Jumping through hoops ....

The reason for doing it is because, (as you clearly seem to not realise, hence my displeasure in pointing it out) confusing the two is highly offensive to many people. I’m certain you intended nothing more than levity, and are unaware of how offensive what you said is. Which is why it’s important that someone points it out.

Me politely telling you this is me ‘playing nicely’.

• 3 years ago
• 21

Indeed - but then it could be argued (and I take the argument at its word) that offence is taken, but seldom given. Anyone can be, and often is, offended at anything, and minding our Ps and Qs to such an extent that we never risk offending people is the death of creativity. It has certainly seen comedy reduced to a bland, unedifying spectacle, where the only permissible offence is against anyone who doesn't wholly embrace a certain tyrannical form of government. And if I, for instance, am offended constantly, either because of my religion, my politics, my sexuality, my skin colour or any other characteristic mutable or immutable, who cares about that? *I* don't even care about that, to be honest, because I don't believe speech is violence and I am not physically harmed by it and mentally, well, I'm big enough and, as you can see from my picture, ugly enough to brush it off. Also, I am not in the business of being offended, because I don't see myself as a victim.

• 3 years ago
• 22

You may not see it that way when directed at you, and that's fair enough. If however you cannot see how making jokes at the expense of people who are discriminated against on a daily basis, rather than being part of the privileged in society, then I doubt you are likely to get the point. But rest assured it is far more wide-reaching than people simply seeing themselves as victims, as you allude to.

• 3 years ago
• 23

Well said Stu.

• 3 years ago
• 24

You know, when I was young, I went on one of those YTS courses. One of the exercises we were made to do was to draw individuals from different groups - a police man, a gay man etc. Someone drew the policeman in the person of Inspector Cluseau, complete with fizzing petard under the chair and, 'though it was rather clever, he was admonished for it because the purpose of the exercise is to note that the members of these groups are people the same as you and I. I'm telling you this because that's been my attitude all along: people are people, no matter their individual differences; none is more privileged, as far as I'm concerned, than anyone else, and everyone is discriminated against equally too: it may not be readily apparent, but that's because some of us keep quiet about things like that, knowing that nobody really wants to know that isn't a friend or family member, and those who aren't could well use such information against us. And in what way was I making a joke at the expense of anyone? Granted, I wasn't glorifying them to the heavens, but then is that really necessary? As they are just ordinary people, they deserve to be treated as anyone else would with to be treated. Were I generalising and calling the whole cast of them a bunch of bastards then I'd be insulting them, but so too would I be if I patronised and, thus, belittled them, which is exactly what I would have been doing had I classified them as sacred and thus beyond even mentioning in jokes.

As an actor, part of my job is to embody a role and bring it to life. I can do this by filling out a back-story and adapting elements of my own personality and experience to the aspects highlighted by the role. I might not have, as social justice warriors term it, lived experience, but I have enough experience in my own life that I can put two and two together and not make five. But at the end of the day, most people who take offence do so vicariously, and usually to the bewilderment of those who are thought to have been offended. Black Lives Matter, for instance, is mostly white virtue-signalling millennials who want to appear trendy and have something to post on their Instagram. I'm not, for one moment, suggesting you're one of those - but 'tis wise to be circumspect, from both ends.

For myself, I always look at the intention behind remarks directed at me, and if they are reasonable I reply in kind, and if not I can give as good as I get as far as the printed word is concerned, 'though verbally it's usually a case of l'esprit de l'escalier!

• 3 years ago
• 25

Wow. Please, do keep digging that hole you're in. It's unedifying but don't let that stop you.

• 3 years ago
• 26

The concept that all people are equal is a good one certainly. The idea that all people are discriminated against equally would be hilarious were it not for the impression that you actually mean it, which makes it equal parts ludicrous, chilling and stupendously short-sighted.

The very suggestion that we, as middle-aged white men do not have a high level of privilege is utter fantasy. A shame your education appears to be have been limited in this regard.

It was not the attempt at a joke that I had issue with, which you would realise had you read my comments with more care. It was the confusion between gender and sexuality. Something, I repeat, which is highly offensive to many people.

You could have simply apologised and said you hadn’t intended any offence of course, and it would have been left at that. Now however you seem like some sort of bigoted caricature from 1960’s television, at least in my eyes.but as Rebecca says above, do please keep digging this hole.

I will say as well that for me a good measure of an actor is their empathy. Empathy allows a person to envisage the life experience of others without having to go through the ‘lived experience’ as you put it. A shame you appear devoid of this fundamental requirement in an article actors arsenal. At least you appear to be in my view. I suspect I am not alone.

• 3 years ago
• 27

Just to get back on track, it’s a numbers game IMO, there’s simply too many people chasing too few jobs that casting put these ridiculous requirements in because they can. The quality of the work goes down but the numbers chasing that work is always going up. Social media has a lot to answer for- I’ve been on a decent budget short film where the leads were cast on their amount of followers.

I’ve literally seen jobs on Spotlight, for a US marine role in a film ‘must be genuine American and have marines/army experience’. Or, ‘Taxi driver. Must have genuine taxi driver experience and ideally own taxi’. They put it because they can, just too many people chasing the dream now!

• 3 years ago
• 28

Plus ca change! I find that in every line of work, except for highly abstruse or demanding occupations, there is an abundance of applicants - and all you can do is keep plugging away until you find something that fits. Sometimes, employers will make candidates jump through hoops in order to ascertain the level of desire, thus - or so they think - the ability of those people who do the tricks to actually do the job required.. In the case of casting directors, I would posit that it's the same now as ever it was. a buyer's market, but now instead of the infamous casting couch, the ordeal du jour is the self-tape.

I must say, though, that I've had some success in finding roles - and if I can do it, anyone can! It's just a matter, as I say, of perseverance..

• 3 years ago
• 29

Ask them for a self tape of them directing. I want to know they can direct properly. Laziness, the site seems to protect the 'Employers'..(most of the time trying to get Actors on the cheap/free), and not the Actors.

• 3 years ago
• 30