Debate on Social Agendas/Commentaries in Movies

[Dazey]

I'm quite looking forward to the Ocean's 11 reboot.

[Len Cnut]

49 minutes ago, MB. said:

Lol, are you comparing those movies and the work of Moliere to a Ghostbuster movie? 

Nothing wrong with a scripted social agenda, nobody is denying that. The best movies came out of that. There is something wrong with adding stupid roles or changing good scripts for the sake of it. It’s like doing a remake of Trainspotting, cause women can be junkies too or Lock Stock, cause ofcourse women can be criminals as well. Cut it out already. Use a new fresh script for that. Don’t change something already good for that. That’s the whole discussion. 

No, I'm not comparing those movies to Moliere, I'm applying a relevant principle across theatrical mediums

So basically, don't make shit films, thats not really a debate on social agenda as such is it?  This is my point, looking for tact in mainstream cinema, you ain't gonna find it, people act like Ghostbusters was some kinda fuckin' weighty substantial movie that they suddenly ruined by chucking a load of birds in a remake, its a film modelled after a saturday morning cartoon, not Apocalypse Now.  Ghostbusters is fluff to begin with and they made a fluff remake with birds in it  

Edited February 7, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Dazey]

16 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

No, I'm not comparing those movies to Moliere, I'm applying a relevant principle across theatrical mediums

So basically, don't make shit films, thats not really a debate on social agenda as such is it?  This is my point, looking for tact in mainstream cinema, you ain't gonna find it, people act like Ghostbusters was some kinda fuckin' weighty substantial movie that they suddenly ruined by chucking a load of birds in a remake, its a film modelled after a saturday morning cartoon, not Apocalypse Now.  Ghostbusters is fluff to begin with and they made a fluff remake with birds in it  

I think you’ll find that the cartoon was based on the film. You cunt!  

[Len Cnut]

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I think you’ll find that the cartoon was based on the film. You cunt!  

Was it really?   I never knew, I used to see the cartoon as a kid first and then noticed the film, never looked up the timing of what came first, always assumed it was the cartoon.  You gotta bear in mind you are 5 years older than me...old cunt

[MB.]

55 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 people act like Ghostbusters was some kinda fuckin' weighty substantial movie 

For many people my age it actually was

[Dazey]

16 minutes ago, MB. said:

For many people my age it actually was

I had to be carried out of the cinema in tears when the marshmallow man died.  

[Lio]

No one's saying it's a weighty substantial movie (well, maybe MB and Dazey are ), but we're mainly just saying that it's stupid to force a female/black/whatever minority down audience's throat to show how much you applaud diversity and how liberal you are. It doesn't work and it doesn't do those minorities a favour. People feel patronized and it polarizes people even more, instead of bringing them together, what should be the social agenda.

[Dazey]

18 minutes ago, Lio said:

No one's saying it's a weighty substantial movie (well, maybe MB and Dazey are ), but we're mainly just saying that it's stupid to force a female/black/whatever minority down audience's throat to show how much you applaud diversity and how liberal you are. It doesn't work and it doesn't do those minorities a favour. People feel patronized and it polarizes people even more, instead of bringing them together, what should be the social agenda.

I don’t think it was forced down anybody’s throat for some politically correct diversity agenda. I just think they hired the guy whose thing is funny women and it backfired big time. I’ve no problem with an all female Ghostbusters. Rather it’s an issue with the type of film they made and the poor casting choices. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Dazey

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, Lio said:

No one's saying it's a weighty substantial movie (well, maybe MB and Dazey are ), but we're mainly just saying that it's stupid to force a female/black/whatever minority down audience's throat to show how much you applaud diversity and how liberal you are. It doesn't work and it doesn't do those minorities a favour. People feel patronized and it polarizes people even more, instead of bringing them together, what should be the social agenda.

I don't disagree but explain this to me, why this movie more than others?  Cuz its not the fact that its a remake, cuz we live in remake central right now, remakes and reboots left right and centre.  Whats troublesome here that its women in the key roles instead of blokes, right?  Thats really what it boils down to, that there's an agenda, a female-ccentric agenda at play here...and perhaps the added disingenuousness of the whole thing.  Hows anything being forced down anyones throat here, I mean cinema is something you willingly patronise, no one forces anyone to go see a film.  

