How To Undermine a Message: Netflix’s Cuties

This article contains discussions of the sexualization of young girls. Reader discretion is strongly advised.

When Netflix unveiled its first look at the new film Cuties, it was a disaster. Netflix used a poster of scantily clad, prepubescent girls in suggestive poses to promote the new movie, and people were rightfully offended. People left and right accused Netflix of promoting p*d*philia, harassed the director, and started the Twitter hashtag #CancelNetflix. When the film was finally released on September 9th, it just got worse.

However, some people (including prominent film critics), rushed to defend the film, saying that the poster was inaccurate and that the film was actually a condemnation of such imagery, not promotion, and that it was ‘beautiful’ and ‘worth a watch’.

It seemed as if people were discussing two separate films, so I decided to watch the film for myself to see what was true. What I found was, ultimately, a film that TRIED to serve as a warning about the sexualization of young girls, but ultimately backfired horrendously.

Cuties (originally titled Mignonnes) is a 2020 French film (not a Hollywood film, let’s make that clear) directed by Maïmouna Doucouré in her directorial debut. Doucouré, a woman of Senegalese descent, based the film partially on her own experiences as a Muslim refugee, and from witnessing an event where 11-year-old girls were dressed and dancing in a highly sexualized manner. Doucouré wanted to make a film highlighting how social media pressures young children to dress and act provocatively (a legitimate issue), and thus Cuties was born.

In the film, 11-year-old Amy moves from Senegal to Paris with her ultraconservative Muslim family. Her father is taking in a second wife, and even though the mother is clearly upset by this, the rest of the family encourages her to be supportive and accept the new wife. Amy, however, does not accept it. She seeks to rebel, and falls in with a group at her school called the ‘Cuties’.

The Cuties in question are a group of young girls who are obsessed with getting into a dance competition by twerking. They are HIGHLY fascinated by all things sexual (without any real comprehension or understanding of it), and thus serve as a culture shock for Amy. She becomes drawn to the group and is determined to enter the dance competition, posting suggestive pictures of herself on social media for clout. The film shows Amy go on a downward spiral as she lies to and steals from her family to support her habit and assault her peers, before making peace with her family and learning to act her age.

Throughout the film, I was struck by how utterly unlikable the entire cast was. The Cuties themselves are complete brats, showing no respect for their teachers or parents (the parents are completely clueless as to what their children are doing), bullying and hitting the other kids (they throw rocks at Amy when she catches a peek at them dancing), and even try to take a picture of a boy’s penis as he’s using the bathroom (specifically, they coerce Amy into doing it, although she doesn’t succeed).

The movie shows them repeatedly engaging in inappropriate acts, including blowing up a condom like a balloon to simulate a large bust and trying to engage in webcam p*rn. When they dance, the camera lovingly takes closeup shots of their bums (which they will occasionally slap) and suggestive poses. It’s in extremely poor taste, to say the very least.

Amy herself isn’t much better. She steals her older cousin’s phone, and when he confronts her about this (and this is where the movie really takes a turn for the worst), she literally tries to seduce him in order to get it back. He rebuffs her, and she snatches the phone from him, rushes to the bathroom, and (I’m sorry for typing this), takes a picture of her genitals and posts it online before giving it back to him. We don’t see any actual nudity, but we still see the act. When Amy is confronted for this, she is given an exorcism and a visit from an Imam, but she faces no real consequences; she is not grounded, the authorities are not involved. Amy also tries to drown one of the Cuties (we’re left uncertain if she survives) to get into the competition and faces no repercussions for this, either.

Despite the girls allegedly trying to be sexual in order to be ‘cool’, all the adults onscreen (save for two security guards) are outright appalled at their behavior. And that is, ultimately, why the film fails.

Rather than serve as a condemnation of a perverse society where girls are increasingly and subtly encouraged to act more ‘mature’ in order to please certain adults, the film frames (intentionally or not) the Cuties themselves as the perverts, and a bad influence on Amy. Rather than point out how adults often groom children online, the girls themselves are seen as trying to seduce older men. The girls are highly sexual but there’s no explanation given for how or why they’re like this other than jabs at social media and a brief mention on how one of the girls has neglectful parents. At the end of the film, Amy ditches the Cuties entirely but stays with her family, even if she refuses to attend her father’s wedding. The film completely neglects to address the root issue or show the girls how to explore their bodies in a healthy way and instead offers a shallow, disturbing representation of prepubescent children twerking and acting inappropriately meant to shock the viewers.

While it is crucial we talk about how girls are becoming more sexualized at an increasingly young age, I’m not convinced that this was the way to do it. The film is so poorly directed that it completely fails at what it tries to do. A more skilled director would’ve made everything implied (rather than shown) with careful shots, cuts, and edits, but Doucouré insists on having the camera ogle the young actresses’ nether regions to say “OMG this is bad!! Be disturbed!”, not realizing that this could very well serve as self-gratification material for the very people she’s trying to call out.

What especially bothers me is how the film’s defenders snobbishly dismiss its critics for not getting the supposed message. If only a select few people (re: people who studied film in university) can understand what a film is trying to say, then it’s not a good film. Something with an important message and a call to action (the director says that the film is ‘feminist’ with an ‘activist message’) should be accessible to all people, not just an elite few.

