Rogue One: (un)appreciation of heroism (a very late review)

*spoiler alert*

This is literally my first Star Wars film. I wasn’t interested in the franchise. If I want to try new art and entertainment, I focus on the premise rather than its celebrity or cult status. Honestly, Star Wars’ premise doesn’t interest me.

Basically, it’s another case of good vs. evil. The marginalised vs. the powerful ones. Battle scenes. I know I sound ignorant. But, that’s the impression I get from the film. Correct me if I am wrong. Of course, I still have other reasons to try the franchise.

First of all, Harry Potter’s not a completely original franchise either. It has traits shared by many other stories. But, I’ve been a pothead for years and I can see myself as one in the future. If I can love derivative HP, why not Star Wars?

Also, Star Wars is sci-fi. I have a soft spot for speculative genres. From my lenses, they can get deep easily and unpretentiously. I like that. I can’t stand self-righteous entertainment. Another reason to try Star Wars.

So, when I had the chance to watch it, I took it. Not disappointed at all.

Quality wise, it’s unexceptional. K-2SO is the only character that I like. The human ones don’t attract me. I’m neither annoyed nor compelled by them. That hinders the immersion. But, the most important aspect of the film is its ending….which makes me conflicted.

It is supposed to be sad. But, the emotions existed briefly before immediately swept under the rug. Like, why? Our heroes are dead. They die before they reach the happy ending. I should not have feelings about that? Seriously? What are they? Chopped liver? Why don’t the filmmakers celebrate the deaths as well? Oh, look! Dead heroes! Woohoooo!! Pop the champagne!!

*takes a deep breath*
As much as frustrating it is, the film’s a good reminder that every revolution demands sacrifice. The living heroes have it nicer. They live to enjoy seeing their causes becoming reality, unlike their dead predecessors.

Okay, I know how it sounds like. In reality, I am genuinely grateful of their heroic efforts. I really do. But, I also credit their predecessors for starting the movements. Without them, our living heroes probably wouldn’t have a colossal cause to fight for.

I believe franchises like Star Wars need prequels. They unveil the origin stories, show how everything started. If not prequels, at least insert fictional history lessons in the original stories. Don’t dwell too much on the present. Explore the past well.

If I dare to say this to some people, they would roll their eyes (and I hope they got stuck) and say profoundly pragmatic things like “why does it matter?”, “it’s just entertainment!” and “why can’t you just be dumbed down like us?” My respond would be this:

Why doesn’t it matter?

I have said this countless times before and I will said it again: I love lowbrow entertainment. I really do. I believe it’s morally and intellectually acceptable to unwind with pure escapism. But, indulging in escapism in your every waking second is self-destructive.

Sooner or later, you have to dwell on the inescapable reality. You are in it, whether you like it or not. This can be encouraged by inserting depth to popular entertainment, no matter how subtle it is.

In the case of Rogue One, it’s about knowing the Jedis’ earliest efforts (God, I hope I got the info right). You will never fully appreciate their movement (is that the right word?) unless you learn about the history.

You would learn how and why it started, about everything the movement went through and its evolution from then to now. The movement in its present form doesn’t tell you the full story and that can lead to ignorance.

The people. Don’t forget about them. You would also learn about the sacrifices they made. Be grateful that you don’t have to endure what they went through, that you can enjoy the privilege which weren’t available then.

I know, I know. Star Wars isn’t real. But, one has to acknowledge that it resembles real life phenomenons. Notice the parallel, immerse in it and we’ll be more insightful about our reality. Try harder and we can make our world a better place.

It seems my teenage idealism still lingers…

Oh and one more thing. My statement about esteeming heroes sounds patriotic. It can be applied to the context of fighting for national independence. But, that was not what I had in mind.

I was thinking about something more internal. The fight for more rights for the marginalised ones, honourable governance and even better living conditions. They may seem trivial. But, they also involve heroic individuals. In some cases, they do suffer from violence. Not all heroes are soldiers.

Admittedly, those internal issues can intertwine with patriotism as well.

Inferno: an intellectual fail (a very late review)

Murders. Lives at stake. Art history puzzles. Ask Robert Langdon for help. Accompanied by a pretty lady. Lots of actions. People die anyway. Unexpected bad guys. Problem’s solved in less than 24 hours. Just another Robert Langdon story.

I haven’t read the novel. Is it a disappointing film adaptation? Can’t say. A disappointing stand-alone film? It is. I was initially intrigued. Our hero suffers concussion, memory loss and visions of hell, inspired by Dante’s Inferno. The film sucked me in. Now, I regret the immersion.

It’s just another mindless action film. Imaginary physical actions mean nothing to me. But, the film’s other aspects do. Mystery. Surrealism. The grotesque. I’m a sucker for them. They help me understanding the world and myself…and they disappear halfway. But, one thing disappoints me even more: unlike the previous films, Inferno isn’t thematic.

The Da Vinci Code condemns deceitful religious authorities; the film shares the condemnation. Angels & Demons discusses “religion vs. science”; the film doesn’t discuss it, even though it’s still there. Both deal with the (in)validity of religious truths. I love having such discussions, taboo or not. That’s why TDVC and A&D feel personal for me.

