| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:25 - Jan 13 with 1819 views | Steve_M |
I read Baddiel's piece yesterday and am still thinking about it. Tend towards thinking that acting is acting and that there should - in general - be no stipulation that a character must be played by an actor who matches that person's innate characteristics.
The exemptions might reasonably include examples such as 'It's a Sin', as referenced, because it was specifically about the lived experience of gay men in the 80s. |  |
|  |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:29 - Jan 13 with 1786 views | WD19 |
Too much 'authentic casting' would result in articles about stereotyping and typecasting.
Not enough 'authentic casting' results in articles about that.
The only hard and fast rule should be that only goalkeepers are allowed to play goalkeepers in film. |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:33 - Jan 13 with 1770 views | JakeITFC |
I'm of the opinion that it has probably gotten out of hand in that it's getting away from the original point - Baddiel is right to say 'well if other ethnicities, why not Jews', but the fundamental and underlying argument that actors can only be cast within small typecasts seems damaging rather than helpful.
To use an example from his piece, why would David Fincher's casting of Gary Oldman as Herman Mankiewicz have ever been a bone of contention? That Mank was Jewish was utterly irrelevant to the film, and Oldman gave a lauded portrayal of the role. |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:36 - Jan 13 with 1754 views | Keno |
I struggle with this view.
Are they saying that Aliens in sci fi movies should only be played by Aliens or Roman emperors should only be played by Romans emperors?
Its acting |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:54 - Jan 13 with 1679 views | Ryorry |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:36 - Jan 13 by Keno |
I struggle with this view.
Are they saying that Aliens in sci fi movies should only be played by Aliens or Roman emperors should only be played by Romans emperors?
Its acting |
Tend to agree with you, but I think part of the argument of minority groups (esp actors with disabilities of course) is that historically they've struggled to get acting work themselves, often ending up doing a string of random temp dishwashing etc. jobs, whilst white, cis, able-bodied people who aren't on the receiving end of discrimination, can just stroll in & get those parts without any problem. |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:14 - Jan 13 with 1620 views | stringy |
Baddiel sometimes gets on my nerves, but I thought this was a very well written, reflective piece.
It seems that for now it may be necessary to go down the route of character literalism as a means of empowering historically marginalised groups, and then maybe in due course things can open up again. Part of me does think the whole point of acting is to take on another's guise (empathetically), but then I'm white, male, straight etc. so at this historical moment in time maybe not for the likes of me to make that call. |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:17 - Jan 13 with 1597 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:25 - Jan 13 by Steve_M |
I read Baddiel's piece yesterday and am still thinking about it. Tend towards thinking that acting is acting and that there should - in general - be no stipulation that a character must be played by an actor who matches that person's innate characteristics.
The exemptions might reasonably include examples such as 'It's a Sin', as referenced, because it was specifically about the lived experience of gay men in the 80s. |
Yeah I tend to agree with you. I thought provoking piece nevertheless.
A good point being that we quite rightly have black actors playing the roles of a white man. But that would not happen in reverse. So why should Jews be considered a lesser minority?
It's a good topic of discussion. |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:25 - Jan 13 with 1539 views | J2BLUE |
I can see the point in certain cases. If certain groups are losing out on jobs then it should be considered.
With that said, Ricky Gervais' performance as Derek (who it was implied if not confirmed was autistic) completely changed my opinion of him. Should have won some sort of award. Absolutely brilliant. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:27 - Jan 13 with 1522 views | Darth_Koont |
It’s a bit silly.
On a basic level he’s saying why shouldn’t Jewish actors and characters be treated just like any other minority. But he skates over the fact that the industry has become more conscious of other minority casting precisely because it’s to right previous structural wrongs and also reflect a comparative lack of opportunity otherwise in wider roles.
That’s not been an issue for Jewish actors as far as I can see. And Baddiel doesn’t provide any evidence either.
If we’re saying actors can’t otherwise “act” to assume an identity, then we’re saying for example Black British actors shouldn’t play Africans. Race doesn’t equal identity, in fact the suggestion itself is fairly racist. |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:29 - Jan 13 with 1508 views | Lord_Lucan |
I think it's bollox, after all, she played Maggie Thatcher once so what the hell?
