Importance of white representation in fiction

[RobAnybody]

Obviously a work of art can be political. Lots of them are.

"You can't political here, this is the Art Room!"

Are only certain people seeing where @Akka said "Obviously a work of art can be political." Is that quote invisible to some posters? It's bizarre how people keep tilting at that windmill,

I mean, if you want to actually quote "certain peoples'" arguments, instead of constructing some kind of strawman by inserting yourself after-the-fact, that might help.

I mean, if you want to quote "certain peoples" arguments, insert yourself after the fact, & talk about strawman arguments...

 

[Gorbles]

I mean, if you want to quote "certain peoples" arguments, insert yourself after the fact, & talk about strawman arguments...

You're the one doubling down on responding to caricatures of peoples' arguments, after not initially either quoting them or even naming the poster by name. C'mon. Would you want folks to do that to you, in other threads, just because you happened to be on a particular side in an argument? I doubt it.

 

[Senethro]

I mean, if you want to quote "certain peoples" arguments, insert yourself after the fact, & talk about strawman arguments...

Its there, I just don't believe it. All the other words make it look like a lie, or that another undeclared value is coming into play in specific situations.

 

[Akka]

Right. So would be it fair for me to say you think works of art made political are fine (regardless of their politics), but any changing of a piece of work to reflect any other politics is wrong?

That's roughly the gist of it.

I'm really getting the impression that you are effectively saying alterations to an artistic work that you find distasteful shouldn't exist. Am I wrong?

You got it basically right in the previous paragraph, why do you feel the need to twist it now ?
It's not about me finding it distasteful or not, it's about deliberately inserting political message/making alterations born of a political intent that weren't in into the work to begin with.

The problem is the definition between "serving the art" and "exploiting the art" seems to be a personal view you yourself hold, rather than any objective standard (if an objective standard is even possible).

That feels like an attempt at relativism here. Something done on the work because of external reason and something done in the work for internal reason seems pretty clear concepts to me.
One can lie about intent, yes, but I don't really see how both can be honestly confused.
"I want to make the cast more representative" is a pretty indisputably factual example of something not internal to the work but stemming from external reason.

r.e. "everything is political", perhaps the problem there is you see it as conscripting people into some kind of battleground. While that obviously does happen (see: "culture war" rhetoric), to me it doesn't automatically make it so. There doesn't have to be a mandate.

It certainly is exactly what is happening in this thread, though.
And it's not limited to this thread.

You say it doesn't "need" to happen, but that's the very nature of making "everything" political, that any form of disagreement on anything becomes political, and as such subject to political mandate. If you want to claim it doesn't need to happen, you must admit that some things can be NOT political (which doesn't mean they can't be).

 

[Senethro]

Thats all basically an argument against ever adapting anything ever more than 10 years after its original publication.

The performers change. The audience changes. The author wanders off to do other stuff and maybe refuses to take interviews. Maybe even dies. Now who is the "real" judge of what the politics are?

The belief that you can tell the same story twice just by changing nothing is a false one. Its like running as hard as you can on a river to maintain your position!

 

[RobAnybody]

You're the one doubling down on responding to caricatures of peoples' arguments, after not initially either quoting them or even naming the poster by name. C'mon. Would you want folks to do that to you, in other threads, just because you happened to be on a particular side in an argument? I doubt it.

Literally all I did was point out that one poster said "X" & a subsequent poster responded as if the original poster had implied he said "not X". You appear to be either reading waaay too much into my posts or confusing me with another poster.

 

[Gorbles]

You got it basically right in the previous paragraph, why do you feel the need to twist it now ?
It's not about me finding it distasteful or not, it's about deliberately inserting political message/making alterations born of a political intent that weren't in into the work to begin with.

I'm sorry you got that impression. If we agree that you find such alterations wrong, I'm trying to work out what comes out of that judgement. You obviously don't prefer the existence of such adaptations . . . so what's the logical conclusion here? What's the real-world impact, if you could enact it, of you finding such things wrong? If it's literally just "I don't like it", then fair enough.

That feels like an attempt at relativism here. Something done on the work because of external reason and something done in the work for internal reason seems pretty clear concepts to me.
One can lie about intent, yes, but I don't really see how both can be honestly confused.
"I want to make the cast more representative" is a pretty indisputably factual example of something not internal to the work but stemming from external reason.

