She-Hulk 1X2: Jen learns the difference between ability and agency

 or, just because you can, doesn't mean you, uh, can.

Jen's hubris hits her hard with the greenest of fists to the face. Everything she had chided Bruce for in the previous episode happens to her in this one. Her life as Jennifer Walters has been taken away, though she is still fortunate enough to have family.

The name, "She-Hulk", derives from a quippy newscaster's sound bite, as her new green giant persona begins to take over. Everyone wants She-Hulk at Jen's usual bar, so she must enter as She-Hulk. But her boss is too intimidated to fire She-Hulk, so he asks her to revert so he can fire Jen. Holliway, from GLK and H offers Jen a job, but while he wants Jen's lawyer skills, he wants them hidden behind the physical presence of She-Hulk. She-Hulk attempts to do her job meeting Emil Blonsky, but the Damage Control guard insists she can proceed only as Jen in human form.  Even the post-credits scene shows Jen back in She-Hulk form helping her dad with chores around the house. While Jen demonstrated to Bruce how ably she could change forms at will in Ep 1, in Ep 2 every transformation she makes is not her choice, but due to another person's man's whims.

Although in Ep 1 Jen gleefully departs from Bruce's multi-year Hulk training regime, fully confident of her control over the Hulk in her, by this episode, her office and business cards are gone when she gets fired from the DA's office. After multiple rejections, Jen has given up hope of finding another job as a lawyer as she browses though Buzzfeed-like listicles of unusual jobs like Swiss village mascot. The only lifeline that opens for her via GLK and H is based less on Jen's merit, and more on She-Hulk being the "face" (rather than the Head) of the firm's new superhuman division. Because of the She-Hulk, Jen has lost control over her Jennifer Walters, Attorney at Law narrative.

Talking in the meta, Round 2 clearly goes to the superhero narrative putting the kibosh on Jen's "lawyer show". The former puts Jen through what she acknowledges Bruce had gone through as the Hulk. She has no agency over her transformations, and has lost control of the normal life she was desperately holding on to. But at least she hasn't destroyed a city yet. And the superhero narrative goes a step further by informing us the audience that Bruce has gone off-world, taking away the only person who knows what she is going through and can mentor her through it. This is knowledge that Jen is not privy to, and although she will suddenly find herself abandoned by her mentor, she may never know why.

She-Hulk strong, meta narrative stronger!

 A few hours remaining before the 2nd episode of She-Hulk: Attorney at Law drops. I thought the 1st episode was highly amusing, thoughtful, nostalgic, and complemented with some low-stakes violence, setting the tone for a series that is more light-hearted than usual, and relatable more on a human scale. I'm also very interested in the meta story, and how it shapes the narrative as told by Tatiana Maslany's Jennifer Walters (or Jen) who desperately wants her series to be a "fun lawyer show" rather than a superhero flick.

Jen is probably the first character in the MCU who rejects and denies her powers. Her concerns are entirely human. It's all about job, and recognition for her competence. Friends, and work rivals. And maybe in later episodes, her insecurities dealing with relationships. Perhaps her obsession with Captain America suggests some projection on her own love life -- but I'm speculating here.

As such, when she recaps her origin story to the audience, breaking the 4th wall as she does so, she is a terribly unreliable narrator. Afraid the audience will be distracted from her amazing lawyer super power, she hastily acknowledges her Hulk-ness, reassuring us that she is coping well, and that her condition will not be a further distraction from the courtroom drama she wants to tell. As such, her origin tale is perfunctory and rushed. Accusations that she is a "Mary-Sue" are entirely warranted, because that IS the tale she wants to tell. In the training montage with Cousin Bruce, she passes all her tests with flying colours because she refuses to tell us every painful detail of her learning journey, just enough to justify her return to her law firm and the case she is working on. Her flashback also features cartoonish characters, like the overly helpful bathroom ladies and the pervy males she meets at the Ideal Sports Bar. These people are told from her subjective point of view, and once again, she skims over the details that might have added more nuance to those encounters, while exercising her prerogative to be the hero of her own story. After her recap she reminds us once again that we are watching a "lawyer show".