Inferno’s villain believes killing most of mankind is good for its own sake; less greed, better earth. The future of earth and humanity. It’s both compelling and personal. I condemn his method, but I share his cause. The film has the opportunity to push a discussion. But nooooo! Let’s demonise it and block any discussions! Breed like rabbits! Fuck the earth! Human lives matter! TRUMP 2016!

*takes a deep breath*

In the west, religion is no longer a taboo topic. Hollywood indulges the trend. But, the idea of population control is still sinful. Many feel it demonises procreation and even demands our extinction! So desperate to keep their views unchallenged. Again, Hollywood indulges.

Don’t get me wrong. I love low-brow entertainment; hate to be thoughtful all the time. But, if it can get deeper, do it! Yes, the deeps are dangerous, dark and have grotesque inhabitants…and that’s exactly why you must explore it! Confront the harsh environment and ‘twisted’ creatures. That’s how you grasp life. That’s how you learn. Life’s not all about the comfort of the shallows.

The film doesn’t even need a lengthy discussion. Just have a character that asks “What if the villain’s right? What if we’re wrong?”. Just bring up the questions. The audience would be exposed to a conversation starter, albeit subtle. It would also encourage them be less black-and-white. I seriously hope the novel is unlike the film.

Despite his poor writing skills, Dan Brown brings intellectual and emotional depth to TDVC and A&D. If Inferno is just like the film, it bertrays the entire Robert Langdon series. I hope it’s not true. It comforts me that profound low-brow entertainment exists.

You may ask why overpopulation is personal for me. Well, I’m interested in it; I see it as an actual problem. But, as I said, it’s still a taboo. I’ve been accused of misanthropy simply for bringing it up. Someone also said passing our genes is more valuable than environmental liveability. Hard to have reasoned and civilised discussions about it. But, it’s not all about overpopulation.

I’m also interested in other topics in which I have controversial stances on. Controversial as in mine can’t be put in any boxes. That’s enough for people to label me as an extremist. I know we can’t blame such dangerous mentality on one thing. But, I believe pop culture is a significant factor. Now, I’m ending it with a potentially controversial statement:

Pop culture must have a sense of social responsibility. Pop culture and everything that reaches the masses.

The Three NCISes

NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles and NCIS: New Orleans. Currently my biggest guilty pleasures, among things like Bones, fried foods and human indecency.

They are escapist works. Formulaic plots, some archetypal characters and cheap laugh. They cheer me up every time I need it. No thinking needed.

Yeah, that’s not true. I believe that even the most lowbrow entertainment can have highbrow moments. The three NCISes aren’t even among the most lowbrow.

Each doesn’t have equal depth, though. Some have more of it than the others. NCIS is the deepest among the three. I can’t tell which one’s the most shallow: NCIS: LA or NCIS: NO.

I have love and hate relationship with NCIS: LA. It’s more fun and deeper than NO. It’s the most upbeat of all three…and also the most annoying.

There’s something off about the cheap laughs moments. I don’t know what. Maybe I feel they’re too frequent or too forced. I don’t always laugh at the jokes. The pretentiousness is even more unbearable.

Obviously, the three NCISes revolve mostly around the US navy. But, the NCIS: LA is the only one of the three that worships it.

US Navy is portrayed as the only moral institution and being its ‘haters’ instantly make you immoral or, at least, worthless to the society.

That’s not healthy devotion to an institution, that’s a harmful fetish. If you can’t see the flaws in your object of admiration, you’re proudly irrational or, worse, delusional. From that point, you need a shrink ASAP.

I said something about stereotypical characters. Well, they include Muslim ones. Most of them are portrayed as extremists. They define the overall image of Muslims in the show.

Yes, there are a handful of peaceful ones. But, their voices are always muffled. The extremists’ are more audible. Unsurprising with the megaphones they have. Just like their real-life counterparts….

Loudening their voices means you validate them. You are half-way to be their accomplishes and the enemy of peaceful Muslims for spitting on our faces.

Yes, I know I’m being too harsh on it. Sometimes, entertainment is just what it is: entertainment. But, at the same time, I also believe in media responsibility. So, I’m conflicted about this.

Despite everything, it still has moments of psychological depth, even among the goofy characters. They encourage contemplation.

Contemplation. It isn’t something you get from NCIS: NO. Don’t get me wrong. I love how the show is shot on-location.

It may not greatly portray New Orleans. At least, culturally, it’s more authentic than most scripted Hollywood shows. It’s way less plastic…

…and that’s it. I can’t think of anything else to praise about the show. Other than a source of entertainment, it’s as good as an empty coconut shell.

I find that odd. It brings up more real life problems than NCIS: LA does. It has many emotionally-intense moments. Yet, the show means nothing to me. I believe immersion’s the problem.

There’s no invitation for immersion in its social consciousness and emotions. Instead, we are encouraged to be normal spectators. Normal. For me, that’s the other dirty N word.

That’s a shame. With better immersion, this show would be a marvelous experience. Social grittiness with emotional realism. Being entertaining isn’t a good excuse for snubbing them.

