I think Hollywood presents a consumable image of what women should be - virgin or whore. I think they create culture; they don't reflect it. I think the culture they create contributes EXACTLY to the sexualization of young girls, the irrelevance of intelligent older women, and the impression by society at large that a woman serves one of two purposes (but never, never both): 1) sexual play thing for man; 2) mommy. I think THAT is part and parcel of a misogynistic larger culture that is responsible for everything from Brittney's 2007 meltdown, to the sexual exploitation and rape of girls and women.
So yes. I actually do think it is completely totally absolutely and in all ways analogous with race issues in this culture. It is the suggestion that the individual questioning the system is the problem rather than the system itself. And to the extent you think I only care about white women in this, I think it's also worth asking why the aged astronaut in Interstellar wasn't black. Because there was a black man in that movie. He stays on the ship and gets old while Anne and Matthew go check out Plant Water. It's all part of the same syndrome which is a white, male paradigm. We can be all cute about it and wonder whether Sharon Stone could have brought some Basic Instinct action to Titanic. Or we can seriously consider whether it is akin to fucking pro-patriarchy propaganda that women of middle age are written out of existence by the men who control our media consumption. I think that's a serious issue. Maybe you don't. Carry on.
Quite honestly, I could give not a single fuck less about Hollywood and what it does which is why, until that nonsense you posted, my posts in this thread were 1-2 sentences. Whether Anne Hathaway gets it or Renee Russo gets it...you could not possibly understand how little I care. Not possibly.
I'm sure you do think it's analogous. Black men dying, old white women working. Totally the same.
Whether or not you personally care, the entertainment industry is hugely influential. It's both a reflection of our culture and something that shapes our culture.
To be fair James Bond is white because that is how he is written in the books, he is a literary character and has a specific description from that used by Hollywood when they adapted them from Fleming's books. Same as Sherlock being white.
To this I say....
And....?
It's not like we are changing the skin color of Jesus.
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
I don't necessarily mind in terms of James Bond since the movies have long since departed from the books but as a book lover I get sooo irritated when they change things in an adaptation, there is a reason that the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies ever you can just about read the book along to the movie
It's not like we are changing the skin color of Jesus.
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
I don't necessarily mind in terms of James Bond since the movies have long since departed from the books but as a book lover I get sooo irritated when they change things in an adaptation, there is a reason that the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies ever you can just about read the book along to the movie
The only reason Sherlock and Bond were written as white men is because we live in a culture and a world and the men who wrote them lived in an era where white man was the default.
There is no reason they couldn't be whatever color now. What the shit?
I can actually think of a number of books and movies that were written for one type of person but cast someone else and did well and didn't change the story. I'm so confused right now.
I will say that Sherlock could not be a black man without some changes. Black men weren't exactly hanging about being respected in Victorian culture. But there were black folks in that era, believe it or not so there you go.
And Bond is a modern character so he most definitely could be black. And I need someone to explain to me how that Astin Martin does all manner of nonsensical things but being driven by a black man is just a bridge too far. What the actual fuck?
It's not like we are changing the skin color of Jesus.
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
I don't necessarily mind in terms of James Bond since the movies have long since departed from the books but as a book lover I get sooo irritated when they change things in an adaptation, there is a reason that the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies ever you can just about read the book along to the movie
So you're telling me Elizabeth Bennet could never be a black woman?
I understand getting pissy when details are changed but not when they are meaningless details. The color of someone's skin is often largely irrelevant to the overall story. At least to the entire point of the story.
If you change out the fuckery Wickham was up to and make him a good guy, then yes, you have drastically altered the book but making the Bennets black? Not so much.
But I think this is an easy viewpoint to have when you're white, that changing the race would be such a fucking hardship that it would so alter life.
But I find that incredibly condescending. Because it's coming from a man who has no trouble getting roles despite his age. Meanwhile, 50-year-old actresses have approximately 3 roles per year to fight over.
So really, no matter how he meant it, it was AT BEST completely tone deaf. Due to his male privilege. So ultimately we're back to sexism.
I would find it more condescending if he hadn't included himself in his comments. Again, I see where you're coming from, it seemed less offensive to me.
I didn't get straight condescention. I saw some guy who has privilege in a sexist industry say that women shouldn't mold themselves to that younger role. Instead to play themselves as themselves. The privilege and assery comes in when he fails to realize how difficult and limited that is and kind of brushes it off.
But again, I have no idea what he's talking about with regard to women trying to mold themselves to that younger role.
To the extent that I see that, it's because it's the only way to work.