Ultimately, Cuties comes across as an exploitation flick rather than a thought-provoking, ‘beautiful’ film with something meaningful to say, made only to appeal to film snobs and rely on shock value for views. Even if the director did have good intentions, the fact that more people are angry at her than the topic she called attention to says enough.

If you want to watch something that has a similar premise but actually succeeds in its message (and is appropriate for kids to watch), consider The Proud Family episode “Hip-Hop Helicopter” on Disney+. It actually explains WHY the girls dress and dancing provocatively is bad without making them be the lecherous ones (it makes it clear they’re pressured by older teens and adults to be ‘cool’), and they suffer actual consequences for disobeying their parents. If you want a more mature film that takes a closer look at the exploitation of women and girls in media, consider Perfect Blue by Satoshi Kon; the main character is an adult but is simultaneously sexualized and infantilized by her fans and producers. If you want to make a film highlighting the trend of young girls becoming more sexual on social media, consider making a documentary. There is literally nothing in Cuties that you can’t get anywhere else, or make in another format.

How Not to Do Non-Binary Representation

In their continued quest to be as inclusive and diverse as possible, Marvel Comics introduced the new limited series New Warriors, coming soon-ish (presumably after the COVID-19 scare dies down). Marvel’s PR firm made a great deal of hyping up the all new diverse team, particularly the new and original non-binary hero. Sounds exciting, right?

This is what said non-binary hero looks like and is called:

View image on Twitter

Yes, Snowflake (as in “special snowflake”) and their twin, Safespace.

Before we continue, I need to make one thing clear: I am an enby (non-binary person). I have a very complicated relationship with my gender (as well as sexuality, but I’m not going there right now), and tentatively consider myself bigender/demigender. This means that there are days when I feel happy with being my assigned gender (female), and other times when I wish I didn’t have a gender at all. (Without getting too TMI, I have to wear a sports bra otherwise I start to become extremely gender dysphoric.)

With that description, I’m sure some people reading this would be quick to assume I must be a ‘special snowflake’, right? Well, that’s the thing I try to avoid.

I prefer they/them pronouns, but am willing to be called she/her pronouns to make things easier (only offline though). I have no problem using women’s bathrooms if no gender neutral one is available. While I have a bit of a preference for men’s clothes, I wouldn’t say I present myself as androgynous all the time. I mention being non-binary when I’m comfortable saying it, but I don’t need to announce it everywhere I go.

I do not speak for all non-binary people when I say this, but I want to make this clear: I do want people to respect my identity, but I do NOT want to make a huge deal out of it or receive special treatment. So, when Marvel creates a non-binary character LITERALLY NAMED SNOWFLAKE AND PAIRED WITH A CHARACTER NAMED SAFESPACE, that has a ton of negative connotations. Namely, that queer and non-binary (especially queer and non-binary people of color) are all “special snowflakes” who need “safe spaces”. It feels less like a genuine attempt at representation and more like tokenization at best, a cheap jab at worst.

This brings me to another thing I noticed about non-binary representation in media: the overwhelming majority of “non-binary” characters (who aren’t minor characters) are magical, non-human characters who of course wouldn’t fit into human gender binaries (ie the Gems from Steven Universe, the angels and demons in Good Omens, Janet from The Good Place, etc.). A lot of non-binary characters are also morally grey at best, actively malicious at worst, including Loki from Marvel Comics (a trickster god with loose morals), Double Trouble from Netflix’s She-Ra (a shapeshifting mercenary, whose default form is that of a humanoid lizard), and Heather Duke from the much-maligned 2018 Heathers reboot. A full list of non-binary characters have been compiled in a Wikipedia entry for you to see for yourself HERE.

At this point in my life, I’m tired of a non-binary character being announced who’s a shapeshifter, a robot, a god, and the like. I would love to see more non-binary characters who are, well, PEOPLE first. Regular people who happen to use different pronouns or present differently from the gender they were assigned at birth. They can still go on adventures and save the world, and they should absolutely be proud of who they are, but their gender shouldn’t be their defining trait. We need to NORMALIZE non-binary identities and genders, because when your only introduction to them is through a character who is a magical non-human entity, that leads you to believe that non-binary people really do think of themselves as magical creatures above humanity who are ‘special snowflakes’ who need a ‘safe space’.

The Problem of Pocahontas

Since the inception of cinema, portrayals of Native Americans/Indians has generally been TERRIBLE. Even today, it’s still apparently hard for Hollywood to get it right, with 2015’s Pan refusing to cast or even consider a Native Actress to portray Tiger Lily and casting lily-white Rooney Mara in her place, and 2013’s The Lone Ranger claiming to redeem an old racist character but continue to have Tonto speak without using articles.

Both films bombed, but the point is: Anti Indigenous Racism is a helluva drug in colonial countries like the US and Canada (don’t buy the myth that Canada is a multicultural utopia, we put First Nations children in abusive residential schools for decades). No one ACTUALLY wants to listen to Native individuals or advocacy groups on how to respect their culture because it would force them to acknowledge the bloody history of their country and ancestors. As such, we get non-native (usually white, let’s not kid ourselves) filmmakers deciding on behalf of Natives on how to properly represent them.

This came to a nadir in the 1990’s, when Hollywood attempted to make more sympathetic portrayals of Natives while still employing harmful stereotypes (mainly of the “Noble Savage” variety). One such film that has inspired love, hate, and discussion to this day is Disney’s Pocahontas.