And where do you make the distinction between a genuine piece of cinema that is righteous in its agenda pushing and one that it spurious?  Is the objection that its women or is it the manner in which it is presented?  Because if its the manner, i.e. a remake of blah blah blah then surely remakes in general would be an issue but they're not being made a cause celebre out of like this is.  

Also, its worth bearing in mind y'know, when thinking about tact or subtlety that these aren't really films for adults are they?  I mean its Ghostbusters.  Which I suppose adds a little Helen Lovejoy to the issue too.  I'm just struggling to figure out what the objection is, whats REALLY at the heart of the fact that this film, out of all of others, is being pointed at.  I mean if its the disingenuousness then why not point your finger at Batman 50 or Spiderman 20 or James Bond 500.  How are 90% of superhero movies not a male-ccentric muscle-bound wank-fest, why is that any less patronising?  And if its just that its a shit film well, Christ, have you been to the cinemas lately?  

I don't understand why this is such an imposition, why people feel something is being forced down their throats, I'm really struggling with it, over something as lightweight and bullshit-y as a Ghostbusters movie.  And if it polarises people, well thats kinda interesting I think.  In fact, if it polarises people it is immediately valuable as a piece of art because it leaves you with something to work out, that alone makes it valuable above and beyond any number of the recent outpouring of superhero movies, irrespective of whether its a shit film or not.  If you make remakes, make em all day long, follow the formula, keep the money machine rolling its cool but put women in there and it becomes polarising.  James Bond pushing its masculine fantasy isn't polarising, superhero movies doing the same isn't polarising but stick a load of birds in Ghostbusters costumes...then its polarising, you don't find something slightly hilarious about the fact that that is any sort of a predicament in 2018?  And then in the light of recent revelations about Hollywood and the culture surrounding that industry (which by the way has been there longer than any hashtag, a LOT longer) towards women, well one could be forgiven for some of the thoughts that begin to occur, not only regarding the movie industry but also the audiences that patronise it.

[MB.]

The discussion started about the female hero Star Wars actually. 

Anyway, I hate remakes and reboots, they are mostly utter shit. And a remake while changing all gender roles is even more shit. The problem is, Hollywood wanted to prove females could take over the orginal male roles and be just as succesfull, but in this case it was about to fail.  Not cause it had all females, but it had no good script to begin with. So an all female remake big production failed and it only proved the critics right and now they can keep on saying: See women are not funny, see they can’t lead movies etc. Nice one, it polarises even more. You think investors are eager to invest lots of money in big production movies around a female cast now?  So what good did it do us? They could have known as well. Nobody can top the first cast, it was perfect as it was. To me it proves only, Hollywood is too scared to build a fresh and exciting, expensive new movie around a female cast. I, as a woman, have to feel great now, cause Ghostbusters can be female as well. I actually feel patronised, would they make a female lead movie, all male all of the sudden as well? Like Jackie Brown will be remaked and it’s now Jack Brown? Just ugh. This is like a bone is thrown to me ‘here, you got your big Hollywood production, now be glad’. Wouldn’t it been better to have this pretty solid cast and make a strong orginal fun movie with the same amount of money? But Hollywood is currently too scared to try anything new it and they tried to play it safe. It was a totally shit movie, so thanks but no thanks. Can I also point out, that the movie had all male directors, why was that. Again to play it as safe as possible in their eyes. Ocean’s 8 will be a total fail as well, pretty sure of it. That will the the second female Blockbuster fail and it will be very hard to even get investors for another female big production.  I love movies like Resident Evil, Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, but in current days how much money will the get to even make it, if they are making shit movies like Ghostbusters which pretty much failed and investors will get too scared to invest.

Yes women are not casted or leading enough in Hollywood, but this is not way. Hollywood, even with these movies is, still totally male dominated. A good idea would be to get more female writers and directors and write orginal scripts, take a risk. The whole rebooting/remaking of old movies has to stop anyway, be a bit more orginal.