I just looked at her IMDB and she also played a Reverend in Vicar of Dibley.
If you take everything to its conclusion you can only play yourself.
Would she begrudge Ben Kingsleys performance in Schindlers List?
I think she's a bit of a crank to be honest. |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:39 - Jan 13 with 1448 views | ghostofescobar |
I think there is an argument that certain parts should be played by people from that race, religion, gender, ability, disability, whatever it may be, but my only doubt is where do you draw the line. I was watching the brilliant Maxine Peak in Anne the other night, and this argument must have been bouncing around in my head, because I thought, should only a scouser be playing this part, rather than someone who has to put on an accent? I get that doing an accent is a world away from "acting" gay, disabled etc. but it did make me think that I don't know where that line is? |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:57 - Jan 13 with 1379 views | MattinLondon |
My take on this is that frequently it’s the performance of the actor that provides the talking point of how powerful a film has been. For example, I didn’t think that ‘The Joker’ lived up to the hype but it was an extremely powerful performance by Phoenix.
Taking this further, if that role was based on a Jewish character and a Jewish actor had played the role less convincingly then that would have lessened the impact that film had. You could well say ‘who cares’ as it’s a comic strip film, but for some films that would be a real issue. For example if a film was set in a concentration camp.
Whereas a black actor could play say ‘Richard 111’, at this moment in time a white actor couldn’t convincingly play a black historical character. Not due to acting skills but due to social factors.
I’ve always thought of Jewish people as being white myself so I don’t think race is an issue in this case. |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 14:09 - Jan 13 with 1345 views | BloomBlue |
It shouldn't make any difference as acting is acting, but conversely if there was a film about the great Sir Bob and Brenda Blethyn (with her North East connection) played the part of Sir Bob in his later life would people be happy, acting is acting after all? If there was a film about Muhammad Ali and Daniel Craig played Ali would people be happy, acting is acting after all? If there was a film about Penny Smith's TV career and (shaven) Idris Elba played the part of Penny would people be happy, after all acting is acting?
I would think most people would be unhappy with that casting irrelevant of acting is acting as the individuals are out of context with the character being portrayed, so by default we do have selective choosing of a actor to play a part based on some human matching, therefore a Jewish actor playing a Jewish role does have some weight to the argument |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 15:29 - Jan 13 with 1252 views | Darth_Koont |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 14:09 - Jan 13 by BloomBlue |
It shouldn't make any difference as acting is acting, but conversely if there was a film about the great Sir Bob and Brenda Blethyn (with her North East connection) played the part of Sir Bob in his later life would people be happy, acting is acting after all? If there was a film about Muhammad Ali and Daniel Craig played Ali would people be happy, acting is acting after all? If there was a film about Penny Smith's TV career and (shaven) Idris Elba played the part of Penny would people be happy, after all acting is acting?
I would think most people would be unhappy with that casting irrelevant of acting is acting as the individuals are out of context with the character being portrayed, so by default we do have selective choosing of a actor to play a part based on some human matching, therefore a Jewish actor playing a Jewish role does have some weight to the argument |
Aren’t those examples a little too absurd?
It’s about acting which is assuming an identity and portraying someone in a believable way. If a Jewish actor can portray a gentile and a gentile actor can portray a Jew (as actors have for many decades) then this really isn’t an issue.
Fatuously equating “Jewface” to blackface (this is Baddiel of blackface infamy too) is making light of the specific difficulties in society other more recognisable minorities have. The Jewish community face other and no less serious difficulties and prejudices of course and those should also be addressed. But this looks to be the wrong fight. [Post edited 13 Jan 2022 18:43]
| |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 16:12 - Jan 13 with 1186 views | LankHenners |
It’s hard to take Baddiel seriously on these sorts of topics given he leant fully into doing blackface to make fun of a specific footballer who was subsequently abused from fans across the country whenever he played and sent him into a depressive state for years. Took him almost 2 decades to make a proper (of sorts) apology after going ‘well don’t have a go at me when others have done it as well’ for years. AFAIK Jason Lee still believes Baddiel hasn’t given him a full apology personally.
