Who’d think that a movie about a kid’s toy would be one of the most human films of the year?
4.0 Acting 5.0 Production 4.0 Story 4.0 OVERALL with a ♥
First off, let me say that the production aspects of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie are … incredible. It is a beautiful movie and an incredible homage to its subject matter and its selected era aesthetic.
The movie itself is far more complex, with dozens of delightful, if not bravura, performances (Margot Robbie is, no matter what Helen Mirren says, perfection), coupled to an intricate narrative and examination of concepts around feminism, patriarchy, interpersonal relationships, societal norms, existentialism, capitalism, self-actualization, and a stubborn defiance of expectations to turn an message movie about dolls into a cartoon of easy heroes and villains.
I’m always a bit leery about saying something is brilliant, or even profound, but I will say that Barbie is simultaneously entertaining, nostalgic, hilarious, moving, inspirational, and thought-provoking, and I look forward to re-watching it a number of times in the future.
(And if it doesn’t have a broad spread of Oscar nominations, I’ll be quite put out.)
Things actually went pretty well in Colorado, and a lot less dire than expected nationally.
So looking at Colorado’s races, I’m pretty happy. the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and AG, all went pretty strongly blue.
On ballot measures … most of what I voted for (link and link) passed. Some important ones, like school meals funding were a pretty resounding success.
Of course, we also cut the income tax rate. 🙄
The three liquor bills look like they are going down to defeat, although 125 is still very close at this moment.
Dems won for the US Senate seat (soundly), and US House Districts 1, 2, 7, and my own 6 (go, Jason!). The usual gang of idiots took 4 and 5. The new district 8 looks like it might go blue, but it’s pretty tight.
Most importantly, from a state reputation basis, House District 3, a West Slope country-conservative area, just might be sending Boebert home, which would be a real relief no matter how the House overall goes. We’ll see.
On a national level, it’s still unclear how the House and Senate will end up — very tight in each chamber, which will hamper either side from extremes. Still, I’ll hate to see Jim Jordan and MTG doing their committee chair zaniness with even the barest sliver of a majority.
It’s clear, regardless, that the people who kept it from being the predicted “Red Tsunami” were, on the one hand, Donald Trump and his coterie of sycophants who not only endorsed some of the worst candidates out there, but forced all the others to bravely nod in support of his daftness. And, on the other hand, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, through their Dobbs ruling, mobilized a lot of turnout against GOP candidates who were, at best, trapped into being stridently anti-abortion (or who were).
Democracy, and our nation, are by no means out of the woods. But things are looking quite a bit less bleak than they were a day or two ago.
Some vocal bros sure seem to be constantly threatened by strong female heroes.
I honestly don’t get the Captain Marvel / Carol Danvers / Brie Larson hate thing, be it in comic books or the movies. I never have. It just always feels like it boils down to horrible resentment and fear of strong women who recognize themselves as such.
That observation was inspired by yet another article — “Comic Book Fans Reject Captain Marvel | Cosmic Book News“– with that theme. “Everyone hates the Captain Marvel because she sucks and she hates men and Marvel is ruining my childhood.” But I’ve been reading this kind of “analysis” for years, ever since (a) Carol got her new name and outfit and (b) she got her own MCU movie announced, too.
Brie Larson as the MCU’s Captain Marvel
And I find that outlets that actually echo those sentiments tend to be a click-baity toxic stew of such feelings, largely just amplifying a relatively small number of hating, if vocal, broflakes, who seemingly can’t stand the very concept of a superhero who can trade punches (or energy blasts) with the best of them, but is a girl, and almost certainly has girl cooties.
(I’ve taken to asking Google News to exclude those media outlets, since I rarely find myself in agreement with any of their other pronouncements, including, frequently, how Zack Snyder is a cinematic god.)
Is Captain Marvel (comic or movie) my bestest ever experience? No. I think the character (originally as Ms Marvel) has rung through too many changes over the years (female version of a male hero, early feminist icon, bathing suit-wearing flying brick, amnesiac victim, hyperpowered cosmic hero, alcoholic … then, finally, as Captain Marvel, fearless pilot and icon for girls).
Alex Ross does a nice, if incomplete, survey of Carol Danvers’ outfits over the years
That current iteration of the character in comics has gone through a series of writers and artists and, well, series, and attracted both fierce fans and fierce detractors, but only so-so readership. I’ve bought its various incarnations because I’ve enjoyed it, but I’ve never put it at top-of-stack as the best thing of the week.
(That the comic has gone through multiple volumes and directions and creative team is much hallooed by the character’s critics, as in the original article noted, without any consciousness of how many other characters and titles go through similar things without being condemned as a threat to All that is Right and Good (and, of course, Masculine).)
But I can say, “Hey, this is only good, not great” without the need to pin down a binary “best of breed” or “dirty mongrel” … perhaps because I don’t see Captain Marvel as a threat to my ego or the rest of my comic book / movie franchise experience. I can see a comic / movie starring a strong woman — one who’s not showing a whole bunch of skin, at that — and not feel like my masculinity is being threatened, let alone attacked.
Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel was supposed to be a tentpole for the next wave of Marvel movies, something that COVID-19 put into a tailspin. It’s strong but not blockbusting performance may have also led to the next installment pivoting to not being another Carol solo film, but The Marvels, which will include two other related characters: Monica Rambeau (seen getting her powers in WandaVision), who in the comics held the Captain Marvel name for a while*, and Kamala Khan (a teen who in the comics got powers and took on the moniker of Ms Marvel).
I hope that’s all setting up a whole bunch of new goodness, not a response to dudes who think Captain Marvel doesn’t fit their toxic view of womanhood.
