Super Social Analysis: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and LGBT in Movies

[starri]

On 3/19/2017 at 0:44 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I thought it was kind of hilarious that they updated Bridget Jones's gay best friend so that he wore a beard, was married, and was about to adopt a kid. For whatever reason that seems to be the ideal now for gays.

I'm two out of the three of those.  Just saying.

[aradia22]

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Lea-Salonga-on-Live-Action-MULAN--It-Will-Stand-Proud-and-Tall-Without-the-Songs-20170320

[Silver Raven]

The yellow power ranger is going to be gay in the new movie.

[DarkRaichu]

Love Lea Salonga in Aladdin :P

Casting Mulan is like casting Wonder Woman in a lot of ways.  So many people have different ideas about who she is and how she should look.

[aradia22]

I understand that Wonder Woman is important to a lot of people. But Wonder Woman is a fictional character from a bastardized version of Greek mythology literally and figuratively tied up in the bondage fetishes of her creator. Mulan is an important Chinese cultural figure that should be portrayed respectfully and can be a positive female role model without layering on other issues or unpacking various waves of feminism.

[topanga]

Here's an interview with Daniel Kaluuya from 'Get Off.' He talks about his experiences as a black person and an actor, and racism in the UK. And he addresses Samuel L. Jackson's comments about non-American actors playing black American characters: 

Quote

Big up Samuel L. Jackson, because here's a guy who has broken down doors. He has done a lot so that we can do what we can do.

Here's the thing about that critique, though. I'm dark-skinned, bro. When I'm around black people I'm made to feel "other" because I'm dark-skinned. I've had to wrestle with that, with people going "You're too black." Then I come to America and they say, "You're not black enough." I go to Uganda, I can't speak the language. In India, I'm black. In the black community, I'm dark-skinned. In America, I'm British. Bro!

Let me say, I'm not trying to culture-vulture the thing. I empathize. That script spoke to me. I've been to Ugandan weddings, and funerals, and seen that cousin bring a white girl. That's a thing in all communities. I really respect African American people. I just want to tell black stories.

This is the frustrating thing, bro—in order to prove that I can play this role, I have to open up about the trauma that I've experienced as a black person. I have to show off my struggle so that people accept that I'm black.

 

10 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I understand that Wonder Woman is important to a lot of people. But Wonder Woman is a fictional character from a bastardized version of Greek mythology literally and figuratively tied up in the bondage fetishes of her creator. Mulan is an important Chinese cultural figure that should be portrayed respectfully and can be a positive female role model without layering on other issues or unpacking various waves of feminism.

aradia22, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so what did you mean by "layering on other issues" and "unpacking various waves of feminism"? 

[DarkRaichu]

9 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I understand that Wonder Woman is important to a lot of people. But Wonder Woman is a fictional character from a bastardized version of Greek mythology literally and figuratively tied up in the bondage fetishes of her creator. Mulan is an important Chinese cultural figure that should be portrayed respectfully and can be a positive female role model without layering on other issues or unpacking various waves of feminism.

The comparison was made since both Wonder Woman and Mulan (as most people recognize) are both fictional characters with fanbase that span generations. There have been multiple versions of the Mulan story dating back to 6th centrury, the Disney Mulan movies were / would be other versions of the tale. The point was there were many people who idolize these characters, not to mention the many versions of the stories, that would make the casting process difficult due to the expectation.

I absolutely agree that the potrayal of Mulan should be handled with a lot of respect and with some base in reality.  

My hope is Mulan would open up doors to more movies about heroines in China vast history, perhaps Princess Pingyang or Li Siniang.

As for casting Mulan role, my preference would be someone with Chinese ancestry and some martial arts skill.   My main gripe with Mulan animated movies was Mulan learned her martial arts in 3 months training montage instead of from young age.   It would have been impossible for anyone to raise through the ranks without martial art skills beyond whatever provided in the basic training at the time.

[JBC344]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:27 AM, aradia22 said:

I feel like that's happening with Jennifer Lawrence... especially after she talked about the wage discrepancy. But to be fair, Robert Downey Jr. also gets accused of being greedy. But to be fairer, it kind of seems like he is. I know he has to pay a whole team but do you really deserve that huge paycheck for being Iron Man?

Of course, it's hard to fight the wage gap battle with multi-million dollar actor paychecks. On the one hand, you have a platform that lets you speak but on the other hand, you're earning so much more than the average person that it's hard to focus on the gender pay gap and easier to find it all pretty unsympathetic. And acting is still perceived as kind of easy or... superficial. I'm too tired to think of the right words right now. But it would be interesting as far as the movies go to see the conversation extended to screenwriters and directors whose work is a little more tangible. Though outside of movies, I think it's still more important to have this conversation around careers where a wage gap can make a difference in financial stability and the ability to support a household.

