I can understand the sentiment. It seems weird. Though it’s far less about doing art “correctly” and more about actually hiring minorities for roles that are aping off of their uniqueness. Similar to how Warwick Davis was complaining about Disney not using real little people for the real life Snow White. A lot of people misconstrued his complaints, but he just wants little people actors to have jobs and not have to scrounge around and struggle for work and end up exploited.
Also similar to people complaining about Tom Cruise starring in Digger. Piles of makeup just to make him look old and frumpy. They could’ve saved millions and not paid scientology and had an actual old frumpy actor do the role, which would’ve been infinitely better than Cruise.
So I’m not sure the Digger argument really makes sense.
Without spoiling the film any actor who played the role of Digger was going to have to wear a bunch of makeup to look old and frumpy. The makeup is important to the film, so even someone who was old and frumpy would still wear makeup to look different. It’s not a hard requirement, but it would definitely change the film without it.
No, not at all. My point is that even if the film had starred an old and frumpy actor, then would have still needed to apply a bunch of makeup. The character being in makeup is part of the character.
Spoilers for Digger
Tom Cruise is playing a character named “Curtis Markson” in the film. That character is in a satirical stage play where he plays “Digger Rockwell”. The reveal that the film is actually a stage play is a surprise that occurs about 20 minutes into the film.
There are a number of hints in the first 20 minutes. For example the opening of the film has a “curtains rise” that in the moment feels like a stylistic choice. Another is an obviously robotic cat. Another is when we’re seeing characters move about the house and enter the scene the building layout doesn’t really make sense with characters playing with doorways. And finally the fact that Tom Cruise is heavily done up in makeup.
OK? That’s still only one of three points. Do you think it’s totally fine to pay a scientologist? Do you think it’s totally fine to give even more money to an extremely popular and wealthy star instead of literally anyone else capable of the job?
To your second point, I take no objection to your dislike of Tom Cruise or Scientology. It’s a horrid cult and fuck Scientology and Tom Cruise.
To your third point, someone else playing the role, looking purely at the acting performance, Cruise did an excellent job. However I don’t think it’s a performance only he could have done, so I agree someone else could have done an excellent job in the role. As an example early in production Leonardo DiCaprio was in consideration, he could also have taken on the role.
Now there is a secondary question, if the film would have been made without Tom Cruise’s involvement. He was involved in the film early in production and was a producer. It’s possible the film wouldn’t have been made without his involvement. I do think it is better that the film exist rather than not, but I won’t argue if you feel it’s better that it not exist.
I can understand the sentiment. It seems weird. Though it’s far less about doing art “correctly” and more about actually hiring minorities for roles that are aping off of their uniqueness. Similar to how Warwick Davis was complaining about Disney not using real little people for the real life Snow White. A lot of people misconstrued his complaints, but he just wants little people actors to have jobs and not have to scrounge around and struggle for work and end up exploited.
Also similar to people complaining about Tom Cruise starring in Digger. Piles of makeup just to make him look old and frumpy. They could’ve saved millions and not paid scientology and had an actual old frumpy actor do the role, which would’ve been infinitely better than Cruise.
So I’m not sure the Digger argument really makes sense.
Without spoiling the film any actor who played the role of Digger was going to have to wear a bunch of makeup to look old and frumpy. The makeup is important to the film, so even someone who was old and frumpy would still wear makeup to look different. It’s not a hard requirement, but it would definitely change the film without it.
Are you claiming there are no old and frumpy actors in Hollywood? Really?
The point is they wouldn’t have had to go as far and spend as much and gotten a better result. Both on and off screen.
No, not at all. My point is that even if the film had starred an old and frumpy actor, then would have still needed to apply a bunch of makeup. The character being in makeup is part of the character.
Spoilers for Digger
Tom Cruise is playing a character named “Curtis Markson” in the film. That character is in a satirical stage play where he plays “Digger Rockwell”. The reveal that the film is actually a stage play is a surprise that occurs about 20 minutes into the film.
There are a number of hints in the first 20 minutes. For example the opening of the film has a “curtains rise” that in the moment feels like a stylistic choice. Another is an obviously robotic cat. Another is when we’re seeing characters move about the house and enter the scene the building layout doesn’t really make sense with characters playing with doorways. And finally the fact that Tom Cruise is heavily done up in makeup.
OK? That’s still only one of three points. Do you think it’s totally fine to pay a scientologist? Do you think it’s totally fine to give even more money to an extremely popular and wealthy star instead of literally anyone else capable of the job?
That’s the only point I was arguing.
To your second point, I take no objection to your dislike of Tom Cruise or Scientology. It’s a horrid cult and fuck Scientology and Tom Cruise.
To your third point, someone else playing the role, looking purely at the acting performance, Cruise did an excellent job. However I don’t think it’s a performance only he could have done, so I agree someone else could have done an excellent job in the role. As an example early in production Leonardo DiCaprio was in consideration, he could also have taken on the role.
Now there is a secondary question, if the film would have been made without Tom Cruise’s involvement. He was involved in the film early in production and was a producer. It’s possible the film wouldn’t have been made without his involvement. I do think it is better that the film exist rather than not, but I won’t argue if you feel it’s better that it not exist.