MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Lennys Tap on July 13, 2018, 07:56:01 PM
-
Trans community protests, Scarlett (not being trans and not wanting to offend) quits movie - ensuring that either the movie never gets made or it falls flat. As Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy and it is us".
-
Trans community protests, Scarlett (not being trans and not wanting to offend) quits movie - ensuring that either the movie never gets made or it falls flat. As Pogo said, "We have seen the enemy and it is us".
Trans issue aside, it was a terrible casting choice. The character she was going to play was a actual person who looked like this in real life:
(https://www.dreshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Dante-Tex-Gill-Biography-Age-Wiki-Net-worth-Height-Gay-Family-Weight-amp-Facts.jpg)
-
Politics. Anyway, lots of theoretical movies don't get made for lots of reasons.
-
Trans issue aside, it was a terrible casting choice. The character she was going to play was a actual person who looked like this in real life:
(https://www.dreshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Dante-Tex-Gill-Biography-Age-Wiki-Net-worth-Height-Gay-Family-Weight-amp-Facts.jpg)
The Dude who played Hamilton didn't look much like Alex - still was pretty awesome, IMHO.
-
Were you going to see it if it got made? Be honest
-
Were you going to see it if it got made? Be honest
Very possibly.I would check IMDB, read reviews, etc.and then decide. I'm a movie guy and will watch anything well done.
-
It's very important that we remain offended by everything.
-
The trans community had a fair point, though.
First, ScarJo did nothing wrong in accepting the role and any criticism of her is bull----.
That said, there are an extremely small number of roles for transgender actors and so when a trans character comes along, there's wholly understandable disappointment when that role goes to a non trans actor. I mean, it's not as if trans actors are being afforded opportunities to play non-trans characters, you know?
As for the comment about Hamilton, let's at least recognize that was in no small measure because the creator of the show cast himself in the lead role and it was in a hip-hop musical, not biopic.
Methinks people might have felt differently had Kevin Hart been chosen for the title role in the film "Lincoln."
-
As for the comment about Hamilton, let's at least recognize that was in no small measure because the creator of the show cast himself in the lead role and it was in a hip-hop musical, not biopic.
Methinks people might have felt differently had Kevin Hart been chosen for the title role in the film "Lincoln."
Chick said it was bad casting because Johannson doesn't look like the person she is portraying. That's bull. Lots of people (not just Miranda) play people they don't "look like".
-
Chick said it was bad casting because Johannson doesn't look like the person she is portraying. That's bull. Lots of people (not just Miranda) play people they don't "look like".
That doesn't mean I have to think it's a good idea.
I read one article who said that if they can't find a suitable trans male actor, they should cast a cis male. I vote
for Patton Oswald.
-
The trans community had a fair point, though.
That said, there are an extremely small number of roles for transgender actors and so when a trans character comes along, there's wholly understandable disappointment when that role goes to a non trans actor. I mean, it's not as if trans actors are being afforded opportunities to play non-trans characters, you know?
Baby steps. Right now (probably unfairly) there is no trans actor who is well known enough to carry this film. Biting off your nose to spite your face (and making sure the movie doesn't get made) is counter productive.
-
That doesn't mean I have to think it's a good idea.
No, you don't. But lots of creative people who do this for a living disagree with your opinion.
-
I wonder if Johannson's decision had anything to do with her role with the Ghost in the Shell movie. She received similar criticism for taking on that role instead of a Japanese actress.
-
Baby steps. Right now (probably unfairly) there is no trans actor who is well known enough to carry this film. Biting off your nose to spite your face (and making sure the movie doesn't get made) is counter productive.
Why?
-
I wonder if Johannson's decision had anything to do with her role with the Ghost in the Shell movie. She received similar criticism for taking on that role instead of a Japanese actress.
Nah man.
Here's the reason
Scarlett Johansson Ditches 'Rub And Tug' To Save 'Black Widow'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/07/13/scarlett-johansson-ditches-rub-and-tug-to-save-black-widow/#1bbe0e10398d
-
Why?
Well, if you want a story told and it isn't because you make demands that those financing the telling won't meet...
-
Well she kinda cast herself. She's one of the producers of the movie. If she was just accepting a job, I think the high amounts of criticism would be a little unwarranted (Eddie Redmayne did a fantastic job in The Danish Girl) but if she cast herself then it gets a little iffy.
-
Well, if you want a story told and it isn't because you make demands that those financing the telling won't meet...
Is the movie no longer being made?
-
Does this mean Sean Penn has to give back his Oscar for Milk?
-
Does this mean Sean Penn has to give back his Oscar for Milk?
That's a little different but I suspect you know that.
-
That's a little different but I suspect you know that.
Typical for Chicos
-
This thread is obtuse as sh!t.
The damage didn't come from the original criticism. It came when Scarjo responded to that criticism like an ignorant @$$hole. That made the situation worse, and now she's taking her ball and going home - further proving she really has no interest in the community she was portraying, but was just Oscar hunting.
To then square peg/round hole that situation into a "everyone is too offended" or "trans people hurt their own cause" theme is just confirmation bias.
-
Can't the people upset with her being in the film just make their own movie? #StopBullying
-
I thought actors were paid to pretend to be people they aren't. Did you know Red in Shawshank Redemption is an Irish white guy in the novel. I loved Morgan Freeman's performance as Red. Isn't this what actors do? Take on roles of people they aren't?
-
I thought actors were paid to pretend to be people they aren't. Did you know Red in Shawshank Redemption is an Irish white guy in the novel. I loved Morgan Freeman's performance as Red. Isn't this what actors do? Take on roles of people they aren't?
Red from Shawshank is also a different situation. Red's race was not central to who he was as a character, nor was it central to the plot of the movie. In this case, the fact that the character is trans is the entire focus of the movie....plus the character is an actual person, not a fictional one.
You are also misunderstanding why people are upset. There are so few major roles that trans actors can play, it is upsetting for some people that when a role like this comes along, it goes to a cisgendered actor.
Another example of this was Exodus: Gods and Kings. The movie was about historical figures who were middle eastern....but they cast Christian Bale, Aaron Paul, and a few other white actors.
As Lenny pointed out, one reason is that there simply aren't many trans (or Middle Eastern) actors who are considered big enough names to carry a movie. So they cast cisgendered and white actors. But this creates a cycle. Trans and non-white actors aren't big enough to get lead roles but because they never get lead roles they can never get big enough to have lead roles.
In the end, all these people did was voice their opinion on the matter. It's ok to have a different opinion. Johannson didn't have to respond but she decided to. Personally, I don't see anything to get bent out of shape about.
-
Poor decision to make a movie that caters to special interest groups anyway, especially groups that promote the use of dangerous hormone and other types of transformative treatments in pre-teens and teenagers. Highly doubt anyone is going to shell out money to see the film anyway.
-
Poor decision to make a movie that caters to special interest groups anyway, especially groups that promote the use of dangerous hormone and other types of transformative treatments in pre-teens and teenagers. Highly doubt anyone is going to shell out money to see the film anyway.
LOL...I'm sure they're torn up about that.
-
Poor decision to make a movie that caters to special interest groups anyway, especially groups that promote the use of dangerous hormone and other types of transformative treatments in pre-teens and teenagers. Highly doubt anyone is going to shell out money to see the film anyway.
I've heard trans people described as many things but special interest group is a new one.
-
Trans issue aside, it was a terrible casting choice. The character she was going to play was a actual person who looked like this in real life:
(https://www.dreshare.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Dante-Tex-Gill-Biography-Age-Wiki-Net-worth-Height-Gay-Family-Weight-amp-Facts.jpg)
isn't that william shatner? before i put on another 25 or so?
-
I thought actors were paid to pretend to be people they aren't. Did you know Red in Shawshank Redemption is an Irish white guy in the novel. I loved Morgan Freeman's performance as Red. Isn't this what actors do? Take on roles of people they aren't?
Oooooooooooo unpopular opinion, but I agree!
-
Oooooooooooo unpopular opinion, but I agree!
Would it have been appropriate to cast Leo DiCaprio as MLK in the movie "Selma?"
Yeah obviously that's an exaggeration, but I think that is similar to how the trans community views this.
-
Would it have been appropriate to cast Leo DiCaprio as MLK in the movie "Selma?"
Yeah obviously that's an exaggeration, but I think that is similar to how the trans community views this.
Probably not. At the same time, we are talking about people who pretend to be other people every day of their lives. Where are we going to draw the line? When an American actor portrays a French person? Clearly that's okay... well unless you're a French actor. What about mixed race actors? Rosario Dawson is a New Yorker with PR heritage... does that mean its okay for her to play something besides that? Or is she pigeon holed?
I find this whole conversation interesting, really. Its a very grey line on what is culturally acceptable.
-
Red from Shawshank is also a different situation. Red's race was not central to who he was as a character, nor was it central to the plot of the movie. In this case, the fact that the character is trans is the entire focus of the movie....plus the character is an actual person, not a fictional one.
You are also misunderstanding why people are upset. There are so few major roles that trans actors can play, it is upsetting for some people that when a role like this comes along, it goes to a cisgendered actor.
