NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/47828

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mozz.unh.edu!kepler.unh.edu!drb
From: [e-mail] (InigoMontoya)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Date: 15 Nov 1992 04:20:35 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.unh.edu

>> demand is absurd.
>
>  But that's exactly their job. An actor is part of the performing
>arts which is a very different animal that the visual or audible
>arts.
>  We are not talking about analogous situation here at all.
>A painter/photographer is analogous to a writer not a performer.
>No one is saying that a writer should be stiffled on the basis
>of their sexuality, or even that they shouldn't let their sexuality
>be inbued in their work if desired. An actor on the other hand
>has responsibility to the work he is performing. If he cannot handle
>that he is not doing his job properly.
>  This is no different than a jazz player whining that he can't
>get a gig with the New York Symphony, or Mick Jagger with the Met.

No, it is like a qualified jazz player with talent being denied a chance
to develop that talent.  It is like Mick Jagger being told that he doesn't
belong in the music industry because his lips are too big.  Can you really
not see this?


>If you don't play to the programme, you don't deserve to get the job
>- no matter how much you jazz is a part of your sole.
>
This is an interesting asertion, I will admit.  Clearly, any music
program then should immediately expel all students who show a clear
tendancy to favor a particular style of music.  "Well, I am sorry, but your
interpretation of that music was too bluesy, you will have to leave," is not
an acceptable thing to say.  A music school will train someone in techniques
and theory, what they do with them is their own responsibilty.  Now of course,
it would not be appropriate to go to a classical conservatory to study blues,
but there is really no similar situation in acting.  Also, by arguing that an
actor should be able to play any role without his own personality getting
involved, you are saying that there is no room for individuality in acting.
You are assuming even, that the author knows best how to bring out the
characters he has written.  This is not necessarily the case.  That is the
job of the actor and the director.  The performing arts, when they are good,
contain just as much personal interpretation and expression as any other
branch of the arts.  If you truly don't realize this, then you have missed
out on an awful lot.
>
>> How is what Drama is doing any different that the DOD ban.
>
>  In every essential way. I cannot believe that you don't see
>the distinction. Try this:
>   1) Does acting affected change whether an order ought to be taken
>      seriously in the Military?
>   2) Does acting affected affect the believability of a characters
>      portrayal by an actor? (remember Billy-Bob?)

It seems to me that an effiminate Billy-Bob-the-gay-basher could potentially
be one of many things.  It could be hysterically funny, it could be thought
provoking, it could be cuttingly satirical, etc...  An actor should not be
someone who is trained to simply play out all of the stereotypes of our
society.
--
Dean R Biron            [e-mail]            -><-
University of New Hampshire Research Computing Center         -><-
Prefector of the order of St Gulik, Legion of Dynamic Discord -><-