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

[galax-arena]

And Meryl Streep is, like, the worst actress he could have chosen to name-drop there, considering how often she's spoken out about the paucity of good roles for older actresses. She is not here for Crowe's foolishness. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

And Meryl Streep is, like, the worst actress he could have chosen to name-drop there, considering how often she's spoken out about the paucity of good roles for older actresses. She is not here for Crowe's foolishness. 

Amen, galax-arena.

[methodwriter85]

I thought it was more a case of Hollywood doesn't want to hire older women. It likes 'em young,

 

Especially if they can take characters that were written for over-30 women away from thirtysomething women, and then give it to a 22-year old and have everyone pretend that she's mature enough to take on the role because she's "ageless".

 

I really do shudder at the likelihood that we're going to see Jennifer Lawrence in age make-up playing Cathy at middle age in East of Eden, instead of getting an actual middle-aged actress for those scenes. I think the only time I've ever seen that work was Anne Hathaway in Brokeback Mountain.

 

I think the problem with Tom Cruise is that his acting hasn't matured. He still plays the young, cocky guy with an arrogant, scampish grin. He looks great but he's too old to pull that role off now.

Edited January 6, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Especially if they can take characters that were written for over-30 women away from thirtysomething women, and then give it to a 22-year old and have everyone pretend that she's mature enough to take on the role because she's "ageless".

 

I think it's kind of a double-edged sword, though. For all that it's probably true to say that if Russell Crowe was a woman his career would be over, saying that Jennifer Lawrence is too young for certain roles seems like ageism in reverse. Having seen Winter's Bone, IMO Ree Dolly could have been anywhere from late teens to a young thirtysomething for all the things that she'd gone through trying to keep her family together. Even though The Hunger Games franchise is/was a huge moneymaker, Winter's Bone came before that, and that's what launched Lawrence into the spotlight.

 

And even older actresses get criticism that they don't necessarily deserve, IMO. I said this is another thread, but although I enjoy Christian Bale's acting and think that Daniel Day Lewis is talented, I also think they're probably absolute nightmares to work with. If they were women, wouldn't they be as widely criticized as, say, Julia Roberts? Sure, you could say that it's perfectly legitimate to criticize Julia, but if she was a man, she'd be considered ballsy by some people instead of just difficult and irritating. Also, when Melissa Leo was in the running for an Oscar, her campaign to bring attention to herself caused controversy, and in some quarters was considered inappropriate. Since what actors are basically supposed to do, even when it isn't awards season, is promote themselves, it probably wouldn't have been called an Oscar chase if Bale had been doing it.

[Wiendish Fitch]

 

I think it's kind of a double-edged sword, though. For all that it's probably true to say that if Russell Crowe was a woman his career would be over, saying that Jennifer Lawrence is too young for certain roles seems like ageism in reverse. Having seen Winter's Bone, IMO Ree Dolly could have been anywhere from late teens to a young thirtysomething for all the things that she'd gone through trying to keep her family together. Even though The Hunger Games franchise is/was a huge moneymaker, Winter's Bone came before that, and that's what launched Lawrence into the spotlight.

 

And even older actresses get criticism that they don't necessarily deserve, IMO. I said this is another thread, but although I enjoy Christian Bale's acting and think that Daniel Day Lewis is talented, I also think they're probably absolute nightmares to work with. If they were women, wouldn't they be as widely criticized as, say, Julia Roberts? Sure, you could say that it's perfectly legitimate to criticize Julia, but if she was a man, she'd be considered ballsy by some people instead of just difficult and irritating. Also, when Melissa Leo was in the running for an Oscar, her campaign to bring attention to herself caused controversy, and in some quarters was considered inappropriate. Since what actors are basically supposed to do, even when it isn't awards season, is promote themselves, it probably wouldn't have been called an Oscar chase if Bale had been doing it.

 

Actresses playing parts they're way too young for is nothing new.  A great example is Joan Leslie, who played love interests to Humphrey Bogart (High Sierra), Gary Cooper (Sergeant York) and James Cagney (Yankee Doodle Dandy) when she was 16-17 years old. That's right, she was a minor not even eligible to vote, but somehow they saw her as an adult love interest (at least in Sergeant York, she's playing real-life Gracie Williams, who was a teenager when she married Alvin York). Loretta Young played a reporter in Platinum Blonde despite being only 18 years old, and Marian Marsh was still just 17 when she made Svengali. It could be chalked up to many things: ageism, young women being more mature back then, casting directors really believing in them, who knows? 

