Yeah, you can really tell how much she absolutely hates the whole idea from this passage from her OP. Emphasis added to highlight the parts that are especially dripping with disapproval.
Frankly, I’m surprised she was able to type at all, she’s so clearly quivering with rage over this whole issue.
Yes, our monstro, foaming at the mouth again. :rolleyes:
There were two somewhat opposing thoughts being expressed in monstro’s OP. I’m going to paste the whole thing here, and put one comment in the middle.
If the OP ended here, I’d consider it a completely neutral portrayal of the issue. How closely does a person have to resemble the real character for it to be believable?
However, monstro goes on with:
This last paragraph brings up how hard it is for black actresses to get good roles, how default roles always seem to go white, and why couldn’t they cast a good black actress in this role? It’s a statement about the struggles of black actresses in Hollywood. While she may not disapprove of Jolie being cast, it sure sounds like she’d be pleased if a black actress were given the chance instead.
Exactly. I’m not trying to pile on or attribute meaning that isn’t there, but I think the latter part of monstro’s post pretty much negates her statement that she has no problem with the fact that Jolie got the part. I don’t see a single thing wrong with that, or with asking “why does Hollywood cast people for roles that are of a different race?” I wouldn’t / don’t even blame her for being miffed about it (if she is miffed, that is). But I read her use of thread title as a jumping off point to discuss that very thing. Maybe she is musing about odd casting choices in general, but it sure doesn’t read that way. I’m also not quite sure why she’s started this thread asking people if they detected a certain undertone and then discounting the people who answer yes.
I never said she was foaming with rage over the issue Miller.
monstro, you can’t bring up every filim in Hollywood history unless you want to discuss ‘race and casting, a historical perpesctive’.
You are talking about Angelina Jolie playing Mrs. Pearl. The fact that The Good Earth was based on a book by Pearl S. Buck, does not make it relavent.
What did you want to discuss?
Is AJ right for this particular role?
Should actors cast to play real life people match the real life look of the person?
Does Hollywood discriminate against ethinc actors, still?
I still feel your OP is anti Angelina playing Mrs. Pearl. All your statements of praise of her are sort of qualifiers but then you mention other people who ‘look’ the part better. Basically what Cheesesteak says above.
(OH and I strongly disagree that Angelina Jolie is a fine actress, but that is a different discussion altogether)
And I don’t know why this is such a bad, horrible, controversial thing. You make it sound like I’m resentful or brooding with jealousy. I don’t watch movies with only black characters. I’m not fans of all black actors (personally, I think Halle Berry sucks as an actress and that she did not deserve her Emmy. But I digress…). I didn’t even watch Oprah’s Legend’s Ball…I didn’t even know what it was until a white person told me about it!
But yes, I do think it would have been grand if they had casted a woman of color to play one of those rare roles where race is not the point of the film. I’m aware that people probably think this is a racist, that I’m advocating discrimination or Affirmative Action. But I’m not going to lie just to be PC. I can say I’d like to see more roles filled by black actresses while still being satisfied that Jolie will do a good job playing Mariane Pearl. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
I haven’t discounted anyone except Zebra, who only seems bent on arguing against points I haven’t made. Posters like Oy! explained why my word choices might have riled people up, and I took what she said to heart. Did you notice that I calmly asked DrDerth why he felt my OP “hinted of outrage”, and he did not respond? Was I just supposed to nod my head and thank him for his comment?
I can take plenty of criticism as long as it’s constructive.
Well, my explanation may have been constructive, but it wasn’t intended as criticism. The fact is, “interesting” is one of those words that’s hard to parse in writing, because it can be straight or laden. There’s really no other word that means the same thing, so I don’t see how you could have done anything differently. You meant “worthy of interest,” and I can’t think of any other word that would have communicated that without also running the risk of similar lading - had you said, say, fascinating, it would have been potentially far MORE strongly interpreted as meaning suspicious, especially since the casting of a movie star in a movie you have little interest in actually seeing doesn’t seem to lend itself to being a truly fascinating topic. Interesting, yes. Fascinating, no.
But let’s just assume for the moment that there was a truly negative slant to your OP. It still doesn’t remotely qualify as outrage or even anger. So I’m still not seeing the issue that apparently some people loaded onto you here.
Great, I’ve been discounted! 50% off Zebra!
How about asking questions?
Me asking you questions, is not argueing against points you haven’t made. That would be difficult for me to do since you don’t seem to have a point and you don’t seem to want to make one.
