460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Jul 4, 2020 17:18:21 GMT
BOM is out to offend everyone. Every person on that stage is a stereotype. Its not singleing any out. Everything that is referenced is based in fact. The line about God changing his mind avout black people was because Mormons wouldnt allow black clergy. Why is that problematic? Xandy - can i ask why your friend deeply regretted being in the show? And I think this is the main reason people are getting upset about some shows being taken off TV, Little Britain & Come Fly With Me especially. (I haven't seen Little Britain, so won't comment on it). The blackface from Matt Lucas in CFWM is of course questionable, but, again, the show pokes fun at everybody and doesn't single people out. I was reading an article the other day that made a good point in saying that had they have not featured a character of colour, people would have accused the show of being racist. An interesting point of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jul 4, 2020 17:42:09 GMT
Ragtime, as I remember, handles the racial issues well.A terrible storyline but it's clear which characters the audience are rooting for.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 4, 2020 17:43:33 GMT
The blackface from Matt Lucas in CFWM is of course questionable, but, again, the show pokes fun at everybody and doesn't single people out. ...which doesn't justify the blackface, which is - with good reason - absolutely out of order. And in that case, it's not something where perceptions have changed all that much over the last decade. The blackface was witless and offensive ten years ago when the show first aired. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jul 4, 2020 17:56:56 GMT
BOM is out to offend everyone. Every person on that stage is a stereotype. Its not singleing any out. Everything that is referenced is based in fact. The line about God changing his mind avout black people was because Mormons wouldnt allow black clergy. Why is that problematic? Xandy - can i ask why your friend deeply regretted being in the show? I was reading an article the other day that made a good point in saying that had they have not featured a character of colour, people would have accused the show of being racist. An interesting point of discussion. If they wanted a person of colour in their show then they should have cast a person of colour. |
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Jul 4, 2020 18:14:12 GMT
I was reading an article the other day that made a good point in saying that had they have not featured a character of colour, people would have accused the show of being racist. An interesting point of discussion. If they wanted a person of colour in their show then they should have cast a person of colour. |
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Jul 4, 2020 18:15:52 GMT
The blackface from Matt Lucas in CFWM is of course questionable, but, again, the show pokes fun at everybody and doesn't single people out. ...which doesn't justify the blackface, which is - with good reason - absolutely out of order. And in that case, it's not something where perceptions have changed all that much over the last decade. The blackface was witless and offensive ten years ago when the show first aired. Sure. Was just saying trying to link it to Mormon. As it was said before, everybody gets their fair share of offensive treatment in the show. Likewise happens in the program. That's what was said in the article. |
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Jul 4, 2020 18:21:40 GMT
Obviously of a very different idea, but I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been a lot of discussion in regards to Springtime For Hitler from The Producers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 20:58:47 GMT
What about TV impersonators would a white impressionist be able to do a vocal impression of Barack Obama or a black person doing Donald Trump for example is that now offensive? As I said, it depends on the intent behind the joke. Yes, absolutely a white impressionist can do Barack Obama - but not in blackface, and not if the point of the joke is simply to make a racial slur. You might think that's a point that shouldn't need making, but the depictions of Obama in political cartoons in the US's conservative media have often been thoroughly vile. Thanks for the reply SF. Clearly anyone doing blackface in 2020 would be totally unacceptable. With the more recent occurrences being called out I haven't heard Robert Downey Jnr in Tropical Thunder mentioned when he was incredibly Academy Award nominated for appearing in blackface although the premise was funny that he'd had some injections to darken his skin and as a method actor stayed like that for so long. The joke could have worked well having Downey play the character as a white guy and then a black actor play the role before reverting to Downey as the darkening faded. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 4, 2020 21:21:23 GMT
Obviously of a very different idea, but I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been a lot of discussion in regards to Springtime For Hitler from The Producers. That's a little different, in that the issue is with symbols rather than with a race. The argument - and I think it still holds up - is that the show doesn't glorify symbols of fascism, it takes the power away from them by mocking them to the point where they look absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2020 23:53:56 GMT
On a funnier note why don't we get some of today's more sensitive souls to watch an episode or two of Love Thy Neighbour we'd have Snowflakes watching Snowflake.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jul 7, 2020 14:35:46 GMT
Halle Berry has apologised and will no longer be playing a trans character:
