Actors playing characters with which they do not share characteristics

[warpus]

Somehow even Polish movies from the 70s/80s about the Mongol invasions were able to use actual Asian actors, at a time when Poland was like 99.98% homogenous.

Or I'm misremembering that movie

 

[Akka]

And right underneath, where he compares it to things like putting on blackface? Is it an appropriate comparison? Are you saying that we should cast white actors in black roles and do that horrific thing (for the record, I don't think you are)? Or is he off of the mark there?

Sorry, what's the link between you implying that Davies doesn't discriminate, me pointing it's written in huge font right in the title, and this ? You lost me here.
And obviously he's completely off the mark and blackfacing isn't an appropriate comparison, due to the appearance of the actor being, you know, VISIBLE.

And yet they don't. Which is why I tried to ask you how you'd solve the problem.

By making society used to treat people equally. That's the whole points of laws, to regulate how we treat each others, and after a time it becomes ingrained.
You propose to make people stop treating other differently according to their sexual orientation, by making them treating each other differently according to their sexual orientation. How exactly do you think it'll work ?

You constantly ask the question "how would you fix today's imbalance ?", but you failed to answer my previous question : if it's acceptable to discriminate people on the basis of sexual orientation, then why is this imbalance a problem to begin with ?

 

[Chicken Pizza]

Fine. I watch movies to identify myself with the actors, and I'd rather see Eddie Izzard or Eric McCormac in any role rather than Nicolas Cage.

It's a challenge, and probably more interesting than judging.

 

[Zardnaar]

Part of the job being an actor.

Race would be an difference. They should probably cast someone who looks the part espicially for historical figures.

 

[Ferocitus]

Part of the job being an actor.

Race would be an difference. They should probably cast someone who looks the part espicially for historical figures.

One problem is that many old paintings and sculptures are idealised depictions, made to flatter those who could afford to be painted.
Except Federico da Montefeltro, who loved his nose so much he wanted to be painted in profile!

 

[Chicken Pizza]

One problem is that many old paintings and sculptures are idealised depictions, made to flatter those who could afford to be painted.
Except Federico da Montefeltro, who loved his nose so much he wanted to be painted in profile!

View attachment 581720

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Senethro]

Sorry, what's the link between you implying that Davies doesn't discriminate, me pointing it's written in huge font right in the title, and this ? You lost me here.
And obviously he's completely off the mark and blackfacing isn't an appropriate comparison, due to the appearance of the actor being, you know, VISIBLE.

By making society used to treat people equally. That's the whole points of laws, to regulate how we treat each others, and after a time it becomes ingrained.
You propose to make people stop treating other differently according to their sexual orientation, by making them treating each other differently according to their sexual orientation. How exactly do you think it'll work ?

Context m8. The two actions you claim are the same are not the same. If an elephant steps on an ant then I'm going to run and get a first aid kit, if an ant steps on an elephant I'm going to be much less worried.

You constantly ask the question "how would you fix today's imbalance ?", but you failed to answer my previous question : if it's acceptable to discriminate people on the basis of sexual orientation, then why is this imbalance a problem to begin with ?

It is sometimes claimed that the ends do or do not justify the means, but here you almost seem to be saying that the means justifies the ends!

Maybe the ends can be good (or bad) independently of the means???? IDK, this seems kind of obvious.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'm sorry, what?

Paintings are not photographs.

 

[Lone Wolf]

With racial make-up, associations with demeaning "blackface" caricatures and pushing non-white actors out of their profession make it a no-go. Not sure this applies to sexuality - it has the additional spanner that it forces actors to out themselves if they want to play non-straight roles.

 

[Gorbles]

And obviously he's completely off the mark and blackfacing isn't an appropriate comparison, due to the appearance of the actor being, you know, VISIBLE.

So if something isn't visible it's fair game? Why?

Besides, people can often wear things that advertise they're LGBTQ. It's often not some sordid secret that they're being forced to divulge. It's contextual.

You constantly ask the question "how would you fix today's imbalance ?", but you failed to answer my previous question : if it's acceptable to discriminate people on the basis of sexual orientation, then why is this imbalance a problem to begin with ?

I'm asking the question because you're trying silly comparisons like this. It's not acceptable to discriminate. The problem we have is people do anyway, and when a gay guy expresses his opinion that more authentic LGBTQ representation in casting would be good (because the deck is so stacked against them even nowadays), we get arguments like "he's discriminating against straight people".

So I ask you what you'd do to fix the existing problems, because apparently Davies' opinion is not the right way to go for you. So what is? If we agree that discrimination is bad, and you say that Davies is discriminating, how would you go about it? I don't see why you're objecting.

