An Interesting Dilemma about wanting to write Historical Fiction.

One of my ambitions if I ever get to become a successful Hollywood Film maker or TV show maker or Anime maker or whatever, is to make the first major popular dramatization of the Maccabees Revolt.  I'm amazed it hasn't been done already frankly.

Thing is the purpose of such a depiction would not be just to be a history lesson.  Indeed the main selling point is it as the origin of Hanukkah, a Holiday everyone knows about.  And because of that I feel kind of obligated to depict the Miracle of the cruse of oil even though I personally believe that incident is ahistorical.

Now I want to clarify something.  I don't disbelieve this story because it's a miracle, I am a Christian, and a Continuationist, I don't think God's supernatural interventions in Human History are limited to those directly documented in the Canonical Scriptures.  I don't consider 2 Maccabees Scripture but I am inclined to believe every Supernatural event it records did in fact happen.

But that's just it, 2 Maccabees doesn't record this one.  If it was only 1 Maccabees that failed to mention it then I could observe how that book doesn't record any supernatural events so it's authors(s) must have not wanted to bring them up.  But 2 Maccabees records a few miracles, so if this story already existed when 2 Maccabees was written then 2 Maccabees would absolutely have recorded it.

So that above reasoning has been in my mind for years now.  But recently I noticed something that makes the historicity of this story even more impossible.  

I observed recently in posts I made on other Blogs I run that 1 Maccabees 1:21-24 records Antiochus Epiphanes removing the Menorah and other Sacred Treasures from The Temple and taking them back to his "homeland" by which they probably mean Antioch.  Then 1 Maccabees 4:47-49 tells us Judas Maccabeus created all new replacements for the re-dedication of The Temple.  It is this Menorah and Table of Showbread (or ones even more recent) depicted on the Arch of Titus, not the Mosaic or Solomonic ones, the base of that Menorah gives away how it's clearly a Hellenistic era design not the Biblical design.

This detail of the Maccabees narrative renders the Oil Miracle nonsensical.  The notion that it'd be so symbolically tragic for the Menorah to stop burning even for one night is meaningless when you realize the Menorah had flat out not even been there for three years.  At best wanting to include both this fact and this miracle makes Judas look rather dumb for not having lots of Oil produced while the new Menorah was being made.

This story doesn't show up till the Babylonian Talmud, the younger of the two Talmuds, both well into the AD era.  It's in the Megilat Antiochus but that source is very young with a very bad understanding of the history in-question (it treats all of the Seleucid rulers as one single Antiochus).

Yet it has become what Hanukkah is actually about to most people observing it today.  Likewise if I make a movie about the Nativity Narrative and followed my interpretation of the text that Jesus wasn't born in the stable of an inn because no one was willing to house Mary and Joseph but rather in a nice house that Joseph owned, I'll have removed like 70% of what American Christianity considers the point of the story.

Now my ideas for Historical fiction always adds things, I want to expand what we do know from the sources and add my own creative ideas.  But I hold myself to a standard I don't always hold other historical fiction to in that I generally don't want to depict anything that we can prove didn't happen.

For example.  In this case I'm going to write Lesbians into the story somehow because I can't write anything without Lesbians.  I want to have a woman claiming to be a Meanad play the Exotic Femme Fatale role that is practically a required cliche of this genre.  I want to give Cleopatra II some screen time because I'm just personally a big fan of her, I will be historically accurate in casting an authentic Ginger to play her.  I might write an Amazon into it.  And if anyone is starting to go "you seem oddly more interested in the Greek stuff then Jewish stuff" don't worry I have plenty of ideas for the Jewish side too, like how I'll draw inspiration from The Fiddler On The Roof.

Which is why including the Oil Miracle wasn't really a problem when it was only the lack of reference that had me doubting it's historicity.  But now that I have seen clear evidence it didn't happen I'm truly conflicted about the issue.  Especially as I now want to depict these objects being taken by Antiochus since I see some interesting implications in them winding up at Antioch.

Post Script: On the sources I'd use.

I'd be mainly using both 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus and maybe also the book known as 4 Maccabees.  3 Maccabees is confusingly not actually about the Maccabees at all and I have reasons for considering it completely Ahistorical anyway.

While I refereed to a bias I believe 1 Maccabees has, it is the older text and so I will trust it over 2 Maccabees if I come across any truly irreconcilable contradiction between them.  Josephus being seemingly unaware of 2 Maccabees is evidence of how young it is.

However in the case of seeming inconsistencies between the standard version of 1 Maccabees and the version of it Josephus was using as source material for this time period in Antiquities of The Jews, I think Josephus probably had a version closer to the original.  Still some details unique to Josephus could be things he's adding from elsewhere.  

In Antiquities Josephus flat out admits he got some stuff wrong in Wars of The Jews that he is now correcting.

That this history is fulfilling prophecies from Daniel will also be mentioned.  I also like to connect Hanukkah to Haggai 2, Zechariah 4, Leviticus 24 and Numbers 8.

