WokeWatch™

[The Great Cornholio 902]

14 hours ago, An Fear Beag said:

 

Like Claire Danes, you mean? She doesn't look remotely Italian, and yet no-one batted an eyelid. Why is it that people will accept pale white actors/actresses playing characters that should have darker skin (Glenda Jackson, Helen Mirren and Judy Dench all played the Egyptian Cleopatra on stage, and no-one cared), but have trouble accepting black actors/actresses playing the same characters?

And why are people obsessed that the actor/actress looks authentic? I have never seen an actress playing Juliet who sounded Italian (they all spoke English for a start!), and yet people suspended belief and accepted that they were Italian. So why is it so essential that they look a certain way?

 

 

Except it isn't. It would be the very opposite of diversity, given the relative number of parts available to actors of different ethnic backgrounds.

 

One big difference between The Jungle Book and Romeo and Juliet, is that while the jungle setting is essential to the story of the former, Italy is really not essential to the plot of Romeo and Juliet, in the same way that Denmark is not really essential to the plot of Hamlet. It is a play about star-crossed lovers, not about Verona. It could be set in Verona, Mississippi and the story would work just as well. So for the purpose of the play, it really does not matter what colour skin Romeo or Juliet have.

 

 

Well, I'm guessing it's helping the actress who got to play the iconic role

 

 

I will hold my hands up here and admit that I am not familiar with the version that you are referring to here - I have been speaking more generally. So if the director has come out and said that they gave the role to an actress purely because she black, then I will happily say that I disagree with that. However, more generally, I have an issue with people assuming that a role has been given to an actor/actress purely for the sake of diversity. Have you considered the possibility that he/she got the role because they are a bloody good actor/actress who deserved a shot at playing the part, despite peoples pre-conceived ideas of what the character should look like? How is giving good roles to good black actors/actresses patronising? Should we ban all non-white actors from doing Shakespeare (except Othello), because that is not how Shakespeare envisaged the characters 400 years ago?

I mean if the actress has hired on her merit as an actress then yeah there's no problem there. Only thing is that often diversity casting feels forced. Star Wars being a good example, although you could put some of it down to the terrible writing. I was very excited for the Obi Wan Kenobi series but the writing wasn't good and the Reva character was badly acted and was terribly written - but the story was praised for its diversity. The story should matter WAY more than how diverse the cast is.

[time 8,617]

5 hours ago, One shot Paddy said:

Is 88 OK?

[Sinbabad 1,124]

25 minutes ago, The Great Cornholio said:

Star Wars being a good example, although you could put some of it down to the terrible writing. I was very excited for the Obi Wan Kenobi series but the writing wasn't good and the Reva character was badly acted and was terribly written - but the story was praised for its diversity. The story should matter WAY more than how diverse the cast is.

The series didn’t strike me as very diverse. I don’t remember the Reva character, but I found the story very good. For me it wasn’t an exemple of woke excess.

I read an article about John Boyega who was dissatisfied with his SW experience feeling that he was hired for diversity purposes !

[TQR 14,399]

1 minute ago, Sinbabad said:

For me it wasn’t an example of woke excess.

But you’ve been unable to define ‘woke’, suggesting the main excess is of stuff you don’t understand.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

43 minutes ago, The Great Cornholio said:

I mean if the actress has hired on her merit as an actress then yeah there's no problem there. Only thing is that often diversity casting feels forced. Star Wars being a good example, although you could put some of it down to the terrible writing. I was very excited for the Obi Wan Kenobi series but the writing wasn't good and the Reva character was badly acted and was terribly written - but the story was praised for its diversity. The story should matter WAY more than how diverse the cast is.

I didn't enjoy the Kenobi show, it's clear that it was a film stretched into a 6 part mini-series. When it comes to Reva my main issue was that the twist regarding her character just made no sense and sent the whole show down a different trajectory, however I will admit there were parts in which I didn't like Moses Ingram's performance, but that could be down to directing, writing or maybe she wasn't right for the role. I wouldn't want to call her a bad actor, as I've literally never seen her in anything else, but the fact that she has multiple upcoming projects shows that maybe it was outside influences. I agree that something doesn't deserve praise for diversity alone but it is still something that you can point out and whilst I didn't like Ingram as Reva I thought that Indira Varma was good in her role, Sung Kang was brilliant as one of the inquisitors and I always enjoy Jimmy Smits performance as Bail Organa.

