Peter Fenzel hosts with Matt Belinkie, Mark Lee, Josh McNeil, Jordan Stokes, and special guest Timothy Swann to overthink storms in pop culture, Lt. Dan’s CGI legs, the MTV Video Music Awards, and Colombiana.
Plugged in this episode: Tim’s appearance on the MOMBCast, and his own upcoming podcast, Psycomedia; and Fenzel’s upcoming Back To The Future-themed Improv Comedy show, 1.21 Jigowatts.
(Note: apologies for any problems with the audio quality. Blame it on the rain, as Milli Vanilli would say.)
[audio:http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/mwrather/otip165.mp3]Want new episodes of the Overthinking It Podcast to download automatically? Subscribe in iTunes! (Or grab the podcast RSS feed directly.)
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment, use the contact form, email us or call (203) 285-6401 to leave a voicemail.
Podcast started off with a win. As to the human/mermaid marriage and acknowledgement of the other world, from what I can remember, the sequel is about Ariel and Eric having a daughter named Melody and how Ariel is afraid to let her go into the water because it is dangerous while Melody has an inexplicably (dramatic irony) strong desire to go into the water. I can’t remember if Ariel is just afraid to let her go into the water or if she’s afraid because the main villain in the film (Ursula’s previously not-mentioned sister) is out to get her daughter. This is all to say, mermaids and humans seem completely fine with each other but the kingdom is isolated from the water (I remember walls) because of a fear of the unknown. So…people can learn to put aside any differences (which apparently only King Triton had during either film if I remember correctly) if they have a common threat to focus on? But then he resolved those at the end of the last film, so again, everyone seems suprisingly OK with the whole human/mermaid thing.
Oh, and in case my offhand knowledge isn’t clear, I love The Little Mermaid even if the main character is a terrible female role model. But that might have less to do with the plot and more to do with how much I adore Jodi Benson’s voice.
In myths and legends, don’t mermaids always fall in love with handsome sailors? Maybe the reason Ariel’s sisters haven’t fallen in love yet is that they have been kept securely under lock and key by their father. Which would make “The Little Mermaid” sorta analogous to “The Virgin Suicides”.
On the subject of Dominicans who play Colombians, let’s take it a step further. What about straight guys who play gay guys? It’s possible to argue that all gay television characters are flamboyant stereotypes played for straight laughs. Is it not then highly offensive when a straight actor is playing a gay character, because the actor exaggerates the character’s homosexuality so that it can be better laughed at? And how is any of this different from blackface? For example, Eric Stonestreet on “Modern Family” – he’s straight. And yet he plays one of the most effeminate men on television. What does that say about the actor, the writers? I find him funny – what does that say about me?
Hope everyone is safe up in the Irene theater. I’m praying to Thor for the safe delivery of the dulcet tones of John Perich.
Little Britain deals with gay straight issue a lot. “Only gay in the village” skits a character displays his gayness by dressing flamboyant and talking how oppressed and lonely he is, but the village is totally comfortable with him and constantly try to hook him up, but he always refuses, it becomes obvious he just likes feeling special by being outcast and isn’t really gay. That character is played by the gay member of the comedy duo, the gay characters played by the straight one. So they don’t seem to have a problem with straights playing gays.
The Kids in the Hall had a skit written by a gay member called “Running Faggit” that some of the straight members found offensive and didn’t want to do. http://youtu.be/KrapC2a_3Xg The writer and “Running Faggit” character in that skit is Scott Thompson whose main theme is gay identity http://youtu.be/sxMrWSTlvgg So flamboyance isn’t just for straight laughs, but I feel it depends on the material and not necessarily on who does it. Like if it has to be a gay person to play that role or else it’s irredeemably offensive then it’s probably not a good representation for anyone to play.
Scott Thompson and the rest of the Kids in the Hall were well-known for their parodies of gender roles and sexual identity. I think knowing that really changes things – if it’s meant to be critical commentary or satire, almost anything is permissible. But when the subject is played for laughs, or received only for laughs, it becomes a little bit dicier. It all depends on intent, and I generally assume that the intent of a prime time major network program is to get middle Americans to spend money.
And in Come Fly With Me, they don’t seem to have a problem with blacking up http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/27/article-1342025-0C9692E1000005DC-498_468x505.jpg but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s cool.
