General politics thread: | Page 52 | Vital Football

General politics thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same cuts both ways, just because you're not offended that doesn't mean you're right. The values you hold, that I hold, that others hold are not intrinsically more valuable.

Well no, you’re right they aren’t, but that’s my point.
But if something stereotypically depicted my life or something I struggled with, would you support me if my wish was for it to be cancelled?
 
Well no, you’re right they aren’t, but that’s my point.
But if something stereotypically depicted my life or something I struggled with, would you support me if my wish was for it to be cancelled?

Nobody (as far as I know) is calling for it to be cancelled, but I would call for an end to white face if such a thing existed.
 
Nobody (as far as I know) is calling for it to be cancelled, but I would call for an end to white face if such a thing existed.

Is it similar to cultural appropriation?
There was a debate over Jodie Turner-Smith, a black actress playing Anne Boleyn.
 
Is it similar to cultural appropriation?
There was a debate over Jodie Turner-Smith, a black actress playing Anne Boleyn.
I must admit that this is an area I struggle with. In any type of fictional work there is an element of leeway in terms of character gender, colour and sexuality but when you are making a historical production I think there is a duty to be as accurate as possible and I struggle to buy in to the reason given for effectively rewriting history.
 
I must admit that this is an area I struggle with. In any type of fictional work there is an element of leeway in terms of character gender, colour and sexuality but when you are making a historical production I think there is a duty to be as accurate as possible and I struggle to buy in to the reason given for effectively rewriting history.

100% agree.
 
I must admit that this is an area I struggle with. In any type of fictional work there is an element of leeway in terms of character gender, colour and sexuality but when you are making a historical production I think there is a duty to be as accurate as possible and I struggle to buy in to the reason given for effectively rewriting history.

Sexuality is a blurred one, gay actors have played straight characters forever, there should be no issue with the opposite.
 
Sexuality is a blurred one, gay actors have played straight characters forever, there should be no issue with the opposite.
An actor’s sexuality doesn’t bother me. If they are the best person for the role then everything else is irrelevant. I do get that actors have stated that their sexuality has affected their career in terms of not getting jobs and that shouldn’t happen but within that, as I say the best actor for the role should get the job.
 
I must admit that this is an area I struggle with. In any type of fictional work there is an element of leeway in terms of character gender, colour and sexuality but when you are making a historical production I think there is a duty to be as accurate as possible and I struggle to buy in to the reason given for effectively rewriting history.

I think if you’re making a historical documentary you’re right but in any form of drama absolutely no problem with a black actor playing White characters it’s happens for years on the stage what’s the difference?
 
Is it similar to cultural appropriation?
There was a debate over Jodie Turner-Smith, a black actress playing Anne Boleyn.

Blackface has a different and rather unpleasant history in the States in particular.

I've little problem with actors taking on different roles as long as there is representation. For instance I'd be disappointed to see a disabled role bring taken by someone able bodied.
 
Blackface has a different and rather unpleasant history in the States in particular.

I've little problem with actors taking on different roles as long as there is representation. For instance I'd be disappointed to see a disabled role bring taken by someone able bodied.
There was an issue when Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking but the issue was that Hawking when he was young was able bodied so for me it would have been more difficult to do it any other way.

As i say, as long as there is not a situation where actors are being turned down because of prejudice then I don’t have a problem.
 
There was an issue when Eddie Redmayne played Stephen Hawking but the issue was that Hawking when he was young was able bodied so for me it would have been more difficult to do it any other way.

As i say, as long as there is not a situation where actors are being turned down because of prejudice then I don’t have a problem.

My left foot was a superb film acted with all the artistry we've now come to expect from Daniel Day-Lewis.
Would that casting be controversial now? Getting an actor with cerebral palsy is eminently doable, however would it be a box office draw? More now than in the late 80s.
 
We've had a gay white man :) but 10/10 for being too stupid to get the point.

I might be too stupid for some things but didn't miss your point on this one. I just wanted to see how you'd reply and when (before 10pm or after 2am). I totally understand 'blackface' and the racist origins behind it but I'd genuinely love to know what someone like yourself (i.e full of faux outrage) thinks is acceptable on the Simpsons going forward? Is an Indian acceptable? Is it acceptable for him to be a shopkeeper? Can he have an accent? Can he have a 'funny tinge' (as someone who famously left the Labour Party over 'racism' said)?
 
Blackface has a different and rather unpleasant history in the States in particular.

I've little problem with actors taking on different roles as long as there is representation. For instance I'd be disappointed to see a disabled role bring taken by someone able bodied.
I was listening on the radio recently to a director who had been accused of this "ableism" in a film she had directed about a young woman with autism, where the character was played by an NT actress.

The director argued that she had originally cast a woman with autism, who then was too anxious and overwhelmed by the whole process day to day to be able to do the job; so she employed an NT actress instead.

