Post by robeiae on Jan 17, 2019 15:58:34 GMT -5
Casting parts for a film is, of course, a big deal. Getting bankable stars to play key roles in films is often the means of getting funding to make and market the film, to get the studio execs behind it, and to get a positive reception.
In this regard, however, I think it's completely fair to allow that Hollywood has made a lot of missteps over the years, chief among them being "whitewashing," which has continues to take place in Hollywood to this day.
But...the question I would ask is this:
Given that an actor--by definition--is playing a role, is pretending to be someone they are not, to what extent should an actor actually be the character they are playing. I think most people would agree that these days, if a character is supposed to be a particular ethnicity (i.e., their ethnicity is central to the actual story), then an actor of that particular ethnicity should be cast in the role, whenever possible. And this would be every bit as true for sex.
But what about other things? For instance:
age
hair color
height
weight
sexual preference
religion (or lack thereof)
socio-economic background
The article that prompted this thread: www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/opinions/bryan-cranston-wrong-actor-choice-upside-blake/index.html
How about that angle? Disabilities?
Note that physical characteristics like hair color, weight, and even apparent age are manipulated all of the time in Hollywood (and everywhere else films are made). And with the advent of CGI, even things like amputated limbs can be mimicked (like Sinise in Forest Gump).
So, should there be some other limits here? Does the above writer make a fair point about Cranston and others who have recently portrayed people with disabilities?
In this regard, however, I think it's completely fair to allow that Hollywood has made a lot of missteps over the years, chief among them being "whitewashing," which has continues to take place in Hollywood to this day.
But...the question I would ask is this:
Given that an actor--by definition--is playing a role, is pretending to be someone they are not, to what extent should an actor actually be the character they are playing. I think most people would agree that these days, if a character is supposed to be a particular ethnicity (i.e., their ethnicity is central to the actual story), then an actor of that particular ethnicity should be cast in the role, whenever possible. And this would be every bit as true for sex.
But what about other things? For instance:
age
hair color
height
weight
sexual preference
religion (or lack thereof)
socio-economic background
The article that prompted this thread: www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/opinions/bryan-cranston-wrong-actor-choice-upside-blake/index.html
In the newly released movie "The Upside," Bryan Cranston plays a quadriplegic billionaire who befriends an ex-con-turned-caretaker. Cranston, an able-bodied actor, has been sharply criticized for accepting the role of a disabled character. However, Cranston has defended himself -- calling it a "business decision."
"As actors, we're asked to be other people, to play other people," he said during an interview with the Press Association. "If I, as a straight, older person, and I'm wealthy, I'm very fortunate, does that mean I can't play a person who is not wealthy, does that mean I can't play a homosexual?"
I was a huge fan of Cranston during his "Breaking Bad" days. But now I'm truly disappointed in him. Why? Because he completely misses the point of the criticism. This is not a business decision. It's an ableist decision, one that overlooks a key point: We're in an age where so many actors with disabilities are willing and able to play these roles, only to be overlooked in favor of able-bodied actors.
"As actors, we're asked to be other people, to play other people," he said during an interview with the Press Association. "If I, as a straight, older person, and I'm wealthy, I'm very fortunate, does that mean I can't play a person who is not wealthy, does that mean I can't play a homosexual?"
I was a huge fan of Cranston during his "Breaking Bad" days. But now I'm truly disappointed in him. Why? Because he completely misses the point of the criticism. This is not a business decision. It's an ableist decision, one that overlooks a key point: We're in an age where so many actors with disabilities are willing and able to play these roles, only to be overlooked in favor of able-bodied actors.
Note that physical characteristics like hair color, weight, and even apparent age are manipulated all of the time in Hollywood (and everywhere else films are made). And with the advent of CGI, even things like amputated limbs can be mimicked (like Sinise in Forest Gump).
So, should there be some other limits here? Does the above writer make a fair point about Cranston and others who have recently portrayed people with disabilities?
