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

viewcode said:

Incidentally, for all those of you who are discussing Oppenheimer, please note that Barbie and Oppenheimer are now grossing so hard they're squeezing MI:7pt1 out. Having lost the IMAX screens to Oppenheimer and now losing the multiplexes to B/O, Mission Impossible will end up losing a considerable chunk of its profits. Its like those old films where they stop oil fires with explosives.

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

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.

They nail it?

Can we get a handle on this punning situation?

Dig deep?

TOPPING said:

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.

I liked his book but that was politics. This is something different. No reason why you can't have Cush Jumbo playing Hamlet, Hugh Grant playing Golda Meir, or Michael Balogun playing Emanuel Lehman.

TOPPING said:

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.

As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?

ydoethur said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

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.

Bluntly, I think it was out. I think the umpire got it wrong.

But - it makes no difference what I think. The scorecard shows him still in.

Was the ball in his glove when he broke the stumps? The replay on the BBC website doesn't show it very clearly.

As I understand the rules if the bail was off before the ball was in Bairstow's gloves, just breaking the stumps with ball in hand wouldn't be enough to run Smith out.

The issue is - I'm not convinced the bail was 'off' within the meaning of the act.

Jim_Miller said:

There is also a small amount of American country music in Africa, as I learned from a NYT article some years ago. A young Kenyan woman was aspiring to be the Dolly Parton of her hill country. (She looked quite fetching on the horse she was riding. And, as has often happened with US country singers, she got her start singing in a church choir.)

There are worse role models.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

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.

As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?

That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.

boulay said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

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.

As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?

That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.

Tropic Thunder is now apparently “problematic” due to Robert Downie Junior in black-face even though the point of him in black face is so over the top ridiculous to mock method acting and the idea that a white man can understand the reality of a black man in Vietnam and therefore is patently an anti-racism stance.

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.

Richard_Tyndall 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.

Nope because you are igoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.

Richard_Tyndall 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.

Nope because you are ignoring the following sentence. Othello being black is fundemental to the story because it is first and foremost a story of racism. And yet having a white Othello does nthing to detract from that if played in the right way.

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

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.

As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?

That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.

It's acting, dear boy. Free yourself.

Jim_Miller said:

Washington state's greatest senator, "Scoop" Jackson, was the son of Norwegian immigrants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

(There are some in the UK who think well of him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society )

TimS said:

Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.

Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.

Nigelb said:

Now that I didn't expect.

Good morning! Looks like #UFO whistleblower Bob Lazar was a pimp (helped operate a “high-tech whorehouse”). Convicted.

That’s out of this world!
https://twitter.com/RepRiggleman/status/1684922913651412992

TimS said:

Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.

Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.

Malmesbury said:

TimS said:

Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.

Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.

American (and most western) armoured vehicles have air conditioning. This isn’t just for comfort - but also humidity control and part of NBC capability.

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

TimS said:

Into the low 40s Celsius all along the front line in Ukraine next week.

Lots of talk of historical wars being affected by freezing temperatures but I’d guess heatwaves could be a big problem too. Perhaps one advantage of trenches.

American (and most western) armoured vehicles have air conditioning. This isn’t just for comfort - but also humidity control and part of NBC capability.

Some quite impressive temperature contrasts next week too. Look at this next Saturday:



10C in Salzburg, 40C in Bratislava. 3.5 hour drive on Google maps (or 2.5 hours from Linz where it’ll be 13C).

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

The Telegraph has "Dame Alison Rose was a ‘great leader’ forced out by politics, says NatWest chairman"

Ridiculous.

NU10K - she needs (and deserves, in that system) a better job.

Look out for the glossy magazine interview. All about her hurt and how being a woman has held her back.

ydoethur said:

I'm starting to hate Todd Murphy.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

I'm starting to hate Todd Murphy.

Significant first innings lead looks nailed on.

DavidL said:

Jimmy bowling at 79mph. Just won’t do.

SandyRentool said:

Greetings from IAH.

MSNBC: Trump, Trump, Trump

Fox: Hunter, Hunter, Hunter

Balanced news coverage.

Omnium said:

Malmesbury said:

Omnium said:

The Telegraph has "Dame Alison Rose was a ‘great leader’ forced out by politics, says NatWest chairman"

Ridiculous.

NU10K - she needs (and deserves, in that system) a better job.

Look out for the glossy magazine interview. All about her hurt and how being a woman has held her back.