Edited February 7, 2018 by MB.

[Len Cnut]

25 minutes ago, MB. said:

The discussion started about the female hero Star Wars actually. 

Anyway, I hate remakes and reboots, they are mostly utter shit. And a remake while changing all gender roles is even more shit. The problem is, Hollywood wanted to prove females could take over the orginal male roles and be just as succesfull, but in this case it was about to fail.  Not cause it had all females, but it had no good script to begin with. So an all female remake big production failed and it only proved the critics right and now they can keep on saying: See women are not funny, see they can’t lead movies etc. Nice one, it polarises even more. You think investors are eager to invest lots of money in big production movies around a female cast now?  So what good did it do us? They could have known as well. Nobody can top the first cast, it was perfect as it was. To me it proves only, Hollywood is too scared to build a fresh and exciting, expensive new movie around a female cast. I, as a woman, have to feel great now, cause Ghostbusters can be female as well. I actually feel patronised, would they make a female lead movie, all male all of the sudden as well? Like Jackie Brown will be remaked and it’s now Jack Brown? Just ugh. This is like a bone is thrown to me ‘here, you got your big Hollywood production, now be glad’. Wouldn’t it been better to have this pretty solid cast and make a strong orginal fun movie with the same amount of money? But Hollywood is currently too scared to try anything new it and they tried to play it safe. It was a totally shit movie, so thanks but no thanks. Can I also point out, that the movie had all male directors, why was that. Again to play it as safe as possible in their eyes. Ocean’s 8 will be a total fail as well, pretty sure of it. That will the the second female Blockbuster fail and it will be very hard to even get investors for another female big production.  I love movies like Resident Evil, Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, but in current days how much money will the get to even make it, if they are making shit movies like Ghostbusters which pretty much failed and investors will get too scared to invest.

Yes women are not casted or leading enough in Hollywood, but this is not way. Hollywood, even with these movies is, still totally male dominated. A good idea would be to get more female writers and directors and write orginal scripts, take a risk. The whole rebooting/remaking of old movies has to stop anyway, be a bit more orginal.

Its interesting that you should point out Jackie Brown, Jackie Brown in the original book was not a black lady and was made so by Tarantino in his reworking of the book because he thought it would make the character more sympathetic in terms of the core of Jackie in the movie being a woman who is kind of...middle aged and at a sort of crossroads in life.  You are presumably meant to feel sorry for Jackie in a different way because she is black than you would if she was a white lady.

Broadly speaking though, there are a million ways in which I'm sure it failed and could have been better and none of my post was saying that it struck anything like a valuable blow for 'the feminist cause', I honestly don't think its substantial enough to do so, nor is any one movie, its really not as simple a task, least of all to be performed by a remake of Ghostbusters, nor have i seen it or intend to see it or think that there is much likelihood in it being anything other than a piece of shit, I just think the reactions and furore around it are kind of illuminating.  

 

 

[MB.]

22 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Broadly speaking though, there are a million ways in which I'm sure it failed and could have been better and none of my post was saying that it struck anything like a valuable blow for 'the feminist cause', I honestly don't think its substantial enough to do so, nor is any one movie, its really not as simple a task, least of all to be performed by a remake of Ghostbusters, nor have i seen it or intend to see it or think that there is much likelihood in it being anything other than a piece of shit, I just think the reactions and furore around it are kind of illuminating.  

No Len, this movie was meant as a blockbuster. Which means a lot of money was invested in it. It’s not very often a totally female lead get that much money for a movie. So if they do get it, make it right and not a piece of shit. Why a remake of Ghostbusters in the first place, even with a male cast it probably would have failed. The risk was already too high. They wanted to prove a point and it backfired, something that was about to happen. Making it polarising and losing a battle. It pisses me off. I don’t want excisting and loved concepts to be changed (Star Wars, Ghostbusters or whatever), so the men in Hollywood can feel better and say: See we did think of the women. I want them to make orginal female lead blockbusters, scripts more often written by women, directed by women.

