Pages

Sunday 23 June 2019

Radical Kindness or Just Plain Being Nice?

We were having a conversation in the office the other day about the recent Mr. Rogers documentary, Won't You Be My Neighbor, and it got me thinking about the buzz that surrounded the movie when it was out. I seem to remember posts here and there on Facebook where people were raving about it, and elsewhere on the internet people were talking about how much it made them cry.

At the same time I thought I saw an increase in memes relating to Mr. Rogers, and the various kindnesses and wise sayings he doled out in his years on TV. The main one is about seeing people at disasters who are helping, and to always look for the helpers - which I think is very good advice at any time.

I'm old enough to remember watching Mr. Rogers on TV, though I think as a whippersnapper I preferred Sesame Street, which was funnier and fairly anarchic for TV aimed at kids aged three and up. I thought I remembered when he went off the air, though that and his passing (in 2001 and 2003, respectively) turn out to have happened later than I had imagined.

But what got me thinking after the movie came out, and after that conversation in the office, was how the niceness of Fred Rogers seems to have taken on a political undertone.

This shouldn't be surprising, in these weirdly polarized times, when certain (*cough* rightwing *cough*) groups find depictions of the Statue of Liberty to be provocatively liberal. But when I say "political" I don't mean that the Mr. Rogers ethos has been adopted by the left - more that the need for being nice and tolerant in a quiet and low-key way seems to have become a reaction against the prevailing current of American society, which just feels more polarized along any metric or ideal you could care to mention.

So I call it radical kindness - I don't think I came up with the term, but whoever it belongs to, I take it to mean a clear attempt to be kind and friendly in situations where it would otherwise be easy to just be unpleasant. Like any such impulse, it can also sometimes go a little overboard - I remember being at a concert at Stern Grove in San Francisco last year, where a woman sitting in front of me was not only helping people climb up along her little stretch of ground where she was sitting with her friends, but was also insisting (repeatedly) slogans like how we're all in this together, or wanting to help out, or some such.

That might come off as snobbish, but I appreciated the impulse, even though I could see her patience wearing thin with all the people trying to climb past throughout the afternoon (we were listening to an orchestra play a bunch of pieces by Sibelius, so it was a fairly long concert).

And at the risk of sounding even more snobby, on the internet there seems to be a performative aspect to it, where people compete to show how much some simple (or elaborate) act of kindness that they've read about hits them in the feels.

If I'm criticizing anything about this radical kindness thing, it's that - but at the same time I don't want to criticize too hard because it just seems churlish to get annoyed at people going out of their way to be nice to others.

I guess what trips me up about this impulse, and the buzz surrounding the Mr. Rogers documentary, is how it really is a reaction - it could be the media inflating bad news to generate more clicks, or maybe things really are so bad, but it does feel like our leaders are particularly venal at the moment, and business is more cutthroat than ever, all against a backdrop of casual cruelty and environmental collapse. With that in mind, why shouldn't people - especially younger people - decide to take a stand by loudly proclaiming they're for everything Wall Street and Silicon Valley and the government seem to be ignoring?

Overall, the real negative that I can see here is that things have gotten so bad that such stances really are necessary. Lest we forget, there are concentration camps for refugee children on our southern border, and administration officials are arguing that these kids don't need soap, toothpaste or blankets.

That said, it's not just here. In Japan there's a growing group of people called hikikomori, who are effectively modern-day hermits - effectively people who have opted out of the rat race of Japanese society and refuse to leave their homes or see their families. There are also "herbivores" or "grass-eating men", who have opted out of looking for romantic partners entirely - or at least out of traditional expectations of masculinity in Japan.

But it's notable that this reaction in Japan is against a specific cultural expectation (get your salaryman job, marry someone, and do just as all other men have been doing since the end of the Second World War), whereas in the US it's against a feeling of rampant unpleasantness. Or to put it another way, hikikomori are looking for a different way of life, whereas in America we're just getting sick of people being shitty - which has never really been an expected "way of life".

So that's why I believe Won't You Be My Neighbor got so much attention when it came out, despite - or because of - the fact that Fred Rogers was an ordained minister and probably quite conservative in many ways. Though his conservatism probably manifested in quieter ways than that of today's Republicans. Much like I said last year or so, that the MeToo movement might not have gained so much traction if a person with accusations of sexual assault and harassment hadn't gained the White House, the Mr. Rogers documentary might not have gained so much traction if there weren't this sense of cruelty pervading American life right now.

Or maybe it would have been a big (ish) movie no matter who's president? Nostalgia was probably a big part of its appeal, too. Still, I think there are grounds for my argument, and I'd be interested in seeing if there really has been more thought for radical kindness since 2016.

We could use it, to be honest.