I guess I never understood the argument that "actors/entertainers/etc" get paid too much money to ever complain.  I personally have always just found it insulting and incredibly transparent.  Robert Downey Jr, gets paid millions of dollars to play Iron Man because that is how much he is worth to the company. You have to think about from the standpoint of the company who is paying him.  Chris Rock has a famous joke about "being rich" vs "being wealthy".  The joke was that Shaq who at the time got paid millions of dollars to play basketball is rich but the person who signs Shaq's check is wealthy. 

The concept is no different than any other industry.  If your bringing a specific skill set to a company that is worthy than the company should pay you fairly.  Whether you are an IT person, a salesman, or an entertainer.  For me, there is no such thing as someone is "paid too much".  That is a concept that I just don't understand. 

[aradia22]

Quote

aradia22, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so what did you mean by "layering on other issues" and "unpacking various waves of feminism"? 

I'm not really much for the online chatter. I prefer to see a movie when it comes out and judge it then. But my understanding is that some people have been pushing for Mulan to be portrayed as a lesbian because of the Once Upon a Time portrayal or maybe an androgynous/genderfluid/transgender (not conflating all those words, those are just some of the ideas I've heard floated out) character because of the crossdressing aspect.

The second part was more about Wonder Woman. I'm not well versed in the entire history of the character but from her original conception to the TV show to more modern associations as one of the few well-known female superheroes (United Nations, merchandising, etc.) she has evolved to suit changing narratives and ideologies of feminism but those are all part of the character. For instance, and I might have this wrong, you've got the bondage elements remaining in elements like the lasso and the bracelets. You have notions from both the 1940's pinup and the 1970's complicated version of a sexually empowered woman that leads to her fighting crime in a swimsuit and high heels. You have the original concept and also the additional years of investigation (not the right word but I'm tired) into goddess and Amazonian mythology, which is reflected a bit more in the newer costume which reminds me of Xena. There's more there in the way the character has evolved and how people have projected their own opinions and needs onto her. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by aradia22

[xaxat]

2 hours ago, DarkRaichu said:

Mulan is an important Chinese cultural figure that should be portrayed respectfully 

I suspect that Disney's desire to make this movie do blockbuster box office in China will have an influence on making this happen. 

[aradia22]

Quote

But the top end is also where income transforms into political power and the ability to sponsor other creative works. I think it's really important there, too, and I get cranky when I see people dismissing the pay discrepancy in Hollywood because actors are so highly paid anyway. 

I'm not dismissing the wage gap in Hollywood. But as a larger political movement, I don't think this is the hill we should die on because right or wrong it's a less sympathetic position to argue. Hollywood can enter the debate but it shouldn't be the end of the debate. 

Re: Robert Downey Jr. There was some story about negotiations that just seemed a little scummy. I forget the exact details. It was a while back, either for the first or second Avengers movie. To speak more in general, I would say it's like having an executive at a company. Someone else could probably do his job just as well. But when he's negotiating, he brings up your big client in Iceland. He's friendly with them and sure, they might accept another person, but do you really want to take that risk? And you bring up how outside of the Iceland company, his track record is far from impressive but he's just like... what about Iceland? And in the game of chicken, you give in. Meanwhile, when he's working, he gets involved in every aspect of the Iceland deal to the point where he's messing some things up just to try and make himself more indispensable even though it's sometimes to the detriment of the project. 

[DarkRaichu]

8 minutes ago, xaxat said:

I suspect that Disney's desire to make this movie do blockbuster box office in China will have an influence on making this happen. 

OT: Interesting how the text you quoted was from @aradia22 post but the quote bubble (and the notification) made it look like it was from me.  I am sure it is one of those forum quirks, but it was just interesting that I got notified for somebody else's post being quoted. :D

I agree with your point, btw

[JBC344]

1 hour ago, aradia22 said:

I'm not dismissing the wage gap in Hollywood. But as a larger political movement, I don't think this is the hill we should die on because right or wrong it's a less sympathetic position to argue. Hollywood can enter the debate but it shouldn't be the end of the debate. 

Re: Robert Downey Jr. There was some story about negotiations that just seemed a little scummy. I forget the exact details. It was a while back, either for the first or second Avengers movie. To speak more in general, I would say it's like having an executive at a company. Someone else could probably do his job just as well. But when he's negotiating, he brings up your big client in Iceland. He's friendly with them and sure, they might accept another person, but do you really want to take that risk? And you bring up how outside of the Iceland company, his track record is far from impressive but he's just like... what about Iceland? And in the game of chicken, you give in. Meanwhile, when he's working, he gets involved in every aspect of the Iceland deal to the point where he's messing some things up just to try and make himself more indispensable even though it's sometimes to the detriment of the project. 

In this case "Iceland" is the biggest account the company has, so while Downey's other projects don't do as well Marvel could care less since the movies he does with them make them hundreds of millions of dollars.

[aradia22]

Quote

In this case "Iceland" is the biggest account the company has, so while Downey's other projects don't do as well Marvel could care less since the movies he does with them make them hundreds of millions of dollars.

