The stupidity of "appropriation"

[Implode]

I, for one, am really enjoying the direction this thread went. 

[KevShmev]

Yeah, it's not surprising that some want to avoid the actual topic and troll it to take it in another direction.

[XJDenton]

Feeling annoyed that your thread has been appropriated by people, eh?

[KevShmev]

Nah, just amused by a mod trolling the thread and then not discussing the actual topic (which isn't a surprise given how you post about serious topics around here).  I would expect nothing less from you.  Well done. 

[axeman90210]

I would say that A) A serious discussion of this topic is better suited for P/R, and B) Bill Maher and a pointedly partisan (as relates to this issue) thread title isn't the best jumping-off point if a serious discussion is what you were truly looking to foster.

[XJDenton]

Well, I wasn't lying when I said I was going to address the topic more eloquently while sober. I am working on a more detailed rebuttal, I've just been making the most of the rest of my holiday the last few days.

And Kev, if you have a problem with me I am happy to discuss it over PM.

[KevShmev]

I would say that A) A serious discussion of this topic is better suited for P/R, and B) Bill Maher and a pointedly partisan (as relates to this issue) thread title isn't the best jumping-off point if a serious discussion is what you were truly looking to foster.

The lines can get blurry about what belongs in P/R and what doesn't, for sure, but this really isn't about politics or religion, I thought it was fair game for general discussion.

I didn't think Maher's taker was liberally partisan (as he is a liberal), but I would love to see that unpacked a little.

Headed to work, so will be hard to reply till late tonight, but will be interested to hear more.

[Adami]

So I watched the video earlier.

It's a very bad video. He makes a few decent points, but does the annoying thing (which he is DEFINITELY not alone on doing, and plenty of people on both sides do it) of pointing out extreme points of view, lumping all of the less extreme points of view in with them implicitly, and then just calling it all dumb.

There's a real nuanced and interesting conversation to have about this and pointing out that Johnny Depp doesn't ACTUALLY have scissors for hands doesn't help with that.

But there is no obvious answer. Do I care that James Franco is playing Castro? Nah. Mostly cause I don't like Franco and I doubt I'll see it anyway. But that, said I think there IS a line where it becomes a problem. Not because it's offensive, but because of who is not being invited to the table as a result.

Can straight people play gay people? Sure! Plenty of gay actors working playing both straight and gay roles.
Can British people play Americans? Sure! Plenty of American actors working.
Can American actors play British people? Not well, but sure! Plenty of British actors working.
Can cis actors play trans actors? Ehhhh. I mean, they can! But there actually AREN'T a ton of roles made available to trans actors. Some, sure, but very very few. So in this case, it's more a case of trans actors losing roles to cis actors for trans roles. It's not about being offensive, as much as it is making room for a marginalized group who doesn't have much in the way of opportunity.

There are other examples, but that illustrates the basic point to me. Though, unlike Bill, I don't care about what random liberal magazines or actors say. It's too easy to point out a dumb opinion and call it dumb, and thereby ignore the actual discussion. I'd rather ignore the dumb stuff and have the more interesting conversation. Which he showed no interest in doing.

[TAC]

I'm not a Bill Maher guy. That might've been the second thing of his I've ever watched. Yeah, the Scissorhands was an extreme and cartoonish way of making a point, but I didn't really take an issue with his point.

What do you mean that there's no obvious answer? What is the question exactly?

[Adami]

I'm not a Bill Maher guy. That might've been the second thing of his I've ever watched. Yeah, the Scissorhands was an extreme and cartoonish way of making a point, but I didn't really take an issue with his point.

What do you mean that there's no obvious answer? What is the question exactly?

I think the question is "Should people play X type of people if they are not actually X type?"

Like should straight people play gay people? Should white people play Latino people? Should Stadler play someone who is correct? Should men with human hands play men with scissor hands? Etc. etc. His answer of "the point of acting is to play someone you're not" is correct but also missing the point of the issue.

[TAC]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

[King Postwhore]

In time, those who are trans, ect get into acting, then they will have opportunities.   Right now, maybe there isn't enough. People look to push their agenda without knowing who can fill that void.

I also look as acting like a craft. So someone playing s trans person is brave in itself. I hope trans will have an opportunity to play themselves as well as straight because in the end. It is a art.

[Adami]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

I feel like I answered that. But let me know if I didn't.

[TAC]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

I feel like I answered that. But let me know if I didn't.

I reread both of your posts and I guess I don't see it.

So..two questions I guess..

Why does it matter?
What, if you have one, is your personal opinion on the matter?

[Adami]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

I feel like I answered that. But let me know if I didn't.