 

It's hard for me to begrudge Jennifer Lawrence too much, since she at least is adept at conveying an old soul (which makes me wish she'd been cast in The Age of Adaline instead Blake Lively). Still, a part of me wishes that all the talented, non-twentysomething actresses could have their moment to shine. 

 

I agree on actors' behavior. Remember when Melissa Leo dropped the F-bomb in her acceptance speech? Yeah, it was a faux pas, but I don't think there would have been nearly as big an uproar if a man had done it.

[KatWay]

It does bother me when actresses get cast for roles they're way too young for, especially if the age of the character is stated somewhere in the film. Because if the character is "36" I don't like movies casting a 20yo actress and putting some heavier make-up on her and telling me "see, this is what 36 looks like". It only contributes to beauty standards that are impossible to uphold.

 

As for JLaw, she can play old soul, but I've always preferred her in the movies where she played young or at least conceivably young, like Winter's Bone, Hunger Games and even sort of X-Men (although the character of Mystique is a huge mess in those movies). I didn't think she felt authentic in Silver Linings Playbook (I would have loved to see the Angelina Jolie version of this) or Serena. Maybe I don't like her as Bradley Cooper's love interest, never mind that she's actually older than Cooper's RL girlfriend.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

Russell Crowe Says Older Women Don’t Get Movie Roles Because They Refuse to Act Their Age

 

 

         Oh STFU Maximus!

[Bruinsfan]

That is really rich coming from someone whose angry tantrums would be more fitting behavior for a preschooler.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

That is really rich coming from someone whose angry tantrums would be more fitting behavior for a preschooler.

 

        Russell can have Roman Colosseum full of seats, with that ignorant mess he's spewing.

Edited January 7, 2015 by MrsRafaelBarba

[JBC344]

 

I think it's kind of a double-edged sword, though. For all that it's probably true to say that if Russell Crowe was a woman his career would be over, saying that Jennifer Lawrence is too young for certain roles seems like ageism in reverse. Having seen Winter's Bone, IMO Ree Dolly could have been anywhere from late teens to a young thirtysomething for all the things that she'd gone through trying to keep her family together. Even though The Hunger Games franchise is/was a huge moneymaker, Winter's Bone came before that, and that's what launched Lawrence into the spotlight.

 

And even older actresses get criticism that they don't necessarily deserve, IMO. I said this is another thread, but although I enjoy Christian Bale's acting and think that Daniel Day Lewis is talented, I also think they're probably absolute nightmares to work with. If they were women, wouldn't they be as widely criticized as, say, Julia Roberts? Sure, you could say that it's perfectly legitimate to criticize Julia, but if she was a man, she'd be considered ballsy by some people instead of just difficult and irritating. Also, when Melissa Leo was in the running for an Oscar, her campaign to bring attention to herself caused controversy, and in some quarters was considered inappropriate. Since what actors are basically supposed to do, even when it isn't awards season, is promote themselves, it probably wouldn't have been called an Oscar chase if Bale had been doing it.

See, I don't necessarily mind when Jennifer plays older because I think she can convey it for the most part, but there is something strange about the idea that there was no one else for these parts when "older" actresses would of lined up around the building to get a shot to play these characters.  I really like Jennifer in Silver Linings Playbook, but would also have preferred to see the Angelina Jolie version. 

 

When it comes to Winter's Bone I don't think the movie would of had the same emotional impact for me if Jennifer was playing an older character.  I think the fact that she was playing a late teens, very early twenty something (as she was in real life) to me is what made the movie resonate with me emotionally.  The idea that this incredibly young woman was able to tackle all the things in the movie.  If she was playing a 36 year old it wouldn't of been as profound for me.

[Dejana]

I think David O. Russell just likes working with Jennifer Lawrence and looks for reasons to cast her in things. He's not the easiest person to work with, so he probably likes surrounding himself with familiar faces. He's worked more than once with Amy Adams and Melissa Leo is going to be in the Joy movie. Russell doesn't seem to have an issue with writing juicy roles for female characters, maybe more of the firecracker variety, but judging by that on-set tantrum, perhaps that's a familiar personalty type for him to write.

