Eddie Redmayne

I was thinking of the boys characters that the audience are supposed to assume are a gay couple, just not out yet.

Charlie Tahan was 15/16 I think when he played that role.

Why would anyone expect a child to be out as gay to play a gay character? That’s really creepy.

This isn't the point, but what character was Ash? I can't remember anyone by that name.

Shelagh Fogerty is talking about Eddie and the wider issues this afternoon on LBC

Xpost Shedmistress!

[quote Cascascascas]@ArabellaScott

There is a whole world of difference surprised you do t see that.[/quote]
Oh, really? Can you describe it for me? I was always rubbish at spot the difference!

Either way Eddie could have cleared it up much better than he did.

@Shedmistress

Well isn’t it sort of the opposite? So a woman who identifies as a man shouldn’t be allowed to play this character - surely if TWAW only a woman can play this character as Lili is a woman. So only a female actress should have had the part.

[quote Cascascascas]@ArabellaScott

There is a whole world of difference surprised you do t see that.[/quote]
Can you give some examples? Because I can't see any difference. Many thanks.

@SomepeopleareTERFSgetoverit The willful misunderstanding of Monsterous Regiment is even worse. None of the female characters believe that they are men - again they live in an intensely patriarchal society where they cannot do what they want to as women so have to pretend to be men. This is particularly evident in the characters who have escaped sexual abuse in the girl's home, have suffered PTSD from their time there and dress as men to avoid male attention.

In particular, the inspiration for the story (particularly the title) is very likely from John Knox's work 'The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women' in which he stated that women ruling (the case he was referring to specifically was Mary Queen of Scots) is against God's will.

I used to have a lot of respect for Rhiannon. It's a shame she seems so determined to think the worst of people who adore her father's work but also believe in women's single sex spaces.

Slightly off-topic but I find it interesting that in 2005 The Guardian was allowed to describe boots for cross-dressers as “fetish wear for men.”

www.theguardian.com/film/2005/sep/30/1

@ArabellaScott

There is a whole world of difference surprised you do t see that.

@Waitwhat23 thank you for explaining Cheery (as written) so clearly. I’m the same as you, I no longer engage online with pTerry fans as I feel they are misrepresenting what he wrote. Also they miss the point of “Monstrous Regiment.” Though his daughter strongly pushes TWAW.

I saw an interview with Kristin Stewart who said that she was cautious about the whole “gay roles should be played by gay actors” as she said that she wasn’t prepared to limit her roles to those where the character happened to be gay. It made me really warm to her that she had grasped the idea of actors being people who pretended to be someone else.
I kind of get where Russell Davis is coming from in that he finds the idea of a straight person acting stereotypically “gay” was distasteful but I just think “well, don’t write characters that are stereotypically gay then”. I loved It’s a Sin but I didn’t find the more flamboyantly gay characters like Roscoe more believably gay than Ash or Colin, because I’m aware enough to appreciate that people have different characters and there isn’t a set of behaviours that signifies “gay”. Some gay people will be school teachers and accountants and some will like dressing in sequinned waistcoats and wearing make up. It seems an odd thing to describe someone as “acting gay” - like it’s a costume you can put on.

Dear God, make it stop

@MagpiePi I'm a huge Discworld fan but I've had to avoid all discussions about it online recently as I find it so disheartening how Cheery has been misappropriated as a 'trans' character, which shows a lack of understanding of the character. She is a female dwarf, living in a society in which male is the default. There is a discussion in one of the books that Dwarfs know that there are women in their society (they have mothers after all) but it's not openly talked about. When she moves to Ankh Morpork, she is able to choose to wear and say what she wants because she will not face criticism from the Deep Downers for acknowledging the fact that she is female. When she returns to the mines, she does get called a slur for it - not because of her clothes or name but because she has made public the fact that the Dwarfs are not a male society.

She's not a male Dwarf who feels that she should be female. She's a female Dwarf who will be open to criticism for being female. It makes me think of the discussions in the book 'Invisible Women' - women's separate needs are completely disregarded because of society's inbedded bias towards a default male.

Dh has always detested Eddie passionately he is switched off in our house and his silly films boycotted. Think he personifies all the establishment cosseted born with silver spoon in mouth boys Dh first encountered at Cambridge. He’s felt like this for years when I told him about ER stabbing jkr in the back Dh was “ha see told you so!”

Actors subscribing to identity politics/ culture wars nonsense (ie most of them) are turkeys voting for Christmas. Ditto novelists. Few realise this. Lionel Shriver is one of the few speaking out. If you can only act parts you have experience of and which are the same as your sex, sexuality class gender identity, age etc and can only write about events you have experienced then we have documentaries and biographies and drama and fiction are stuffed. I think most current actors deserve this mind

I was thinking how some actors have an enormous gift just for drawing the audience in, regardless of what part they are acting.

This gift can do more for a cause in creating empathy than the possibly lesser acting of a person portraying their own condition.

Leonardo do Caprio in Whatever’s Eating Gilbert Grape where he plays the part of an autistic boy is an example.

Rich posh man dumps JKR in the bin for daring to believe in science and then tries to score woke points by condemning a role that he probably made millions from. He can fuck right off.

I can't help feeling some of those younger actors who are currently making a great show of 'gender-bending' or being very vociferous 'trans allies' are doing it so they can keep their options open playing straight, gay or whatever in future roles without being 'cancelled' by the Twitter and Tumblr crowd.

It’s blatant self interest. If a movement started that he thought could ‘cancel’ him for taking the part of Marius away from a French aristocratic revolutionary you can bet he’d be out there with ‘I’m sorry to any French revolutionaries I’ve hurt with this. All parts of French revolutionaries should be played by actual French revolutionaries.’