* Short history lesson: The first superhero named Captain Marvel was originally a knock-off of Superman back in the 1930s, published by Fawcett. DC ended up suing Fawcett over it, quashing the comic, and eventually buying the rights to the character. Meanwhile Marvel decided it should have a character by that name, obviously and created its own Captain Marvel, a Kree spy who “went native” and defended Earth. Carol Danvers was a character in his book, and eventually got exposed to McGuffin technology, and became the similarly-powered Ms Marvel. DC started up its Captain Marvel comic again, though usually not as part of its mainstream universe. Marvel, who couldn’t make a huge commercial go of its Captain Marvel, killed him off with cancer (great comic), but realized it needed to keep the name in use in order to defend the trademark. So Monica Rambeau got created to be called Captain Marvel, though she later changed her hero name to Photon. Various other Captains Marvel showed up in Marvel, until someone had the obvious idea a few years back of renaming Ms Marvel to Captain Marvel, putting an end to all that. Meanwhile, DC finally agreed to rename their Captain Marvel to the name he invoked to trigger his powers, Shazam. And now you know. And knowing’s half the battle.
Captains Marvel: Marvel’s Kree Mar-Vell; Carol Danvers; and Fawcett Comics’ Billy Batson Captain Marvel, now called Shazam.
Since I talked about my Colorado ballot proposition choices before the election, it’s only fair I report on how the People voted. Colors will indicate whether I won or lost.
Amendment B: Doing away with the Gallagher Amendment on Property Taxes
I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). Colorado’s tax laws remain a mess, but this has yanked a few wires out of the tangle.
Amendment C: Easier / more profitable to run bingo-raffle games.
I voted NO. Result was YES (52/48), but fails by not reaching the required 55%. Changes in the ballot proposition system a few elections back means that some proposals require a 55% win. This one didn’t meet it, which I’m just as happy about, as the whole thing sounded like a scam.
Amendment 76: Edit a voting requirement to “must be a United States citizen”
I voted NO. Result was YES (63-37). A solution searching for a problem, and a sop for nativists.
Amendment 77: Allow limited gaming towns to go hog-wild with games and stakes.
I voted NO. Result was YES (60-40).Some towns and community colleges will get a little richer. Some gambling companies will get a lot richer. A bunch of Coloradans will get a lot poorer.
Proposition EE: Nicotine tax on vaping products and smoking tobacco products.
I voted YES. Result was YES (68-32).Everyone loves a sin tax.
Proposition 113: Join the National Popular Vote compact?
I voted YES. Result was YES (52-48). The Electoral College sucks. Enough Coloradans feel that way, too.
Proposition 114: Reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado?
I voted YES. Result was YES (50.3-49.7). This one barely eked its way to victory. Oh, btw, the Trump Administration just announced gray wolves were off the Endangered Species List.
Proposition 115: Ban abortion at 22 weeks?
I voted NO. Result was NO (41-59).I wish the margin had been higher. But, then, I wish folk would stop putting this on the ballot every election.
Proposition 116: Cut state income tax from 4.63% to 4.55%
I voted NO. Result was YES (57-43).Most people won’t notice the difference, but state programs will.
Proposition 117: Require voter approval of state enterprises that charge un-TABORed fees?
I voted NO. Result was YES (52-48).This state remains compulsively anti-tax.
Proposition 118: Create a paid family and medical leave program?
I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43).But we’re also kind of progressive on what we want government to do. Yes, that’s quite a contradiction. But I’ll take it on this one (though it will be up for referendum in two years based on the win of Prop 117).
Overall, I’m pretty pleased, going 7–4 on how I wanted the vote to go — and not losing on the ones I felt most strongly about. So … I’ll take my victories where I can.
It’s a long list, but here are my initial judgments and inclinations.
We received our 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet yesterday for November’s election. There are 11 statewide measures up for voter approvals: amendments to the state constitution, amendments to state law, a tax question, and a referendum on a passed state law. Here are my thoughts after going through them all.
Amendment B: Repeal the Gallagher Amendment
This one gets kind of deep in the weeds of the mess that is Colorado state taxation, a result of conflicting voter amendments over the past few decades whip-sawing between “taxes bad!” and “government services essential!”
The 1982 Gallagher Amendment locked up the proportion between residential (45%) and business (55%) property tax revenue each year, which causes a mess given that (a) property values have gone up at different rates (residential is now 80% of the property value in the state, up from 53% in 1982), and (b) there is a lock on the nonresidential assessment rate.
Bottom line, if this passes, the tax rate for residential property will likely stay stable, leading to increasing taxes (as property values rise), combating programmed drops in local and state tax revenue and, in turn, public services. That seems reasonable to me, even as a person whose property tax costs are likely to go up. I’ll keep reading on the arguments about this, but my vote is Probably YES.
Amendment C: Conduct of Charitable Gaming
This amendment lets new non-profits more quickly run bingo and raffle games after they start, and hire professionals to do so. That sounds like a great way to implement “soft” for-profit gambling under the guise of charity. NO.
Amendment 76: Citizenship Qualification of Voters
Populist amendment to restrict all voting to only US citizens. A solution in search of a problem. Bah. NO.
Amendment 77: Local Voter Approval of Casino Bet Limits and Games
Colorado allows low-stakes gambling (certain games, bet limits of $100) in three old-timey towns up in the mountains: Black Hawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek. This proposition allows local voters there to add additional games and new bet limits, with added revenues mostly going to community colleges.
Meh. I don’t see any need to turn those towns into even bigger gambling meccas, let alone the costs of gambling addiction problems. The idea that all this only affects those three communities, when they draw on the population of all over the state to visit and drop their money at the tables, doesn’t pass the laugh test.
I also dislike, on principle, the “let’s do this bad thing because we’ll give the revenues to a good cause” enticement. NO.
