Title Fight: Rock vs Smith

 I haven't done a blog in A G E S cos I prefer to vent my spleen at humanity over on Twitter (@HeggieFVK again - my boys are back!!! ;; ) but this one is a gnarly situation...

The Cast
Chris Rock (b. 1965), a 'comedian' of dubious humour
Will Smith (b. 1968), an actor
Jada Pinkett Smith (b. 1971), Will's wife / an actress

The Plot
Rock is presenting the Oscar for best documentary (going to Questlove for 'Summer Of Soul') at the 2022 Academy Awards. Smith is up for (and eventually wins) best actor (King Richard - which it turns out is about tennis and not Shakespeare). But before that can happen Rock goes off script and makes a 'joke' about Pinkett Smith and G.I. Jane 2.

The Event
Smith strides up to the stage and slaps Rock across the face (a lot of reports and comments say it was a punch, depending on exactly what you think you see in the footage, personally I'm not interested in trying to analyse it although I will say that I thought it looked FAKE) before returning to his seat.

The Fall Out
Naturally enough the morning after the night before it's practically the only thing the interwebs are talking about. There are a whole bunch of takes that I'll tackle in no particular order.

1) Violence Is Always Wrong
I don't think there's any disagreement that Smith was at fault. It was an unacceptable reaction. However the calls from certain people (mostly, from what I've seen, outraged white men) for Smith to be stripped of his well-deserved Oscar is also an unacceptable reaction. Sure, Smith may have lowered the tone but Rock used a joke that was not pre-vetted and consequences were had. I feel it is worth noting that Smith apologised to the Academy for his actions... but not to Rock.

2) It was a G.I. Jane joke
This was Rock's response although TBH I'm not clear what he could have meant by that. My INITIAL response was that he was making a rude comment about Pinkett Smith's career. G.I. Jane (1997 movie starring Demi Moore in the title role) was a rubbish film - Moore got a Worst Actress Razzie and it made a loss at the box office Meanwhile Pinkett Smith's movies include a number of sequels, remakes, cameos, voice roles, etc. It's not an exaggeration to say she's most famous for being Mrs Will Smith.

3) Ableism
The G.I. Jane character is most famous for being BALD. Pinkett Smith suffers from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease. Smith, and a large proportion of the internet denizens putting in their tuppenceworth (myself included) that 'making fun' of people's illnesses, disabilities, visible differences and so forth is entirely unacceptable.
If a 'joke' of that sort was made in a classroom or playground it would be classed as bullying; if it was in a work environment it'd be 'creating a toxic working environment'. The context of an awards ceremony does not make it okay.

4) Political Correctness Will Kill Comedy
First off, Chris Rock isn't remotely funny. Secondly this was not a skit in which fun was made of bald people or bald women, it was a specific comment directed at a specific woman. That's not 'political correctness gone mad', it's being 'anti-bullying'. I dislike the whole 'roasting' thing anyway but certain topics SHOULD be off limits, especially when aimed at individuals.
Since my mum's incapacitation my tolerance for stroke jokes has become non-existent but try to be funny at her expense and I'll show you an alternative meaning of the word 'punchline'.

5) The "maybe Chris Rock didn't know about the alopecia, I didn't" argument
This one is REALLY hard to swallow. Unless Rock had been living under a rock it's really damned unlikely. I don't follow celebrity shit beyond what pootles past my nose when scrolling Twitter but I've known about her alopecia for ages (she was diagnosed in 2018). It's had a lot of publicity.

6) It was just a joke
Okay, so this isn't REALLY a point here but following on from the maybe-he-didn't-know idea... In 2009 Chris Rock PRODUCED AND NARRATED a documentary called Good Hair, on the subject of the importance, social acceptance, and desirability of black American women's hair.
There is literally NO WAY IN HELL he didn't understand that a woman like Jada would hold their hair as an integral part of their identity and grieve its loss. Even if a woman has chosen to shave her head joking about people's appearances is never a good move.