First, a little history. The inspiration for the film came when Mike Gabriel, one of the directors, developed ideas for a Disney film based on classic western legends during a 1990 Thanksgiving weekend. Eventually he settled on the story of Pocahontas, pitching the idea to Disney as, quote, “an Indian princess who is torn between her father’s wishes to destroy the English settlers and her wishes to help them—a girl caught between her father and her people, and her love for the enemy”. Disney loved the pitch and put it into production.

From the beginning, Disney acknowledged that artistic license would have to be taken. Pocahontas’s story has three different versions: the romanticized, mythologized version by John Smith, which included a torrid love affair between himself and the chief’s daughter; the account by historians, which stated that she was ten to twelve years old when she first met him, never loved him (marrying a man called John Rolfe instead and going to England with him), and would try to find peace between her people and the settlers before dying of unknown causes at age 21; and the sacred oral history of the Mattaponi tribe (who were once part of the Powhatan Nation, I’m not sure if they still are), which asserts that Pocahontas was ripped from her home and culture, raped while in captivity, and was ultimately murdered for speaking out against colonialism. (I will not be debating which version of the latter two is the truth.)

As you can see, Disney chose the first version, but it looked like they were considering the historical version for a bit, with concept art of Pocahontas as a child:

But then Jeffrey Katzenberg, the then-studio chairman, wanted the film to get a nomination for Best Picture like Beauty and the Beast did. To do that, he thought it needed to be a love story, so he pushed the team to make Pocahontas older and for a more ‘adult’ romance between her and John Smith. Glen Keane, Pocahontas’s animator, complied, deciding to make her look like a mature woman to be “socially responsible” rather than “historically accurate”.

And honestly? I think the change in Pocahontas’s age and final design is a HUGE reason why the film is so problematic. Yes, there are people who love the film to death and will defend it, but there are also many others–including actual Indigenous people–who find the film extremely offensive and racist. And a lot of it comes from how Pocahontas herself is portrayed.

I don’t need to describe how Pocahontas is sexualized; I already expressed that HERE and a third party describes it HERE. She is aged up and sexed up to be in a relationship with a man she met at 10 years old historically (and the movie conveniently ends before the part where she gets kidnapped and dies at an early age). That alone is enough to piss some people off, but while looking up criticism for the film, I found this question:

Why does she trust the white men so easily, and why does she want to help them?

Well…probably because, even though she was eventually aged up, she was still written as a child.

See, throughout the movie, Pocahontas behaves kind of childlike. She dives off cliffs to show off, she tips Nakoma’s boat and has a splash fight with her (to which Nakoma says “Don’t you think we’re getting a little too old for these games?”), quickly writes off Kocoum because he’s too “serious”, and seeks comfort and advice from a kindly old grandma figure (who addresses her as ‘child’) rather than have a serious adult conversation with her father about her future.

But most importantly, her ‘romance’ with John Smith? Well, it’s not really romance. It’s more of a young girl’s infatuation with someone who is new and exciting, but also understands her. Notice how, immediately after Colors of the Wind, she begins to gravitate more towards him because she’s convinced that, even though he made racist remarks and is a member of an invading group, a future with him HAS to be better than being the wife of a stoic war hero.

And her insistence on making peace with the white men, even though there are several red flags of the dangers they present? The fact that even though her father explains that he’d love to just talk to them but that things aren’t that simple anymore, she stubbornly insists on a simple, peaceful solution? That feels a lot like childhood innocence and naivety. She doesn’t seem to realize (or refuses to believe) that going to the colonialists could hurt her people, saying that she wants to HELP her people and thinks that’s the best way to do it.

I can’t prove this, but I honestly feel that this character was always supposed to be a child (like she was in real life!) but was forced into a mature, sexualized body to enforce a romance that never even happened. The fact that her father describes her as speaking “with the wisdom beyond her years” (something you’d typically say about a young person and not an adult) really does convince me that this is what happened.

There are many, many other issues that your mileage may vary on, but that, to me, is the biggest fault of the film. The fact that, if the movie HAD to have been made (it didn’t) they could’ve SO EASILY accurately depicted her as a child, have a FRIENDSHIP with John Smith, and use her childhood innocence to try to make a peace, however temporary. Instead, the film resorted to perpetuating offensive stereotypes of a sexualized Native Woman falling for a white man who would break her heart at the cost of her own people.

Am I saying that you should no longer like the movie or the characters? No. I have no power or place to state how others can enjoy films or consume media; I can only offer my opinion and personal analyses/feelings and it’s your choice to agree or not.

However, I will say this: please listen to Indigenous people when they have something to say about the film. Some Indigenous people may actually like the film for what it’s worth. Others may be neutral towards it. Others still hate the film. Those are all valid and justifiable and their feelings are worth listening to and sharing. Don’t speak over or dismiss them when they raise criticisms, and don’t prop up those who like this film as a ‘gotcha’ to those who dislike it.

Furthermore, please help make sure their voices are heard so that a movie like Pocahontas doesn’t happen again. That the real history isn’t glossed over or romanticized. That the next time an Indigenous woman appears on screen, she’s portrayed accurately, respectfully, and heroically. That the many diverse and rich cultures of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, the United States, and other places aren’t depicted as just a prop for that of Western civilization.

But most importantly, help make sure their voices are heard so they can get proper representation and rights in real life. Because it doesn’t matter whether or not you love a movie critically or uncritically if you don’t say or do anything when white women can dress up in ‘sexy’ Pocahontas costumes while actual Native women are sexually assaulted just for existing.