Details we know about Antiochus Epiphanes from Polybus and Livy will also be considered.

I also have some interesting theories about how the Book of Judith might relate to this history.   Of course the defeat of Nicanor is something we probably wouldn't get to till a Sequel.

I want a return of the Bright Theatrical Historical/Biblical Epic

In the vain of DeMille's The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur and Quo Vadis and yes even the oft maligned Cleopatra staring Elizabeth Taylor.

I even love some of the lower budget examples of this genre, like The Robe and Demetrius and The Gladiators, or Solomon and Sheba, or really obscure ones like The Story of Ruth, The Prodigal and The Silver Chalice.  Also Richard Burton's Alexander The Great and The 300 Spartans.  Not to mention the related Sword & Sandal aka Peplum films made in Italy in the 50s and 60s.

There are still movies being made about History and The Bible, but everyone wants to make them Gritty and "Realistic" now, or occasionally a weird 300 approach, likewise with stuff based on Greek Mythology or Arthurian Legend (and yes I consider Wonder Woman part of this).  I guess they think audiences can't take that older approach seriously anymore, and yet with the Comic Book Superhero genre at least some are learning that the dark and gritty approach has a limited appeal and audiences do love bright colorful fun films as shown by the praise of Guardians of The Galaxy and how 2008's Speed Racer has been vindicated.

I don't exactly want new films to look indistinguishable from how they did back then, the technological advancements of the industry should be taken advantage of.  I'm fine with using CGI for the crowds so we no longer need to pay for a literal "cast of thousands".  And I like that now we can do more justice to the actual battles then they ever did.

What I want to see is a similar spirit or tone.  The SciFi Dune miniserieses and the Star Wars films show that that older theatrical style of acting can still be enjoyed by audiences, in fact the Thor movies have also been similar in that regard, influencing parts of the Avengers films.

In fact The Lord of The Rings films are comparable to what a modern version of this genre might look like, though I'd prefer a brighter color pallet.  Just avoid the pitfalls of The Hobbit films (though I still enjoy plenty of stuff in those).

But what really makes those old Epics not comparable to modern Blockbusters is their length.  Superhero films and Star Wars films are generally 2 or 2 and a half hours, with occasionally a cut approaching 3 hours getting a DVD release later.  It takes a Tolkien adaptation to warrant getting a 3 hour theatrical release.  It took the insane business The Dark Knight did to allow Nolan to get 2 hours and 40 minutes for Rises.

Well here's the thing, the cheaper end of those above films didn't have as long of a length.  The super long ones were typically like that because they were kind of trying to chronicle someone's entire life.  So as much as I personally want more 3 hour theatrical films, this genre can be recreated without needing to go that far.  But those examples I called cheaper are also generally lesser known, so some probably don't realize it's possible to make a film like this with a shorter run time.

The thing about my calling them "cheaper" is I'm pretty sure that, adjusted for inflation, modern Hollywood can recreate the spectacle of the biggest ones with the budget of the smaller ones.

My LOTR comparison might be an argument against them working shorter.  But you see sometimes I feel the individual discs of the Extended Editions work as stand alone films, especially FOTR, that could have easily just been two movies.  Some have said they'd have preferred the LOTR been 6 movies equating to the six books Tolkien wrote them as.  That would be more viable today then it was back then as it's almost a Cinematic Universe in reverse, the second movie is the only one with all the Fellowship together.

Basically they work shorter if you try to cover less in one movie.  Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra covers less then the second half of what the Burton and Taylor Cleopatra film covered, and Charlton Heston made a movie for it that was five minutes shorter then The Dark Knight Rises.  Even a The Ten Commandments remake could work split into two films, or a trilogy with the third covering the wandering stuff DeMille's film didn't.  But suppose for the sake of creativity you want to cover subject matter old Hollywood didn't.  A Maccabees film wouldn't need to be too long if you stopped at the first Hanukkah.  There are a lot of potential interesting film ideas that haven't really been tapped yet.

Basically just find a visionary director who really likes and appreciates those old films and I'm confident they can find a way to re-imagine the basic appeal for modern audiences.  Maybe Spielberg or Colin Trevorrow would be interested since there are aspects of their appeal in both Jurassic Park and Jurassic World (I still haven't gotten to see Fallen Kingdom yet) perhaps more so the latter, Spielberg also likes to go the gritty route sometimes so he'd be a risk.  George Lucas could be perfect since his appreciation of these old school films are where Star Wars and Indiana Jones came from, one of the reasons I love The Prequels is because they remind me of these films a lot, I already talked about that in relation to Ben-Hur.

Barry Dennen is still the best Pontius Pilate

I just watched the NBC's Jesus Christ Superstar Live Performance of Easter April 1st 2018.  I enjoyed it, it was very good.

Ben Daniels as Pilate was solid, but Barry Dennen is still the best.

My parents had the original LP of Jesus Christ Superstar back in the day, and we'd rented the movie a few times.  So this Musical was a big part of my childhood.  Me and my brother used to sort of act it all out as we listened to the Album.

