![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I don't know about anyone else? But I feel as if everyone is talking at each other on social media. There's not a lot of "interaction" going on. So I'm trying, with mixed results, to interact with folks.
It works better on Dreamwidth than Twitter. Which is odd. You'd think it would be the opposite - since Twitter is kind of set up for interaction.
Instead people treat it like an insane bulletin board to promote themselves or share opinions. They don't really want anyone to reply to them.
Why am I on it?
I published a book on 2015 and was told to go on Twitter to promote it. Note: unless you have over 1000 followers, that's kind of pointless.
Only really works for pre-established professional writers with big followings such as say John Scalzi or Cat Valente or Courtney Milan.
***
Speaking of Twitter, George Taki wondered if Adam Lambert had a point in regards to his complaint about "Theo James" (who happens to be heterosexual) portraying George Michael, in a biopic. Lambert felt that only LGBT actors should portray LGBT roles. Does he have a valid claim?
Short answer: Of course not. Hello, acting. Also that's discriminatory and counter-productive.
Long answer: If we insisted that only heterosexual men/women play heterosexual roles, we'd have never seen the likes of Montgomery Cliff, Rock Hudson, Barbara Stanwyk, James Dean, Richard Chamberlin, etc.
If we insisted that only LGBT play those roles, we would never have gotten the performances of Tom Hanks (Philadelphia), Hugh Grant, Eddie Redmayne, Cillian Murphy, Annette Bening, and various others.
Acting requires a certain ability to play someone who is nothing like you.
One of the things Hamilton (the musical) did was state that anyone can play any role. Colorblind casting. Then, the musical revival of 1776 did gender blind casting. Shakespeare had gender blind casting.
I don't think anyone wants to slide down that slippery slope - they may not like where it leads. Restricting others rights, whatever your justification, doesn't always end well.
***
Finished watching Do Revenge - it's okay. Kind of...falls apart at the end, in the writers attempt at a happy ending. Up until then, it does for the most part work - although there are plot holes a plenty, and it kind of lost me half-way through. I didn't like anyone, worse, I found them kind of boring? Borrows heavily from Strangers on a Train, but I've seen it done better elsewhere. Actually, a soap opera handled that story rather well in the 1980s.
Goal this weekend is to set up a painting studio in my apartment or the corner of my apartment that I had my work station. I want to start painting the sunflower.
It works better on Dreamwidth than Twitter. Which is odd. You'd think it would be the opposite - since Twitter is kind of set up for interaction.
Instead people treat it like an insane bulletin board to promote themselves or share opinions. They don't really want anyone to reply to them.
Why am I on it?
I published a book on 2015 and was told to go on Twitter to promote it. Note: unless you have over 1000 followers, that's kind of pointless.
Only really works for pre-established professional writers with big followings such as say John Scalzi or Cat Valente or Courtney Milan.
***
Speaking of Twitter, George Taki wondered if Adam Lambert had a point in regards to his complaint about "Theo James" (who happens to be heterosexual) portraying George Michael, in a biopic. Lambert felt that only LGBT actors should portray LGBT roles. Does he have a valid claim?
Short answer: Of course not. Hello, acting. Also that's discriminatory and counter-productive.
Long answer: If we insisted that only heterosexual men/women play heterosexual roles, we'd have never seen the likes of Montgomery Cliff, Rock Hudson, Barbara Stanwyk, James Dean, Richard Chamberlin, etc.
If we insisted that only LGBT play those roles, we would never have gotten the performances of Tom Hanks (Philadelphia), Hugh Grant, Eddie Redmayne, Cillian Murphy, Annette Bening, and various others.
Acting requires a certain ability to play someone who is nothing like you.
One of the things Hamilton (the musical) did was state that anyone can play any role. Colorblind casting. Then, the musical revival of 1776 did gender blind casting. Shakespeare had gender blind casting.
