Pained Pleasure

By: Jonathan Seidel

House’s dumb drug and drunkness

In an episode on House, a genius patient suffers from his own brilliance. He feels alone in the universe and uses a dumb drug to make it all simpler. He lowers his intellect and erodes his mind with psychedelics for his own serenity. It is an escape from the horror of reality. Subconsciously in a tranquil daze away from the harsh daily struggles. Chronic pain unmedicated needs a dumb drug that being alcohol. 

Persistent pain needs alleviation. Alcohol voids the pain numbing the treachery into calm peace. A way to avoid the continuous struggles. A world away from pain. A brief salvation. An imperfect solution. With enough movement, the pain will break through the subconscious detachment. The mind either passes out in defilement or contains the pain as it seeps through the protected mind. Alcohol shuts off the lights. The pain recievers cannot harm the mind. The power has been nullified. The mind is on its backup generator. Running on autopilot, it acts with rational thinking. No pain but no realisation. Liberated from the chaos, shackles removed from his tightened wrists. A way out even if at the expense of the mind and body. A toxin shot straight to the system with an aspiring hope.   

Alcohol has adverse affects. There is a strong measure of unknown. Its affect is incalculable. Its power imminent. The dumb drug is a powerful overhaul that places the mind in the backseat to instinctive action. Memory is foggy and less relatable to understanding the self. An inner enthusiasm breaches forth to take control of one’s actions. Alcohol pushes the rational conscious to bed. Keeping the body awake with the brain turned off. There is less thinking and more doing. Caught up in the moment and acting without any care. All fear and limitations released from their bounded nature. Drunk is a state of freedom inconsequentially moving forward. Comforted by the liberated scenery of joyous stardom. Gradually progressing to tranquility. Slowly acknowledging the pain's numbness. Untethered by its immaculate overhaul. Alcohol leads the blind. A way to the nothingness of recognition.     

While there is a level of no return, there is a middle ground. A goal of euphoria designated. This is not a college party scene to get so drunk for fun, this a calculated effort. An intentioned action for maximum result. Not waiting for a party to let loose. A drink administered on a Tuesday afternoon. Treating it as a medication. If Vicodin will not do the trick then an alternative is necessary. Pain is not some annoyance it is deconstructing. Pushing through temporarily pain during a workout does not compare to the perpetual chronic ailment. At the gym one knows that he can push because afterwards the pain will subside with some stretching, water and a nice shower. For chronic pain it is an endless cycle from waking up to sleep (even during sleep). Medication must treat this pain that never ends. The first week is simple but years in depresses and looks to soothe the pain. 

Finding distractions to void feeling pain is not simple. Gluing eyes to the screen for a Netflix episode only goes so far. Distractions are momentarily. There is some relief but not enough. It is also a gamble. Television may not work. Distractions are not equal. One day it might work the next day it may not. Stressed over failure to secure an outlet must take a step deeper. Netflix or reading a book are cognitive shifts. The pained individual is refocusing his mind away from his pain to the show. His mind concentrates away but the motion picture will end rejuvenating the pain's power. If it is a boring show or cognitively lose interest, the pain will resurge. Alcohol overtakes the mind. The mind is put to rest. Flooded with brainwashing overhaul. The mind is wounded and has little control to focus on the pain. The receivers are ineffective tainted with liquid mucus. With sudden movements the mind tries to communicate with injured areas but is unsuccessful. 

Moving around freely for the first time in a while. He isn’t at one hundred percent but the euphoria outwits the depression. The body numb joyfully skips in the air with no consequence. A new worldview is opened to him. He is no longer under the curse of his mind. His pain is pinned, washed out by the alcohol. Adrenaline courses through his veins inspiring extreme behaviour. Tied down by his mind for so long. He is liberated to act as he wishes. The limitations are voided. His endorphins have capitalised on the mind chaining the trajectory of his movements and thoughts. He becomes obsessed with enjoying the temporarily freedom before he comes down. He does not consider the danger nor the inevitable end to his drunken state. He is lost in the bliss of alcoholic peace. He will act irregularly. Doing what he’s only wished of. Now that the chains have been released he will run and party. Overcompensate for his loss.