Rant: No, Disney is Not Paying Critics For Good Reviews

Image result for rotten tomatoes

Rotten Tomatoes is a site that aggregates reviews from critics online to get a general consensus on the movie’s quality. Site users (non critics) can sign up and leave scores on how the audience perceives it. And sometimes, the audience and critics clash.

For some reason, people put in a lot of stock in RT scores. And when a movie they don’t like gets a ‘fresh’ percentage, they get offended.

The most famous example is The Last Jedi, which earned a glowing 91% rating from critics…and a dismal 45% audience score and is one of the most hated Star Wars films now.

So how could a movie that didn’t resonate with audiences get such positive reviews? Well, CLEARLY the critics were being paid for good reviews.

This is a real mentality that people have. I’ve seen this argument used against some Marvel movies and occasionally for Disney’s animated ventures (such as Incredibles 2 and even Ralph Breaks the Internet). Nobody could possibly like these movies, so clearly Disney paid a bunch of critics to leave positive reviews!

There are even mores ways for people to try to discredit Rotten Tomatoes when a movie they hate gets good reviews. Like the 2016 Ghostbusters has a 74% fresh critic score with an average rating of 6.5 out of 10, so CLEARLY the site is bad and broken. The new She-Ra reboot is using bots to leave good audience scores!

A couple of things.

First off, if Disney is really paying critics to give their movies good reviews, why do films like The Nutcracker and the Four Realms and A Wrinkle in Time have such abysmal scores?

Secondly, you need to realize that audiences and critics rate films differently. Critics rate a movie on a filmmaking, artistic level. They look for story structure, character development, visual presentation, and if it has any metaphor or message on our society. Audiences rate a movie based on how enjoyable it is for them. So a movie that can be considered high art for critics can come across as pretentious and weird to audiences. Similarly, a movie with a generic plot can get negative reviews but can be enjoyed by audiences if there’s enough cool action and likable characters (the new Venom is a great example of this).

And finally…why do you care? Why do you put so much stock into what critics and other people say? If YOU don’t like it, you don’t have to watch it. Simple.

Critics are not gods. They’re supposed to give you a general idea if a movie is worth seeing or not and it’s your choice to listen to them.

Similarly, a movie can be enjoyable to other people and not your cup of tea. That’s okay.

I think the reason why these mentalities exist is because of how integral movies are to our culture. They’re not just fictional characters, they’re your children. They’re not just fictional worlds, they’re places you want to go. So I can understand why people can get a little defensive when a movie they like gets panned or when a movie they hate seems to be adored by anyone else. But at the same time, though? It’s not worth getting hung up over what strangers think. What matters most is what YOU think of the movie and if you’ll give it your attention.

And finally, I wanna say that in the long run, critical reviews probably don’t matter much. What matters more is what kind of impact a movie will have on pop culture in the long run, not what some website says when it first came out.

Whatever Happened to the Ikea Monkey (and others like him)?

Content warning: this post contains descriptions of animal abuse.

Hey, remember Darwin, aka the Ikea Monkey?

Image result for darwin ikea monkey

Of course you do. He became an instant meme and media sensation, with reporters and viewers emphasizing how cute and funny it was how a monkey could be wandering around a Canadian Ikea in that outfit.

What did not become a media sensation was the decidedly less cute and funny account on how Darwin actually got to Ikea, and what happened afterwards.

In the wild, Darwin, a Japanese snow macaque, would’ve been living on his mother’s back for at least a year, nursing and foraging for food, relaxing in hot springs, and doing what monkeys do in the wild with his troop. Instead, Darwin was born (or smuggled) into the exotic pet trade in Canada and forcibly removed from his real mother to be given to a human owner, where he was kept on a harness and would wear diapers and children’s clothes.

His owner, an exotic animal enthusiast, bought Darwin because she felt she needed to be a mother again (she already has two sons, both of whom were still children when she got him) and took him with her everywhere. She insisted that she loved Darwin and Darwin loved her, but there is evidence that might not have always been the case. Darwin would frequently bite his owner and her son, especially during diaper changes, which at one point led to the owner leaving him in a soiled diaper for 36 hours. She would also threaten Darwin with a wooden spoon and smack him on the nose to discipline him. This isn’t slander by haters; she admitted to this in e-mails to a primate trainer. She would also admit that she felt unfit to care for Darwin and was willing to give him up. Yet despite the evidence glaring at her in the face that Darwin was not going to make a suitable pet, she embarked on a lengthy legal battle to get him back. She would go on weepy tirades on how much she bonded with the monkey, how she was supposedly tricked into giving him away, how he was really a domesticated animal and her son because he wore diapers, and how the sanctuary that took him in was evil for keeping him in a “prison” away from her. Apparently apartment buildings make better living spaces for wild animals than outdoor enclosures, and human owners care for them better than their real mothers. In the end, she didn’t get Darwin back, but instead of learning from the experience, she moved to the countryside and bought herself new monkeys (with allegations that she has a whooping 60 primates in her care now) to continue dressing up and treating like children.