I reread both of your posts and I guess I don't see it.

So..two questions I guess..

Why does it matter?
What, if you have one, is your personal opinion on the matter?

All of this is my perspective. I am not arguing the same things some other people are. But my issue is when a group of people (say native Americans or trans people) are not getting work because other people (who get plenty of work anyway) are getting those roles instead. Does that make sense?

[Dave_Manchester]

In time, those who are trans, ect get into acting, then they will have opportunities.   Right now, maybe there isn't enough.

This is essentially the starting point of my own thoughts on this issue. In my opinion an artist's primary responsibility is to realising their visions as 'perfectly' as they can. It isn't to 'social progress' (unless 'social progress' is a part of their artistic expression). No writer or film-maker worth their salt ever writes a character whose main defining characteristic is 'gay' or 'trans'. If they are well-drawn characters then they are human beings with thousands of nuanced qualities and foibles that make up who they are and which the actor or actress needs to understand and convey. There's an extraordinary scene in Dallas Buyers' Club (the hug between Matthew Mcconaughey - a homophobic and transphobic bigot dying of AIDS - and Jared Leto - a trans character) that calls for an immense acting skillset on Jared Leto's part. When a director is auditioning for that role, he or she isn't thinking "Is this person trans?", they're thinking "Does this person have the acting skill and psychological depth to summon up a plethora of very complex emotions in a single 10 second scene?" If the director has 20 actors auditioning for the part, some trans, some not, but the one who best portrays his vision for the character happens to not be trans, then the director's duty is to his art and nothing else (I write that as a student of Soviet history, which was a country whose artists were pressured to frame their work along the 'social progress' ideologies of the state).

I obviously agree that we need to work towards a situation where everyone has equal opportunity to work in the arts and go on auditions, but to use another example, if 99 blind men at the audition for Colonel Frank Slade cannot portray anywhere close to the level of acting skill that Al Pacino conveyed throughout Scent of a Woman, then the director - Martin Brest - must go with Pacino, if what he's serving is his artistic vision. The role Brest created in that film does not condescendingly call for "blind man", it calls for "broken, world-weary, angry, betrayed, vindictive, kind-hearted, principled, strong, fragile, psychologically-tortured war veteran who is also blind". It requires an immense acting skillset. IF a blind person has that and the director feels that blind person best serves his vision, he should give him the role. That's what we need to work towards. Not trans or blind people being 'given' roles, but trans and blind people having the equal opportunity to audition for them and display their talents. This to me respects them as human beings rather than seeming to reduce people to the superficiality of their gender or physical (dis)abilities.

[TAC]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

I feel like I answered that. But let me know if I didn't.

I reread both of your posts and I guess I don't see it.

So..two questions I guess..

Why does it matter?
What, if you have one, is your personal opinion on the matter?

All of this is my perspective. I am not arguing the same things some other people are. But my issue is when a group of people (say native Americans or trans people) are not getting work because other people (who get plenty of work anyway) are getting those roles instead. Does that make sense?

Ok, gotcha. And I'm not saying this to be a dick, so please don't take it that way, but sometimes it's tough to decipher your opinion in some of your posts, as you (quite eloquently) provide differing POVs. But sometimes as a couple of guys sharing a beer, I'm more interested in what YOU think.

We might disagree on this I think because I honestly don't care if John Franco plays a Native American.

[King Postwhore]

And I pull for this.  We just shouldn't shame those who are acting these roles. I just hope, more of those who fit these roles from personal experience take these roles.

I also hope they don't pigeonhole themselves as well. It is a ringgit. Explore. Work the craft.

[Dave_Manchester]

I also hope they don't pigeonhole themselves as well. It is a ringgit. Explore. Work the craft.

Yeah, this is another important aspect to this issue. One of the most brilliant portrayals of Hamlet that I've seen - and this is 20 years ago before these issues were front and centre - was by a woman. After the initial 'shock of the new' it at no point occured to me that Hamlet was being portrayed by a female. It was a total artistic experience, one of the finest of my life. The value of art is in the self-discovery and exploration it allows us to engage in as humans. Why shouldn't a woman be able to explore the role of Hamlet or Othello, or a man Ophelia or Desdemona? Let a homophobe study for and play the role of a gay character, see if it changes his perspective.

[Adami]

All of your points are perfectly valid, but rather utopian.

It's not actually the case with many of these roles that they audition tons of people and simply pick the best. Many times they want a big name, almost all of whom tend to be cis/etc. And I'm not sure how many trans people are being rejected from cis roles because they're trans. You'd have to research their experiences. But I would definitely call it naive to assume all of these roles are being cast in good faith and trans/etc. actors would have been chosen if they were good enough.