There was a phase in my time as an Evangelical Fundamentalist that I came to share the same hostility many of my fellow Fundamentalists have for it.  One disparaging reference to it exists on my Prophecy Blog.  But while I still consider myself a Fundamentalist I've mellowed on things like that.  Yes some Biblical Inaccuracies in it make me a little uncomfortable then others, mainly the "heal yourselves" part.  And Andrew Loyd Webber probably doesn't share my theology, but the Author is Dead and so there is plenty of value someone who does think Jesus was God Incarnate can take from this musical.  Because we also Believe Jesus was Human and sometimes we downplay that out of fear of disrespecting His Divinity.

So before the start of this year I hadn't watched or listened to it for quite awhile actually.  Then it so happened that a month or so ago we obtained the 73 movie on DVD and watched it.  And then I started looking for related YouTube videos of various kinds.  If anyone actually follows my Twitter you may have noticed my Tweeting about it a bit, like saying I'd like to see productions that get creative with the genders of the characters since Mary as the only Woman is a dated aspect of the Play that could use some updating.  And I've said plenty on my Blogs that can justify even having Jesus be played by a Woman.

If there is one area where I feel Jesus Christ Superstar is more Biblically accurate then most dramatizations of The Passion you see now days, it's in the characterization of Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels paint a relatively sympathetic picture of Pilate.  Many feel the Gospels inherently contradict what Josephus had to say about Pilate, but I feel that ignore the context of the picture Josephus paints.  And Josephus was not an eyewitness to Pilate's Governorship anyway.

Hollywood has a tendency, especially in the Old Epics, to have Rome=Fascism. Since Mussolini was a wannabe Caesar anyway he and Hitler both borrowed a lot of Roman Imagery, so it happens to come naturally for Roman imagery to evoke Fascism.  And since Pilate kind of represents Rome in The Passion narrative, plenty of film depictions have him be like Conrad Veidt in Casablanca wearing a Toga.

And then Mel Gibson's attempt to capture the Gospel's more sympathetic characterization kind of made him come off as...... I don't wanna say "weak" but as not someone you'd expect be a military Governor.

This Musical manages to find the right balance for how to depict Pilate.  And much of the credit for that goes to Barry Dennen playing the role in the original LP, the original Broadway run and the 73 film.  And so when I say he's the best Pontius Pilate performance, I don't just mean in productions of Jesus Christ Superstar, I mean period.

It's interesting even to compare the different performances Dennen gave.  He seems kind of like he was cast for his acting more then singing, though he had been in other Musicals.  So on the original Concept Album his performance isn't quite as polished yet.  You need to see the 73 film to really see him shine.

He has that particular kind of Accent that I see Actors use only when they're playing Patrician Romans, and that Nerds of my kind always love listening too.  I'm not an expect on counting Meter, but I think some of the Trial Before Pilate is in Iambic Pentameter.  But I also like the more subtle things that he was only able to do in the Movie.  Like how he uses his Hands during the flogging scene.

However I feel the key place where other Pilates fail in comparison is in those last few Lines he has at the very end.  Which Barry Dennen delivered very intensely and loudly, what some might call "overacting" but he sells it perfectly.  And it's those final lines that make me as a fan of Anime Dubs kind of want to hear the role portrayed by Crispan Freeman (something else I already mentioned on Twitter), maybe he's the one person who could compete at delivering those lines.

My taste in Acting is different

I am a big fan of Anime Dubs, whether they're from FUNimation, Viz or Aniplex (or back in the day ADV).  And I've talked about many aspects of that already.

Digibro is not like many others who dislike Dubs, there is no purist argument.  He simply doesn't like the voice actors who are usually used.

I however not only am fine with them, I like them more then almost any other English Language voice acting I've heard.  In fact my love of the voices I was hearing was probably vital to my getting into Anime in the first place.  And so I kinda want to hear them doing other roles.

Explaining why this is involves some context.

First of all the context that even my taste in live action acting is not what's currently main stream.  I'm someone who kind of resents the influence of Marlon Brando, Brando himself I always seem to enjoy (my favorite Brando performances are Julius Caesar and Mutiny on the Bounty), but his influence seems to be a perception that his genius was mostly in how he was often understated.  Early talkies were largely just stage actors applying their craft in front of a camera, Brando broke with those conventions when it was helpful, but people forget how he was still often quite theatrical.

Now I am as I've said before relatively easy to please.  So this acting pet peeve of mine isn't constantly ruining my ability to enjoy post-Brando movies.  And I can appreciate an actor being very good at what they do even if it isn't my preference.  But my preferences can make a big difference in my deciding whether to give something a 9 or a 10, or an 8 or a 9.

One old classic that is a personal favorite of mine is Becket, staring Peter O'Tool and Richard Burton.  The DVD I have of it includes an audio commentary by Peter O'Tool and some guy who had nothing to do with making the movie.  In it O'Tool talks about how he hates modern whisper acting, that he doesn't get why people think that is more realistic, he doesn't know anyone who talks that quietly in real life.  And I went "Yes, someone else does feel this way".  I'm sick of watching a movie at home and constantly needing to turn the volume way up during talking scenes but then way back down when the explosions start.  And this quality of Becket overlaps with a lot of the old Hollywood Biblical and Historical epics I love.