7) Smith is henpecked / cuckolded / at his wife's mercy yada yada yada
Obviously, I don't know these people but I've seen bits and pieces over the twenty four years of their marriage. Whether she has cheated on him or whether they have an open marriage is entirely their business. Personally I dislike the dynamic they have as a couple but if it works for them it has nothing to do with anybody else.
The idea that Will hit Chris because 'Jada made him do it' is not outside the realms of possibility but I dislike the inherent sexism. When a woman is seen to be 'controlled by her husband she is an object of pity; when the reverse seems to be the case he is seen as pathetic, an object of ridicule.
IMHO it looked like Will was laughing uncomfortably at Rock's joke (knowing full well he was on camera, being seen by the world) and then caught the expression of hurt on Jada's face. Knowing that she'd just been insulted before an audience of over fifteen million at the most prestigious awards ceremony in the cinematic world must simply have been too much.
I also want to note here that in a long and prestigious career this is the VERY FIRST TIME I have seen Will Smith's name linked to any kind of questionable behaviour, let alone violence.
Rock however had insulted Jada at the 2016 Oscars too, making fun of her non-appearance as she hadn't been invited to attend. He's been in hot water for other controversial jokes and has not exactly led a squeaky-clean life. People in glass houses and all that...

My Review: Three Stars (wink-wink, get it???)
Violence is a pretty poor response but I can understand it. I have been bullied and I abhor trying to pass off hurtful behaviour as comedy or banter. Everyone sucks here, but Rock somewhat more than Smith.

Ranting For Redmayne (not Rowling)

Today I am feeling pissed off about the whole Eddie Redmayne / J K Rowling controversy.

Backstory: J K Rowling has been saying stuff and written a book perceived as transphobic which I have commented on before. Personally I see this as slightly problematic on two grounds
(i) personally I think she is less transphobic and more feminist: women are being erased from the women's rights they fought to gain by a movement to avoid trans exclusion
(ii) people are failing to differentiate between trans people and bog-standard liars who are using gender identity as a screen for their wrongdoing (and as this blog is largely about acting just Google the number of films this is an element of - eg Mulan, Mrs Doubtfire, LotR). Yes, it is an unfortunate stereotype but everyone who writes of predatory males and / or nurturing females is perpetuating gender stereotypes but when we try to dictate what stories can or should be told we're on very shaky ground.
Eddie Redmayne played Lili Elbe in the 2015 film The Danish Girl - a role he was vilified for as Lili was a trans or intersex woman at the time of her death. He is now playing Newt Scarmander in the J K Rowling spin-off Fantastic Beasts series. Redmayne has also been criticised as abelist for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything (2014) which has been brought up repeatedly in this latest controversy.

Disclaimer: I am agender (biological female) and, in amongst everything else, I am pissed off that there is a new binary here - trans or cis. There is NOTHING in the narrative for agender, non-binary, genderfluid, non-conforming segment of society. These are my opinions from my point of view and I mean no disrespect to others who disagree.

First off...
The interview that's got everyone's knickers in a twist has been grossly misrepresented as Redmayne defending Rowling, as if he were supporting her comments. No, he said categorically that her comments were absolutely out of line; what he also said was that death and rape threats are totally unacceptable, whatever 'provocation' people may perceive. People might try reading the story, not just the deliberately provocative headlines.
I have seen comments not only saying that Rowling deserves death and rape threats because she's a 'public figure' but that she's a valid target because she's rich and white. I am with Redmayne on this: no matter how awful a person may be threatening violence is VILE. Just because a person is 'privileged' doesn't protect them from fear, being able to afford security doesn't guarantee protection from violence. The fact that trans people are frequently victims of violence does not make this okay either.

The criticisms against Redmayne for The Danish Girl...
CASTING
Once upon a time I went for a job as a sales assistant. I had no experience. My mental arithmetic is shaky. I have social anxiety. Did I turn down the job offer saying 'there's probably a better candidate out there'? Of course I didn't! I took the job and by the time I left (to care for my mum) 9 months later I was acting deputy manager!
Sure, actors get paid A LOT more than a sales assistant earns but if they're offered a job expecting them to refuse if kinda loopy. As it is director Tom Hooper claims he ONLY considered Redmayne for the part. Presumably he was chosen for his acting skill and resemblance (although I don't see it); presumably he accepted because he wanted to take on the challenge. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/real-reason-eddie-redmayne-was-cast-trans-woman-danish-girl-10480658.html
In a weird parallel I suppose Alan Rickman 'should have' rejected the role of Severus Snape in Harry Potter as he was way too old - but J K wanted Rickman. So they made an entire generation of characters older to match and created a bunch of timeline issues instead. Over the years I have seen some very odd casting decisions but film makers quite often know what they're doing. I am still amused that English actor Colin Firth revealed with some awe that Australian actor Guy Pearce (who I remember best from his days on Neighbours) did a better English accent than him in The King's Speech (2010).
Endlessly bitching about actors 'stealing' a role from another actor is ludicrous. Maybe some people ought to have thought twice before auditioning but a director / producer / casting agent made the most important call.

