Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#227143
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:He may not have needed to, but he did.

What do you think of this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/pw ... ly-racist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the middle of the first reply comes the crux of the matter:
Why? it didn't bother anyone before,
It may not have bothered you, but it did bother plenty of people; we just didn't listen to them. You may as well argue that slavery didn't bother anyone.
#227144
I didn't say that, and I didn't ascribe views to anyone else.

Why the fuck would I argue that slavery didn't bother anyone? Talk about produce a straw man argument from the arse...
#227145
storygirl wrote: ben kingsley didnt need to "black up " he is Asian ,(in a definition of one parent being from Asia, in this context his father who is from Zanzibar, a Hindu, and Kenyan by nationality) now why people assume he is white is an interesting debate in itself.
I didn't know about Ben Kingsley's parentage. I know very little about him. I've seen a few of his films and seen him interviewed a couple of times but I know nothing about his personal life.
I assumed he was white because he has pale skin and an English name and I remember controversy about him, a "white man", blacking up to play an Indian icon . Is there something "interesting" about that? Because it seems perfectly natural to me.
#227149
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:I didn't say that, and I didn't ascribe views to anyone else.

Why the fuck would I argue that slavery didn't bother anyone? Talk about produce a straw man argument from the arse...
I meant the comments from that article you quoted, which I reproduced.
#227159
Regarding actors. I was told by an old colleague that acting is one of the professions exempt from (some) racial discrimination laws.

According to him, this was clarified when a white actor lodged a complaint after being turned down for a role that went to a black actor. The ruling was that as the production was a biopic, the director could specify that they wanted a black actor (or white, depending on the subject).
#227166
Andy McDandy wrote:Regarding actors. I was told by an old colleague that acting is one of the professions exempt from (some) racial discrimination laws.

According to him, this was clarified when a white actor lodged a complaint after being turned down for a role that went to a black actor. The ruling was that as the production was a biopic, the director could specify that they wanted a black actor (or white, depending on the subject).
That's right, also the Sex Discrimination Act. Seems common-sense to me.

The Race Relations Act provides for a few, specific exemptions where it may be a genuine occupational qualification to be a member of a particular race. These include actors, models, personal welfare offices and ethnic restaurants where "for reasons of authenticity" a person of a particular racial group is required. It's thrown up some interesting challenges and subsequent rulings. I recall a case involving a Jamaican restaurant in London which turned down a white chef who had worked in Jamaica and hired in his place a chef with no formal qualifications who was African (I forget which country). The rejected chef argued discrimination because the chef they hired had never even visited the Caribbean and knew little about the cuisine or the culture. It was held that there was no discrimination.
#227174
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:What do you think of this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/pw ... ly-racist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I reject that argument completely. It uses a circular 'market forces' argument to justify putting commercial interests ahead of an accurate or potentially empowering representation of an ethnic minority.

Hollywood is hideously white. What black activists argue is that, as a trade-off for film companies making money from appropriating and exploiting black history and culture, non-white characters should be represented by people of colour on the screen. This has positive consequences: it provides lead roles for ethnic minority actors; it allows spectators from minorities to see themselves represented and embodied in mainstream cinema; and it means there ought to be a cast member who is better disposed to correct any subconscious cultural biases in the story than a pissed white millionaire like Dépardieu. The argument that there are no black superstars recognisable enough to market the Dumas film internationally is both irrelevant — who had heard of Marion Cotillard? Jean Dujardin? — and self-perpetuating: if non-white actors aren't even hired to play mixed-race characters, how will they ever break into the big time?

The question of who represents whom is controversial even within minority ethnic communities. There are debates over hueism — the casting of light-skinned actors in preference to darker-skinned ones — and whether black actors should be criticised for agreeing to play stereotypical, demeaning roles such as maids or mammies.