Another example of this was Exodus: Gods and Kings. The movie was about historical figures who were middle eastern....but they cast Christian Bale, Aaron Paul, and a few other white actors.
As Lenny pointed out, one reason is that there simply aren't many trans (or Middle Eastern) actors who are considered big enough names to carry a movie. So they cast cisgendered and white actors. But this creates a cycle. Trans and non-white actors aren't big enough to get lead roles but because they never get lead roles they can never get big enough to have lead roles.
In the end, all these people did was voice their opinion on the matter. It's ok to have a different opinion. Johannson didn't have to respond but she decided to. Personally, I don't see anything to get bent out of shape about.
I understand to a degree why some are upset, but it feels misplaced. Actors play roles that are different themselves. Are people suggesting only gay people can play gay parts? If so, does that mean gay people can't play straight parts? That would be crazy, which is why the original complaint feels unwarranted to me.
I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about. The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout. Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies. It isn't even believable. John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood. So many others. Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant. Johnny Depp as Tonto. Collin Farrell as Alexander. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.
-
I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about. The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout. Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies. It isn't even believable. John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood. So many others. Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant. Johnny Depp as Tonto. Collin Farrell as Alexander. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.
You did not seriously just list one of the most racist castings in movie history in your defense, did you? WTF is wrong with you? Might as well start endorsing blackface. What kind of racist crap are you trying to push here? Seriously, that's completely uncalled for and a terrible, terrible, terrible defense of your case.
-
I understand to a degree why some are upset, but it feels misplaced. Actors play roles that are different themselves. Are people suggesting only gay people can play gay parts? If so, does that mean gay people can't play straight parts? That would be crazy, which is why the original complaint feels unwarranted to me.
I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about. The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout. Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies. It isn't even believable. John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood. So many others. Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant. Johnny Depp as Tonto. Collin Farrell as Alexander. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.
This, like several other comments here, is really missing the point. It's not just that ScarJo isn't/doesn't look like a transgender person, it's that the casting of her in that part deprives actual transgender artists of one of their very few opportunities for a significant role.
Nobody suggests Morgan Freeman as Red deprives middle-aged, white male actors of a plum role, because nobody has more opportunities for plum roles than middle-aged, white male actors.
Nobody suggests Kevin Costner as Robin Hood is depriving British actors of their scant opportunities in Hollywood, because Hollywood trips all over itself to cast Brits.
Also, do you see a difference when it comes to the portrayal of fictional characters as opposed to real people?
Like, would you be as on board with "The Ronald Reagan Story" starring Laverne Cox?
And, as Brew notes, some of the examples you list above have been widely criticized as racist or, at a minimum, poor casting choices. Johnny Depp as Tonto was eviscerated (as was everything else about that movie). Mickey Rooney's Yunish was properly derided as racist caricature.
-
I understand to a degree why some are upset, but it feels misplaced. Actors play roles that are different themselves. Are people suggesting only gay people can play gay parts? If so, does that mean gay people can't play straight parts? That would be crazy, which is why the original complaint feels unwarranted to me.
I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about. The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout. Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies. It isn't even believable. John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood. So many others. Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant. Johnny Depp as Tonto. Collin Farrell as Alexander. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.
Again, as I explained in the last post, no one is advocating that actors only play their own identities. The anger is at a system that keeps trans actors and makes it very difficult for non-white actors, to get major roles. There are precious few major roles that can be played by a trans actor while there are plenty of major roles that someone like ScarJo can get. At the end of the day, it is a job, so the best person who can reasonably represent the part should get the role but it does lend to the cycle I mentioned before.
Now all that being said the "can reasonably play the part" is something that I think sometimes we have struggled with as a society in the past. I would say Freeman as Red, Cruise as Jack Reacher, Costner as Robin Hood? Those are all situations where despite the person not being an exact match they can reasonably portray the person they are meant to. Wayne as Ghengis Khan? Depp as Tonto? Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Those are not reasonable and teeter (or in Rooney's case are) into the realm of racism.
I also think you are struggling to differentiate trans and gay. Gay is not a visual identity so a person of any sexual orientation can play that and it would be believable. Trans is a visual identity, though I would argue it is one that can successfully be portray by a cisgendered actor.
-
Here's the problem. ScarJo taking that role is blocking someone who actually suits the role from taking it. The argument that there are no trans actors that could carry the role is part of the problem. If you give the role to a trans actor, then they have the opportunity to carry said role. And by giving them that opportunity it will open the door for other opportunities.
Black Panther is a good recent example. Marvel gave Ryan Coogler his millions to make the movie he wanted. Hollywood's general reaction in the past was that black films with all-black casts (a few bit roles aside) wouldn't sell internationally. Instead, Black Panther killed at the box office and is the first MCU film to get legit Oscar buzz. Because of this, there will certainly be a sequel and it opens the door for other black filmmakers and actors to make movies and get roles they previously may not have had an opportunity for. Look at Danai Gurira, who was really just known as Michonne from The Walking Dead, and since appearing in Black Panther has been landing sponsorships and roles that she never would have been considered for before Black Panther.
Roles like Ghost in the Shell or Rub & Tug may have offered similar opportunities to Asian or Trans actors if the roles had been cast as written. Maybe someone breaks through with that role and it opens up new opportunities to them rather than simply regurgitating the same faces that audiences don't seem all that excited to see (certainly not for Ghost in the Shell). Maybe someone like Jamie Chung could've made a star turn with that role. Maybe Chaz Bono or Riley Milligan could've done the same with R&T.
If they don't get the chance, especially in the rare incidents when those roles come up, how are they supposed to break through? I think what is most irritating is that rather than own up to the BS of all this, Johannson now seems to be not making the movie, basically the taking her ball and going home strategy. It's like she is bitter about not getting any Oscar nods, and thought playing something in someone else's comfort zone was the answer. After GitS, I figured she would've learned that lesson. Guess not.
-
That doesn't mean I have to think it's a good idea.
I read one article who said that if they can't find a suitable trans male actor, they should cast a cis male. I vote
for Patton Oswald.
chaz bono?
-
You did not seriously just list one of the most racist castings in movie history in your defense, did you? WTF is wrong with you? Might as well start endorsing blackface. What kind of racist crap are you trying to push here? Seriously, that's completely uncalled for and a terrible, terrible, terrible defense of your case.
IC, IC
-
Here's the problem. ScarJo taking that role is blocking someone who actually suits the role from taking it. The argument that there are no trans actors that could carry the role is part of the problem. If you give the role to a trans actor, then they have the opportunity to carry said role. And by giving them that opportunity it will open the door for other opportunities.
Black Panther is a good recent example. Marvel gave Ryan Coogler his millions to make the movie he wanted. Hollywood's general reaction in the past was that black films with all-black casts (a few bit roles aside) wouldn't sell internationally. Instead, Black Panther killed at the box office and is the first MCU film to get legit Oscar buzz. Because of this, there will certainly be a sequel and it opens the door for other black filmmakers and actors to make movies and get roles they previously may not have had an opportunity for. Look at Danai Gurira, who was really just known as Michonne from The Walking Dead, and since appearing in Black Panther has been landing sponsorships and roles that she never would have been considered for before Black Panther.
Roles like Ghost in the Shell or Rub & Tug may have offered similar opportunities to Asian or Trans actors if the roles had been cast as written. Maybe someone breaks through with that role and it opens up new opportunities to them rather than simply regurgitating the same faces that audiences don't seem all that excited to see (certainly not for Ghost in the Shell). Maybe someone like Jamie Chung could've made a star turn with that role. Maybe Chaz Bono or Riley Milligan could've done the same with R&T.
If they don't get the chance, especially in the rare incidents when those roles come up, how are they supposed to break through? I think what is most irritating is that rather than own up to the BS of all this, Johannson now seems to be not making the movie, basically the taking her ball and going home strategy. It's like she is bitter about not getting any Oscar nods, and thought playing something in someone else's comfort zone was the answer. After GitS, I figured she would've learned that lesson. Guess not.
Here's the bigger problem, who's to say any trans actor is better than ScarJo?
While it sounds like she slated herself from the beginning, if she can play the role better, shouldn't she do it? Is this whole conversation mute if it's more open casting?
-
Here's the bigger problem, who's to say any trans actor is better than ScarJo?
While it sounds like she slated herself from the beginning, if she can play the role better, shouldn't she do it? Is this whole conversation mute if it's more open casting?
As mentioned above, this would be the equivalent of Leonardo DiCaprio playing MLK in blackface. On that basis alone, I'm going to say yes, they will play it better. Because they have an understanding of the role's nuance that she will never have and could never understand.
Further, the argument of "could she play it better" perpetuates the problem. When a character is defined by their race or identification or disability, is it better to have the same white cisgender performers taking all those roles, or should performers with an authentic understanding of that role be given the chance, and in the process open them up to greater opportunities?
It's as simple as asking if in this day and age we should have black roles played by white performers in blackface, or if all roles should be played by white men as was the case in Shakespeare's day, because if it was good enough for the Bard shouldn't it be good enough for us?
-
As mentioned above, this would be the equivalent of Leonardo DiCaprio playing MLK in blackface. On that basis alone, I'm going to say yes, they will play it better. Because they have an understanding of the role's nuance that she will never have and could never understand.