[Adami]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

I feel like I answered that. But let me know if I didn't.

I reread both of your posts and I guess I don't see it.

So..two questions I guess..

Why does it matter?
What, if you have one, is your personal opinion on the matter?

All of this is my perspective. I am not arguing the same things some other people are. But my issue is when a group of people (say native Americans or trans people) are not getting work because other people (who get plenty of work anyway) are getting those roles instead. Does that make sense?

Ok, gotcha. And I'm not saying this to be a dick, so please don't take it that way, but sometimes it's tough to decipher your opinion in some of your posts, as you (quite eloquently) provide differing POVs. But sometimes as a couple of guys sharing a beer, I'm more interested in what YOU think.

We might disagree on this I think because I honestly don't care if John Franco plays a Native American.

Not a dick at all. I am not generally posting very strong opinions on many of these things. Just not usually my style unless I'm directly asked (with some exceptions).

[King Postwhore]

All of your points are perfectly valid, but rather utopian.

It's not actually the case with many of these roles that they audition tons of people and simply pick the best. Many times they want a big name, almost all of whom tend to be cis/etc. And I'm not sure how many trans people are being rejected from cis roles because they're trans. You'd have to research their experiences. But I would definitely call it naive to assume all of these roles are being cast in good faith and trans/etc. actors would have been chosen if they were good enough.

One can hope that changes.   But it takes those willing to go for it.

[Ben_Jamin]

I am actually pretty glad that more Native Americans are coming up in the acting industry. Starting from one of the first big Native made films "Smoke Signals" to "Reservation Dogs" are some examples of what I think is the better way to come about this. Rather than crying about it, do it yourself.

For me, the entire acting another role is just basic supply and demand. The film demands a certain role and style for the character of the story it's telling. As movies and film is something created by "White" people, "White" people were originally going to be acting these roles. It's what happened with the older silent films (which to me, the western ones are hilarious to watch). Once the other minorities got an interest into producing, acting in films, then the supply was there to start casting them in certain roles.

But, due to political, and other interests, these casting roles do not go out to those people. It's about what will draw the people into the seats at the local movie theater.

[Chino]

I really don't disagree much with Bill's dialog. Actors act. That's the point. However... sometimes it feels a bit wrong. At least to me. Maybe wrong isn't the right word. I don't know. For whatever reason, I don't think it matters that Franco isn't Latino and will be playing Castro. But when I look at one of my favorite movies, Short Circuit 2, I can't say that I completely support that casting choice.

 

The dude in the middle is a white guy. He got done up in Indian makeup every day to play the role of Benjamin Jabituya Jahveri. I'm not offended or anything by it, and I'm not calling racism or anything like that. I just can't help but ask why, when there are so many Indian people on the planet, a white dude got cast for that role.   

Maybe the difference with Franco's role is that Castro was a very specific, well known, historical figure. You cast whoever can play that one individual the best because you want as much historical accuracy as you can portray. With the Indian guy, that was just some Indian guy. There was nothing special about the character. Plenty of Indian people could have pulled off the role just fine. Seems like an extra and unnecessary step to have to do the makeup and stuff everyday.

[hefdaddy42]

One of your favorite movies is Short Circuit 2?

[Dublagent66]

Right, cause the 1st movie was good enough to warrant a sequel.

[XJDenton]

Right, cause the 1st movie was good enough to warrant a sequel.

I mean, yes.

[TAC]

But what's the issue? Why does it matter if a straight guy plays a gay guy? Or vice versa?

I feel like I answered that. But let me know if I didn't.

I reread both of your posts and I guess I don't see it.

So..two questions I guess..

Why does it matter?
What, if you have one, is your personal opinion on the matter?

All of this is my perspective. I am not arguing the same things some other people are. But my issue is when a group of people (say native Americans or trans people) are not getting work because other people (who get plenty of work anyway) are getting those roles instead. Does that make sense?

Ok, gotcha. And I'm not saying this to be a dick, so please don't take it that way, but sometimes it's tough to decipher your opinion in some of your posts, as you (quite eloquently) provide differing POVs. But sometimes as a couple of guys sharing a beer, I'm more interested in what YOU think.

We might disagree on this I think because I honestly don't care if John Franco plays a Native American.

Not a dick at all. I am not generally posting very strong opinions on many of these things. Just not usually my style unless I'm directly asked (with some exceptions).

Well, I appreciate it.

[TAC]

I really don't disagree much with Bill's dialog. Actors act. That's the point. However... sometimes it feels a bit wrong. At least to me. Maybe wrong isn't the right word. I don't know. For whatever reason, I don't think it matters that Franco isn't Latino and will be playing Castro. But when I look at one of my favorite movies, Short Circuit 2, I can't say that I completely support that casting choice.