But even so, nothing wrong with an all male lead, all gay lead, all black lead, all Asian lead or whatever as well. Not every movie has to be adjusted. 

oh about Jackie Brown, would have loved it as well, when she was white. The role was written for a female and not for a man, that’s what it is about, not the color of her skin. However Pam Grier certainly took that movie to another level.

[Lio]

@Len Cnut I haven't even seen Ghostbusters. I got into this discussion because I found it silly to see black people in 17th Century France in Beauty and the Beast My immediate instinctive reaction when I saw that, was: token black. I also said that it didn't annoy be, but I found it silly.

I don't think we need any more polarising in this world, least of all in America. This sort of thing makes people more extreme, not closer to each other. That's my point.

But again, it's not something that will affect me personally. I don't feel offended by black people in The Beauty and the Beast or female Ghostbusters or some female in Star Wars. I will merely chuckle at it and roll my eyes. (Same way I chuckle when Americans yet again save the world from aliens/a meteor/...) I live with diversity every day and I don't need patronizing Hollywood to realize we should all be treated as equals in this world.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

No Len, this movie was meant as a blockbuster. Which means a lot of money was invested in it. It’s not very often a totally female lead get that much money for a movie. So if they do get it, make it right and not a piece of shit. Why a remake of Ghostbusters in the first place, even with a male cast it probably would have failed. The risk was already too high. They wanted to prove a point and it backfired, something that was about to happen. Making it polarising and losing a battle. It pisses me off. I don’t want excisting and loved concepts to be changed (Star Wars, Ghostbusters or whatever), so the men in Hollywood can feel better and say: See we did think of the women. I want them to make orginal female lead blockbusters, scripts more often written by women, directed by women.

I agree with all of this, I suppose I'm just slightly less invested in it all being a bloke so my assessments are a lot more detached.  I wasn't suggesting that they made it polarising deliberately, just the fact that it has done even what it has in terms of throwing up these discussions is of value, not necessarily the film itself.  Its like when Michael Winner films, a great many of which were consider awful cinematically speaking, brought up certain debates about audiences and cinema and so forth.  As far as original lead female blockbusters, more scripts written by women and directed by women, well, good luck with that.  Not that there aren't brilliant female directors out there, Jane Campion, Sofia Copolla etc.

@Len Cnut

Quote

 I haven't even seen Ghostbusters. I got into this discussion because I found it silly to see black people in 17th Century France in Beauty and the Beast  My immediate instinctive reaction when I saw that, was: token black. I also said that it didn't annoy be, but I found it silly.

You know what, I never even noticed it, though having said that I've only ever watched Beauty & The Beast once with a lady friend under extreme duress to satisfy some sort of fetish for her childhood nostalgia at the time  

Quote

I don't think we need any more polarising in this world, least of all in America. This sort of thing makes people more extreme, not closer to each other. That's my point.

It doesn't come out of nothing though, does it?  Its just throwing a light on certain realities.  It's even potentially healthy I think.

 

Quote

 

But again, it's not something that will affect me personally. I don't feel offended by black people in The Beauty and the Beast or female Ghostbusters or some female in Star Wars. I will merely chuckle at it and roll my eyes. (Same way I chuckle when Americans yet again save the world from aliens/a meteor/...) I live with diversity every day and I don't need patronizing Hollywood to realize we should all be treated as equals in this world.

 

Well I wish more people were like you and felt the same and said so more often...and not just when a bunch of girls don Ghostbusters outfits.  I feel the same about a lot more of modern cinema, particularly mainstream.  In fact its increasingly a struggle to find instances where it isn't patronising.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Len Cnut

[-W.A.R-]

[downzy]

20 hours ago, MB. said:

I have never said women or minorities should be excluded from franchises, where did you get that from? 