Further, the argument of "could she play it better" perpetuates the problem. When a character is defined by their race or identification or disability, is it better to have the same white cisgender performers taking all those roles, or should performers with an authentic understanding of that role be given the chance, and in the process open them up to greater opportunities?
It's as simple as asking if in this day and age we should have black roles played by white performers in blackface, or if all roles should be played by white men as was the case in Shakespeare's day, because if it was good enough for the Bard shouldn't it be good enough for us?
I don't think blackface has any equivalence in this conversation.
-
I don't think blackface has any equivalence in this conversation.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Blackface roles were largely done as racist caricatures of African Americans. This is not the case.
-
Blackface roles were largely done as racist caricatures of African Americans. This is not the case.
I'm sure Johansson would agree with you. I'm just as sure many in the LBGTQ community would disagree.
-
I'm sure Johansson would agree with you. I'm just as sure many in the LBGTQ community would disagree.
To Wong Foo must have really been a call to arms for you.
-
To Wong Foo must have really been a call to arms for you.
Do you not understand that the landscape of representation has changed dramatically in not just the past 23 years but also in the last 5?
-
To Wong Foo must have really been a call to arms for you.
Bad example.
To Wong Foo was about drag queens, not transgender people.
-
Blackface roles were largely done as racist caricatures of African Americans. This is not the case.
Fair point.
-
Bad example.
To Wong Foo was about drag queens, not transgender people.
I worked with a dead queen back around 2001 that really would have portrayed the Swayze role better though.
-
This, like several other comments here, is really missing the point. It's not just that ScarJo isn't/doesn't look like a transgender person, it's that the casting of her in that part deprives actual transgender artists of one of their very few opportunities for a significant role.
What's stopping transgender women from playing the role of a real woman and transgender men from playing the role of a real man? After all as others have pointed out already, acting is pretending to be someone that you aren't. They could very well take up those roles from normal people. No limited opportunities.
-
What's stopping transgender women from playing the role of a real woman and transgender men from playing the role of a real man? After all as others have pointed out already, acting is pretending to be someone that you aren't. They could very well take up those roles from normal people. No limited opportunities.
But they don't. Hollywood doesn't cast them like that. To open the door to allow them to take more roles, casting directors and producers need to be willing to give them some roles, any roles, and the roles they actually identify with are the best place to start.
Honestly, that's one of the things I've loved about Billions on Showtime. The staff created a role and found Asia Kate Dillon to play it. They have done an excellent job portraying Taylor Mason and it has made the show that much more compelling, because Taylor is an awesome character.
The Billions staff could have just as easily cast a male or female actor in that role, but Dillon fit the role because it is exactly who they are and who they represent on a daily basis. We should see more of that, not less, and when those opportunities are there, I would rather see people that authentically represent the role than another cisgendered whitewashing of a role.
-
Again, as I explained in the last post, no one is advocating that actors only play their own identities. The anger is at a system that keeps trans actors and makes it very difficult for non-white actors, to get major roles. There are precious few major roles that can be played by a trans actor while there are plenty of major roles that someone like ScarJo can get. At the end of the day, it is a job, so the best person who can reasonably represent the part should get the role but it does lend to the cycle I mentioned before.
Now all that being said the "can reasonably play the part" is something that I think sometimes we have struggled with as a society in the past. I would say Freeman as Red, Cruise as Jack Reacher, Costner as Robin Hood? Those are all situations where despite the person not being an exact match they can reasonably portray the person they are meant to. Wayne as Ghengis Khan? Depp as Tonto? Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Those are not reasonable and teeter (or in Rooney's case are) into the realm of racism.
I also think you are struggling to differentiate trans and gay. Gay is not a visual identity so a person of any sexual orientation can play that and it would be believable. Trans is a visual identity, though I would argue it is one that can successfully be portray by a cisgendered actor.
Why are there precious few roles? Hollywood prides itself on progressive causes, this should not be an issue. Why is trans a visual identity only? A number transgender people are gorgeous, and look every bit male or female they choose. Cannot tell if they are transgender or not. Didn't a transgender recently win a beauty contest?
-
One point .. there are ~700 "movies" released each year in the US. Not counting hundreds more from the EU and other foreign films.
If you google "top transgender movies of 20xx" you'll get ~10.
So there are roles. Just very few (to zero) of the special few that are financially viable and make it to your movie theater. The topic is far more a matter of demand than anything else.
-
One point .. there are ~700 "movies" released each year in the US. Not counting hundreds more from the EU and other foreign films.
If you google "top transgender movies of 20xx" you'll get ~10.
So there are roles. Just very few (to zero) of the special few that are financially viable and make it to your movie theater. The topic is far more a matter of demand than anything else.
Maybe, but I look back to this comment from Lennys:
Very possibly.I would check IMDB, read reviews, etc.and then decide. I'm a movie guy and will watch anything well done.
If something is good, if it has a compelling story, is well-acted and produced, a film, even one that isn't expected to succeed, can make money and draw in an audience. 10 years ago, there's no way Black Panther gets made. There's probably no way Get Out gets made. How much changed because of Moonlight's success? How many doors that might have been closed or only open a crack will get more opportunity because of that.
Part of the reason there isn't a demand is because Hollywood squashes those voices because the same people that have been in charge for decades decide what does and doesn't get made? The demand doesn't exist in large part because the gatekeepers don't allow the demand to exist. And the whole "liberal Hollywood" crap is BS. Yes, there are some liberal individuals, even wealthy liberals that have large platforms, but the people that control the real money and call the shots of what gets made and what doesn't caters to their perception of the audience. If you look at the films we see getting made year after year, at the films allowed to win awards year after year, it's pretty obvious the stories they allow to be made are primarily white, male, and cisgendered.
I agree with Lennys that just because you don't identify with a story, that doesn't mean people won't go out of their way to find it. If the story is well done, if the portrayal is authentic and believable, and if it is created in a compelling way, there will be an audience.
-
Would it have been appropriate to cast Leo DiCaprio as MLK in the movie "Selma?"
Yeah obviously that's an exaggeration, but I think that is similar to how the trans community views this.
I still refuse to watch the Jack Reacher movies (I love the books) because they cast a small guy (Tom Cruise) to play Reacher, whose sheer size is a fundamental component of the character. So I get the unhappiness with cast choice based on physical characteristics. I wouldn't have minded if a black actor of appropriate size played Reacher, though, as race was not a fundamental aspect of the character.
I don't get all bent out of shape about casting decisions, though. I just don't watch the movie.
-
And the whole "liberal Hollywood" crap is BS. Yes, there are some liberal individuals, even wealthy liberals that have large platforms, but the people that control the real money and call the shots of what gets made and what doesn't caters to their perception of the audience.
Even liberals aren't liberal when it comes to their money. Business is business, and people in business are there to make money. So they are much more likely to base their decisions on their wallet (or what they think is beneficial to their wallet) than they are to their personal philosophy.
-
I still refuse to watch the Jack Reacher movies (I love the books) because they cast a small guy (Tom Cruise) to play Reacher, whose sheer size is a fundamental component of the character. So I get the unhappiness with cast choice based on physical characteristics. I wouldn't have minded if a black actor of appropriate size played Reacher, though, as race was not a fundamental aspect of the character.
I don't get all bent out of shape about casting decisions, though. I just don't watch the movie.
Yeah I've been thinking about this some more about this. Joaquin Phoenix is playing paraplegic cartoonist John Callahan in a movie coming out this weekend. (It' supposed to be terrible.) Should he not have accepted this role leaving it for someone who is paraplegic instead?
So while I do understand the point, I also think actors are paid to act.
-
Maybe, but I look back to this comment from Lennys:
If something is good, if it has a compelling story, is well-acted and produced, a film, even one that isn't expected to succeed, can make money and draw in an audience....
Every one of the 700 films/year finds "an audience." Only ~50 have a slice of commercial success. Some guys make it to the NBA, most have to play in Estonia to make a buck.
If you look at the films we see getting made year after year, at the films allowed to win awards year after year, it's pretty obvious the stories they allow to be made are primarily white, male, and cisgendered.
C'mon. There are hundreds of films made, from every topic A-Z, and 90+% of them might be wonderful, but are commercial flops. Nothing is not "allowed" to be made. Really, the same can be said about every piece of art, sculpture, painting and song.
And yes, one of the filters for awards is commercial success. That's a bummer.
Admittedly, there are gatekeepers but their motivation isn't to keep Group XYZ down, their top 3 motivations are: revenue, revenue, revenue. Do they make mistakes .. do they get tunnel vision .. sure. If they hit their revenue targets, it's all good. Except for the outrage, of course.
-
Even liberals aren't liberal when it comes to their money. Business is business, and people in business are there to make money. So they are much more likely to base their decisions on their wallet (or what they think is beneficial to their wallet) than they are to their personal philosophy.
I do think there is definitely a lot of group think that goes on in Hollywood that keeps certain stories from being told because they don't think it'll make revenue....without that necessarily being true. As someone pointed out, Get Out doesn't get made 10 years ago and it was a big hit last year.
-
Interesting (and mostly civil) discussion, folks.