The "lawyer show" however quickly degenerates into a pile of utter nonsense. Before Jen can even commence her closing arguments on a nondescript case, Jamila Jamil's Titania randomly bursts through a wall Kool-Aid Man style causing havoc. Her ridiculous outfit gives no indication of her identity, her motivation is undefined, and she attacks the biggest, greenest thing she sees, after it declares itself as "Jennifer Walters, Attorney at Law". The whole attack ends with a single punch from Jen, and that's it. Jen reverts to lawyer form, and in her disheveled state announces that she is ready to deliver her closing arguments... immediately cut to black. The "lawyer show" never once gives Jen a chance to shine as a lawyer.

Who is Titania (if you didn't already know who she was, you would never have known who she was)? What does she want? Who does she work for? How evil can she be? None of these questions are answered and the main antagonist in this episode is summarily dispatched with ease. It doesn't matter. In this establishing episode, whomever she was, she is not the most significant villain Jen is facing. Torn between the lawyer that she wants to be and the She-Hulk who keeps getting in the way of her lawyer-ing, Jen's true conflict is against her own narrative.

Is Jen a good lawyer? Her interactions with Bruce do suggest that she has impressive skills. She keeps getting the better of him not because she is a better Hulk, but because she is a "better lawyer than she is a Hulk". Unfortunately for her, her narrative, her story, is equally determined to prove otherwise. 

377A, the potential political hot potato nobody wants

So in the National Day Rally 2022, PM announced that Section 377A is finally being repealed. It's been a slow, gradual process laying the groundwork for the dissolution of a legacy law that we inherited from the Brits, made in times long past from which society has grown and changed. To put it simply, 377A criminalises the act of sex between men, and in these more open times is seen as an oppression of homosexuality, although the same law makes no provision for lesbian sex.

Despite times being more inclusive, there are still strongly vocal components of our society who believe same-sex sex is unacceptable, hence the need for years of groundwork: discussions, consultations and reassurances that all interested parties on both sides of the divide will get a fair hearing. For a time, the status quo held that although the law exists, it would not be enforced. But now, this archaic law is about to become moribund, with the compromise that only heterosexual marriages will be recognised and protected by our Constitution. One step forward, and one step back.

But is it, though? Because what I see is a mistaken conflation between the repeal of a defunct law and the implied support for the group the law penalised. The next step on this slippery slope would be that if this once-penalised group has gained even implicit support from the authorities, then the upholding of its asserted rights (in this case to marriage) should follow. That is not what's happening here.

Repealing 377A has nothing to do with supporting homosexuality. Rather, it simply gets rid of a potential political hot potato that creates unnecessary division between people who feel they must draw a line in the sand over the issue. As long as the law exists, no matter how much it is promised to be 'unenforceable', at any time, any zealot from either side wanting badly enough to make a statement could make a big enough fuss over an incident, and demand prosecution. Given how divisive the issue is, and that there are respectable, contributing members of society on both sides of the fence, any decision the courts are forced to make is bound to favour one side over the other, splitting society over a rift of no return.

To repeal 377A is nothing more than a pragmatic decision. It is a recognition that whatever goes on sexually between consenting adults in private is their own business, and not the government's. If someone gets injured, or dies during the act of whatever variety of sex, there are laws that deal with assault or murder. If a sexual act is done in public and is complained about, there are laws governing public nuisance. With 377A gone, anyone charged with such crimes makes for a clearly criminal case, instead of being charged with a law designed to target a specific group of people, raising accusations of unfairness, repression and the violation of human rights. For a Democratic society, such repercussions can be severe and difficult to recover from.

The LGBTQ+ community are disappointed that their right to marriage remains denied to them for now. But this discussion is for another time and cannot be a logical follow-through from the decision to repeal 377A.