>>101993549>The point was that nobody complained about men in those roles, that's not revisionism at all, it's just how things were then.You're being a slimey cock sucker is what you're being. They didn't complain because those were times when women weren't allowed to do fucking anything you mealy mouthed cretin. Whether or not they wanted women in the role they COULDN'T which is why your post is completely fucking dishonest and trying to drive in your point in an underhandedly. Now that everyone's to act a part, we should hire people to play those parts who look the part, which is something that's been going on forever, you don't see many bald fat schlubs being cast for lead roles do you? You don't see many greasy hamplanets being cast as the main love interest do you? The answer is a definitive no unless you're looking at a joke role, or some sort of hipster take on the thing. Looks do matter and they've always mattered.
>And why are you so fucking edgy about the Othello example?Gee I wonder why I'd call you out on being a hippocritical douchebag anon
>The goddamn point is that acting shouldn't be impaired because of the race/gender of the actor>Race/gender should only be a factor if such things directly factor into a character like say Othello who is meant to be dark-skinnedIf race doesn't matter than it should be open, full stop, but it's not, as you've made very specific caveats to this, again, because you are a hypocrite. And then act as if it's some sort of unpopular opinion that Id' even think such a thing. There's no reason to change things if that is the way they were meant to be originally envisioned because it's never fucking done because of an actors perfomance and it's almost exclusively done because of someone's political ideology.
Which is why I mentioned stage shows, where the characters aren't meant to have specific races or genders most of the time, and they're meant to be played by anyone.Unlike things with ESTABLISHED MEDIA.
