LOL.. where PC is taking us.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2017, 09:31 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This doesn't seem to be an attack on Baldwin as much as it is an attack on the industry. I get it, the portrayals would be more authentic. Obviously we see an issue with someone pulling a Mickey Rooney a la Breakfast at Tiffany's, but as a society, we don't see disability the same way we see skin color. In special education, one of the repeating themes is that disability is one of the final civil rights battles, one we constantly advocate for in the profession.

That said, this is silly. Going back to SSF's post early in this thread, the way the fight has turned for many progressive groups is focused on attack rather than understanding. Don't immediately compare this to black face and attack everyone, encourage casting directors to look at actors with disabilities. I can't name a big name blind actor, can you?

Not to mention that there are real world difficulties in having a blind actor.  Blocking a scene would be a onerous task.  Actors have to very precisely look in certain directions, respond to visual cues and know where the camera is at all times.  The bottom line is that hiring a blind actor would raise a host of difficulties, some of them insurmountable.  As you said this isn't black face or throwing in a set of buckteeth to play an Asian stereotype.

This thread does perfectly illustrate the response of some to even cogent, rational arguments on this topic.  You're automatically attacked and, if not called one outright, it is insinuated that you are a bigot.  I'm not sure, but labeling anyone who disagrees with you on even a minor point as a racist or bigot might not be the way to win people over.

[Benton]

(07-10-2017, 11:03 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not to mention that there are real world difficulties in having a blind actor.  Blocking a scene would be a onerous task.  Actors have to very precisely look in certain directions, respond to visual cues and know where the camera is at all times.  The bottom line is that hiring a blind actor would raise a host of difficulties, some of them insurmountable.  As you said this isn't black face or throwing in a set of buckteeth to play an Asian stereotype.

This thread does perfectly illustrate the response of some to even cogent, rational arguments on this topic.  You're automatically attacked and, if not called one outright, it is insinuated that you are a bigot.  I'm not sure, but labeling anyone who disagrees with you on even a minor point as a racist or bigot might not be the way to win people over.

And if he couldn't do those, the audience might know the guy was blind.



Seriously though, whole thing is silly. I don't think it's a PC thing, though, or political. I think it's a problem inherent in the growing multitude of foundations, groups, think tanks, etc., that like to collect a large chunk of money for basically promoting ridiculous ideas. Pick an agenda (or two), start barking (easier to do now with social media circumventing traditional media) and wait for a few donors with deep pockets who think the way you do. Like sponsored social causes. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-10-2017, 11:27 AM)Benton Wrote: And if he couldn't do those, the audience might know the guy was blind.

Haha, I knew someone would make this point, although you certainly did so facetiously.  Coming off as blind is one thing, not being able to actually film a scene is another.  Yes, his looking the wrong way in real life would certainly lend credence to the idea that the person is blind.  Looking the wrong way on film ruins a scene.

Quote:Seriously though, whole thing is silly. I don't think it's a PC thing, though, or political. I think it's a problem inherent in the growing multitude of foundations, groups, think tanks, etc., that like to collect a large chunk of money for basically promoting ridiculous ideas. Pick an agenda (or two), start barking (easier to do now with social media circumventing traditional media) and wait for a few donors with deep pockets who think the way you do. Like sponsored social causes. 

Pretty much this.  The grievance machine certainly lends itself to this.

[Belsnickel]

(07-09-2017, 11:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It was just a joke.  I guess I should have made it more obvious.

I was assuming it was since it was you, there are some that I would not give that benefit of the doubt to, though. I just wanted to be sure.

[*michaelsean*]

They are called actors. They pretend to be all sorts of things they are not. Rumor has it that Raymond Burr could actually walk.

But I'm going to go with Benton on this, and not call it a PC thing as much as just another of the God knows how many advocacy groups trying to earn their money.

[Dill]

(07-10-2017, 09:31 AM)ABmorePat87 Wrote: This doesn't seem to be an attack on Baldwin as much as it is an attack on the industry. I get it, the portrayals would be more authentic. Obviously we see an issue with someone pulling a Mickey Rooney a la Breakfast at Tiffany's, but as a society, we don't see disability the same way we see skin color. In special education, one of the repeating themes is that disability is one of the final civil rights battles, one we constantly advocate for in the profession.

That said, this is silly. Going back to SSF's post early in this thread, the way the fight has turned for many progressive groups is focused on attack rather than understanding. Don't immediately compare this to black face and attack everyone, encourage casting directors to look at actors with disabilities. I can't name a big name blind actor, can you?

I agree the critique is directed towards the industry. Baldwin did not cast himself and was never the issue.