Thanks.
-
I do think there is definitely a lot of group think that goes on in Hollywood that keeps certain stories from being told because they don't think it'll make revenue....without that necessarily being true. As someone pointed out, Get Out doesn't get made 10 years ago and it was a big hit last year.
Not sure why not. Relatively low budget, low risk movie. I think it could've been made 10 years ago. I think a lot of those type movies are made because they might hit and if they don't its not a major financial hit plus it helps develop and/or help you figure out which filmmakers might develop into something.
-
Part of the reason there isn't a demand is because Hollywood squashes those voices because the same people that have been in charge for decades decide what does and doesn't get made? The demand doesn't exist in large part because the gatekeepers don't allow the demand to exist. And the whole "liberal Hollywood" crap is BS. Yes, there are some liberal individuals, even wealthy liberals that have large platforms, but the people that control the real money and call the shots of what gets made and what doesn't caters to their perception of the audience. If you look at the films we see getting made year after year, at the films allowed to win awards year after year, it's pretty obvious the stories they allow to be made are primarily white, male, and cisgendered.
Regardless of the liberal Hollywood discussion, which I think is almost a totally different discussion, I struggle a little with this idea that the stories are primarily white, male, and cisgendered (especially the cisgendered part). I get that all lifestyles should have representation within entertainment both to expose people to those lifestyles who otherwise wouldn't see it and to give people have that lifsetyle some recognition in entertainment (ultimately it's about representing real life better within the context of entertainment). Having said that, I struggle with the idea of generating content with a "forced" representation within it or creating content focused on a particular lifestyle that may be "niche" but somehow suspending the idea that the content needs to make money. At the end of the day this is entertainment/business and to some extent you have to give the people "what they want" to generate revenue.
-
Not sure why not. Relatively low budget, low risk movie. I think it could've been made 10 years ago. I think a lot of those type movies are made because they might hit and if they don't its not a major financial hit plus it helps develop and/or help you figure out which filmmakers might develop into something.
Weird way to say this, but it wasn't made 10 years ago, and nothing like it was. That's what I sight as evidence that it couldn't have been made 10 years ago. Jordan Peele is a brilliant dude, but this culture bending approach isn't some break through, it just hasn't been done in such a big way and economically successful. I don't think the ingredients existed previously for it to be nearly as impactful as it was.
-
And yes, one of the filters for awards is commercial success. That's a bummer.
Again - this was all this movie was about. ScarJo was Oscar hunting with the "role of someone from a discriminated against group or that is physically handicapped" trope. She got called out for using the trans community as nothing more than a vehicle to show her acting range, and then realized that once she got called out the Academy was never going to give her her Oscar - so she quit.
-
Yeah I've been thinking about this some more about this. Joaquin Phoenix is playing paraplegic cartoonist John Callahan in a movie coming out this weekend. (It' supposed to be terrible.) Should he not have accepted this role leaving it for someone who is paraplegic instead?
So while I do understand the point, I also think actors are paid to act.
This is mostly what I was trying to say. Should people only play what they are?
-
This is mostly what I was trying to say. Should people only play what they are?
Of course not. But when the character is a member of a community that is different from you, and the membership in the community is what makes the role valuable, you have a responsibility to that community. This was a good role for ScarJo because the character was trans. That's what made her take the role and what lead to the early Oscar whispers.
But in exchange, Scarjo has a responsibility to the trans community. If she wants to take that role, she has a responsibility to get other trans actors roles in the film. She has a responsibility to reach out to that community and legitimately assist with the difficulties they face. She can't just treat the role like Black Widow. If she doesn't want to assume that responsibility, fine, but then don't take roles that benefit you because of the difficulties that character faced (or would face if it is fiction) in the real world.
ScarJo got called out for that behavior and acted like a complete sh!thead. And here we are.
-
Of course not. But when the character is a member of a community that is different from you, and the membership in the community is what makes the role valuable, you have a responsibility to that community. This was a good role for ScarJo because the character was trans. That's what made her take the role and what lead to the early Oscar whispers.
But in exchange, Scarjo has a responsibility to the trans community. If she wants to take that role, she has a responsibility to get other trans actors roles in the film. She has a responsibility to reach out to that community and legitimately assist with the difficulties they face. She can't just treat the role like Black Widow. If she doesn't want to assume that responsibility, fine, but then don't take roles that benefit you because of the difficulties that character faced (or would face if it is fiction) in the real world.
ScarJo got called out for that behavior and acted like a complete sh!thead. And here we are.
Scarlett Johansson is an actress. Her job is to act. As a bankable star, her responsibility is to pick from the many roles she is offered the ones she is most interested in doing for whatever her personal reasons are, even if that includes Oscar hunting. Not sure why she should have any obligations to the trans community other than delivering her best possible performance. Now if she is a producer of the movie or a casting agent, she may have those other obligations of which you spoke.
-
Scarlett Johansson is an actress. Her job is to act. As a bankable star, her responsibility is to pick from the many roles she is offered the ones she is most interested in doing for whatever her personal reasons are, even if that includes Oscar hunting. Not sure why she should have any obligations to the trans community other than delivering her best possible performance. Now if she is a producer of the movie or a casting agent, she may have those other obligations of which you spoke.
Agree to very strongly disagree. That presumes that everyone's profession cleanses any moral responsibility they might have to other people, so long as they can say "no no - i was only doing that to make money."
-
Agree to very strongly disagree. That presumes that everyone's profession cleanses any moral responsibility they might have to other people, so long as they can say "no no - i was only doing that to make money."
So when she plays a nun, a bored newlywed, or a superhero all she owes us is an honest performance. But if she portrays a transgender person she has to become an activist. Nonsense.
-
Agree to very strongly disagree. That presumes that everyone's profession cleanses any moral responsibility they might have to other people, so long as they can say "no no - i was only doing that to make money."
Since when does a profession have a "moral responsibility" to any group of people not in that profession beyond not doing them harm and being respectful, like all human beings have for all other human beings? I can't think of a good comparison to another profession at the moment, but moral obligations in the professional world are to me things like a chemical company has a moral responsibility to not dump hazard waste dangerously or a manufacturing company has the moral responsibility to not abuse foreign workers or children through miserable working conditions for terrible pay. It does not include reaching out to others because you got a job they felt they were more qualified for.
But I can agree to disagree on this one, since acting in movies is far enough outside the mainstream of professions that there could be a different set of rules.
-
Since when does a profession have a "moral responsibility" to any group of people not in that profession beyond not doing them harm and being respectful, like all human beings have for all other human beings? I can't think of a good comparison to another profession at the moment, but moral obligations in the professional world are to me things like a chemical company has a moral responsibility to not dump hazard waste dangerously or a manufacturing company has the moral responsibility to not abuse foreign workers or children through miserable working conditions for terrible pay. It does not include reaching out to others because you got a job they felt they were more qualified for.
But I can agree to disagree on this one, since acting in movies is far enough outside the mainstream of professions that there could be a different set of rules.
I mean more that one's profession doesn't absolve them from any moral responsibility they otherwise have to folks outside the professional context. And I think that when your profession is pretending to be other folks, that comes with its own set of responsibilities. When criticized that she was falling short of those responsibilities, ScarJo responded with...
So when she plays a nun, a bored newlywed, or a superhero all she owes us is an honest performance. But if she portrays a transgender person she has to become an activist. Nonsense.
... which I think is a wrong view of the acting profession and deserving of even greater criticism than the original, specific criticism regarding the trans community.
-
So when she plays a nun, a bored newlywed, or a superhero all she owes us is an honest performance. But if she portrays a transgender person she has to become an activist. Nonsense.
Are nuns, newlyweds, or superheroes underrepresented in Hollywood and trying to break in?
She is trying to appropriate another culture for her own ends, and her tone deaf statement only reinforces that she doesn't care about the community she's representing, only the acclaim she gets from it.
Dwayne Johnson has been criticized some for Skyscraper, his new blockbuster where he plays a disabled veteran. Johnson acknowledged that he was playing a role but at least said he hopes this will lead to more opportunities for disabled performers. Had Johansson used the opportunity to acknowledge the community she was representing and used the role to lift others up rather than pointing to Jeffrey <expletive> Tambor as justification, it would've come across better.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jayruderman/status/1017427606533279746
-
Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.
Swing and a miss
-
Of course not. But when the character is a member of a community that is different from you, and the membership in the community is what makes the role valuable, you have a responsibility to that community. This was a good role for ScarJo because the character was trans. That's what made her take the role and what lead to the early Oscar whispers.
But in exchange, Scarjo has a responsibility to the trans community. If she wants to take that role, she has a responsibility to get other trans actors roles in the film. She has a responsibility to reach out to that community and legitimately assist with the difficulties they face. She can't just treat the role like Black Widow. If she doesn't want to assume that responsibility, fine, but then don't take roles that benefit you because of the difficulties that character faced (or would face if it is fiction) in the real world.
ScarJo got called out for that behavior and acted like a complete sh!thead. And here we are.
This is well said.
-
In his three big TV series, the very talented Michael C. Hall has played a gay man who is a funeral director (Six Feet Under), a serial killer who happens to be a police blood-spatter expert (Dexter) and a British doctor (Safe, currently on Netflix).