And what about the “gay/lesbian” kiss craze? Non-traditional relationships in pop culture have become somewhat of a fad, and I find it unsettling. Not because I don’t agree with the lifestyle, but because I think it devalues people that actually do have non-traditional relationships. It has become fetishized, but it does nothing to make people more “aware” in the sense that it will bring about positive change and acceptance- it’s something to mock or get off from, not consider the merit of or something.
For the question of the week, was “Sue” too obvious an answer?
And what happens when man and a mermaid mate — do you get a person who is 1/4 fish (maybe Patrick Duffy in Man from Atlantis)? I find the genetics of these things very confusing…
One of the first few I couldn’t finish, only due to the Skype/recording. Sorry guys. I’m sure your last 5 minutes held some gems, but I couldn’t take it after a while.
And now I have post-podcast guilt!
Eh, the comms lines got really choppy in the last 5 minutes. Side effect of the hurricane, no doubt. You didn’t miss as much as you might have.
Just make sure you listen to the next one extra hard!
Hey, wait, weren’t the plugs in the last 5 minutes? If you click the links, I will personally absolve you.
In response to the “should you only act characters of your ethnic background” question: my answer is no. I’m of mixed ethnicity, and if I chose to be an actress, and I could only work in a role for an Irish/German/Peruvian-American then I’d never find work.
Another comment regarding the controversy regarding Chinese actors taking Japanese roles, I do remember interviews with the director saying he held casting calls for Japanese actresses, including open calls, and didn’t find the right person for the characters. I think all the male characters were Japanese actors.
Ethnicity is tricky, because Hollywood is mean. You have to look a certain way. You’re pretty much not allowed to look outside your ethnicity. Sofia Vergara of Modern Family fame, is a Mexian actress and a natural blond. But she didn’t start getting work until she died her hair dark brown.
I guess what I’m saying is – saying you can only act within your ethnic background is still defining you by your ethnicity rather than your talent. The ideal is to identify you based on your talent, but that as a reality is a long way to go.
It’s funny you mention Sofia Vergara coloring her hair brown because I was going to point out Jessica Alba in Fantastic 4 where she colored blonde and wore blue contacts and I don’t remember it being mentioned in the media or by anyone I knew who saw the movie. So Hollywood was willing in Alba’s case and it payed off.
But to be part of the problem, I thought Alba looked weird, even acknowledging the fair population of blonde Mexicans, she didn’t look multiracial or straight white either. I think it’s passable in Fantastic 4 for her to have that strange quality but if that were a drama it’d be distracting. It felt like flashback to old Hollywood, like Charlton Heston in “Touch of Evil” where he’s in “brown face” I guess you call it. He was a bankable star same as Alba. I don’t have a problem with Alba playing white if the make up was passable, but the contacts were opaque and the hair too fake looking. It’s the same with Heston, his skin looks waxy. But for me that falseness is part of the fun, sometimes.
By sometimes I mean non-prestige Oscar magnet pictures, like American Beauty with Don Cheadle as Spacey in Fantastic 4 white face would be hilariously ridiculous.
Maybe that’s the next phase of cgi- Benjamin Button/Capt. America style race changing.
Appropriately enough, Don Cheadle has recently appeared in blue face as Captain Planet: http://splitsider.com/2011/08/don-cheadle-makes-for-a-somewhat-less-friendly-captain-planet
Fantastic points, which being of not really any minority statuses (my developmental disability one doesn’t really count), I was somewhat oblivious to. I guess the counterpoint to my discomfort would be more roles where it didn’t matter at all what the background of the person playing them was, but when it’s a true-life character etc. maybe more specificity.
I was going to move on to talk about how Anne Hathaway is supposed to be playing Northern English in One Day but sounds like Daphne Moon, and how the two things might be comparable – it only matters if it detracts from the authenticity, and most of the time, it shouldn’t.
Anne Hathaway sounding like Daphne??? I HAVE to watch that! Does that mean she has a Manchester accent then?
Also, curious fact: as I was about to type the name of a friend on the search box on facebook, the first letter was T and as soon as I typed it your name was the first to show up out of the possible options :O Not super odd, but definitely surprising.
Clearly you’re friends with too many Overthinkers? Or I’m finally famous on the internet! What happens if you google my name? Do I come up high?
