Anti semitism

[Puja]

Just for your reference, as I got notifications that I was quoted:

Screenshot_20220108-172110_Chrome.jpg

Puja

[cashead]

Not the same such communities as you, true. There's a lot of slavophobia and sinophobia in the world at the moment, and I spend a lot of time with people from these slavic and asian communities. Whether you'd classify them as vulnerable, I don't know. But they suffer plenty of discrimination, and generally don't have as large a voice as other communities might have.

I can use an example from a recent TV series. Emily in Paris had a Ukrainian character with terrible English and a predilection for shoplifting. The character is played by a Ukrainian actress. The writing and directing is at fault, not the casting. This is where the attention should be aimed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59855440

And that makes denying opportunities for people of colour and trans people to be represented onscreen acceptable how?

[Zhivago]

Not the same such communities as you, true. There's a lot of slavophobia and sinophobia in the world at the moment, and I spend a lot of time with people from these slavic and asian communities. Whether you'd classify them as vulnerable, I don't know. But they suffer plenty of discrimination, and generally don't have as large a voice as other communities might have.

I can use an example from a recent TV series. Emily in Paris had a Ukrainian character with terrible English and a predilection for shoplifting. The character is played by a Ukrainian actress. The writing and directing is at fault, not the casting. This is where the attention should be aimed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59855440

And that makes denying opportunities for people of colour and trans people to be represented onscreen acceptable how?

I don't think they should be denied opportunities, you've clearly misinterpreted me. I clearly stated, and will clearly state again, that I think that how they are represented on screen is the most pressing issue, because that influences greatly how these ethnic groups are perceived within society and directly contributes to discrimination (or has the potential to alleviate it ofc). The issue about employment opportunities for actors from these groups is in my view of lesser importance, but does not mean that it is not important. Just that the main focus needs to be on the issue which has the wider impact.

[cashead]

Not the same such communities as you, true. There's a lot of slavophobia and sinophobia in the world at the moment, and I spend a lot of time with people from these slavic and asian communities. Whether you'd classify them as vulnerable, I don't know. But they suffer plenty of discrimination, and generally don't have as large a voice as other communities might have.

I can use an example from a recent TV series. Emily in Paris had a Ukrainian character with terrible English and a predilection for shoplifting. The character is played by a Ukrainian actress. The writing and directing is at fault, not the casting. This is where the attention should be aimed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59855440

And that makes denying opportunities for people of colour and trans people to be represented onscreen acceptable how?

I don't think they should be denied opportunities, you've clearly misinterpreted me. I clearly stated, and will clearly state again, that I think that how they are represented on screen is the most pressing issue, because that influences greatly how these ethnic groups are perceived within society and directly contributes to discrimination (or has the potential to alleviate it ofc). The issue about employment opportunities for actors from these groups is in my view of lesser importance, but does not mean that it is not important. Just that the main focus needs to be on the issue which has the wider impact.

Aside from the fact that your argument is literally used by white motherfuckers that perpetuate whitewashing, let's take what you're saying to its logical extreme:



After all, it's all about the portrayal, right?

The fact that you're still wrong is entirely beside the point, this is what you're opening yourself up to.

[Stom]

SNIP

Puja

Gotta say, I agree with this.

Representation matters.
But if your group is not struggling to be represented (and I don't think anyone can claim that Jews in Hollywood don't get a fair chance, due to their religion), then cry me a river.

Where I waver is on sexuality, where I think it's important than LGBT+ are represented, but I don't really care if they're represented by members of the community - and I'm not sure if I ought to and I'm just blind to my privilege.
It's more important to me that the part is written and acted well and respectfully.
Where I am sure, is that an actor should not lose roles as a result of coming out.

Of course, there may be an issue that a minority is so small that there isn't the talent pool available (eg, unless/until Elliot Page fully transitions, how many trans-male actors are actually good enough to play a lead role? Or would you be better having a superior actor play the role successfully? I genuinely don't know the answer there).

Did you ever watch Pose? A couple of the actors in that did a very good job, and I'd definitely be up to seeing them in different productions where they weren't playing a specifically written trans-character. That's the only way to tell if they're good enough.

[Zhivago]

And that makes denying opportunities for people of colour and trans people to be represented onscreen acceptable how?