He's basically telling older actresses to get over it, which is the exact opposite of recognizing the systemic problem with the industry.
The only reason Sherlock and Bond were written as white men is because we live in a culture and a world and the men who wrote them lived in an era where white man was the default.
There is no reason they couldn't be whatever color now. What the shit?
I can actually think of a number of books and movies that were written for one type of person but cast someone else and did well and didn't change the story. I'm so confused right now.
I will say that Sherlock could not be a black man without some changes. Black men weren't exactly hanging about being respected in Victorian culture. But there were black folks in that era, believe it or not so there you go.
And Bond is a modern character so he most definitely could be black. And I need someone to explain to me how that Astin Martin does all manner of nonsensical things but being driven by a black man is just a bridge too far. What the actual fuck?
Again James Bond doesn't bother me, cast whoever, I actually agree that Idris Elba would be a great choice. And I agree completely they were written that way because their writers were white and the culture is/was white centric. But when they were initially adapted they were taken from the book and the description given. I just like book adaptations to be true to the book, same way I like the actors cast to resemble the description of the character. One of the reasons I was behind the casting of Sam Heughan in Outlander is he fits the description in the book (with the exception of his hair color but that is a very cheap and easy fix) very well.
Oh hey, remember when Cate Blanchett won the Oscar for Blue Jasmine and made a big deal about how there IS actually a market for female-centered films, since Blue Jasmine was virtually an all-female cast? Putting women in a lead role with no male lead to balance it out is a huge risk, if you ask Hollywood. Young, sexy starlets don't have the experience, fame or respect to bring in large audiences (although somehow Channing Tatum does?). And older actresses aren't sexy, so males, who see the most films, won't go see it. Okay.
I don't necessarily mind in terms of James Bond since the movies have long since departed from the books but as a book lover I get sooo irritated when they change things in an adaptation, there is a reason that the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies ever you can just about read the book along to the movie
So you're telling me Elizabeth Bennet could never be a black woman?
I understand getting pissy when details are changed but not when they are meaningless details. The color of someone's skin is often largely irrelevant to the overall story. At least to the entire point of the story.
If you change out the fuckery Wickham was up to and make him a good guy, then yes, you have drastically altered the book but making the Bennets black? Not so much.
But I think this is an easy viewpoint to have when you're white, that changing the race would be such a fucking hardship that it would so alter life.
This is one thing I love about the theater company we have tickets to. They cast actors and actresses of any race in any role. The last play we saw was The Tempest. Ferdinand was played by a black guy while his father, Alonso, was played by a white guy. I mean, we're talking about a supernatural play where the main character is a sorcerer who has fairies at his disposal. The idea that related parties need to all be the same race is kind of ridiculous when that's your premise.
Actually, bringing this back to West Wing, last night we were watching the episode where Mark Harmon is playing Simon Donovan, CJ's Secret Service protection, and he brings his Little Brother from Big Brothers Big Sisters with him to the White House. The Little is black. CJ sees them together and immediately asks Simon if the kid is his nephew. I turned to H and said that, especially over 10 years ago, that strikes me as a little moment that was a big deal. She didn't make a big thing of the kid being a different race and went to the family question first.
I agree with all of that. Which is what I was saying in the industry playing such a strong role in all of this fuckery.
As far as Cameron, I agree she works hard, but she also is primarily typecast to a certain role. You won't see Kate Winslet playing the same role, i.e. The Holiday, because while KW is sexy as hell, she is not viewed as a sexpot like Cameron. Cameron is also not a mother nor married (yet). She is like the female bachelor of Hollywood. Which has aided her tremendously in landing these roles.
KW also works a lot. Divergent series, most recently. But her track record for substantial roles is amazing.
Are you ignoring the weight issue? Because Kate Winslet has been very vocal about the trajectory her career has taken. It's not because Kate just happens to not be the sexpot Cameron is viewed as. It's because Kate isn't skinny, tall, and blond like Cameron. Kate is also incredibly talented. So if you take an incredibly talented actress who has decided not to bend over backwards to keep a skinny figure and a thin actress who isn't good at drama, you're going to have two vastly different careers.
Kate and Cameron aren't comparable and never were.
The only reason Sherlock and Bond were written as white men is because we live in a culture and a world and the men who wrote them lived in an era where white man was the default.
There is no reason they couldn't be whatever color now. What the shit?
I can actually think of a number of books and movies that were written for one type of person but cast someone else and did well and didn't change the story. I'm so confused right now.
