Film News

Millie Bobby Brown's New Movie Reveals Why Sherlock Holmes Is a Lousy Character

Sherlock Holmes can't show emotion in Enola Holmes, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's step great grandson will sue...

British actress Millie Bobby Brown wearing Louis Vuitton arrives at the World Premiere Of Netflix's 'Enola Holmes 2' held at The Paris Theater in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States.

Photo by Image Press Agency/NurPhoto/Shutterstock

The Sherlock Holmes you know and love is a lousy character.

He's a misogynist, a drug addict, a condescending and ignorant man. But even that whole mess isn't enough to make him actually interesting.

No offense to Benedict Cumberbatch—who brought his dashing good looks and overwhelming sexual charisma to the character—but there's just not that much you can do with the famous master of deduction (who almost exclusively used inductive reasoning—shout out to the pedants in the audience). He's got some impressive speeches and some flashy tricks, but he's seemingly devoid of an internal life.

Keep ReadingShow less

January 1, 2020 marks 95 years since George Gershwin composed "Rhapsody in Blue."

In accordance with general U.S. copyright law, the composition will enter public domain, available for all individuals who wish to use the song in their own creative works. "The goal of copyright is to promote creativity," writes Balfour Smith, program coordinator of Duke's Center for the Study of the Public Domain. "Copyright law gives authors important rights that encourage creativity and distribution. But it also ensures that those rights last for a limited time, so that when they expire, works can go into the public domain, where future authors can legally build upon their inspirations."

Except if you're a rapper. If you're a rapper, then the Gershwin family wants you to keep your hands off "Rhapsody in Blue."

With hundreds of books, films, novels, songs, and visual art entering the public domain on January 1, we're forced to remember that the legacy of some of those artists (partly defined by their surviving family members) are in great discordance with today's political culture. Namely, Gershwin's jazz masterpiece, which debuted at a New York concert in 1924, was apparently fit to be used in (alleged sexual abuser) Woody Allen's Manhattan and even United Airlines' safety instruction videos, but the Gershwin family originally wanted to extend their copyright ownership for another 20 years in order to (aside from receive millions in royalties) maintain creative control.

Gerswin's nephew told The New York Times, "We've always licensed [Gershwin's opera] 'Porgy and Bess' for stage performances only with a black cast and chorus. That could be debased. Or someone could turn 'Porgy and Bess' into rap music."

Aside from the cultural elitism behind that statement, it's historically nonsensical. As Smith recounts on his blog, it's obvious to anyone at all familiar with jazz that the genre largely draws from the same history as rap music: "The work of the Gershwin brothers drew on African-American musical traditions. What could be more appropriate?" In fact, "Rhapsody in Blue" draws from blues, jazz, and ragtime, as well as Jewish musical history and European impressionism. Smith points out another sharp response: "When [someone] laments that George Gershwin's 'Rhapsody in Blue' will soon 'fall into the public domain,' he makes the public domain sound like a dark abyss where songs go, never to be heard again. In fact, when a work enters the public domain it means the public can afford to use it freely, to give it new currency… [public domain works] are an essential part of every artist's sustenance, of every person's sustenance."

Gate-keeping art is just a holdover from the inherently unequal and exploitative power structures that have always defined popular culture.

Describing "Rhapsody in Blue," George Gershwin said, "I heard it as a sort of musical kaleidoscope of America, of our vast melting pot, of our unduplicated national pep, of our blues, our metropolitan madness." Gershwin aimed to capture the disparate musical traditions found all over America as a celebrity of diversity. He talked about his music having a "spirit" and a "soul," and his aim, always, was to invigorate people with its energy. "I'd like my compositions to be so vital that I'd be required by law to dispense sedatives with each score sold," he once said.

As of January 1, 2020, at least his family's prejudice can't stop anyone who wants to share that soul from doing so.

Rhapsody In Blue: Gershwinwww.youtube.com

Peter Pan, Disney

Disney's new streaming service, Disney+, premiered on Tuesday to universal complaints.