Darwin’s tale is all too common for the thousands of primates kept as pets around the world. The media depicts monkeys as cute, friendly, funny and harmless animals. Chimps are permanently small and pink-faced, and capuchins are cheeky little devils. You’ve probably seen at least one movie or show where someone kept a primate as a pet or funny animal companion. What the media does not tell you is that primates can become very strong, hierarchical, carry diseases deadly to humans, and attack perceived threats or people they don’t like. That cute little chimp grows up to be bigger, less cute looking, pure muscle, and will literally rip your face off if you get on their bad side. (Yes, this has actually happened.) Yet some people think that primates would make excellent family pets and fuel the exotic animal trade to get them.

If a primate is taken from the wild, its entire family will likely be killed off since they will fight to the death to save it from the poacher. If the primate is captive bred, it will be removed from its mother days or even hours after birth in the hopes that it will bond better with its human “parent”. Puppies don’t get weaned off their mothers and sold as pets until they’re several months old, yet it’s considered acceptable to do this to an animal that needs to be with its biological mother for at least a full year. The people who buy the primates can do so for a variety of reasons, but the most common ones seem to be 1) for status symbols, 2) for surrogate children/permanent babies, or 3) for ad revenue (or a combination of all three).

The first reason is obvious. Anyone can have a dog or a cat. But a monkey or a chimp? That shows you’re rich and unique. You become the talk of the town, people make news stories and documentaries about you, you’re different from everyone else. Who cares about the monkey’s wants or needs.

The second reason is a huge phenomenon in the United States; a lot of people, especially older women, get monkeys to be their child that supposedly won’t grow up. Docile and dependent as babies, these monkeys are put in diapers and often made to wear people clothes and sometimes fed people food (which can give them diabetes). They’re great because they’re the perfect child that won’t talk back, won’t go away to college, won’t go to school or camp during the day, and won’t get into adolescent trouble. Who cares if you already have real children. Who cares if the monkey obsessively rocks with its stuffy because it got separated from its real mother too soon. It’s something that will be totally dependent on you for a long time…at least until it hits sexual maturity.

And third is unspoken, but it is apparent. A lot of people who get these monkeys can create a living off them through sweet YouTube ad revenue. They document their day to day lives with their monkey, feeding into the idea that monkeys make good pets, and viewers lap up these cute videos and follow them on social media. Some of them may be inspired to get their own monkey.

But the problem in all these situations is that the monkeys have difficult lives, and often don’t stay with their owners long. All primates get aggressive when they reach sexual maturity (which is within a few years) and start lashing out and biting. Bad behavior can continue afterwards if it tries to assert its dominance in the family. To try to mitigate these behaviors, owners will fix and neuter their monkey…and pull out their teeth and cut off their fingernails to make it less dangerous. And remember, a lot of owners will insist that their monkey is either like a dog or like a child, and yet we wouldn’t do that to either of them when they misbehave.

Sometimes the primate will be abused so it acts a certain way. In some areas with different cultural attitudes towards primates and where animal cruelty laws are less strict, there are certain owners who will force their monkey to walk upright by literally tying its hands behind its back. They are then often made to wear restrictive and gaudy clothing to model (which usually involves shaving the monkey) and upload videos of them looking and behaving ‘humanlike’ (re: unnaturally) for ad revenue and/or attention.

But no matter which part of the world the owner is from, they will post videos where the monkey is visibly distressed, making “fear grimaces” (which is often mistaken for a grin) and crying out. Some may simply be misinformed on how to properly care for a monkey and misread these behaviours as ‘cute’; others might actually enjoy inflicting pain on the primate and see it solely as a living plaything.

But ultimately, the primate will become too much for the owner to handle. Some owners do the right thing by releasing it to a reputable sanctuary, but many others end up keeping their primate in squalor and small cages, or resell it. Others still will abandon the monkey when it gets less cute and docile or even euthanize it. They may learn their lesson, or they will continue the vicious cycle and get a new baby.

Not so cute now, eh? Darwin is probably one of the lucky ones: he got saved from the cycle very early on. He was left alone in his owner’s car in the middle of winter, during a busy Ikea parking lot, and was somehow able to escape (good thing he didn’t freeze to death or get stolen by a carjacker). But most people stopped listening to his story after his trip to the store and likely won’t be aware of how he is part of a very cruel trade that keeps going on, and how movie and YouTube portrayals of monkeys as suitable pets often perpetuate it.

How’s Darwin now? He’s currently living in Story Book Farm Primate Sanctuary in Ontario, Canada, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently. Unfortunately his experience before arriving might have traumatized him, since he was very shy and didn’t want to come out to see the visitors (I could only catch a few glimpses of him). But he’s doing well all things considered; he’s gotten very big and strong (apparently strong enough to bend rebar), loves to play, and has found a father figure in Pierre, the handsome olive baboon resident.

The sanctuary relies on donations to survive so I strongly suggest you give them your support for their fundraising campaign. Story Book Farm is the only monkey sanctuary in Canada (the other primate sanctuary in Montreal only houses chimps) so they need it in case more primates in Canada become a victim of this trade. If you want to find out how Darwin is doing now, you can visit his Facebook page. For more information on the primate trade, watch the documentary My Child is a Monkey by Barcroft TV.

Remember, wild animals, including primates, will forever be wild. You cannot take that out of them, no matter how hard you insist the wild is too dangerous, or try to train and tame them like a dog, or treat them like your child. If you really want a primate, think about if it’s really so that they can live a happier life away from its troop and natural habitat, or just so you can feel better about yourself.