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 13:01:03 GMT
Halle Berry has apologised and will no longer be playing a trans character: Does this mean that other parts will be bolted down or would it only apply to certain roles like trans or disabled ones for example? On a positive note Neighbours have a trans character who is played by a real life actress who has transitioned called Georgie Stone and they are featuring her considering when to have her final opp. Apparently Georgie pitched the idea to the show's producers for a trans character and landed the role herself. But would such a well loved character such as Hayley superbly portrayed by the excellent Julie Hesmondhaigh in Corrie now be thought that it should be played by a trans actress? |
|
|
|
Post by cjamess on Jul 8, 2020 13:08:29 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 13:14:53 GMT
BOM is out to offend everyone. Every person on that stage is a stereotype. Its not singleing any out. Everything that is referenced is based in fact. The line about God changing his mind avout black people was because Mormons wouldnt allow black clergy. Why is that problematic? Xandy - can i ask why your friend deeply regretted being in the show? And I think this is the main reason people are getting upset about some shows being taken off TV, Little Britain & Come Fly With Me especially. (I haven't seen Little Britain, so won't comment on it). The blackface from Matt Lucas in CFWM is of course questionable, but, again, the show pokes fun at everybody and doesn't single people out. I was reading an article the other day that made a good point in saying that had they have not featured a character of colour, people would have accused the show of being racist. An interesting point of discussion. When CFWM was on I can remember thinking that Matt playing an Asian guy who was trying to be ghetto was very dodgy but I had Asian work colleagues who thought that was the best character as it reminded them of a younger colleague who tried to act a bit ghetto and he was christened Taaj by them. The Jamaican character Precious was much more of a racial caricature and was at best on very dodgy ground. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 8, 2020 13:17:45 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). One issue through is it can limit the talent pool available for a role meaning high quality productions featuring trans or disabled characters remain rare due limited amount of suitable actors available.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Jul 8, 2020 13:27:07 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. Really any actor should be able to play any part (unless it involves blackface etc) |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jul 8, 2020 14:25:31 GMT
I rewatched Yankee Doodle Dandee last night and there is a short but uncomfortable blackface scene, but then it was charting the history of the Cohans, and they were part of such revues. Do we think that The Scottsboro Boys can be performed again, containing a deliberate and very pointed scene where the black cast themselves adopt blackface - again it was history but it took my breath away. A lot of powerful layers going on in that moment.
|
|
4,988 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 8, 2020 14:45:49 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). Although severe forms of learning disability and autism would need to be acted owing to cognitive factors |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 14:47:50 GMT
Halle Berry has apologised and will no longer be playing a trans character: Does this mean that other parts will be bolted down or would it only apply to certain roles like trans or disabled ones for example? On a positive note Neighbours have a trans character who is played by a real life actress who has transitioned called Georgie Stone and they are featuring her considering when to have her final opp. Apparently Georgie pitched the idea to the show's producers for a trans character and landed the role herself. But would such a well loved character such as Hayley superbly portrayed by the excellent Julie Hesmondhaigh in Corrie now be thought that it should be played by a trans actress? I love that Neighbours are doing this storyline. The actress isn’t the strongest but I love the character and how they’re deliberately trying to normalise the entire situation without shying away from it. To be honest the entire pride week was great - Shelia in drag was brilliant. Hayley Cropper was a unique situation - originally perceived as a novelty character (for an episode or two I believe) she developed into something much more culturally important - national acceptance that she was trans character was a huge step forward at the time and they weren’t afraid to dip into transphobic storylines sporadically along the way either. However there was commentary - particularly towards the end of Hayley’s run that the casting was somewhat problematic. To be honest I don’t know how wide the trans acting pool was back in the 1990s for them to have cast it authentically, but I think we can agree attitudes and the number of trans actors has increased to the point it’s just unacceptable for anyone but trans to play trans. I don’t know where things stand at the moment, but I don’t believe that any UK soap has cast a trans person in a non-trans role yet - which has to be the next step forward (though I could be wrong, I don’t watch them all. To be honest I don’t think Corrie has actually cast a trans actor yet have they? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 14:51:38 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). One issue through is it can limit the talent pool available for a role meaning high quality productions featuring trans or disabled characters remain rare due limited amount of suitable actors available.