With that in mind it makes his claim that he ‘played a minority when he wasn’t’ a bit crass when it was a bit more than that.
Anyway, the general point is quite complex and clearly it’s a matter of disagreement within different groups about what is acceptable or not. I think really the context is important in these scenarios and there isn’t really a one size fits all approach, though obviously things that are blatantly distasteful or offensive should be off limits. |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 16:28 - Jan 13 with 1157 views | GeoffSentence |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 12:29 - Jan 13 by WD19 |
Too much 'authentic casting' would result in articles about stereotyping and typecasting.
Not enough 'authentic casting' results in articles about that.
The only hard and fast rule should be that only goalkeepers are allowed to play goalkeepers in film. |
You got a problem with Sylvester Stallone? |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 16:53 - Jan 13 with 1111 views | solomon |
For me if doesn’t matter, as long as the actor portrays the character with passion, commitment, accuracy , then the end result should be that you the audience are utterly convinced. Surely that’s the point of acting? |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 18:20 - Jan 13 with 1044 views | lowhouseblue |
greater opportunities for actors from minority backgrounds is a very good objective. casting needs to distribute jobs more fairly. but, this argument seems to assume that only minorities have a distinctive 'identity'. if we end up with only letting people act parts which are congruent with their own background 'identity' - and recognise that all communities, even majority communities, have an 'identity' - then you'll reduce opportunities for minority actors and push them into silos. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 18:31 - Jan 13 with 999 views | BLUEBEAT |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 13:29 - Jan 13 by Lord_Lucan |
I think it's bollox, after all, she played Maggie Thatcher once so what the hell?
I just looked at her IMDB and she also played a Reverend in Vicar of Dibley.
If you take everything to its conclusion you can only play yourself.
Would she begrudge Ben Kingsleys performance in Schindlers List?
I think she's a bit of a crank to be honest. |
 |  |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 18:35 - Jan 13 with 974 views | MattinLondon |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 16:28 - Jan 13 by GeoffSentence |
You got a problem with Sylvester Stallone? |
Awful keeper. Positioning woeful at corners and was caught out at his near post. | | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 18:42 - Jan 13 with 947 views | Darth_Koont |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 18:31 - Jan 13 by BLUEBEAT |
|
Kingsley is half-Indian, at least. So I think this falls on the right side even if they had to darken his skin.
Plus he actually looked like Gandhi. | |
| |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 19:26 - Jan 13 with 879 views | HARRY10 |
I t reads, as it is writtem A 2,000 word (?) ptice by someone who has no real argument but feels the need to have one, or paid to.
firstly this a commercial venture so the money side of things will be foremost
Are we to believe there is some unique Jewishness, shared by a taxi driver in New York with an ultra Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem that can therefore only being expressed by a Jew.
No, the na.zis did not discriminate between his atheist gg'father and Jews, Nor did allied bombing discriminate between resistance and avowed na,zis. That is the nature of indiscriminate bombing and mass murder. The clue is in the title.
Warren Mitchel played the part of Alf Garnett. Not because he had some affinity with Easr End dockers, or becuase he had lived it. He was a fine acror, who happened to be Jewish
It is when Baddiel appears to run out of argument that we are served up with this
"Casting a non-minority actor to mimic that identity feels, to the progressive eye, like impersonation, and impersonation may carry with it an element of mockery — or at least seem reductive, reducing the complexity of that experience by channelling it through an actor who hasn’t lived it."
What is it they haven't lived? Aa a tailor in London, or a banker in New York perhaps. Or every other job, lifestyle and experience in between. Because we have Baddiel trying to pigeonhole Jews into some ghetto of expression and lifestyle. Where then the stereotyping ?
This comes across as sour grapes because a Jew was not cast as Golda Meir. Will there be a similar clamour for a Jew to play Robert Maxwell, or perhaps his daughter, or Jeffrey Epstein ? Can only a Jew play Jesus, and the two robbers either side of him ? |  | | |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 19:28 - Jan 13 with 875 views | Crock |
| I thought Maureen Lipman was wrong on 16:28 - Jan 13 by GeoffSentence |
You got a problem with Sylvester Stallone? |
Or Kevin O’Callaghan? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