Yet he is not oblivious to the negatives. Besides alcohol’s inherent dangers he also knows the result of this euphoria. His overcompensation will bite him in the ass at the end. When he comes down he will be tortured ever more. The recovered receivers are bloodied with wrathful insolence. The injured body has moved too much. The receivers are raging. They attack twice as hard. His mind lectures him, dumb move moron. He trades temporary euphoria for blissful numbness. He knows how it’s going to end but his struggle compels him to act “impulsively”. Alcohol is an immediate solution for eternal suffering. It is a double-edged sword. It will provide the bliss but the consequences thereafter are gruesome. After the mind regains control it asserts its will with alarming fury. Sending double the messages. A tragic moment that plagues his existence. Suffer without any peace or risk it for twice the pain. It is not an easy answer. Pain does not go away. It is also not fun feeling the pain. It is similar to being whipped. Unsure the magnitude and how many lashes.

Euphoria and numbness supply freedom to provoke the body. Alcohol can alter the mind’s chemistry for a split second but it cannot revive the dead. Alcohol cannot miraculously mobilise the cripple. It cannot rejuvenate that which does not work. It can only remove the distasteful feeling plaguing each step. Vibrating in horror as his mind cries tortured. A crippled body weak in the knees may experience a swift reawakening in its euphoric majesty but will swiftly disappear. Pain may not be relevant but his body will not recover. Enjoying a friend’s wedding jealous of his friends dancing while he is sitting alone with a drink in hand to wash the depression away. He hits that euphoria and advances to join his friends. After a few moments it is clear that his body cannot handle his movements. His mind is swamping him with alarming calls but he has disconnected. All sent to voicemail. His body begins failing falling over. He recognises this and his mind reconnects screaming at him. He then drinks more to disconnect once again.        

In time, alcohol becomes a desired salvation. It is incredibly faltering in aiding the individual. It puts life on temporary hold. Chronic strugglers are trying to live their lives. Distractions especially alcohol that puts one out of commission is unhelpful for an employee or father. Either way, sidelining himself with alcohol prevents him from living his life and aware of his actions. Relying on it will only be the devil’s curse. Tired of the pain one afternoon and pouring whisky into a glass drinking passionately. The more drunk the less active in work and the quicker to sleep. Waking up groggy with the stars lighting up the night sky realising wasted a full day. The pain surges just as he puts is head to the pillow to sleep. Once his mind is in the front seat it punishes him severely. Off alcohol his mind monitors him increasing the pain for stepping out of line. With alcohol he imprisons his mind. His mind recovering its necessary role deals the damage to enforce the law. Follow the pain. He stubbornly gnarls since he cannot pinpoint his pain. He acts out because he does not have a solution and the pain is a robotic response that beats him for his incompetence.  

Salvation is a Good Joke

By: Jonathan Seidel

Why more policing does not solve the problem

Matpat argues the Joker is the only one able to bring peace to Gotham. While Batman, Gordon and Dent try to reduce crime on the surface, it is the Joker who though maniacally perverts the system takes down the crime lords and brings peace. This film theory says a lot about intent and misunderstood villains.

Joker’s violence and kill count are to be condemned, yet his strategic genius is the sole way to protect Gotham. Gordon and Batman spend too much time stopping individual crime acts but fail to erase the system. Thwarting the villain’s actions but the crime lords live another day. Joker manipulates them as an ally and then burns all their money. He bankrupts them ceasing their leverage over corrupt cops and elaborate ploys. Joker’s actions are less than ethical but he is the only one able to thwart the perpetuated chaos. 

Joker acted alone as a spy. He is never acclaimed as a hero. He is a villain who is out to destroy everything. In grave irony, he is the true saviour of Gotham. He routs out the problem unethically but successfully. Following the normative routine does not always reach the desired result. Sometimes getting hands dirty is the sole way of defeating foes. You have to play by their rules. Batman had a boiling point which refused murder. He is blamed time and time again for allowing these criminals to wreak havoc. He is unwilling to end their terror for good. To be fair it is not fair to him to be haunted by the ghosts of the countless criminals he has murdered. That is a burden undeserved to anyone trying to maintain a pure spirit in the peaceful truth. It is this limit that prevents him putting the criminals behind bars. 