 

Part of the criticism JLaw gets is probably down to her celebrity and the baggage people bring when they see her in a role. You didn't hear boo about Margot Robbie being too young to play the wife of Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street. Her character was the trophy wife, but it wasn't played up like there was this enormous age difference, unlike the one American Hustle actually wrote into its story, but people still complained it was so unbelievable and an excuse for Hollywood's sexist, ageist ways, it should have been Marissa Tomei, etc. Perhaps it's because Margot Robbie was more of an unknown quality and if everyone had to guess how much older she was than JLaw, they'd venture six years (at least) rather than six weeks. It isn't that you could really say Jennifer Lawrence looks young for her age, physically (a big problem for Natalie Portman at the same age). I think it's more her image, that IRL, is of being more than a little goofy/crass, and that she's still mired to the YA world in films, to an extent. It's all baggage that doesn't scream, "poised, mature adult", and it probably can't help but bleed into the perception of her performances.

 

Sometimes I see awards watchers complain that Meryl Streep hasn't been in that many overall good films (relative to her stature as an actress) or worked with many of the directing greats, but how many of the "great directors" make movies featuring female leads or co-leads? It's often a man's story with the "supporting wife" in the background, but you do get male directors who actually find women interesting and it's reflected in their filmographies.

 

Actors aren't totally immune to being passed over due to age, even if they are given more latitude than women in show business. Yes, Liam Neeson is an action star in his 60s, but only because he doesn't really look it (IMO). He doesn't look 25 or anything, but I bet a lot of less informed moviegoers who just know him from Taken and movies along those lines, would easily buy it to be told he's 10-15 years younger.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Dejana

[JBC344]

I think David O. Russell just likes working with Jennifer Lawrence and looks for reasons to cast her in things. He's not the easiest person to work with, so he probably likes surrounding himself with familiar faces. He's worked more than once with Amy Adams and Melissa Leo is going to be in the Joy movie. Russell doesn't seem to have an issue with writing juicy roles for female characters, maybe more of the firecracker variety, but judging by that on-set tantrum, perhaps that's a familiar personalty type for him to write.

 

Part of the criticism JLaw gets is probably down to her celebrity and the baggage people bring when they see her in a role. You didn't hear boo about Margot Robbie being too young to play the wife of Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street. Her character was the trophy wife, but it wasn't played up like there was this enormous age difference, unlike the one American Hustle actually wrote into its story, but people still complained it was so unbelievable and an excuse for Hollywood's sexist, ageist ways, it should have been Marissa Tomei, etc. Perhaps it's because Margot Robbie was more of an unknown quality and if everyone had to guess how much older she was than JLaw, they'd venture six years (at least) rather than six weeks. It isn't that you could really say Jennifer Lawrence looks young for her age, physically (a big problem for Natalie Portman at the same age). I think it's more her image, that IRL, is of being more than a little goofy/crass, and that she's still mired to the YA world in films, to an extent. It's all baggage that doesn't scream, "poised, mature adult", and it probably can't help but bleed into the perception of her performances.

 

Sometimes I see awards watchers complain that Meryl Streep hasn't been in that many overall good films (relative to her stature as an actress) or worked with many of the directing greats, but how many of the "great directors" make movies featuring female leads or co-leads? It's often a man's story with the "supporting wife" in the background, but you do get male directors who actually find women interesting and it's reflected in their filmographies.

 

Actors aren't totally immune to being passed over due to age, even if they are given more latitude than women in show business. Yes, Liam Neeson is an action star in his 60s, but only because he doesn't really look it (IMO). He doesn't look 25 or anything, but I bet a lot of less informed moviegoers who just know him from Taken and movies along those lines, would easily buy it to be told he's 10-15 years younger.

I think as talented as Liam is the whole "Liam Neeson action star" is more of a happy fluke that has turned out great for his career.  "Taken" was a very generic action movie starring a really good actor that caught on and became a huge hit.  That movie could of easily went straight to video and not spawned a franchise and the general public would be none the wiser.  I'm very happy for Liam that he got some resurgence in his career because of it. 

 

I think with JLAW's acting she really benefits from playing "dynamic, dramatic women".  I think she is a good actress but I am sort of looking forward to see how she can handle a more "subdued" performance.  Jennifer in the past has talked about her lack of training when it comes to playing those types of characters, so I can appreciate that she is self aware enough to know that she will really have to test herself when she adds variety to her resume.

 

I love her collaborations with David but it can start to become a hindrance unless she puts some more space between their projects.  After Joy, I don't think she should work with him for at least five years.  I would like to see her grow as an actress under different directors.

[galax-arena]

Well, I might have to take back my earlier comment about Meryl, because she just defended Russell in this video, and it seems like she is indeed here for Crowe's foolishness:

 

 

Kinda disappointing. For all her talk about how the press has "misappropriated" Crowe's comments, I think she's the one (perhaps disingenuously) getting the wrong end of the stick here, because IMO it's pretty evident that no, Crowe is not just talking about himself. He might have started out that way, but then it devolved into stupid assumptions from there. Come on, Meryl. 

