Posted on 05/08/2018 6:11:17 PM PDT by EdnaMode
A theatre agent has apologised for a comment she made in a private forum that criticised a casting call for only black, Asian or minority ethnic actors and claiming the decision put “talented white performers out of work”.
Gemma Hamilton, who runs Lowy Hamilton Artists, made the remarks in a forum on Facebook, in which she said she was “bored of breakdowns asking for BAME actors” because it “adds that va-va-voom to the cast list”.
“And now I see a breakdown for BAME-only that are actor/musos. It’s putting talented ‘white’ performers out of work. I think it stinks,” she wrote.
Her remarks were met with heavy criticism from the theatre community, including actor Shobna Gulati, formerly in Coronation Street and soon to be in Everybody’s Talking About Jamie, who said the casting breakdown was about “opening up the playing field that historically is mostly non-inclusive”.
“Now I welcome initiatives where actors like me, of colour, are also considered, I am disappointed that you can’t see the value of opportunity for all,” she wrote.
Actor Alexia Khadime said she was “saddened and offended that this would come from an agent who I can only assume has many different races on their books”, while writer Jonathan Harvey added he was “sick of seeing all-white casts on screen or stage”.
“It doesn’t match the world I live in. And yet it’s ubiquitous. The world on screen or stage should surely match ours,” he said.
Hamilton responded to the criticisms claiming she was “devastated” and that her comments had been taken out of context.
“I was actually trying to express how all actors should be considered equal regardless of their ethnicity. We have a plethora of talented actors of all ethnicities and want them to have the same opportunities,” she said.
She added: “I absolutely do apologise for the wording used and [it was] entirely not how I meant it to sound but I was posting to a private group who know my character. I agree we have a long way to go and actors should always be cast on their talent as opposed to their appearance.”
Communist Redistribution; Identity Politics.
And yeah during WWII a lot of British guys were Indian -- British india sent 2.5 million volunteers to fight and quite a few did fight in the Western European theatre. 4 Companies of the Indian Army Service Corps joined the British Expeditionary force in 1940 and were evacuated at Dunkirk
Casting white literary character as non-white: not only acceptable but preferable.
Casting non-white literary character as white: absolutely forbidden.
A female Doctor who - why not? The character gets "reincarnated" each time as an utterly different character in looks, mannerisms etc.
I get it, you have no problem with it.
The black singers/actors in Chess did a fabulous job. Knockout voices. In Lear, his most loyal lord was changed to a Lady - no problem.
As a fan since 1978 I have a real problem with a female “doctor” but we shall see how it goes. I was at a major LA Dr Who con (now in its 30th year) recently that every year promotes gender bending, LGBT, no bullying, etc. They are over the moon about the new casting. Saw my first official female Dr Who merch in London last week, a T-Shirt. I can’t imagine a guy wearing it, or a straight female either. We shall see.
I’ve not been a Who fan since 1978 - was born in that year - but since ‘87. After the last couple of doctors I don’t see the issue with an actress playing the doctor if she can act.
Throw a civil rights discrimination charge against these production companies that refuse to hire any white actors.
That’ll fix their wagon.
Put the leftist fascist mob on DEFENSE. Don’t defend yourself against constitutionally protected rights of free speech and freedom from discrimination based on skin color.
>>Should be obvious enough what aim is, of the promotion - to whites only - of homosexuality and other sexual deviancies, feminism, divorce, interracial sex that invariably always involves a white female and a nonwhite male, and various forms of anti-reproduction advocacy.
Been the NOW Communist Feminazi goal for 50 years plus...
eyewitness account by the sister of the certifiably crazed founder and author of so much of the mess we are dealing with these days
Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 9-2-2014 | Mallory Millett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3200158/posts
“When women go wrong men go right after them.” – Mae West
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.
During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”
What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.
Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”
I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.
And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.
To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.
How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.
How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?
I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.
Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this....”
James Bond books have a historical setting. They take place during the Cold War.
In these days of Globalist cabals and human trafficking, the big baddies of the post Flemming Bond films still are some evil capitalist out to dominate the world.
Frankly the whole series should be given a reboot and the books should be adapted largely as written, not just lifting a character name or story title (some of the films I’ve heard even borrowed characters or plot elements from other Bond stories).
NOW: “TAKE AWAY HIS POWER”
Feminazis and BLM are not about “equality”, they are about militant supremacy.
Denying white men a job in the workplace does wonders for keeping them from getting anywhere in life.
I’ve seen it in my own profession with 25 years experience working alongside other white guys who cannot get the type of jobs they used to hold so they draw 50% of the salary working for years in a “temp” position at a billion dollar tech company that used to employee them as full-time company employees.
I work under 5 layers of female leads and managers. A good number of whom are Vietnamese and speak Vietnamese to one another in the office.
Yet the Bond books have already been made into films. What we have now are completely new stories.
The ONLY “James Bond” was Sean Connery....
The rest were all just fakers...
If you read all of Fleming’s books, you can only see Connery in your mind as “Bond, James Bond...”
The bond books titles were made into movies.
It emerged recently that Fleming drew up a shortlist of seven actors for the part including Cary Grant and David Niven, but not Connery
Flming’s first choice of actor to play 007 in Dr No, the first Bond book to reach the big screen, was Cary Grant – but he was too expensive.
David Niven, James Mason, Patrick McGoohan, Rex Harrison, Richard Burton and Stewart Granger were also on his list. Niven turned down the role because he felt he was too old.
Sir Sean, who confesses he was surprised to get the part, says: “They couldn’t afford most of the people they wanted. That was the start. They were seeing people, they were advertising in the papers. Then they brought me in to see them and they wanted me.”
Sir Sean’s performance won Fleming over and in later books he gave 007 a partly Scots ancestry
Be that as it may, Sean Connery fit my mental image of Bond when I first started reading Bond books in the early ‘60’s...
Niven turned down the role because he felt he was too old
He played Bond in Casino Royale...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.