To bring it back to gender, I think part of the issue is that he also gets involved in some of the decisions... making sure Iron Man has a bigger part, certain lines, etc. I don't think actresses have as much bravado to act like they're indispensable, whether or not they are. I don't think it's as basic as the number you ask for but the way you behave in general and the way people (are sometimes unconsciously programmed to) behave towards you in general. And actually, I think it's notable because Disney actually isn't in the business of bankable stars. They're in the business of franchises that benefit from the talent but should exist outside of them. We'll see what happens in phase 3 or 5 or whatever it is now. 

Also, while the MCU has been huge for them, Star Wars is starting to come up (Force Awakens beat the totals of the individual Marvel movies) so we'll see what that means for that talent throwing their supposed box office weight around in negotiations.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 2/4/2017 at 1:04 PM, KatWay said:

I tend to agree with you there, also because you simply won't find any A-List female stars with the same kind of baggage attached as male A-listers like Gibson, Depp, Cruise, Penn, etc. The worst I've heard of big female actresses is some being called arrogant and snobbish. Out of touch (Gwyneth), trying to hard (Anne Hathaway), obnoxious (JLaw). You won't find one who's an alcoholic, has substance abuse problems, used racist slurs in the past, or has had accusations of domestic abuse flung their way. Or worse, when it comes to directors - Woody Allen, Polanski.

I imagine there are actresses like that out there, who have severe problems, but they don't make it big. They don't get chance after chance to redeem themselves, they don't have the industry protecting them. Women are held to a different standard.

So here's an honest question, because I don't know the answer - if actresses work with people in the industry who have done terrible things, is it fair to paint them with the same brush?

Kate Winslet and Jodie Foster co-starred in Roman Polanski's Carnage in 2011. Kristen Stewart was in Woody Allen's Cafe Society. Cate Blanchett was in Blue Jasmine, the last thing Allen did that was worth a damn, IMO. JLaw has worked with David O. Russell repeatedly, despite his reputation as an asshat. Foster in particular should perhaps know better; while I've always admired her because she's one of the few child stars who turned out well and made smart choices, how much of Polanski's past was she overlooking by being in one of his films, and by extension how much culpability do actresses in general have if they work with someone who is, for lack of a better word to use, shady?

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, JBC344 said:

The concept is no different than any other industry.  If your bringing a specific skill set to a company that is worthy than the company should pay you fairly.  Whether you are an IT person, a salesman, or an entertainer.  For me, there is no such thing as someone is "paid too much".  That is a concept that I just don't understand. 

I agree and disagree.  I think, as faces of successful franchises, they deserve a big piece of the pie.

But "value" and "worth it" aren't totally based on spreadsheets.  There's a lot of subjectivity to it.  Take a property like Iron Man, how much of that first movie's box office was Robert and how much was the beginning of the comic craze?  Subsequent movies involving the Avengers have done really well so how much additional value to does he really add to the movies where they're all involved?  There's guesswork involved in things that can't be quantified.

And when there's guesswork, it opens the door for things like gender bias.  For instance, J Law's salary in American Hustle was less than the men yet she was all over the promotional materials. So they valued her more than they offered her. And I'm bringing up TV (possibly its movie too) but Gillian Anderson has mentioned receiving X-Files offers that were half of what was offered to her male co-star even though they're equally the face of that franchise.

Value does involve dollar signs but it also involves a lot of perception.  And men tend to be seen as more valuable in many careers whether it's true or not. 

17 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

how much culpability do actresses in general have if they work with someone who is, for lack of a better word to use, shady?

Good question and it's one I don't have an answer for.  I can say "no" to Woody, Polansky...etc.  Does it extend to those who work with them?  Eh, that's less easy for me to decide because I know people can be self-deceptive yet their self-deception allows the perps to continue working.  But I do see a difference between asshole and abusive.  I don't know much about O'Russell but I don't blame J Law for working with a jerk. 

[JustaPerson]

Isn't Jodie Foster also good friends with Mel Gibson? I read she was one of the few people to stand with him during his, ahem, troubles. 

[aradia22]

Quote

So here's an honest question, because I don't know the answer - if actresses work with people in the industry who have done terrible things, is it fair to paint them with the same brush?

Kate Winslet and Jodie Foster co-starred in Roman Polanski's Carnage in 2011. Kristen Stewart was in Woody Allen's Cafe Society. Cate Blanchett was in Blue Jasmine

The quick and easy answer is no, working with someone who did the horrible thing is a super far cry from being the person who did the horrible thing. And I also think we spend too much time demanding things of the women around the men who do the terrible things instead of holding the men who do the terrible things accountable. It's a way of deflecting from the bad men and also continuing to police and criticize women because God knows we can't do enough of that. 