Batman’s strong sense of justice is careful and calculated. He plays by the law in some twisted order. Joker does not. He openly commits crimes  to dig out the criminal. He acts with sincerity and cunning deviousness. He thinks like a criminal playing the necessary character to save Gotham. Joker deceptively pins the crime lords against Batman placing them as their saviour. If they are to succeed they need him. He demonstrates his trustworthy skill by outwitting Batman. He must become the devil to stop the demons. He must rise as their leader to quash them where they stand. He is a spy, infiltrates the enemy to destroy them from the inside. He sneakily overpowers the crime lords. Batman could never do this as the knight. Only Joker is capable of this, the jester in disguise.

Is a spy the only way of ridding the crime lords? Batman is synonymous with materialised police. He is a skilled vigilante for justice. Yet he fails. He is an outcast. Dent is the beacon of hope. He brings people hope to route out criminals. His death leads to a peaceful city. His ultimate death was due to internal betrayal. Both detectives under Gordon’s authority betrayed him. Killing both Rachel and Harvey’s good nature. Their corruption may have been well intentioned but they were seduced by maniacal demons. They decided to act selfishly for their own salvation than the collective good. Dent was enthusiastic passionate about taking down crime lords. Yet abiding by the law protected the crime lords from demise. Dent’s optimism was his own downfall. 

Joker plays the crime lords’ game. He works outside the law committing his own felonies in the process. Yet it is him who brings the ultimate tranquility to Gotham. He does it most swiftly and without further harm. He challenges the people not just the crime lords. Are the people themselves capable of overcoming the psychological burden. A theme across superhero comics is the superheroes ability to stop the villain only for that villain to escape. The difference with Batman is the lack of paranormal capabilities. There are a few but in the Dark Knight trilogy, the emphasis is on mortal beings. Using their intellect and strength to overcome. Batman fights with gadgets not superpowers. In a way this makes it more relatable at the same time quite foreign due to his massive wealth and brilliance.

Batman’s universe can be synchronised with our own. A fictional world that finds similarities amongst our own. Why vigilantism is carried out on lower levels in the US for example. During the riots spreading through the country with little security, storeowners hired people to defend their stores from muggers. If law enforcement is failing to do its jog to eradicate evil, is it on the average person to stand up to stop it? According to the law or at least politically is not to. Let your store be mugged and neighbours family be attacked. The Dark Knight shows the dangers of a vigilante. Batman’s presence only bolsters criminal operations to act more secretly. If he cannot stop them then they continue their desirable business. While assisting where the government trails into the abyss. Yet the Underground Railroad that is praised for its efforts was vigilantism. It was not necessarily violent but it was standing up for perceived injustice through illegal means. 

Law enforcement’s job is to stop crime and deal justice. In the US, policing services  grew out of Washington’s vision for security. They are service members and the political ties are dangerous and monstrous. A division to assist the public in a capitalist society where cops can be bribed and aid the wealthy is all too common. The more wealthy a country is the less crime they may have is only one factor. Unreported crimes for wealthy pundits is another. While Batman seeks to live by a code never enticed by villainous gage. He remains outside the law. Again, Batman has his rules but if criminals are going to break laws then to catch them laws need to be broken. They find loopholes to divert criminality. The hero archetype that Batman eventually succumbs to does not stop the enterprise just the boss is out of the way. Law enforcement is a powerful entity but it would be wrong to see them as the sum of ceasing crime. They actually perpetuate crime in their ignorance to it occurring in their purview. Choosing to look the other way.     

There is a different metric. A town militia protecting the people. In Israel (beyond the political aspects). Many of the settlements in the West Bank are secured by the townsfolk. Everyone is strapped with a revolver for protection. This model ensures the people themselves are armed to defend. They do not wait for a knight in shining armour to save them. For the police to finally arrive but for their own self defence. Law enforcement cannot be everyone where at once. Split decisions need to be made in removing the threat. While these situations call for extreme measures. This is relevant for the ethical shift. The only way to eradicate evil is for the townsfolk to stand up for themselves. To gather together and rebel against the crime tyrant. Evidently in poorer areas access to weaponry is moot. Yet it begins with the community revolting. A collective heroism is necessary. 

