Is this a deliberate LAB move to help the LDs? – politicalbetting.com

noneoftheabove said:

StillWaters said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ned Hartley @NedHartley

Today marks that day where it has officially taken Nadine Dorries longer to resign than Liz Truss was Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/NedHartley/status/1684862990573547520

It feels a bit like bullying (not you).

She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords

And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.

Leave her alone at this point

I assume this is intended as satire but can't quite tell.....

StillWaters said:

noneoftheabove said:

StillWaters said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ned Hartley @NedHartley

Today marks that day where it has officially taken Nadine Dorries longer to resign than Liz Truss was Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/NedHartley/status/1684862990573547520

It feels a bit like bullying (not you).

She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords

And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.

Leave her alone at this point

I assume this is intended as satire but can't quite tell.....

No, it’s a serious point.

She’s done, toast, has the political lifespan of a Norwegian blue. She’s utterly irrelevant to anything.

Continually mocking her doesn’t achieve any political gain. It’s just cruelty.

StillWaters said:

Malmesbury said:

StillWaters said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ned Hartley @NedHartley

Today marks that day where it has officially taken Nadine Dorries longer to resign than Liz Truss was Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/NedHartley/status/1684862990573547520

It feels a bit like bullying (not you).

She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords

And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.

Leave her alone at this point

Give her the job of CEO of Coutts?

I was going with Dido Harding to be honest. We know she’s really good with protecting confidential information.

TimS said:

Meanwhile in good net zero news / UK falling behind the competition warning:

China *added* more solar capacity in H1 this year than the *total* UK generating capacity across all forms of energy.

https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1684911164814237696?s=46

Ghedebrav said:

StillWaters said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ned Hartley @NedHartley

Today marks that day where it has officially taken Nadine Dorries longer to resign than Liz Truss was Prime Minister

https://twitter.com/NedHartley/status/1684862990573547520

It feels a bit like bullying (not you).

She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords

And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.

Leave her alone at this point

Sorry, but her (political - not media or writing) career is in ruins from reasons entirely of her own making, and not because of one heat-of-the-moment mistake.

She hasn't spoken in parliament for over a year. Her attendance record is poor. She hasn't held a constituency surgery for _three years_. She had the whip withdrawn because she decided she'd rather spend six weeks on telly trying to get famous rather than be an MP.

All the while, she's continued to draw her salary. If I behaved like that in my job, I'd have been out on my ear ages ago - and rightly so.

I don't have any sympathy for her. I do for her constituents, for whom she has repeatedly shown contempt.

I'm not going to point and laugh. But I'm equally not going to defend her from the repercussions of her arrogance and narcissism. She's made her bed.

TimS said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.

A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.

The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.

Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.

Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

One of the most moving things you see on Ukraine is wartime weddings. They are everywhere. And easy to spot. The wedding will be quite small - presumably because it’s done speedily during leave? The girl will be young slim pretty and nervous. The groom will have a very tight soldierly haircut and a few tatts and maybe bruises, his friends likewise

And then the ceremony is done; back to the frontline he goes

Hopefully there is time for a quick knee-trembler and some vol au vents too.

Nigelb said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

I'm not as bothered by the casting as what Baddiel has to say about the storytelling.

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.

TimS said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.

A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.

The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.

Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.

Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.

Lol no

I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue

That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.

A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.

The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.

Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.

Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.

The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.

Lol no

I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue

That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.

Lol no

I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue

That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??

Most likely to be Indian students, from India, who are trying to learn the local lingo.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.

A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.

The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.

Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.

Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.

The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Wanker of a third umpire.

He was a few inches short of his ground there.

Andy_JS said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Wanker of a third umpire.

He was a few inches short of his ground there.

Bairstow apparently knocked the bail off too early.

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

Meanwhile in good net zero news / UK falling behind the competition warning:

China *added* more solar capacity in H1 this year than the *total* UK generating capacity across all forms of energy.

https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1684911164814237696?s=46

Meaningless comparison. What is it as a percentage of China's grid demand?

Meanwhile...
"Almost a third of Britain’s electricity, some 32.4% came from wind farms in the first quarter of the year compared with 31.7% from gas-fired power plants, marking the first quarter where wind power output was higher"
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/british-wind-power-overtakes-gas-first-time-q1-2023-report-2023-05-10/

Britain has a great record on decarbonising its electricity grid, despite the decline of its nuclear power generation.

That's actually a question it's possible to answer using the very helpful ourworldindate website.

As of 2022 solar made up 2.52% of Chinese electricity generation and 1.79% of UK generation. That's before this year's massive installation (though note they refer to capacity which is not the same as generation - capacity is what they would generate if it were midday and cloudless 24 hours a day).

On total renewables, in China these make up 16% of generation and in the UK 19.3%. Both countries have been decarbonising rapidly although the current pace in China is greater - they have more potential to decarbonise further because they have much more coal in the mix. Coal has already declined from 74% of generation in China in 2007 (the most recent peak) to 55% now.

This is good news. It negates a couple of common arguments: first that there's a trade off between decarbonisation and economic growth and that it's unfair of the West to insist the rest of the world denies itself fossil fuels - China shows it's perfectly possible to grow and decarbonise. Second that there's no point in the UK doing anything because China isn't. That's also not true. It's a bit more true to India frankly. And Russia of course. But they will lose out in the long run if they insist on dirty grids.