The more complicated answer is that I don't think it's fruitful to go around boycotting everyone for everything, especially if you don't have an organized movement with support that explains why you're boycotting the thing and actually makes a dent in profits and/or sends a message. So I'm not going to go out of my way to remember all of these actors so I can make sure I never see their movies. (Frankly, it's not like I go to see that many movies. Most of them don't interest me.) However when it comes to someone like Jodie Foster with Mel Gibson or Diane Keaton with Woody Allen, there's a certain level of complicity in their level of support. And yes, to a lesser extent, there's also a certain level of complicity in participating in a project that might garner that person acclaim, monetary rewards, mainstream acceptance/forgiveness for the man who did the bad thing. I understand that actors have to be their own moral arbiters and make their own decisions in their lives. And I also think that important causes need all the allies they can get and we shouldn't be interrogating the moral character of everyone who wants to donate money or speak for a cause unless they're trying to be a figurehead for that cause or they're trying to paper over some of their own shadiness, etc. etc. But I think you're allowed to be disappointed in someone who fails to live up to the ideals they might claim to hold at one moment when it's convenient for them. And yes, actresses do have to make tough choices about their careers but comparatively speaking, most of the actors you named don't have it so tough and could easily have made another choice.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, aradia22 said:

The quick and easy answer is no, working with someone who did the horrible thing is a super far cry from being the person who did the horrible thing. And I also think we spend too much time demanding things of the women around the men who do the terrible things instead of holding the men who do the terrible things accountable. It's a way of deflecting from the bad men and also continuing to police and criticize women because God knows we can't do enough of that. 

The more complicated answer is that I don't think it's fruitful to go around boycotting everyone for everything, especially if you don't have an organized movement with support that explains why you're boycotting the thing and actually makes a dent in profits and/or sends a message. So I'm not going to go out of my way to remember all of these actors so I can make sure I never see their movies. (Frankly, it's not like I go to see that many movies. Most of them don't interest me.) However when it comes to someone like Jodie Foster with Mel Gibson or Diane Keaton with Woody Allen, there's a certain level of complicity in their level of support. And yes, to a lesser extent, there's also a certain level of complicity in participating in a project that might garner that person acclaim, monetary rewards, mainstream acceptance/forgiveness for the man who did the bad thing. I understand that actors have to be their own moral arbiters and make their own decisions in their lives. And I also think that important causes need all the allies they can get and we shouldn't be interrogating the moral character of everyone who wants to donate money or speak for a cause unless they're trying to be a figurehead for that cause or they're trying to paper over some of their own shadiness, etc. etc. But I think you're allowed to be disappointed in someone who fails to live up to the ideals they might claim to hold at one moment when it's convenient for them. And yes, actresses do have to make tough choices about their careers but comparatively speaking, most of the actors you named don't have it so tough and could easily have made another choice.

As to the first part of what you said, I just think its an interesting conundrum. Because for all that people point fingers at men and say, Oh, its so awful that they get away with stuff that women could never get away with, if you point out that there are, in fact, women who will work with these men who get away with stuff, confirmation bias or whatever you want to call it kicks in and it becomes, Well, let's not police and criticize women. Because God knows we can't get enough of saying that men shouldn't be allowed to escape consequences, but if women work with the men who escape consequences, then that's.....okay? I don't know.

As to moral character, I don't think its necessary to put actors and actresses up on some pedestal. Who parties too much, who is dating who, who insulted the barista at Starbucks because their order got screwed up, none of that strikes me as relevant, regardless of gender. I mean, I can make jokes about Kristen Stewart or Tom Hiddleston or whoever else, but there's jokes and then there's something that's genuinely distasteful. My question was, where does professionalism end and complicity begin, and if its complicity, then why shouldn't we police it? I mean, if the baseline answer is that 'Sexism exists, and therefore some complicity should be overlooked", then fine. I just think we should be honest about it.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Irlandesa]

On 3/21/2017 at 11:02 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Well, let's not police and criticize women. Because God knows we can't get enough of saying that men shouldn't be allowed to escape consequences, but if women work with the men who escape consequences, then that's.....okay? I don't know.

[I'm guessing] The reason policing women came up is because your question went directly to how we feel about the women who work with these men.  Women.  And whether or not we should paint the women who work with problematic men with the same brush as these problematic men. 

Under your scenario, the category lumps the problematic men and the women who work with them together.  The men who work with them?  Irrelevant?  Unseen?  Not worth discussion?  We expect it of men and women should be held to a higher standard?  

The category and comparison should be about the men who work with these problematic men and the women who work with the problematic men.  They're in the same category.  They're far more similar to one another than the bad actors are to the women who work for them. And my complicated answer applies to both men and women who work with the bad men (or women should that be the case.)

Edited March 23, 2017 by Irlandesa

[slf]

On 3/21/2017 at 8:31 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

So here's an honest question, because I don't know the answer - if actresses work with people in the industry who have done terrible things, is it fair to paint them with the same brush?

No. Why would it be?

On 3/21/2017 at 11:02 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

As to the first part of what you said, I just think its an interesting conundrum. Because for all that people point fingers at men and say, Oh, its so awful that they get away with stuff that women could never get away with, if you point out that there are, in fact, women who will work with these men who get away with stuff, confirmation bias or whatever you want to call it kicks in and it becomes, Well, let's not police and criticize women. Because God knows we can't get enough of saying that men shouldn't be allowed to escape consequences, but if women work with the men who escape consequences, then that's.....okay? I don't know.