Proposition EE: Taxes on Nicotine Products
While in principle I am fine with taxing the snot out of tobacco consumption, and even with adding some sin taxation on highly addictive vaping products, there’s a certain illogic in using such increased taxes to pay for essential programs like education, as that then creates a perverse incentive to actually keep the revenue source (smoking, vaping) continuing at high levels — especially perverse, since part of the tax revenues is to pay for “tobacco education” that would reduce such revenues. Still, I’m Probably YES.
Proposition 113: Adopt Agreement to Elect US President by National Popular Vote
The state government passed a bill this year to make Colorado part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which commits the state to selecting its presidential electors based on the national popular vote (once an electoral majority of states join the compact). It’s a cheap-ass but effective way to bypass the Electoral College mess embedded in the US Constitution.
This is a citizen-initiated referendum on a passed bill (the first successfully petitioned referendum since 1932), filed by folk who think the Electoral College is really keen because it’s netted them two GOP Presidents in the last few decades who ought to have lost. They also seem to think it’s very unfair that, under it, cities with more people in them would get voting power actually proportional to their sizes. That they are couching their arguments in the dishonest assertion that this is “protecting Colorado’s vote” doesn’t lend them any more credibility. Bah. YES.
Proposition 114: Reintroduction and Management of Gray Wolves
This allows state management (under federal endangered species supervision) to reintroduce and manage gray wolves in Colorado, with state funds helping ranchers who lose livestock to the wolves.
Yay for wolves. YES.
Proposition 115: Prohibit Abortions after 22 Weeks
Colorado conservatives perennially put up an anti-abortion measure, which perennially gets shot down (and probably pulls more liberals to the polls than would do so otherwise). This year’s edition avoids “personhood” bits by simply dropping in an arbitrary 22 week limit except in cases where the woman’s life is physically in danger.
My personal belief is that decisions about abortions should be made by the mother involved, hopefully in consultation with a physician (and, where appropriate, in consultation with the father). Late-term abortions are very rare (1.3% would fall into this category), and a number of the grave factors involved in them are not covered by this one-size-bans-all bill.
I also find an intellectual dishonesty in putting the legal burden — fines and medical license suspension — on the doctors involved. If abortion is the grave moral wrong that the proposition’s supporters assert it is, exempting the woman involved from penalties is solely pandering in order to pass the proposal. NO.
Proposition 116: State Income Tax Rate Reduction
“Taxes bad!” is not good public policy. Especially in a year when state taxes are already strained beyond the breaking point. NO.
Proposition 117: Voter Approval for Certain New State Enterprises
Another tax policy snafu. The state has formed various state enterprises over the years, from the Colorado Lottery to state universities to the state’s Unemployment Insurance and Parks & Wildlife groups. These enterprises charge fees for specific services (e.g., lottery tickets, hunting licenses, tuition), rather than drawing on general tax revenue.
The distinction is that under the early 90s TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) initiative, which is responsible for 75% of the zaniness in the state legislature, taxes cannot be initiated or increased without voter approval, but fees can be. Further, state enterprises are exempt from TABOR budget growth limits.
The proposition basically calls large state enterprises a runaround of TABOR, and so would require taxpayer voting before they were created.
Bah. Anything that carves out exemptions to TABOR is fine by me. NO.
Proposition 118: Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program
Sets up a program, like it says, that would function a lot like Unemployment Insurance for family leaves (intersecting with the federal unpaid Family Medical Leave Act and state-mandated sick leave provisions). This would cover people taking time off for birth/adoption, care for a family member with a serious health condition, for circumstances around a family’s active duty military services, or for a short term leave dealing with issues of domestic abuse, sexual assault/abuse, and stalking.
This all seems like a fine and civilized idea. The counter-arguments that it will be very complicated and that it will actually cost money, are both expected and insufficient. It’s the right thing to do. YES.
Other Stuff
We also have a mill levy increase for Littleton Public Schools. YES.
When a collective noun is fundamentally masculine, how do you include women in it?
I know that the term “Latinx” is meant to be pronounced “La-teen-ex,” but given it doesn’t crop up much in spoken conversation around me, my brain tends to read it as “La-tinks.”
I know that the term "Latinx" is meant to be pronounced "La-teen-ex," but given it doesn't crop up much in spoken conversation around me, my brain tends to read it as "La-tinks".
I still think it’s a cool neologism, though. The Boy has been learning Italian and Latin in college, and is being thrown a curve by the gendered nature of those languages. Just as in English we’ve been tackling gendered aspects of our own tongue, languages built around gendered nows (and then verbs and other parts of speech that have to echo them) often incorporate sexual bias and traditional expectations.
“Latinx” is an effort at a collective noun that, unlike “Latino,” doesn’t seem to exclude half the people involved.
Everyone’s looking for a single, simple answer. There isn’t one.
I would normally do this as a set of Twitter entries these days. But it’s a bit long, so …
As Elizabeth Warren — my primary choice — drops out of the field after a poor performance on Super Tuesday, the question that naturally arises is, why didn’t she win?
Everything seemed like it could have been there for her to do so. She had a remarkably high favorability score amongst Dem voters. She was usually at the top of the list as a second choice candidate. She was articulate, intelligent, passionate, showed her homework, and on and on.
Is there a magic, singular reason it didn’t happen? Nope. Instead, there are several reasons that coalesced to erode away her front-tier status — some of them her fault, some of them nobody’s fault, others …
It was a very crowded field. This was one of those years when everyone and their sibling decided to run in the Democratic field against Trump, heartened both by Trump’s own “anything’s possible” win in 2016 and his deep unpopularity. Remember those first few debates, where the contestants got mixed randomly across two nights?
The result was that a lot of folks liked Warren and even would have been okay with her, but were able to find someone closer to their preferences as their first choice. And among Warren’s own supporters, polls showed that they tended to be more excited about other candidates than other candidate’s supporters were, meaning other factors meant it was easier to peel off that support.