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

ydoethur said:

Andy_JS said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Wanker of a third umpire.

He was a few inches short of his ground there.

Bairstow apparently knocked the bail off too early.

BFWHDT.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.

Look, I've said it again.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Andy_JS said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Wanker of a third umpire.

He was a few inches short of his ground there.

Bairstow apparently knocked the bail off too early.

BFWHDT.

That was seriously close and Bairstow certainly complicated it but the closer you looked the more out it looked.

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

ydoethur said:

Smith 50.

Looking as immovable as Bass Rock here.

kinabalu said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.

Pro_Rata said:

ydoethur said:

Smith 50.

Looking as immovable as Bass Rock here.

Let's see if he's so immovable when England attempt the tactic of getting 150000 gannets to crap on him.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Carnyx said:

williamglenn said:

Nigel Farage and Gina Miller now on the same side:

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/1684916350207066112

Not comparable. Personal account of a PEP, and political party account. Both hassles to have, is th eonly connection.

Even the DT is publishing articles feelign sorry for the poor banks and demanding they be left alone (or so it looks from the bit I can see), as I remarked a little earlier.

I think it is comparable. Banks are a vital utility, not a trade and they should not be permitted to bar or remove customers except for very specific legal reasons.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Obviously this is bad news for Biden.

A former Trump White House lawyer said the evidence against the former president over his handling of classified documents was now “overwhelming” and would “last an antiquity”, after new charges were filed in the case on Thursday.

I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Ty Cobb told CNN. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”

In June, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts regarding his handling of classified records after leaving the White House.

On Thursday, in a superseding indictment filed in a Florida court, four more charges were outlined. A second Trump staffer, the Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira, was charged, alongside Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet. Nauta previously pleaded not guilty.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/trump-lawyer-charges-1000-years-mar-a-lago

TOPPING said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

I think disabled actors are increasingly getting parts now. That wasn't the case 5, 10, 15 years ago. Will you get a disable actor playing Jason Bourne? No reason why not. It is very much audience-driven and as audiences increasingly embrace diversity on film then the jobs will follow. I also think that the film industry could or should lead the way in pushing back those boundaries.

But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

I think disabled actors are increasingly getting parts now. That wasn't the case 5, 10, 15 years ago. Will you get a disable actor playing Jason Bourne? No reason why not. It is very much audience-driven and as audiences increasingly embrace diversity on film then the jobs will follow. I also think that the film industry could or should lead the way in pushing back those boundaries.

But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.

"Very much audience-driven"

Do you have any figures to back that up, or is it very much wishful thinking?

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Smith 50.

Looking as immovable as Bass Rock here.

Intderesting simile. Not that I disagree (being familiar with it and having spent half a day on it in my younger days, when they still allowed you on to commune with the gannets. But why pick it? The gent isn't from East Lothian is he?

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.

That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.

The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.

Look, I've said it again.

You have indeed, in the same breath as saying you have no clue what the "rules" should be and hence your opinion on it all is moot.

Andy_JS said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TimS said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Oh god he’s still busking

I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark

They were speaking pure Ukrainian

I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.

A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.

The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.

Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.

Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.

The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.

In Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, once an independent city and a major focus of Scandinavian (esp. Norwegian) immigration, Bergen Square features flags of Denmark, Faroes, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.

Uff da!

I believe a lot of Scandinavians settled in the Mid Western states?

Some of the Norwegian music on the local radio sounded quite country, perhaps they are responsible for spreading bad musical taste across the Atlantic?

And Norwegian wooden homes could almost be American; in Norway they don't have hurricanes or tornadoes to worry about, so they last longer.

Minnesota has the highest percentage of Scandinavians IIRC, and Wisconsin is mainly German immigrants.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.

Look, I've said it again.

Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .

You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself

That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.

LOL

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

Just chatting with someone who has seen it, and they think some of the acting was pretty ropey, too.

Sandpit said:

Ooh that was very close to Verstappen starting 16th on Sunday.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.

Look, I've said it again.

You have indeed, in the same breath as saying you have no clue what the "rules" should be and hence your opinion on it all is moot.

I'm saying there shouldn't be 'rules' since it depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. Are you opining that it doesn't?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Steve Smith will always be a cheat.

Carnyx said:

Nigelb said:

Miklosvar said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’
A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'

'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”

However, the committee, which described the delay as “regrettable”, called on the Government to instead expand the regulation'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/28/ban-cook-at-home-meals-tackle-obesity-food-committee-efra/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1690531688-1

That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.

However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.

One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.

Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service

Or the mass market version of Dignitas.

Checkout at the checkouts.

Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

TimS said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Ghedebrav said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

I like David Baddiel, but don't agree with him on this:

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/all/oppenheimer-liked-to-pretend-he-wasnt-jewish-like-the-film-1rsH6pz4EC1yDIku5F1azk

Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.

Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way.
The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.

But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists.
(I have yet to watch it.)

Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.

Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.

It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.

Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.

It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.

There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.

But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.

That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.

The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.