Assuming this isn't covered by the existing understanding of "anything created is fine, anything altered is not" - and correct me if it is - I personally view in service to and exploitation of as different axes to created by and adapted from (with regards to political messaging in art).

The work is always impacted by any external reason. A part of how a piece of art (whatever the medium) resonates with any given audience relates in part to the relationship between the audience and the art. This is why something like representation matters. If a story is being retold in the present, having some relevant, some lesson, some moral that relates to the here and now (which is why we retell stories in general - because we find something in them we want to retell), that bond between art and audience is at times going to suffer if a purist approach to honouring the source material fixes the story to its original point in time. Its relevance will decrease. This is why adaptations tend to exist in the first place - to preserve a story, but make it relevant for a modern audience.

It certainly is exactly what is happening in this thread, though.
And it's not limited to this thread.

You say it doesn't "need" to happen, but that's the very nature of making "everything" political, that any form of disagreement on anything becomes political, and as such subject to political mandate. If you want to claim it doesn't need to happen, you must admit that some things can be NOT political (which doesn't mean they can't be).

It happens in this thread because some people are actively opposing changes in source material for "culture war" reasons. Consciously. By choice. This happened very early on in the thread (the first page, by my reading). This creates reactions in turn. And sure, assumptions happen as well, from a variety of parties. I've tried to stay away from all of that and focus on the discussion you and I are having. Succeeded, even, for the most part (for once ).

I firmly believe everything is political, or at the very least, art is. And yet I hope you can agree that I've honestly tried to explore our differences constructively and with effort to understand your viewpoint. I hope I'm not bigging myself up there - I genuinely believe I've made that effort. However, my belief sets me in general opposition to you, who dislikes the insertion of politics into art, because it's contrary to everything you expect from such works.

For example, I come from a pretty low-income background, even though I have at least one (maybe two) wealthy relatives. I had a house over my head, and food every day of the week. I wouldn't call myself poor. But I had basically zero disposable income, none of the toys any of the other kids I knew had, less opportunities to go out, go to social events (because they all tended to cost money), and so on. It wasn't my parent's fault - they were concerned with how far they could stretch the money they had. I still had toys. They were understandably concerned with how to eat, pay bills, keep the car running, etc. This fundamentally shaped my outlook towards various things, which was compounded by lucking into going to a secondary school full of kids who were significantly (to ludicrously) more well-off than me. A lot of that was political, regardless of how little I understood of it at the time. It wasn't to do with race, gender, national borders, foreign policy, or whatever. But it was still politics.

Literally all I did was point out that one poster said "X" & a subsequent poster responded as if the original poster had implied he said "not X". You appear to be either reading waaay too much into my posts or confusing me with another poster.

The problem with vague, critical generalisations that don't actually engage with the topic constructively is that more people than you perhaps would like will respond to them. This is why being clear, and actually responding to specific arguments specific posters made, is generally a good way to go. I'm not reading into anything too much, no. I'm specifically objecting to the way you chose to insert yourself, and how you made a complete non-argument whilst doing so.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

A part of how a piece of art (whatever the medium) resonates with any given audience relates in part to the relationship between the audience and the art. This is why something like representation matters. If a story is being retold in the present, having some relevant, some lesson, some moral that relates to the here and now (which is why we retell stories in general - because we find something in them we want to retell), that bond between art and audience is at times going to suffer if a purist approach to honouring the source material fixes the story to its original point in time. Its relevance will decrease. This is why adaptations tend to exist in the first place - to preserve a story, but make it relevant for a modern audience.

This is one of those excuses producers, directors, showrunners, etc. use when they assume their audience is too ignorant or stupid or unsophisticated to understand the original context of a work.

Sure, lots of people love West Side Story - Stephen Spielberg's current production is a remake of a 50-year-old musical, which is in turn a 1950s-style musical adaptation of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

The major plot points are all there (in the 1950s version). Spielberg's version does a bit of a genderswap in order to give Rita Moreno a part, though. She plays the widow of Doc, who in the original movie was the drugstore/soda shop proprietor who is Tony's adult confidant. Doc fulfills the same basic role in the musical that Friar Lawrence does in the Shakespeare play (though of course Doc is unable to conduct a secret marriage; that part is done in the dress shop when Tony and Maria pledge themselves to each other).

It's entirely possible to love the musical without having read or seen anything about the original Shakespeare play. But the experience of seeing the musical is much more rich and immersive because of having read or seen a performance of the original play. People familiar with the original Shakespeare have a greater chance of understanding and appreciating some of the scenes in the musical because they know what they're based on.