That said, to the extent that she, along with Sanders, were off to the further left side of the spectrum, she also suffered from direct ideological competition with Sanders, who came into the race with a large group of dedicated followers and the experience of 2016. If Sanders had not been in the race, a lot of that support would have presumably gone to her.
A lot has been made about sexism, given how we’ve gone from a large candidate tally that had multiple female candidates of varying credibility — Williamson, Gabbard, Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren — and have ended up with Two Old White Guys. (Gabbard remains in the race, but very much under the radar, and for reasons and goals that do not seem to be an actual run for the presidency.)
The sexism here is definitely a factor. Nobody credible said, “Oh, a woman can’t be President,” but plenty of people worried, “Hmmm, can a woman be elected President?” It wasn’t their own feelings that restrained them from supporting Warren, but their evaluation of other peoples’ feelings — the dreaded “electability” consideration. “Will Trump supporters who might be wavering consider voting for a woman?” “Will being a woman make her a particular target for Trump, like Clinton was?”
Even some folk who might overcome those questions in the abstract, when faced with the overwhelming urgency to defeat Trump, might have decided to play it safe and go for a guy.
That similarly came into play in the question of Warren’s progressive politics — my sense is that she sold that policy more effectively for a lot of people than Sanders has, having more appeal to people closer to the center, but that whole “socialism” thing played into her electability factor as well. “I’d vote for her, but I’m not sure other people will” being the the self-fulfilling prophecy in the era of fearing Trump’s re-election.
Indeed, to the extent that the “socialism” thing has generated worry within the more centrist/moderate ranks of the Democratic party — where, even if they like individual proposals, it feels risky right now in a time of plague and with a Trump re-election at stake. Had Biden continued to falter, would Warren have been seen as a possible middle ground between Bloomberg and Sanders? The Biden resurgence at Super Tuesday, following his success in South Carolina, not only knocked out his immediate moderate competition, but ultimately Warren as well.
While Warren seemed to be less seen as an enemy of the Democratic establishment than Sanders, it’s also been clear that establishment — whether from fear of a Trump re-election or fear of their own wealth — were less enthused with the progressive left than the moderate / centrist wing of candidates. I don’t think they particularly put their thumb on the scales in her case, but I think they are just as glad to see her go.
Warren got generally good marks for her debate performance, and everyone seems to agree that she gets the lion’s share of the credit for knocking Mike Bloomberg out of the race. But I found her outings at the debate a mixed bag, too reliant canned answers and repetitious anecdotes (she fared much better in 1:1 interviews and other less game show-style verbal outings). While her Vegas debate got her a small bump, I don’t think the debates helped her enough.
I’ve mentioned the problems of being, policy-wise, competing for the same ground against another major candidate whose turned out to be in the final contention. Subjectively, in the Twitter threads I followed, I found that there was a particularly vocal cadre of Sanders supporters who were aggressively resentful of her running as a progressive, “stealing” votes from Bernie, not being as ideologically pure as Bernie, and (worst of all) her occasionally criticizing or disagreeing with Bernie.
I don’t actually think a host of snake emoji and hashtags and vitriol scared her off, but it made any positive discussion of Warren and her campaign more difficult.
One of Warren’s tag lines was her “I have a plan for that.” I think that, net-net, that was a positive for her: she’d thought about these things, came up with concrete ways to address them that didn’t rely on magical thinking, and pursued them with confidence.
The problem with so many plans was two-fold. For some folk it came across as too intellectual and wonkish. Like the Emperor’s “too many notes” critique in Amadeus, for some people her intellectual rigor and professorial background was a turn-off (which, coupled with societal sexism, probably didn’t help, either).
The other problem is that, when she felt she needed to revise something — from a misunderstanding, or because she saw a way to improve it, or even for political practicalities — it left her open to attack. This came up in particular over her shifting on Medicare For All; her shift (however you characterize it) on implementation timing didn’t improve her appeal to moderates who think M4A is either an awful idea or an election killer, and it was throwing chum into the tank for the Sander supporters who wanted to characterize her as No True Progressive And, In Fact, Probably Just Plain Evil Hssssssss (that Sanders politely disagreed with her and has spoken positively about her M4A support didn’t do anything about that kind of attack).
The question of age has come up in this election. While Warren always showed remarkable vigor, physically and mentally, she was sometimes lumped in with the other older candidates by some folk, and, to get back to the sexism thread, age is always more of a handicap for women in the public limelight than for men.
While some media outlets and individuals seemed warm to Warren, the nature of contemporary news coverage of elections netted out against her. She got face time when she was rising, but once that had stalled and she was further back in the pack — 3rd to 5th — she became yesterday’s news, to the extent that she was sometimes left out of polls or reporting on them, even in favor candidates that were doing worse but were the media flavor of the week (as Klobuchar and Buttigieg took turns with late in the campaign).
The media loves a horse race, competitive drama. When Warren wasn’t providing that, the media coverage dried up, whether or not it shouldn’t have. Super Tuesday was a poor showing for her, but the coverage of that night made it out to be a two-person race regardless of what primaries were still to come or the nature of the convention. That didn’t help.
The last element in the room, so to speak, was the whole Native American heritage kerfuffle.[1] Warren’s initial error in letting family stories about that heritage convince her to identify for a time as Native American (though not with any actual harm done or advantage gained, from all that it has been investigated), and then her attempt to confirm that family story through DNA testing would always have been a blot of misjudgment on her record. But its gleefully racist misuse by Trump made it be seen as a liability in the election, and there were enough folk who felt, despite Warren’s repeated explanations and apologies, that it a serious problem that it gave more ammo to her critics within the party (again, generally from the Sanders camp) as if she had been gleefully stealing money from Native American babies while wearing a Washington Redskins jersey, hisssssssss.
Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, who was going nowhere except into Mini Mike’s head, just dropped out of the Democrat Primary…THREE DAYS TOO LATE. She cost Crazy Bernie, at least, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas. Probably cost him the nomination! Came in third in Mass.
What should have been — in the face of a thousand racist (etc.) transgressions by Trump, or of Biden lying about his background in the civil rights movement, or even some of the baggage Sanders is carrying around — a road bump became, not the iceberg that sunk Warren, but a wound that never was allowed to heal.
No list of “Why did this happen in the election” is complete without mention of possible foreign interference (thanks, Trump, for letting that particular concern about our democracy metastasize). Nobody’s suggested that Warren was a target for opposition (or support) by, say, Russia. But I can’t see her as a potential president that Russia would consider in their interests, like Trump, nor is she as divisive as her ideological niche competitor, Sanders. If nobody actively targeted Warren, the general partisan and intra-partisan conflict that Russia has fomented certainly worked against her.
None of these were conclusive. None of these factors explain everything. Individually Warren could have survived any of them. Cumulatively, though, they drove her campaign to the point of non-viability to win outright, or even to have a substantial delegate role in the convention.[2] Her decision to suspend her campaign is, sadly, probably the best one.
But I’ll always regret she didn’t get the nomination and become the next President of the United States.[3] Thanks, Senator Warren!
[1] I am not Native American, so I acknowledge my perspective here has limitations. It did seem that I saw a lot more criticism of Warren on this from non-NAs than from NAs and tribal representatives, esp. after she apologized early days in the campaign.
[2] Note that there is a timeline out there where we end up with a contested election and Warren gets drafted as the compromise candidate between Biden and Sanders– this kind of possibility is one reason why candidates always suspend their campaigns, not end them (though campaign finance is a much bigger reason). I deem this scenario highly unlikely, but it is not outside the bounds of historic possibility. Just saying.
[3] It has been suggested that either Biden or Sanders might offer her the VP role. I don’t think she would take it; more importantly, she is of more value in the Senate, both for her ongoing contributions and because, if she was elected as VP, the GOP governor of Massachusetts would name her, presumably GOP, successor, and Senate balance is nearly as critical as the White House.
That said … Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren has a nice ring to it.
An enjoyable, if violent and loud, comic book action flick. Quite watchable and fun.
This is not the greatest comic book movie ever. It will win no Academy Awards. It will not change your life.
But I had a fun time watching it in the theater, and I don’t at all regret paying to do so. It has its flaws, but overall I think it hits the mark. It’s certainly better than the opening weekend reflected.
And the state’s done the minimum amount to fix that.
Alabama has been an outlier in the US for allowing rapists to assert parental rights — child custody, visitation, etc. — over the offspring their assaults result in.
That particular bit of local charm slipped lawmakers’ minds when Alabama gleefully passed its new anti-abortion law, which provides no exception for cases of rape. The state legislature has since had to scramble to put some sort of provision into state law to deal with the presumed increased number of cases where women who are raped are forced to carry their baby to full term … and then potentially forced to associate with their rapists for the next couple of decades.
Scramble they did, and now Alabama will prevent that from happening. Kind of. Sometimes. Maybe. Their new “Jessi’s Law” only allows a court to terminate or restrict parental rights of rapists when there’s a conviction for first degree rape or incest.
Given the dramatic underreporting of rape, and the low numbers of convictions even when reported, that dependency on conviction makes it a minor comfort indeed.
And the limitation to first degree rape means second degree sexual assaults — which includes statutory rape — are excluded from the law. So when Mom’s skeevy boyfriend assaults and impregnates her 13-year-old daughter, he can still ask for parental rights for the baby (or, more likely, threaten to do so to get them to drop any possible charges).
Daniel, 51, says he’ll be hanging up his slimline tuxedo after his fifth Bond movie is released next year. And after 13 years in the iconic role the actor says it should be open to everyone regardless of gender, race and sexual orientation.
He said: “I think that everybody should be considered. Also for women and for African-Americans, there should be great parts anyway, across the board.”
What was more, um, “interesting,” was the reaction of the Twitterati comments on that thread about the idea of a woman playing Bond, largely aligned around either “That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard” or “Oh, look, the Social Justice Warriors are ruining everything some more.”
I’d like to examine this question a bit, to figure out what I think about it, but to do so based on, well, reason vs. knee-jerk testosterone poisoning.
Who, what, is James Bond?
My rule of thumb on expanding casting of traditionally white, male, straight characters into other categories is, does doing so make so significant a change in the character as to render it unrecognizable from the original?
It’s useful to remember that the James Bond movie franchise has been going on for over fifty years now. As someone who’s watched the entire series multiple times, and who’s actually read the Ian Fleming books fergoshsakes, I can tell you that “Who is James Bond?” has changed answers multiple times. Even the 60s grit of Sean Connery made Bond out to be a nicer, more heroic fellow than the damaged goods, self-destructive assassin and brute that Fleming wrote of. George Lazenby’s french cuffs made for a softer Bond in his one abortive outing. Roger Moore, in keeping with his times, pivoted the character around past the playboy of The Saint to almost a self-lampoon or urbane spydom (particularly as he aged out of the role). Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, and especially Daniel Craig, have all shifted the role back to something harder and more gritty, but each have been product of their time and the targeted movie audience demographic. Suggesting that there is a unitary “Bond” to test against for gender characteristics is a dubious idea to begin with.
But, heck, let’s go ahead and hypothesize that there’s some ur-Bond that we can use as a touchstone, something the collective race consciousness would recognize as the Platonic ideal of Bondness. What are that character’s characteristics?
Bond is a Spy
Bond is a Killer
Bond has Class
Bond is a Thrill-Seeker
Bond is a Womanizer
Bond is English
Those seem to be the general attributes that go into James Bond. Now, does making Bond a woman break any of those?
