The Four Color Media Monitor

There's a few more articles I thought to take a look at on the Sabra character being adapted to screen, but these don't appear to be written by people with the best intentions in mind. First, here's one from Israel Hayom, which has 2 things that're problematic. First:

Unlike many other female superheroes, she doesn't seem designed for the male gaze. Her uniform—a blue & white affair in the style of the Israeli flag—covers her broad, muscular form from head to toe. Atop her head is an afro (or Jew-fro) of thick, dark Israelite curls. Her cape is a fur mantle rather than a flapping piece of fabric. It is heavy and lends heaviness to its wearer. She is not one to be trifled with.

And is that supposed to be a literally great thing? How can she be trifled with even if her costume were designed for a male gaze? Wonder Woman, as the years went by, wasn't to be underestimated even as she wore a bustier costume. If the implication is that it's wrong for Jewesses to dress in skimpy costumes, supposedly because they're of "the chosen", that's offensive and reduces women solely to - what else? - sexual objects without agency. Why, surely "heaviness" could just as easily suggest a flaw? Please. Next:

It is a cliche these days to say that "representation matters," but to a certain extent, it's true. As a gay kid who loved comic books, a cameo appearance of a gay character in Green Lantern was huge for me. He wasn't the hero. He wasn't even a main character. He was just Green Lantern's assistant at work. Still, the mere fact that a character like me warranted a place in Green Lantern's universe lifted up something inside of me that had been cast down.

Well I think is beginning to tell something about the writer's belief system, which for all we know could amount to little more than somebody who thinks he's qualified, based solely on that, to moralize what we should think about how women should dress. That aside, he alludes to one of the worst moments in Green Lantern history, 1990-2004, when writers like Ron Marz first humiliated Hal Jordan after Gerard Jones put the keys in the ignition, then Judd Winick wrote that just as dreadful moment in the franchise's history, and then Ben Raab took over, before Marz came back and made sure to end the 3rd volume with a whimper. Regrettably, the columnist is undermining his argument with a biased take on the whole "representation matters" subject, as though LGBT ideology is somehow an exception. Oh well, there have been other op-ed writers who've done far better than him without making it sound like they believe certain ideological approaches to writing are an exception in every way. This is one article on the subject that botches the job.

Then, there's an article on Honest Reporting, which discusses the troubling history of erasing the Jewish identity of characters in Marvel movies, which is reprehensible, but also links to some very regrettably biased articles when they turn to the subject of Kitty Pryde having her Jewish background omitted:

Kitty has remarkable phasing abilities, meaning she can pass through solid matter. Various websites, including fan sites and her official Marvel biography, emphasize her commitment to Judaism (see here, here, and here).

What's very problematic here is the page from Hey Alma, which builds on the more recent retcon to Kitty as lesbian. Even the GL material by Winick at least had the audacity to create a new character for such a role. What's the use of employing material like that to make a point? All it does is undermine Pryde's past portrayals, which began to derail after Excalibur ended. It's certainly regrettable her Jewish background was thrown out in the live action X-Men movies. But forcibly retconning her to a lesbian in the comics proper only adds insult to injury, and this is what a possible marriage for her and Colossus was thrown away for? Also note how seriously problematic it is when only Magneto, the guy who's a villain, retains a Jewish background, but not the girl who's a heroine in training. That's definitely telling, and a reason why the X-Men movies won't age well.

There's also an article from the UK Jewish News, which is almost better in the sense it points out the woke shift in the 4th Captain America, among a few other propaganda tactics from the past decade, but even this veers into patheticness:

Different iterations of comic book stars have been created in recent years. Indeed, in the film in question, Captain America is going to be Black, played by Anthony Mackie. In some other comic books and TV shows, Ms Marvel is depicted as Muslim – a relatively secular Pakistani American.

Such alterations provide a welcome new perspective on much-loved characters and enhance the Marvel universe. They do not change their fundamentals in the way the repatriation of Sabra does.

If this is taking a lenient position on Islam, the belief system that led to October 7, 2023 (and some of the hostages of Hamas were forced to read the Koran), that's very disturbing. Note that no comment is made on how the codename of a lady character (Carol Susan Jane Danvers) originally created in 1968 who took up the superheroine role several years later was forcibly applied to a character with an Islamist background decades after. Don't they think it's absurd to do all this background-swapping for the sake of the leftist propaganda of DEI? None of it is merit-based, and most misleading is the notion that the Khan character is literally "secular", considering that the Religion of Peace was made such a big deal when Marvel first launched it. And it's throughly okay to just throw out Steve Rogers for the millionth time from his role as Capt. America, all for the sake of what's since amounted to leftist propaganda hurtful to the USA? This article screws up royally too. It makes me question whether the writer is even a fan of Kirby and Simon's classic Golden Age creation.