I’ve only heard a clip – she’s supposed to be Yorkshire/Derbyshire rather than Lancashire (of which Daphne is a bad impression, weird given she’s English in real life. What’s weirder is that John Mahoney – Marty – is actually from Manchester/Blackpool). I’ve only heard she’s better than Russell Crowe in Robin Hood.
I’m not really friends with them on FB, I just comment on the OTI page’s posts sometimes. I don’t know, my FB search box always shows the most unlikely people first, but it was fun seeing you there, it made me feel closer to the high and mighty inner circle of overthinkers :D
As for google, I just looked you up this second, and the first thing that comes up is your twitter, followed by your fb page, your deviantart and a site that says “Timothy Swann – UK address and phone number – 192.com” Highly suspiscious stuff, I’d say… or maybe this is just the Brazilian in me speaking, as we avoid having our personal information on the internet at all costs just in case someone decides to kidnap us. Anyway, back to google, the only result in the first page that doesn’t seem to be your actual something or other is an entry on wikipedia about a hatmaker and composer named Timothy Swan.
I had no idea John Mahoney was British! :O And I always thought Daphne’s accent was accurate, but then again, on the sole basis of me trusting that it would be. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up!
Kidnapping is not a huge problem in Britain, as far as I know. To be honest, I don’t mind my twitter and dA coming up, especially if they’re above the hatmaker (who is officially the most famous Timothy Swann, but can’t expand his net presence on account of being dead) and the composer, who weirdly was from a different Worcester. You can’t actually get address and phone number from 192 as far as I know – I’ve tried to use such sites for work purposes and they require a) paying and b) don’t necessarily work.
My degrees to Kevin Bacon score is 4, by the way.
“Why couldn’t she be the other kind of mermaid, with the fish part on top, and the lady part on the bottom!?”
Actors can play people of not only another ethnicity, but also of another race, provided it isn’t sort of sort of Mickey Rooney-esque caricature.
My favorite entertainment storm is the hurricane from The Simpsons, which I only mention to bring up how great The Simpsons is in hopes they’ll give me a job. Wishing will make it so!
Also, Overdrawn at the Memory Bank was on MST3K one time, with excellent results. Additionally, speaking of time meandering on YouTube, I’ve spent a lot of time watching MST3K compilation videos on there recently. It’s a good way to see some of the highlights of episodes likely to never make it to DVD. Overdrawn is on DVD, however. It’s in a volume alongside Hamlet, Girl in Gold Boots, and the classic Space Mutiny.
MST3K is where I saw Overdrawn at the Memory Bank too, haven’t seen it in awhile now I’m curious to check it out again. Also you may know this already, but I just found out, RiffTrax Features is on hulu. It’s old B movies exactly like MST3K, just without silhouettes so you loose the picking actor’s nose jokes or when someones in a weird costume, but that’s a small price to pay for what’s basically new episodes of MST3K.
I’ve watched a couple of the RiffTrax on Hulu, as well as a few of the shorts. I’ve also seen two of the four episodes of “The Film Crew,” which was what Mike Nelson, Bill Corbett, and Kevin Murphy did between MST3K and RiffTrax. A couple of them are on Netflix Instant. While neither of those have the panache of MST3K, they both certainly have merit.
Actually really surprised that no one mentioned the X-Woman as their favorite Storm, in addition to the lack of Invisible Woman mentions noted in the above comments. Even though she was one of the flatter characters in the movies, I recall liking her as a kid.
The answer I would actually give, though, would be the metaphorical storm of Neil Young’s “Like A Hurricane”, where the storm is actually a tempestuous and potentially destructive lover with disturbingly calm eyes – mostly because I like to imagine his as a much more fleshed out person than the “dream” who “could have been anyone” the lyrics actually describe.
And also – yes, Tim Swann, we do get the IT Crowd here. It’s on IFC and also available on Netflix, and Adult Swim had aired Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, which also featured Ayoade. And on that note, I want to say that I’d sent y’all a haiku about Submarine as well a few months ago, but since you seem to have missed it or lost it amid many posts about a bigger movies I’ll repost here:
teen boy, girlfriend, mum
subverted indie tropes on
gorgeous Welsh coastlines
Also, Paddy Considine was hilariously insane as the neighbor that Oliver’s mother may or may not be having an affair with.