Monday 10 June 2019

So Many Endings, Even More Spoilers

I've been tempted to do a rundown of all the endings I've watched lately: Game of Thrones, Avengers: Endgame, X-Men: Dark Phoenix, even Chernobyl. Some have been well done, others... well, not bad exactly, but maybe not the most satisfying conclusions to their respective sagas. I don't know if I have a grand unifying theory of endings to give here, but I suppose I can tease out some commonality if I go through them all, so...

I'm not one of those who were offended by the denouement of GoT. I covered my thoughts about the thought of it ending back in April, when the first episode had just aired and the dust hadn't yet settled.  I then spent three weeks in Europe unable to watch the final half of the season (or rather, focused more on wrapping up Star Trek: Discovery). Because I was still perusing sites like the AV Club, I got the sense that crazy things were happening, and I was right.

If I have one complaint about the end of GoT, it's the rushed nature of certain things. Specifically, the bit where Daenerys torches King's Landing, and Jon Snow then has to kill her and the (surviving) nobles give the throne to Bran, the one person least likely to fuck everything up. All of these things, taken singly and indeed altogether, work, more or less. I just feel like it was all a bit rushed, which is odd considering that the season consisted of six 90-minute movies, effectively. But on the other hand, they could have cut them down to 60 minutes, developed the story a bit more, and given us ten episodes to digest the Siege of Winterfell, the sack of King's Landing, and all the fallout.

The other question is how much of this will be in the books, if they ever come out. The AV Club's "Experts" review touches on this, suggesting that the ending GRRM comes up with may not be this exact set of events, though it'll likely be the same emotional resonances, i.e. the main characters turning their backs on the past and finally forging their own futures, though with great regrets behind them. And the review notes, which I didn't notice at the time, how little Jon Snow had to do with anything apart from stabbing Dany. Hopefully in the books he's a bit more instrumental.

Contrast that with Endgame. I won't deny that Infinity War left me a little cold at the end. I knew the Snap was going to happen, because it's the starting point of the Infinity Gauntlet crossover from the 90s, so paradoxically the fact that they ended it there wasn't as much of a shock for me as it was for probably 99% of people watching.

On the other hand, I don't know how they fixed things in the comics, other than Adam Warlock ended up splitting the Infinity Stones among a bunch of weirdoes and having some sort of adventures that didn't last long. This means that Endgame had the capacity to surprise me, which probably helped me enjoy it so much.

Endgame also did a good job of calling back to previous movies in the series, bringing a number of ideas and characters back to tie them into the present - it even made me appreciate Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1, which I'd thought was so much gibberish at the start. And while looking back it also did a good job of pointing us toward the future, by inserting a new dynamic into Starlord and Gamora's romance, passing the shield and armor to successors of Captain America and Iron Man, and basically bringing back most of the box office draws like Black Panther.

Though I'm not ashamed to say that, as Ant-Man became the catalyst for solving the Snap, possibly the thing I'm looking to most is another film for him.

Then there's Dark Phoenix. Unlike the others, it's not exactly meant to be an ending, but the fact that Disney now owns the characters' film rights means this series is likely done. I remain a little ambivalent about that, because while the quality hasn't been as great as the MCU films, it has been fun to see some of the storylines and deep-bench characters show up, especially in the sub-series that started with First Class.

But if anything, the real ending for the X-Men movie series was Logan, given how it put a capstone on that character's journey and on mutants overall. If Dark Phoenix sits in that timeline, then it's even more of a downer because what we can expect is a sad, sad end for all these characters.

Though I still appreciate cool-dean Professor X, as played by James McAvoy, and his dynamic with Michael Fassbender's Magneto. Seeing Patrick Stewart opposite Ian McKellen in those roles was, of course, brilliant, but this set of movies did a good job of showing their frenemy-ship as it developed over the decades. Even if their ridiculous longevity was starting to wear a little thin.

I'm also ambivalent about the X-Men going forward, because I always thought they sat a little awkwardly in the wider Marvel universe, and each subsequent X-Men movie is going to either have to incorporate the Avengers or neutralize them in some way. Though I'm curious how the roles will be recast, if at all - they might use the multiverse teased in Into the Spider-Verse and the upcoming Spider-Man: Far From Home, to show the mutants occupying a separate Earth that they only visit when there's some planet-shattering... well, crisis, I guess you'd call it.

Which actually brings me to Arrow! I'd almost forgotten about it, since Chernobyl's the thing I've finished most recently (that might needs its own post). I just wrapped up watching season 7 of Arrow, and I have to appreciate the way they approached it - I read early in the season that the showrunners decided to treat it as a final season, which meant they could go a little crazy and kill or otherwise remove a bunch of characters (or bring them back; hi, Roy!).