Contrast this with the Leonardo DiCaprio movie... modern setting, Shakespeare's dialogue? It's a ridiculous mismatch.

 

[Gorbles]

Contrast this with the Leonardo DiCaprio movie... modern setting, Shakespeare's dialogue? It's a ridiculous mismatch.

In your opinion. Which I think is core to a lot of the thread.

I'm familiar with both Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet in particular, and from that I appreciate Luhrmann's adaptation. You don't. I don't see anything wrong with that. My enjoyment isn't diminished by you not liking it, and it should go without saying you should absolutely be allowed to not like it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

In your opinion. Which I think is core to a lot of the thread.

I'm familiar with both Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet in particular, and from that I appreciate Luhrmann's adaptation. You don't. I don't see anything wrong with that. My enjoyment isn't diminished by you not liking it, and it should go without saying you should absolutely be allowed to not like it.

Show me where I ever said nobody should be allowed to like what they want to like.

There's a science fiction version of a Shakespeare play called Forbidden Planet. It's said to be heavily inspired by The Tempest. I couldn't say personally, since I haven't either read The Tempest, nor have I seen it performed.

There are also multiple re-interpretations of The Count of Monte Cristo, btw. I was first intrigued by this story due to a computer game version of it. Then later, when I was reading one of Ben Bova's Grand Tour novels - Mercury - I realized, "This is based on The Count of Monte Cristo!" Every time I re-read it, I realize that people who are not familiar with Dumas' novel are missing out on an important nuance of Bova's novel.

I wish I could ask Bova why he did this, but can't; he died last year (he's one of the authors I almost got to meet back in the '90s, but he had to cancel his convention appearance).

 

[Gorbles]

Show me where I ever said nobody should be allowed to like what they want to like.

Yeah, sorry, I think I was reading too much into this:

This is one of those excuses producers, directors, showrunners, etc. use when they assume their audience is too ignorant or stupid or unsophisticated to understand the original context of a work.

With Luhrmann's adaptation obviously being a match for this criticism of yours, and me liking the movie. I appreciated Romeo + Juliet largely for the changes it made, and I didn't feel like it treated me stupidly at all. That's all.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, sorry, I think I was reading too much into this:

With Luhrmann's adaptation obviously being a match for this criticism of yours, and me liking the movie. I appreciated Romeo + Juliet largely for the changes it made, and I didn't feel like it treated me stupidly at all. That's all.

You were already familiar with the source material.

And just a side comment about Leonardo DiCaprio: He was young and cute, and was the only good thing about that family comedy show he was on when he was a kid. But in my view he's never had the acting skill to pull off historical characters convincingly. I've seen his version of The Man in the Iron Mask, and the only part of that movie I like is Jeremy Irons. Contrast that version with the Richard Chamberlain one that had an older cast and co-starred Jenny Agutter... and I am livid that I can't find the older version on DVD.

 

[JollyRoger]

If we can cast an oversized oompa loompa as President, I guess anything is a go, though I do like how they kept the hands oompa loompa sized.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I appreciated Romeo + Juliet largely for the changes it made, and I didn't feel like it treated me stupidly at all. That's all.

FWIW, I also really enjoyed Luhrmann's modernized adaptation Romeo + Juliet, its easily my favorite version of the story. Another modern adaptation that springs to mind, besides the obvious West Side Story, was Romeo Must Die, a 2000 film starring Jet Li, Aaliyah, Isaiah Washington, Russell Wong and DMX. This later one has a particular relevance to this thread, since the main cast is predominantly Black and Asian. It was an interesting adaptation, but overall the movie was a relatively mediocre action film. One of the features of the adaptation was that the feuding factions were distinguished from each other with one being black and the other Asian.

I enjoyed the way Romeo + Juliet had done something similar with DiCaprio's Montagues being white, and Leguizamo's Capulets being Hispanic. It simplified the animosity depicted between the factions and made them easy to tell apart. I thought DiCaprio and Danes were both excellent and had fantastic on-screen chemistry. I do think Harold Perrineau stole the show as Mercutio and he was easily one of my favorite characters, although the nurse/sitter/maid Miriam Margolyes was hilarious and Leguizamo's Tybalt was pretty fantastic as well. He was just so believable as a scary dandy-badass and he pulled it off great. It was also interesting portraying the Prince, Vondie Curtis-Hall, as the Chief of Police and making him the other black main character to instantly visually connect him to Mercutio. I think this film was a good example of the casting doing some real work in the storytelling in terms of the race/ethnicities of the characters.