He is not gay, is not a funeral director, is not a serial killer (that we know about), is not a blood-spatter expert, is not British and is not a doctor.
For some strange reason, the only one of those that bothers me one iota is his horrible British accent on Safe. It makes it difficult for me to watch the show, which is fine because it's mediocre anyway.
I am in no way trying to equate an American playing a Brit with a straight actor playing an LBGT character or a white actor wearing blackface. Just conversing.
-
Are nuns, newlyweds, or superheroes underrepresented in Hollywood and trying to break in?
She is trying to appropriate another culture for her own ends, and her tone deaf statement only reinforces that she doesn't care about the community she's representing, only the acclaim she gets from it.
I thought every group other than white men was underrepresented in Hollywood - isn't that a common complaint?
As for "appropriating another culture for her own ends" - OMG. I thought the goal was to get people's (straight, gay, trans, white, black, yellow, red, rich, poor, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, even Amish) stories told. AND make a profit. If there are investors willing to pony up for this project with an unknown trans actor replacing Johansson, great. But if your goal is to mainstream your culture getting the picture made is the first priority.
-
I thought every group other than white men was underrepresented in Hollywood - isn't that a common complaint?
It's fact.
A USC study of the top 100 films of 2016 found that 68.6 percent of the speaking roles went to men and only 34 percent had a woman in a lead or co-lead role. About 71 percent of the speaking roles went to white people, 14 percent to black people, 6 percent Asian and 3 percent Hispanic.
Make of it what you will, by it is true that every group other than white men is underrepresented.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-and-minorities-still-underrepresented-in-film-2017-7
-
As for "appropriating another culture for her own ends" - OMG. I thought the goal was to get people's (straight, gay, trans, white, black, yellow, red, rich, poor, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, even Amish) stories told. AND make a profit. If there are investors willing to pony up for this project with an unknown trans actor replacing Johansson, great. But if your goal is to mainstream your culture getting the picture made is the first priority.
This is where I struggle in this debate. If the trans community is underrepresented in both society and the acting profession, doesn't a ScarJo centered project about a trans person move in the direction of improving at least one of those things? Actors take on Oscar-bait roles all the time but this is the first I've heard of a larger obligation to the community involved then do the story justice and don't be an ass.
It'd be one thing if she was playing the role of a trans person who was a major advocate for trans-rights but she's not she would have been playing the role of somebody who's story included that they were trans. Did Sean Penn have a greater obligation to the gay community as the result of starring in the Harvey Milk movie? Does Colin Firth owe greater obligation to people who have speech impediments because he was the lead in The King's Speech? Does Jeremy Renner owe more to combat veterans because he was in The Hurt Locker. I'd argue it's a good idea and good thing to do, but its certainly not a requirement in my mind that an actor owes anything to a community its representing than telling the story well and doing no direct harm to that community.
-
I thought every group other than white men was underrepresented in Hollywood - isn't that a common complaint?
As for "appropriating another culture for her own ends" - OMG. I thought the goal was to get people's (straight, gay, trans, white, black, yellow, red, rich, poor, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, even Amish) stories told. AND make a profit. If there are investors willing to pony up for this project with an unknown trans actor replacing Johansson, great. But if your goal is to mainstream your culture getting the picture made is the first priority.
Get your affairs in order, Lenny. ;D I agree with your post.
-
It's fact.
A USC study of the top 100 films of 2016 found that 68.6 percent of the speaking roles went to men and only 34 percent had a woman in a lead or co-lead role. About 71 percent of the speaking roles went to white people, 14 percent to black people, 6 percent Asian and 3 percent Hispanic.
Make of it what you will, by it is true that every group other than white men is underrepresented.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-and-minorities-still-underrepresented-in-film-2017-7
I don't think that's what your link says. According to the study you cite, whites are overrepresented, blacks are slightly overrepresented, Asians fairly represented and Hispanics grossly underrepresented.
-
Get your affairs in order, Lenny. ;D I agree with your post.
Truth be told I frequently agree with the gist of your arguments, Brandi.
-
It's fact.
A USC study of the top 100 films of 2016 found that 68.6 percent of the speaking roles went to men and only 34 percent had a woman in a lead or co-lead role. About 71 percent of the speaking roles went to white people, 14 percent to black people, 6 percent Asian and 3 percent Hispanic.
Make of it what you will, by it is true that every group other than white men is underrepresented.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-and-minorities-still-underrepresented-in-film-2017-7
77% of Americans (including White Hispanics) are Caucasian. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
Looks mostly inline with the makeup of the country. For gender, that isn't the case. Though my suspicions are action movies drive many movies and viewers probably expect males to play those speaking roles more often. ???
-
Swing and a miss
Feels like a stand up triple
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/off-color-casting-in-hollywood/
-
Feels like a stand up triple
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/off-color-casting-in-hollywood/
What point are you trying to make here? The article linked to is listing your example of Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as a time that, and I quote "Hollywood got it wrong." Didn't you use Rooney as an example of how actors can successfully portray identities other than their own?
-
What point are you trying to make here? The article linked to is listing your example of Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as a time that, and I quote "Hollywood got it wrong." Didn't you use Rooney as an example of how actors can successfully portray identities other than their own?
My examples were illustrative actors playing parts that didn't identify with them. Red with Freeman. Tonto with Depp. Others. Some were blatantly wrong and unacceptable today, even back then raised eyebrows. Others we don't seem to care much about, but care about the performance. I was on a plane last year watching Matt Damon in an awful Chinese monster movie, and he seemed as miscast as Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai.
-
Maybe, but I look back to this comment from Lennys:
If something is good, if it has a compelling story, is well-acted and produced, a film, even one that isn't expected to succeed, can make money and draw in an audience. 10 years ago, there's no way Black Panther gets made. There's probably no way Get Out gets made. How much changed because of Moonlight's success? How many doors that might have been closed or only open a crack will get more opportunity because of that.
Part of the reason there isn't a demand is because Hollywood squashes those voices because the same people that have been in charge for decades decide what does and doesn't get made? The demand doesn't exist in large part because the gatekeepers don't allow the demand to exist. And the whole "liberal Hollywood" crap is BS. Yes, there are some liberal individuals, even wealthy liberals that have large platforms, but the people that control the real money and call the shots of what gets made and what doesn't caters to their perception of the audience. If you look at the films we see getting made year after year, at the films allowed to win awards year after year, it's pretty obvious the stories they allow to be made are primarily white, male, and cisgendered.
I agree with Lennys that just because you don't identify with a story, that doesn't mean people won't go out of their way to find it. If the story is well done, if the portrayal is authentic and believable, and if it is created in a compelling way, there will be an audience.
And if Black Panther were made 10 years from now, might it be regarded as good, but not Oscar-worthy?
I really liked Black Panther. One of the top 3 MCU movies, easy... but no other MCU movie has garnered anywhere close to the Oscar talk (aside from technical achievements or special effects) as Black Panther. In fact, there’s an outright bias against superhero movies within the Academy. So what made Black Panther stand out?
In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”
-
My examples were illustrative actors playing parts that didn't identify with them. Red with Freeman. Tonto with Depp. Others. Some were blatantly wrong and unacceptable today, even back then raised eyebrows. Others we don't seem to care much about, but care about the performance. I was on a plane last year watching Matt Damon in an awful Chinese monster movie, and he seemed as miscast as Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai.
The movie was the wall and it was absolutely horrible. Though the last samurai has its moments as tough as it was
-
And if Black Panther were made 10 years from now, might it be regarded as good, but not Oscar-worthy?
I really liked Black Panther. One of the top 3 MCU movies, easy... but no other MCU movie has garnered anywhere close to the Oscar talk (aside from technical achievements or special effects) as Black Panther. In fact, there’s an outright bias against superhero movies within the Academy. So what made Black Panther stand out?
In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”
That movie was visually wonderful, but to me the story was run of the mill and easily the most predictable of any of the MCU movies. You knew basically what was going to happen in every scene after the first 30 minutes or so. Other than Michael B Jordan, didn't think the performances were anything special, either. I was surprised at the acclaim it got, but I think your assessment has merit. Wonder Woman also got over the top accolades, maybe for similar reasons (a woman was in the lead) but I thought that was genuinely very well done and easily the best of the post Christian Bale DC movies, which I admit is not saying a whole lot.
-
My examples were illustrative actors playing parts that didn't identify with them. Red with Freeman. Tonto with Depp. Others. Some were blatantly wrong and unacceptable today, even back then raised eyebrows. Others we don't seem to care much about, but care about the performance. I was on a plane last year watching Matt Damon in an awful Chinese monster movie, and he seemed as miscast as Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai.
Gotcha. So you are saying actors playing identities other than their own can be problematic, it just depends on the situation. I thought you were using Rooney as a good example not a bad one.
I do want to clarify something though. You keep bringing up Morgan Freeman playing Red as an example. That is a very different example than Depp as Tonto or even Johannson in Rub and Tug. Freeman was not a black man attempting to portray a white character. Freeman was a black man portraying a black character. The director made the decision to change Red's character from white to black. Now that can create its own set of issues as well, but that is not outwardly racist as Rooney, Depp, or Wayne.