 

At least Jessica Chastain called him out. And Tracey Ullman's facial expressions in the video are gold. 

Edited January 8, 2015 by galax-arena

[JBC344]

LOL, this is why I love Tracey.  That is how you throw inconspicuous shade.  What the hell was Meryl talking about?  Yes, Russell did mention his own aging but his comments were clearly directed at his idea that the reason "older" women aren't starring in movies is because they don't want to take the "older women" roles but want to play twenty-something's forever.  According to Russell there are all these older women dynamic roles out there that actresses are "refusing".  Russell, sit your dumb ass down. 

[methodwriter85]

Cameron Diaz did come to mind here...other than My Sister's Keeper and Being John Malkovich, she basically seems to play the hot party girl thing in everything she does. She's still hot enough to pull it off, as seen in Bad Teacher, but she can't play the sex kitten forever.

 

I also remember watching Sarah Jessica Parker in Failure to Watch and thinking they desperately wanted us to think that her character was in her 20's. I'm sorry, but having Zoey Deschanel as your best friend didn't make you look 25.

Edited January 8, 2015 by methodwriter85

[JBC344]

At least with Cameron I feel like when she does play the hot party girl, it is always age appropriate if that makes sense.  In Bad Teacher, which I actually think was a great role for her, she plays "hot", but she clearly is playing the role of a late 30 something woman who refuses to get her life together. In, "The Other Woman", she plays an attractive woman but she is clearly late 30's early 40's, but is being cheated on with a beautiful 20 something. My favorite "hot woman" performance of hers was definitely Vanilla Sky, which I think she was robbed of an Oscar nomination. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I love her collaborations with David but it can start to become a hindrance unless she puts some more space between their projects.  After Joy, I don't think she should work with him for at least five years.  I would like to see her grow as an actress under different directors.

 

The thing about that is, the movie industry isn't like the music business, which moves a lot faster. Relatively few movies actually get made in a year, at least in comparison to how many books get written and whatnot. Had Mark Wahlberg not wanted to play Micky Ward in The Fighter and worked to get the film made, Melissa Leo would likely have never been in contention for that Oscar she won. I definitely think she deserved to win, but can you imagine the complaints there would have been if Russell had cast JLaw as Mark's love interest instead of Amy Adams? So in some ways, it's like she can't win.

 

On a slightly related note, I didn't even know who Helen Mirren was until 2003, when I stumbled onto Calendar Girls by accident and immediately became utterly besotted. I had never seen Excalibur, and hadn't even heard of Prime Suspect. I gobbled up her earlier work, and like Liam I think she's aged amazingly well. My dream is to see her in an action film with Liam, and hell, Denzel can be in it too. Let them show the kids how it's done.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Joe]

On a slightly related note, I didn't even know who Helen Mirren was until 2003, when I stumbled onto Calendar Girls by accident and immediately became utterly besotted. I had never seen Excalibur, and hadn't even heard of Prime Suspect. I gobbled up her earlier work, and like Liam I think she's aged amazingly well. My dream is to see her in an action film with Liam, and hell, Denzel can be in it too. Let them show the kids how it's done.

Check out RED, with Mirren, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, and John Malkovich. Not quite what you're looking for, but close.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Check out RED, with Mirren, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, and John Malkovich. Not quite what you're looking for, but close.

 

I have actually seen both Red and Red 2, and every time the former shows up on TNT's rotation, I usually try to watch it. I'm that hooked. ;-)

[slowpoked]

  I really like Jennifer in Silver Linings Playbook, but would also have preferred to see the Angelina Jolie version. 

 

 

While I thought JLaw was great in SLP, her and Bradley together took me out in most of the movie, because of just how young she looked, and how I know what her age is, where Bradley looked like Bradley IRL. They just seemed so mismatched.

 

My other gripe was that there are already few enough compelling roles for thirty-year old women, let alone thirty-something or forty-something women, and then here comes JLaw who had Hollywood in the palm of her hands, and then gets that role. One less female role in an already shallow pool as it is. You mentioned Angelina - it would have been nice to see Rachel McAdams, Olivia Wilde, or Elizabeth Banks in that role (some of the thirty-year old women apparently considered). Or my personal favorite for a renaissance - Winona Ryder.

 

That's why I'm happy a 35-year old, relatively unknown Rosamund Pike came out of nowhere to get the meatiest female role last year. You know Hollywood could have easily pushed for JLaw or Chloe Grace Moretz, or Saoirse Ronan, or Shailene Woodley, but leave Ben Affleck just fine in there.