People wonder why the UK equity market underperforms. All these useless and untouchable women. Quite mad!

Leon said:

This place. It’s a deeply provincial city in a seriously poor country. Albeit with a biggish university

The beauty of the women is like a highly fashionable bar in Shoreditch or Brooklyn or Le Marais

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’.
In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

This place. It’s a deeply provincial city in a seriously poor country. Albeit with a biggish university

The beauty of the women is like a highly fashionable bar in Shoreditch or Brooklyn or Le Marais

For some reason I’m reminded of the occasion some of us took a middle aged banker to the Sense bar in Sofia. By accident it was International Women’s Day, which they celebrate, in Bulgaria, in a big way.

He was reduced to gibbering. Jaw on the floor etc…

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.

viewcode said:

boulay said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

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.

As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?

That sounds ok and I'll take your word that it was. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir however - different story. I think I'd struggle with that. He could act it up a storm but still, no. Not for me.

Tropic Thunder is now apparently “problematic” due to Robert Downie Junior in black-face even though the point of him in black face is so over the top ridiculous to mock method acting and the idea that a white man can understand the reality of a black man in Vietnam and therefore is patently an anti-racism stance.

I think it's more accurate to say that somebody on the internet said it was problematic. Ben Stiller laughed it off, refused to apologise (that bit's important: never apologise) and after a few days the DISCOURSE WAS NOT UPSET and went off to bitching about something else. It's now only ever introduced by people making a point about woke.

londonpubman said:

All to play for tomorrow. 2-2 could still be on.

Malmesbury said:

LostPassword said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

It doesn't come from nowhere. The way in which tabloids dehumanise people is a factor. We see it also in the way we often talk about the political opposition on here too. It strips away empathy and allows ordinary people to do inhumane things.

It’s an institutional problem - the same shit has happened over the centuries, many times.

Jobsworthism. “I filled out all the forms”

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’.
In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.

j

Lessons Will Be Learned*

*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.

Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case.
I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.

HYUFD said:

After seeing Barbie at Didcot cinema, Boris decides it is a rallying cry for humanity to have more babies

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12348293/BORIS-JOHNSON-Ive-foresuffered-Barbie-parable-destiny-humanity-rallying-cry-human-fecundity-driven-money-html.html

Peck said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

"Only one prison officer, who didn’t even do anything wrong, said sorry to me directly."

That sounds 100% true. The guilty have no conscience. It's the innocent who have one.

See also that the SS had promised to capture the baby at birth. Subsequent events suggest the baby wasn't considered "Ideal Adoption Material". There should be an international-sized scandal about what the SS do in Britain, and secret family courts (don't speak to a journalist about what happened in one of them - they'll lock you up if you do) and the way that thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed... Don't expect the tabloids or the "quality" press in the country to say anything though - any more than they've been kicking up a fuss about the trafficking - oh, I mean "disappearance" - of unaccompanied child refugees in Brighton.

For FOUR YEARS the authorities seem to have been disciplinarily investigating the screw who received her call for medical help and ignored it. I wonder what details they're investigating?

Recommended: a film called "Traffic" made in 2014 and another called "Traffic 2" made in 2017.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’.
In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.

j

Lessons Will Be Learned*

*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.

Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case.
I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.

That’s code for nothing will change

It’s like a Masonic handshake in the NU10K. Anyone trying to do anything further will be labelled “vindictive” - that’s the party line.

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

algarkirk said:

This, from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/28/serious-failings-contributed-to-babys-death-in-12-hour-lone-prison-birth

The usual will be said about lessons, failings, training, procedures and recommendations. It will all be untrue because what this involves is cruelty and murderousness wickedness. This does not happen by accident.

As with the GMP wrongful conviction, it will be ‘mistakes were made’.
In the GMP case it seems to me utterly deliberate; the prison case is perhaps one of they just didn’t give a damn. Which is different, but equally bad.

j

Lessons Will Be Learned*

*no actual lessons may or may not be learned.

Those exact words were used when trying to excuse the GMP wrongful conviction case.
I don’t think they meant ‘don’t deliberately frame innocent people’ as the lesson.

That’s code for nothing will change

It’s like a Masonic handshake in the NU10K. Anyone trying to do anything further will be labelled “vindictive” - that’s the party line.

I laughed when I heard it on R4.
It was so patently insincere.

They deliberately (IMO, on the reporting of the case) imprisoned - and kept imprisoned for nearly two decades - an innocent man.