Rub and Tug is a tougher case. Some would categorize it in the Rooney/Depp/Wayne category, others would categorize it in Brits playing Americans category. Personally, I think a cisgendered actor can play a trans character. But I'm also not upset that the trans community protested. In the end, isn't this the free market at play? Potential customers didn't like a product, voiced their opinion, and now the product has to change.
-
And if Black Panther were made 10 years from now, might it be regarded as good, but not Oscar-worthy?
I really liked Black Panther. One of the top 3 MCU movies, easy... but no other MCU movie has garnered anywhere close to the Oscar talk (aside from technical achievements or special effects) as Black Panther. In fact, there’s an outright bias against superhero movies within the Academy. So what made Black Panther stand out?
In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”
Agreed on Black Panther being top-3, and I hope in 10 years that is the case. But rather than white guilt, I think it's just as much a case of who has made up the Academy (which will see a shift for the next awards).
You're statement isn't accurate regarding just superhero movies but action blockbusters in general. Mad Max: Fury Road got a nod, but before that, you had Gladiator and the LOTR movies at the turn of the century and then back to 1981 (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and 1977 (Star Wars) for even a nomination. The only wins were Gladiator and LOTR: ROTK (which was the worst of the three).
The only Academy nominations for the MCU have been technical. Visual effects, makeup, and sound are the only nominated categories. While it's about time for movies like Black Panther that provide representation, films like The Dark Knight, Iron Man (just the first), Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy deserved better than they got.
-
Where does Mel Gibson, an Irish-Australian actor, playing William Wallace, a Scottish person at a time they were a marginalized group, fit into this equation?
-
Where does Mel Gibson, an Irish-Australian actor, playing William Wallace, a Scottish person at a time they were a marginalized group, fit into this equation?
Honestly, it doesn't.
-
Honestly, it doesn't.
Why because it was a person from 800 years ago? Listen we can't pick and choose which cultural appropriation is bad and which is ok. A person's identity is their identity culturally.
-
77% of Americans (including White Hispanics) are Caucasian. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
Looks mostly inline with the makeup of the country. For gender, that isn't the case. Though my suspicions are action movies drive many movies and viewers probably expect males to play those speaking roles more often. ???
Yes, because that conveniently lumps Hispanics with whites, which the film survey does not. When you separate them, white Americans make up 60 percent of the population.
-
Honestly, it doesn't.
What Eng said. It's either all or nothing. And if we're going to say "well it was hundreds of years ago they aren't marginalized anymore the way they were at that point in history" we have to then ask at what point of acceptance does it become ok for marginalized culture to be played by someone who isn't a part of said culture
-
What Eng said. It's either all or nothing. And if we're going to say "well it was hundreds of years ago they aren't marginalized anymore the way they were at that point in history" we have to then ask at what point of acceptance does it become ok for marginalized culture to be played by someone who isn't a part of said culture
You're cool with a white guy slapping on blackface and portraying an African-American?
Pretty much the same thing as Daniel Day-Lewis portraying Gerry Conlon.
I mean, it's either all or nothing.
-
Why because it was a person from 800 years ago? Listen we can't pick and choose which cultural appropriation is bad and which is ok. A person's identity is their identity culturally.
No because he was playing someone from the same race and similar (if not same) ethnic group.
That being said, I find the whole idea of "cultural appropriation" be rather odd anyway.
-
No because he was playing someone from the same race and similar (if not same) ethnic group.
That being said, I find the whole idea of "cultural appropriation" be rather odd anyway.
Most alleged cultural appropriation is utter nonsense.
-
Most alleged cultural appropriation is utter nonsense.
Yep. Just saw a headline yesterday where folks were giving Kim Kardashian crap for wearing corn rows. She has an African-American husband and multiracial children.
Perhaps I should scold those women who approach me on the beach in the Caribbean to ask if they can braid my hair. How dare they offer to share their culture with me? Who cares if they need money to feed their kids?
-
You're cool with a white guy slapping on blackface and portraying an African-American?
Pretty much the same thing as Daniel Day-Lewis portraying Gerry Conlon.
I mean, it's either all or nothing.
Conlan is an Irish name and Daniel Day Lewis is Irish ;)
-
You're statement isn't accurate regarding just superhero movies but action blockbusters in general. Mad Max: Fury Road got a nod, but before that, you had Gladiator and the LOTR movies at the turn of the century and then back to 1981 (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and 1977 (Star Wars) for even a nomination. The only wins were Gladiator and LOTR: ROTK (which was the worst of the three).
Did you really just lump something else into my argument and challenge it only to be hoisted by your own petard? ;D
I think what you were trying to say is that my statement is accurate not just regarding superhero movies but also action blockbusters*. Which I agree is absolutely the case. Mad Max deserved so much more than costume design (not to mention Jenny Beaven's wardrobe at the awards deserved its own award), and that movie had all the social commentary and current relevance that Hollywood loves.
If not a nomination for Best Picture or Best Director (or even a nomination for Josh Brolin), the Academy really should come up with a new award just for Infinity War. The way that movie took an entire franchise of eighteen movies over ten years from fourteen different directors (fifteen if you count both Russo's) following ten different storylines and intertwined everything seamlessly all the while developing the Thanos character in under 2.5 hours is nothing short of an epic achievement. While their careers will never be on the same level as Ford, Capra, Scorsese, and Spielberg, the Russo's coherent navigation of the labyrinth that became Infinity War eclipses the complexity of any single work by these four.
But alas, there is little hope that the Hollywood elite would ever (knowingly) welcome Stan Lee into its halls, let alone its guest bathroom.
* If not, ignore the rest.
[Aside: I blame Howard the Duck for basically obliterating any awards hope for the comic book movie genre. While HtD was still a fun movie (maybe a step above how much fun "The Room" was), James Gunn really needs to remake that movie to exorcise those dark overlords demons for the good of society, or at least so his fellow comic book movie directors can get the credit they deserve.]
-
No because he was playing someone from the same race and similar (if not same) ethnic group.
That being said, I find the whole idea of "cultural appropriation" be rather odd anyway.
Sure go to Belfast or Derry and say that.
-
Conlan is an Irish name and Daniel Day Lewis is Irish ;)
Day-Lewis was born and raised in England to a Jewish mother. His father was born in Ireland (but not Northern Ireland), and moved to England as a toddler.
So, not the same as Gerry Conlon.
-
Day-Lewis was born and raised in England to a Jewish mother. His father was born in Ireland (but not Northern Ireland), and moved to England as a toddler.
So, not the same as Gerry Conlon.
Interesting had no idea. Learn something new every day. Then I guess we should all hate in the name of the father as it's a guy from England portraying a currently marginalized group. Look I'm being a bit facetious purposely. I disagree with actors putting on black face and such but things like sexuality etc are things you can study to "act" let the world decide if they did a good or appropriate job at it. oh and liam neeson clearly should've played Gerry conlan.
-
You're cool with a white guy slapping on blackface and portraying an African-American?
Pretty much the same thing as Daniel Day-Lewis portraying Gerry Conlon.
I mean, it's either all or nothing.
That's apples and spaceships. Black Face was intentionally provocative and caricature of a race of people fully intended to demean. The all or nothing discussion is more about whether it's acceptable for some one of a different culture, race, gender, or identity to play a role in which they are playing something different.*
*this all assumes the intent is to do the role justice, using the role to attack an identity would clearly pull it under the black face corollary.
-
Yep. Just saw a headline yesterday where folks were giving Kim Kardashian crap for wearing corn rows. She has an African-American husband and multiracial children.
Perhaps I should scold those women who approach me on the beach in the Caribbean to ask if they can braid my hair. How dare they offer to share their culture with me? Who cares if they need money to feed their kids?
When one considers all the legitimate things Kardashian should be given crap for her hairstyle doesn't even make the list.
-
I don't care what actor plays what character with whatever makeup or accent they desire. It's art, like it, hate it, be offended, good for you, make some noise.
Let's get to something more important. Like people who claim to be Yankee, Cowboy, or Steeler fans when they've never lived in those regions.
-
When one considers all the legitimate things Kardashian should be given crap for her hairstyle doesn't even make the list.
I know, right? Plenty of legit stuff to call her out on.
-
Why because it was a person from 800 years ago? Listen we can't pick and choose which cultural appropriation is bad and which is ok. A person's identity is their identity culturally.
???
So if I'm ok with Gibson playing William Wallace, I have to be okay with Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi? Or Depp playing Tonto? Or a theoretical movie where Channing Tatum plays MLK? That makes no sense.
We are mixing race and ethnicity here. Actors are paid to portray people of different backgrounds. That is no problem. The problem only occurs when they aren't just acting as a person with a different background, but are attempting to pass themselves off as another race. So no, a white guy portraying a white guy is not a problem and doesn't belong in this conversation.
To summarize my thoughts on the matter:
Actors playing characters of a different ethnicity: Good
Actors playing character of a different race: Bad
-
???
So if I'm ok with Gibson playing William Wallace, I have to be okay with Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi? Or Depp playing Tonto? Or a theoretical movie where Channing Tatum plays MLK? That makes no sense.