Criminals will target easy prey but an awareness has been sparked. A reluctance to accept the criminal patronage. Standing against the ruthless imposition. It is not always about brute force nor wealth. Voices singing the same tune with the same goal. To protect one another as a family. Criminals will rise up and attempt to take power with tyrannical coercion. The more people stand together. The more sympathetic tones race across the nation. One community turns into many communities. A crime lord is only successful if everything is washed under the rug. If there is sufficient proactive protesting something can be done. It is difficult given the political nature and collusion so present. That is the purpose of the second amendment. It is the right to defend tyrannical regimes. It is a value point more than a last stand at the Alamo. Corrupt politicians and law enforcement is tyrannical even in a democracy. To ignore these aspects is to violently humiliate the downtrodden.

Paupers Profiteering

By: Jonathan Seidel

Market socialism: free markets, individuality and profit

While salaries at companies are skilled based, the more productive, the higher climbing up the rung the more money made. A VP who sees over more and has much more responsibility than a newbie will make more money. Salary is determined by incentive to the company. How necessary are you. While there is much good faith and good logic on this side. When considering the accumulation of profit, the discrepancies are giant. Though the VP and associate make different amounts, they both are employees making little compared to the employer. He keeps most of the money for himself. He hires and kicks back. Is this fair and commendable?   

I was watching one of those Ben Shapiro destroys liberal snowflake videos. While many of them are eagerly entertaining. Watching people meltdown in a debate. Unable to handle rebuttal. Stomping in disgust. There was a singular episode where an individual pressed Shapiro on workers in a pencil factory for their effort should gain more of the profit instead of the boss who does little work. Shapiro’s response makes logical sense in that the boss puts in all the risk by providing all the supplies for the workers to work and then makes a mean spirited comment about the ease of compiling pencils. While there is truth to Shapiro’s claims it is not always true that a job is easy nor that the boss can do it. He does not automatically allocate because there is too much but because he needs the help. He may have paid for the industry but his lacklustre skill prevents him from competing anything. An influencer on Youtube maybe making the content but without his cameraman he is at a lost.  

Beyond the realm of sales, there is little commission incentives given to employees. The effort given in the grade scale of things is negligible to their effort. It is the impact more than the official title or its difficulty. A project coordinator may have a simple job though deeply tedious and arduous but his role is central to the project’s execution. Can he easily be replaced? Not necessarily even if the work is easier than most complex tech jobs. This does not mean that all workers should receive an equal profit. There is still a hierarchical ladder. The more prestigious the job the more compensation. Work harder get paid more. Result oriented will only empower people to work more efficiently instead having to wait to be given an advanced title to be respected for hard fought work.  Appearance is everything. An individual who performs excellently is praised with a slap on the back. If a position opens up he can get that raise but it has little to do with current performance. 

There is an angle to consider: the insufficiency of humanity. While there is a major detriment, it could be genuine. Some people are just incapable of succeeding. Instead of taking the extreme of special needs who by their limitations struggle to meet the average potential fall short of processing beyond. Poverty forces people into situations that limit their capability. Take a single mom working two jobs. Limited education limiting her options. She is already turned away because of the shrewd system. Working as a cashier at Walmart is not a difficult job. Do to its ease she is paid minimally. There lacks skill and exponential growth. To demand more profit from bagging food or stocking shelves is hard pressed. Yet, here the workers who all do the same job can split the profit evenly. The job’s difficulty does not affect workers’ indispensability even if expendable. The storeowner needs people to man the cashier as he will not do it himself. There should be a larger percentage for their efforts even if it is not that much given the division amongst the group. 

Taking a more talented example. Tesla was poor and needed to produce results. JP Morgan was funding him and without any results Morgan’s money would be wasted and be out thousands of dollars. His funding was on Tesla’s results. Morgan freely giving his money would differ from loaning it on condition that Tesla’s performs. Desperation will hit quicker in the latter. Scientific equipment is expensive and finance was necessary. Yet if Tesla performs he will profit and he will give a percentage to Morgan for his aid. Tesla owes Morgan for his work. Morgan could not achieve Tesla’s inventions but Tesla could not accomplish without Morgan’s money. They needed one another. How the percentage is split whether 50/50 or 50/40 for Tesla because Tesla made it. Though a fair argument could be made that if Tesla kept failing continuing with loans would fairly dip the percentage in Morgan’s favour. Yet here the production owner Morgan is giving the worker Tesla his rightful ability. 