I don't think they should be denied opportunities, you've clearly misinterpreted me. I clearly stated, and will clearly state again, that I think that how they are represented on screen is the most pressing issue, because that influences greatly how these ethnic groups are perceived within society and directly contributes to discrimination (or has the potential to alleviate it ofc). The issue about employment opportunities for actors from these groups is in my view of lesser importance, but does not mean that it is not important. Just that the main focus needs to be on the issue which has the wider impact.

Aside from the fact that your argument is literally used by white motherfuckers that perpetuate whitewashing, let's take what you're saying to its logical extreme:



After all, it's all about the portrayal, right?

The fact that you're still wrong is entirely beside the point, this is what you're opening yourself up to.

When I say that 'as long as the portrayal itself is not offensive', that clearly excludes portrayals using racist stereotypes such as those seen in blackface.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Maureen Lipman can fuck off. She also might want to rethink what she's arguing here, when it's skating so close to racial antisemitism.

Funny how she brings up Ben Kinglsey, who played a Jewish person in Schindler's List.

It's ridiculous. Would Lipman want Jewish actors not to be cast for non-Jewish roles? I think not because that would be antisemitic.

What she's saying is, or is getting close to, discrimination against a non-Jew ie negative treatment of a non-Jew for no other reason than she is a non-Jew. That would be racism (although I suppose the vagueness of her words makes it borderline).

There are several good reasons for some minority roles to be prioritised for actors of that minority. Out trans actors, for example, will rarely get cast in a cis role because of biases, so it feels acceptable to say that a trans role should be played by a trans actor because otherwise what else are they going to get (not to mention that Hollywood insists on casting male actors to play trans women and female actors to play trans men, as if to ram home that it doesn't consider them to really be the gender they present as and they're still a [gender] underneath the makeup). Asian actors have the same - it's rare that an Asian actor gets cast in a role that's not explicitly written as an Asian character (although that is getting better), so it's not unreasonable to get narked at Johansson or Swinton taking those roles. And white actors playing Native American or black characters brings up a whole lot of historical racism along with the above issues.

So, with the above in mind, I don't think that the general principle is necessarily wrong (or racist against white people, wth).

However, the question has to be whether Jewish people suffer the same casting discrimination that other minorities do. Jewish people are very heavily represented in the film and television industry - ironically specifically due to anti-Semitism, as acting, directing, and producing were seen as disreputable jobs in the 20s, 30s, and 40s and thus weren't an industry that bigots fought to keep Jews from being involved in - and I'd question whether Jewish actors need to have Jewish roles protected. The likes of Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Scarlett Johansson, and Andrew Garfield are often cast in non-Jewish roles (in fact, I didn't know any of them were Jewish before googling) and seem to be treated the same as white actors when it comes to opportunities.

So, while I don't agree with the "anyone should be allowed to play anyone; it's called acting darling, you're *pretending* to be someone else" take on the situation, I don't know how relevant it is to Jewish roles. I reserve the right to be wrong if there's something I'm not getting though.

Puja

Needless to say this is a complex issue. I'll attempt to describe my view on it.

In general I'm opposed to positive discrimination - unless there is a very clear need for it - because it makes discrimination on the basis of race (or whatever) explicit, which causes division (easy headlines for the tabloids) and can be misused (as with Lipman).

The particular case of casting is difficult. Actors are unique. Roles are fairly unique too (except in the case of recurring characters). Someone will be cast for a role for a collection of reasons - popularity, cost, acting ability, similar appearance* to character, vocal similarity to character, physical/althletic skills, availability. Clearly, compromises will be made on these points when an actor is cast, and sometimes this will mean an actor of a different race (or other characteristic) getting the role. I think this should be avoided if possible, but I can accept it as one of many compromises in the casting process.

For me this only really causes problems - and so is particularly to be avoided - where:
1) minorities predominantly get cast as villains, or expendable characters,
2) straight, white, cis actors predominantly get the main roles, particularly the heroic roles,
3) the appearance of the actor (even after make-up or CGI) jars with historical facts or looks ridiculous.

And so, invisible characteristics - like sexuality, or jewish upbringing - don't seem relevant to me. If an actor can be convincing (as the race/religion/sexual orientation etc required) and the casting not malign (or glorify) one group to an unreasonable degree, then I'm happy.