Another thing I loved about the anachronistic modern setting, "swords" become guns, "castles" become skyscrapers, etc., was that it made the Shakespearian script so much easier to follow, because there was such clear, easily understood context. I also loved the outfits and beautiful custom weapons. It added to the feeling that these were two wealthy, noble houses.

And just a side comment about Leonardo DiCaprio: He was young and cute, and was the only good thing about that family comedy show he was on when he was a kid. But in my view he's never had the acting skill to pull off historical characters convincingly. I've seen his version of The Man in the Iron Mask, and the only part of that movie I like is Jeremy Irons. Contrast that version with the Richard Chamberlain one that had an older cast and co-starred Jenny Agutter... and I am livid that I can't find the older version on DVD.

I have always enjoyed DiCaprio as an actor, and I consider him one of the best actors I've ever seen. I've seen a lot of his films and I can't think of a single one where he wasn't excellent. In fact, I think his physical beauty has worked against him in terms of him being recognized for the great actor he is. Its almost as if folks (and by "folks", I specifically mean the Academy Awards voters) penalize him for being so pretty, as if they think he's not really good, its just an illusion created by his physical beauty. I think he's been shafted so many times by the Oscars. He should have at least 6 by now.

I am curious what you mean by "historical characters"? Did you mean real historical people? I actually can't think offhand of many movies where he was playing a real historical person. Obviously King Louis XIV was a real person, but the depiction of Louis in The Man in the Iron Mask was clearly fictional, the man in the iron mask himself, was also a real historical person, but again, the depiction in the movie is not based on the real prisoner, its pure fiction. As an aside, The Man in the Iron Mask is another movie that I really enjoyed. I thought the performances of the cast made lemons out of lemonade as the writing and directing wasn't good. Malkovich was good and so was DePardieu, along with Irons, as you already mentioned. DiCaprio's Phillipe, though good, wasn't his strongest role, but he more than made up for it as he was superb as King Louis.

Again, I've never seen DiCaprio perform poorly in any role, even when he was in a bad movie overall, like The Aviator for example, another time where he played another real life person. On that note, is that what you mean by "historical characters"? Or do you mean characters that are in stories that take place in historical settings? I find that DiCaprio does well as villains. He was absolute gold as the evil plantation owner, Calvin Candie in Django Unchained. And he was born to play Gatsby.

 

[JollyRoger]

 

[AmazonQueen]

Dangerous Liasons worked better than Cruel Intentions despite both being based on the same novel for 2 reasons, 1 being the story didn't work as well set in the modern day due to social disgrace not being quite as life destroying as it was in the 18th century, the 2nd and more important being it was just a better film. Better director, writing and acting.
Clueless works perfectly well as a modern day version of Emma because the themes of the novel are timeless.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

FWIW, I also really enjoyed Luhrmann's modernized adaptation Romeo + Juliet, its easily my favorite version of the story. Another modern adaptation that springs to mind, besides the obvious West Side Story, was Romeo Must Die, a 2000 film starring Jet Li, Aaliyah, Isaiah Washington, Russell Wong and DMX. This later one has a particular relevance to this thread, since the main cast is predominantly Black and Asian. It was an interesting adaptation, but overall the movie was a relatively mediocre action film. One of the features of the adaptation was that the feuding factions were distinguished from each other with one being black and the other Asian.

This is a clip of the street fight between Mercutio (played by John McEnery) and Tybalt (played by Michael York) in the 1968 movie. Romeo was played by Leonard Whiting. This happens after the party at the Capulet home when Romeo crashed it and he and Juliet met and danced. Tybalt is still livid that Romeo did that, and Juliet's parents allowed it (it would have been rude and uncouth to throw the party-crashing Montagues out, as long as they were behaving themselves).

Honestly, it's not hard to tell the two factions apart. The Capulets are dressed in bright colors, and their clothes are better-made, with richer fabrics. The Montagues are more drab, with less-rich clothing.