So in SFDebris' review of the Sci-Fi Channel's Dune miniseries, when he complained about how because most of the actors were stage actors they didn't know that "you don't' have worry about making sure people in the back row can hear you", I felt rather annoyed.  I love that Mini-Series precisely because of it's theatrical acting, and the follow up Children of Dune is even better.

George Lucas was also going for a similar older style of acting in the Star Wars movies.  They're often not the best examples of that kind of acting cause Lucas was trying to get it out of actors who weren't used to it, and because they weren't given the best dialogue to work with.  As a Prequel fan I keep pointing out that these same cringey acting moments were all over the OT as well.  Still part of why I like the Prequels more is because they had more theatrically trained actors and so much more of them do that style of acting justice.

However, what I want from Voice Acting in Animation is different, or more specific.

One example is that in Live Action I do not want it to look like it's obviously Dubbed over, I can tolerate that in campy stuff likes Dubs of most Godzilla movies or Italian Sword and Sandal films, otherwise it annoys me.  And so that's why with foreign projects I'm much more inclined to watch Subs if it's Live Action.  Which again returns me to Becket and that commentary, Peter O'Tool took great pride in how they made sure the audio came from what they performed on set as much as they could.  And the 2012 movie of the Les Miserables Musical did the same thing.

[[Since I've brought up Becket so much talking about Anime, I should mention it's a movie that Fujoshi and Fujonshi should check out.  I watched it to begin with because a Gay Man recommended it to me.]]

Animation is the opposite in this regard.  I think part of why I prefer Anime to western Animation is that in Japan they draw the animation first and apply the voice acting later, so the lip flaps often don't match even in the Japanese.  As Digi has said this is why even Anime inspired stuff like Avatar still obviously isn't actually like Anime.  I like that about Anime, I think it hinders the animation flow in the west when they're trying to animate it over the acting.  I generally think it turns out better to just not care that much about the lip flaps.

I talked before about how a lot of my issues with the DC Animated movies are them hiring Movie and TV draws instead of people who's primary talent is Voice Acting.  Disney is generally better, which is why the Ghibli dubs I can enjoy in-spite of them generally not having the usual Dub actors.  When Disney does hire a name, they get them to understand how Voice Acting is different, Karen Gillian talked about how she had to adjust for her role in Princess Monoke.  And Theatrically trained actors like Patrick Stewart or the Broadway stars they hire for the semi Musicals, are often the most adaptable.

Digi talks about how FUNimation mostly just hired people who lived in the area.  Thing is when you hire local actors they're often stage actors, since even a town as small and dying as mine has a local theater or two.  Kevin Conroy, everyone's favorite Batman voice, also came from the stage before he got that role, his first instinct was to compare the character to Hamlet.

This YouTube video confirms how in all likely hood any new up and coming Anime Dubbing studio will probably hire local theater talent.

And indeed as a bit of a Shakespeare buff, I'd love to hear how Shakespeare would be performed by my favorite Anime Dub Voice Actors.  Like hearing Crispan Freeman say "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war".

Basically I like "overacting", I like hearing hearing Crispan Freeman and Monica Rail give over the top performances.

Digi complains about the Cute Girls being voiced by obviously older actors.  Thing is "Moe" voices were never meant to be realistic, The Anime Man talks about how Maid Cafes are unpleasant cause the Maidtresses try to talk like Anime girls, and in real life it's annoying.  Now I rarely dislike the voice acting I hear when I do watch an Anime in Japanese.  But when I do it's usually girls having overly squeaky high pitched voices, Wixoss was unlistenable in Japanese to me.  I also find Yuno Gasai annoying in the Japanese, her Dub actress however gives a phenomenal performance.  And in other cases I'm far from inclined to be the most critical of the female actors, when she was still alive I was the only one defending Elizabeth Taylor's performance in Cleopatra.

Non Anime English voice acting also commonly takes advantage of how you don't need to cast actors who are the right age, Kelly Hu voiced a teenager on Phenius and Ferb and it sounded believable to me.  In live action the constantly casting 20-30 year olds to play Teenagers annoys me as I ranted about before.  But in Animation you don't need to look the part, you just need to sound it.  And for Cute Anime Girls you just need to sound Cute.  Rebecca Forstadt is still able to sound Cute even though she's in her 60s now, so I see no reason to complain.

Plenty of Anime Dub actors have more range then they get credit for.  Crispan Freeman proved he can do a more relaxed role by playing Kyon.  Noir is my favorite Anime, and is so largely for it's Dub.  For a long time I thought Mireille was the only one I was often hearing show up in other Anime (and I'm always happy to hear her voice), but then I checked the MAL pages for the others, and found my favorite character shared a voice with several characters I'd listened to and failed to notice.