Here's an Algemeiner article announcing the Israeli background for Sabra will be retained in the 4th Captain America movie, and it also notes the original superpowers she's had in the comics proper. But:

...One insider explained that Sabra’s backstory for “Captain America: Brave New World” was always going to be changed from how she is portrayed in the comics, and that the decision to make her a former Black Widow instead of a Mossad agent was unrelated to recent world events or the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.

And that's an excuse? Nope. Nor does it add any creativity when the character's stripped of the flight and quill shooting power she had in the original comics for the sake of a peculiarly watered down presentation. Did I mention Haas doesn't look particularly attractive? One can only wonder if Gal Gadot, her politics aside, would be hired for roles like these today. Also, there's no telling at this point if "always planning to change" Sabra means they'd avoid the negative leaning Bill Mantlo took when he wrote that 1981 issue of the Hulk.

And then, here's an op-ed from Jew in the City, asking the kind of questions I feel are very valid here, namely, what Sabra's exact portrayal will be like, or more precisely, Israel's. Yet, even this has some very awkward parts to it that again make me wonder what kind of "historians" we're reading here:

While I was initially stoked about the Israeli superhero concept, a few months ago I learned something about Sabra that concerned me: her original comic book depiction was laden with blood libelesque messaging. In one of Sabra’s early stories, she appears to show little remorse over the death of an Arab* boy, until the Incredible Hulk educates her on human compassion.

Hulk tells Sabra,“Boy died because boy’s people and yours both want to own land! Boy died because you wouldn’t share!”

Shockingly, the Hulk is not a student of geo-politics and forgets to mention the five times that Israel did in fact offer land to the Palestinians. This does not include the time before that when British Mandate Palestine was broken into two pieces in 1946, with 70% of the land going to Jordanians and only 30% going to the Jews (who were then told to share that). Not to mention the over fifty Muslim states, twenty-three Arab ones, compared to the sole Jewish state. But sure, Jews are causing innocents to die because we don’t share.

While this was a problematic storyline from the past, would Marvel treat the Israeli character better now that it’s 2024? For other minority groups, when Marvel reimagined their superheroes for modern day audiences, they steered clear of their racist tropes. The Black Panther movie, made for modern times, avoided the magical negro trope. For Shang-Chi, the film avoided the stereotype of the power-hungry mystical Asian man. The Black Panther and Shang-Chi films display the progress so many advocacy groups (like our JITC Hollywood Bureau) are working towards. Give us whole and human characters, avoid the tired tropes. Let us feel pride and authenticity on the screen.

But what about Jews, who are usually excluded from DEI considerations? Would Sabra improve in modern times? Well, in 2022 – even before the anti-Israel hatred that rapidly grew after October 7 – it was reported that due to a backlash from the anti-Israel crowd, Marvel would handle Sabra with a new approach. How? What would a new approach look like?

I’m afraid to see what this approach will be. The new trend in Hollywood is portraying Israelis as violent and cruel. (Check out the sizzle we compiled for our Sundance panel.) What if the new approach includes even less compassion and more aggression, to placate the Jew-hating crowd that believes Israelis are bloodthirsty baby-killers? Sometimes erasure is better than vilification. This is what happened recently in the Motion Picture Academy Museum. First Jews were erased from the museum, then they added us in, and according to many who visited the exhibit, they did so with an antisemitic framing.

What would an authentic Israeli superhero character, that avoided tropes look like? A brave woman who dashes across the world when there are humanitarian crises, in order to help those who can’t help themselves – as everyday Israeli superheroes do. A woman living in a place called the state of Israel, where every race, religion, gender, sexual orientation lives in a free and democratic society. This is the guidance we are giving to studios in our JITC Hollywood Bureau Jewish fact sheet. Some of the studios are beginning to formally put our guidance into play.

This certainly provides a lot more to think about than the previously quoted articles. But, what's this about using magical negro sterotypes? Stan Lee's original introduction of BP in the pages of Fantastic Four in 1966 was far from that - T'Challa was the prince of a fictional African kingdom that developed its own technologies, and he studied plenty of science and combat skills. He practically gave even the Thing a formidable blow when the FF first traveled to Wakanda. I'm afraid even this article, while it does provide a valid issue to ponder, also screws up absurdly on specific history elements. Master of Kung Fu may have a problem with stereotypes, but BP was far from having the same.

There's doubtless going to be plenty of problems with the 4th Captain America live action movie, and race-swapping Steve Rogers with Sam Wilson for woke points will be just the start. But all these articles have serious flaws like leaning too much in favor of PC as well, and it takes away considerably from their sincerity.

Labels: Avengers, Captain America, dc comics, golden calf of LGBT, Green Lantern, history, islam and jihad, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, politics, terrorism, X-Men