People don’t like big changes and certainly not Star Wars fans, which come in every form and gender btw! Star Wars fans are indeed overly sensitive, extremely senstive actually. They do love everything kind of the same as it has always been. I actually had no problem with the new Star Wars personally, it was most certainly not the best either though. But I do understand the discussion about it. Look I like the Resident evil’s as well (yes, my taste is questionable, I know), now if they would have killed her off halfway and replaced her with a guy (or even with another women, but definately a guy), it would have extremely pissed me off. Btw this was a good example of a pretty big female movie franchise. See I don’t like big changes either. Same goes for Star Wars fans, I assume. Luke is their hero, like Alice is mine and changing that would suck. 

Oh and the last years all- male lead movies are criticized btw, you did miss the discussions.  Not that that’s a bad thing, but I personally don’t have a problem with all male, all female, all black or all gay leads in movies. All are perfectly fine to me. You really did miss the Expendables discussion after the first. See The Expendables added a female lead after all the critics on the first and I personally would love Jovovich added, they should do that if a woman has to be in it. But if they never had added a female, I wouldn’t had a problem with it as well, it didn’t make me feel offended. I happen to like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Norris, Chan etc. and I certainly love Statham. All of them in one (well three) movies, was great. I don’t see the problem in an all-male movie, with some guns and explosions. I didn’t feel the need a woman should be added, to prove a female can shoot a gun and fight as well. Ofcourse we can, but not necessarly in this movie, there are other movies made were it is proven. However they did add a female though, it’s fine they did, but it also didn’t add that much. Again, you missed the discussion. So I disagree with your statement that all male movies are considered appealing, that’s not the case anymore. It isn’t a bad thing, but people don’t have to criticize everything.

 You made some valid points in this whole discussion and it’s not that I don’t agree with some stuff you said about movies. I just don’t agree with everything. And yeah, the answer is simple people don’t like changes in a good loved concept with established genderroles, to me there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. It’s a bit sentiment and in this current US political climat it feels often forced to many people, it polarizes at times instead of bringing people together. I personally don’t need that, I don’t live there. To me both sides in the US are overly sensitive atm and people are exxareting on both sides.

Apologies, as my questions were open-ended and weren't meant to assume you said otherwise.  

I only raised those questions partly in response to your list of many strong roles for females, minorities, and gay actors and actresses.  My issue wasn't that there haven't been great roles for non-white men, but whether there was space for non-white actors and actresses within a well known and traditional tentpole film where roles were traditionally or previously given to white men.  

There seems to be this undercurrent amongst male critics of the most recent instalments of Ghostbusters or Star Wars that this is a no go zone for female actors (or, at the very least, female actors that play the lead protagonist).  The response seems to be that any inclusion of a female into these films should not come at the expense of the traditional male-hero construct and that new and original properties be created to appease those looking for diversity or gender equality (never mind that there doesn't seem to be anything original coming out of Hollywood for either men or women concerning your summer popcorn flick).  That to be a Ghostbuster or a Jedi is to be a white male (exceptions given to black actors so long as they've paid their dues and been around for decades like Samuel L. Jackson).

With respect to your example of Resident Evil, I would say that the difference between it and Star Wars is that the same people who complain about a female lead Jedi probably wouldn't care if they changed RE's protagonist from female to male.  Or, to the point, few would accuse "Hollywood" or the film's studio of pandering to a male audience if the next instalment of RE involved a male protagonist.  You personally might not like it and complain about it, but would use accuse the intentions of the film producers with cynical intentions?   Are they guilty of sacrificing their artistic integrity to appease some social agenda or pander to a male audience?   But we see this pattern of criticism again and again with respect to Star Wars and other entertainment properties.  

Apologies, but I don't recall any accusations of pandering when the first Expendables film hit the theatres.  Sure, there might have been the odd criticism that there should have been a female action star, but again, it's neither from the same group who likely complain about Star Wars or Ghostbusters and I don't ever recall coming across the criticism that the all male cast was tantamount to pandering to a certain target audience.  Then again, perhaps my memory is failing or I just didn't see it, but I tried Googling these criticism and came up empty.