We are mixing race and ethnicity here. Actors are paid to portray people of different backgrounds. That is no problem. The problem only occurs when they aren't just acting as a person with a different background, but are attempting to pass themselves off as another race. So no, a white guy portraying a white guy is not a problem and doesn't belong in this conversation.
To summarize my thoughts on the matter:
Actors playing characters of a different ethnicity: Good
Actors playing character of a different race: Bad
To be fair at the time of William Wallace they were regarded as a different race. That being said I agree with what you're saying. My point was that marginalized groups should probably see the portrayal first before getting up in arms as it is acting.
Next question, why has nobody brought up Robert Downey jr in tropic Thunder?
-
To be fair at the time of William Wallace they were regarded as a different race. That being said I agree with what you're saying. My point was that marginalized groups should probably see the portrayal first before getting up in arms as it is acting.
Next question, why has nobody brought up Robert Downey jr in tropic Thunder?
Because that was a farce. Which is basically what this discussion has become.
-
I don't care what actor plays what character with whatever makeup or accent they desire. It's art, like it, hate it, be offended, good for you, make some noise.
Let's get to something more important. Like people who claim to be Yankee, Cowboy, or Steeler fans when they've never lived in those regions.
I just ran into one of those Cowboy fans at work today. And he's 28 years old. I mean, they haven't even been all that good since he was about five.
-
???
So if I'm ok with Gibson playing William Wallace, I have to be okay with Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi? Or Depp playing Tonto? Or a theoretical movie where Channing Tatum plays MLK? That makes no sense.
We are mixing race and ethnicity here. Actors are paid to portray people of different backgrounds. That is no problem. The problem only occurs when they aren't just acting as a person with a different background, but are attempting to pass themselves off as another race. So no, a white guy portraying a white guy is not a problem and doesn't belong in this conversation.
To summarize my thoughts on the matter:
Actors playing characters of a different ethnicity: Good
Actors playing character of a different race: Bad
I'll concede the point to you for the most part I just think it's pretty grey area. Yes, Irish is an ethnicity but it's also a culture(no different than trans is a culture) and what if Hollywood was going to cast Colin Farrell as Michael Collins, do the Northern Irish have no reason to be upset by the choice?
-
I'll concede the point to you for the most part I just think it's pretty grey area. Yes, Irish is an ethnicity but it's also a culture(no different than trans is a culture) and what if Hollywood was going to cast Colin Farrell as Michael Collins, do the Northern Irish have no reason to be upset by the choice?
I see what you are saying, but the difference is that in today's day and age Irish is a privileged culture and trans is not. Not quite an apple to apples comparison.
That being said, I personally don't have a problem with a cisgendered actor playing a transgendered character. I also don't have a problem with the trans community voicing a different opinion.
-
I see what you are saying, but the difference is that in today's day and age Irish is a privileged culture and trans is not. Not quite an apple to apples comparison.
That being said, I personally don't have a problem with a cisgendered actor playing a transgendered character. I also don't have a problem with the trans community voicing a different opinion.
Go to Belfast or Derry in the Catholic areas and tell them that.
-
Go to Belfast or Derry in the Catholic areas and tell them that.
Of course, everything I am saying is in the context of American society.
I would also imagine that even there trans individuals face just as much if not more discrimination. I don't know that for sure, maybe Northern Ireland is more trans friendly than I realize.
-
Why because it was a person from 800 years ago? Listen we can't pick and choose which cultural appropriation is bad and which is ok. A person's identity is their identity culturally.
No, because the only people that will complete about white male representation are white males.
For centuries, white males have dictated the direction of virtually everything on this planet. From governance to storytelling to education, virtually all facets of western civilization have been dominated by white male cis voices.
I understand it's difficult for white males that are used to dominating every discussion to take a back seat, but the reality is for centuries, the only thing white males haven't taken the lead in is listening. So in terms of representation, it is more important to allow other stories to be told and allow marginalized communities to both tell their stories and to take the lead in the telling of those stories.
And I don't mean to single you out, but I think it's important that white males (like myself) spend some more time listening than talking.
I'd say Nanette on Netflix is a great place to start if talking to actual marginalized people in person is too tough.
-
Let's get to something more important. Like people who claim to be Yankee, Cowboy, or Steeler fans when they've never lived in those regions.
Eh ... as long you're consistent and not a fairweather fan, cheer for whoever you want to cheer for. One's fandom need not be predetermined by place of birth (or worse, who your family cheers for).
-
How you cats with Mrs. Doubtfire?
-
Interesting had no idea. Learn something new every day. Then I guess we should all hate in the name of the father as it's a guy from England portraying a currently marginalized group. Look I'm being a bit facetious purposely. I disagree with actors putting on black face and such but things like sexuality etc are things you can study to "act" let the world decide if they did a good or appropriate job at it. oh and liam neeson clearly should've played Gerry conlan.
the straight guy who plays the gay guy on modern family does a pretty good job.
-
How you cats with Mrs. Doubtfire?
I thought it was an overrated movie.
-
Of course, everything I am saying is in the context of American society.
Hey... isn't that the society that loves to discriminate against people?
Seriously though, there are trans people all over the world, not to mention underprivileged classes that have been discriminated against for decades and centuries who would probably give up everything they have for the opportunity to be viewed through the lens of American society.
-
the straight guy who plays the gay guy on modern family does a pretty good job.
Samesies on the gay guy that plays TV's biggest womanizer.
(http://badhairdays.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Barney-stinson-womaniser-cheat-name-gif.gif)
-
Day-Lewis was born and raised in England to a Jewish mother.
Meaning that Mel Gibson has somebody else to disparage with anti-Semitic slams.
-
No, because the only people that will complete about white male representation are white males.
For centuries, white males have dictated the direction of virtually everything on this planet. From governance to storytelling to education, virtually all facets of western civilization have been dominated by white male cis voices.
I understand it's difficult for white males that are used to dominating every discussion to take a back seat, but the reality is for centuries, the only thing white males haven't taken the lead in is listening. So in terms of representation, it is more important to allow other stories to be told and allow marginalized communities to both tell their stories and to take the lead in the telling of those stories.
And I don't mean to single you out, but I think it's important that white males (like myself) spend some more time listening than talking.
I'd say Nanette on Netflix is a great place to start if talking to actual marginalized people in person is too tough.
The problem with this argument is that there is an assumption that this movie even gets made with a transgender actor as the lead. Which is better? No movie since there is no transgender lead? Or movie with ScarJo as lead so the movie gets made and shines a light on marginalized people?
-
No, because the only people that will complete about white male representation are white males.
For centuries, white males have dictated the direction of virtually everything on this planet. From governance to storytelling to education, virtually all facets of western civilization have been dominated by white male cis voices.
I understand it's difficult for white males that are used to dominating every discussion to take a back seat, but the reality is for centuries, the only thing white males haven't taken the lead in is listening. So in terms of representation, it is more important to allow other stories to be told and allow marginalized communities to both tell their stories and to take the lead in the telling of those stories.
And I don't mean to single you out, but I think it's important that white males (like myself) spend some more time listening than talking.
I'd say Nanette on Netflix is a great place to start if talking to actual marginalized people in person is too tough.
You're kind of preaching to the converted here. Your point is absolutely correct but I don't think anyone was in opposition to your position and certainly not me. The trans community should be listened to about their concerns, but we're not even remotely debating that.
-
77% of Americans (including White Hispanics) are Caucasian. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
That interpretation is straight up racist manipulation of facts. It is an attempt at saying that as white people are less of a majority than they once were, it's okay to assimilate a Hispanic culture that has long been and continues to be marginalized and oppressed. Racist AF.
-
You're kind of preaching to the converted here. Your point is absolutely correct but I don't think anyone was in opposition to your position and certainly not me. The trans community should be listened to about their concerns, but we're not even remotely debating that.
I recognize that, your post was just the most convenient to quote. Good for making the statement I wanted to make, but not at all really thinking of you as the primary audience.
-
That interpretation is straight up racist manipulation of facts. It is an attempt at saying that as white people are less of a majority than they once were, it's okay to assimilate a Hispanic culture that has long been and continues to be marginalized and oppressed. Racist AF.
Which, if we all didn't already know it was Chicos, would prove it all by itself.
-
That interpretation is straight up racist manipulation of facts. It is an attempt at saying that as white people are less of a majority than they once were, it's okay to assimilate a Hispanic culture that has long been and continues to be marginalized and oppressed. Racist AF.
I'm sorry you view it that point. There is nothing racial about it, certainly no intent. First, Hispanic is not a race, so I'm not sure how this can be deemed racial. A common mistake where people think Hispanic = race, it does not.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/17/despite-how-the-census-bureau-now-treats-it-hispaniclatino-is-not-a-race/
NY Times, Washington Post and Pew have done articles how Hispanics are starting to choose white as their ethnicity more and more. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/02/a-new-report-says-more-hispanic-identity-is-fading-is-that-really-good-for-america/?utm_term=.3088be8a20ba
My reference to the data was to show the rough correlation between the population and the user's stats on how roles are portrayed by various people. I linked the entire data set, the white Hispanic and also white non-Hispanc were both listed there. Nothing was hidden. Readers can make their own interpretations if they wish, but both numbers are in line with the distribution.