 

And Russell Crowe, just shut up. When you, Liam Neeson, Tom Cruise, RDJ, Clooney stop getting lead roles, whether age-appropriate or not, then that's the only time you can bitch about women wanting to get young-women roles.

Edited January 9, 2015 by slowpoked

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm really sorry if this was already brought up? I've been heavily involved in the Idris as Bond conversation for a few pages and I didn't see it.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3332064/

 

Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily in Pan.  The movie looks pretty white, much like most movies out there.  Lots of uproar about this casting , online petitions protesting this, etc.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

That's why I'm happy a 35-year old, relatively unknown Rosamund Pike came out of nowhere to get the meatiest female role last year. You know Hollywood could have easily pushed for JLaw or Chloe Grace Moretz, or Saoirse Ronan, or Shailene Woodley, but leave Ben Affleck just fine in there.

 

And Russell Crowe, just shut up. When you, Liam Neeson, Tom Cruise, RDJ, Clooney stop getting lead roles, whether age-appropriate or not, then that's the only time you can bitch about women wanting to get young-women roles.

 

Look at it this way, and I'm only being slightly facetious. It could actually be worse - Kristen Stewart could have become David O. Russell's go to girl instead of Jennifer Lawrence. I hated Twilight, but for whatever reason it did pretty well at the box office. Unfortunately for KStew, her IMO extremely limited range has kept her from breaking into being a really big success. That and the fact that she always looks like she's chewing on a lemon rind, which might be neither here nor there. Say what you will about JLaw, but as 'loud' as she can be she's also reasonably personable. In an image-conscious town like Hollywood, Kristen's dour "I wish I wasn't here" expression is something the generous part of me hopes she grows out of.

 

As for Russell and his remarks, maybe he should shut up, but conversely his last couple of 'big 'movies - Man Of Steel and Winter's Tale - he wasn't the lead, Henry Cavil and Colin Farrell were, respectively. I don't think that his career not being completely on the skids means that he should be quiet. It would actually annoy me more if it was Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone, who are both pushing seventy and haven't had an actual hit in a while, talking about this subject.

[Schweedie]

I feel like I'm mentioning this movie all over the board at the moment (and I'll probably continue to do so for a while), but surely there has to be someone who's seen the recent Pride, about how LGSM was formed during the miner's strike in the UK? It only had a limited release in the US in September (around the same time it premiered in the UK), I think, but I believe it's out on DVD now. It's just such a warm film - one reviewer said, "I watched this entire film from start to finish with tears in my eyes and a smile plastered across my face", which pretty much sums it up for me, too. Watching it was like getting a big hug. Is it predictable? Well, I suppose. But so's the fact that Saturday comes after Friday, and no one complains about that. *g*

 

It's rare to see a movie with LGBT+ themes that focusses on something good happening in the community, one that shows that not everything is about suffering.

[caracas1914]

An underrated gem is 1984's "Another Country" starring very young Rupert Everett, Colin Firth and Cary Ewles in a 30's Eton-line school in England . Loved the film and the Everett characters realization that he is truly gay and his classmates casual acceptance of schoolboy dalliances shifts when it's awkwardly out in the open.

Everett and Cary were so pretty together , and the film laid plausibly out why someone from the upper classes might betray the system that raised him.

[methodwriter85]

   I really, really wished we could have seen some physical action between Rupert and Cary, but unfortunately it was still the era of "hugs=showing gay affection." Otherwise, I like it a lot.

[proserpina65]

LBJ was a huge ally for civil rights and if someone wants to make a movie about him, go for it. This movie is about MLK and telling his story is more important than nitpicking over small historical details.

 

The problem, as I understand it, it that the implication that LBJ was somehow complicit in Hoover's scheme to smear MLK is absolutely false and not just a small historical detail; it's not like people are complaining about the Oval Office furniture being upholstered in the wrong color.  How difficult would it have been to just leave that inaccurate bit out, and how would doing so have had any effect on the film as a whole?  It seems to be that putting the detail in has created an unnecessary distraction from the message of the film, and really, serves no purpose within the story.

[Bruinsfan]

It's such a shame that they felt the need to remove any hint of LGBT involvement from the US marketing for Pride.

[Schweedie]

It's such a shame that they felt the need to remove any hint of LGBT involvement from the US marketing for Pride.

 

A shame, and completely ridiculous. The whole movie is about the LGBT community, erasing that from the marketing makes no sense.