I'm not sure what's the conundrum, to be honest? Or why I would point out that women will work with Polanski when someone rightfully points out that he's a violent rapist and pedophile? Everyone works with bigots and people who have committed violent crime (whether or not you know that)- why should women be singled out for punishment? What do you think they're getting away with? Part of living in a misogynistic society is that as a woman you have to interact, daily, with bigoted men, many of whom have committed violent crimes (whether or not they were charged). In all honesty I can't come up with a single reason why we would punish women for that. And if we do, why the women before the men, what should the punishment be, and how far down the social ladder are we enforcing this against women? 

On 3/21/2017 at 11:02 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

My question was, where does professionalism end and complicity begin, and if its complicity, then why shouldn't we police it? I mean, if the baseline answer is that 'Sexism exists, and therefore some complicity should be overlooked", then fine. I just think we should be honest about it.

So I wouldn't work with Polanski or Allen, personally. But if I did how would I be complicit- indeed, what would I be complicit in? Women work with misogynistic men, poc work with racist whites; that's life for us, not complicity in the crimes or acceptance of an oppressive group. The studios who keep employing these men and giving them opportunities are the problem- the producers, the directors, who are more often than not men. Kristen Stewart, Kate Winslet, Jennifer Lawrence were employees, not employers.

And this is without getting into the issue of socialization...

Edited March 24, 2017 by slf
i know what 'a conundrum' is i just don't know what 'the' conundrum is

[vibeology]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:31 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

So here's an honest question, because I don't know the answer - if actresses work with people in the industry who have done terrible things, is it fair to paint them with the same brush?

Kate Winslet and Jodie Foster co-starred in Roman Polanski's Carnage in 2011. Kristen Stewart was in Woody Allen's Cafe Society. Cate Blanchett was in Blue Jasmine, the last thing Allen did that was worth a damn, IMO. JLaw has worked with David O. Russell repeatedly, despite his reputation as an asshat. Foster in particular should perhaps know better; while I've always admired her because she's one of the few child stars who turned out well and made smart choices, how much of Polanski's past was she overlooking by being in one of his films, and by extension how much culpability do actresses in general have if they work with someone who is, for lack of a better word to use, shady?

The actresses have the same level of accountability as the actors who work in those projects do. Why is it just the women who have to carry this? If it bothers you, it should bother you across the board. And if you're cool that Steve Carell or Colin Firth have starred in his films, you don't get to judge KStew, Cate Blanchett or Emma Stone. For me, it's information that helps me form a judgment about their character. It's not the only piece but its a part of it. And that's how I decide how much I like a celebrity. It goes along with if I like someone's work. Or how they act in interviews. Or public statements about various issues. Or their involvement with different charities.

Also, as much as I believe that Woody Allen is a child molester, I think there is a world of difference between people who work with Russell who is an ass, Allen who is an accused molester and Polanski who is a convicted criminal who fled the country rather than serve his time. I don't think I'd want to work with any of the three (and I personally won't watch Allen or Polanski films because I refuse to give those men my money), but the only one I really side-eye actors and actresses for working with is Polanski. He admits to the crime and I don't care if it's years later. And fie to all those who signed that pro-Polanski petition years ago. That wasn't even about wanting a specific role. It was just about saying "who cares that he raped a child and skirted justice. Think about his art!" and that was crazy. And that's not to say I'm going to boycott all the signatories. Polanski is the rapist. The others just have, in m y opinion, horrible judgment. But those names are tucked in the back of my mind and its part of how I view those celebrities.

[raezen]

Kristen Stewart said that her and Jesse Eisenberg had this discussion about working with Woody Allen. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/kristen-stewart-admits-concern-about-working-with-woody-allen-over-sex-abuse-allegations-a7024406.html

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 3/23/2017 at 7:46 AM, vibeology said:

The actresses have the same level of accountability as the actors who work in those projects do. Why is it just the women who have to carry this? If it bothers you, it should bother you across the board. And if you're cool that Steve Carell or Colin Firth have starred in his films, you don't get to judge KStew, Cate Blanchett or Emma Stone. For me, it's information that helps me form a judgment about their character. It's not the only piece but its a part of it. And that's how I decide how much I like a celebrity. It goes along with if I like someone's work. Or how they act in interviews. Or public statements about various issues. Or their involvement with different charities.

If it matters, and I doubt it does, I've never been overly fond of Steve Carell regardless of who is directing him. And while I know that Colin Firth is very popular, to me he's simply okay. So there's that.

I'm not averse to casting the net more widely, and if mentioning the actresses first gave the impression that I was holding them solely responsible for anything, that was not my intention. So let's cast it more widely now and include John C. Reilly and Christoph Waltz, who were also in Carnage. That whole thing about not condemning Foster and Winslet because they decided to work with a pedophile ought to carry over to the guys as well, but I've seen straight white men being lumped together too much for me to be comfortable presuming that. Blame Mark Wahlberg or Matt Damon, etc, but apparently one bad apple does indeed spoil the whole damn bunch.