Eg Tom Hanks in Philadelphia. Would a gay actor have been a better choice?

It seems to me that the impact of the role, how minorities are portrayed, is far more important - it impacts millions of viewers - than the impact of casting on individual actors. Although casting has a part to play in this, it's more important that stories and roles are created which present minorities more positively (and less invisibly).

NB this debate on casting will be moot when AI actors take over, leaving all humans out of work.

* Assuming the movie is not using color blind or non-traditional casting.

[Puja]

Needless to say this is a complex issue. I'll attempt to describe my view on it.

In general I'm opposed to positive discrimination - unless there is a very clear need for it - because it makes discrimination on the basis of race (or whatever) explicit, which causes division (easy headlines for the tabloids) and can be misused (as with Lipman).

The particular case of casting is difficult. Actors are unique. Roles are fairly unique too (except in the case of recurring characters). Someone will be cast for a role for a collection of reasons - popularity, cost, acting ability, similar appearance* to character, vocal similarity to character, physical/althletic skills, availability. Clearly, compromises will be made on these points when an actor is cast, and sometimes this will mean an actor of a different race (or other characteristic) getting the role. I think this should be avoided if possible, but I can accept it as one of many compromises in the casting process.

For me this only really causes problems - and so is particularly to be avoided - where:
1) minorities predominantly get cast as villains, or expendable characters,
2) straight, white, cis actors predominantly get the main roles, particularly the heroic roles,
3) the appearance of the actor (even after make-up or CGI) jars with historical facts or looks ridiculous.

And so, invisible characteristics - like sexuality, or jewish upbringing - don't seem relevant to me. If an actor can be convincing (as the race/religion/sexual orientation etc required) and the casting not malign (or glorify) one group to an unreasonable degree, then I'm happy.

Eg Tom Hanks in Philadelphia. Would a gay actor have been a better choice?

It seems to me that the impact of the role, how minorities are portrayed, is far more important - it impacts millions of viewers - than the impact of casting on individual actors. Although casting has a part to play in this, it's more important that stories and roles are created which present minorities more positively (and less invisibly).

NB this debate on casting will be moot when AI actors take over, leaving all humans out of work.

* Assuming the movie is not using color blind or non-traditional casting.

You make a good argument and I do see where you're coming from. The writing and general portrayal of the role are going to be the most important thing - I'd far rather have a well-written and acted decent character played by a non-minority actor, than a horrendous stereotype played by a minority actor.

However, if you have a non-minority actor and a non-minority director, then there's a reasonable chance that you're not going to get as authentic a result as if you cast one of the people you're meant to be writing about and it's so much easier to fall into tropes. Which's misapprehension earlier in the thread is a classic example - they genuinely weren't aware that a significant number of trans people just pass as their gender because casting directors think "man in a dress" or "woman in a suit" when casting trans women and men. Hells, I've got an actor friend who's a trans woman who has been turned down for trans woman roles because she "doesn't look manly enough." Or think of Robert Beltran's failure at depicting a Native American (what type of Native American? Eh, I'm sure they're all pretty much the same, said the writers) in Star Trek.

Obviously, if you have Daniel Day-Lewis (or Tom Hanks - haven't seen Philadelphia, but I'll take your word for it), you'd be mad to turn them down. However, not every actor is Day-Lewis (certainly not Scarlett Johansson) and the question is whether we'll ever find the trans/Asian/Native American Day-Lewis if they can't even get cast in roles playing themselves, let alone any other part.

Puja

[Stom]

When I say that 'as long as the portrayal itself is not offensive', that clearly excludes portrayals using racist stereotypes such as those seen in blackface.

So how would someone outside of that community be able to represent an authentic voice for people of colour or trans people?

I'll also tell you right now, as a person of colour, what I don't want is some white cunt being all po-faced acting like their assumptions represents a true, authentic voice for people like me. Because it isn't.

I think the point being made is that when the character has nothing to do with their race, gender or sexuality, it makes no difference. The author/writer simply wrote them that way because they wanted to.

So you get Idris Elba playing Roland from The Dark Tower and that fits, because his skin colour was not important for the character and he was not representing a voice for any people.