There are probably more "suitable actors" than you think - and perhaps you have the impression that suitable actors aren't available partly or even entirely because producers and directors so often default to actors who are cisgendered/not living with a disability/whatever. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 14:55:04 GMT
But would such a well loved character such as Hayley superbly portrayed by the excellent Julie Hesmondhaigh in Corrie now be thought that it should be played by a trans actress? YES. And good as she was, there were plenty of people who thought so when Ms. Hesmondhalgh joined the show too. This is not an opinion that has suddenly appeared overnight. The difference NOW is that people who have power over such things are (finally) starting to pay attention. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 15:04:35 GMT
I must admit on the argument, I think if a character is disabled/trans you should have a disabled/trans actor for the whole (as they hardly get seen and utilised anyways). Similarly you shouldn't have a Jonathan Pryce Miss Saigon moment either (although the 90's were a different time). But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. Really any actor should be able to play any part (unless it involves blackface etc) A trans character is a trans character - they are going to have stories that have to deal with the fact they are trans, and it is problematic in 2020 for anyone who is not trans to tell the story of a trans person. The very fact someone decides a character should be trans is entirely for storyline purposes - otherwise why write it in the script? Otherwise they’d be a cis character and anyone could apply: a trans person applying for a cis role is not problematic, in the same way a gay actor can quite easily play a straight character. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 8, 2020 15:14:28 GMT
But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. Really any actor should be able to play any part (unless it involves blackface etc) A trans character is a trans character - they are going to have stories that have to deal with the fact they are trans, and it is problematic in 2020 for anyone who is not trans to tell the story of a trans person. The very fact someone decides a character should be trans is entirely for storyline purposes - otherwise why write it in the script? Otherwise they’d be a cis character and anyone could apply: a trans person applying for a cis role is not problematic, in the same way a gay actor can quite easily play a straight character. Through this is where the issue becomes more controversial that a minority can play a minority and a majority character but a majority person can't play a minority- weither gender, racial or sexuality.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 8, 2020 15:23:22 GMT
But then by that argument shouldn't trans actors also be able to play cis roles? But if that was the argument then cis actors should also be able to play trans characters. The point is that there are fewer trans roles than cis roles, so where possible trans roles should be played by trans performers - partly because it's appropriate for trans people to be represented when their stories are being told, partly because a trans performer is almost certainly going to do a more authentic job of embodying a trans character, and partly because there are simply fewer opportunities for trans actors to tell their stories than there are for cis actors to tell theirs. BUT at the same time, of course there's no reason a trans actor shouldn't be cast in a cis role. Did anybody care - or, really, notice - when Adèle Anderson played Billie Trix in Closer To Heaven? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 15:34:17 GMT
A trans character is a trans character - they are going to have stories that have to deal with the fact they are trans, and it is problematic in 2020 for anyone who is not trans to tell the story of a trans person. The very fact someone decides a character should be trans is entirely for storyline purposes - otherwise why write it in the script? Otherwise they’d be a cis character and anyone could apply: a trans person applying for a cis role is not problematic, in the same way a gay actor can quite easily play a straight character. Through this is where the issue becomes controversial that a minority can play a minority and a majority character but a majority person can't play a minority. There is nothing controversial about it. The majority of all roles in almost everything are for cis characters. No actor needs to play a trans person to demonstrate their acting ability anymore. I'm not saying actors can't play such parts and do them well (Felicity Huffman was fantastic in Tranamerica, for example - winning an Golden Globe for the part) but any justification applied previously is now outdated. For anyone who doesn't quite get why it's problematic just watch something like Pose, which has a large trans cast playing trans roles. Once you've watched something like that you'll understand why it wouldn't work with a cis cast, and once you understand that, you'll understand why only trans should play trans. |
|