The original NCIS show stands taller than those two. For me, it’s always the best in the franchise. But still, quality show it is not.

I cringe at the poor visual aesthetics with its eyesoring cinematography and excessive camera movements. Call me patronising. But, it feels like they barely tried. The other two shows do way better.

Despite being a great annoyance, the horrid visuals is underwhelmed by the social and emotional immersion. I almost wanted to say “depth” instead of “immersion”.

Social issues are frequently shown in the show. But, they’re not thought-provokingly conveyed. No social grittiness as well. But, they do exist.

Exist. They aren’t just the writers’ sick imagination. The show convinces me that they exist in real life as well. It wants me to acknowledge their existence and the problems they bring.

Deep emotions also exist. But, again, they’re not intelligently conveyed. No Bergmanesque drama with emotionally potent scenes. Yet, I still can feel the emotions myself. Maybe the writers are good with emotions.

Or maybe, the writers know how to make lovable characters. No matter how annoyed by them at times, I still love them to bits! Well, everyone except Kate. I’m glad she’s dead.

I don’t know the secret of their lovableness. Maybe the writers know how to pander to the audience. They know how to make me happy. But, I have my own theory.

Each character is like an infinite magical onion. When we think we know them, they manifest another seemingly-fresh layer of their individuality. Even long-time characters still surprise me to this day…

…Including Leroy Jethro Gibbs himself, one of the show’s stars. He is a proud ex-marine who doesn’t believe ex-marines exist, sees the US Navy as honourable and still maintains military discipline. But, he is not a blind fanatic.

He’s always the first person in the show who lambast his fellow marines for their lack of honour. He believes being a marine isn’t a free pass for embracing human indecency. Gibbs’ attitude towards them shapes the show’s perspective.

The US Navy is seen as neither virtuous nor shameful. It’s both. We are shown marines who possess strength and sense of humanity bigger than anyone who brag about having them…

…and we’re also shown marines who possess cowardice, deceitfulness and self-interest so big, it’s a wonder that they become marines in the first place. Some soldiers are never heroic.

Their portrayal is too dualistic. But, it genuinely changes the way I view the military. I used to think it was a place for overtly-rigid people who tolerate violence.

I still think such people exist in the institution. But now, I also believe that sensitive and peace-loving ones also exist there and I had been ignoring them all my life.

I know, I know. It’s a pathetic way to be enlightened. I should’ve known better that stereotypes, more of than not, feast on our delusional biases. I often let my darker side taking over.

I said something about media’s social responsibility. From how much I’ve changed, I can say that NCIS embraces it. Someone or some people off-screen believe in such responsibility. Why can’t the NCIS: LA be the same?

Oh and one last thing I love about NCIS: the characters’ interpersonal relationship. It is positively dynamic with a combination of honesty, healthy competition, banters, respect and warm camaraderie. It warms up my dark, cold heart.

I always crave such relationship. Mine are often volatile. I have better ones with my online friends. Even then, there are a few but noticeable bumps on the road. Again, it’s sad how dependent I am on a TV show.

…..

Obviously, I’ve singled out who is the winner among the three. NCIS is the one that arms me up the most. But, it may be unfair of me.

It is the eldest of the siblings, at fourteen years of age. NCIS: LA and NCIS: NO are eight and three years old, respectively.

From eight seasons of the former, I’ve only watched one and a half of them. I barely give the show a chance. The latter is still a baby. I need to wait more.

This shows the possibility of me being wrong. If I watch more episodes, I would probably change my mind about them. Who knows? I may end up loving either one even more.

But then, I was immediately hooked by NCIS at my first episode. I watched the other two in the first place because they are parts of the franchise. Besides, 20 episodes should be more than enough for me to judge a show’s overall quality.

So, the chance of me changing my mind is minuscule.

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them: a wonderful gift (a very late review)

I was initially reluctant to watch. For me, Harry Potter ended with The Deathly Hallows. Rowling’s milking on her own creation. But, I watched it anyway…and I’m not disappointed.

Not the greatest film ever made. But, it’s still good and fun. It also provides better grasp of the HP universe. As a pothead (uhm), that really excites me!

The Goblet of Fire made us (and Harry Potter himself) realise that not all witches and wizards were Brits. But still, the series was almost completely set in the UK.

Was. Fantastic Beasts is the first HP-related story completely set abroad. The NYC, to be exact. The male lead is a Brit surrounded by Americans.

I also notice how the American witches and wizards blend among the no-majs (American muggles). Their British counterparts tend to stick out like sore thumbs.

Of course, the film’s set in NYC, world’s biggest city. The magical humans have to learn stay low-key all the time. The British ones tend to be rural settlers; they rarely interact with muggles.

That makes me think: why the Brits prefer the rurals? Maybe there’s something about their culture that the Americans lack.

Or maybe, some of the Brits do live in cities. Every time we visit a character’s home, it’s always rural. But then, we have never visited the house of every single character!

Wait, I just remember. There is indeed one urban magical home: the Grimmauld Place. The family home of Sirius Black. He was unlike the rest of the Blacks.