Likewise, there could well be other examples. Sure, the chances of a written black or minority character NOT having some kind of deeper meaning is unlikely, due to the nature (and racist history) of literature, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

I recently read an article with Sean Bean, where he was talking about his portrayal of a trans character and how he'd never be allowed to do that now. His point was that he wanted to play diverse characters because that meant he needed to research and truly get under the skin of a character, and that opened up avenues that were previously closed to him. I think that's valuable. If an outsider actually spends the time within a different community, understanding their emotions, their history, their fears, problems, and successes, that outsider is surely going to come away with a more rounded view of the world.

So I am against roles being type-cast.

[Zhivago]

When I say that 'as long as the portrayal itself is not offensive', that clearly excludes portrayals using racist stereotypes such as those seen in blackface.

So how would someone outside of that community be able to represent an authentic voice for people of colour or trans people?

I'll also tell you right now, as a person of colour, what I don't want is some white cunt being all po-faced acting like their assumptions represents a true, authentic voice for people like me. Because it isn't.

How about we take it to another extreme... Hamlet was a Dane, so only Danes can play Hamlet. No Englishman could possibly fathom the Danish mind.

Facetiousness over - I'm done responding to you. All your execrations are such a bore.

[cashead]

Ah yes, the white European male, the least represented demographic in history.

[cashead]

When I say that 'as long as the portrayal itself is not offensive', that clearly excludes portrayals using racist stereotypes such as those seen in blackface.

So how would someone outside of that community be able to represent an authentic voice for people of colour or trans people?

I'll also tell you right now, as a person of colour, what I don't want is some white cunt being all po-faced acting like their assumptions represents a true, authentic voice for people like me. Because it isn't.

I think the point being made is that when the character has nothing to do with their race, gender or sexuality, it makes no difference. The author/writer simply wrote them that way because they wanted to.

So you get Idris Elba playing Roland from The Dark Tower and that fits, because his skin colour was not important for the character and he was not representing a voice for any people.

Likewise, there could well be other examples. Sure, the chances of a written black or minority character NOT having some kind of deeper meaning is unlikely, due to the nature (and racist history) of literature, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

I recently read an article with Sean Bean, where he was talking about his portrayal of a trans character and how he'd never be allowed to do that now. His point was that he wanted to play diverse characters because that meant he needed to research and truly get under the skin of a character, and that opened up avenues that were previously closed to him. I think that's valuable. If an outsider actually spends the time within a different community, understanding their emotions, their history, their fears, problems, and successes, that outsider is surely going to come away with a more rounded view of the world.

So I am against roles being type-cast.

Oh cool, so a cis-het male gets to play a trans woman, while actual trans women lose out on another role.

[Sandydragon]

When I say that 'as long as the portrayal itself is not offensive', that clearly excludes portrayals using racist stereotypes such as those seen in blackface.

So how would someone outside of that community be able to represent an authentic voice for people of colour or trans people?

I'll also tell you right now, as a person of colour, what I don't want is some white cunt being all po-faced acting like their assumptions represents a true, authentic voice for people like me. Because it isn't.

I think the point being made is that when the character has nothing to do with their race, gender or sexuality, it makes no difference. The author/writer simply wrote them that way because they wanted to.

So you get Idris Elba playing Roland from The Dark Tower and that fits, because his skin colour was not important for the character and he was not representing a voice for any people.

Likewise, there could well be other examples. Sure, the chances of a written black or minority character NOT having some kind of deeper meaning is unlikely, due to the nature (and racist history) of literature, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

I recently read an article with Sean Bean, where he was talking about his portrayal of a trans character and how he'd never be allowed to do that now. His point was that he wanted to play diverse characters because that meant he needed to research and truly get under the skin of a character, and that opened up avenues that were previously closed to him. I think that's valuable. If an outsider actually spends the time within a different community, understanding their emotions, their history, their fears, problems, and successes, that outsider is surely going to come away with a more rounded view of the world.

So I am against roles being type-cast.

That would have been the mini series where Bean played a transvestite. That was excellent as was Beans performance. In my view having a top actor give an outstanding portrayal and highlight many of the issues was hugely beneficial and probably ensured that many people watched it would might not have bothered if the actor was an actual transvestite but not so well know, or good.