-
I'm sorry you view it that point. There is nothing racial about it, certainly no intent. First, Hispanic is not a race, so I'm not sure how this can be deemed racial. A common mistake where people think Hispanic = race, it does not.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/17/despite-how-the-census-bureau-now-treats-it-hispaniclatino-is-not-a-race/
NY Times, Washington Post and Pew have done articles how Hispanics are starting to choose white as their ethnicity more and more. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/02/a-new-report-says-more-hispanic-identity-is-fading-is-that-really-good-for-america/?utm_term=.3088be8a20ba
My reference to the data was to show the rough correlation between the population and the user's stats on how roles are portrayed by various people. I linked the entire data set, the white Hispanic and also white non-Hispanc were both listed there. Nothing was hidden. Readers can make their own interpretations if they wish, but both numbers are in line with the distribution.
In fairness, Hoopalots has a point here... Hispanic is not a race (as that term has come to be used today), it refers to people hailing from Spanish-speaking countries regardless of their race. Neither is Latino which refers people from Latin American countries, including Brazil. And both terms are generally used only within the U.S... for the most part, these terms are not used in other countries. So someone Brazilian-born living/working in the U.S. is referred to as a 'Latino' within the U.S., but that same person is referred to by people in other countries simply as a 'Brazilian living/working in the U.S.' And if that Brazilian lives/works in Brazil, then all countries simply refer to that person as 'Brazilian.' Likewise, someone of European ancestry who hails from Costa Rica would be known in the U.S. as Latino or Hispanic despite the fact that his/her skin might be as white as North Dakota in February.
Point is, the original definition of race was based strictly on shared physical characteristics which - not surprisingly - correlated strongly to ethnicity, culture, and/or language. Over time, the definition has been whittled down to skin color as races began to integrate and shared physical attributes have become less distinct. But the correlations remained even as those numbers went from 1 to 0, and as such, many people today wrongly associate race with ethnicity, culture and/or language. Referring to the "Jewish or Hebrew Race" is probably one of the most ubiquitous examples of this misconception... there is no such thing as the Hebrew Race, as there are no shared physical traits amongst Jews.
Ironic as it may be, I think the efforts in our society to promote "racial equality" falls short of achieving true diversity and quality amongst peoples insomuch as "racial equality" implies that we need not make any effort to embrace peoples who "look like us," which as Brew indicates, are just as - and in some cases, even more - marginalized as those of other races. Whether it's a Mexican who "doesn't look Mexican" or the trans- co-worker who reluctantly puts on a shirt & tie instead of a pantsuit (or vice versa) everyday, oppression knows not the boundaries of race.
But Americans are too lazy to do anything but lump people together in as few boxes as possible (case in point: our two-party political system) as homogenizing as it may be... so, of course, we have this tendency to group people by "race," of which there are really only a handful, despite the fact that if we took the time to jot down all of the marginalized groups in our global society, not only would there be several score of them, but every race would be represented.
-
The word "race" was originally used to distinguish people of different languages, then later to distinguish people of different nationalities. It wasn't until the 17th century that "race" was used in reference to physical traits.
So the "Hebrew race" is an old reference to a group of people that speak the same language; that being the Hebrew language.
-
But Americans are too lazy to do anything but lump people together in as few boxes as possible
Although I agreed with most of your post, Benny Boy, I had to laugh at this unintentionally ironic statement.
-
Although I agreed with most of your post, Benny Boy, I had to laugh at this unintentionally ironic statement.
Hahahahahaha good find! :)
-
How is this a 6 page thread. Not even transgender people care that much. I'm going to assume that the same points were consistently rehashed in regular intervals... With the same crowd baiting the same people.
-
...I'm going to assume that the same points were consistently rehashed in regular intervals... With the same crowd baiting the same people.
Around here, we call that Tuesday. Welcome to MUScoop.
-
In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”
Aaaaaaannnnd, it turns out to be the worst case scenario. Way to go, Academy... with that level of closet racism, you’re now the UW Madison of the arts world.
-
Aaaaaaannnnd, it turns out to be the worst case scenario. Way to go, Academy... with that level of closet racism, you’re now the UW Madison of the arts world.
What did I miss?
-
What did I miss?
Here you go:
https://slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-oscars-new-best-popular-film-category-is-an-insult-to-its-newly-diverse-membership.html
-
Here you go:
https://slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-oscars-new-best-popular-film-category-is-an-insult-to-its-newly-diverse-membership.html
Interesting. I'm not necessarily disputing Slate's claim that the addition of the new category was met with "near-universal derision" (because I haven't followed it closely enough to know if that is true), but I do find it funny that the hotlink for the "near-universal derision" comment goes to another Slate article.
Personally, I see no real problem with creating another category to recognize the "best" of the blockbuster films. Is the suggestion in Benny's post that this somehow makes me a closet racist? I honestly have no idea why. Can someone explain, please?
-
Here you go:
https://slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-oscars-new-best-popular-film-category-is-an-insult-to-its-newly-diverse-membership.html
Thanks for the link, Warriorchick.
I suppose it is tone deaf to do it this year, but I think a popular movie category is a good idea. Frankly, IMHO, The Black Panther is no better than at least a half dozen other Marvel movies. They didn't get nods for best picture and nobody got bent out of shape.
I think a popular movie category is actually a good idea because it might goose ratings of the show. The Oscar winners the past few years don't resonate with the general public and will be forgotten in short order, while stuff like Iron Man and Captain America and The Black Panther will be evergreens. I was going to write half of the best picture winners are pretentious twaddle, but looking at them since 2000 there are a lot of entertaining or just really good movies in there. But a lot of those movies are just a big yawn to the movie going public. Adding a category for movies that people actually like doesn't seem like a bad idea.
-
What did I miss?
Two schools of thought here: 1) ABC (owned by Disney) pressured the Academy to add the Best Popular Film category for ratings purposes with the ulterior motive of benefiting its own studio (that produced such blockbusters such as Incredibles 2 and Black Panther, which are now the favorites to win the inaugural award) and/or 2) the Academy created a "separate, but equal" category for Black Panther to win.
Now, it is quite likely that this all started with the former, but the concern is that instead of pushing back on ABC's demands, the Academy acquiesced because it provided a very convenient excuse for the latter.
Whether or not Black Panther deserves to be nominated (or win) Best Picture is pretty much irrelevant now... in fact, it seems the Academy itself is the only one bathing in irrelevance.
-
Personally, I see no real problem with creating another category to recognize the "best" of the blockbuster films. Is the suggestion in Benny's post that this somehow makes me a closet racist? I honestly have no idea why. Can someone explain, please?
I don't think it's strictly a racist thing, but it's a way of saying "your film is good, but not REAL best picture good." It would likely over time become a category with the following nominees every year:
- Best Marvel Movie
- Best Animated Blockbuster
- Best Non-Superhero Summer Blockbuster
- Best Christmas Blockbuster (Think Harry Potter or LOTR)
- Any other top-5 movie in terms of earnings that doesn't get a best picture nod
The thing is, popular movies have won best picture before, and not that long ago. Titanic, Gladiator, and LOTR: Return of the King (the worst of the trilogy) were all popular movies.
I think where the race thing comes in is they just happen to be creating the category in a year when a popular movie that also evokes a lot of racial feelings, Black Panther, is in the zeitgeist. Had they done this a decade ago, it might not have been as big a deal. But choosing to create this category right at the moment a film like Black Panther is thought to be about to break through looks pretty sketchy.
Also...would films be precluded from winning both? Would a modern day Titanic no longer be eligible for Best Picture because it did too well at the box office?
-
I'm sorry you view it that point. There is nothing racial about it, certainly no intent. First, Hispanic is not a race, so I'm not sure how this can be deemed racial. A common mistake where people think Hispanic = race, it does not.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/17/despite-how-the-census-bureau-now-treats-it-hispaniclatino-is-not-a-race/
NY Times, Washington Post and Pew have done articles how Hispanics are starting to choose white as their ethnicity more and more. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/02/a-new-report-says-more-hispanic-identity-is-fading-is-that-really-good-for-america/?utm_term=.3088be8a20ba
My reference to the data was to show the rough correlation between the population and the user's stats on how roles are portrayed by various people. I linked the entire data set, the white Hispanic and also white non-Hispanc were both listed there. Nothing was hidden. Readers can make their own interpretations if they wish, but both numbers are in line with the distribution.
So this means one can go on an anti-Hispanic rant and not deserve to be labeled a racist?
I know of at least one tanning-booth regular who would be very happy to hear that.
-
I hope it happens, he would be great.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-idris-elba-as-james-bond-rumor-is-going-around-again-and-people-are-pumped_us_5b6d944ee4b0530743c9489e
-
I hope it happens, he would be great.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-idris-elba-as-james-bond-rumor-is-going-around-again-and-people-are-pumped_us_5b6d944ee4b0530743c9489e
wow..... this might be enough to fool us. You're not chicos!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Elba is fantastic in Mandela and Molly's Game. I'm not into the Avenger movies that much, but he appears in them. Of course, Stringer Bell in the Wire.
He would be great.