Bond is a Spy: Whether it’s breaking into a mad criminal genius lair, obtaining material from (or sabotaging) a geopolitical enemy, or otherwise serving the covert missions of Her Majesty’s Secret Service in defense of the West, the World, or just that Sceptered Isle, Bond is the most famous movie franchise spy on record (Jason Bourne doesn’t even come close).
Can a woman do that? I don’t see why not, just as one might answer to the next one …
Bond is a Killer: While it’s sometimes played down a bit, ultimately that “double-0” agent nomenclature represents a “license to kill”. Bond is an assassin (in some movies, very clearly portrayed as such), and even when killing someone is not the specific mission, Bond has explicit permission from HMG to kill anyone who gets in the way of that mission.
Can a woman do that? Brute violence, getting one’s hands dirty with blood, often aren’t seen as traditional female courses of action, but we certainly have any number of models where it’s been done, from Black Widow to La Femme Nikita to Helen Mirren’s Victoria in RED, there’s plenty of precedent.
Bond has Class: Oh, that vodka martini, shaken-not-stirred. The tuxedos and the baccarat. The ability to flip back and forth from hobnobbing with the rich and royal to snapping the necks of their bodyguards (with appropriate bon mots for each). The discernment as to vintages of wine or points of origin for caviar.
Again, I don’t see anything there that a woman could not do, even is coolly assertive behavior from a man around these things might be reflexively labeled as being “pushy” or “snobby” from a woman. We’re going to touch on that in a bit.
Bond is a Thrill-Seeker: Fast cars. High-stakes gambling. Even his profession. It’s been noted (all the way back to the books) that Bond is an adrenaline junky, a thrill-seeker. “The world is not enough,” goes the translation of his family motto (and a later movie title). And there are times — in the movies and the books — where this appears taken to extremes, to the point where it seems that Bond has a death wish (to complement occasional PTSD).
Those are attributes that are not generally associated with female characters, though I’m not sure why they couldn’t be. The perception of a woman who’s an adrenaline junky, though, is that of a woman with a defect, someone out of control. When it’s a man, it’s usually seen as an admirable (if possibly foolhardy) trait.
Addressing that perception sounds like a challenge to me.
Bond is a Womanizer: This is where people usually get the most indigestion over gender-swapping Bond. What about the Bond Girls?
It goes largely without saying that Bond sleeps around. A lot. Keeping score during the movies is a hobby for some people. While this trait has mellowed out a bit in recent years, it’s still one of the key attributes people associate with the character. And, as we “know,” a guy who sleeps with a lot of women is seen as, well, especially manly. A gal who sleeps with a lot of men is seen as, well, a slut.
Even in a less promiscuous Bond world, as we’ve had under Craig, where there’s been some attempt to add personal depth to (usually doomed) relationships, there’s still a distinction that gets drawn between a spy who has sex with the enemy in order to achieve the mission when the spy is a man vs. a woman. The man is assumed to be a stud, acting with agency (and having fun at the same time). The woman, on the other hand, is letting her body be used, giving her all for England (and not with a wry wink). (Alternatively, she’s some sort of unnatural sexual predator who’s to be feared, if not pitied.)
I’m more than happy to say that’s a very sexist attitude, and one that I suspect a lot of people would not explicit cop to these days — but I’ll also confess I think it would stand in the way of directly mapping the traditional Bond model onto a woman. Jane Bond sleeping with a series of well-oiled “Bond Boys” is probably not going to cut it. (Nor, for different reasons, Jane Bond sleeping with a series of bikini-clad Bond Girls.)
Of all the problems here, this is the one that’s the most difficult.
Can you have a Bond who’s not a “womanizer”? Going back to the books is no help here — the Bond there would be thrown in jail for his treatment of women, certainly not lauded as a hero. The layers of societal expectations and prejudices about sex and romance for women vs. men seems difficult to work around. Heck, the occasional mooning by Bond for a long-term relationship, perhaps retirement and a family, sounds very different coming from a man than from a woman.
It would be the biggest challenge for any casting decision of this sort.
Bond is English: Yes, there are women in England, too. I think that would be fine.
(We’ll also handwave aside that Bond’s been played by some non-English actors, or that as a result of Connery playing Bond in Doctor No, Fleming actually gave the character a Scottish heritage.)
* * *
It occurs to me that there’s a further categorization that folds in a number of the above, and is part of what makes gender-swapping Bond so problematic: Bond is the quintessential alpha male.
He’s a stone killer. He is the ravisher of usually-cooperative women. He owns any room. He follows his instincts (successfully!), even in defiance of his stodgy bosses. He dares all. He wins all. Even when there is tragedy in his life, he bounces back. He lives well, even when (especially when) on the job. He doesn’t quite swagger, but he’d be justified in doing so. Men are jealous, intimidated, dominated by him. Women are eagerly (or fearfully) attracted, seduced, dominated by him.
He’s James Fucking Bond.
Can a woman be that?
On one level, there’s really no reason why not. But culturally, that’s really difficult to pull off. The quiet self-confidence and oozing of power that comes with all that window dressing is seen as quintessentially male, to the point where women who act that way get labeled in negative ways, the male virtues being portrayed as female vices. Women who dominate are called pushy and bossy. Women who strive to win conversational gambits are called bitchy. Women who are aggressive are abrasive. Women like the above “alpha male” are considered undisciplined, sexpots, man-eaters, irrational if emotional and frigid if not, judgmental, strident, vain, ball-busting …
(Insert any number of descriptions of Hillary Clinton vs. any number of male politicians from whom she acted no differently.)
It’s unfair and irrational, but it’s hard to argue that it would be an uphill challenge among a lot of the audience to have those Bondian traits applied, with that name, to a woman.