I enjoyed the way Romeo + Juliet had done something similar with DiCaprio's Montagues being white, and Leguizamo's Capulets being Hispanic. It simplified the animosity depicted between the factions and made them easy to tell apart. I thought DiCaprio and Danes were both excellent and had fantastic on-screen chemistry. I do think Harold Perrineau stole the show as Mercutio and he was easily one of my favorite characters, although the nurse was hilarious and Leguizamo's Tybalt was pretty fantastic as well. He was just so believable as a scary dandy-badass and he pulled it off great. It was also interesting portraying the Prince as the Chief of Police and making him the other black main character to instantly visually connect him to Mercutio. I think this film was a good example of the casting doing some real work in the storytelling in terms of the race/ethnicities of the characters.

The original play wasn't about race being the reason for the two families feuding.

Another thing I loved about the anachronistic modern setting, "swords" become guns, "castles" become skyscrapers, etc., was that it made the Shakespearian script so much easier to follow, because there was such clear, easily understood context. I also loved the outfits and beautiful custom weapons. It added to the feeling that these were two wealthy, noble houses.I have always enjoyed DiCaprio as an actor, and I consider him one of the best actors I've ever seen. I've seen a lot of his films and I can't think of a single one where he wasn't excellent. In fact, I think his physical beauty has worked against him in terms of him being recognized for the great actor he is. Its almost as if folks (and by "folks", I specifically mean the Academy Awards voters) penalize him for being so pretty, as if they think he's not really good, its just an illusion created by his physical beauty. I think he's been shafted so many times by the Oscars. He should have at least 6 by now.

Guns don't make one noble, since literally anyone can own one provided they get through the red tape for the permit (or just buy one on the black market), whereas in some historical eras and settings, you had to be wealthy and/or the correct rank to be permitted to own and use a sword.

I have honestly never thought of Leonardo DiCaprio as "beautiful." He's not hideous or ugly, but beautiful? Cute during his younger years, reasonably handsome now. Yes, he's got talent, but he can also be a little weird. He was filming a movie near Calgary some years ago, in the winter. Well, one of the thing that happens in that region of the province is something I've mentioned a few times here on CFC: Chinooks. Those happen when warm air from the Pacific blows over the Rockies. The west side of the mountains gets the precipitation, and the east side (in southern/central Alberta) gets the warm air. This means that it could be -20 in the morning and shirtsleeve weather by afternoon. Chinooks can happen fast.

So DiCaprio is filming near Calgary in the winter. A chinook happens. DiCaprio freaks out, and suddenly he's on social media, shouting to the world that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL - HE'S JUST SEEN IT FOR HIMSELF!

I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read that. The locals did get him calmed down enough to explain that chinooks happen every winter, and it would get cold again in a few days.

I am curious what you mean by "historical characters"? Did you mean real historical people? I actually can't think offhand of many movies where he was playing a real historical person. Obviously King Louis XIV was a real person, but the depiction of Louis in The Man in the Iron Mask was clearly fictional, the man in the iron mask himself, was also a real historical person, but again, the depiction in the movie is not based on the real prisoner, its pure fiction. As an aside, The Man in the Iron Mask is another movie that I really enjoyed. I thought the performances of the cast made lemons out of lemonade as the writing and directing wasn't good. Malkovich was good and so was DePardieu, along with Irons, as you already mentioned. DiCaprio's Phillipe, though good, wasn't his strongest role, but he more than made up for it as he was superb as King Louis.

Again, I've never seen DiCaprio perform poorly in any role, even when he was in a bad movie overall, like The Aviator for example, another time where he played another real life person. On that note, is that what you mean by "historical characters"? Or do you mean characters that are in stories that take place in historical settings? I find that DiCaprio does well as villains. He was absolute gold as the evil plantation owner, Calvin Candie in Django Unchained. And he was born to play Gatsby.

I'll admit to being curious about the Gatsby movie. I have a computer game based on the book, so I'm somewhat familiar with the characters and plot.

I'm obviously referring to historical settings, though of course King Louis was a real person.

The thing about the two versions of Man in the Iron Mask is that DiCaprio's is too Hollywood-modern to appeal to me. It's like watching something from outside, rather than becoming immersed in it. And take the young woman who kills herself... is that supposed to be the same character Jenny Agutter plays in the earlier movie? Since when do historical dramas show someone's suicide in a way that it comes off as a quick laugh, rather than as a tragedy? That was some really terrible directing there.

And... WOOT! Someone uploaded it! (the Richard Chamberlain version) I am definitely going to enjoy this.