They were proud ‘pure-blooded’ witches and wizards, comparable to racial supremacists. They had no reason to mingle with the muggles. But, why they chose to live among them is a mystery.

Okay, it may seem boring to know about fictional settlement geography. But, it’s an extension of the world-building! It excites me more than the magical wildlife themselves!

If Rowling thinks UK cities have significant magical communities, I would love to know their stories. If she doesn’t think so, I would love to know why they prefer the rurals.

I love analysing the societal aspects HP world. I’m a social studies nerd! I always try to do this with every long-running series. Again, more exciting than the magical wildlife!

Another thing I love about the film is its social commentaries. The trademark of HP franchise. Government is obviously not untouchable.

The British magical government is openly sleazier. But, its American counterpart isn’t trustworthy either.

Both willingly ignore glaring warning signs and uphold shamelessly antiquated legislation. But, the Americans are scarier in how quick they are to execute someone. Government is the dirty G word.

Entertainment like HP are a reminder for us to not take authorities for granted. Unfortunately, many still naively and blindly trust them and expect others to do the same. Well, they can’t complain when authoritarianism come into being.

Prejudice is also a target of Rowling’s wrath. She believes it does nothing but harm to literally everyone, even the bigots themselves. And I agree wholeheartedly.

Besides harming their victims, bigots let themselves shrouded in dark clouds of immorality, as shown to some HP characters. They become lower than their objects of inhumane contempt. We must always treat ourselves better than that.

Compassion is applauded in the series. Share yours with every single creature. Literally every single one of them. No exception.

Frankly, I believe not everyone deserves compassion; we need to put hateful on their places. But, at the same time, I still admire Rowling’s championship of humanity. Cynicism has yet to devour her.

Unlike the previous stories, Fantastical Beasts emphasises on compassion for the magical wildlife. Rowling reminds us of their greater vulnerability…and our inhumane, supremacist selfishness. You know, the badge of honour for some of us.

HP is also known for how it treats characters. Most of them are more complex than they seem, especially the female ones. Again, Fantastic Beasts stays true to the series.

I was initially distressed by the blonde lady with high-pitched voice. God, not another ditzy blonde! What year is this, anyway?

Well, she turns out to be quick-witted, level-headed and reliable, more so than her dark magic-fighting, combat-trained but reckless sister. Trustworthy, she is.

The fat guy. God, not another fat guy as the comic relief? Seriously? Is fatness the only thing that can draw laughter?

Well, his personal problems make him a really sympathetic character. He also brings out most of the film’s emotional depth. He is the heart of the story.

One of the film’s villains is very grey. He did kill people. So threatening that killing him was the only option.

But, at the same time, his victims horribly mistreated him. Their deaths aren’t worth our tears and make the world a better place.

I admit that I have my own guilty pleasures. I can love stories with predictable and completely happy endings. They entertain me in bad days. But, I draw the line at stereotypes.

They put me off more really bad, more so than formulaic plots. The older I get, the more I associate them with close-mindedness.

A close mind sees us as mere stereotypes, not as who we really are: a cluster of complex collectives, each a myriad of distinctive and often unrelated individual humans.

Seems like a dramatic reason to despise stereotypical fictional characters. But, my mind cannot separate them from real-life bigotry. Not sure if it’s good or bad. Anyway…

Overall, I’m personally satisfied. It’s a whimsical extension of the limitless HP universe, encouraging us to be more imaginative.

Despite the fun, it still embraces social and political conscious, reminding us of our own reality.

It treats its characters like actual human beings, not like a bunch of dehumanising pigeonholes.

It cherishes its predecessors and has a special place in the franchise.

Is Rowling milking on her own works? That, I don’t know. But, I can confidently say this:

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them is a wonderful gift to her fans.

A side note:

I am still skeptical about Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. But, so was I with Fantastic Beasts. Now, I am seriously considering to buy the play script. Who knows? Perhaps, I will love it as well.

Those peculiar, fantastical and thoughtful genres

I am referring to three in particular: magical realism, surrealism and absurdism.

If you tell people to describe them, they would say ‘confusing’, ‘weird’ and ‘pointless’. Of course, they are wrong about them. But, the ignorance is understandable. The three genres are of acquired taste. Even not all of the lovers grasped them at first.

All three have one similarity: they encourage contemplation. They want us to reflect on our own life. They make us contemplate about what is true and what isn’t. They encourage us to reconsider our outlook concerning our own existence. Either that or they make you die of boredom or confusion.

Contemplation is not exclusive to strong realism. Even unworldliness has the ability to foster its growth. Realism reminds us about real life entities we are already aware of. Those three genres prefer us show us we failed to notice by ourselves: life’s ‘abnormalities’.

Their portrayal are always deadpan. No explanation to their existence and mechanics. They are just another life banalities we deal with every single day. What kind of ‘abnormalities’ they are depends on the genres. I’ll start with magical realism.

As the name says, its oddity is the magical elements. It encourages us to acknowledge the ‘magic’ in our real life. The stories feel both very real and fantastical at the same time. Those are more than enough to disaffiliate the genre from fantasy.

