If I’m remembering the early 2000s correctly, there were a lot less openly gay men in Hollywood. And in fact, it was soon after this movie came out that the whole concept of coming out as gay really gained traction and being gay was a much less scandalous and taboo thing than it used to be. One may have to do with the other, or it could all be a coincidence.
This is an example where I think having a movie focusing on homosexuality gave that minority group more visibility. Hilary Swank as a trans boy in Boys Don’t Cry is another example; Jacob Tremblay as a boy with Treacher Collins syndrome in Wonder is another. I think there are cases where creating a major motion picture that features a minority brings a lot of visibility to the community, and can ultimately be a good thing for that community.
To give a personal example: I was raised in Christian Science, which is a religion many people are unfamiliar with (and often confuse with Scientology). There is exactly one Hollywood actor who is a Christian Scientist: Val Kilmer. The only way you would ever be able to make a video featuring Christian Scientists is if you hired non-Christian Scientists to play the part of Christian Scientists. (Well, okay, or hire people who are not trained actors, and most likely get a completely awful film.) In a situation like this, you could argue that someone whose personal background does not match the role is really the most ethical hiring choice. You’re not going to raise awareness and create a quality film unless you hire outside that community.
Good point. She deservedly won an Oscar for that role, in part I imagine because her “transformation” was so convincing. If they had cast an actual trans male actor, there would have been no transformation, likely no Oscar and almost certainly less attention and lower box office.
I recently re-watched The Crying Game for the first time since it was in theaters, and it was interesting to view its take on trans people from 30 years’ distance. Jaye Davidson was so convincing I was surprised to learn that he’s always identified as male.
I’m not sure I get what you’re asking, but the point I’m trying to make is if you’re trying to portray something rare enough, there just aren’t actors to fill that description. Maybe one, but not enough for you to have try-outs and make a selection from a roster of good candidates. (Granted, a religion is not typically characterized by your physical features, so it would be relatively easy to find someone who can play the part convincingly. But the post I was responding to was referencing sexual orientation, which is similarly not characterized by distinct physical features.)
I’m not sure that’s a requirement. It often does refer to the use of makeup or other alterations, but I’ve heard the term routinely used to describe non-Asian actors playing Asian characters (either as Asian characters – Warner Oland, Yul Brynner – or as non-Asian characters).
I think if a non-Asian actor were cast in as a Asian character engaging in Asian stereotypes (whatever that means), it would be described as “yellowface” and that seems to me to be what Silverman is referring to.
All through the 1950’s and 60’s, British actors played Nazis. Not exclusively: there was still Hardy Kruger and Gert Frobe among others, but Brits just seemed to love playing Nazis. Shakespearian training excels at villainy.
Now, for some combination of reasons, German and Austrian actors are mote likely to play Nazis. Do they bring more depth and nuance? Are we willing to accept depth and nuance in Nazis? Who “got” Hitler better: Alec Guinness or (ok - Swiss but still more Germanic) Bruno Ganz?
In the case of Mrs. Maisel, definitely cultural. The character is clearly non-devout, and it is her bucking of her traditional Jewish wifely role that is the basis of much of the show.
Robert Duvall still says he’s a Scientist, but doesn’t attend. I’m guessing he still gets the Journal or somesuch.
But more importantly, I think you meant only 1 famous, out Scientist. I’m pretty sure there are some other actors who are Scientists. I mean, Principia does have a theatre department.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether the actor must exactly match the characteristics of the part, but how does the industry advance from a history of both denying some people entry into the business, especially its upper reaches, and portraying them stereotypically or caricatured.
No good answer and no one answer is possible. Much more likely is that the pendulum will swing in the other direction for a while and demand strict adherence to matching character and role. After some time passes and people see the consequences, the balance will shift toward some middle ground.
And if not, so what? So some actors won’t get a chance to play some roles. Do I have to point out that that’s been the norm for more than a hundred years? You’ll survive just fine. You might even say, tongue firmly in cheek, that doing so is the white man’s burden.
Well, yeah. I’m not a casting director, but I’ve gotten the impression that typically you start with commercials and small, brief appearances in TV shows before moving on to bigger projects and starring roles. If you wanted to cast a black man as Othello, I’m sure you could find a wealth of black men who have enough professional acting experience that they could do a good job in a starring role. But when you’re talking about a really niche group of people, like Christian Scientists or children with Treacher Collins syndrome, you’re not going to be able to gather together a long roster of experienced actors with that characteristic.
Well, since I think anyone can play any role without being immoral I don’t think his usage of black face is necessarily a deal breaker. I think the immoral aspect, by my standards of morality, is the fact that society had not evolved to the point that the first part of my statement was true. A huge fraction of society were excluded from opportunity and participation and that was the problem.
I also don’t subscribe to the point of view that sharing a characteristic with others makes one responsible for the actions of others so I don’t think historical wrongs are balanced with present wrongs.
