I thought the issue with Cooper was the nose/stereotype not the fact is not Jewish, I was not aware that Oppenheimer prompted that response from David Baddiel or from the Jewish community. I was not aware Non-Jews playing Jews was even a thing. Possibly because there have been two high profile films featuring historically important Jews? I still say it makes no difference whether Cooper is Jewish or not, no can tell, no one can tell whether he is vegetarian, catholic or called Bob either. Should Jews get first should “first shout” at historical Jewish roles? Is that a question? I do not think so, what difference would it make? If they did a film about Einstein, would they have to get a German? Or specifically a German Jew? I just checked “Infinity, 1996” is a film about Feynman (not rubbish but not great) Matthew Broderick who played him is from NY (Manhattan not Queens) with a Jewish mother. Sometimes they get it right.
He literally said what conclusion he's making. And I quoted it. No one said simple. They're actors. They have one job: to portray people they're not. Does a character having a baby or being raped require an actor who has had a baby or been raped? Should pregnant characters only be played by pregnant actors? No. That is an ad hominem argument. Address the argument, not the arguer. It's an analogy. A union guy is no better at packing up my equipment than I am. Yet, he claims privilege at doing so for some reason other than ability. So: Since the very core of any good actor is to play someone they are not, how does a Jewish actor have any more right - or ability - than anyone else to play the role? (As evidenced by the fact that, presumably they auditioned, and they didn't make the cut so, no, their personal experiences did not sufficiently contribute to their characterization of the role.)
Obviously the rabble public at large lacks the special expertise to evaluate and decide the rules for these ethical matters. As is the norm, we should defer to and conform to whatever propaganda is ultimately outputted by humanities scholars, with respect to the subject (via their "mediators to the populace").[1] Any challenge to the march of social justice micromanagement (or fairness remediating bureaucracy in general) is foredoomed to be labeled "fascism" or "mad-dog rightism", anyway. Resistance is ineffectual. We should cease this pretentiousness that those other than the appropriately qualified (philosopher kings) can determine such issues. Is it such a terrible onus to simply be responsible, "obedient to authority" choir children, patiently awaiting instruction on the area of interest? - - - footnote - - - [1] Or the regional intelligentsia of your location on the globe. _
Inserts precautionary reference to Poe's Law here. "without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views."
Did you even read the article I linked to? It's not a hasty generalisation at all, and is well thought out. You may not agree with it, but it's not hasty. And that is why I was asking, to be sure of what you were saying, and also in the hope that you would at least offer something as to why you think that it is. Ah, well. Then your example of the simple misses the point. Because the issue lies in that complexity. Sure. And in an ideal world any actor should be able to play any role they can. But that is not the point being made by Baddiel. Read the article. It's an ad hominem that is actually pertinent to the discussion, because it speaks to the point Baddiel made that you yourself have quoted: "...because it says a lot about how people see Jews." To dismiss the question I made for being an ad hominem would be fallacious, as it speaks directly to that point. You do know that ad hominems are not in and of themselves fallacious, right? When the issue involved is about the person, then arguments that speak to that issue, even if they are to the person, are not fallacious. Once again you miss his point: it is not about who does and who does not have the right to play any role. His point is about why Jewishness is not afforded the same respect as other minorities in seeking people from that minority to play people from that minority. Ask yourself this: why should black characters be played by black actors? Why should Asian characters be played by Asian actors. Why should Jewish characters not be played by Jewish actors? What is the difference? And what does this say about how you view those minorities? This is what Baddiel is writing about. I have quoted already where he says that in an ideal world it shouldn't matter that Jews are played by non-Jews, so that is clearly not his point, although it is the only one you seem to be arguing against.
But perhaps a reciprocal, advisory note on avoiding such a reference in a science forum, since it suggests a stereotype of such members being "Spock challenged"[1] with regard to discerning certain human communication practices. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - - - footnote - - - [1] Third Edition of Derrida Adorno's Compendium of Harmful Language: If necessary for pointing out the act of insensibility, Deleuza Marcuse has suggested this fictional character as a mitigated substitute for the all-around offensiveness of the old "slotting somewhere on the autism spectrum" caricaturization. Though this palliated substitute should only be utilized in a corrective context, and not abused itself. A recent example of justification for the metaphorical choice might be Season-2, episode-5 of "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds", titled "Charades". _
Baddiel wants Jewish actors to be considered first for Jewish characters, because of Baddiel’s perceived Jewishness (difference) of Jewish actors. That leaves a small field of characters for Jewish actors to play, because the " difference" (whatever that is) means Jewish actors cannot play non Jewish characters because of Baddiel's perceived " difference." The Oscars would be a sham and nothing to do with acting. Ps. late edit.
I did not. Because I had no idea you linked to anything. Something to be aware of here on SciFo: links in posts have no stylistic indicators. They cannot be seen unless they are actually rolled over by the reader (which the reader has no reason to do). Whenever I post any links, I manually add an underline, and change the text colour, for the benefit of readers. The difference is obvious. Generally, it is a lot more expedient to make a non-Jew look like a Jew on-screen than it is to make a non-Asian look like an Asian, or a non-black to look like a black. If it's not a physically apparent trait, then it comes down to the competence of the actor.
Apologies it was just a general post not a reply as such and slightly tongue in cheek. (TIC) Extant, accurate, analogues as a requirement for historical people for film roles must have a limit, just a view. We could dissect 101 movies, TV mini series this way. As you said they are actors, it is what they do, pretend to be some else. The more pretending they do the more impressive an actor they are if they are convincing. As a viewer and cinema goer I want some authenticity, the actor is not convincing it puts me off, again just a view as a film fan.