I don't dispute that there's still inequality, because that would be silly. But I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea that holding women to any standard means you're being sexist. There's a reason Melissa McCarthy threatening to shoot someone in the dick in The Heat is funny*, and there's a reason that Gone Girl was hailed by some as a feminist masterpiece. Because I guess the story of a psychotic and the moron who decides to stay with her anyway means we've come a long way, baby.

*Melissa McCarthy threatening to shoot someone in the dick actually is pretty funny, IMO, and The Heat was the first time I thought Sandra Bullock had romantic chemistry with her co-star, but that's me and not the rest of the world.

[UYI]

FWIW, if the reports are to be believed, David O. Russell's behavior actually does go beyond just being a mere asshole:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-zap-ent-david-russell-groping-story.html

Edited March 26, 2017 by UYI

[slf]

On 3/24/2017 at 1:27 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

That whole thing about not condemning Foster and Winslet because they decided to work with a pedophile ought to carry over to the guys as well, but I've seen straight white men being lumped together too much for me to be comfortable presuming that. Blame Mark Wahlberg or Matt Damon, etc, but apparently one bad apple does indeed spoil the whole damn bunch.

I disagree, mostly; institutionalized misogyny was created by men and is supported and enforced by (predominantly white) men. Women raised in a misogynistic society are often themselves suffering from internalized misogyny. It's not the same, even as I personally judge the shit out of Foster for being friends with Gibson. Working with is not the same thing as personally supporting. 

On 3/24/2017 at 1:27 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I don't dispute that there's still inequality, because that would be silly. But I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea that holding women to any standard means you're being sexist. There's a reason Melissa McCarthy threatening to shoot someone in the dick in The Heat is funny*, and there's a reason that Gone Girl was hailed by some as a feminist masterpiece. 

No one has said holding a woman to any standard is sexist. This isn't an issue of feminism refusing to hold women accountable (and in fact, for example, most activists groups that pursue cases against female abusers tend to be run by feminists). I'm going with the McCarthy-shooting-a-guy-in-the-dick comment being about violence against men not being greeted the same as violence against women in film/tv? Of course not. You could absolutely do the same scene in reverse without people getting upset if we didn't live in a world where that same violence against women is depressingly common. But we do and 'people being less willing to watch violence against women in movies' is not the worst consequence of misogyny.

Edited March 26, 2017 by slf

[starri]

Modestly budgeted indie, based on a novel....well, more of a novella, really.  I have some problems with the story, because it has a really pat ending, but this looks like a pretty decent adaptation.  The cover of Regina Spektor's "Us" sounds great.  It must have a little money behind it to license real songs.

[methodwriter85]

On 3/20/2017 at 1:44 PM, Bruinsfan said:

Too true. I feel sort of left out that I'm ambivalent about one of those and another will be a Hell-freezing-over eventuality.

Honestly, being married to a guy and having a house in the suburbs with a couple of kids running around sounds boring as hell. Yay for marriage equality but it's not that appealing to me.

I would honestly love to see an adaption of Openly Straight. I feel like it would get ruined, though.

[VCRTracking]

Sherry Lansing Book Excerpt: Screaming Matches and Tears on 'Fatal Attraction' Set (Exclusive)

A great look at being a female movie executive in the 80s and how a film starting off with the best intentions exploring sexual politics of an affair gets turned into a slasher movie because of test screenings.

Edited March 29, 2017 by VCRTracking

[galax-arena]

Ugh, the spoilers for Ghost in the Shell are horrible. But I'm not surprised that this is the bullshit they're coming up with, honestly. 

[aradia22]

Spoiler

Frozen went through many different iterations, but here are some common elements from some of the early drafts: Frozen was to open with a prophecy that “a ruler with a frozen heart will bring destruction to the kingdom of Arendelle.” We’re then introduced to Anna, our pure-hearted heroine, and Elsa, an unrelated evil Snow Queen. We learn Elsa is a scorned woman; she was stood up at the altar on her wedding day and froze her own heart so she would never love again. Both Elsa and the audience assume she’s the villain from the prophecy. Fast-forward to the final act: Elsa creates an army of snow monsters to attack our heroes while Kristoff has “a Han Solo moment” and comes to help Anna. To halt Elsa’s attacking army, the two-faced Prince Hans triggers a massive avalanche — not caring that the avalanche also puts Anna, Elsa and all of Arendelle in jeopardy. Anna realizes Elsa is their only hope, so she convinces her to use her powers to save the kingdom. The twist is that the prophecy from the beginning is actually not about Elsa, but about Hans — he’s the one with a metaphorical frozen heart because he’s an unfeeling sociopath. Elsa’s heart is then unfrozen allowing her to love again.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/29/frozen-original-ending/?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

Spoilers for the plot of Frozen that didn't end up being the plot. But OMG, the bolded part. Thank God they didn't do that again.

[Spartan Girl]

Yeah, they already pulled that crap with Maleficent and Oz the Great and Powerful.