This issue with the Tesla example is Tesla’s greatness. The average scientific aspirer does not have that clout. An interested individual is not aided by donations without any profit to be made. Thinking about a Jewish example brings to light the reality of mediocrity. In the Middle Ages, rabbinic prodigies’ advanced schooling was paid by a wealthy merchant on condition he marry his daughter. Thereby he sheps nachas from the marriage and his son in-law’s prestige. The merchant was seeking spiritual reward. A different type of reward and yet a medieval capitalist solution. Not everyone was blessed with the opportunity. Not the passionate. Only those with the capabilities. Tesla is no different. He was skilled. While there is room to discuss a profit margin this only helps the readily capable. The profit mentality is primal. 

This medieval example shines light on the successes of the few. The few then exert their money over the unsuccessful. Those with money then pass on their wealth to their descendants. Those in power remain in power. It is akin to dynastic royalty. While this is not always true. There are many stories of rag to riches. With the buzz of the internet expanding more people are attaining more wealth from various backgrounds. It is in no way exclusive to a feudalistic familial ability. Yet in the market faculty either go into tech or make little money. The motto is to follow the money. There are vast ways to accumulate wealth yet investments are tricky and most people play it safe. Choosing to be an employee is not always a choice. Rich investments pay off because they have the capitol to invest in grossing products. The average Joe does not. YouTube gurus are not the most trustworthy folk to fondle. The solution of amassing self wealth is not for everyone. 

Falling into darwinian fate is an immoral society. Entrepreneurial efforts are acclaimed but are almost never self made. There are outliers but many grow from overwhelming someone else. It is a battlefield competing for supremacy. There will always be leaders but every leader needs an advisor and also congregation. A king needs soldiers. Reducing their integrity because of their ignorance undermines their importance. A leader with no congregations is no leader. The employer needs the employee.  Those who win still need others under them. Using their own phobias against them. Their own worst fears to coerce into working is disgruntling. People will take the job because they need to provide. There are limits and workers have fought back but the scare and responsibility to family will compel much less anyone to accept terms to protect. It is an envious game playing on people’s instincts. Keep them on the lowest rung. Give them the bare minimal within the lines. Survivability depends on the offering. Feeding people crumbs to over come the restless work hours is depressing. 

Profit is not in itself evil but it is weaponised for self greed. Using wealth for influence is to insert the self in the mist of decisions. Looking to benefit at every turn. To continue climbing the social ladder economically enlightening the majorly representable aspects. It is a repressive agenda keeping someone behind. the profit is consumed by the owner with little backwash for the assisters. The entrepreneurial asset is to climb solo. When an idea is spawned the vision needs insight to cultivate its execution. A hired army to foster its facilitation. The army heeds the commands and is expendable but it is indispensable to victory. Profit is hopeful but is an aspect that needs to be divvied up. The spoils of war are not the kings own. Ragnar makes the point to Earl Haraldson, Though the earl gave him permission to use his boats, the earl did little to nothing to attain the treasure. He happened to be in charge so he gained the treasure. The treasure was rightfully the soldiers who fought for it. While a percentage should go to the leader who led the fight and provided transportation, those who sit back and do not lift a finger are tyrannically enforcing their will. 

Continuing with the Ragnar story. He promises his warriors treasure. If they travel with him, they will gain whatever they put in. If they follow him they will be blessed. A risk but a worthwhile one. Most established companies are kingdoms with entrenched dynasties. They do not need to promise for followers. They make replacements but the order is in place. Ragnar’s example is a desire and accountability that must persist. The start up nation is a perfect example. These groups have potential to alter the employer-employee dynamic. They need aid and those who do so ought to be rewarded. Yet once they gain traction established will they reform to the systematic trend of other corporations. Only time will tell. The relationship is only debated when the visionary needs assistance. He may place himself a top the hierarchy but he cannot look down on his assistants. Those who work for him are good soldiers. Hierarchies cannot be abolished today as society demands functionality of commanders and commanded. Do you make laws or follow them. The lawmaker is responsible for his clientele. He is a shepherd caring for his flock.   