I personally don't have a problem with all male, female, white, black, gay, or straight casts either.  I believe someone earlier (I think it was W.A.R.) who said that the bigger issue is when people complain about the lack of diversity.  It gets a little nuts when films are criticized for being exclusive or insensitive because the lack of diversity or how certain characters are presented (a good example was Leslie Jones' character in Ghostbusters - some people went crazy complaining that she should have been a scientist too so as to not imply that black people can't be scientists).  But what what I have a real problem with is the use of SJW to criticize a film solely based on the gender or racial makeup of the cast.  This criticism is never consistent, lacks any real supporting evidence, and almost always ignores social agendas in films that they like and approve.

Speaking more broadly, the heteronormative and white power structure within the United States and elsewhere is being challenged by changing demographics and social mores.  Ultimately I think a lot of the criticisms discussed in this thread relates to white men feeling threatened and pushing against the present and coming changes.  And hence we see some look for further evidence that their status and rank is being challenged whenever and wherever they can.  So when a girl picks up a lightsaber and becomes a hero in a story that has never allowed for that, I think it further reinforces the anxieties and concerns that are rocking the white-male demographic.  

I won't put words in your mouth, but with respect to your last point, I'll only speak for myself here and say that a film makers job is not to bring people together.  Their only responsibility is to execute as well as they can on the vision that motivates them to make any given film.  They should only be judged upon the film that they ultimately produce.  J.J. Abrams and Rhian Johnson shouldn't be making Star Wars films to coddle anyone.  As much as I disliked The Last Jedi, I still respect the fact that Johnson made a film that felt true to him and that my criticisms of the film do not resort to cheap shots about liberal agendas or pandering to a certain audience.  

[downzy]

15 hours ago, Dazey said:

First thing to say is that I'm a massive fan of the original Ghostbusters. It's the first movie I can remember seeing in a cinema back in the early eighties. I must have watched it over 100 times and I can recite the whole thing word for word so I'm not entirely unbiased here. 

My issue with the reboot is that as soon as the director was announced I thought to myself "Oh, he's going to cast Melissa McCarthy and she's going to play Melissa McCarthy and it's going to be terrible". 

Sure enough, the announcement came and in this case it did look as though the creative process went as follows:

1) Paul Feig named as director - Check

2) All female cast because that's what Paul Feig does - Check

3) Call Melissa McCarthy - Check

4) Maybe think about writing a script 

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not the fact that this was an all female cast that was the problem in itself. Rather that this seems to have been the first thought in the head of those concerned rather than making a good movie.

My other major gripe is that the whole thing was just so tonally wrong. The original Ghostbusters was really funny but it was also played completely straight. The reboot did away with good writing and believable characters in favour of slapstick and fucking qweef jokes. Seriously?

But do they even make movies like that anymore?  

Most of the tone and feel of the movies in the 80s has been exercised from film making, arguably since the mid to late 90s.  There is no modern day version of John Hughes.  Films today don't let scenes breath or allow for empty space and slow pacing.  I don't recall seeing too many movies made in the last fifteen years that played it straight but were also funny.  I'm not sure who to blame, maybe Adam Sandler or the Farrelly bothers.  Films today are polished to the point where there are no rough edges.   

I think even if Feig wasn't given ownership of the film, whoever made it probably would have made something similar, even if they used an all male cast.  

I do agree that Feig's first thought was probably to cast female's for the lead Ghostbusters parts.  That's what he does as his film credits are pretty consistent in that respect.  For whatever reason he feels more comfortable writing for women roles.  Not that this is your point, but I don't think this means he made his Ghostbusters female to pander to a particular demographic or to shoehorn some liberal agenda.   

 

[downzy]

11 hours ago, Lio said:

No one's saying it's a weighty substantial movie (well, maybe MB and Dazey are ), but we're mainly just saying that it's stupid to force a female/black/whatever minority down audience's throat to show how much you applaud diversity and how liberal you are. It doesn't work and it doesn't do those minorities a favour. People feel patronized and it polarizes people even more, instead of bringing them together, what should be the social agenda.

Where exactly are you sourcing this intention?  Isn't it quite possible that Feig, a man known to work with women in his biggest films, would want to continue to work with women because he enjoys writing and directing women?  