"Show don't Tell" isn't a universal rule

There are times when many people seem to think it is, or at least in a visual medium like film and animation it is.  I see it in Fanboy-Perspective's defense of Batman V Superman and Clark's lack of dialogue in it.

But there are times when I do feel telling is better then showing. Especially if you're someone who wants less Origin Stories in Superhero movies, what you basically want is to be told not shown.  Likewise if you don't like overuse of Flashbacks, you want to be told not shown.  I'm annoyed how many fans feel that dead Robin easter egg means some DCEU film HAS to flashback to when that happened, how about we just leave that to the imagination for a change?

If you are the opposite of me on the issue of if movies should be longer or shorter, or if you feel the same.  Sometimes telling is shorter and sometimes showing is shorter, it depends on what you're trying to communicate.

And this also ties into how I'm a big supporter of, especially for horror, the idea that what you don't see is more disturbing then what you do.

But the thing about any medium that has acting as one of it's story telling tools.  Is what you can do by showing how a character tells something, and how others react while listening.  When trying to understand Shakespeare, it's import to know that Elizabethian audiences would have cared more about what they heard then what they saw.

In the 70s TV Miniseries Jesus of Nazareth, there are many things I don't like about it (mainly the White Washing) but also things I think it did well.  One of it's highlights was showing Jesus tell the parable of the Prodigal Son to a room full of people, it was a far better choice then cutting to a dramatization of it.

I enjoyed Suicide Squad, but yes it is a flawed movie.  One of it's highlights is El Diablo telling his backstory in the bar scene.  I feel that could have maybe been improved by not having any flashbacks, but just having him tell the story.

If a movie is ever made of Paul Feval's John Devil.  I do not want any "Flashbacks" or whatever you might call a Dramatization of the stories Henri Belcamp tells about his adventures in Australia and on St Helena.  One reason is because none of those stories are entirely true, and the audience of a movie tends to assume anything we see play out must have happened.

But also because I want to see Henri Belcamp be an Orator.  I want to show how he plays his audience and how they are suckered in by it.  Same thing if a movie was made out of The Vampire Countess, another Paul Feval novel translated into English by Brian Stableford.

So no, what I'm saying is we don't need to see everything, it sometimes works to just tell us.

Why does Japanese Media seem more Liberal then Japanese culture?

If you spend a decent amount of time in Anime fandoms and also talking about Anime and it's connection to the culture that produces it.  You've no doubt seem people point out that Japanese culture is much more conservative and traditionalist then a casual viewing of it's media will let on.  For example Japanese culture is not nearly as tolerant of Homosexuality as watching Strawberry Panic might lead you to believe.  In fact Japan is probably the only "developed" nation that is currently more socially conservative even then America.

So why is that? people like to ask.

Well I feel the answer is pretty simple.  Entertainment Media is always to the left of the mainstream of society (Liberal by the standards of it's time at least, any significantly old work may seem Conservative to someone reading it now), at least in any Society that has Freedom of Speech.  The Poets and Playwrites have always lead the way in making the world more progressive.  And sometimes the more Conservative a culture is the further to the Left the artists swing.

From Euripides who's plays were filled with Social Commentary, to Lord Byron who was a member of the Carbonari.  Also Charles Nodior and Victor Hugo who were close friends of Nicolas Bonnevile, and early mentors of Alexandre Dumas.

Even the old Hollywood Biblical Epics that a lot of Conservative Christians idealize actually had a subversive agenda if you pay attention.  DeMille defied McCarthyism in casting Edward G Robinson in The Ten Commandments.

Now often these Liberal works of Media are not satisfactory to other Liberals and get criticized, sometimes fairly sometimes unfairly, by Liberals who spend their time critiquing Media rather then writing it.  The modern SJW bloggers who get unfairly accused of being impossible to please are not the first to do this, Karl Marx was critical of Eugene Sue.  I think it'd be absurd to suggest Sue wasn't a real Socialist just because Marx was critical of him.  Modern Liberals probably have more valid reasons to be critical of Sue then Marx did, since Sue is definitely problematic on gender issues.  And Dumas was much better then Sue at being nuanced in their approach to fictionalizing the French Revolution.

Now exceptions have existed, there have been Conservatives writer who've written stuff and even been successful and influential.  Paul Feval and Ponson du Terril were the main conservatives in 19th Century French pulp fiction, you can find all kinds of Conservative alternative media in modern America, most of which is inferior to Feval at being enjoyable to people who'd disagree with them.  And Chuck Dixon as a Comic Book writer.  And some Japanese Media actually does come off as conservative, mainly Attack on Titan is what I can think of.

The issue with Japanese Media is the way it's critiqued by western viewers misinterprets a lot of things about it.  A lot of that misinterpretation comes from not knowing how Conservative Japan is.  But on the other hand a lot of people who think they're smarter then the average Western Anime viewer because they read up a little on Japan, keep insisting on interpreting Japanese media in the context of how Conservative Japan is, rather then in the context of the long human history of artists being to the left of the mainstream.