[Helena Dax]

An underrated gem is 1984's "Another Country" starring very young Rupert Everett, Colin Firth and Cary Ewles in a 30's Eton-line school in England . Loved the film and the Everett characters realization that he is truly gay and his classmates casual acceptance of schoolboy dalliances shifts when it's awkwardly out in the open.

Everett and Cary were so pretty together , and the film laid plausibly out why someone from the upper classes might betray the system that raised him.

I love this movie, it's brilliant. I think it was the first movie with gay characters I watched, I was 14, and it blew my mind. And Colin Firth was so cute...  I've loved him since then. 

 

I also  love "Maurice". I know Foster was really determined to give Maurice a happy ending and I'm really  glad he did it. There's no doubt life for gay people is difficult even these days, but it's important to have positive examples too.

 

There's a movie I've only  watched once, Parting Glances. Back then I thought it was amazing -and first time I saw Steve Buscemi- and I remember how much I loved it, but I'd like to watch it again and find out if I still like it. 

 

And Beautiful thing is the cutest movie ever. 

[xaxat]

I think pretty much every biopic uses the same type of dramatic licence seen in Selma. Usually the debate over any liberties taken is limited to historians and a small group of invested moviegoers. However for Selma, a group of very well connected individuals saw an opportunity to use  the movie to create a new narrative for LBJ's involvement in the Civil Rights movement, something that goes beyond criticizing any perceived flaws in the movie. 

 

The larger debate over the movie started with a Washington Post editorial (not usually the place to find film commentary) from former Johnson aide Joseph Califano. One of his issues with the film is that it does not give credit to Johnson for coming up with the idea for the protests at Selma. That's not the story the writer and director wanted to tell (thankfully). It is a story about a tremendously empowering moment for African Americans and I believe that portraying it in a way that would please Califano would have wrong to the spirit of the time and how we currently perceive that moment in history.

 

Selma is not a documentary. Yet through skillful use of media, Califano and crew have managed to undermine it as an artistic accomplishment by holding to documentary standards.

 

Califano and company can make their own damn movie if they're so offended by this one.

Edited January 10, 2015 by xaxat

[Luckylyn]

I love Maurice.  Scudder climbing through the window is one of those great moments.

[Sweet Tee]

Maurice is such a great movie and book.  I loved that he got his happy ending.  The scene at the boathouse with him and Alec is so beautiful and I fall for it every time.

[caracas1914]

My Beautiful Launderette with Daniel Day Lewis. (thought he wasn't actually the lead, was still relatively an unknown).  As the gay punk youth he was mesmerizing.

[Chaos Theory]

I feel like I'm mentioning this movie all over the board at the moment (and I'll probably continue to do so for a while), but surely there has to be someone who's seen the recent Pride, about how LGSM was formed during the miner's strike in the UK? It only had a limited release in the US in September (around the same time it premiered in the UK), I think, but I believe it's out on DVD now. It's just such a warm film - one reviewer said, "I watched this entire film from start to finish with tears in my eyes and a smile plastered across my face", which pretty much sums it up for me, too. Watching it was like getting a big hug. Is it predictable? Well, I suppose. But so's the fact that Saturday comes after Friday, and no one complains about that. *g*

 

It's rare to see a movie with LGBT+ themes that focusses on something good happening in the community, one that shows that not everything is about suffering.

 

 

I just rented from Netflix.  Wonderful movie.  I have heard stories about the miners strike but not the LGBT part in it.    The ending made me smile.  

[jcin617]

I just watch Pride this weekend and found it wonderful.  I smiled at the end too

- right up until they revealed the fates of some of the people involved and we found out Mark died two years later; that made me cry a bit, although there was foreshadowing for that.

[Schweedie]

I just rented from Netflix.  Wonderful movie.  I have heard stories about the miners strike but not the LGBT part in it. The ending made me smile.  

 

I’d never heard about this particular strike-related story, either - it seems not many had, really. Mike Jackson was one of the major sources and visited the set regularly, and he was so pleased the story was finally being told because he’d been afraid it would die with them. They trimmed it down, some, obviously - there were apparently a lot more members in the original LGSM group than the movie showed and several other branches around the country, too - but it’s great that more people are going to know about the events thanks to the film.

 

I just watch Pride this weekend and found it wonderful.  I smiled at the end too

- right up until they revealed the fates of some of the people involved and we found out Mark died two years later; that made me cry a bit, although there was foreshadowing for that.