This accusation keeps getting made without anything to substantiate it other than, "look, women Ghostbusters!  Agenda!"

[Dazey]

10 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Shakespeare. One of the greatest of all time; is a fucking dumby for casting men in female roles.

I think that probably had more to do with the fact that women generally didn’t act in the theatre at all back then. 

[Lio]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Where exactly are you sourcing this intention?  Isn't it quite possible that Feig, a man known to work with women in his biggest films, would want to continue to work with women because he enjoys writing and directing women?  

This accusation keeps getting made without anything to substantiate it other than, "look, women Ghostbusters!  Agenda!"

I was just here to talk about Beauty and the Beast!! I haven't seen the female Ghostbusters. I saw a trailer and found it horrible, so I didn't watch it. I don't know any of the actresses, but in that trailer I think they're all doing a terrible job. I haven't seen any of Paul Feig's films. In fact, I'd never even  heard of him. I just looked on iMDB and they're not films that I would like to see. If all his films were with actors, I wouldn't watch them either.

 

A bit off-topic then, but want to mention it anyway, as it kind of fits in this whole social agenda, diversity, minority kind of thing. Not movies this time, but children's books. My daughter's in a book jury and she was telling me about a book she's reading now. It's about a kid named George, but it's actually a girl, she said. In the book, they always call George 'she', but when she wants to play the female lead in a school play, the teacher says she can't audition, because she's a boy. To which I reacted: Oh, is it a boy who feels like he's a girl? And I started talking about this tv reporter that was a he, but is now a she. And my daughter was: No, mum, she's a girl in a boy's body.

So by reading this book, my daughter is already ahead of me on the transgender issue She sees them as being born in the wrong body while I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

I had never heard of the book, probably at least some of you have. I would say the writer has an agenda too: http://www.alexgino.com/about-alex/

http://www.slj.com/2015/09/interviews/alex-gino-on-debut-novel-george-and-the-importance-of-transgender-voices-in-the-kid-lit-world/

Just to say I'm not against an agenda per se. In this instance, I applaud it and think it's very valuable.

[action]

i suspect a few people aren't familiar with the fact that all of our ancestors were black. when we migrated to northern territories, it wasn't really necessary for our bodies to produce as much melamine anymore, so our skin turned a lighter tint.

so the only reason we are white or black , is because of evolutionary benefits.

now then, can we quit this idiotic focus on skin colour?

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by action

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

True but he perpetuated it, at least that's my assumption. Would he have been punished if he'd allowed female actors?

It just wasn’t done, by anyone.  It actually came prominence by copying the French, they set the standard for it in Europe, over here they had boys play the female roles.

[DieselDaisy]

In Ancient Greek theatre males played female roles. 

[Len Cnut]

18 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Have you seen the version of The Tempest with Helen Mirren playing Prospero Prospera? I quite liked it. She's a very good actress and kind of hot despite being incredibly old lol.

 

Was watching her last night actually in a production of The Country Wife by the BBC. 

Quote

I don't give too much credence to the whole "Well, it was completely and utterly vapid but we're talking about how shit it is so it must be doing something right, right?"

Thats not what was being said.

Quote

You know performance art? The reality TV of the art-world. Here's a real life example of that my stepfather told me he saw; some talentless 'artist' at a gallery had a 'piece' which was literally just a regular blanket on the floor. A blanket. On the floor. Fuck off! They stated you were even allowed to interact with it - ooooohh, deep! 

Its not the actual physical thing, its the idea behind it.

Quote

How the audience responds to art does not add or detract from the art itself

Yes it does...in fact it defines the art, audience responses are what it gives it meaning, without an audience there is no art.

Quote

that's incredibly lazy and pretentious.

Its all pretentious though isn't it?  Art is pretencious by definition, cinema including.  Watching a bunch of people pretending to be another bunch of people or a bunch of people in imaginary scenarios is pretentious.  You know what ain't pretentious, doing your shift, eating bread and cheese, shagging your bird and going to sleep.

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It’s not the actual physical thing, its the idea behind it.

Nah. Load of fucking shite innit.