Back Before Things Went Crazy
Nobody picketed the elementary school play because an 8-year-old with a tendency to wet the bed played the part of a tree -- rather than bringing in actual plant life, like a big log or a ficus tree to play the part of the old oak.
Scarlett Johansson has taken on the snarlers attacking her for playing parts that are not exactly her in real life. Caitlin Becker reports in the Daily Mail:
The Tony winner noted that the landscape in her industry has changed quite a bit since she began as a child actor.Recently Scarlett not-so-gracefully bowed out of an upcoming project as a trans character following significant backlash that the role wasn't given to a trans actor.
At first the star dug in her heels and refused to give up the role but in time, the pressure got so intense that she relinquished the role.
She addressed was she called the 'political correctness' in casting without directly mentioning her controversial casting in Rub & Tug.
'You know, as an actor I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job,' she said point blank.
She continued: 'I feel like it's a trend in my business and it needs to happen for various social reasons, yet there are times it does get uncomfortable when it affects the art because I feel art should be free of restrictions.'
'I think society would be more connected if we just allowed others to have their own feelings and not expect everyone to feel the way we do.'
That would require us to treat people as if they were grownups and not giant nursery schoolers.
Oops -- next up, in Variety, in the wake of some "Whaaaa?!" Johansson walks it back. Nate Nickolai quotes her:
"I recognize that in reality, there is a wide spread discrepancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian, cis gendered actors and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to," she said. "I continue to support, and always have, diversity in every industry and will continue to fight for projects where everyone is included."
I like how Caitlin Flanagan put this:
Remember when Hollywood recognized it was making and selling a product? And that product was not its own sanctimony?
Sometime around Sullivan's Travels, Hollywood began thinking of itself as a guiding light in the darkness, a modern-day Diogenes searching for honesty and truth.
Hollywood needs to get over itself.
Conan the Grammarian at July 15, 2019 6:11 AM
"I feel like it's a trend in my business and it needs to happen for various social reasons, yet there are times it does get uncomfortable when it affects the art..."
I'll tell you when it gets uncomfortable. It gets uncomfortable when you've invested years in advancing a standard that is only intended to be applied to political out-groups, and then one day you find yourself in an out-group.
Cousin Dave at July 15, 2019 6:22 AM
Ah, the joy of being a member of the Church of the Sufficiently Woke: you'll never be sufficiently woke to be immune to a bum rush by your fellow supplicants. That Church runs on heretics. If they don't have enough, they'll just make some.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 15, 2019 7:16 AM
At what point does this end?
If a trans character can only be played by a trans actor, can a doctor only be played by a doctor?
I'll stipulate that blackface is insulting and Mickey Rooney's portrayal of the Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's was a travesty. But a role played respectfully, and perhaps sympathetically, is not the same thing.
And, yes, I'm including the Oland/Toler/Winters Charlie Chan movies in that. Although stereotyped, the character was played as a wise and perceptive, not to mention respected, Chinese man at a time when most non-WASP groups in America would have killed for even a mildly sympathetic mainstream portrayal - compare the representation of the Chinese Chan to that of his black chauffeur, Birmingham Brown (played to Step-n-fetchit extremes by vaudeville comedian, Mantan Moreland).
I once answered a question on the Miss Saigon controversy thusly, "If Sir Laurence Olivier can play Othello and Denzel Washington can play Hamlet, both to great acclaim, then a caucasian man can play a half-caucasian character."
It's called acting. Darryl Hannah is not, nor has she ever been, a mermaid. Hugh Laurie is not a doctor and, as far as I know, not a drug addict. William Shatner is not a starship captain, nor a cop. Liam Neeson does not go about killing people who kidnap his wife and daughter. Anthony Hopkins is, as far as we know, not a psychotic serial killer. Eric Stonestreet is not a gay man. Neil Patrick Harris is not a straight man. They're actors playing roles.
Conan the Grammarian at July 15, 2019 9:44 AM
The Master Thespian could teach these shmoes a thing or two.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 15, 2019 10:15 AM
What's interesting is that, these days, movie CGI could be used to darken the skin of a white actor, or lighten the skin of a black one, and the result would probably be quite convincing if it were done right. It wouldn't be like blackface at all; given the CGI and the skills of a good actor, people viewing the movie who aren't familiar with the actor would have a hard time believing that the actor wasn't of the race portrayed.
Cousin Dave at July 15, 2019 10:44 AM
I'll assume, Conan, that your posts were intentional irony. I'm sure you know perfectly well that while it's a cardinal sin for cis-gendered white heterosexual able-bodied actors to play to play non-white, LGBT or disabled characters, the reverse is perfectly fine.
As a recent blog entry of Amy's pointed out, we're letting the most hypersensitive -- or at least the ones who can convince us that he's the most hypersensitive -- dictate the rules.
I don't see why Hollywood is capitulating to this. SJWs can't afford to go to the movies anyway.
Patrick at July 15, 2019 11:27 AM
He who is the most offended gets to tell everyone else what to do or not to do. It's a power trip.
The late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it "defining deviancy down." We're letting the least of us define societal standards and tailor those standards for their own benefit.
Conan the Grammarian at July 15, 2019 1:59 PM
In the case of the Scarlet trans character--now the film probably won't get made or will have an unknown in that role and not make money: great own goal guys.
The idea that a business dedicated to make-believe and even the corruption of morals (for example unneeded nudity) should believe themselves to be paragons of a new morality is simply absurd.
cc at July 15, 2019 2:30 PM
Back Before Things Went Crazy - 1924, Wichita
Let's have a parade
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 15, 2019 2:34 PM
"Scarlett Johansson has taken on the snarlers attacking her for playing parts that are not exactly her in real life."
We used to call that acting.
Steve Daniels at July 15, 2019 3:00 PM
How is the movie about the trans person doing?
https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/1150601283361017857
I R A Darth Aggie at July 15, 2019 5:09 PM
Umm.
Do we think that we want to see ScarJo turn into a guy?
Not me.
Radwaste at July 15, 2019 7:42 PM
18 months before the premiere, moviegoers can vote for the films to receive big-budget financing! Choose—
Crid at July 15, 2019 8:12 PM
That is to say—
I use that quote a lot nowadays. Universally applicable. It's the future. Nobody knows anything.
(BTW, I done been to that hotel... The service is exquisite.)
Crid at July 15, 2019 8:20 PM
I want to see her turn into a guy, I think it's be hot.
NicoleK at July 16, 2019 2:50 AM
What is sand-poundingly stupid about this controversy is that the person Scarlet would be playing was a WOMAN who wanted to present herself as a man. SJ IS a woman who therefore can act exactly as a woman who is presenting herself as a man! It is completely illogical and I can hardly believe it has been taken seriously enough to derail the movie entirely. Are the handful of activists who managed to drive this narrative ready with a slate of great actors who can carry a movie and who are also trans-men???
RigelDog at July 16, 2019 8:05 AM
Leave a comment