These issues extend to other minorities, too, for whom the blackface taboo does not exist: cis-gendered actors playing trans characters, or the bizarre casting of a series like Lip service, which is supposed to depict lesbians in Glasgow although all the lead actors seem to be straight and English (or Australian). Basically, media companies are still afraid that audiences will not tune in to see a lead character from a minority played by an actor from the same minority. Who are the straight white people going to root for? We must never exclude them.
#227184
Lots of hierarchy and discrimination within the label we call 'black', reinforced by the beauty and cosmetics industries of course. Black people must demonstrate their compliance with white values to reassure suspicious white people — and it starts with appearance. Would Obama have been electable if he were dark-skinned? Would Beyoncé and Rihanna be superstars (or Jennifer Lopez, or Aishwarya Rai)?
Last edited by ezinra on Sat May 19, 2012 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
#227185
Gotta side with ezinra again.

See, I've nothing against straight playing gay or cis playing trans (to use an example) - it can work, and good can come of it. The lady who plays the trans character in Coronation Street, for example, is an LGBT activist and has used that role to help LGBT communities. And, of course, in an ideal world it should be about the quality of an actor, not their history or details. But it's not ideal, they choose cisgendered people over trans for trans roles, and even then trans roles (played by cis or trans) tend to get put into the same box.

That's why I've been very, very wary of the upcoming Hit & Miss drama on Sky Atlantic. A cisgendered woman (from what I saw in the previews, she's *very* good) is playing a transwoman who's an assassin or something. The advert has music with stuff about being a man, there's a line from the show about her once being a man, yadda yadda. Jeez. Give it a fucking rest, we know she's trans, and you've cast her as a sort of morally-grey not-quite-villainess? I'll wait to see what others think before watching it.

I used to believe that, for example, trans can be played by cis or trans. But I came to realise that currently that's not a viable system, because the cisgendered actors will likely get chosen.

But race? It's less something you can brush under the carpet. I think blackfacing, if not racist, is at least a little distasteful.
#227189
Althea wrote:I used to believe that, for example, trans can be played by cis or trans. But I came to realise that currently that's not a viable system, because the cisgendered actors will likely get chosen.
That's it in a nutshell. I overlooked the most obvious example of all: able-bodied actors playing people with disabilities, from Born on the fourth of July down to Glee. As with ethnic minorities, a disabled actor can only ever play a disabled character. An able-bodied actor can play anyone. It's easy to see why disabled roles — of which there are astonishingly few — should be reserved for actors with disabilities.
#227190
satnav wrote:The headline is a bit misleading because in the article it says it was the mother's decision to take him out of school, so he wasn't forced to leave. The head asked the boy to remove the make up but the boys mum told her son to ignore the instruction, if the parent doesn't recognise the authority of the head then perhaps she should take her son to a different school.
Interesting selection of links in the "See also" section.
What kind of narrative are they creatnig for their american audience?
More...
Trayvon Martin had drugs in his system the night he was shot, autopsy finds
'Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii': President's OWN literary agency promotional booklet from 1991 claims he WAS born in Africa
#227192
ezinra wrote: That's it in a nutshell. I overlooked the most obvious example of all: able-bodied actors playing people with disabilities, from Born on the fourth of July down to Glee. As with ethnic minorities, a disabled actor can only ever play a disabled character. An able-bodied actor can play anyone. It's easy to see why disabled roles — of which there are astonishingly few — should be reserved for actors with disabilities.
Yeah, pretty much. Obviously, there are cases where you need someone of able body/mind to play a disabled role (thinking primarily of The Rain Man and Forrest Gump here), but generally? No, it's taking roles away from actors of those communities - and we *need* actors from those communities.
#227194
The job of an actor is to convince the audience that they are someone that they are not. That is true of all acting roles and can include nationality age and historical differences between actor and character. Why should sexuality be exempt? Should gay actors be prohibited from playing straight roles? I'd have thought that would limit their career prospects somewhat and would certainly be discriminatory.
#227199
oboogie wrote:The job of an actor is to convince the audience that they are someone that they are not. That is true of all acting roles and can include nationality age and historical differences between actor and character. Why should sexuality be exempt? Should gay actors be prohibited from playing straight roles? I'd have thought that would limit their career prospects somewhat and would certainly be discriminatory.
And this is exactly what I believed, but it's idealistic.
The Sun

If David Cameron's memoirs are so poor why did a[…]

Richard Littlejohn

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7471163[…]

Boris Johnson

^^This. All along the Tories have kept saying &quo[…]

The LibDems, generally

Is Swinson safe from the SNP in her seat? She ou[…]