The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
4 — Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Look, I’m not here to argue
that Jar-Jar Binks (Ahmed Best,
“Alabama Jackson”) is the best
character in Star Wars. I’m not
even going to argue he’s a great
character in Star Wars. But come
on — does he really deserve to sit
on “most hated movie character”
lists, among the ranks of Dolores
Umbridge
(Imelda
Staunton,
“Downton Abbey: A New Era”)
and
Meredith
Blake
(Elaine
Hendrix, “Dynasty”)?
As a whole, I think a lot of
people were disappointed by the
Star Wars prequels because they
had such high expectations after
seeing the original films — but
even nostalgia for the original
films couldn’t save the Star
Wars prequels. There was too
much CGI, a weird romance and,
of course, Jar-Jar Binks. In so
many ways, to diehard Star Wars
fans, he encompassed all that is
supposedly wrong with the Star
Wars prequels. But he wasn’t
the reason the movies were so
poorly-received; he was just an
easy target, someone to aim all
the hate at.
I’m not arguing that he’s not
annoying — he is. But does he
really deserve all the hate he
gets? Does he deserve to have
conspiracy
theories
written
about him, believing him to be
Sith?
No.
People spend way too much
time hating on Jar-Jar Binks, so
I think it’s time to come to his
defense.
A recurrent character in the
Star
Wars
prequels,
Jar-Jar
Binks has been notoriously hated
by fans of the franchise since
his first appearance in “Star
Wars Episode I: The Phantom
Menace.” He was created as
comic relief, but most viewers
found him more annoying than
funny. Admittedly, he is one of
the more annoying characters
in the Star Wars universe — he’s
clumsy and he’s got some gross
habits. But, let’s be real — he’s
been villainized and hated more
than he deserves.
I know there’s an argument
out there that Jar-Jar Binks’s
character is a racist caricature,
made up of disturbing stereotypes
of
Black
people.
Lucasfilms
issued a statement declaring that
“nothing in Star Wars is racially
motivated”; that being said, I
certainly understand the notion
that intent does not always make
up for the consequences of one’s
actions.
Let’s face the facts here:
Star Wars as a franchise has
absolutely had its problematic
moments. Who can forget Jabba
the Hutt enslaving Princess Leia
in that ridiculous gold bikini? The
franchise pushes the narrative of
“the chosen one” on its audience
with Anakin Skywalker, a literal
product of the Force. It’s not
a perfect series of films. But
to me, the argument that Jar-
Jar deserves hate because he’s
a racist caricature seems like
people are looking for something
that isn’t there. And after hearing
Ahmed Best’s story, I was only
more convinced that the hate Jar-
Jar Binks receives is misplaced.
Not many know the man
behind Jar-Jar Binks, but Best
voiced the character in all
three prequel films. Sadly, after
receiving so much hate towards
Jar-Jar — including comments on
the seemingly racist nature of the
character — Best was so affected
that he contemplated suicide. In
a recent interview, he said “I felt
tired of having to defend myself
and defend my work. I felt tired
of having to fight back against
racism and the racial stereotypes.
I just wanted to play a part. I was
exhausted.”
The wrongful villainization
of Jar-Jar Binks
SABRIYA IMAMI
Managing Arts Editor
We’ve all heard the phrase
“art is subjective.” Our love (or
hatred) of the art we consume
is unique to each of us, shaped
by our own experiences and
interpretations. That means, of
course, that sometimes we have
differing opinions when it comes
to the quality of a piece of media.
Part of why I enjoy working for
Daily Arts is getting to hear all
the discourse surrounding our
favorite books, albums, movies
and more. I challenged the Daily
Arts staff to write about their
Arts-related “hot takes” — their
unpopular
or
controversial
opinions — and convince the
world why they are right. The
responses ranged from hilarious
to
personal
to
downright
chaotic. While the jury’s still
out on whether their writing has
changed my own opinions, I’m so
grateful for their contributions
and their bravery.
HANNAH CARAPELLOTTI
Senior Arts Editor
Design by Tamara Turner
Listen,
character
death
is
essential. I know you didn’t want
Sirius Black to die in “Order of
the Phoenix.” Neither did I, but
he had to, okay? If he hadn’t fallen
through the veil, Harry wouldn’t
have sacrificed himself in “The
Deathly Hallows” and defeated
Voldemort, now would he? As a
creative writing major, I’ve killed
my fair share of darlings. Killing
off characters in narratives can be
part of creating pathos, advancing
the story or, sometimes, getting rid
of unnecessary weight. However,
with the rise of fantasy and sci-
fi media, fiction writers are
increasingly able to do whatever
the hell they want, which includes
raising characters from the dead. Is
this a good idea? On occasion but,
in my opinion, mostly not. Since
I’ve been studying creative writing
for four years now, I am no longer
able to simply consume a story. I
have to tear apart every narrative
choice — including resurrection.
Here are my top five characters
that died and should have stayed
that way, but didn’t.
