Why would I, when I’m the one who pointed that out in the first place? I was aware of that from the beginning. Malco’s culpability goes without saying, I would think. But in the end it’s Apatow’s movie.
For one he uses “nigger” throughout the movie quite frequently without comment.
Maybe not the “writing” part in the technical sense but it’s his scene.
He did have more black characters. They were all dismissive cartoons of blacks.
I don’t know why that’s so preposterous to you, honestly. And my rebuke of Jay has been fairly mild. I didn’t hate him, I just disliked his overall presentation in contrast to the rest of the characters. As pizzabrat put it, there was a certain hackneyed-ness to him. Didn’t mean that he was an abomination.
Imagine if Apatow wrote a movie about a whole bunch of women, okay? All the women are brunette except for one blonde.
The brunette characters are types. You have the stoner type. You have the frat girl type. You have the dorky type. You have the crazy stalker type. Following me?
The blonde woman is also a type. She’s dumb, perky, big-bosomed, and slutty.
Now. Can we say that there exists plenty of blonde women out there who fit this mold? Yes. Can we say that there exists plenty of brunnettes who also fit this mold? Yes.
Can we also say that, given that there’s a dumb blonde bimbo stereotype out there, that the director is not exactly being creative or sensitive when casting a blonde woman as this character? Yes. (This is what the OP is saying.)
Might we also speculate that the director intentionally cast a blonde woman as that character because he consciously or subconsciously believes “blonde girls are dumb, perky, big-bosomed, and slutty?” Yes, we might also speculate on that, even though it will probably get us nowhere.
Might we also speculate that even if that’s not what the director believes, that it doesn’t matter, because the idea is what comes across the screen? I say yes, it’s okay to speculate on that too.
Don’t see how anything I’m writing is all that ridiculous. YMMV.
So then it sounds to me like you should be pitting Romany (for being black?), not Judd.
Eh. So he’s a black hack. Dime-a-dozen. What’s the point?
(EDIT: Note - Link only slightly relevant)
Having read your second point in your last reply to me, I see that there’s no arguing with you and no pleasing you. I just find your taking offense to be entirely illogical.
He cast a black man in the role because the black man gave the best audition. Then Malco went on to ad lib some things you didn’t like (I don’t know what was ad libbed and what wasn’t, but if Malco had input on the character and didn’t like it, he would have had the power to say something because Apatow is clearly open to actor contributions and opinions on script) and think the portrayal is hackneyed. What, Apatow should have corrected Malco and said he objected to his portrayal of a black man? If word of that had gotten out, I can just imagine the commentary.
Yep, it’s ridiculous to imply what you are implying, which is that the film maker somehow “believes” something about black people because of the idea that the character Jay, in your opinion, puts across the screen. You’re basically saying that you can tell what Apatow believes because of the character of Jay. I think that’s ridiculous. YMMV.
Jay and other characters - why is that ridiculous? You don’t think a person’s art is a reflection of his worldview?
Here’s almost perfectly parallel situation that might help me get through to you. On the commentary of “Drawn Together”, a show that I admire, the Jewish producers were recounting Cree Summer’s audition tape for Foxxy Love. They talked about how her reading of Foxxy was a completely off-the-mark cliched “ghetto-mama” character - but they still liked her as an actress. Their solution was to present her tape only up to the point to where she finished introducing herself in her normal voice to…uh…someone above them (I can’t remember). Point is, these two white Jews told their black actress that they didn’t like her “black” characterization and ultimately got a better performance out of her. A funny one that often rings true. They did their jobs, regardless of their race.
You can imagine that all you want, but as a director, it’s his job to correct the actors. Since when did directors do otherwise? And besides, none of us know what went on behind the scenes anyway. Apatow was in the position to encourage or discourage whatever stylings he wanted to. I have no reason to believe the actors were completely given free reign.
You need better comprehensive reading skills. I never implied that. I said it’s okay to speculate on that (because it’s a free country), but it probably would be futile. I have no idea what Apatow believes.
I took the time to create an analogy that I think is fair to pizzabrat’s issue, and you haven’t bothered to address it. If we were discussing a film like the one I dreamed up, would you be as quick to be dismissive? Now admittedly, in order for it to be truly parallel, blondeness would have to be something you can’t create with a bottle of peroxide (just like no one can make themselves black), but aside from that I think it illustrates my critique pretty well. Continue to call it ridiculous if you must, but if you can’t explain why then I’m not going to be convinced that it is just on your say so.
I guess you’re talking specifically about her vocal performance, since from what I saw of the show, the character they went with is an promiscuous illiterate who can’'t remember how many abortions she’s had, who talks in a really phony-sounding comic version of AAVE, and who likes blowing money on lottery tickets and malt liquor.
What I’m learning here is that the only “acceptable” black character is either one who displays no trace of typical “black” mannerisms or speech (one that could be replaced by a white actor without changing anything, like the Darnell character on “My Name is Earl”) or one who is so far into the stratosphere of minstrelsy that the sheer audacity of such a character’s existence makes it somehow okay to laugh at. Anything in between (like a character casually who uses the word “nigga,” which of course is completely unrealistic) is simply too uncomfortable or sets off the outrage clarion.
That said, I hope you’ll like the pitch for my new superhero character “Captain Blackface.” He’s a black multiple felon ex-con who uses white shoe polish to disguise himself so he can work in a cubicle job with other whites. His superpowers come from eating watermelon, which temporarily renders him invulnerable to everything except cotton. He’s more of a modern “conflicted” superhero, a savior to some, but he also enjoys raping white women and often uses his powers and secret identity simply to avoid the warrants he has out for failing to pay back child support to his seven illegitimate kids (each fathered with a different mother, natch). Oh, and he has a fat, gay white friend and nextdoor neighbor who provides one-liners for comic relief.
If Fox doesn’t bite, I’m hoping BET will snap it up. And don’t worry, I’ll insist we find the right actor to play the character “realistically.”
I can’t figure out your point. You must be adding something to my argument that I never put there. (And I don’t think her dialect is phony-sounding either. It’s an OTT parody, but it still sounds more familiar than plenty other failed attempts I’ve heard before).
Is that really what you’ve learned from what I’ve said, or are you just filtering out half of my posts just so you can have something to say?
And yet she still manages to maintain a bit of subtlety - she’s not trying too hard, like most other people trying the same dialect do. That’s what makes it work.
Oh that reminds me - a disclaimer:
When reading my argument pretend that you can fathom me being able to both understand and exhibit nuance. That means if I’m say that a certain performer’s “black” shtick is hackneyed, that means just that, not that I’m saying all types of ethnic based characterizations are hackneyed by definition. And if I point out one example of a facet of what made that performance ring false, in response to a specific question - don’t stretch that further than what I actually said.
No, I did read all your posts, although they all seem to be making pretty much the same point.
In your opinion Foxxy Love, a promiscuous, illiterate, multiply-abortioned, malt-liquor-swilling, lottery-ticket-buying black character who speaks in (convincing, you say) “ghetto” dialect, a character created by two white Jews, is just fine, but the black characters in the Apatow movies (whose actors likely ad-libbed their own dialogue) are “dismissive cartoons of blacks.”
This is what I’ve learned from what you’ve said. It frankly doesn’t make much sense to me, but so go matters of taste, humor, and race, I guess.
So I guess I’m saying something a little bit deeper than “stereotypes are bad”.
I guess.