I was watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit the other day, and I think Jessica Rabbit's character can serve as an allegory for how people make sexist assumptions about women. Everyone assumes she's this wicked temptress that is using Roger. And why? Because she's a smoking hot bombshell that sings in a nightclub and dresses provocatively. Why else, they figure, would anyone like her be married to a dumb, goofy rabbit?

But as Jessica puts it, she's not really bad, she's just drawn that way. Despite her flirty demeanor, she sincerely adores Roger almost to a ridiculous degree. I know that's not how it goes in the graphic novel, but I always love that twist.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Spartan Girl

[VCRTracking]

I read some post on Tumblr theorizing that Jessica is asexual.

From EW.com

Read Smash creator's essay about being fired from her own show

[JustaPerson]

Quote

I was the show runner of the first season, which got terrific numbers and established itself immediately as an international sensation. The show was called Smash.

I seem to recall season 1 of Smash becoming a "hit" (if you can call it that) because of its hate-watchability, not because it was actually good (aside from the pilot).

Edited April 2, 2017 by JustaPerson

[Irlandesa]

59 minutes ago, JustaPerson said:

I seem to recall season 1 of Smash becoming a "hit" (if you can call it that) because of its hate-watchability, not because it was actually good (aside from the pilot).

You'd be right. It wasn't a hit.  It received good enough ratings to get a second season but that was by no means a foregone conclusion.  I think describing it as a cult hit is pretty accurate because it did have spectacular music/musical numbers and legit talent (ilu Megan), and that's enough for me to revisit it every now and then.  But boy were its plots laughably bad. 

And I have complicated feelings about her because she's right in that it's likely a man could fail as much as she failed and still get another shot, especially since it is a bit cultish.  But I also recall reading interviews with her and wondering what the heck she was talking about. 

[aradia22]

As someone who watched Smash... and owns DVDs of both seasons, I don't think Theresa Rebeck is really the person to make this argument. Do I think it's possible there was some sexism in that work environment? Sure. I think there's likely sexism in most male-dominated industries. Do I think she was "fired without cause"? LOL. I think even the most die-hard Smash fan would have trouble admitting that. I don't think she was behind every creative decision but there were a whole bunch of bad ones and she had to be responsible for some of them. Plus, she was show runner and wasn't steering the ship well.

Quote

And then my new agent and new manager and new lawyer all sat me down and explained to me, in no uncertain terms, that I had to take a step back, accept a demotion, and take a job below my skill set and pay grade. At this new job, I had to say yes to everything, and I had to prove that I played well with others.

The whisperers had run around and told everyone that I was a lunatic. So this is what I had to do, if I ever wanted to run a show again: I had to keep my head down and prove that I was smart and hardworking and a team player.

I stopped around here because Rebeck comes across a little deluded. Whatever happened with the show, yeah, it's a tough business and there are a lot of people who want to get in. If you had a flop, it stands to reason you'd have to prove yourself again. The work speaks for you. And the writing was the least successful aspect of that show. Narrowly edging out the acting. If that's the work you produced of course no one's just going to hand you another show. I think a better example is someone like Amy Sherman-Palladino who had the success of Gilmore Girls and then seems to have struggled to launch another long-running show. But she's been working and getting chances every couple of years. If Shonda Rimes or Jenji Kohan or Tina Fey wanted to write about their difficulties in being taken seriously in the industry, that would be something else. Or maybe Jennie Snyder Urman or Jane Espenson or Jana Sinyor or Constance M. Burge... who have had some issues with their shows (in my opinion) but who have been more successful than Rebeck. 

[UYI]

Anne Hathaway gives an interview to Jezebel--an outlet that had a lot to do with going after her in 2013, during the height of Hathahate--and is more gracious than most people would ever consider being under those circumstances. I really do like her a lot.

http://themuse.jezebel.com/consider-the-hathaway-1793960148?rev=1491248110566&utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Luciano]

I thought this article was interesting: four actresses of Japanese descent discuss Ghost in the Shell. [Spoilers for the movie.]

They talked a bit beyond the casting, bringing up how a Japanese director (or someone more familiar with that culture) would have changed some moments/things.

[BitterApple]

I'm a little confused over all the pearl clutching. What Japanese actress is mainstream enough to carry a movie in the American market? People don't generally flock to see unknowns and my personal opinion of Johansson is she's only good as part of an ensemble cast, not as a lead. The film probably would've tanked no matter which direction they went. 

[methodwriter85]

On 3/17/2017 at 3:43 PM, In2You said:

The Boondocks summed up Tyler Perry movies perfectly

 

 

 

I just realized that Regina King voices the young brothers on the show.

So...I guess it's safe to say that Regina King will never appear in Tyler Perry movies, LOL.

Not that it matters. The woman's definitely had a pretty steady career as a supporting character actress. Kind of like a black Amy Ryan, in my opinion.

[ChelseaNH]

16 hours ago, BitterApple said:

What Japanese actress is mainstream enough to carry a movie in the American market?