 

9 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

The series didn’t strike me as very diverse. I don’t remember the Reva character, but I found the story very good. For me it wasn’t an exemple of woke excess.

I read an article about John Boyega who was dissatisfied with his SW experience feeling that he was hired for diversity purposes !

If you didn't notice the diversity, that's a good thing, it means it felt natural.

 

I seen have Boyega express dissatisfaction with his experience but not because he thinks he was hired for diversity but because his character wasn't given as much focus in TLJ and TROS and he feels that this was because Disney was too afraid of any potential backlash from having a black main character. (deadline interview)

[Grim Up North 3,726]

25% of cowboys were black.

 

who knew from watching the old Hollywood films?

 

is it important to know that? No idea?

 

But when you watch a modern western it’s easy to think they have put black actors in where they don’t belong for woke reasons which is incorrect - it’s actually the righting of the historical inaccuracy in the old western movies.

[dimreaper 698]

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/26/us/digital-blackface-social-media-explainer-blake-cec/index.html

[Toast 16,144]

3 hours ago, dimreaper said:

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/26/us/digital-blackface-social-media-explainer-blake-cec/index.html

 

That is utter rubbish.

When I want to use an image or a gif, I look for something that expresses MY feelings, reaction or opinion. It can be a person of any race, colouring or nationality. It can be an animal.

 

 

[TQR 14,399]

2 hours ago, dimreaper said:

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/26/us/digital-blackface-social-media-explainer-blake-cec/index.html

I’m woke as all fuck, but this is bollocks, as Toast said.
 

‘Digital blackface’ is the use of filters/editing to deliberately make yourself appear a different ethnicity to your own. It is emphatically not the sharing of memes of black people/culture. That’s not impersonation, that’s appreciation.

 

As an aside, it never occurred to me that this thread would go beyond taking the piss out of those weird people branding everything woke in an impotent rage. But there we are. It’s multi purpose.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

4 hours ago, TQR said:

But you’ve been unable to define ‘woke’, suggesting the main excess is of stuff you don’t understand.

I post a wiktionary link earlier with a definition which seems quite correct to me : "Holding progressive views or attitudes, principally with regard to social justice."

 

I’m not  against fighting injustice, but  I hold conservative views and disagree with progressive ways to fight injustice.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

2 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

I post a wiktionary link earlier with a definition which seems quite correct to me : "Holding progressive views or attitudes, principally with regard to social justice."

 

I’m not  against fighting injustice, but  I hold conservative views and disagree with progressive ways to fight injustice.

Thats probably the biggest nothing answer I've seen on this site lmao

[TQR 14,399]

3 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

I post a wiktionary link earlier with a definition which seems quite correct to me : "Holding progressive views or attitudes, principally with regard to social justice."

 

I’m not  against fighting injustice, but  I hold conservative views and disagree with progressive ways to fight injustice.

Explain how fighting injustice isn’t progression.

[harrymcnallysblueandwhitearmy 1,689]

I just hope that when it arrives on BBC3, Michaela Strachan and Bill Oddie are still allowed to present, and they don’t parachute in Eni Aluko and Piers Morgan. Hmmm, that might actually be an interesting choice…

[BuffaloPhil 929]

I think the real problem is the increasing polarisation of society, where people who lean moderately left or right of centre are spoonfed things - largely through both social and regular media - that push them further in their chosen direction, with the result that most people end up seeing those on the other side as either loony lefties or fascists, when the actuality is 99% of people don't really fall into either extreme.

 

The word "woke" exemplifies this perfectly - to those (generally left-wingers) who consider themselves woke it's a badge to be worn proudly, whilst to those who don't it's an insult.