 

[Sommerswerd]

This is a clip of the street fight between Mercutio (played by John McEnery) and Tybalt (played by Michael York) in the 1968 movie. Romeo was played by Leonard Whiting. This happens after the party at the Capulet home when Romeo crashed it and he and Juliet met and danced. Tybalt is still livid that Romeo did that, and Juliet's parents allowed it (it would have been rude and uncouth to throw the party-crashing Montagues out, as long as they were behaving themselves).

Honestly, it's not hard to tell the two factions apart. The Capulets are dressed in bright colors, and their clothes are better-made, with richer fabrics. The Montagues are more drab, with less-rich clothing.

The original play wasn't about race being the reason for the two families feuding.

Making them different races/ethnicities was just a different take on doing the same thing... distinguishing them in stark terms to make it easy to follow the feud. I liked it. There are a myriad of ways to do the same thing, but maybe, as a Murican, who is used to racial/ethnic divisions/animosity, I could quickly relate to the distinction. Maybe that's less of of a thing in Canada. I've no problem with the notion, for example, that Canadians would relate better to different coloured clothes, than different color people.

Guns don't make one noble, since literally anyone can own one provided they get through the red tape for the permit (or just buy one on the black market), whereas in some historical eras and settings, you had to be wealthy and/or the correct rank to be permitted to own and use a sword.

My focus is on how fancy the guns were. They were all carrying custom made guns with hand painted grips and polished finishes and such. Did you see the movie?

I have honestly never thought of Leonardo DiCaprio as "beautiful."

DiCaprio is objectively beautiful. Leonardo DiCaprio is a sexy man. I struggle to see any legitimate dispute on that. He might be quirky or liberal or whatever, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the man is legit good-looking.

I'll admit to being curious about the Gatsby movie. I have a computer game based on the book, so I'm somewhat familiar with the characters and plot.

He was good in it, and perfect for it, but it was by no means his best role. If you already don't care for him as an actor, I don't know that the particular role would sway you.

I'm obviously referring to historical settings, though of course King Louis was a real person.

OK, then I have to say that DiCaprio has played some historical settings pretty damn well. I already mentioned Django Unchaned, where he sported a decent vaguely southern accent, but he has also done some period stuff like Shutter Island, which was fantastic, despite him playing an ordinary basic northern Murican. The Departed, featured him with a pretty good Bostonian accent, which is another Murican dialect/accent that I don't know how recognizable it is in Canada. I wouldn't call that "historical" though. I guess Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is "histoirical"ish, but there is no question that Titanic is historical... and he killed it in both of those.

And... WOOT! Someone uploaded it! (the Richard Chamberlain version) I am definitely going to enjoy this.

...

The thing about the two versions of Man in the Iron Mask is that DiCaprio's is too Hollywood-modern to appeal to me. It's like watching something from outside, rather than becoming immersed in it. And take the young woman who kills herself... is that supposed to be the same character Jenny Agutter plays in the earlier movie? Since when do historical dramas show someone's suicide in a way that it comes off as a quick laugh, rather than as a tragedy? That was some really terrible directing there.

The Man in the Iron Mask had bad writing and directing. I acknowledge that. But the actors were still very good. You didn't like Malcovich? He was epic! The rage and righteous, careless, vengeance-seeking. DePardieu was hilarious! "*farts* Am I forgiven?" to a Priest?! Who had just waxed poetically about the religious sublimeness of "forgiveness"??? C'mon Valka... you especially can appreciate that, no?

 

[lymond]

. He was absolute gold as the evil plantation owner, Calvin Candie in Django Unchained.

I thought this one his best role, and he shoulda won an Oscar for it

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Making them different races/ethnicities was just a different take on doing the same thing... distinguishing them in stark terms to make it easy to follow the feud. I liked it. There are a myriad of ways to do the same thing, but maybe, as a Murican, who is used to racial/ethnic divisions/animosity, I could quickly relate to the distinction. Maybe that's less of of a thing in Canada. I've no problem with the notion, for example, that Canadians would relate better to different coloured clothes, than different color people.

We've got our racial issues here as well, but it's not the same as in your country. The point is that Shakespeare didn't make it a division between races. He made it a division between classes of people of the same ethnicity. We don't see where Romeo lives, but given the shabbiness of the Montagues in comparison to the glamor of the Capulets in their humungous, fancy house, I think it's safe to say that the Capulets look down on the Montagues as being poorer, low-class, lower-ranked, uncouth, and OMG, Romeo had the gall to spend time with Juliet (at this point they'd only kissed, not slept together).