You said you wanted to ‘start a discussion’ with your Cafe Society thread. What did you want to talk about?
Yes, I know. I was mocking you when I typed that. I’m surprised you missed it, what with you being a master intuiter of tone, and all. So good at it that, in fact, you were able to divine that monstro objected to the casting of Angelina Jolie in that film based purely on her tone, without being at all fooled by her two explicit denials that she had any objection to the casting. I guess she was lying when she said that? Or maybe just deluded. Hard for me to say, I’m not as good at reading the subtleties of “tone” as you are.
Speaking of irrelevant… What’s your point here, precisely? She mentioned The Good Earth specifically in the context of wether or not cross-racial casting works. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. That was the whole of her point. Perhaps it is something in her “tone” that leads you to believe that she was making some larger issue out of it?
Well, let’s look at the OP, shall we? There are some pretty specific questions in there:
So, going way out on a limb here, I’m guessing the topics she wanted to discuss had something to do with the questions asked in her OP. I know, radical concept, reading the OP for content and reacting to what’s actually been written, as opposed to what you divine from reading chicken entrails (or however the hell it is you decided what her “tone” was) but just try giving it a shot. Who knows what might happen?
Please point out the “qualifier” in the following statement:
Now, moving on to the estimable Cheesesteak:
I can see where you’re coming from with that, but I disagree with your interpretation. She says “black/biracial actresses feel a teeny bit slighted.” monstro, so far as I know, is not an actress, so I do not think it appropriate to attribute this view to her. She’s simply framing the debate, offering her own take (“I have no beef with her taking this role,”) and provided reasons why someone might take an opposite position. I can certainly understand why this might have been a little confusing at first, but given her two disclaimers of non-offense in the OP of that thread, and her constant insistence in the remainder of that thread and in this one that she did not have a problem with the casting, it seems very unfair to keep telling her that she really secretly deep down is bothered by it.
Well, how much are you going for then? Although I’ve heard that Zebras simply don’t domesticate well at all, so you probably wouldn’t work out. I mean, I’d want a critter who could do yard work and get things off of high shelves or lift up heavy stuff or get lids off of jars - you know, the stuff men are usually good for. That’s no good if all you’re doing is biting and kicking all the time! 
Miller
Suck my dick.
And in case you dont’ get that tone, I mean, suck my dick.
monstro started this thread to ask if we thought she sounded angry in her op in the CS thread. I answered that question. Now if you don’t like that answer, well, suck my dick. If you don’t understand my answer, well, I tried to explain it to monstro, who asked question of my response. She and I aren’t connecting very well so I’ve been “discounted”, and who knows, maybe put on her ignore list by now. She seems like a pretty intelligent woman and I don’t think she needs you come and insult me for her.
So really Miller, suck my fat one you cheep dimestore hood.
See? Zebras just don’t domesticate very well. Sigh…
Yes, I saw your explanations. The problem is, your explanations are really, really stupid. She said in her OP, explicitly, twice that she didn’t have a problem with the casting in this film. You responded that her “tone” was offended. Apparently, you put greater weight on “tone” than the actual content of her post. Seriously, how do you defend that position? Is monstro lying when she says she’s not offended by the casting? Why would she lie about that, precisely? Or are you saying she’s deluded? That she only thinks she wasn’t offended, but really, she was? How exactly are you in a position to know that?
Seems to me that, for some goddamn reason, you’re hellbent on picking a fight with monstro, and are grasping at any excuse to needle her. Your whole obsession with The Good Earth, for example, is pretty fucking bizarre, not to mention wholly misleading as to what she was trying to say about it. You keep accusing her of “generalizing” about Hollywood with that movie. Except, she wasn’t doing anything of the kind. Look at her quote. And mean, really look at it. Read the actual words for a change:
What’s the generalization here? She’s talking about other movies that have been cast “colorblind,” and how sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. What part of that, specifically, do you have a problem with? Do you not agree with her examples? Are you crazy in love with The Good Earth, and pissed that she doesn’t like it? You’re consistently making absolutely no sense at all in this thread. It’s really goddamned wierd, and kind of annoying.
As for sucking your dick: sorry, I only do that for guys I like. You’re kind of a jerk. No head for you.
Dick nazi!!!
The Good Earth is not an example of color blind casting.
If you, or monstro, think it is, you are incorrect.