I will say that Sherlock could not be a black man without some changes. Black men weren't exactly hanging about being respected in Victorian culture. But there were black folks in that era, believe it or not so there you go.
And Bond is a modern character so he most definitely could be black. And I need someone to explain to me how that Astin Martin does all manner of nonsensical things but being driven by a black man is just a bridge too far. What the actual fuck?
Again James Bond doesn't bother me, cast whoever, I actually agree that Idris Elba would be a great choice. And I agree completely they were written that way because their writers were white and the culture is/was white centric. But when they were initially adapted they were taken from the book and the description given. I just like book adaptations to be true to the book, same way I like the actors cast to resemble the description of the character. One of the reasons I was behind the casting of Sam Heughan in Outlander is he fits the description in the book (with the exception of his hair color but that is a very cheap and easy fix) very well.
Honestly, film is a different medium from literature. The reason the BBC Pride and Prejudice is so close to the book is because it's 6 damn hours long (or 9?). I have no problem with directors putting their own spin and interpretation on a book. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the book any less (though it might affect my enjoyment of the movie, depending on what they do). The third Harry Potter movie is my favorite, even though it's not a scene-by-scene recreation of the book. I just think it's a good film in and of itself. If I wanted something that was the same, I'd read the book again. Or listen to the audio version.
Most films adapted from books are 2 hours or so, because people don't like really long movies. The James Bond films are all 2 to 2-1/2 hours. Some of them aren't even based on the books (or short stories) because they kind of ran out of books. Bond is described as being half Scottish and half Swiss. Black people live in both those countries. Okay, less likely for Switzerland. But still, there's nothing saying he can't be bi-racial, and the son of a black Scotsman. And while his family background comes into play slightly, sometimes, again, that can be changed. His profession and demeanor are not only something attributed to white people.
The only reason Sherlock and Bond were written as white men is because we live in a culture and a world and the men who wrote them lived in an era where white man was the default.
There is no reason they couldn't be whatever color now. What the shit?
I can actually think of a number of books and movies that were written for one type of person but cast someone else and did well and didn't change the story. I'm so confused right now.
I will say that Sherlock could not be a black man without some changes. Black men weren't exactly hanging about being respected in Victorian culture. But there were black folks in that era, believe it or not so there you go.
And Bond is a modern character so he most definitely could be black. And I need someone to explain to me how that Astin Martin does all manner of nonsensical things but being driven by a black man is just a bridge too far. What the actual fuck?
Again James Bond doesn't bother me, cast whoever, I actually agree that Idris Elba would be a great choice. And I agree completely they were written that way because their writers were white and the culture is/was white centric. But when they were initially adapted they were taken from the book and the description given. I just like book adaptations to be true to the book, same way I like the actors cast to resemble the description of the character. One of the reasons I was behind the casting of Sam Heughan in Outlander is he fits the description in the book (with the exception of his hair color but that is a very cheap and easy fix) very well.
I really need you to hush it right now.
Or at least recognize the incredibly amounts of insulting white privilege you just spouted.
Because whether you realize it or not, you're espousing the continuation of a European dominated culture and society just because you wanna see on screen what you've built up in your head.
I don't necessarily mind in terms of James Bond since the movies have long since departed from the books but as a book lover I get sooo irritated when they change things in an adaptation, there is a reason that the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorite movies ever you can just about read the book along to the movie
So you're telling me Elizabeth Bennet could never be a black woman?
I understand getting pissy when details are changed but not when they are meaningless details. The color of someone's skin is often largely irrelevant to the overall story. At least to the entire point of the story.
If you change out the fuckery Wickham was up to and make him a good guy, then yes, you have drastically altered the book but making the Bennets black? Not so much.
But I think this is an easy viewpoint to have when you're white, that changing the race would be such a fucking hardship that it would so alter life.
At that time period in that place no the Bennets would not be black it is just historically almost impossible for Britain at the time and you would have to suspend a great deal of disbelief to ignore the realities of the time period in which it is set. Now you could do a modern adaptation and work around that without any trouble but for a true adaptation of the story as JA intended it to be told no. But I do adore JA and am a complete purist when it comes to her works.
Post by tacosforlife on Jan 5, 2015 15:54:55 GMT -5
If any movie should ever be proof that a character's physical description in a book shouldn't dictate the actors cast in a movie, it's High Fidelity. Barry is described very, very differently in the book, but Jack Black fucking OWNS that role.
I care about staying true to the themes and plot of a book, not the physical appearance of the characters.
So you're telling me Elizabeth Bennet could never be a black woman?