My focus is on how fancy the guns were. They were all carrying custom made guns with hand painted grips and polished finishes and such. Did you see the movie?

Sorry, guns aren't something about which I notice much detail. I remember the ones we used as props when I worked in the theatre, and am very thankful that someone who actually knew what they were doing regarding safety, etc. was in charge of the gun we used in West Side Story. As for the switchblades, those are illegal in Canada so it's not like we could buy or borrow any. The ones we used were hand-made by one of the tech guys, and he was constantly telling the actors not to play with them between scenes, because they weren't easy to fix if they broke. Again, I was glad not to have to deal with those.

The only times I had to handle weapons was keeping track of Lancelot's dagger and sword in Camelot (I was his dresser, so I told the props crew that there was no time to run around looking for this stuff wherever they might keep it since some of the costume changes had to be done in about 30 seconds flat, in the wings and therefore I'd take charge of them, thankyouverymuch), the gun in Peter Pan (it was only for holding, not for shooting, and no ammunition was ever used), and every night I had to attach a blade to one of the rifles in Jesus Christ Superstar, to make a bayonet for the Crucifixion scene. The rifles were made of wood, so all I needed was the blade and a screwdriver. Just get it done, keep an eye on it so nobody played with it (some actors had to be practically babysat when it came to props - making sure they didn't play with the stuff they weren't supposed to use, and making sure they had the stuff they were supposed to use, at the right time), get it to the actor who had to use it, and take it apart again (we really should have had an extra rifle, but whoever made them didn't realize that one guard would need two types of weapons).

Actually, there was one other incident in Camelot. The props crew couldn't seem to understand that the knights and kings really did need their swords with their costumes, not sitting on the props tables. One night I had to round up the swords, so I had an armload of them with me, carrying them from one part of backstage to the men's dressing room, and one of the actors quickly stepped out of the way, commenting, "She looks dangerous!" (yeah, I was well-armed for about 5 minutes).

DiCaprio is objectively beautiful. Leonardo DiCaprio is a sexy man. I struggle to see any legitimate dispute on that. He might be quirky or liberal or whatever, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the man is legit good-looking. He was good in it, and perfect for it, but it was by no means his best role. If you already don't care for him as an actor, I don't know that the particular role would sway you.

Simmer down... our opinions differ as to his physical attractiveness. That's allowed. I never said he's not good-looking. I just said he doesn't meet my criteria for male beauty.

I also never said I didn't care for him as an actor. I just don't like him in specific roles - for more than one reason. He's either too young, too modern, not able to bring all the nuances the role calls for, I prefer the older version of the movie, and quite honestly there are historical-era movies where American accents just grate on my ears.

OK, then I have to say that DiCaprio has played some historical settings pretty damn well. I already mentioned Django Unchaned, where he sported a decent vaguely southern accent, but he has also done some period stuff like Shutter Island, which was fantastic, despite him playing an ordinary basic northern Murican. The Departed, featured him with a pretty good Bostonian accent, which is another Murican dialect/accent that I don't know how recognizable it is in Canada. I wouldn't call that "historical" though. I guess Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is "histoirical"ish, but there is no question that Titanic is historical... and he killed it in both of those.The Man in the Iron Mask had bad writing and directing. I acknowledge that. But the actors were still very good. You didn't like Malcovich? He was epic! The rage and righteous, careless, vengeance-seeking. DePardieu was hilarious! "*farts* Am I forgiven?" to a Priest?! Who had just waxed poetically about the religious sublimeness of "forgiveness"??? C'mon Valka... you especially can appreciate that, no?

I've seen Man in the Iron Mask. I've seen Titanic. I've given my reasons for not liking him in the first one. Titanic is historical in the sense that it's an attempt to show what happened. But the fact is that Jack Dawson was not a real historical figure.

I've seen some "making of" videos about Titanic, and it's a fantastically complicated movie from the technical angle (remember, my theatre background is backstage, so I notice more of the tech stuff when it comes to costumes, props, how stuff is done to make things look real). I've seen it a few times, and yes, I've sniffled and cried when Rose realizes that Jack has frozen to death in the water. But I'm not someone who saw the movie dozens of times in the theatre (I've seen it on TV maybe about 3 times? Possibly 4?). And I honestly don't get the obsession some people have with the theme song. I don't like Celine Dion's singing, and I really don't like to listen to her speak.