My first Pit Thread, and it’s about Alec Baldwin. Go figure.
The “Cincinnati Enquirer” printed a letter today (which I don’t believe I’m allowed to quote), from a couple decrying the moral outrage in casting a liberal actor as the heroic American James Doolittle. They brought up Baldwin’s promise to leave America if Bush won (something, IIRC, he didn’t say or Basinger said for him). They wondered how Mr. Doolittle’s family felt about his casting, opining that surely they must be morally outraged as well. Yet, they made it clear that they weren’t going to comment on Mr. Baldwin’s actual performance. WTF? To “make” their point, they compared this casting to a hypothetical production starring Madonna as the Virgin Mary. The whole tone of this letter sruck me wrong.
Yes, Alec Baldwin is a very liberal, outspoken man–yes, he and Mr. Doolttle would probably have a great deal to disagree on. I find myself opposed to a lot of his politics and positions, but that’s not what this is about. This does not make his casting a MORAL OUTRAGE you dumbfucks. The man is an actor (hold the snide comments), A- FUCKING -C- FUCKING T- FUCKING O- FUCKING R. Spells actor. They PLAY ROLES. Liberal, conservative, everything and anything in between and beyond.
I want to write an opposing letter, detailing these thughts, and I have a question perhaps you could help me with. Other than George C. Scott as Patton, I can’t really think of an actor or actress who played a role diametrically opposed to what they stand for. And for the record, I don’t think the part of Doolittle is necessarily diametrically opposed to Baldwin’s views. Liberal or conservative, or whatever fucking label we attach to people, those labels do not make them any less an American, does nt make them love their country less.
I guess I would love to find where a very conservative actor played a very liberal character, preferably an actual person, dead or alive.
I also would like opinion on the central theme of the letter. Do you feel it’s a moral outrage?
I suppose if you’re going to flame actors for taking roles that don’t mirror how they really were, you could chide draft-dodging John Wayne and Ronald Reagon for all their gung-ho military roles. While Jimmy Stewart and other actors laid their lives on the line in World War II, they had it soft and safe back in Hollywood.
And anyone who played Jesus probably wouldn’t measure up to the Man, either.
Sounds like a stupid letter from a stupid couple. Why should we be surprised? They’re from Cincinnati.
I’m always pissed by people who think that conservatives are the only Real Americans. And who think WWII was only fought by conservatives. We must remember who went to war against the Nazis first–those flaming pinkos of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain. And remember Woody Guthrie’s guitar, labeled “This is a weapon to kill fascists.”
WTF does them being from Cincy have to do with anything? Great flaming flying monkey assholes, man! Are you trying to tell me that the only stupid people in America live in Cincy? And that despite the fact that 75% who live around me look and act like extras from the movie Deliverance, they’re really not the bigoted inbred hicks I thought they were?
Jesus, man! Don’t you know the only town in Ohio you can dis and get away with is Cleveland (aka “The Mistake on the Lake”)?
That said, I think casting Baldwin as Doolittle was a great insult to Doolittle. Not because I disagree with Baldwin’s politics (I do, some of them), but because Doolittle was a short, cranky little fucker, who was sharp as a tack. Baldwin, I don’t think is all that bright.
Oh! And don’t dis Ronnie and the Waynester! They both made important contributions to the war effort like starring in training films! :rolleyes:
IRL She doesn’t swear, doesn’t smoke and refuses to do any nudity, yet plays a swearing, smoking, trollop (okay, sexually liberated woman of the 2000s) on Sex in the City.
She would have the added benefit of being from (IIRC) Cincinnati.
Frankly, I gave up on this issue a long time ago. I mean, if our society allowed Eddie Murphy be cast as Doolittle, there’s not much hope. If only the little animals were able to get their teensy paws to use a typewriter (where’s archie when you need him?), I’m sure the letter writing campaign would be much more intense. Push me pull you INDEED, Mr. Baldwin!
delphica, should have seen that one coming. Listen, slight hijack guys–I’m trying to “google” info on Col. Doolittle’s family and their reaction to Baldwin being cast. Here’s what I’ve entered: Jimmy Doolittle family reaction Alec Baldwin" to no avail. I’m not asking you to do the work for me, just to give me hints on hw to play the google.
Sue, thanks, I’ll use that if I don’t find more–I know of plenty of actors cast as fictional characters that are different than their personal lifestyles/views, what-have-you: Tom Selleck as a gay reporter in “In And Out,” and Charlton Heston as the anti-America, anti-just about everything Taylor in “Planet of The Apes,” but am trying to think of historical personages instead.