I understand getting pissy when details are changed but not when they are meaningless details. The color of someone's skin is often largely irrelevant to the overall story. At least to the entire point of the story.
If you change out the fuckery Wickham was up to and make him a good guy, then yes, you have drastically altered the book but making the Bennets black? Not so much.
But I think this is an easy viewpoint to have when you're white, that changing the race would be such a fucking hardship that it would so alter life.
At that time period in that place no the Bennets would not be black it is just historically almost impossible for Britain at the time and you would have to suspend a great deal of disbelief to ignore the realities of the time period in which it is set. Now you could do a modern adaptation and work around that without any trouble but for a true adaptation of the story as JA intended it to be told no. But I do adore JA and am a complete purist when it comes to her works.
I guarantee you that I know a lot more about Regency England than you do and it would not be "historically almost impossible" for the Bennets to be black. Both Bennets black, probably. But if Mr Bennet very well could have been married to a black woman. She would have had to come from somewhere else, granted. But it was possible and it did happen. And as long as they were married, she would have been accepted in social circles. It would not have lowered their standing in society or changed the prospects for their children very much at all.
The same could not have been said were P&P set latter than the 1840s however.
I am getting good and fucking tired of reminding @songforyou that I am black.
I need this bitch to get the fuck out.
Nothing that I said in that post required: a reminder that you are black or you to call me a bitch.
You have some issues that have nothing to do with me, this I promise you.
I am not going anywhere though lol. (kiss)
No but you do delight in reminding me or maybe just everyone that you feel a stronger kind of way about race relations that everyone else. Or maybe it just feels that way because you're always quoting me to "school" me.
I never block anyone but I'm blocking you. Because I'm good and fucking sick of your nasty ass attitude and assumptions. You can stay if you want to but I'm sure as shit not reading another ignorant, bigoted, and flat out assy word out of you.
If any movie should ever be proof that a character's physical description in a book shouldn't dictate the actors cast in a movie, it's High Fidelity. Barry is described very, very differently in the book, but Jack Black fucking OWNS that role.
I care about staying true to the themes and plot of a book, not the physical appearance of the characters.
Jack Black is the only reason to see that movie. I am not a John Cusack fan.
The only reason Sherlock and Bond were written as white men is because we live in a culture and a world and the men who wrote them lived in an era where white man was the default.
There is no reason they couldn't be whatever color now. What the shit?
I can actually think of a number of books and movies that were written for one type of person but cast someone else and did well and didn't change the story. I'm so confused right now.
I will say that Sherlock could not be a black man without some changes. Black men weren't exactly hanging about being respected in Victorian culture. But there were black folks in that era, believe it or not so there you go.
And Bond is a modern character so he most definitely could be black. And I need someone to explain to me how that Astin Martin does all manner of nonsensical things but being driven by a black man is just a bridge too far. What the actual fuck?
I think we've seen good and well that classic books and characters like Sherlock can be adapted in a way that makes significant changes to the story and yet is still awesome and amazing.
Certain characters and stories have essential elements to them, which sometimes includes race. I mean, you can't make Othello white and Desdemona black. You can't make The Color Purple with a white cast. You can't make American History X with a black actor as the Edward Norton character. But there's nothing about James Bond as a character that is inherently and necessarily white.
Are you ignoring the weight issue? Because Kate Winslet has been very vocal about the trajectory her career has taken. It's not because Kate just happens to not be the sexpot Cameron is viewed as. It's because Kate isn't skinny, tall, and blond like Cameron. Kate is also incredibly talented. So if you take an incredibly talented actress who has decided not to bend over backwards to keep a skinny figure and a thin actress who isn't good at drama, you're going to have two vastly different careers.
Kate and Cameron aren't comparable and never were.
Not ignoring, but maybe just biased, because outside of There's Something About Mary, I never liked Cam's body. She looks like a boy. Since Titanic, KW has always been sexier to me. I understand I'm an outlier, and a self loving curvy girl. I would not go so far as to ever say that KW doesn't have a very distinct sex appeal. It is just very different than CD.
What I'm saying in referencing the two together is more so the roles and successes they both have had. Kate playing more serious, less sexy roles, that reflect her age and yet aren't extremely limited. Cameron playing what she mostly has played since the Mask -- sexy tall blond. They both have work. I believe that Cameron has more work because she is sexy, and not because she is talented.
They're both the same age range, both sexy. They play different roles. I think they're comparable in regards to work as older actresses and this article. I think that CD's age gets more often overlooked because she has the reputation of being sexy over talented.