 

The dude in the middle is a white guy. He got done up in Indian makeup every day to play the role of Benjamin Jabituya Jahveri. I'm not offended or anything by it, and I'm not calling racism or anything like that. I just can't help but ask why, when there are so many Indian people on the planet, a white dude got cast for that role.   

Maybe the difference with Franco's role is that Castro was a very specific, well known, historical figure. You cast whoever can play that one individual the best because you want as much historical accuracy as you can portray. With the Indian guy, that was just some Indian guy. There was nothing special about the character. Plenty of Indian people could have pulled off the role just fine. Seems like an extra and unnecessary step to have to do the makeup and stuff everyday.

Is that Michael McKean??

It does seem kind of dumb to have a white dude in that role. Unless the role is satirical, maybe? I don't know, I've never seen it.


Sidenote:
I'm suppose the robot community must be pissed that some white dude played the robot.

[Stadler]

All of your points are perfectly valid, but rather utopian.

It's not actually the case with many of these roles that they audition tons of people and simply pick the best. Many times they want a big name, almost all of whom tend to be cis/etc. And I'm not sure how many trans people are being rejected from cis roles because they're trans. You'd have to research their experiences. But I would definitely call it naive to assume all of these roles are being cast in good faith and trans/etc. actors would have been chosen if they were good enough.

As someone who agrees with Dave on this point, almost entirely, why is "utopian" bad, especially when the alternative may actually make it harder to achieve that utopia (or something like it).   There are categories that perhaps can't be portrayed; can you have an actor with Alzheimer's, for example, portray a character with Alzheimer's?   Would the resulting art, with a decision made for optical or political reasons as opposed to artistic ones, be better for all of us?   Arbitrarily setting the criteria for the selection of talent - and I use that word precisely - it can be argued does not promote those with that alternative criteria.  I think we don't ever achieve true equality until the "gay", "cis-", and "trans-" isn't an issue, and it won't ever get to that as long as it IS an issue even if that "IS" is meant with good intentions.  We're not doing Jamie Clayton any favors by giving her roles because she's a trans woman, we're doing her favors by giving her roles because she's a great actress (and she is; I loved her in Sense8).  I get (I think, as best I can) the bigger picture, and she's done amazing things by bringing awareness, but she needs to be able to play all kinds of roles - trans or otherwise - because she's eminently capable of doing that. 

[TAC]

That's what we need to work towards. Not trans or blind people being 'given' roles, but trans and blind people having the equal opportunity to audition for them and display their talents. This to me respects them as human beings rather than seeming to reduce people to the superficiality of their gender or physical (dis)abilities.

Amen, Brother.

[wolfking]

Johnny 5! 

[Stadler]

Maybe the difference with Franco's role is that Castro was a very specific, well known, historical figure. You cast whoever can play that one individual the best because you want as much historical accuracy as you can portray. With the Indian guy, that was just some Indian guy. There was nothing special about the character. Plenty of Indian people could have pulled off the role just fine. Seems like an extra and unnecessary step to have to do the makeup and stuff everyday.

Well, not arguing with you or saying you're wrong, but where do we end?   Weren't there enough ugly actresses to play Aileen Wuornos, that Charleze Theron had to get makeup on to play that role?  Weren't there enough fat old Dutch actors to play Colonel Tom Parker in Elvis?  I feel like some of this is (the subject matter, not what you said) more pandering than anything else. 

[TAC]

It's not actually the case with many of these roles that they audition tons of people and simply pick the best. Many times they want a big name, almost all of whom tend to be cis/etc. And I'm not sure how many trans people are being rejected from cis roles because they're trans. You'd have to research their experiences. But I would definitely call it naive to assume all of these roles are being cast in good faith and trans/etc. actors would have been chosen if they were good enough.

To your last sentence, I agree. As far as getting a big name, the film industry is just that, an industry with the goal of making as much money as you can.

Obviously the mainstream hasn't accepted it yet. Didn't the last Disney cartoon have two female characters kissing?

I think a trans person might have more of an opportunity in Independent films. They'll get there though.

[TheCountOfNYC]

I’m friends with a lot of actors, and from my understanding, the general rule is if a specific race, sex, orientation, or religion is an important part of a character or a central part of the plot (like Black Panther being the king of an African nation or the civil rights movement from the 60’s being a key part of Hairspray) then it’s wrong for someone outside of that culture to play the part, but if it isn’t important to the character or plot (like Selina Kyle having been played by both black and white women) then it’s fair game.