But I don't think the issue is aesthetic, relating to dramatic integrity or some such. Screen portrayals are not more authentic because a "real" X is playing the role of an X. (Hollywood knows this. Think of Audie Murphy playing a "real" soldier. Not so good.)

Rather, the issue is about raising awareness of the competency and humanity of the disabled, first in Hollywood, but also in the public. An advocacy group is asking the industry to give competent disabled actors a chance--hence the white paper and list of actors who could be considered for roles. Their case is partly that people in the industry have preconceptions about people with disabilities that prevent them from considering disabled people for roles. They also want to see the industry move away from stereotypical portrayals and to show people with disabilities in roles where disability is actually not the point. So Ruderman is actually doing what you suggest they do above. If this group is right about the "invisibility" of competent disabled actors, as well as disability issues, then they can expect some push back from people who "don't see a problem," and some of it will be cruel (see the readers comments on the RS OP link).

So I don't see much of an "attack" here, other than in the article title and in Leonard's riff on how "PC are eating their own" and a list of imagined rules now to be imposed on Hollywood. What caught my interest in this thread was not the issue itself, but how immediately it became a kind of Rorschach blot upon which pent up fears of PC were projected, "confirmed," and expanded. I wonder how many people who "already know" what this issue is about actually checked out the Ruderman White Paper or the link to the round table on actors with disabilities?
http://www.rudermanfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TV-White-Paper_final.final_.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-disabled-actors-hollywood-diversity-20161101-story.html

[Vas Deferens]

Not sure people would have liked the blind date episode of 30 rock as much if Maria Thayer's fine ass wasn't in it. Aside from being a smoking piece of tail, she's also damn funny (for a woman of course.)

Seriously though. There are bigger issues with the industry than this that would need to be tackled, e.g. Nepotism.

Rabble rabble, something about jews running Hollywood.

IM OUT.

[xxlt]

(07-10-2017, 03:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree the critique is directed towards the industry. Baldwin did not cast himself and was never the issue.

But I don't think the issue is aesthetic, relating to dramatic integrity or some such. Screen portrayals are not more authentic because a "real" X is playing the role of an X. (Hollywood knows this. Think of Audie Murphy playing a "real" soldier. Not so good.)

Rather, the issue is about raising awareness of the competency and humanity of the disabled, first in Hollywood, but also in the public. An advocacy group is asking the industry to give competent disabled actors a chance--hence the white paper and list of actors who could be considered for roles. Their case is partly that people in the industry have preconceptions about people with disabilities that prevent them from considering disabled people for roles. They also want to see the industry move away from stereotypical portrayals and to show people with disabilities in roles where disability is actually not the point. So Ruderman is actually doing what you suggest they do above. If this group is right about the "invisibility" of competent disabled actors, as well as disability issues, then they can expect some push back from people who "don't see a problem," and some of it will be cruel (see the readers comments on the RS OP link).

So I don't see much of an "attack" here, other than in the article title and in Leonard's riff on how "PC are eating their own" and a list of imagined rules now to be imposed on Hollywood. What caught my interest in this thread was not the issue itself, but how immediately it became a kind of Rorschach blot upon which pent up fears of PC were projected, "confirmed," and expanded. I wonder how many people who "already know" what this issue is about actually checked out the Ruderman White Paper or the link to the round table on actors with disabilities?
http://www.rudermanfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TV-White-Paper_final.final_.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-disabled-actors-hollywood-diversity-20161101-story.html

This post does a good job of making the case for the validity of the Ruderman Foundation's advocacy. But what makes the case so much better for it are the posts that ridicule it. If you would have told me that, I would have questioned it. But seeing is believing, and you can't make this stuff up.

[Dill]

(07-11-2017, 03:53 PM)xxlt Wrote: This post does a good job of making the case for the validity of the Ruderman Foundation's advocacy. But what makes the case so much better for it are the posts that ridicule it. If you would have told me that, I would have questioned it. But seeing is believing, and you can't make this stuff up.

Some of those posters don't seem to think they are acting cruelly at all. Makes me wonder how the world looks through the eyes of someone with both talent and a disability trying to enter the workforce, not just in acting.

One element of the White Paper though that might be deservedly criticized is its broadening of the term "disability" to include people with minimal impairments, like barely autistic.  That will elicit more scorn.

[xxlt]

(07-11-2017, 04:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Some of those posters don't seem to think they are acting cruelly at all. Makes me wonder how the world looks through the eyes of someone with both talent and a disability trying to enter the workforce, not just in acting.

One element of the White Paper though that might be deservedly criticized is its broadening of the term "disability" to include people with minimal impairments, like barely autistic.  That will elicit more scorn.

Agreed.