The casting in The Good Earth is done as either the producers were too lazy to go out and find ‘ethincally corret’ actors or they would put one of ‘those people’ in their movie. Actually, due to the studio system in place at the time, the producers would be using their stars that were on contract and wouldn’t be casting the movie like people would today.
That, being almost 70 years ago, is a completly different world.
Today, “hollywood” studios rarely ‘produce’ a film in the way they did back then. There are tons of ‘production companies’ that actually produce the films, the studios do some of the production but their important role is the distribution of the product. There were no independent producers in 1937.
Studios today do consider race in casting but mostly they only consider what the majority of ticket buyers want to see. For instance, for the movie Hitch, after doing some research, they decided that Will Smith’s girlfriend would be best played by a Hispanic woman. That is because black audiences would be upset if he was dating a white woman and white audiences would stay away if his girlfriend was black. That decision was made based on what the market research said and no other reason what so ever. However, not all casting decisions are made today based on market research. You see, with so many production companies, and with all of them doing their own thing, it is really difficult to say what “hollywood” is doing because when it comes to casting, or marketing or producing, Hollywood doesn’t do one thing.
So in short, the Hollywood of 1937 is completly different from the Hollywood of today so comparisons between the methods of casting, and the effectivness of the casting are really impossible. That is like saying that Chaucer didn’t spell very well.
The schools of thought on acting, directing, producing, and marketing of films are completly different from 1937 to today.
Oh and the idea that The Good Earth is color blind casting is stupid. Who’s idea was that?
Oh yeah, it was Miller who said that bit of stupidity.
Now,
Suck my dick, bitch.
OH and since you didn’t get the tone, when I invite you to suck my dick, your enjoyment of the act wasn’t something I had in mind.
I think the Good Earth is a great example of what is going on here. The movie is being produced by Brad Pitt’s production company. Mr. Pitt doesn’t have a stable of actors under contract, but he does have a girlfriend (wife? I’m not tracking this one - how about spouse or spousal equivalent) and his girlfriend has a guy who owns a production company. That seems more like the old studio system than if the Weinsteins were producing this and picked Jolie.
(Oh, and you didn’t sound upset or irate - maybe divided and interested in exploring your feelings )
If “color blind casting” is some sort of term of art for the film or drama crowds, I plead ignorance of it. I was looking for a more concise way of saying, “casting people in roles that don’t match the actor’s ethnicity.” If the phrase as a prior meaning, as you seem to be implying, I was unaware of it. However, you are so entirely missing the point it’s not even funny. monstro’s remark had nothing to do with how studios cast films. Why the films starred actors playing outside their ethnicities has absolutely nothing to do with what monsto was saying. Go that? No-thing. She was explaining how she felt, as a viewer, when she saw movies that cast actors in roles that did not match their ethnicity. Sometimes it worked (Honey), sometimes it didn’t (The Good Earth). That’s all. She’s not making a generalization about Hollywood. So all this stuff here?
NO ONE IS MAKING THAT COMPARISON, DUMBFUCK!
Well, then I’m not very likely to accept your invitation, am I?
Oh, and monstro, I don’t usually do sigs, but for this thread, I’m making an exception.
Now that the OP is asked and answered – Do I sound angry to you bitches? I can turn it up a notch. I wouldn’t want y’all to mistake my kindness for meekness.
Let me get things straight.
So, you admit you are ignorant about casting and yet you continue to argue about it with me.
You don’t allow me to read ‘tone’ into posts but you can read my tone and monstro’s tone perfectly.
But on to this.
Let’s look at this again with a little bolding.
monstro makes the comparison. Right there. In that paragraph, which you have quoted so, I’m sorry, I thought you had read that. She names two films. One is from 1937 and the next film on the list is from 2003. She compares the effectivness of the casting in those films to each other. That indicates,* to me*, that she believes the casting process for both films were somehow similar. That the reason for casting people of different ethnic background than the character they are portraying were similar. She compares the casting of The Good Earth to the casting in Honey.
The fact that she starts the paragraph with this
She is saying ‘Hollywood’ casts roles this way. Not, the producers of The Good Earth and the producers of Honey, but the generic Hollywood. It is the equilvent of ‘They’. They do this. They do that. When in fact, there is no ‘they’ because there is no ‘Hollywood’ in the sense that monstro is speaking. (as I have demonstrated)
Or don’t you get that.
So, do you really stand by your statement that no one is comparing 1937 casting to today’s casting? So who is the dumbfuck now?