The Key(s) To Overwatch’s Success

When Overwatch first came out I was immediately drawn to it because of the colorful cast of characters and rich world. Now that I have actually been able to play the game I love it more than ever (the fact that it’s going to help me pass the time until I get a job probably helps a lot). And I’m not alone; this game is a worldwide phenomenon, with fans and players from all over the world, tons of merchandise, and an entire spectacle of the Overwatch League for pro gamers.

After playing the game, I think I’ve discovered two reasons why it’s so special:

Simple, Accessible, and Absorbing Gameplay

I have never played a First Person Shooter in my life, but it wasn’t hard to get into the game very quickly. There are training games where you can practice each character before you find a perfect fit, and the goals of each match are very simple: defend or attack a landmark, or escort or block a payload before time runs out, shooting at your enemy. There are no overly complicated goals or movements. And man, once you get the hang of it it’s very fun. Time literally does fly when I play it, that’s for sure! There are also plenty of other games within the game that you can play through the Arcade or through Custom Games. This makes the game easy for people of different ages and abilities, as well as interests, to get invested in.

A Diverse Cast of Characters

I know talks about diversity and representation are VERY hot button issues, but in terms of selling a product to a global audience, it works heavily in your favour. You got characters of different genders, ages, abilities (many of the characters have visible physical disabilities), races, and (most importantly), nationalities. D.Va has become an icon for Korean women, especially Korean female gamers in a heavily male-dominated area, inspiring the National D.Va Association. The female characters are all beautiful without being overly sexualized, too. And of course each character is unique in terms of play, so you can find out which one you are good at, whether you are a grizzled soldier, a robot, or a teenage girl riding a Mecha.

Those two factors, I believe, are why the game has found so much success around the world, and why people want to explore the world of Overwatch and it’s characters (I personally hope they make an animated series at some point).

Before you play, here’s some tips and tricks I learned:

ALWAYS stick together as a team. It will be easier to fight back the enemy team if you remain and play together as a team, making sure your shields and heals are close by.
The best team always has two of everything: two damages, two tanks, and two support. Having two supports is crucial because it can be very stressful being the one having to heal your teammates all the time. Orisa and Mercy are optimal characters to have on your team because Orisa can deploy shields to get behind (while still being able to shoot herself) and Mercy can revive you so you don’t have to go back to start.
It’s okay if you mostly play Vs. AI training games, where you can set your difficulty and can predict your enemy movements. The game should be fun first and foremost, and you still get the experience of playing WITH others and working as a team.
With that in mind, if you do play in the game, watch out for doubles. Not a lot of people like seeing the enemy team have the same characters. Also Roadhog is a VERY hard character to play against so make sure you’re not the only one up against him.
Some characters are harder to play as than others, so make sure you practice in Vs. AI before you play it for real.
Don’t buy any Loot Boxes. Just don’t. Never pay for any in-game purchases. Just let them happen as rewards for achievements. Your wallet will thank you.
The Uprising and Retribution events are intense and thrilling to play, make sure you play them when you can (but practice plenty beforehand first).
And have fun!

Overall, I am so glad I purchased this game and I can’t wait to get better and better at it.

The Missing Voice in the Diversity Conversation

I’m not sure if I’m going to back to a regular blogging soon (I’m in my last term of college!) but I am bringing this up because it’s a serious issue that effects me personally and persists even today.

When people on social media talk about the need for diversity, there is a huge focus on three groups: people of colour, LGBTQ+ people, and women. And it is true, we absolutely need to talk about the need to represent these groups in a meaningful and positive way. But in these discussions on diversity, there is a huge problem: the focus is ONLY on these groups. You know who gets left out almost all the time?

Disabled people. Autistic people. People who have mental health problems other than anxiety and depression. People who have developmental disorders. In other words, people like me, and the people I work with as a social service worker.

It bothered me for awhile, but after coming across a particular Disney critical blog, I finally pinpointed why this is a big issue. When we talk about how damaging it is to have an all white, all male, or all straight cast (and it is), no one talks about how having absolutely no positive disabled and neurodivergent people can be just as bad. When you go on lengths on why representation for neurotypical and able bodied marginalized groups is important and that there needs to be outrage when none exists, it gives me the unfortunate implication (intentional or not) that disabled people are just supposed to shut up and take it when there are no autistic characters, no characters in wheelchairs, no characters who can’t see or hear very well, etc. Where’s the outrage for people like me when every character is allistic and the only canon autistic characters tend to be stereotypes?

In many discussions about diversity and inclusiveness online people need to be reminded that disabled and neurodivergent people exist and are just as important. They need to be pointed out when a show or movie is ableist. They only add in the need for disabled characters as an afterthought. I have actually seen some people call bigotry a “disease” or “mental illness” a few times. Sometimes if a character is clearly coded to be mentally ill they’ll either completely ignore it or jump over hoops to say they aren’t in order to justify their hatred for them.

The point is, even in places that are supposed to be inclusive, and even when people claim they respect diversity and want representation for all people, disabled and neurodivergent people (again, people like me and the population I serve) typically get left behind, and are only brought up in the most extreme cases or when it is convenient.

This needs to stop. We live in a world where mental illness and disability are depicted inaccurately, as villains and monsters, or as stereotypes. Accurate and positive representation is still incredibly rare, and there isn’t as strong a push for it. Systemic bigotry against women, LGBTQ+ people, and people of color are very real and present in the media, and must be addressed and dismantled. But you need to remember that systemic ableism is also very real and present and needs to consistently be part of the conversation.

