I always saw that as a deeply satirical casting, one done deliberately with a wink to everyone.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I always saw that as a deeply satirical casting, one done deliberately with a wink to everyone.
Can I refer you to my post 9847
Who said gay actors can't play straight roles?
Yeah, cause we all know how the dramatic arts holds no appeal for gay men….
Yeah, cause we all know that minority groups get pigeon holed
I think you'll find that the Spartans were as gay as the Athenians and the Thespians
With that logic no one other than Muslims should be able to act in Muslim roles, since they would not know the trials and tribulations of being Muslim in western countries were Muslims are generally discriminated against.
There is such a thing called research for a role. If an actor/actress, whichever religion or sexuality they belong to, respects the role and does a good job portraying it then I don't see any issue.
As a Muslim, my problem isn't the lack of Muslims seen on screen but rather the way Muslims are stereotyped. If a Muslim is cast in a movie but is playing a typical terrorist, that doesn't do any progress for us.
What’s your point? Do you really think gay men are under-represented in the dramatic arts?
that’s a stereotype right there
Surely that's a lack of Muslim casters problem, a lack of Muslim screenwriters problem.
But actors don't just read lines, it'd take way too long to get everything right, they rely on the actor's input, they're improvisation etc
Do you also think there are no gay footballers?
Do you know any actors? Talk to them. Or even someone who went to drama school. You’ll find out how much of a stereotype that really is.
Eh? Weird tangent but ok. To be clear. Men or women’s football? Because it’s fair to say gay men are underrepresented in men’s football but the opposite probably true in the women’s game.
It shouldn’t be controversial to acknowledge these things.
Is it though? Or are they just scared to come out because of the stereotyping and the abuse?
Why is that fair to say?
It's the general wording that you used. Do you mean all gay men are interested in theatre? I presume that's not what you meant, but that's how it read at first.
And it's a bit of a damaging stereotype, so even if it is true that gay men are overrepresented in the arts, it's still a stereotype that I don't think helps anyone, no matter the gender/sexuality.
Ok mate, you don't really know who I am and who I know. I've been in the kinda environments where you meet all the creative people.
So, are actors gay and canvas artists mental?
What about sculpturers? Lesbos? Or guys who fancy tiny dicks?
Dude, slow down and think about your thoughts.
Definitely many of them not willing/able to come out. For the reasons you say. Plus the fact they’re not likely to stick with the sport long enough to compete at a high level. Must be brutal trying to keep playing a sport full of such overt homophobia.
The exact opposite is true when it comes to working as an actor. It’s an industry which has been very welcoming to gay actors for a long time now.
I was just disagreeing with the idea that there aren’t enough gay actors or roles for gay actors. Wasn’t making any kind of deeper point than that.
And also,
Why? I've done it my whole life with racism
Weird rant but ok, whatever.
Why? Why do you need to ask a question with such an obvious answer? And you’re telling me to think more?!?
Why wouldn't they still do it despite the homophobia/racism. feck the haters
I don't think that's true at the very top. Hollywood etc. actors would stay in the closet for fear of damaging their career at least until recently and most likely a fair few are still closeted.
It's not a weird rant, what are the roles for gay men in your opinion? Actors? Gay best friend? Anything not from a Hollywood movie?
Yea so those are issues outside of casting Muslims in Muslim roles. This is what annoys me sometimes about proposals like these, they are PR solutions that don't tackle the real problem and only serve to create an image.
An actors job can be tough when it comes to roles like this, which is why we need to appreciate the effort that goes into it and not just criticize someone just because of their sexual identity.
Which is why the whole explanation by Tom Hanks made sense.
We used to do things, we've learnt some stuff, let's do it better.
He's an actor, he wants the art of acting to get better. Part of that is recruitment. He probably wants better screenwriters, casting directors, tea ladies to be better too
I'd say the average person who'd want to watch a movie like Philadelphia - if you can imagine a modern day comparison - wouldn't be arsed about the background of the person starring in it.
Of course the unwashed masses and their liberal media pals would care mightily but they'd be too busy wolfing down the latest Batgirl flick to catch it.
Of course the unwashed masses and their liberal media pals would care mightily but they'd be too busy wolfing down the latest Batgirl flick to catch it.
Sorry Tom but this will always be for me the
ultimate male relationship on screen.
Think you meant to post this
It’s definitely been harder than it should be for out gay men (and women) to get roles playing straight characters. Thankfully that’s changing. An example being Andrew Scott getting such a great role in Fleabag. A change that, ironically, the notion gay characters must be played by gay actors would actually work against.
Hollywood probably has a way to go on this. Struggling to think of any mainstream American movies where a gay (wo)man has played a straight leading character.
Because I’d say it’s incredibly draining. Not everyone has the stomach for that sort of battle over a long period of time. Becoming a pro footballer is a tough enough grind as it is, without dealing with that on top of everything else.
Bruv, I think I've been doing that for the last 2 hours!I think I'm just typing for the sake of it
It is, but getting to the top of anything is draining.
Some people have more to drain than other people, that adds to the story. You can caste a straight guy in a gay role, an able person as a differently able person, but you are going to miss something
The general sentiment behind what he said (rather than the specifics of what he said) is pretty reasonable and well-intentioned, I think, even thought it sounds a tad divisive at face value. Obviously, actors should be able to understand and empathize with the mostly fictitious characters they play; and technically, portray any one they're asked to while believably becoming someone else. And, their sexuality is no one's business unless they themselves want to publicly share the information — that goes without saying. But if a certain character is part of a traditionally under-represented or mis-represented or caricaturized or tokenized group or sub-culture, maybe the casting directors should have the sensibility to first and foremost look for actors from specific backgrounds as...
- They might have had limited options in the industry, statistically, and you might be giving them a big breakthrough.
- They could bring more to the table in terms of authentic lived experience — which might make a difference.
- The core audience might feel more connected to their work because they feel personally represented in an abstract sense.
You said it better.
Think it's a good piece.