I don't see the need for such a bad-faith justification of discrimination to defend the imbalance I'm pointing out to you.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that both LGBTQ people in this thread expressed views against the article
Not that it should matter beyond showing this isn't some cause shared by every (or even a majority - who knows) one there.

 

[Gorbles]

I think that both LGBTQ people in this thread expressed views against the article
Not that it should matter beyond showing this isn't some cause shared by every (or even a majority - who knows) one there.

Nobody said it was shared by "everyone", but it's a stretch to go from that to "not even a majority". Did you read the McKellen article? I can't imagine a prominent LGBTQ actor more qualified to talk about the situation, honestly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Other thing is LGBTQ actors would get pigeonholed into those roles and excluded from hetero roles yes? Fairs fair after all.

Neil Patrick Harris is gay and he nailed Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother. NPH is awesome though and pulled it off.

So yeah go figure. Stupid idea imho. Right actor for right role let the cream float to the top.

 

[Kyriakos]

Nobody said it was shared by "everyone", but it's a stretch to go from that to "not even a majority". Did you read the McKellen article? I can't imagine a prominent LGBTQ actor more qualified to talk about the situation, honestly.

I didn't. Only because I think that only LGBTQ people should offer their views on an article by an LGBTQ person.
Or I am just (as usual) lazy

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And yet they don't. Which is why I tried to ask you how you'd solve the problem. We don't have egalitarianism. We don't have a true meritocracy (if one were even possible). I'm asking you how you would redress the current imbalance. A gay producer and writer has given his opinion. What is your opinion? There's no magic button that says "magically solve all discrimination forever". We can't fix that overnight. So how would you tackle the resulting issues in casting?

Imagine society had a bit of a problem with randomly shooting left-handed people in the face. Almost everyone agrees this is really bad and really should stop, but you know... it still kind of happens sometimes.

Then a left-handed guy says "hey, maybe let's start shooting an equal number of right-handed people in the face so it's fair!".

The someone else says "Hmm... no, I still think just not shooting anyone in the face would be the best option".

Now imagine someone else saying "And yet that doesn't happen does it? It's no good just saying that should be the best thing when that doesn't happen. If you don't like the idea of shooting right-handed people in the face, what's your solution? You have to have one, or else I can't take your criticism of this plan seriously".

Then imagine what opinion you'd have of that person's critical thinking ability.

Now "imagine" you are that person.

So if something isn't visible it's fair game? Why?

Because... TV is a visual medium. On the day technology progresses to the point that we can see into the minds of the actors then it might become relevant, but at that point the fact that we can "see" that they're pretending about everything that's happening might be a bigger problem.

Theatre is more forgiving, but for Film and TV the standard is towards authenticity. That's what audiences typically want. Sets should be convincing, costumes should be accurate, effects should be convincing, etc. People know what black people look like. They don't look like white people with shoe polish smeared on their faces. A white person with shoe polish smeared on his face pretending to be a black person therefore immediately looks wrong and stupid and shatters the reality of what you're looking at. Since "being gay" isn't a racial or heritable characteristic, it doesn't really look like anything. So a straight person portraying a gay person doesn't have the same effect because they don't immediately look "not gay".

You might as well ask why how effective and convincing a visual effect is matters, but how it was achieved or who achieved it doesn't matter. It's because being "effective and convincing" is the entire point of the visual effect.

I don't for one second genuinely believe you don't know or understand all this though, because it's so ridiculously obvious and apparent.

 

[Senethro]

Imagine society had a bit of a problem with randomly shooting left-handed people in the face. Almost everyone agrees this is really bad and really should stop, but you know... it still kind of happens sometimes.

Then a left-handed guy says "hey, maybe let's start shooting an equal number of right-handed people in the face so it's fair!".

The someone else says "Hmm... no, I still think just not shooting anyone in the face would be the best option".

Now imagine someone else saying "And yet that doesn't happen does it? It's no good just saying that should be the best thing when that doesn't happen. If you don't like the idea of shooting right-handed people in the face, what's your solution? You have to have one, or else I can't take your criticism of this plan seriously".

Then imagine what opinion you'd have of that person's critical thinking ability.

Now "imagine" you are that person.

This is just a restating of "All Lives Matter", isn't it? An insincere attempt to do nothing and earn a halo for it while leaving an issue unaddressed.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't for one second genuinely believe you don't know or understand all this though, because it's so ridiculously obvious and apparent.