Unlike magical realism, fantasy is escapist. Magic is explicitly depicted as a non-existing entity. It abducts us from the real world temporarily (or permanently…). Viewing the two genres interchangeably is ignorance; unacceptable if it comes from actual fantasy writers and fans. Okay, I should go on to surrealism before I end up ranting.

The peculiarity of surrealism comes from its liberal blend of the conscious and the subconscious. It illustrates how both are inseparable from each other. All of our actions are, on some level, affected by something intangible deep inside us. Oh and it’s not to be confused with absurdism.

On the surface, it may looks similar to surrealism. But, instead of depicting the subconscious, it depicts the absurdity of life (the name’s obvious). It reminds us that even our conscious world can be senseless at times. Sometimes, we have to accept it.

Not only they want us take heed of the life abnormalities, the trio also inspire us to embrace them. They are benign and even enriching to our life. Forsaking them seem unwise; doing so, we are defiling our own very being. Those three genres can utilised as our guidance. Well, that’s my personal outlook, anyway.

I may also add a fourth ‘peculiar genre’: science fiction. I find it a unique genre because it has a place in the world of entertainment and the arts. I never thought sci-fi could be artsy until I found Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris.

From there, I managed to find other artsy sci-fi films like Tarkovsky’s Stalker, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: Space Odyssey and David Cronenberg’s Videodrome (artistry highly debatable, though). Each one has something in common: contemplation about our relations with science and technology. Yes, that C word again.

They dwell on how our life are tremendously shaped by the existence of science and technology. They supply us with greater practicality and alter how we regard our fellow human beings and even ourselves. That’s what artsy sci-fi films have to say. I never thought they could have such capacity until I found Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris.

From there, I managed to find similar films like Stalker (also by Tarkovsky), Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: Space Odyssey and David Cronenberg’s Videodrome. I am excited to watch Jean-Luc Godard’s Alphaville, Andrzej Zulawski’s On the Silver Globe (I’m sure I butchered his name) and read Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five.

I am even excited to explore new genres as well.

Keterlenaan berlebihan akan sopan santun

Ahok adalah manusia yang penuh kontroversi. Seorang pemimpin politik beragama Nasrani keturunan Tionghoa di negara mayoritas Muslim dan non-Tionghoa yang sedang dilanda penyakit-penyakit SARA. Kehadirannya saja sudah cukup untuk menyulut masalah.

Seburuknya ketiadaan toleransi tersebut, itu bukan satu-satunya “kritikan” terhadap Ahok yang saya anggap “tidak berbobot”. Banyak orang merasa tersinggung dengan kekasaran dan ketidaksantunannya. Bagi mereka, itu sudah lebih dari cukup untuk mencoreng namanya.

Mereka tidak peduli jika seorang politikus korup, serakah atau gila kuasa. Mereka hanya peduli dengan kesopan-santunannya, betapa ia menganggap ketenaran di khayalak lebih penting dari pada kemampuan memimpin dan harga diri. Ahok adalah kebalikan dari semua itu.

Ahok lebih suka mencaci orang-orang yang memang pantas dicaci maki di muka umum. Baginya, keterbukaan akan diri yang sebenarnya, kemampuan memimpin dan harga diri jauh lebih penting dari pada ketenaran di antara orang-orang yang gampang tertipu dengan topeng-topeng kepalsuan.

Tentu saja, itu bukan berarti saya membenci tata krama. Bahkan, saya menganggap itu sebagai hal yang bernilai tinggi. Kita tidak bisa memerlakukan orang lain dengan seenaknya. Semua tindakan kita harus aturan mainnya. Tetapi, permasalahan muncul saat tata krama dijadikan sebagai pembenaran hal-hal yang buruk.

Sopan santun dan ketidakjujuran dianggap sebagai dua hal yang sama. Berterus terang dianggap kasar. Itu adalah pola pikir yang dangkal. Jika anda berpikir seperti itu, berarti yang sebenarnya anda inginkan adalah keserasian palsu.

“Keserasian” terjadi bukan karena rasa hormat yang tulus, melainkan karena ketidakberanian untuk berterus terang. Kejujuran dapat menyingkap wabah kepalsuan di kehidupan kita. Kita yang mencintai status quo menganggap kejujuran sebagai ketidaksantunan dan sumber “perpecahan”. Kehinaan pikiran tersebut tidak berhenti di situ.

Ada anggapan bahwa kesantunan juga berarti tidak mengungkapan kata-kata miring terhadap pihak yang berkuasa. Sekali lagi, jika anda berpikir seperti itu, anda tidak menginginkan kesantunan. Anda menginginkan penyembahan massal terhadap orang-orang yang berpangkat lebih tinggi.

Anda menuhankan mereka, lebih dari anda menuhankan tuhan anda sendiri. Anda tidak rela jika mereka ”tersakiti” oleh kritikan yang paling membangun sekalipun. Apapun akan anda lakukan untuk melindungi sembahan anda. Bahkan, anda mendukung pemberian sanksi kepada para kritikus. Pada akhirnya, anda adalah kaki tangan penindasan.