This comes from both sides, from Liberal critics choosing not to trust anything that looks Liberal in an Anime unless the writer is outright beating the viewer over the head with how Subversive they're trying to be, like Ikuhara.  And even Ikuhara has critics, Utena is nearly universally praised by Feminists, but his more recent works like YuriKuma Arashi are about as divisive as Zach Snyder.  It might be fair to call him the Frank Miller or Alan Moore of Anime.

A number of these critics basically think the handful of Anime they really like are the good progressive ones and the rest are the problem.  While other critics have other responses to the very same works.  Like Evangelion, loved by Vrai but mostly hated by the comment leavers at TheMarySue.

And you got Conservatives of various kinds, like a blogger user-named Ex-Army who calls himself a "Libertarian Nationalist", whatever that means.  He is supporting Trump right now but I was familiar with his blog before Trump took off.  He primarily uses Anime Images with right wing quotes of dubious veracity slapped over them as his thumbnails.  He basically thinks the fact that Japan has a Nationalist Xenophobic culture means all that Anime that entertains him must reflect that.  In fact a pretty good chunk of Japanese Media is actually trying to be critical of that Xenophobia just as America's media tries to fight against our Xenophobia.

Code Geass I've just recently seen accused of having a Nationalist message.  I think a distinction needs to be made between being Patriotic and being Nationalist in the sense of what a Fascist or Mr Ex-Army means by Nationalist.

One thing that generally both the conservatives and liberals of Japan tend to agree on is Western Imperialism is the source of much of the World's problems (while in the West that is thought of as a uniquely Lefty thing to say that) so indeed Code Geass begins with an Evil Empire that is pretty clearly an Anglo-American stand in.  But it makes a strong effort to Humanize and not demonize the Britanians.  It's a very Anti-Racist work and Zero was adamant that the Black Knights were not fighting to bring back old regressive Japan but a new Progressive one.  I actually think there are few Anime's I've seen harder to interpret as being conservative, some I already mentioned, another would be Gundam 00.

But perhaps the biggest focal point of this dispute is the Yuri and Yaoi genres (Girl's Love and Boy's Love).  It's mostly Yuri I'm familiar with.

Part of Japanese Culture is a thing called the Class S Relationship.  A tolerance of quasi Romantic Relationships between young School Girls, that they are expected to grow out of, sometimes viewed as practice for eventually marrying a man.  Similar attitudes toward Lesbianism used to exist in the West but are now considered outdated.

Understanding what Class S is is absolutely vital to understanding the context of the Yuri Genre.  The issue is the then simplistic assumption that most Yuri is nothing more then a ficitonalization of that and has no desire or ability to make viewers in Japan rethink their general attitude towards Homosexuality.

Now I'm not going to say all criticisms of the Yuri Genre are invalid, thing is Western media made with the best of intentions towards the LGBT community often gets things wrong too.  The old Lesbian Pulp Fiction novels of the 50s and 60s were very problematic especially in how they ended, but they also meant a lot to the contemporary Lesbians who read them and it'd be disingenuous to discount that.

The first thing that I feel gets overlooked is that your typical Yuri absolutely does go further then what is tolerated in a real Class S relationship which is not expected to be physical in even the most mundane way.  Really it's Anime that are not officially Yuri but have a strong Yuri fanbase because of the very Femslashable female friendships they depict, like Maria-Sama and PreCure, that give a better picture of what a Class S relationship is actually supposed to look like.

Now maybe Yuri only goes further because of the natural tendency of fiction to exaggerate, but it's an important fact to note.  Or maybe it's because more girls then mainstream society admits do in private go further then what is acceptable.  But in the Yuri genre it's all pretty public.

The perception however is that with anything in a School setting, no matter how far they go they're playing it safe because conservative viewers can always just assume the characters will "Grow out of it".  But the thing is viewers are equally as free to imagine the opposite, and clearly most of Yuri's actual fandom (male or female) does just that.

A lot of the criticism is about the lack of actual Sex, and focus on Crushes that seemingly go on forever without being resolved. Yuru Yuri is a really fun Anime I watched just recently, where the criticism is mostly that.  Thing is it's not even High School, it's Middle School, most Middle School fiction doesn't go beyond that in it's romance regardless of orientation.  The hesitance of fiction to acknowledge that Middle Schoolers sometimes have sex can be viewed as a problem, but it's not an entirely unique to Homosexuality problem,.  And tension not being resolved is a natural product of being ongoing.

Erica Friedman has pretty much said a Yuri needs to be about adults for her to really like it.  And more Adult Lesbian relationships are needed.  But younger LGBT people are often the ones who depend on representation in fiction the most.  [Update Correction, she said prefers stories about Adults].

To a large extent, the difference between whether or not a School Girl set romance is liked by the Yuri Critics is if it actually talks about what being Gay means.  And while I agree having that conversation is important, I also like Escapism, I think stories that pretend it's not an issue at all make a lot of ground in normalizing it.