David Nolan (Prince Charming),
“Once Upon a Time”
Not gonna lie, this guy’s just
annoying as hell. I started watching
“Once Upon a Time” when I was
approximately 13 years old, and I
will admit that I loved David (Josh
Dallas, “Thor”) back then. Teenage
me totally swooned for the dashing,
virtuous Prince Charming, but now
that I’m older and more into morally
grey kinda guys, I’m realizing that
he was too dashing and virtuous.
This made his character pretty
bland and predictable, but he was
always
depicted
as
absolutely
essential to the show. So imagine
my surprise when Mary Margaret
(Ginnifer Goodwin, “Big Love”),
his own wife, had to crush his heart
to reverse a curse — now that’s a
way to shirk off dead weight in a
TV show! Gone were the days of
watching David swing his little
sword around while preaching
about
morality
and
generally
suffering no consequences for his
actions. We were taking a turn!
Mary Margaret was going to have
to live with the survivor’s guilt of
killing her husband for the greater
good, the main women in the show
(who were all related to David as
a daughter, wife and stepmother-
in-law) could take center stage
without Prince Charming dragging
them down, and finally, finally,
“Once Upon a Time” could lose
one of its moral compasses and get
unhinged. But no, Regina (Lana
Parilla, “Boomtown”) just had to go
and split Mary Margaret’s heart in
half so she and David could share
it (gag), and he could stay alive.
David’s death made a lot of room for
some pretty intense and dramatic
narrative progression, but I guess
it’s hard to live in a world without
men keeping their women in line.
Ethan Winters, “Resident Evil
Village”
Yes, yes, Ethan Winters also
died in “Resident Evil Village”’s
predecessor, “Resident Evil 7:
Biohazard,” but I’m not talking
about that game. I’m concerned
with 2021’s “Village” because
Ethan died twice in it, and he
should have stayed dead the first
time. To clarify, I’m not necessarily
angry with the plot that occurs
after Ethan is revived. Is Ethan a
pretty bland character with bland
motivations that could have been
replaced by essentially any other
middle-aged
male
character?
Absolutely. However, I think the
vision he receives post–first death
which reveals the twist of “Resident
Evil Village,” the ensuing final boss
battle and his ultimate sacrifice
at the end are all compelling and
could not logically have been
experienced by or through any
other character. What I am angry
about is that between Ethan’s first
death and his revival, we get about
20 minutes of awesome gameplay
as Chris Redfield, Ethan’s friend
and leader of an elite task force sent
to aid Ethan in defeating Miranda,
the main threat of “Resident Evil
Village.” Playing as Chris is so much
fun, in fact, that returning to play
as Ethan is a let down. I like what
we get out of Ethan after he comes
back to life, but it drags after having
randomly played as another, more
exciting character for 20 minutes.
And while fun, Chris’ segment also
adds a lot of narrative fat right at
the end of the game that makes the
finale lag. My deal is this: Either
Ethan should have stayed dead and
we finished the game as Chris, or
cut the Chris gameplay and I will
let resurrection slide just this one
time.
Clara Oswald, “Doctor Who”
Okay, this one hurts. I’ve been
a Clara Oswald (Jenna Coleman,
“Victoria”) devotee ever since she
debuted alongside Matt Smith’s
(“The Crown”) Doctor in 2012, and
I continue to be one, which is why
I’m gatekeeping her death. Here’s
the rundown: Clara was killed by
the Raven in an alien refugee camp
after she sacrifices herself to save
the life of Rigsy, a young man falsely
accused of murder. In his grief,
though, the Doctor (portrayed at
the time by Peter Capaldi, “The
Thick of It”) removed Clara from
the moment of her death in order to
resurrect her, but she was stuck in
a state of living without breathing,
aging or her heart beating. She was
eventually revived, but without
a heartbeat Clara would always
have to return to the moment
of her death to let it play out.
Realizing their relationship was
too turbulent, Clara erased the
Doctor’s memories of her, stole her
own TARDIS and left to go on her
own adventures before returning
to her death.
Because I love Clara so much,
you’re probably wondering why I’m
so averse to her resurrection — what
I can’t stand about this scenario
is the disturbance of her heroic
death. The Doctor acted selfishly
in reviving Clara after she chose
to sacrifice herself, and pulling her
from that moment to leave her in a
comatose state for 4.5 billion years
before her resurrection is akin to
a violation of both her body and
grave. Clara lost a lot leading up
to her death, and despite my own
despair, all I wanted was for her to
rest peacefully knowing that her
final act had been a sacrificial one.
Top five characters that should have stayed in the grave
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
MADDIE AGNE
Daily Arts Writer
There is no better film genre than the movie musical
If you are one of those people
who doesn’t care for movie
musicals, it’s time to face the
facts: You have bad taste. I
don’t make the rules; this is
an undeniable fact. You are
depriving yourself of one of the
largest sources of joy produced
by any art form. Don’t let your
cold, hard, cynical mindset keep
you from being engrossed by the
beauty, emotion and sincerity of
musicals. Search your feelings;
you know it to be true. The movie
musical is the single greatest
film genre.