I think there are lots of aspects to look at here. A lot of autistic actors have spent their careers playing neurotyoicals; Dan Ackroyd, Daryl Hannah, Paddy Considine are the first three that come to mind. Things like autism can absolutely be played both ways.

But It would be disappointing for a quality aspiring differently abled actor to constantly be overlooked for roles in favour of regularly abled actors pretending to be disabled.

But equally, I don't think that any minority group should be the exclusive preserve of an actor from that minority. For instance, should only trans actors be allowed to play trans characters? Maybe, but the reality is, this is a money game; a well know actor is going to sell the movie to the public more than an unknown trans actor. All that will happen is that big studios will be put off from telling those trans stories by the lack of money making potential in them. Who actually benefits from that?
 
Blackface has a different and rather unpleasant history in the States in particular.

I've little problem with actors taking on different roles as long as there is representation. For instance I'd be disappointed to see a disabled role bring taken by someone able bodied.


That’s why it’s called acting FFS


Why isn’t there a massive outcry that Harrison Ford isn’t a real fucking archeologist? Geoff Goodblum isn’t a real half fly? Benedict Cumberbatch wasnt a dragon last time I checked , Noel Coward was very much not a cockney criminal mastermind & the all time greatest bit of casting ever putting the notoriously drunk Irish Richard Harris as Oliver Cromwell.

It’s fucking acting they are pretending to be something they aren’t.
 
I was listening on the radio recently to a director who had been accused of this "ableism" in a film she had directed about a young woman with autism, where the character was played by an NT actress.

The director argued that she had originally cast a woman with autism, who then was too anxious and overwhelmed by the whole process day to day to be able to do the job; so she employed an NT actress instead.

I think there are lots of aspects to look at here. A lot of autistic actors have spent their careers playing neurotyoicals; Dan Ackroyd, Daryl Hannah, Paddy Considine are the first three that come to mind. Things like autism can absolutely be played both ways.

But It would be disappointing for a quality aspiring differently abled actor to constantly be overlooked for roles in favour of regularly abled actors pretending to be disabled.

But equally, I don't think that any minority group should be the exclusive preserve of an actor from that minority. For instance, should only trans actors be allowed to play trans characters? Maybe, but the reality is, this is a money game; a well know actor is going to sell the movie to the public more than an unknown trans actor. All that will happen is that big studios will be put off from telling those trans stories by the lack of money making potential in them. Who actually benefits from that?
I can't disagree with any of this, but it would be nice to acknowledge that without telling anyone specifically what to do, pushing representation is the only way to change what a movie star can be, so that maybe in the future trans women will be able to get the bigger roles.

I'll watch any film and I don't think too much about it, but I can see how it could be frustrating to be in an industry that talks such a progressive game, but can't back it up because they have their stars and those stars are mostly a particular type of person.

I would approach it more like giving a film extra credit for casting minorities in big roles, instead of the negative 'its racist/ableist/transphobic not to do so.
 
That’s why it’s called acting FFS


Why isn’t there a massive outcry that Harrison Ford isn’t a real fucking archeologist? Geoff Goodblum isn’t a real half fly? Benedict Cumberbatch wasnt a dragon last time I checked , Noel Coward was very much not a cockney criminal mastermind & the all time greatest bit of casting ever putting the notoriously drunk Irish Richard Harris as Oliver Cromwell.

It’s fucking acting they are pretending to be something they aren’t.

You fucking archeologistist, flyist, dragonist, cockneyist, mastermindist, drunkist, Irishist (notice how us political correct don't use 'Paddyist'?), Cromwellist bastard!!!!
 
I can't disagree with any of this, but it would be nice to acknowledge that without telling anyone specifically what to do, pushing representation is the only way to change what a movie star can be, so that maybe in the future trans women will be able to get the bigger roles.

I'll watch any film and I don't think too much about it, but I can see how it could be frustrating to be in an industry that talks such a progressive game, but can't back it up because they have their stars and those stars are mostly a particular type of person.

I would approach it more like giving a film extra credit for casting minorities in big roles, instead of the negative 'its racist/ableist/transphobic not to do so.
When you are talking specifically about trans, there is a limit; what can a trans woman or man play other than a trans woman or man? That is where we are. In that sense, perhaps a trans actor should be preferred to a non trans actor (sorry, I loathe the term Cisgender); but you still then have the commercial factor of whether the story actually gets told. It's a balancing act I guess.

Similarly, an autistic person can easily play a neurotypical but most physical disabilities are going to limit an actor's roles; either to a character with that disability or to a role where it is not relevant. Clearly the latter is the preferable option.

I saw a fantastic film on Netflix called Run the other week staring Kiera Allen; fantastic actress playing a character in a wheelchair and who uses a wheelchair herself. We need an actress like her to be a big star so that we can have films in which we have a differently abled character and that has nothing to do with the story
 
It's all fucking designed to create division in society. Every fucker is offended by something or somebody. While the plebs/peasants/useless eaters/whatever are fighting among themselves then the ruling elite get away with their geopolitical agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.