It wasn't the most satisfying season of TV, especially because the previous season of Arrow had been a sort of return to form, but I appreciated the high drama of it all, as Oliver discovered a long-lost sister who turned out to be evil. It'll be interesting to see how the next season, which really will be the last and will run for only ten episodes, wraps up Oliver Queen's story.

It's interesting, looking back at all these, how much superhero stuff I watch, and how much it's come to dominate the landscape. Back in 2008, you'd have guessed Batman would be the thing to dominate, with the Dark Knight, but Marvel arguably did a better job by focusing on a second-string character like Iron Man - the very fact he's considered one of the big guys of Marvel is pretty much due to that movie.

And it's interesting to think that GoT, the one thing here not based on a comic, became as big a cultural phenomenon, given its origins as a niche fantasy novel. The way for Game of Thrones may have been opened by the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but even that couldn't compete as a cultural touchstone, given how many references to Khaleesi and Jon Snow I encounter in non-nerd settings. It's also opened the way for other adaptations, albeit of works that aren't always as accomplished as GRRM's work.

The 2010s, at any rate, have been dominated by these two colossi, and it'll be interesting to see in the decade to come what takes their place.

Sunday 2 June 2019

Champions League 2019: Game of Narratives

Well, another Champions League final is in the bag, and Liverpool's won out over Spurs to claim the title, a year after getting defeated at this stage by Real Madrid. Real were at the end of their imperial phase of three titles in a row, and four of the last five tournaments, though we didn't know it then: when the Galácticos were still celebrating that win Zinedine Zidane was still a few days off from quitting, out of the blue, and Cristiano Ronaldo was still a month or so off from jumping ship for Juventus.

What a different 2018-19 for Real and Liverpool, though. It's been a clear season of rebuilding for Real Madrid, given the debacle of hiring Julen Lopetegui out from under the Spanish national team's nose on the eve of the World Cup last summer - he lasted not very long at all, and his replacement, Santiago Solari, also exited unceremoniously when Real dropped out of three tournaments in the same week, only for Zidane to come back.

Liverpool, on the other hand, shored up in all the right places after last season, particularly given that two of the goals they conceded came from goalkeeping blunders. While he didn't have much to do yesterday, at least until the 80th minute, Alisson showed his worth by being confident between the sticks, effectively banishing the memory of Loris Karius's mistakes/rubbery wrists. And Virgil van Dijk has come in for repeated praise all season, showing just how important he's been to Liverpool as they ran Manchester City close for the title.

It's funny to say, but winning the Champions League is almost a consolation for Liverpool after missing out on the Premier League title by a single point. It would have been even more perfect if they'd been facing off against Man City in yesterday's match, but of course that would have been a completely different game. Certainly if Liverpool had been so profligate in their passing against City, they might not be celebrating today.

Spurs had, probably, the better of most of the game - their buildup play was good, and they pressed strongly against Liverpool throughout, which implies that they won the midfield battle. Where they came up short, over the 90 minutes, was in front of goal, which is probably an indicator of how unready Harry Kane was to come back. Worse, it might indicate what kind of experience he'll have at the Nations League on Thursday.

So where does everyone go from here? For Liverpool, this hopefully means even more strengthening of the squad, and challenging again for the title. Though it's fair to say that, given the lead they frittered away over the course of the winter, there might be a mental aspect that Jürgen Klopp needs to work on next season, more than any changes in personnel.

On the other hand, Spurs will definitely need to strengthen. The fact that they held onto fourth place (with its Champions League spot) as well as getting to the final without having brought in any players speaks well to the setup and to Mauricio Pochettino's management, but this coming season will definitely be one where if they stand still they'll fall behind. And that's if Poch hangs around north London - the Real Madrid and Juventus jobs look to be sown up but there should be no shortage of clubs willing to give him the financial support that Spurs have had to be more careful about providing while they got their new stadium up and running.

It's too early to predict who'll win next year's Champions League, but it's a fair bet that it'll once again be contested by two sides from the top 4 countries - Ajax may have come within a whisker of being the first non-English, Spanish, Italian or German team to reach the final since 2004, but they've effectively cemented their role as a feeder club for Barcelona, given that starlet Frenkie de Jong was already on his way there when his team knocked out Madrid in the quarters. Others will be sure to follow him out the door this summer, particularly if the Netherlands do well in the Nations League.

Barcelona, Juventus and Man City will likely fall short in some capacity, since they've contrived to fall short most years (if not every year) recently. Much has been made of Pep Guardiola's mental block in the knockout stages of the tournament, though it's reassuring that even a Death Star full of cash and the greatest tactical mind in football can't deliver this trophy (at least, not since he last won it with Barcelona in 2011).

And that's without looking at the other English clubs - but none of them really look like challenging either. So the 2020 Champions League trophy could very well go back to Liverpool. The question will be whether Real Madrid have sorted out their problems enough to claim back the title they consider their own.