On the other hand, maybe that’s a challenge worth taking. Agent 007, after all, never backs down from something like that.
A few added notes:
Nobody in 1962 would have thought that “M,” the head of MI6, could ever be a woman, either. Dame Judi Dench begs to differ.
This is not a question about whether there are differences between men and women, as a broadly generalized binary whole. And, to my own aesthetic and orientation, vive la difference, as they say. But going from physical differences (in a broad range) to mental and emotional and behavioral differences, especially if you try to strip out the thick layers of expectations and stereotypes and biases and acculturation that our society assumes, still, about how “men” and “women” should be, is rightfully subject to a lot of debate.
And, of course, a character like Bond is an outlier, regardless of gender.
Craig (and others who have chimed in on this) also mentioned some other categories for cross-casting. While most of my awareness of British society comes from the media, I have the sense that the the idea of a contemporary black James Bond (Idris Elba is the perennial favorite here) would seem less jarring in the UK than in some circles in the US, and would not seriously conflict with any of the items above. (I have no doubt that some US racists would be outraged at the thought, however, even as they denied racism as the basis for their outrage.)
I suspect strongly, if sadly, that a gay James Bond would be even more fraught than a female one, with as little justification.
“But why would you want to do it? Why would you want to put a woman in as James Bond, except for some sort of SJW feminazi social mind control reason?” Two reasons come to mind.
First, why would you not choose the best actor to portray a character? To get back to my original point, if gender, or race, or whatever doesn’t affect the core story any more than hair color or eye color or handedness, then why not choose someone who can bring something interesting to the story?
Second, though franchises are about continuity, in the course of a fifty-year franchise, taking new looks and spins on the story of a British spy/assassin is not only inevitable, but necessary … and has already happened. Why not play with something that is attuned to the same vibe, but offers a fresh perspective? If you can go from Sean Connery (with an intervening step) to Roger Moore, why can’t you go from Daniel Craig to Emily Blunt?
“Can’t you just create another movie series about a British spy/assassin and cast a woman in it without desecrating the holy figure of James Bond?” Sure. Of course you can. Except that any movie that is part of the 007 franchise automatically gets a huge audience, at least for opening weekend. If you’re telling substantially the same story, why forego that profitable advantage? Or, rather, why would a movie studio choose to do so?
None of this is to say that the franchise must put in a woman in the title role, or even that they should, just that, perhaps, they canwithout radically changing what it means to be Agent 007, only giving it a new look.
Sketch of Bond commissioned by Ian Fleming as a model for comic strip artists at the “Daily Express.”
The hijab can be a symbol of oppression or of freedom
The hijab — the scarf-neck-head covering worn by some Muslim women — is not actually dictated per se by the Koran, but is a traditional dress in some parts of the Muslim world that has been tied to religious and theocratic rulings. It’s controversial in a number of places as religious wear, and as Muslim religious wear, but also as a sign of oppression against women in the Muslim world (and, as such, often conflated with other and more restrictive garb to hide, mask, or enforce the modesty of women).
Ilhan Omar, in hijab
The first article below demonstrates, though, that it’s not a matter of either-or. Some Muslim women (such as Ilhan Omar) wear hijab as a sign of their religious devotion, and celebrate it as a personal freedom. Others, esp. those living in some Middle Eastern Muslim nations, have it forced on them by state law, and consider it as a constriction of freedom.
The conflict seems perfectly understandable to me, analogous to another example of religious identification. I know a number of Jewish people, especially women, who wear a Star of David as a necklace, as an expression of their religious belief. Nobody (aside from anti-Semites) thinks a thing of it, save perhaps observing how cool it is that someone can choose to wear the symbol openly and without government sanction.
But if you had a law (as in Nazi Germany) where Jews were forced to wear a Star of David on their clothing to identify them as Jews … that’s clearly oppressive.
From there, it seems straightforward to celebrate that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab have the freedom to do so … but to condemn nations who mandate that all women do so (or even more).
Tucker Carlson accuses Chris Hayes of being a feminist who wears glasses. Like that’s a bad thing.
Tucker Carlson, whose Fox screedery competes with Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show, apparently thinks this is the height of drollery:
“Chris Hayes is what every man would be if feminists ever achieved absolute power in this country: apologetic, bespectacled, and deeply, deeply concerned about global warming and the patriarchal systems that cause it.”
Bespectacled, really? Jeez, Tucker, what are you, a third grader insulting someone by calling them “four-eyes,” or maybe calling them a “sissy”? Being willing to acknowledge that wrongs have been done? To
Frankly, given a choice as to which man I’d rather be, Chris Hayes or Tucker Carlson, I’ll go for my fellow bespectacled feminist guy.
What Carol’s success might mean for the X-Men and FF, oh, and what about her romantic life?
[Possible spoilers for Captain Marvel, but, really, you should have seen it by now.]
As the movie approaches the $1 billion box office level, Marvel’s Captain Marvel is, along with Black Panther, demonstrating that the MCU’s films (and, perhaps, movies in general) don’t need to primarily focus on white guys as heroes.
Which, honestly, I have no problem with, and in fact, applaud. There are a lot of characters in the Marvel Universe who are not-white and/or not-male, and this only frees up the opportunity to see more of them center screen, too. I would prefer not to see white guys disappear totally from the MCU — but that hardly seems likely. Heck, even the Snap didn’t do that.
I’m not actually worried about running out of white guys in the MCU.
(And, yes, there’s even the possibility that some characters might be cast with people who don’t align with their complexion or even gender in the original comics. Nick Fury’s a kinda-good example of that being workable, as are changes with Mar-Vell. If done well, in a way that doesn’t significantly change something essential about the character, I don’t have a problem there.)