I'm not saying one of them is sexier than the other. I'm saying they are looking for work in two different pools albeit in the same industry.
Cameron is not a high quality dramatic talent. She just isn't. If she were less conventionally pretty and didn't apparently have an excellent agent, she would have gone the way of a variety of conventionally pretty, marginally talented actresses.
You definitely should have tagged "her" then, because I never read it. Unfathomable level of stupidity, though? Okay. That's effective lol. I am undeniably and unapologetically "touchy" about the things that are happening right now. I am also annoyed by people who flippantly trot out the old "it's the same thing that happens to black people!" argument for things that really aren't at all the same.
I do not deny that and never have. I will say that I happen to lean closer to the art imitates life end of the spectrum than the other end. Since the race card has already been played, this reminds me of the regular discussions on my predominantly AA message board about portrayals of POC in media and how these images affect racism. While I agree that it's important to have broader and more positive images of POC onscreen, ultimately, in the day to day and the scheme of things, it is my opinion that it changes very little about how most white people with negative opinions of POC see POC. There are racists who know real living POC who defy every stereotype and in their very best estimation, they see them as the exception to rule. I see about a 50 mile drop on the trickle down meter from whether or not Winona Ryder gets to be the love interest of Harrison Ford to how some judge sentences a black defendant more harshly. Honestly, even bringing it into this discussion was silly to me, but again, not at all surprising. It happens all the time.
I can't believe someone doesn't see the connection between the way one group of people is marginalized and the way another group is marginalized. It's not like the strategy differs that greatly. Depict the group in a way that serves your agenda irrespective of whether that depiction is true to life or serves to harm the larger group. I think your unwillingness to see the similarity between the two hurts your own cause. Instead of creating a path to empathy, you create a division, isolating your experience. I see people of all range of groups do this all the time. It's not surprising, but it is damaging. To your cause and mine. There is an analogy here that would result in a common cause, but you want to remind divided.
Also, you've called me stupid twice and silly. So, collect your feels and check your glass house before getting all finger-pointy with HBC.
This. I don't think they are parallel and sometimes there are major differences, but there are some similarities that allow for people to relate better to each other and try to work toward change. Especially if it's a minority group b/c they will have to work hard against the majority if nobody else is joining in.
Plus I'm loving that @helenabonhamcarter is all feministing in this thread.
Oh hey, remember when Cate Blanchett won the Oscar for Blue Jasmine and made a big deal about how there IS actually a market for female-centered films, since Blue Jasmine was virtually an all-female cast? Putting women in a lead role with no male lead to balance it out is a huge risk, if you ask Hollywood. Young, sexy starlets don't have the experience, fame or respect to bring in large audiences (although somehow Channing Tatum does?). And older actresses aren't sexy, so males, who see the most films, won't go see it. Okay.
I thought her point though was that DIRECTORS and WRITERS should make those movies. She wasn't scolding US the viewers. She was saying we will go to the movies to see her or Amy Adams or Sandra Bullock. But "the man" isn't writing those movies very often. She was in a tough spot because the person who wrote that role was Woody (for little girls) Allen. So it was hard for her to thank specifically him, but I saw what she was saying as a call to others in power in Hollywood to make more movies like that.
Oh, yes, I am saying that the ASSumption ins Hollywood is to stay far away from female-centric films. They think they are not marketable on a large scale. The movie studios think that everyone - male and female - will go see a Tom Cruise movie, but put Julienne Moore in a film as the lead and it suddenly becomes niche. The fuck?
I rarely love a "blockbuster" film. I like interesting characters and original plots. And honestly, a 40+ year old woman is generally a lot more interesting to me than a 25-year-old ingenue.
I wish there were more complex roles for women as I think they would result in better films. I can think of a number of good roles played by older actresses in recent years, but even then they are usually supporting characters to male leads.
I think it is incredibly dense of Russel Crowe to say there are plenty of roles for 40+ women. There clearly are not enough.
I also think some me have not gotten the memo they aren't 28 anymore (coughMarkWahlbergcough.)
Nothing that I said in that post required: a reminder that you are black or you to call me a bitch.
You have some issues that have nothing to do with me, this I promise you.
I am not going anywhere though lol. (kiss)
No but you do delight in reminding me or maybe just everyone that you feel a stronger kind of way about race relations that everyone else. Or maybe it just feels that way because you're always quoting me to "school" me.
I never block anyone but I'm blocking you. Because I'm good and fucking sick of your nasty ass attitude and assumptions. You can stay if you want to but I'm sure as shit not reading another ignorant, bigoted, and flat out assy word out of you.