I don't think anyone wants to slide down that slippery slope - they may not like where it leads. Restricting others rights, whatever your justification, doesn't always end well.
***
Finished watching Do Revenge - it's okay. Kind of...falls apart at the end, in the writers attempt at a happy ending. Up until then, it does for the most part work - although there are plot holes a plenty, and it kind of lost me half-way through. I didn't like anyone, worse, I found them kind of boring? Borrows heavily from Strangers on a Train, but I've seen it done better elsewhere. Actually, a soap opera handled that story rather well in the 1980s.
Goal this weekend is to set up a painting studio in my apartment or the corner of my apartment that I had my work station. I want to start painting the sunflower.
no subject
It's an interesting question - I see where he's emotionally coming from - but logically it makes no sense, as you point out.
What about non-Asian actors portraying Asian characters (or non-Latinx actors playing Latinx characters? Should blind characters be only played by blind actors? Deaf characters be played by deaf actors? If the story calls for a character to be a wheelchair user - should they cast only wheelchair users for the part?
The argument - such as it is - is that a blind actor is unlikely to get cast in a role that doesn't call for the character to be blind - it's not likely to be an ancillary trait of a character - so if you *do* have a character where the plot calls for them to be blind - does it not make sense to cast an actual blind actor?
Is it right that as a wheelchair user, you're unlikely to be cast in a storyline, unless it's a major part of your character's plot? Not really.
But is it reasonable to say that if you are casting for a story where the character is Asian/Black/Latinx/Indian - that you cast an actor who matches? Is that any more/less than casting for a certain height or build type or even gender - maybe the character is based on a real person, or the show is based on a play or book that has a lot of description of the character - so people have expectations of what they look like/their ethnic origin.
I do think that sexual orientation is a different prospect - this is acting - the two actors don't have to be physically attracted to each other, to say their lines and flirt - they are acting - so as long as they can pull it off, it doesn't matter if they would be attracted to each other in real life.
Hopefully it goes the other way around - most of the LGBT actors you listed, were not out when they were working - I suspect that even still, if you are out as gay, you are not necessarily considered for the romantic lead in a straight love story. So it's not an equal playing field - yet.
It's all interesting to think about!
no subject
That said? We can't really have non-Asian actors portray Asian roles any longer. Or non-Black actors portray Black roles. But, that's different than sexual orientation. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are gay or a lesbian. At all.
And there are "out" actors still playing straight roles. Matt Boomer comes to mind. As does, the guy who played Sheldon. Sarah Paulson. Rebel Wilson. Kristen Stewart ( she recently played Diana). Wentworth Miller. Neil Patrick Harris. Elliot Page. Jonathan Baily (Anthony Bridgerton on Bridgerton) is also gay, and played the hot romantic love interest of Kate Sharma in S2 of the show.
There's a lot of gay actors on television and film playing straight roles, you just don't realize they are gay. And there's a lot of straight actors playing gay roles.
I think it matters if it is obvious? Or promotes a negative stereotype? I can see why deaf actors may be upset about a non-deaf actor playing deaf. Or Asian actors being upset about it. And I get the trans issues - because that can promote negative stereotypes. Not everyone can do trans well. Hillary Swank, Eddie Redmayne and Cillian Murphy are among the few, non-trans who could pull it off. But Tom Cruise would be insulting, and Patrick Swayze didn't work at all.
But, yeah - I think it matters if it promotes a negative stereotype if you do it, or if it promotes an unequal playing field. Mickey Rooney playing an Asian man in films in the 1960s promoted a negative stereotype - that's one example.
I don't think you can claim that with gay and lesbian though. To date, it hasn't been portrayed that way. Trans yes, but not bisexual, gay and lesbian. If you can't tell unless someone announces it, it's hard to say that its a casting problem. Be the same with say Jewish - you can't do it there either, I mean Paul Newman was Jewish, you can't necessarily tell by looking at someone whether they are Jewish.