Some movies don't need to be carried -- see the Star Wars franchise, for example.  I think Ghost in the Shell was in a similar situation, in that the property was going to be the main attraction, rather than the cast, so they had the opportunity to go with an unknown.

I'm not sure any actor these days is capable of opening a movie just on name power.  That's not how the industry works currently.

[VCRTracking]

I don't care what people say, she deserved her Oscar for that performance in Les Miz.

How Many Times Does Nicole Kidman Have To Prove Herself?

[galax-arena]

Quote

What Japanese actress is mainstream enough to carry a movie in the American market?

Perhaps none... because Hollywood won't give chances to Japanese actors... because they keep giving away roles made for Asian people to whites.... so Japanese actors don't have the opportunity to become more mainstream.... so there are few Japanese actors with mainstream appeal... because Hollywood won't give chances to Japanese actors... because they keep giving away roles made for Asian people to whites... 

That is to say, it might be a problem, but it's one that Hollywood creates/perpetuates and so they're not off the hook. 

(Plus, Chris Hemsworth wasn't exactly a movie star when he got his big break with Thor.)

ETA: The other day I was talking about Get Out with a couple of acquaintances. One guy (who's white) and I both liked the movie, but the other guy (who isn't white) said he didn't like it because he thought the movie was unfair to white people. Come on, bro... 

Edited April 6, 2017 by galax-arena

[proserpina65]

4 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

Some movies don't need to be carried -- see the Star Wars franchise, for example.  I think Ghost in the Shell was in a similar situation, in that the property was going to be the main attraction, rather than the cast, so they had the opportunity to go with an unknown.

I'm not sure any actor these days is capable of opening a movie just on name power.  That's not how the industry works currently.

I think the movie was going to tank anyway because it was too much of a niche thing, but the controversy certainly didn't help.

[JustaPerson]

Super relevant since apparently people are just discovering that Nicole Kidman, an Oscar winner, can act. Shocking!

[thuganomics85]

Interestingly, I thought there actually was an actress in Ghost of the Shell, that I would have found interesting as Major: Rila Fukushima, who apparently has a minor role in it.  I thought she was great as Yukio in The Wolverine and she even left a mark as Katana on Arrow (certainly more then the actress from Suicide Squad, ironically).  And it just made me think that in a just world, she could have been a contender to lead a film like Ghost in the Shell.  

But, of course, it was never on the table.  In fact, I've read that had it not been Scarlett, the other contender was Margot Robbie.  So, no matter what, they were always going to go with the status quo.  But it just frustrates me that even after a breakout type role like she had on The Wolverine, the best an Asian actress like Rila can apparently do in the States is guest on CW show and a throwaway role in a film like Ghost in the Shell.

[ChelseaNH]

Not even a throw-away role.  According to the THR interview with 4 Japanese actresses, linked above:

Quote

Editor's note: According to this behind-the-scenes video at special effects studio Weta Workshop, Fukushima was the face model for the geisha robots.

[Irlandesa]

I'll be honest, Big Little Lies was probably the first performance of hers I can recall where I absolutely loved everything about it.  That's not to say I thought she was a bad actress before.  I didn't.  But for whatever reason, I'd never been drawn into her performances. 

Quote

I don't think she was behind every creative decision but there were a whole bunch of bad ones and she had to be responsible for some of them. Plus, she was show runner and wasn't steering the ship well.

I remember reading a hit piece about her on Buzzfeed a few years ago.  I really wonder what the truth is behind-the-scenes.  I remember reading some interviews with her and not being terribly impressed.  But my opinions of some of her creative choices might be coloring my opinion.

That said, she does have a point about sexism.  Male show runners can have a failure and still get another chance without having to prove themselves again. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Irlandesa

[raezen]

14 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

Super relevant since apparently people are just discovering that Nicole Kidman, an Oscar winner, can act. Shocking!

Well, I thought she was great in Lion. However,  even if Viola Davis had been counted as a lead, imo, that Oscar would have gone to Naomi Harris. It was such a good year in film.

[DisneyBoy]

It was interesting to read that piece because it clued me in to the fact that so many interviewers probably do flirt with their subject if they happen to be female actresses...or portray themselves as having been flirted with.

I haven't seen very much of Nicole Kidman's body of work, but I don't think that's because I ever saw her as an extension of Tom Cruise. I just don't think I liked all of her Botox and I felt like there was something remote and fussy about her. I enjoyed her and Batman Forever and I really enjoyed her in Moulin Rouge and I should probably check out one or two of her other movies ... but she just doesn't have the chameleon-like quality that makes me want to see her disappear into various roles. She has definitely earned her success but I personally have very little interest in seeing her at the multiplex.

As for Tom, I haven't had any interest in his movies in quite a long time, although from the box office receipts it seems I'm alone in that camp. When he was younger there was a sort of softness to him that I think was really compelling. He could play emotional scenes and action scenes. Now he only seems to do action movies - perhaps to keep up his reputation as Mr. Macho Scientologist. I find myself wondering if he'll ever be playing another character that would be of any interest to me.