ACTING
I am really baffled by this attitude that only a trans person should play a trans character. This logic doesn't follow to other criteria. Childless people play parents, vegans play omnivores (see the fake Twinkies poor Woody Harrelson had to eat for Zombieland), innocent people play serial killers... unless Keanu reeves really is a vampire there's a serious lack of creature-of-the-night representation. Sorry, I know that's being stupid but acting is all about pretending to be someone you're not, right?! There shouldn't really be any expectation that an actor is (in any way, shape or form) the character they're playing. Probably because of being agender myself I don't read a character's gender as a defining characteristic unless it is written / played that way.
The only time I see an actor's reality being significant is when it's regarding race as whitewashing / black-face / yellow-face etc need to be things of the past. However, racial ambiguity is also a thing and if someone looks right for the part (especially in biopics) surely that is 'enough'? Colourism and racism within ethnic groups are equally problematic as the more commonly thought-of form.

DANGER OF HARM TO ACTORS
A big cause of a trans-gender person's dysphoria is the expectation that they play a certain role society has assigned to them and this can be the root of deep and lasting trauma.
I saw several comments querying what danger it would pose to a trans-woman actor to be obliged to present as male, to relive their transition process. Certainly there are actors who'd be up to the task but even so it shouldn't be taken lightly. One douchebag person on set could make it horrific; and for that actor to have their former gender onscreen, online, made into GIFs and memes... that's a helluva Pandora's Box to open.
OBVIOUSLY that should be a trans-actor's choice but I feel that the public 'demanding' a trans-actor put themselves through that is a bit much. Different if the vocal opponents are themselves trans-actors who feel they should have been cast. Meanwhile, critics are saying a cis actor (who is at near zero risk from harm in the role) is unable to understand or explore gender identity? That's pretty insulting - do you really expect an actor who plays a rocket scientist, a politician, a doctor or a lawyer to understand those roles? Probably not. Can an actor understand those roles? Quite possibly, actually. People can have a great capacity for empathy and comprehension.

ASSUMPTION OF GENDER IDENTITY
I can't find anything where Redmayne confirms his gender identity as cis/male...or cis/het for that matter. This bothers me because the Twitterati are out baying for his blood because 'as a cis/het male' he should never have 'stolen the role' from a trans-actor to play a trans-woman. He never 'stole' anything - he was given it, and assuming his gender (and sexuality) seems off to me. He could easily be non-binary or genderfluid. Why do the general public feel so comfortable in assuming who he is?!
Eddie Redmayne is 38 years old... I was about that age when I realised I was agender, which tbh I didn't know was a thing until people started on about being cis-gendered. Lots of people 'come out' far later in life, or never. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean we're entitled to know how they identify. Using a masculine name and pronouns doesn't actually mean anything about how a person FEELS. Please stop assuming someone is cis/het 'just because' they're not out 'out' as anything else. they don't have to be. And NEVER 'out' anyone - maybe they haven't figured themselves out yet.

TRANS vs CIS
Over and over I've seen the comment that trans actors ONLY should play trans characters, while cis actors should stick to cis characters.
First up, why should any actor be limited to roles conforming to their gender identity, and once a person has transitioned why should they be pigeon-holed and type-cast as a trans-actor? They should just be an actor, as any other - right?! 
Secondly, if an actor such as Redmayne were genderfluid / non-binary / whatever where would that fit in?! Not to say a non-binary person could do it any better than a cis person.
Thirdly, if gender is not binary (male / female) then it follows that gender identity is not binary either (cis / trans). So who can non-binary actors play??? Who can play a non-binary character?! If I were an actor it'd be nice to think I could 'do' a cis woman. Maybe I'm deluded (I'm certainly no actor) but it *should* be possible.
In my humble opinion the depictions that should be condemned are the humiliating, derogatory ones where a trans or ambiguously gendered character has been used and often abused 'for a laugh'. How the role is portrayed ought, imho, be more important than who played it.

As for criticisms of ableism against Redmayne...
The Theory of Everything covers Hawking's early development of Motor Neurone Disease. Exactly how are you going to find an actor with the right type and level of disability to portray a character before and at the onset of their symptoms?
I should like to see greater representation for disabled actors but I can't deny that there are logistical problems here, especially for a progressive and incurable condition. There are also psychological considerations - how does such an actor cope mentally with 'acting' their real-world traumas?
In a story like Hawking's where he was well known there is also an importance of having an actor play him who can 'pass' as him. Assuming you find a disabled actor who is physically and mentally able to take the role what are the chances of them looking like a particular celebrity?!