Mungkin anda berpikir saya terlalu mengada-ada. Saya akui hal ini sulit dipercaya bagi anda yang sudah terbiasa menyembah sesama manusia. Mungkin anda setuju dengan pernyataan saya, tanpa sadar anda mungkin juga melakukan hal yang sama. Sekali lagi, kehinaan ini belum berhenti di situ.

Anda juga berpikir kesantunan adalah segala-segalanya. Itu adalah satu-satunya yang pantas dipuji dari seseorang. Anda tidak mau bersusah payah untuk menilai seseorang lebih dalam. Anda dengan mudahnya tertipu oleh topeng yang menutupi sisi buruk seseorang.

Anda tidak percaya bahwa seseorang dapat menyandang kesantunan dan ketidakmampuan secara bersamaan. Bahkan, anda tidak percaya bahwa seorang yang santun bisa dipenuhi dengan kenistaan moral. Kecintaan terhadap kesantunan membuat anda buta.

Itu adalah pola pikir yang berbahaya. Jika anda memiliki hak untuk mencoblos, anda akan mengisi jabatan-jabatan penting dengan makhluk-makhluk yang hanya bermodal santun. Keahlian nol. Kebajikan nol. Demi melindungi perasaan-perasaan anda yang mudah tersinggung, anda rela mengorbankan masyarakat yang harus dipimpin oleh kebrobrokan.

Seperti yang saya katakan sebelumnya, saya menjunjung tinggi kesantunan. Saya beranggap bahwa interaksi kita dengan sesama manusia harus ada aturan mainnya. Tetapi, sekali lagi, anda harus memiliki patokan yang tinggi. Anda harus menuntut agar kesantunan diiringi dengan kemahiran dalam bekerja, kejujuran dan ketulusan hati. Janganlah menjadi manusia yang dangkal.

Sebelum saya mengakhiri omelan, sebagian dari anda pasti berpikir bahwa artikel ini adalah propaganda kampanye Ahok; pokok pembicaraan di sini hanyalah kedok. Anda setengah benar.

Saya tidak dibayar oleh tim kampanye Ahok. Saya dengan rela menulis artikel ini, dibayar ataupun tidak. Saya memang adalah pendukung Ahok, walaupun saya tidak tinggal di Jakarta.

Menurut saya, beliau memang memiliki perangai yang kasar…dan juga kemampuan memimpin yang terbukti kokoh. Kecaman-kecaman tentang Ahok (kecuali tentang ketidaksantunannya) terbukti penuh omong kosong. Mereka semua hanyalah berdasarkan keculasan.

Seperti Ahok, saya juga menghabiskan sebagian besar hidup saya di Sumatra. Orang-orang Sumatra memang terkenal akan perangai kita yang buruk (ibu saya yang besar di Jawa sangat mementingkan sopan santun). Tetapi saya juga belajar bahwa penilaian orang harus ditekankan pada “isi” mereka. Bentuk luar mereka lebih sering menipu.

Lagi pula, Ahok juga sadar akan kekasarannya dan dia berusaha untuk lebih baik.

In Defense of Youtube

I don’t know how to “properly” describe Youtube.

For starter, Youtube annoys the shit out of “traditional” media because of no good reasons other than it exists. They are like older siblings who despise their newborn siblings, taking their parents’ attention.

But, in this age, “traditional” media are helpless without digital platforms, including Youtube. Especially Youtube. They need it to stay relevant. They are like annoying elders who talk shit about the youngsters they are dependent on.

People will refute my statement, saying that there are good reasons to hate Youtube. Things like poor content, lack of talent and quick fame and fortune. Youtube does have those traits…and so does “traditional” media.

First of all, poor content. Youtube does have mindless challenges videos, overt-reliance on slaptick, second-hand humour, screamy gamers, dramas, tasteless pranks and clickbaits. Understandbly, it’s hard to be convinced about some Youtubers’ talents. Some.

Venture deeper and you will find thoughtful vlogs, witty and off-beat humour, nicely-packaged educational videos, satires and even honest commentaries. Yes, they tend to have lesser views. But, many still manage to get over a million views per video. Talents, on some levels, are still appreciated.

“Traditional” media, even in the for-profit one, do have quality content. I love shows like Community and The Golden Girls. I enjoy reading highbrow periodicals. But, it’s undeniable that mediocrity also (and still) dominates the industry.

“Reality” shows, “educational” channels airing anything non-educational, pundits pretending to be journalists, unethical journalists, gossip columnists, imitative and skin-deep TV movies, paparazzi, shock jocks, sitcoms without humour, irresponsible coverage of extremists, inappropriate children’s shows, just to name a few.

Youtube’s young. It is still eleven years old. It having dumbed down content is understandable, albeit extremely annoying. In fact, it’s impressive how much quality videos it possesses. “Traditional” media having that flaw is more unforgivable.

Printed media is centuries old. Broadcasting media is around a century old. They have lots of time to improve themselves. But, sensibility isn’t for everyone. Up to these days, one can still find content so horrible, it makes you wonder if “traditional” media people ever finish pre-schools (pre-schoolers are smarter than them, anyway).