The Ikuhara approach to being subversive is important, we need a good deal of that.  But in the long run I think the more casual approach to putting progressive ideas in what you write actually does more to change minds.  Pretty Little Liars is a show that started out very casual in how it Incorporated it's feminist ideas, but become more overt over time.  Now it slipped up big time in Season 6, but for the first 5 seasons it really was the best inter-sectional show on television.  Watching PLL has certainly done more to change my thinking to the left then almost anything else, the other factor being actually studying The Bible.

Now I'm aware that as a Cis-Het male my ability to understand these issues is limited.  But all the use of the term "Real Lesbian" I see among Yuri critics I fear has the potential to be unintentionally hurtful to a lot of people, it echos actual discrimination that exists within the Gay community towards Bixexuals and Pansexuals and people who identify as Fluid.  And the condescending attitude towards real life women in High School and Collage who "experiment".  Conventional wisdom says even most straight people don't end up marrying who they dated in High School, but if your future Spouse isn't the same Gender as your Highschool sweetheart, then it's assumed one of those two relationships must be invalid.

Another thing I like about Yuru Yuri is how the characters are kind of Nerds, Yui is a Gamer and Kyoko goes to Comic Book conventions.  Maybe the perception that those things aren't for women isn't as a big a problem in Japan as it is in America, but I doubt it.

Another objection to the Yuri Genre is the emphasis on Purity it often has. Which can tie into the perception that Lesbian Sex isn't real Sex and so Lesbians can technically claim to be Virgins. Those are understandable concerns, and ones I may talk about more in the future.

The gist of this is, Japanese Media is very much Liberal by virtue of what that means in Japan.  If you're watching an Anime and it seems liberal to you, it probably is.

I watched Ben-Hur again yesterday

Since April 6th is the day I believe Jesus was Crucified on our Gregorian Calendar.

As an amateur historian and Bible Scholar, I could nitpick the heck out of this movie, and the book it's based on, starting with all the White Israelites, but I don't really wanna do that.

I have sometimes complained about how a lot of these old Biblical movies seem to kind of just make Jesus into Gahndi, and this has elements of that at times.  But when Jesus was on The Cross, Balthazar talked about him dying for the sins of the world, so there is some at least vague knowledge of the actual Gospel there.

Today it's sometimes popular to mock the idea of never showing Jesus's Face or hearing Him talk directly.  And I certainly understand the concern that that takes away His Humanity.  But I've always been a fan of when films try to get as much as they can out of what you don't see.

One moment that really strikes me is after Jesus gives Judah the water and that Roman commander is about to stop him and Jesus just looks at him.  The Roman doesn't seem to back down out of fear, he doesn't himself understand why he's stopping.  That brief performance says a lot.

As someone who still supports Ron Paul on his foreign policy.  Judah saying "Withdraw your legions" really speaks to me as a timelessly relevant line.

The film also depicts it's Arab characters very sympathetically, calling out Anti-Arab Racism.  It's amazing how often old films pleasantly surprise me.  Of course they don't seem to be played by actual middle eastern actors, but I'll take what I can get.

Though I can't say I'm too impressed with the handling of female characters.

On a shipping level, I think there is definitely more then meets the eye to the history between Judah and Messala.

Ben-Hur always makes me think of the Star Wars Prequels.

The most obvious and iconic example is the connection between the Chariot Race and the Pod Race.

But I also connect when Messala says "You're either with me, or your against me" to Anakin saying "you're either with me, or you're my enemy".  I know that's a common expression, and the people politicizing the Prequels liked to draw the analogy mainly to George W Bush.  But these two scenes also have in common two friends becoming enemies in this moment, so I don't think it's a coincidence.

Also Arius saying "Your eyes are filled with Hate, good, Hate keeps a man alive, it gives him strength" sounds like a good Sith motto.

Let's also talk about what was an influence on Ben-Hur.

Ben-Hur is also related to a genre largely codified by The Cont of Monte-Cristo, Revenge Fantasy.  This was I think my first time watching the film since my obsession with French Pulp Fiction started.  And the potential parallels between Judah and Edmund Dantes really jumped out at me.

There are two fictional stories that have iconic Galley Slave sequences associated with them, Ben-Hur and Les Miserables.  I'd be curious to know which story it was associated with first, because Les Msierables came first but I'm pretty sure the specific Galley Slave part wasn't necessarily in the original Novel of either.

It's another old classic that still holds up.  They don't make historical films like that anymore, that today we can do gritty and realistic historical films is great, but ya know with Comic Book movies (some) people have figured out that the grim and gritty appeal is limited.  Why not bring back Historical films that are fun, theatrical, operatic, colorful and sometimes cheesy?

Comparing The Sign of The Cross to Quo Vadis

Besides just being set in the same historical context, both involved a high ranking Roman Soldier falling in love with a Christian slave girl, and Poppaea is interested in him to further complicate things. And both are films I like.

Mercia and Lygia

Comparing the females leads, I find Lygia was stale and two dimensional, she's a common example of how Christian good girls in these kinds of films often lack any real depth, she also comes off ridiculously naive at times, and the actress I didn't find to compelling either.

