooby-Doo around, (so far, at least), ‘Velma’ isn’t a variant of ‘Scooby-Doo’; she is a variant of ‘Daria’ at best, and that just isn’t the same. In addition, Scooby-Doo isn’t a WASP; he is a Great Dane, so how will the writers of ‘Velma’ explain his absence, especially his prolonged absence? This will be entertaining, albeit in a sad way, but we became carried away.

So, ‘Pride and Prejudice’. It is a classic of English literature, well renowned for its’ wicked wit and successful conclusion. What of it?

For a start, it has a bit of Shakespeare in its’ literary DNA. I don’t know if Ms. Austen ever read Shakespeare, but given that Shakespeare is THE man in England, and especially in its’ literature, she probably did, however, briefly and ‘diagonally’, to put it frankly. This resulted in ‘Pride’ having a bit of ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ in its’ literary DNA – pause.

Shakespeare might be THE man in England, and especially in its’ English literature, but his plays just are not equal. On one end we were, say, ‘Romeo and Juliet’, which is a classic; on the other – ‘Much Ado about Nothing’, which is EXACTLY what it says on the tin; at the third there’s ‘The Taming of the Shrew’.

No one is exactly sure what ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ is about. It can be about a man crashing his wife’s spirit for the sake of money to a point where she turns on her fellow women, (who’re shown as manipulative and sneaky harpies by the Bard), in a haranguing monologue at the play’s end, or it can be about finding true love, or it can be about anything else, (especially since most adaptations tend to dismiss some details from the original piece). Without going too far, let us just recognize that ‘The Taming’ is a conflict-driven play, and the conflict is generated by Catherine and Petruccio’s interactions – and now we got ‘Pride and Prejudice’, where the roles of Cat and Peter are taken over by Lizzie and Darcy, while Wickham makes an appropriate Shakespearean villain.

…No, wait. Yes, Wickham is the villain of the piece, but while many fan works tend to make him into this great mastermind, in the canon, it is the other way around. Wickham might be wicked, (cough), but otherwise? He is a wastrel, a gambler, and a drunk; he does not plot, he does not think things through, he just acts and reacts. He wants a rich wife to carry him comfortably on… so he gets Lydia Bennett, the middle daughter, who doesn’t have much in terms of a dowry, and who just wants to get married. That is it. In some spin-offs, such as the ‘Lizzie Bennett diaries’, Lydia is given a character and a personality of her own, but that is modern apocrypha; in Ms. Austen’s canon, neither George nor Lydia have much in terms of personality or intelligence or Christian values…

Oh, yes, there are plenty of those in Ms. Austen’s novels; in case of ‘Pride and Prejudice’, we got Charles Bingley and Jane Bennett, who wait, who do their best to do the right thing, and who get their karmic rewards. Their primary differences from Lizzie and Darcy are the fact that Lizzie and Darcy are more (pro)-active, while Charles and Jane are more passive instead; they are more naïve and trusting, while Lizzie and Darcy are more cynical…but in a modern, positive meaning of the word. What else?

Uh, people tend to hate Caroline Bingley; why? Because she is petty and selfish as opposed to Lizzie’s greater goodness and generosity, plus Ms. Austen created her to be a foil to Lizzie, just as Charles Bingley’s other sister, Mrs. Hurst, is a foil to Jane. Still, a debt is only as good as its’ payment; these days, Mrs. Hurst is barely remembered in most official modern adaptations, while Caroline is going strong, and Lydia is… being redeemed, in some manner of way, just look at the ‘Diaries’ and the like. The original novel… not so much; I think that the last modern adaptation of ‘Pride’ was back in 2005 or so; since then, ‘Pride’ kind of gotten shoved out of the spotlight.

Cannot say that I am regretting this state of affairs, though. ‘Pride’ might have Shakespeare in its’ literary DNA, as well as Christian values, but it is also an ancestor of the modern Hallmark pieces as well. See, unlike Catholic and Orthodox Christians, the Protestant Christians, including the British, hate organized church and try to promote Christian values via secular manners, such as an enlightening novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’, where the righteous get rewarded, the wicked get punished, and there’s no mention of religion, (organized or otherwise), or of God and Devil. Clever, hah?

No, not really – these days, even modern Hallmark novels, films, etc. have mostly lost their steam; if ‘Pride and Prejudice’ stood at the beginning of the period and the process where the WASPs such as Darcy and Lizzie, were beginning to rise to power, then ‘Daria’ stood in the middle and ‘Velma’, where Fred the male WASP is a comic idiot, and Daphne his female counterpart is in a relationship with Velma, a female POC, is the end – but the discussion of this process is another story.

End