I don't for one second genuinely believe you've read my posts with the intention for a constructive discussion, because if you had you'd have picked up on more about the visual angle already. Plus the whole thing about "shooting left-handed people in the face". Yikes.

Go and "imagine" what you want. I'm still laughing to myself remembering your honest and insightful return to the forums, and how "long" that lasted for

"it still kind of happens sometimes" is the most tepid recognition of the widespread homophobia (and transphobia, and queerphobia, and others) still present in the Western world today, by the way. Good job.

 

[GinandTonic]

Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman were on the set of Marathon Man. Hoffman is supposed to have been awake all night, and just come in from a run. Hoffman comes tearing onto the set and demands to shoot now. "I've been up all night and I've done the run, I'm ready". Larry replies "Dear boy, we call it acting".

Richard E Grant plays an alcoholic in Withnail and I, and gives the performance of his career. He was t-total because of his fathers alcoholism. He was drawing from his experience, an experience he probably remembers far better than most piss-artists.

We need to draw in the talent where we can, but it's a murky can of worms.

Back to my gay or cocaine addict for Sherlock Holmes example.

If there is one minority the acting community can provide in abundance it's white, male, bisexual coke addled egomaniacs. Sherlock's good to cast.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that the actor's job isn't to use their own experiences of very similar type to the person they are presenting, but create something from their inevitably different experiences which can stand on its own. This is also due to the fact that we do not see inside their brain. It's a symbol-to-object relationship.
After all, even if one is x, it's not at all enough to present a specific person with x quality.

I think acting is difficult, and it is made all the more difficult due to movies not really requiring actors as much as "natural fits", due to laziness. Then there's also the star-system and "stars" instead of actors. But some real actors do exist, and in my view their work is clearly better.

If anything, my impression is that it is usually only when studios are lazy (more obvious in secondary roles, of course) that they go for the "this person is similar in real life to what the role is about", so if one is a secondary character who is italian-american, just hire some decent italian-american actor, likewise if they are jewish-american etc. But imagine the central role(s) being handed out this way, and if that movie/tv show has any chance of being notable.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't for one second genuinely believe you've read my posts with the intention for a constructive discussion, because if you had you'd have picked up on more about the visual angle already.

Why are you still asking questions with such obvious answers then? "Why does what an actor looks like matter, but his private thoughts don't, when it comes to casting decisions?" is the sort of question that only someone who was unfamiliar with the concept of acting would ask.

Plus the whole thing about "shooting left-handed people in the face". Yikes.

Does "Yikes" mean "I do not wish to address that point"?

Go and "imagine" what you want. I'm still laughing to myself remembering your honest and insightful return to the forums, and how "long" that lasted for

Not sure what exactly you're referring to, but it would appear to be referencing a private conversation with someone else, so that's cool I guess. And if that is what's happening I don't think it's my honesty that should be called into question. But who knows, maybe I made some public post I don't remember. In any case, you wouldn't be the only person to mistakenly interpret an olive branch as some sort of promise to start agreeing with your opinions on everything, for some reason.

I do remember stating (again, in private and not to you) that I would attempt to not get into protracted arguments as much, and to try and back out of things when it looked like it was going that way, more for my own piece of mind than anything else. I also said I would probably not be 100% successful. I certainly never made any promises to be more "honest and insightful", in the first part because I was never dishonest anyway, and in the second part because I'm not aiming to be a spiritual guru.

And frankly I've had far too many interactions with you where you selectively play dumb so that the conversation can't get past explaining the same basic point over and over again, or constantly divert the conversation into side issues so that the actual point gets ignored, lost and buried. Or, you know, making personal attacks that the other person feels compelled to waste their time addressing I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt from time to time, but you just keep doing it, and I've seen other people calling it out as well. If it walks like a duck, etc. So I'm sorry if whatever level of politeness you feel I promised is not being applied to discussions with you, but I only have so much patience.

"it still kind of happens sometimes" is the most tepid recognition of the widespread homophobia (and transphobia, and queerphobia, and others) still present in the Western world today, by the way. Good job.

Hmm, I kind of preferred it when you left it at "yikes". At least that was just an honest refusal to engage, rather than whatever diversionary tactic this is. Not really interested in going down another side road to address your faux outrage. Either address the point that was made or "yikes" it. No skin off my nose.

Either it still happens sometimes, or it doesn't. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree with "it doesn't", so there's literally no disagreement here other than you don't like how I phrased it (in, let's not forget, the analogy). Again you're just quibbling over irrelevant details on the basis that your emotional reaction needs to be addressed, whilst completely ignoring the actual point of the analogy. Boring.