Mercia however while having some of those tendencies still comes off as a much more real character, I really felt for her watching the film, the Lesbian dance scene is not just there to make the film "Sexier" it's an important scene, as I haven't seen the censored version I can't even imagine how the movie could have gotten around it. You can see in the scene that Mercia is being tempted, she is struggling, melting a little to use their words, then she draws strength from the other Christians singing and it's a very powerful scene, and my favorite of the film.

If only it didn't reinforce negative perceptions of Homsoexuality it'd be perfect.  It is worth noting however that the most extreme Ant-Gay Christians tend to believe it not even possible for a truly saved person to even be tempted by homosexuality.  That having that inclination at all is a sign of being a Reprobate no longer even eligible for Salvation.  

I suppose there is room in my head canon to see Mercia as someone who in-spite of her revulsion to this obscene pagan display, would not disapprove of loving intimacy between two loving believers of the same sex.

I just noticed both male leads are named Marcus? Names sometimes escape me.

Now it's reversed, Fredric March's performance seems not very well fleshed out, going from admirable to a total dick from scene to scene without much warning, and at the end I didn't buy his conversion at all, it just seemed to come out of nowhere.

In Quo Vadis Robert Taylor's character is far from the most brilliantly written male lead, but at least I buy his character development, we see his view of the Christians slowly changing so his finale conversion scene seems very believable, and it makes a nice ending.

Nero Caesar

Charles Laughten was a great actor, but he didn't get to do much here, what he does is very good but I'd still have liked more.

Peter Ustinov gives a very compelling performance despite my historical objections to how Nero's depicted (He was a Tyrant but a component one, mentally unstable but not completely irrational) I still loved the performance a great deal, and it makes the film very entertaining.

Poppaea

I don't agree with this historical view of her, most of the bad things said about her come from historians of the senatorial class much latter. Josephus actually knew her and paints a very different picture, and there is no basis in any early Christian traditions for suggesting she was like a Herodias or Jezebel putting the idea for the persecution in Nero's head.

But putting that aside I do enjoy a good Femme Fatale, but frankly Patricia did not make a good one in my opinion. I didn't find her very attractive and nothing in her performance is very compelling.

But Claudette Colbert was awesome, she was Sexy and conniving and vindictive but not without depth either, she does rather steal the show.

The cast lacks in direct parallels after that, surprisingly The Sign of The Cross has neither Peter nor Paul, but a Titus and another old dude who's name escapes me. I don't know if that Titus was meant to be the one to whom Paul's Epistle is addressed. At any rate they play their role adequately.

In Quo Vadis, Paul's' role is smaller, already gone from Rome when the Fire happens. Truth is, based on the traditional sources it should be the opposite, The apocryphal Acts of Peter has Paul on his way to Rome when Peter is killed. They again play their role adequately, but not to compellingly, Peter's Crucifixion should have included some preaching from the cross, as is it feels kind of tacked on. And why are Peter and Paul so far apart in Age? I actually always assumed they'd be the same age.

No one else in SOTC really stands out after that. Quo Vadis has an again very undeveloped Acte (I find Acte's story fascinating, and don't really buy how it's handled here). And the Spanish slave girl is easily the most beautiful woman in the film, and gives a very passionate captivating performance but again doesn't feel to real to me, rather a little overdone.

The best character in Quo Vadis is probably Petronius, he's the character who's wise and noble despite not being a Christian at any point, "A heathen conceivably, but not an unenlightened one", providing the opposing voice when the discussion of scapegoating the Christians comes up. Leo Genn's performance is very good.  Thing is, I would have given that role to Seneca, Seneca is in this film but as just another Roman senator, what makes him intriguing is lost, he was a Stoic philosopher, so Monotheism wouldn't have been unheard of to him.  I could see him tolerating Christianity in a similar vain to Gamaliel in Acts.

Taking the comparison beyond just stacking up the characters. Like with Mercia SOTC in general shows more humanity and depth from the Christians. The Torture scene is very well done, and the kid being so frightened at martyrdom makes the film feel more real.

But Quo Vadis is longer, which especially for this genre I prefer.  And with a bigger budget it's grander and has a more Epic/Theatrical/Operatic feel. The scenes of Nero and his entourage back at the palace during the fire, with Nero fiddling and then the Mob storming. And then the scene I mentioned earlier the debating whether to Scapegoat the Christians is very well done, my favorite part of the movie, I love how Petronius's whole argument is very well delivered.

So in general I'd have to say Quo Vadis comes off the more re-watchable film. Though a professional film critic would probably call SOTC the more well made film. I wish DeMille had gotten to remake more of his old Black and White films like he did The Ten Commandments.

However one thing I notice quite interestingly looking at my review is that The Sign of The Cross handles it's female characters better while Quo Vadis handled the male characters better. Not what you'd expect at all, an older film having the better written female leads then the younger one.  And connecting to another observation of mine, I think DeMille was probably a more conservative person then the creative team behind Quo Vadis.