[Stom]

So how would someone outside of that community be able to represent an authentic voice for people of colour or trans people?

I'll also tell you right now, as a person of colour, what I don't want is some white cunt being all po-faced acting like their assumptions represents a true, authentic voice for people like me. Because it isn't.

I think the point being made is that when the character has nothing to do with their race, gender or sexuality, it makes no difference. The author/writer simply wrote them that way because they wanted to.

So you get Idris Elba playing Roland from The Dark Tower and that fits, because his skin colour was not important for the character and he was not representing a voice for any people.

Likewise, there could well be other examples. Sure, the chances of a written black or minority character NOT having some kind of deeper meaning is unlikely, due to the nature (and racist history) of literature, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

I recently read an article with Sean Bean, where he was talking about his portrayal of a trans character and how he'd never be allowed to do that now. His point was that he wanted to play diverse characters because that meant he needed to research and truly get under the skin of a character, and that opened up avenues that were previously closed to him. I think that's valuable. If an outsider actually spends the time within a different community, understanding their emotions, their history, their fears, problems, and successes, that outsider is surely going to come away with a more rounded view of the world.

So I am against roles being type-cast.

That would have been the mini series where Bean played a transvestite. That was excellent as was Beans performance. In my view having a top actor give an outstanding portrayal and highlight many of the issues was hugely beneficial and probably ensured that many people watched it would might not have bothered if the actor was an actual transvestite but not so well know, or good.

As I said, the acting in Pose was outstanding, and far better than anything Bean has offered up, imo. It was simply an example. And, the character who's name escapes me from Euphoria was pretty excellent, too. And aren't they getting more roles now, which is great?

[Stom]

So how would someone outside of that community be able to represent an authentic voice for people of colour or trans people?

I'll also tell you right now, as a person of colour, what I don't want is some white cunt being all po-faced acting like their assumptions represents a true, authentic voice for people like me. Because it isn't.

I think the point being made is that when the character has nothing to do with their race, gender or sexuality, it makes no difference. The author/writer simply wrote them that way because they wanted to.

So you get Idris Elba playing Roland from The Dark Tower and that fits, because his skin colour was not important for the character and he was not representing a voice for any people.

Likewise, there could well be other examples. Sure, the chances of a written black or minority character NOT having some kind of deeper meaning is unlikely, due to the nature (and racist history) of literature, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

I recently read an article with Sean Bean, where he was talking about his portrayal of a trans character and how he'd never be allowed to do that now. His point was that he wanted to play diverse characters because that meant he needed to research and truly get under the skin of a character, and that opened up avenues that were previously closed to him. I think that's valuable. If an outsider actually spends the time within a different community, understanding their emotions, their history, their fears, problems, and successes, that outsider is surely going to come away with a more rounded view of the world.

So I am against roles being type-cast.

Oh cool, so a cis-het male gets to play a trans woman, while actual trans women lose out on another role.

I could have predicted this response.

That was Bean's response. That it wouldn't get made today due to that attitude.

I think trans women (and men, who you seem to have glossed over in all your posts so far) should be treated the same as any other actor when it comes to casting. But I know that I'm a romantic and the reality is that they DO get passed over. So I completely understand.

I've looked it up and seen that the actor's name is Hunter Schafer, and I'm sad to see they've not been in anything else yet. They're young yet, though. Ditto the two actors from Pose, though both of them have careers outside of acting (singing and modeling respectively, which is pretty good for a pair of trans women).

So I agree that there does need to be more representation for underrepresented groups, I just feel like we shouldn't necessarily be prescriptive.

Though I do get where you're coming from, and agree, I just don't see the same solution as you do. And perhaps my solution is less feasible, but it's not as if either of us is going to have any impact on the casting of Hollywood films.

I would like to see those 3 trans actors in something else, though, they were all excellent, imo. It's just a bit sad that in Euphoria both Zendaya and Hunter Schafer were utterly amazing. One of them breaks into superstardom, the other hasn't made anything else... yeah, that does suck a bit.

[cashead]

I could have predicted this response.

That was Bean's response. That it wouldn't get made today due to that attitude.

It's the response Bean's statement warrants.