Reply to Topic
This was a fairly entertaining trip down memory lane. I saw the original movie back when I was quite young. Mostly I remember the character of Harold. This time portrayed ably by Zachary Quinto. Jim Parsons has the daunting task of carrying this film on his slim shoulders and he does drop the ball a bit when things get heated during the main event . A drunken game in which the men call people who they are in love with or were in love with in the past and get points for making the call, talking to the man they loved and getting him to admit to his love for the caller.
It is hard for me to imagine grown men doing this. Grown men may set the record straight as it were. But the point of the game is for Michael, Jim Parson’s character to get his straight friend to admit to being a closeted homosexual. Now this is before gay rights was even an issue so His friend’s straight married persona would not have been at all unusual. And even admitting his desires to himself would be difficult.
Most interesting to me is that all the actors in the cast are out gay men. This leads me to the question that concern’s many people about casting from a pool of actors who reflect the sex, gender or race of the characters they are playing.
I think there is merit in this. But I also think criticism of casting say Zoe Saldana as the darker skinned Nina Simone (Zoe wore a darker make up in the film) as on a par with black face is wrong-headed.
I saw a Buzzfeed post that put Mickey Rooney’s stereotypical racist portrayal of Mr. Ito in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” in the same class as Eddie Redmayne’s nuanced performance in “The Danish Girl.” Hollywood could have just as easily hired a Japanese actor and gotten a stereotypically racist performance out of him if what was wanted by Blake Edwards who was not known for subtlety in his comedy. It would have been wonderful if a transgender actor portrayed Lily in ”The Danish Girl” but Eddie Redmayne is a star and I imagine not only his talent but his being bankable may have something to do with his casting. Bankable transgender actors are not exactly thick on the ground.
Basically it is a good idea but let’s not assume that it will cure all ills.
I would love to hear what you mofo’s think of this topic. Let the fur fly.
It is hard for me to imagine grown men doing this. Grown men may set the record straight as it were. But the point of the game is for Michael, Jim Parson’s character to get his straight friend to admit to being a closeted homosexual. Now this is before gay rights was even an issue so His friend’s straight married persona would not have been at all unusual. And even admitting his desires to himself would be difficult.
Most interesting to me is that all the actors in the cast are out gay men. This leads me to the question that concern’s many people about casting from a pool of actors who reflect the sex, gender or race of the characters they are playing.
I think there is merit in this. But I also think criticism of casting say Zoe Saldana as the darker skinned Nina Simone (Zoe wore a darker make up in the film) as on a par with black face is wrong-headed.
I saw a Buzzfeed post that put Mickey Rooney’s stereotypical racist portrayal of Mr. Ito in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” in the same class as Eddie Redmayne’s nuanced performance in “The Danish Girl.” Hollywood could have just as easily hired a Japanese actor and gotten a stereotypically racist performance out of him if what was wanted by Blake Edwards who was not known for subtlety in his comedy. It would have been wonderful if a transgender actor portrayed Lily in ”The Danish Girl” but Eddie Redmayne is a star and I imagine not only his talent but his being bankable may have something to do with his casting. Bankable transgender actors are not exactly thick on the ground.
Basically it is a good idea but let’s not assume that it will cure all ills.
I would love to hear what you mofo’s think of this topic. Let the fur fly.