 

I was blubbering like a child at the end, as were most of the others in the cinema as well, it seemed. Happy tears, mostly,

but yeah, when they got to Mark I was ruined. Even though like you say, it'd been foreshadowed. I'm glad he got to see the motion about gay and lesbian rights in the Labour party's manifesto passed the year after, at least.

But that last scene was such a wonderful, victorious note to end on.

 

Everyone who knew Mark back then seems to agree Ben Schnetzer was perfect portraying him, which I can believe. There’s an amateur documentary of sorts available on YouTube called Dancing in Dulais, which was filmed by the activists at the time where you can see the real Mark Ashton and others in action, which is really cool! (I recognised Mike, Steph and Stella, too. And Siân.) Schnetzer does seem to have nailed it. Apparently in Wales, "They still talk about Mark Ashton as if he were Joan of Arc."

[proserpina65]

From an article in the Hollywood Reporter: "The film even suggests, even if it doesn’t explicitly state it, that Johnson was so frustrated by King that he gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a signal to use his secret recordings to attempt to undermine King’s marriage."

 

Given that there's no historical evidence of this, and the fact that it's a significant part of the discussion which is accused of distracting from the film's message (at least among those whose comments I've heard/read elsewhere), why bother to include the suggestion?  What was the point?  I'm not saying that a large number of those complaining about the film's depiction of Johnson and his actions wouldn't be complaining anyway, but this element seems to be an unnecessary distraction and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose within the film's narrative.

[xaxat]

Given that there's no historical evidence of this, and the fact that it's a significant part of the discussion which is accused of distracting from the film's message (at least among those whose comments I've heard/read elsewhere), why bother to include the suggestion?  What was the point?

 

I don't know, for dramatic effect? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Malcolm X is a great movie,  but it's bad history. Does that distract from the movie?

 

Compare Selma to some other recently released biopics. The Imitation Game downplays Alan Turing's suicide, only addressing it in an afterword. Stephen Hawking said that the biopic about his life, The Theory Of Everything, is "broadly true". (Meaning there's stuff in it that isn't.) And this fact check of Foxcatcher labeled a lot of scenes "Fiction" and "Mostly Fiction."

 

All of these movies have been praised to critics to a certain degree, but with the exception of Selma, any criticism of their historical veracity has been limited to those historians and film goers/critics I mentioned earlier. They certainly didn't get Washington Post editorials.

 

I just think there is a double standard in action for Selma.

Edited January 13, 2015 by xaxat

[Cobalt Stargazer]

From an article in the Hollywood Reporter: "The film even suggests, even if it doesn’t explicitly state it, that Johnson was so frustrated by King that he gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a signal to use his secret recordings to attempt to undermine King’s marriage."

 

Well. depending on what/who you believe, Hoover was a paranoid who caused the FBI to over-step its boundaries on numerous occasions. Harry Truman said something to the effect of that he turned the agency into his own private police force, and both Truman and JFK considered dismissing him as director but ended up not doing so because the political cost would be too great. There were also rumors that he was a closeted homosexual and cross-dresser, despite the fact that he maintained secret files on others he suspected of the same thing, and that none of the rumors about him were ever confirmed. He also worked closely with Roy Cohn, one of Joseph McCarthy's aides, during the '50s investigations into Communism. So if you want to accuse someone posthumously of being sneaky and deceptive, Hoover is probably your boy. It doesn't have to be true, but it might be.

[Rick Kitchen]

And Roy Cohn was gay.

[Zuleikha]

Social Network also had some unquestionable inaccuracies, including the complete removal of Priscilla Chen from Zuckerberg's life since her existence would have complicated the story of brogrammers building a social platform to chase girls. Sorkin has apparently been quoted as saying, "I don't want my fidelity to be the truth; I want it to be storytelling" and "What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy's sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?" Entertainment journalists wrote about the inaccuracies, but they didn't criticize the movie for it.

[Constantinople]

The larger debate over the movie started with a Washington Post editorial (not usually the place to find film commentary) from former Johnson aide Joseph Califano

To me, a newspaper editorial is an unsigned piece written on behalf of the paper's editorial board.

This was an opinion piece.

 

Opinion pieces are written about everything under the sun.

 

 

I don't know, for dramatic effect? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Malcolm X is a great movie,  but it's bad history. Does that distract from the movie?

 

Compare Selma to some other recently released biopics. The Imitation Game downplays Alan Turing's suicide, only addressing it in an afterword. Stephen Hawking said that the biopic about his life, The Theory Of Everything, is "broadly true". (Meaning there's stuff in it that isn't.) And this fact check of Foxcatcher labeled a lot of scenes "Fiction" and "Mostly Fiction."