Second, easy fame and fortune. I have encountered various comments online about how “traditional” media are more resilient. Some use their own money to start their careers. They also have more rivals. Once again, easily debunked.

Yes, some do need to invest themselves. They do have to wait for their efforts to take off. But, once their works are published or broadcasted, they will undoubtedly get paid. That’s not the same with Youtubers.

They can immediately upload their videos. But, they are lucky if they get one view. Most of them keep making videos for years, not getting a penny, not knowing if their channels will ever take off. They don’t have viral videos. While waiting, they obviously need to make a living by having other full-time jobs.

Admittedly, a few do get instant fame. But, more of than not, their viral videos are mindlessly inept, no obvious signs of skilled video-making. In the end, those Youtubers quickly fade away, just like any other fads. If they want a Youtube career, they have to step up their game and not letting themselves judged by their viral videos.

Even if the videos are of finer quality, they still have to work harder. Their viral videos shouldn’t be their only magnum opuses. Get too comfortable and soon they’ll be another fads as well. Sad, wasted talents.

Talents. Skills. I admire “traditional” media people as well. But, I abhor the belief that every single one of them strongly have both and Youtubers have none. Again, easily debunked. (I copied and pasted that one).

In their early careers, Youtubers have to be their own hosts, actors, idea makers, camera operators, channel managers, editors, writers, thumbnail designers, special effects people, set designers, basically everything. As their channels grow, they have to become their own PR practitioners as well.

In their earliest videos, they may include other people to participate. But, they are usually either volunteering friends or relatives.

They can hire professionals, obviously. You know, the ones with actual needed skills. All they need is sufficient amount of money and leadership skills. That sounds like an easy feat, right? Right? Right?

“Traditional” media people don’t need to do that many tasks. More of than not, they are already assigned to focus on specific tasks. Not a requirement to be skilled in various disciplines (even though it is a plus point).

I also mentioned something about less rivalry in Youtube. Yeah, no. In “traditional” media, your rivals are the people who have entered or attempted to enter the industry. They’re not that visible. But, you know their exist. It’s not the same with Youtube.

Everyone who can access Youtube is a potential rival. Many started Youtube either out of boredom or the need for self-expression, no prior interest or skill in media. Never underestimate them, though. They can easily eclipse your gleaming career sooner or later.

Already-established Youtubers can possess millions of views and subscribers under their wings…and still be unknown by the majority of Youtube community. They are such a colossally-huge collective, it’s possible to be both popular and under-the-radar at the same time. It’s harder to know who your rivals are. The competition is absurdly more potent.

Actually, instant fame and fortune on Youtube is a possibility. All you need is one thing: an already-established “traditional” media career prior. With an escalator, you would have it way easier than many Youtubers.

(I acknowledge the rivalry aspect also applied to the world of blogging. But, as I’m new to it, I prefer to focus on Youtube instead).

If you think the title should be changed to “Youtube fanboy getting abusive traditional media”, I would agree with you. I admit that I am being harshly unfair against them, throwing all of their hardwork out of the window…

…Just like how people treat Youtubers. Many of us are too snobby to acknowledge their potentials, too ignorant to realise that the website’s much younger age. We are too comfortable with the olds, refusing to give the new a chance.

Notice how I type the word “traditional” with quotation marks. Well, I am one of the people who realise that everything old used to be new.

Slowly but surely, the new continues on its journey, resiliently defies the sneering from the old ones. Then, they relent, finally admitting the new one deserves a place among them. The new becomes old, slowly replacing its predecessors.

The story’s not done yet. The formerly new takes its turn as a sneerer, wishing that the new dies young…

…And repeat.

One day, digital media in general will be regarded as “traditional”. If Youtube dies, a new website will replace it. What we consider “traditional” nowadays will be too quaint, even older people will abandon them. Even digital media cannot escape such fate.

I overuse the word “traditional” here. I was warned that such practice takes away the meanings. Well, that won’t be a problem here. Traditionalism is not that meaningful. In the end, it’s more about widespread acceptance rather than supposedly-existing intrinsic values. Don’t judge something from its societal status.

(Wait, I also overuse the word Youtube. *sighs*. Oh well).

Oh and one more thing. I am indeed a Youtube fanboy and I am not ashamed of it. I love both the excellent and horrible content of the website. I also have never created a single video.

Well, I always want to. But, not only because I’m a chronic procrastinator, I also lack the confidence. I don’t have a single experience in both video-making and performing arts. So far, my confidence only extends to analysing Youtube…

…And blogging, of course.

Indonesia’s Spoiled Majority

MUI (Indonesia’s clerical council) has released a decree that prohibits employers from forcing Muslim employees to wear Christmas attires. It receives opposition from many members of the public, especially the non-Muslims.

Many of us are irritated by their complains. We think they’re disrespecting our Islamic way of life. We think they’re shoving their views down our throats. We think the decree only affects the lives of Muslims.

If you believe that, you’re ignorant about the religious life in Indonesia.