Being the best film genre
doesn’t keep the musical from
criticism. In fact, there are a
great number of high profile
bombs — both at the box office
and on artistic merit — that one
can highlight to dismiss the
entire genre. And who could
blame you for not liking movie
musicals if the only ones you’ve
ever seen are “Cats” and “Dear
Evan Hansen?” But the high
variance in quality of the genre
that allows films to be that
abysmal also means there are a
great number of masterpieces —
some of which should rightfully
be
considered
among
the
greatest films ever made.
Movie
musicals
are
great
because they capture the unique
ability of film as a medium — to
showcase movement across space
and time. Theatre does this to an
extent, of course. That’s where
the musical first came to be. But
on film, the traditional Broadway
musical can be stretched to its
limits. There is a dynamism
that can be created with camera
movement and editing that can’t
be replicated on the stage, giving
movie musicals such joyful,
endearing energy.
The musical genre has been
a staple of the medium since
the origins of sound in films. In
fact, the first feature film with
synchronized dialogue was the
1927 Al Jolson-led musical “The
Jazz Singer.” The success of that
film kicked off both the sound era
and a Golden Age of Hollywood
Musicals that would last until
the 1960s. Here, filmmakers used
the movie musical to push the
boundaries of what the medium
could do at the time. From the
wildly inventive choreography of
Busby Berkeley to the beauty and
grace of Fred Astaire and Ginger
Rogers dance sequences, the
scope afforded by the medium of
film allowed the musical to move
beyond the theater and come
into its own on the silver screen.
As Technicolor took over,
musicals remained some of the
most popular films coming out of
Hollywood. With their heartfelt
sincerity perfectly suited to the
vibrant colors of technicolor
film, the opportunity for artistic
expression was greatly expanded
in this next era. Who cares if it
isn’t realistic for people to burst
out in song or that the numbers
don’t add anything to the plot
or characters; how can you not
be moved by the overwhelming
beauty from the colors, costumes
and sets in something like the
“Broadway Melody” sequence in
“Singin’ in the Rain”? As the scale
of Hollywood films increased,
musicals became one of the go-to
genres for big-budget releases
in the ’50s and early ’60s. This
led to a number of great critical
and commercial successes — like
Best Picture winners “West Side
Story,” “My Fair Lady” and “The
Sound of Music” — but it also led
to a number of flops that nearly
destroyed the entire genre, like
“Doctor Dolittle” and “Hello,
Dolly!”
Though the production of the
traditional movie musical waned
in the wake of a number of box
office bombs and the emergence
of
the
New
Hollywood
movement in the late ’60s and
’70s, filmmakers were still able
to use the musical genre to
create subversive works of art.
From the campy cult classic “The
Rocky Horror Picture Show”
to the critical self-reflection
of Bob Fosse’s “All That Jazz,”
musicals were evolving in a
completely necessary way that
could only be brought on by a
genre on the brink of extinction.
The structure of movie musicals
was even seeping into films
that
would
be
traditionally
considered straight dramas, as
in Robert Altman’s “Nashville,”
which uses its country music
performances as a way for
the characters in its massive
ensemble cast to express what
they are feeling.
MITCHEL GREEN
Film Beat Editor
Design by Serena Shen
The B-Side: Hot Takes
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Why (Captain) America
sucks
A few days ago, my father,
patriotic as he is, got upset at me
for saying that “America sucks.”
He lectured me for a few minutes
on my lack of patriotism, and I
barely had time to explain I was
clearly talking about Captain
America (Chris Evans, “Knives
Out”). My opinions on the good
ol’ US of A aside, I think the First
Avenger gets way more credit
than he’s due (actually … that
sounds quite a lot like America,
come to think of it), and I’m
here to make the case that Steve
Rogers is actually an obstinate
asshole.
Across
his
many
Marvel
Cinematic
Universe
(MCU)
appearances, Rogers is given
various monikers that allude to
his ostensible virtuosity, such as
“God’s Righteous Man,” “Living
Legend,” and, of course, his
comic book nickname, “Sentinel
of Liberty.” His moral compass
is applauded throughout the
films, particularly in “Captain
America: Civil War,” a film
centered around how best to
hold the Avengers superhero
team accountable for any death
and
destruction
they
may
inadvertently
cause.
In
the
film, Cap refuses to agree to
the Sokovia Accords — a United
Nations agreement stating that
the Avengers should fall under
the jurisdiction and direction
of a UN panel, rather than being
independently operated, signed
by 117 countries — on the basis
that the Accords would hamper
the Avengers’ agenda of helping
people due to the introduction
of international bureaucracy.
Furthermore, Rogers insinuates
that the Avengers shouldn’t be
subject to the whims of a third
party (that being the UN panel),
because the third party will
always be self-interested.
However, Cap’s moral rigidity
blinds him to the reality of his
own power and responsibility
and effectively pits him against
those who are unlucky enough
to be born into a world with
individuals
with
the
power
to destroy half the universe.
The catalyst for the Sokovia
Accords was a terrorist attack
at the beginning of “Civil War”
that resulted in the deaths of
over two dozen people. The
violent escalation that led to
the attack was pinned on the
Avengers present at the incident
and served as a turning point
in the public perception of the
TATE LAFRENIER
Daily Arts Writer
Read more at MichiganDaily.com