 

All of these movies have been praised to critics to a certain degree, but with the exception of Selma, any criticism of their historical veracity has been limited to those historians and film goers/critics I mentioned earlier. They certainly didn't get Washington Post editorials.

 

I just think there is a double standard in action for Selma.

 

JFK received a lot of criticism, and still does to this day, for its lack of historical accuracy.

 

Although it was less of an issue in the US, several English newspapers and magazines strongly criticized Braveheart, some even saying the film was xenophobic.

[Raja]

The US papers are criticizing because all of our news networks have chosen sides politically and almost 50 years later the President is still identified as a Democrat and to our media protecting their side is the overriding issue.

[proserpina65]

 

proserpina65, on 12 Jan 2015 - 4:02 PM, said:

Given that there's no historical evidence of this, and the fact that it's a significant part of the discussion which is accused of distracting from the film's message (at least among those whose comments I've heard/read elsewhere), why bother to include the suggestion?  What was the point?

I don't know, for dramatic effect? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Malcolm X is a great movie,  but it's bad history. Does that distract from the movie?

 

In this case, yes, it does seem to be distracting from the movie, if so much of the talk about it concerns historical inaccuracies.  I won't argue that this isn't something of a double-standard, and that certainly some of the reason has to do with the state of racial relations in our society.  However, when it has become this big of a distraction from the message of the film, it strikes me as a mis-step on the part of the filmmaker.  I'm not going to belabor my point, and I will state that my view on the subject comes from the perspective of someone who often struggles with the potential conflict between good storytelling and faithfulness to historical accuracy, so feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Edited January 15, 2015 by proserpina65

[xaxat]

I like the trailer, and think Kingsman: The Secret Service might be a fun movie, but it really annoys me when Colin Firth says that they are an international organization and every one of them is white.

 

 

But hey, they have Sam Jackson, so yay diversity?

Edited January 15, 2015 by xaxat

[Athena]

I like the trailer, and think Kingsman: The Secret Service might be a fun movie, but it really annoys me when Colin Firth says that they are an international organization and every one of them is white. ...

But hey, they have Sam Jackson, so yay diversity?

 

I think SLJ is a villain in this film. They have a WOC Sofia Boutella, but not sure if she's Kingsmen or a baddie. In any case, when I heard about the cast and the concept, I knew I would watch this film. It's my kind of action movie and Colin Firth got fit for the role. Add Mark Strong and Michael Caine. Done and Done.

[Mars477]

Boutella plays a bad guy.

There is also, from all appearances, precisely one woman among the Kingsmen. She's the protagonist's fellow trainee and probable love interest because of course.

[Actionmage]

I read this, from IMDb, and was just...

 

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/oscars-diversity-woes-why-selma-protesters-got-it-wrong-1201408129/

 

I think Mr. Gray has a point or two, but when he writes: " In some cultures, age and experience are respected, as incredible as that sounds."? He loses me and I'm a month from turning 49! Professional respect is earned, not just carte blanche given, unless I have misunderstood the media messages of my life. Those older than you should, of course, be respected because they have lived for a while and know things. That doesn't mean their opinions are correct. 

 

The protests are doomed to frustration, because Oscar voting involves secret ballots and individual tastes, which cannot be quantified.

 

The protests don't have to be "doomed"; if enough folks want to change that opacity, there can be a movement for more transparency. Speaking as if there is no chance in ever of protesters achieving change in voting seems to miss the point of the movie being discussed, ironically enough.

 

I do agree with the author on one thing: a key to more diversity in Oscar nominations starts in hiring. Behind the scenes and above-the-line folks, not just the easy-to-see actors and stuntpersons.

[xaxat]

TLDR for that article, "Leave those old, white, male Oscar voters alone!"

 

" In some cultures, age and experience are respected, as incredible as that sounds." That line just reeks of the kind of paternalism (usually from white males) that has been used for a long time to rationalize gender/race inequity throughout society. "You people just don't understand how the real world works!"

[Cirien]

To me, a newspaper editorial is an unsigned piece written on behalf of the paper's editorial board.

This was an opinion piece.

 

Opinion pieces are written about everything under the sun.

 

 

 

JFK received a lot of criticism, and still does to this day, for its lack of historical accuracy.

 

Although it was less of an issue in the US, several English newspapers and magazines strongly criticized Braveheart, some even saying the film was xenophobic.

Well Braveheart  was appalling (xenophobic,homophobic and completely in-fucking-accurate ) but ....your point