The system is buggy, it crops out jokes on The Simpsons, and it essentially killed off the Netflix Marvel series. But considering the constant commentary on trigger warnings and the very predictable uproar from a segment of white men whenever a woman or a person of color is placed in a role that could have been given to someone less "political," it's a wonder that there hasn't been more of a backlash against Disney's new content warning.

Along with the usual warnings where sexual themes and violence are concerned, certain Disney movies have been officially labeled as even more racist than others. Pocahontas, for instance, has missed this distinction by tapping into relatively benign "noble savage" stereotypes, rather than playing into grotesque caricatures of inhuman otherness in its depiction of non-white characters. Peter Pan, on the other hand, was not so lucky. It joined the list of movies containing "cultural depictions" so "outdated" that they need a special warning so thoughtful parents can shield their kids from that particular brain-poison (while exposing them to a host of others).

Disney's "Peter Pan" - What Makes the Red Man Red?www.youtube.com

Other movies have earned this recognition include Lady and the Tramp, Dumbo, The Jungle Book, and Fantasia. Some have argued that referring to these wildly dehumanizing portrayals of non-white people (or, tellingly, animals standing in for non-white people) as simply "outdated" places the blame on the era in which they were produced, without taking any responsibility for the impact of producing and distributing such harmful iconography. After all, if Disney is willing to wage an endless fight to maintain their exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse—and for the subsequent deprivation of the public domain—shouldn't they likewise be held accountable for the indefensible content in much of their IP? If the blame doesn't belong solely to them, then why does the profit?

"Jim Crow"in DumboDumbo, Disney

It's a compelling argument, but it overlooks an important point. Namely, Disney is right about the eras that produced such offensive trash. Their movies have always tapped into the zeitgeist—the lowest common denominator of ideas. And for the entire history of "Western Civilization," those ideas have been horribly racist (as well as homophobic, misogynistic, and culturally chauvinistic). Colonialism is the foundation of "Western Civilization." The looting and subjugation of other peoples and their lands have made it possible for the Western world to flourish. The United States, for instance, was "settled" on top of an existing civilization that white men ravaged with the help of guns, biological warfare, and the forced labor of people who were stolen from their homes, then bred and sold and treated as livestock.

This brand of devouring colonialism has been made possible by concerted efforts to dehumanize anyone who doesn't conform to the mold of the dominant elite. And men like Walt Disney perpetuated that brand. Whatever Jordan Peterson might want you to believe, Disney movies have always been propaganda—part of a mythos that defined "the West" in contrast to the rest of the world, holding it up as something worth defending. "Western Civilization" is inextricably linked to these self-aggrandizing myths, and any attempt to undermine derogatory depictions of the Other is fundamentally an attack on "Western Civilization." Worse than the new content warning, Disney has completely omitted Song of the South, erasing the proud tradition of pretending that black people were happy as slaves. The Disney+ claim that "The Vault Is Wide Open" seems to be ignoring a few items in the lock box at the back.

In short, Disney's latest effort at woke-washing is an affront to the principles that our society was built on—namely, the principle that the world belongs to white men, and no one else is really a person—but it doesn't go nearly far enough. They are attacking our disgusting history in little ways, but they are still profiting from its relics and using Tom Hanks to put a nice face on the whole operation. Now that Disney owns literally all of culture, they owe it to us to own up to the dark past that defines our society and attack "Western Civilization" head on. Because until we fully dismantle the disgusting ideas at the core of "Western Civilizations" and begin to build an inclusive and global society, we will not have earned the right to call ourselves civilized.

Film News

Netflix Sued by "Choose Your Own Adventure" Publishers

The company responsible for all our childhood frustrations has filed a lawsuit claiming that Netflix willfully infringed upon the series' trademark in Black Mirror: Bandersnatch.

Horror Freak News

The publishers of the Choose Your Own Adventure book series is suing Netflix for $25 million.

Keep ReadingShow less