a very readable discussion of casting and ethnicity, pointed my way by brian herrera. it's the sort of thing i wish i could discuss more frankly with my students, most of whom are aspiring actors, directors or producers. and by frankly, i suppose i mean without getting ratholed by the sort of dead-end canard that directly opposes "artistic freedom" to "social responsibility" (terms the author of the article uses, but the nuanced discussion that follows is precisely the sort of conversation i'd like to attempt). i wish fewer of these conversations focused so tightly on this one HBO show about white young women--i mean, when there's ALL OF NETWORK TV IN PERPETUITY AMEN to talk about, too--but i'm still glad they're happening. as nina shen rastogi, the article's author, mentions, the issue sparked by Girls has escaped flavor-of-the-month style superficial commentary by having some remarkable staying power.
it's curious to me that in most of the discussions i have with my students about disparity in the performance world, from sexism in casting and the canon to racialized humor in stand-up, there's a great desire on the part of the class to frame the debate as one of free speech. it reads to me as a demonizing of those who seek to trouble a status quo--after all, "freedom of speech" usually reads to them as an unimpeachable force for good, so characterizing your opponents in a debate as the thought-police is a strategy with few downsides.
except that i wish it were really a discussion, and less of a debate. or maybe a debate, but a more open one with more listening. i haven't yet found a way to open issues like these in a way that consistently encourages courageous communication; i guess it's one to grow on.
it's curious to me that in most of the discussions i have with my students about disparity in the performance world, from sexism in casting and the canon to racialized humor in stand-up, there's a great desire on the part of the class to frame the debate as one of free speech. it reads to me as a demonizing of those who seek to trouble a status quo--after all, "freedom of speech" usually reads to them as an unimpeachable force for good, so characterizing your opponents in a debate as the thought-police is a strategy with few downsides.
except that i wish it were really a discussion, and less of a debate. or maybe a debate, but a more open one with more listening. i haven't yet found a way to open issues like these in a way that consistently encourages courageous communication; i guess it's one to grow on.