Expert Innuendos

By: Jonathan Seidel

Rejecting complexity: trolling intellectual the case of of Neil deGrasse Tyson on the titanic 

Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned on a recent Joe Rogan podcast he received hate comments after commenting on the scientific accuracy of movies. Recently, he made a comment about the titanic concerning the star’s alignment and people were up in arms. Trolling him endlessly with bashing insults. This part of an ideological hold that cannot be breached. Arguing against an expert out of spite is a conscious choice to be ignorant and angry instead of humble and correct. 

There is an immense amount of doctrinal conformity. So hellbent on a specified version of their account any alternative is blatantly rejected, So hung up on their side of things otherness is blasphemous. This childish attitude is fair game to a friend but to an expert is dubious. It is a student rebelling against the teacher. Claiming he knows better. While in deGrasse Tyson’s case it was enjoying ignorance over knowledge. There is an aspect of trying to one up those more educated than you. To try to usurp their authority over you. A jealous youth with listening problems. Lesser knowledgeable people making unintuitive arguments to save face against the other side. Ignoring for the sake of their dignity. Blurting their belief and then storming off cowardly with tails between their legs.

Viewers may rightfully say thank you deGrasse Tyson but we do not care. The negative reaction was an attack on his mentorship. His education was being banned. It was a reboot of Galileo’s trial. Telling the biblical stories with correct science were silenced and rejected for offering an alternative to their traditional model. The level of arrogance and pettiness to maintain a status quo. deGrasse Tyson wasn’t challenging an institution but a film’s error. Facts are important. When they are muddled for convenience it creates a pattern where truth is irrelevant. Take the example of the Martian. If a scientist did not disprove it people may believe it to be true. When fables are pursued as factual, it undermines their authenticity.

Historical documentaries are a better example. The show vikings was misconstrued in its overemphasis on nordic plundering. The narrative indicated that Christians were good pure people and vikings violent raiders. If a historian does not speak out, people will take it at face value. Even with a bit of scepticism and recognition of exaggeration the embellishment cannot be properly exposed if no one speaks up. Viewers were to believe and for the sake of integrity there is reason to uphold the truth no matter what. Embellishment in any era is problematic. If experts are not trolling to ensure facts are represented that cinema will become the beacon of truth to a harsh degree. 

Persistent expert rebuttal reminds viewers that cinema though photographically reflective is a director’s perspective. It does not necessarily state the truth. Films tell partial truths and must be held accountable for that. People should know the truth and should crave it. Know to be sceptical and do more research. Much of the narrative has parcels of accuracy but the details are shifted to fit an agenda. The latter must be interrogated. It is not one movie to worry about but the idea behind cinematic fact. Perceiving cinema with more truth only heightens its ability to influence the viewer. To project an agenda consuming the viewer’s identity. It is a dangerous art that if not responded correctly could steal his soul.

Titanic may not be a pivotal example but it holds accountable the mistake. The movie experience is an aspect but not the entire film. The historical account means something as well. Messing with it out of ignorance or agenda seeking is trivial. Either it’s laziness or ideological. Both are negative. There is also an educational element in pointing this out. Take the movie Ted. Though a comedy about a teddybear coming to life, deGrasse Tyson was approached how this could occur. The script followed his answer. This is a minor point to the comedic faculty of the film but accuracy and honesty are compelling themes to storytelling. A lie loses its integrity and audience commitment. It is about transparency and striving to be right. 

If you cannot care about the little things why will you care about the big things. Galileo is a perfect example where deGrasse Tyson-ed to the premodern twitter—the church and they responded harshly to his comments. People refused to step away from their dogmatic beliefs. It is a perpetuated pattern of sheer ignorance and stubborn arrogance.  