The Problem With Princesses

If you’ve read my thoughts on Moana and Frozen, you know that I am done with new Disney Princess movies. I find that Disney is too focused on making their princess features as marketable and politically correct as possible, at the detriment of telling original, interesting stories and complex characters. But lately I realized that my disdain of new Disney Princesses is a symptom of a larger problem I’ve noticed: the overabundance of princess characters in media.

Princess Peach. Princess Zelda. Xena, Warrior Princess. Princess Serenity. Princess Sally Acorn. Princess Allura. Princess Diana of Themyscira. Princess Leia. Princess Bubblegum (and all the countless princesses in the land of Ooo). Even the great Miyazaki has some of his female characters be princesses when they could easily be ordinary girls. This is just a small sampling of the many, many, MANY princess characters in media. You can find a (possibly incomplete) list HERE. After looking at that list, what did you notice they all seem to have in common?

That, if they are in media aimed at boys, the princess is sometimes the ONLY prominent female character, and if they’re in media aimed at girls, it’s the princess who is the most important character out of all the other girls.

This is a problem for a few reasons. The biggest reason to me being the sheer lack of other roles female characters in kids media get. Boys can be soldiers, knights, kings, pilots, scientists, adventurers, speedsters, plumbers, and even complete average joes and still be important and heroes. Girls by and large still tend to only get the role of princesses, especially if they’re the main female character. Obviously, not ALL kid’s media shoehorns their female protagonists into the role of the princess, but it goes to show that, in a lot of instances, the first instinct is to make her a princess and not, well, anything else.

Let’s go back to Disney for a bit. Take a look at all the Disney Animated Canon films that center on human female characters: Snow White, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Mulan, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Frozen and Moana (Aladdin doesn’t count because Jasmine is not the focus on the film, and I hesitate to include Lilo & Stitch because Stitch gets all the marketing focus and he carries the central plot). Out of 56 films released so far, only 12 films have female characters as the central protagonist, and with one exception, they’re all princess films. Meanwhile, Disney male heroes get a much wider range of roles like it’s no big deal. (No surprise: most of my most fave Disney movies are male-led because of this.)

There are two other problems with the princess trope. One of them being the sheer lack of positive QUEEN roles. Queens in media are either nonexistent, villains, or only provide a tiny supportive role. In either case, it’s the princess’s father who is more important. There are also situations where the princess is the only person in charge and her parents are either dead or out of commission, but she still doesn’t go by the title of queen. This is still apparently a problem today; in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, Luna and Celestia were supposed to be queens, but the marketing team intervened to have them be called princesses instead. The princess role isn’t really that empowering the more you think of it (it’s a role you are assigned at since birth and you’re expected to look and act a certain way as you find a husband) but at least as a queen you get some real power. Apparently that’s too much for some people.

And finally, my big problem with the princess trope is that it kind of reinforces that only princesses get to be beautiful and important. In some cases, the princess character can be harder to sympathize with because they come from a place of immense privilege. Why should I care if you want more when you have everything you could possibly want? But more than anything, any other female character in the princess’s respective media gets left out in the cold so the audience and other characters can coo over her.

I feel like now is the time to introduce girls to other types of female characters. Show them that the they can be more than just princesses. Give us female knights, pilots, explorers, scientists and blue collar workers. Give ordinary, everyday girls the fantasy that they can save the world.

And of course, let’s have more female rulers and leaders that aren’t princesses. In a world where women still struggle to be in positions of power, I think it’s about time we show girls that it’s better to be a president than a princess.

The Failure of Olaf’s Frozen Adventure: What This Means

So I went to see Coco yesterday and I absolutely loved it. It is easily on par with Up and Toy Story 3 and proof that there’s hope for Pixar yet. There was an audience applause when the movie ended. When I get it on Blu Ray I’ll definitely be sure to write more about it (I want to see it again already) but right now I want to talk about something else: the short that preceded it, Olaf’s Frozen Adventure.

This short, originally meant to air as a TV special, was suddenly placed in front of Coco, the unfortunate implication being that Disney did not have faith that a movie led by non white (and non American) people would do very well. Considering how much of a success this movie has proven to be already, beating out Justice League and becoming the highest grossing movie of all time in Mexico, it seems that this move was unnecessary.

And boy was it unnecessary because people fucking hate this short, drawing a slew of complaints from its 21 minute run time to its mediocre story and songs. It got so bad that it will be pulled from theaters in Coco‘s third weekend.

When I watched this short, I will admit I found it funny (one point honestly had me laughing out loud), but the characters have just gotten worse. I was actually rooting for Olaf to die at one point, and Elsa kept apologizing for EVERYTHING, even when it wasn’t her fault. My sister pointed out that the dialogue between her and Anna is sickeningly sweet and trite, not like something real sisters would say to each other. In other words, Anna and Elsa are less characters and more like cutouts for little girls to coo over. (My mental health side is saying “Elsa you’re STILL not better get the hell out of Arendelle”.)

So with the reaction towards the short, it looks like people are sick of Frozen. The first movie may still be relatively well received, but nobody needs to see this story continued, especially when it’s forced in your face.

The thing is, ultimately, Frozen isn’t a classic. It was a fad. Take a look at The Incredibles. That movie is 13 years old and it is still fondly remembered and the hype for a sequel NEVER died out. Now that the sequel has been announced the world is rejoicing. That movie is a definite classic.