I’m trying to get my mind around that one. Granted, Alec gave one of the least embarrassing-to-watch performances in Thomas and the Magic Railroad, as Mr. Conductor (although I always preferred both Ringo Starr and George Carlin in the role). And the Eddie Murphy incarnations of Doolittle don’t even scratch the surface of the character as conceived by Rex Harrison (in fact, they might as well have named the movie anything but “Doctor Doolittle”), so a real honest-to-God remake might be welcome.
Of course, Alec may have problems with regard to re-creating a character that was definitively portrayed by Harrison. Of course, he doesn’t have to be able to sing any better than Rex, but I’m not sure he has the requisite chops to make the world forget the exquisite combination of superciliousness and befuddled bemusement that Mr. Harrison first brought to the role.
Anyway, the whole movie was so long that most present-day production companies would probably insist on cutting the thing to shreds to bring it in at under two hours.
Hey, Sir Rhosis don’t forget good ol’ Chuck Heston being cast as that gay/bisexual guy in Ben Hur (I think that’s what it was.). Gore Vidal cowrote the screenplay and reading his account of Heston’s screen test is hysterical! It being the '50s, they couldn’t come right out and claim that Heston’s character and another were lovers, but they could drop in enough “hints” so that the smart ones would get it. Before Heston was brought into read for the part, everyone was instructed to not make any mention of the gay subtext to the scene, because if Heston were to find out that’s what was going on in the scene, he’d refuse to do the part. Vidal says that everyone in the room was having trouble maintaining their composure while Heston was doing his reading, because it was so obvious from his delivery that he just didn’t get it.
Let’s not forget Chuck’s “favorite” movie from The Omega Man! Remeber what it was? Woodstock!
Thanks, but I guess I’m looking for people cognizant of the role they’re playing. I’ve heard of Vidal’s oft-stated anecdotes about the subtext between Judah Ben-Hur and (?) Massala, and have always wondered if the subtext was in Lew Wallace’s novel (which I haven’t read) or were Vidal’s contribution.
Steve Irwin–oh, the “crikey” guy! He was in the movie?! See, now I’m gonna have to go see the damn thing to see how Alec has belittled Mr. Doolittle’s good name. I read a review calling his performance “enthusiastic.”
Clarification: I meant, above, to say that I’ve heard of Vidal constanty telling the anecdote about Heston being unaware of the gay subtext, not that the subtext in and of itself was anecdotal.
Just checked Vidal’s United States and he doesn’t mention anything about the gay subtext being in the original novel. He seems to indicate, however, that the novel was crap.
And really, don’t torture yourself by going to see the movie. Wait till it comes out on video. Its really, really, bad. And I barely noticed Baldwin’s performance in the film, you could swap his performance with the one he gave in Malice and never tell the difference. It was a throughly forgettable movie.
I don’t think John Wayne was eligable for the draft during WWII. He was born in 1907 and that would have put him at about 34 by the time the war began. Right before WWII John Wayne wasn’t the famous guy he was in the 50’s or 60’s. He was afraid that were he to enlist his career would be dead once the war ended. It wasn’t an easy choice for him and it did bother him later in life. I don’t know about Ronald Reagan.
**
There were a lot of actors, and others, who didn’t serve in WWII. It didn’t make them draft dodgers though.
Getting back to the OP yeah it was stupid. Like people bitching about Madonna playing Evita. Well actually Evita was a real bitch so who cares who played her? I better not say that in Argentina. Actors are actors and they’re suppose to play the part of certain characters. I dunno what the big deal is.
Anthony Hopkins played Adolph Hitler in the TV movie The Bunker in 1981. He won an Emmy for it, too. That’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head, though.
Ok, in general I agree with the point of the OP. Actors are paid to pretend to be people unlike their real selves.
However, when the actor is playing a real person, I think that there is some expectation (right or wrong) that there will be a personal respect by the actor for the person. I don’t feel this way but many people do.
How would we react to Charlton Heston doing a movie in which he plays James Brady of (gun controlling) Brady Bill fame?
Or Martin Sheen playing Ronald Reagan (I’m sure many of us would find it amusing, but that is because we would assume that Sheen was being ironic, not respectful; consider his Murphy Brown appearance).
Or, on a broader scale, how would we react today to John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, which he did in 1956 (in The Conqueror). The argument could be made that the actor is just playing someone (racially) unlike themselves but that kind of stretching is not allowable any more.
I don’t know a damn thing about James Doolittle so I can’t comment on this instance but the complaint made is not so different than many of us would make in other circumstances.
How about Robert Englund as the somewhat disturbed murderer Freddy Krueger? Or anyone who plays a serial killer (Jason Vorhees, Michael Myers, etc.) in a slasher flick. Those actors are probably diametrically opposed to their respective characters. I hope.