White Men in Coloured Coats

By: Jonathan Seidel

Stereotyping in films versus plays

Placing actors in roles to foreign ethnicities raises speculation. Beyond the contemporary appropriation backlash, an actor’s job is to assume the identity of the character. If one is playing Caesar he needs to act like caesar. The misconception is to identify as caesar instead of representing him. Visually in film there is need to emulate the identity. This ends up reaching stereotypical levels of trying too hard. Associating a certain frame with a character. 

The acclaimed Hamilton show did this part quite well. Lin Manuel Miranda is Puerto Rican a far cry from the historical figure. His successor Javier Munoz is also Puerto Rican. Despite the racial and ethnic differences they played the character to fruition. The play has shifted through characters over the past five years with no stopping. People love it. They love the music and orchestration failing to see issue with casting. Sometimes this is from ignorance. Morgan Freeman plays Red in Shawshank but reckon not many knew otherwise. There is an obvious political statement that many wish to avoid. In the case of Spiderman, casting black actors for MJ and Flash seemed less authentic given the wave of black characters reprising classically white characters. 

Is there a difference in theatre? On the big screen there is an attempt to reinvent the event. Cinema is behind the audience so can try to make the scene historical. Theatre is about the acting than the appearance. Matt Damon though was deemed racist for his comments, argued that he did not care for the identity of the individual and only for their talent. Looking beyond a character for their performance. Theatre is in your face and is magnified by its talent. It is the actor’s abilities on stage that mesmerise the event’s excellence. Theatre is less about preconceived presentation and more about result presentation. How the actors portray the character. Hamilton did this incredibly. Yet it may be its musical centricity that removed it from a realistic drama. It wasn’t a documentary but a comedic trope. If this was Romeo and Juliet audiences may feel differently. Still there is something about the live audience that hinders this problem at least in the cinematic age. 

Cinema is different. The photographed style attempts to captures accuracy. When people take photographs they they wish to see their reflection. Films are the same. They are supposed to be reflective. It is not solely authorial intent but the documentation of characters. There is an aspect of consideration to the obvious role. Just as people take dating advice from cinema so too they perceive reality through it. It is due to the photography affect. While documentaries are dedicated to factual gathering, fictional shows though imagined are reflective constructions. Whether be modern American or medieval Europe. Many people think the vikings were horrid plunderers because cinema articulates that story. The visual frame presented becomes truth. There is a greater trust to technological information than traditional messaging. 

There is justifiable regret when beloved characters are switched on a dime for political points. The polarised world is obsessed with racial jargon. It is the first thing noticed in the hyper-racialised society. Yet ironically, it is the historical formulations that are the most problematic. Beyond race, placing a character in a role that does not befit him only internalises stereotypical attitudes. For all the inclusivity, there is little care for the accuracy. Writing a Roman script or adding a main French actor and casting a white or black American is anachronistic. Cinema places such an emphasis on appearance that the attempt to be Roman only pushes the actor’s to act more Roman. To make vikings seem more brutal than they actually were. Constructing false propaganda as history. Embellishing content with a false prophet to narrate the lesson. 

While acknowledging the apparent compliance with Freeman's Red versus antagonism for Zendaya's MJ. Though there is a one-sided ratio. A white black panther would have more issue than a black batman. As the white superiority has a stronger historical record than the other way around and it would be perceived as diminishing black culture. From one side it's making room for black actors and black art. On the other hand if the alternative is done, black culture is repressed and expunged. Both are possible given the asymmetry. The historical landscape and power imbalance of race permits this reality. Yet the same cannot be said for other minorities. It is attempted but there is not as much blowback. Those other minorities while persecuted and abandoned in their past were not either by white America or as much as blacks, thus the justification does match. White people sought to suppress black people through slavery and Jim Crowe and now movies or now out of suppression can actually do something and flip characters.

Freeman's character highlights ironically either nobody read the book or nobody cared. It is also depends on how crucial race is to the character. The reason it wasn't such a big deal was probably because it was before all the hectic craziness. Secondly, it also may not be all too clear if Red was white. Even if so, as a side character, his role was more about messaging than appearance. The problem with superheroes is the are very well known and illustrations have covered magazines for half a century. It is an obvious attempt for political points. Still, there is strong merit to the point. Another case may be Riverdale. Veronica is played by a latino. The issue with the whole show was its storyline not its choice of casting by race. They may have ruined Archie Comics but that was not due to the latino aspect. For many that was fine in line. Given the casting is different than the comics, it is highly possible that the actress was the best for the cast without resorting to any political nature. That being said the show diverted from the comics yet still causing fans a heartache.