FPI (the Islamic defender front), following the recklessly-constructed decree, raided a few shopping malls in Surabaya. To hell with the Christians! There should be no Christmas celebration! That’s just one example. Without the FPI, Indonesians would still be “respected” anyway.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that the majority can suffer from discrimination, like black people under Apartheid South Africa and the Shias in Iraq whose government was controlled by the Sunnis. But, that’s not happening to Indonesian Muslims.

Events that are also attended by non-Muslims include Islamic prayers. The ministry of religious affairs is controlled by Muslims. There are lots of publicly-funded Islamic universities. TV schedules are re-arranged in every fasting month. We’re not only a respected majority, we’re also a spoiled one.

For many years, we’ve been having a higher status than the other religious groups in this country. As a result, we’ve become spoiled. Our self-indulgence makes us turn our backs against the discrimination faced by the minorities. Our self-indulgence makes us feel trampled when they ask for more sensible rights.

Our self-indulgence turns us into a shameless flock.

Mayoritas yang Manja di Indonesia

MUI membuat fatwa yang melarang tempat-tempat kerja mengharuskan karyawan-karyawan Muslim untuk mengenakan atribut-atribut Natal. Fatwa tersebut banyak mendapatkan tantangan dari masyarakat, terutama kalangan non-Muslim.

Banyak dari kita yang Muslim kesal dengan keluhan mereka. Kita menganggap mereka tidak menghormati kehidupan umat Muslim. Kita menganggap mereka memaksakan kehendak. Kita menganggap fatwa tersebut hanya memengaruhi kita sendiri.

Jika anda percaya itu, berarti anda bebal terhadap kenyataan kehidupan beragama di Indonesia.

FPI, mengikuti fatwa yang dibuat dengan ceroboh, melakukan razia hiasan natal di berbagai pusat-pusat perbelanjaan di Surabaya. Persetan dengan umat Nasrani! Tidak boleh ada perayaan natal! Itupun hanya satu contoh. Tanpa FPI pun, umat Muslim di Indonesia akan tetap “dihormati”.

Jangan salah. Saya juga percaya bahwa kalangan mayoritas dapat didiskriminasi, seperti orang-orang berkulit hitam di Afrika Selatan pada zaman Apartheid dan umat Syiah di Irak yang pemerintahnya dikuasai umat Sunni. Tetapi, hal itu tidak terjadi terhadap umat Muslim Indonesia.

Doa-doa Islami selalu dilakukan di acara-acara yang dihadiri umat non-Muslim. Kementerian agama dikuasai oleh umat Muslim. Banyak perguruan tinggi yang didanai langsung oleh pemerintah. Jadwal berbagai saluran TV dirubah setiap bulan puasa. Kita bukan hanya mayoritas yang dihormati, kita juga adalah mayoritas yang terlalu dimanja.

Selama bertahun-tahun lamanya, kita memiliki status yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan kelompok-kelompok agama lain di negeri ini. Akibatnya, kita menjadi sangat manja. Kemanjaan itu membuat kita membalikan badan terhadap diskriminasi yang dialami kalangan minoritas. Kemanjaan itu membuat kita merasa ditindas jika mereka meminta hak-hak lebih yang sewajarnya.

Kemanjaan itu membuat kita sebagai gerombolan yang tidak tahu diri.

Different types of Trump supporters

*puts on a mask*

The bigots:

They believe Trump will bring back the supposedly-existing natural superiority of the Aryans. Fuck those *insert various racial slurs here*. They don’t seem to mind that he’s an orange humanoid. They also believe he’ll strengthen the supposedly-natural hetero-normative idea that sexuality’s a moral choice.

The rights activists:

They praise him for his advocacy of equality and tolerance. They think him appointing white supremacists and homophobes isn’t a big deal. It’s a joke even. Obviously, the bigots will change their stances once in power. There are no such thing as powerful bigots.

The ones that are too desperate for changes:

They want changes no matter what. They don’t care if the new paths are leading us to a pile of diseased diarrhea belched out by an orange humanoid.

The business-minded ones:

They believe friendly business environment is the sole definition of humanity. Social justice is too worthlessly trivial. Thriving corporations is better than treating each other humanely. Therefore, it’s reasonable to vote for a four-times businessman.

The poor rural whites 1:

They are constantly neglected by those city slickers. They believe the man who was born rich, given a million dollar loan by his father, outsources jobs and has never experienced a single day in poverty is what they need. Nothing stupid about that.

The poor rural whites 2:
Again, the city slickers neglect them. That’s why they want to ruin their lives by deliberately voting for a destructive humanoid. Obviously, if you ruin the life of someone who neglects you, he/she would end up taking care of you. He/she would not have an actually good reason to neglect you.

The self-hating Muslims:

They feel they deserve nothing but mistreatment by their fellow human beings. They dream of getting all sorts of abuse, including waterboarding. It’s a BDSM kink of theirs. Don’t judge! Different strokes for different folks!

The America-hating Muslims:

They believe getting Trump elected is the best way to annihilate the power-hungry nation. No need to establish an army of exploitable Muslims who crave the sense of belonging and knows nothing about the extremist group they are joining.

*takes off the mask*