Different time? Check.
Musical? Check. (no time for character development!)
Consider myself open-minded about such affairs? Check.
And yet in Funny Face I still literally said “What the ****?” when the 58 year old Fred Astaire out of nowhere kisses the 28 year old Audrey Hepburn. He’s had all of a 2 minute conversation with her, NOTHING has been established that Astaire is a lothario or that Hepburn “Needs a kiss.”. She could easily already be married for all we know.
G.I. Jane for me. The point of the movie, ostensibly, is that her gender doesn’t matter - all that should matter is can she do the job. Then there’s a hint that she might be gay (and the “hint” is just some photographs of her at a beach party with some other women - big deal) and she’s out, no discussion.
I love the Mummy(1999). Ok, so the sequel is not as good, but I still enjoy Mummy 2.
In Mummy 3, though, the kids who plays Brendan Fraser’s son looks like his brother. It’s ridiculous and I can not accept it. Terrible decision. So bad the actress who plays Fraser’s wife wouldn’t return because she did not want to be seen as a mother of an actor that old.
No, that would be because the actress in the first two was Rachel Weisz, who between 2 & 3 won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for The Constant Gardener and had moved way beyond the Mummy series, next filming The Fountain for her then-husband Darren Aronofsky. Then she had to go and do The Santa Clause and ruin all that hard work. Sigh.
At the time though, her not wanting to play the mother of an older teenager wasn’t a consideration.
Well, it was navy, and she was out of the SEAL program because of hints that she might be gay (though the filmmaker made sure to demonstrate to the audience that she was not). It never occurs to anyone to say “Y’know, what difference does it make - can she do the job or not?”
Plus the “hint” is so idiotically homophobic - it’s a picture of a woman on a beach with other women. How the fuck does that suggest “lesbian” to anyone but the retarded?
Those were the days of DADT, if the military found out you were gay, you were out. I haven’t watched the movie, but read a synopsis, the gay angle was a legitimate way to threaten her career without saying “ladies can’t be SEALs”.
Mississippi Burning decided to film a story about the civil rights struggle in the 1960s American South and yet forgot to cast a Black actor in anything other than a supporting role. Huh?
Basically any Hollywood film which depicts either an asexual Black supporting character or a surprisingly minority-free American city. Both actually take me out of my suspended sense of disbelief as they are clearly intentional acts by the director or the producer. Or both.
This is pretty common in Hollywood, really. Stories about black people or women fighting for dignity are often seen as not worthwhile or not marketable unless it’s all told through the eyes of a white protagonist who learned a valuable lesson.
I am possibly not explaining the nature of my objection clearly. The premise seemed like a story about, say, a black guy who struggles to be accepted into a whites - only job and just as he’s about to succeed, an antagonist starts a rumor that he’s actually a Mexican (and must be expelled) and nobody, including the black guy, sees the discrepancy in this.
Where do you get the impression that ALL rural folk are as you describe? That’s like assuming that all motel managers in Psycho’s world are serial killing crossdressers who have an unhealthy relationship with their mothers’ corpses.