But with Frozen, it’s been less that five years, any demand for a sequel has diminished significantly, and people are starting to realize that less and less effort is being put into the franchise. Too much time has passed since the first Frozen, and people have moved on to Disney’s other films, with demands for a Big Hero 6 sequel still going strong.

But I think the main problem is that Disney tried to treat this one singular movie like it was the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It has a whole media franchise dedicated to it that released tons and tons of material while Disney’s other movies that are also very popular get next to nothing. You know how people got sick of the Minions after their faces were slapped on every single solitary product imaginable and taking the focus away from the rest of Despicable Me? This is what’s happening with Frozen.

From the beginning I knew Frozen 2 was never going to be as successful as the first movie, but now I’m starting to think that it might be Disney’s first actual failure in a long time. I’m especially worried that Disney’s not going to put any real effort into the sequel and try to rush it out in time to appease the remaining fans and little girls.

I guess we’ll ultimately have to see what happens, but Disney better be prepared for the sequel to not do very well and realize that they shouldn’t have propped the first movie up on so high a pedestal. They ran the movie into the ground, and now audiences have moved on. If their franchise ends on a bad note, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Popularity Does Not Mean Progress

EDIT 07/31/2018 Removed mentions of Steven Universe as it is still ongoing, has improved a lot, and is not quite as popular as it was before.

For the longest time, Frozen and Zootopia were on top of the world. One of the main reasons being that, allegedly, they were very ‘progressive’. Frozen got praised for being about two sisters, for showing that girls don’t need men to save them, that romance wasn’t the center of the plot, etc. Recently, Zootopia has gotten a lot of praise for delivering a ‘timely’ and ‘important’ message on prejudice. Yes, it seemed that media for children and families had finally grown up.

But let’s take a closer look at each of these pieces of media, shall we?

For a movie who gets lots of praise for not being about romance and being about two sisters, Anna and Elsa sure don’t spend a lot of time together in Frozen, let alone together being sisterly to each other. Anna spends more time with Kristoff, who condescends to her repeatedly but she still ends up together with him. Elsa barely gets any screen time and doesn’t get a chance to really grow and develop. She gets one moment to be confident with her powers (the “Let It Go” sequence), but the rest of the movie she’s constantly scared and unable (or unwilling) to fix her mistakes and is awkwardly put into a sexualized outfit even though she’s not sexual whatsoever. You can actually read a breakdown of Frozen‘s problems HERE, with this being my fave part:

What else does Anna have going for her? She isn’t intelligent, no matter how many words she can spit out per minute. If she were, she wouldn’t rush into an engagement with Hans, nor — for that matter — leave a man she barely knows in charge of her kingdom while she rides out in the snow without a coat. She’s certainly self-absorbed, using the first opportunity to make Elsa’s coronation all about her; and she’s vain, believing absolutely in her ability to talk some sense into Elsa despite having had no relationship with her sister for what looks like roughly ten years. She has no awareness of her surroundings (riding out in the snow without a coat), no awareness of her own limitations (the cringe-inducing mountain climbing episode), and no awareness of the consequences of her actions (provoking Elsa not once, but twice). She’s outspoken, yes, but she’s also rude; she’s condescending towards Kristoff and belligerent towards her sister; and she has no ambition beyond finding her one true love.

(As you can imagine, this is EXACTLY why Anna is one of my least fave characters of all time).

Zootopia, to its credit, isn’t really that harmful (to an extent). But there’s nothing in it about it’s message about prejudice (which is pretty much meant to be a metaphor on racial issues) that hadn’t been done before, and done BETTER, by The Hunchback of Notre Dame. That movie candidly and uncompromisingly takes a look at genocide, ableism, misogyny/rape culture and religious hypocrisy and makes a very clear statement: don’t just TRY to make a world a better place, DO IT, or these things will happen. But what happened?

The Hunchback of Notre Dame still tends to get shunned for being too dark, while Zootopia is constantly adored and is much more successful.

This brings me to my main point.

If something is popular (like VERY popular, not just well received), it can never be truly progressive. Why? Because, by and large, society will accept liberal messages up to a point. Then it starts to make us uncomfortable, and we’ll dismiss it as being “too PC” or “too heavy handed”.

Keep in mind, we still live in a world where inserting women and non-white people in any major role still causes controversy. My favorite example is the 2016 version of Ghostbusters. It’s a movie that features not one, but FOUR older women as main characters, are not sexualized whatsoever, are allowed to be unconventionally attractive, do not depend on men at ANY POINT, support each other, and are shown to be confident and skilled in science and history. And of course it bombed and is scorned by audiences. While I will admit it’s not necessarily a masterpiece, the amount of bile it gets is really unwarranted (it’s not like the original movie is going away forever), but it doesn’t surprise me that it got the reaction it did.

I’m not saying that everything that is a huge hit is regressive, or that you can’t find any empowerment from the above media. I’m saying that, in order for something to really be revolutionary in terms of how different groups are represented and how important messages are conveyed, it needs to CHALLENGE the audiences. Make them think. Not just pat themselves on the back and feel better because what they watched wasn’t just another show or man revolving around a white straight man. (And just because something features a white man doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be progressive, just read my posts on Wreck-It Ralph.)

Will such media reach great success? Probably not. But maybe they’ll inspire enough conversations to get an individual to start looking at things from a different perspective and make positive changes in their life and community.