Beyond that, it’s noted that the success of these two heroes that are slated for prominence in the post-Avengers “Phase 4” movies, along with the movies already slated, indicates that Marvel need be in no big hurry to incorporate the massive properties they just inherited with the Fox deal: the X-Men and the Fantastic Four.
FF and X-Men — They’ve both been around for a while.
I mean, I’m as anxious as anyone else to see a decent film rendition of the FF, but I’m totally cool with both properties, esp. the X-Men, getting a few years of rest and reset, and then potentially centerpiece another phase down the line. Aside from the risk of super-hero flicks going out of style (which has been predicted multiple times over the last decade) before they circle around to those sagas, a break makes a lot of sense. Though in the meantime we can get some “hints” (news stories about mutations on the rise due to cosmic radiation or Infinity Stone leftovers; a NASA representative name-dropping Reed Richards; weird shenanigans on the news going on in the Sokovian neighbor nation of Latveria, etc.) to help tee up some excitement.
Another interesting thread of discussion that’s come up lately, viz Captain Marvel, is the question of Carol Danvers sexual orientation. It’s a little weird that it’s being brought up in large part because the character doesn’t have the traditional “boyfriend” in her origin movie, which is supposed to be a good thing because not every woman’s story has to be focused on her relationship with a man — but that’s, in turn, made people wonder if Carol’s relationship with Maria Rambeau or (and this would be an interesting twist) Mar-Vell might be more than just friendship.
I’m, honestly, non-committal. There’s nothing wrong with it, but there’s nothing particularly compelling about it, either. To be sure, I don’t have a personal stake in that particular representation, and I agree that getting some LGBTQ folk into the MCU picture (a million unofficial memes about Steve/Bucky notwithstanding) would be a positive thing in principle. I may just be a bit concerned at a meta level about the amount of heavy-eyerolling-See-it-was-all-a-feminist-plot that would ensue if it turned out that Captain Marvel was a lesbian, or even bi, but that seems inevitable no matter what happens with the character.
Honestly, the question of any sort of relationship for Carol is a more interesting one to me: a highly duty-driven person, whose memories have been messed up, who’s been betrayed by her closest friends, who’s just spent a few decades in deep space (has it actually been that long for her, or 3sd-are we talking some light-speed time contract compressing the interval for her?) … trust issues and understanding how to relate to people at all might be a serious uphill road for her, regardless of which way(s) she swings.
In short, on this as with other things, I’m more interested in good story than in particular agendas. If they want to have Capt. Marvel and Valkyrie as the hottest gay lovers in space-time, great. If she ends up in domestic bliss with Doctor Strange, well, that might be interesting. Heck, if she decides that Rocket Raccoon is her type, I’m cool with that, too. Just give me a good story about it.
Now if only they could find a pharmaceutical company with any interest.
A means of sharing the birth control burden with men (other than through condoms) has been a long time coming, and researchers working with a testosterone / progestin gel (dabbed anywhere on the body daily) seem to be coming close to an answer.
A bigger problem seems to be that pharmaceutical companies think there’s little to no market for such a thing, meaning the research isn’t exactly well-funded. Apparently they believe that men either are happy to fob off the responsibility for contraception to women, or that somehow they will be “un-manned” if they aren’t spraying copious sperm in all directions.
I disagree with their pessimism, but that may just be my own twisted sense of personal responsibility and lack of chest-thumping insecurity.
While I had my own minor issues with the movie, I’m delighted to see it’s doing even better than the studio had predicted.
Part of that delight is pleasure that the MCU brand continues hold strong, as we reach a new phase going forward.
But a good chunk of that delight comes from thinking about the broflakes who were vocally certain that such an uber-feminazi anti-male movie (which it most definitely is not, unless you think that “female super-hero” intrinsically means male-bashing) would crash and burn under the weight of its grim SJWness.
The billboard was paid for by ProgressNow Colorado as part of their Keep Abortion Safe project, and is addressed to the not-insubstantial number of Utah women crossing the state border for abortion services that are not readily available in their home state. And, perhaps, it’s just a reminder to returning Colorado citizens the legal protections they enjoy.
I mean, for much of the week he was blaming Chuck Schumer for the shutdown, keeping the Senate Dems from supporting a budget proposal in the Senate that would include his preciousssss Wall.
But that didn't work, and, let's face it, Donald will always pivot to attacking a woman when he can. Thus:
'“Nancy Pelosi is calling the shots, not Chuck," Trump said on Wednesday, referring to Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). "And Chuck wants to have this done, I really believe that. But she’s calling the shots, and she’s calling them because she wants the votes and probably if they do something she’s not going to get the votes and she’s not going to Speaker of the House and that would not be good for her.”'
So it's not Chuck's fault, Chuck's a cool guy, Donald can work with Chuck, y'know, man-to-man, Chuck "wants to have this done" he (now) "really believes." It's really all That Woman's fault. You know, the current That Woman: the dreaded Pelosi.
Or maybe it's the House Democrats, since, Donald says her reason for opposing his preciousssss Wall is that if she supported it she wouldn't get voted in as Speaker of the House (and "that would not be good for her" in some odd way).
Who will Donald yell at next? Isn't it time for him to claim that the Wall has already been approved and the Fake News is keeping us from learning about it?
Trump remains firm on wall, no House votes on Thursday
President Trump on Wednesday reiterated his demand that $5 billion for a border wall be included in any spending legislation that would end a partial government shutdown that is now in its fifth day.
Sure, you can take paid family leave under Marco Rubio's bill (as proposed / backed by First Lady Ivanka Trump). But you'll do so by pushing drawing on Social Security, and pushing back your eligibility to retire with Social Security by 3-6 months per child you had the nerve to have.
(And, of course, it would make it look like more money is being sucked out of Social Security than ever before, giving the GOP ammo to replace the program with, I dunno, coupons for McDonalds and tax cuts for the rich.)