Though to some degree the race-swapping is not the biggest deal as long as it done in earnest to the original character. Movies are a depiction of reality. They a documentary unintentionally. People internalise relationship advice from movies. The realistic day in day out life of these characters is something to nitpick. The characters are representations. Thereby the historical constructions such as Vikings does a graver disservice than race swapping since at least the ploy can be noticed. Whether one agrees or disagrees the change is recognised. The historical formulations do not have that. Placing a character out of era is a deceptive lie. It is an attempt to gain political points a-historically. Solely focusing on the characters is necessary to fully immerse in that world. Either people will believe the lie of the apparent historical diversity or will abandon the show after seeing this farce. The viewer has expectations. Those are exploited when the director undermines them with small pieces of deception. The adaptation mirrors accuracy, using documents and monographs to arrange the story in an accessible way. Bringing the story to life. Such misfiring for some call out is a dire embellishment.

Historical adaptations are the most vulnerable since most people have not read history nor the seminal documents themselves. They rely on the film to portray the past. What is the point of learning when learning is corrupted by politics. Reading a textbook creates an illustration in the mind but fails to garner the same visual effect that film does. Film will embellish stories but in which way. Going off script here and there happens. Viewers know they are not getting the full truth but at least something is on point. There is some metric of enjoyment. The problem is that the film is taken with great acceptance. Vikings are gory murderers. When in reality they were farmers. A few attacked Christian villages. The extreme accusation is daunted with film expectations. The story needs to be receptive to people. They enjoy action and gore. It will a pleasant watch even if an untrue one. Yet the viewer should know, this is not a documentary and cinema is generally incorrect but the visualisation captures the viewer's emotions and stirs them to concede. The power of an image in motion funnels an untruth to be the truth. 

It is this messaging that causes a stir of horror in the true history of our ancestry. Caught up in political nonsense but even more so seeking a better story. The director decides which pieces to add and which to void. The perception of elder folk are internalised as seen on the big screen. Just as relationship advice must be true this even more so. Cinema is for viewership and interest so there are more bombs and more unnecessary relationships for a deeper plot line that is never mentioned in any of the original material. These slight derivations or even absolute constructions undermine the integrity of these people. The Cleopatra scandal does fall under race-swapping but it is more about her legacy than her race. She is painted as this black superwomen. Yet her history and her actions themselves are not represented in this way. HBO's Rome was able to swindle audiences with a deceptive character but the obvious race-swapping caught audiences' eyes ever before they hit the big screen. Given the heightened political landscape and race centricity, if only an iota is misplaced this can cause a disaster of belief. 

There is a bias given the race-swapping. While many may claim it is a one sided coin it was the Egyptians who were very angry, a people away from the American social upheaval. Nonetheless, it may be even more problematic that Fimmel played Ragnar  despite him being Australian. Then again his complexion does meet viking ancestry. Was this the correct choice may be not. It also may undermine the historical accuracy. Fimmel is not the problem insofar as he fits the paradigm and authentically relates to the people themselves. This a bigger issue than race swapping. The latter has too much concentration when historical events are embellished wholeheartedly for views. The viewer takes in the film with joy. Unlike the play on stage filled music and orchestration, the live action takes away from the realistic persona. Ironically, it is the opposite. The fiction is more likely to seem more authentic. Cinema plays a recording of the past while a play immerses in an experience.  

Stereotypes are inevitably assorted when the director presents an honest measure of society. By casting a white actor for a Roman role or American actor for a French actor. It is the inability to portray the individual correctly. Then the intended presentation is muddled and the stereotype ensues. There is no honest portrayal because the director is basing his knowledge as an outsider. He cannot identify and thus provides an inaccurate description. It is not about inclusivity or talent, it is about integrity. Does this make sense? Would a Roman do that? Do the French sound like that? In theatre the same problems emerge but the visual does not internalise the accurate proposal too deeply. It is a different model with a different goal. More concerned with talent than appearance.