 

Personally I consider myself fairly central, but definitely tend towards the left, but I do find myself incredibly irritated by many of those on the extreme left - almost as much as I do by those on the extreme right. I admit I sometimes find it hard to separate my own views from those I'm fed, but I'm trying to work on that.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

30 minutes ago, TQR said:

Explain how fighting injustice isn’t progression.

I’m not against fighting injustice, but to be clearer, I’m against left wing policies.

[Toast 16,144]

43 minutes ago, TQR said:

Explain how fighting injustice isn’t progression.

 

When fighting injustice against a particular group encourages or results in injustice against another group.

[TQR 14,399]

11 minutes ago, Toast said:

When fighting injustice against a particular group encourages or results in injustice against another group.

Which isn’t fighting injustice, so that’s not what we’re talking about.

 

22 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

I’m not against fighting injustice, but to be clearer, I’m against left wing policies.

 

You have all the labels like “progressive” and “wokist” and “left-wing” but not a single idea you can explain. Maybe this thread isn’t for you.

[The Great Cornholio 902]

4 minutes ago, TQR said:

Which isn’t fighting injustice, so that’s not what we’re talking about.

I think she means positive discrimination - eg: Police only offering jobs to minority/non-white applicants

[TQR 14,399]

Just now, The Great Cornholio said:

I think she means positive discrimination - eg: Police only offering jobs to minority/non-white applicants

Positive discrimination is transference, it’s not really progression. So, not progressive. It may be that the word ‘progressive’ is misinterpreted (intentionally or not) just as much as ‘woke’ is. 

[Sinbabad 1,124]

2 minutes ago, TQR said:

You have all the labels like “progressive” and “wokist” and “left-wing” but not a single idea you can explain. Maybe this thread isn’t for you.

Do I really need to explain to you what "progressive", "conservative", "left wing", "right wing", "wokist" mean ?

I think you’re pretending not to understand.

As for the thread, maybe that’s not what you had specifically in mind when you created it, but I was merely responding to an @An Fear Beag post.

Now I think I’ve established my point of view, you expressed your, we disagree and that’s fine by me.

[MortalCaso 1,629]

4 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

Do I really need to explain to you what "progressive", "conservative", "left wing", "right wing", "wokist" mean ?

I think you’re pretending not to understand.

As for the thread, maybe that’s not what you had specifically in mind when you created it, but I was merely responding to an @An Fear Beag post.

Now I think I’ve established my point of view, you expressed your, we disagree and that’s fine by me.

They aren't black and white concepts

 

Those words can mean very different things depending on the situation. Someone's religion, political party, moral values, or where they live can impact a perception on what is truly 'left' or 'right'.

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,052]

8 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

Do I really need to explain to you what "progressive", "conservative", "left wing", "right wing", "wokist" mean ?

I think you’re pretending not to understand.

To defend TQR on this, getting people to define terms like those is important when trying to understand their viewpoint, level of understanding and how to respond. Even simple things like left or right wing get thrown around as buzzwords with very little meaning nowadays. People like Joe Biden often get called a socialist, and I can guarantee that 99.99999% of people who say that do not know what Socialism actually is and are just repeating what they have been told.

[TQR 14,399]

7 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

Do I really need to explain to you what "progressive", "conservative", "left wing", "right wing", "wokist" mean ?

I think you’re pretending not to understand.

As for the thread, maybe that’s not what you had specifically in mind when you created it, but I was merely responding to an @An Fear Beag post.

Now I think I’ve established my point of view, you expressed your, we disagree and that’s fine by me.

 

Not being able to explain the words you use and what you mean by them is exactly how words like 'woke' get bastardised and misused. I'm sorry you couldn't demonstrate what you meant. Very happy to agree to disagree and move on.

[Sinbabad 1,124]

14 minutes ago, TQR said:

you couldn't demonstrate what you meant.

I think I did but whatever. But you’re right, since we fail to understand each other, let’s move on.

[Sly Ronnie 886]

4 hours ago, dimreaper said:

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/26/us/digital-blackface-social-media-explainer-blake-cec/index.html