Also, a apologize for my hurricane snark, but as a Floridian, grateful that after being hit 9 times in 2004-2005 we haven’t had once since, I couldn’t help feeling relief and schadenfreude as it veered away towards the Land of Tourists and Road-Cloggers. Still, it was insensitive, especially given that your buildings are pretty fragile.
Cool, I’m glad to hear it, especially with Chris O’Dowd having been in Bridesmaids it should open some doors for that set.
I think the issue of ethnicity portrayal is largely a matter of whether there is a community that claims “ownership” of the story being told. For example, if an Englishman played a fictional Irishman in a fictional comedy, that would be far less problematic than if an Englishman replaced Liam Neeson in Michael Collins.
It’s interesting to note that the comics community is one such “stakeholder” in these discussions — there was somewhat of a kerfluffle when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall in Thor, and the campaign Donald Glover had for being cast as Spider-man caused an uproar in some circles. In both cases, these are completely fictional characters, whose ethnicity is completely unrelated to their actions (remembering that the Marvel Heimdall is an alien, not Norse), and yet violations of the established expectations proved too much for some folks.
It’s also interesting to note that the kind of distinctions addressed in the podcast often don’t cause comment. For example, the subject of the film Selena was born in Texas to Mexican-American and Cherokee parents, but was portrayed by an actress with Puerto Rican parents (the lovely and semi-talented J.Lo). Likewise, Ritchie Valens was Mexican-American, but La Bamba starred Lou Diamond Phillips, who was born in the Philippines and whose background is primarily Scots-Irish, Asian, and Polynesian. Yet in neither case do I recall any major complaint that that actors were not appropriate for the role.
And Andrew Garfield was getting a lot of flack for playing Peter Parker when it was first announced, too, since he’s British. That died down, though, especially after his appearance at SDCC (which, if you haven’t seen, look it up, because it is, indeed, warm-fuzzy-inducing).
Clearly the answer is that I’m just weird. I would have loved for Donald Glover to play Spidey – maybe the new African-American/Mexican-American Ultimate Spiderman can pave a way for that just as Ultimate Nick Fury got Samuel L into the Avengers?
Oh, I would have loved Donald Glover to do it, too. A lot of people felt that way when the whole thing started.
Hey guys, sorry to do it, but as a parasitologist:
Well actually, the cat associated parasite is called Toxoplasma and it is a single celled protozoan, NOT a bacterium. It does indeed affect rodents, and makes them less fearful of cats i.e. easier prey. While it may be associated with behavioural changes in humans, they are not really associated with an increased preference for cats. Depending on where you live it the world the chances of being infected vary, but they are generally quite high, even in non-cat owners, mostly through the consumption of undercooked meat. However, healthy people are generally asymptomatic and unaffected though it is dangerous for women to become infected for the first time during pregnancy as it can lead to complications in the child.
The more you know *shooting star* :)
Love the podcast, see you next week.
This is thorough, well-presented information. Now we can all go back to worrying about Cat Scratch Fever and, to a lesser extent, Wango Tango.
For all of the talk about Jurassic Park, I was surprised none of you said it- that was my knee-jerk response as soon as the question was posed.
To clarify some facts about TLM: There is one actual sequel (described by Cat), and there is a prequel (wherein Ariel meets Flounder at a shady music club because Tritan banned music after her mother died- she, of course, brings music back to Atlantica, happy day!). Also, Ariel specifically yells at Triton, “I’m sixteen years old! I’m not a child anymore!” during their argument in her grotto. A whole year older than the original Little Mermaid, but I’d still call that a child, in my most humble of opinions. Ahem.
As for the nuances of the relationship, take a look at this picture, a variant of one on/in a lot of Disney Princess merchandise lately (usually in color, of course):
http://freecoloringpagestoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ariel-and-prince-eric-coloring-276×300.jpg
I cannot begin to express how much or why that weirds me out, but whenever I see that picture, Eric as a human holding Ariel as a mermaid and them looking lovingly and happily into each others’ eyes, I feel deeply disturbed and uncomfortable. Perhaps because neither seems to be aware of the obvious mechanical problems they’re about to encounter? Or the implications of what it would entail (HAH!) if they went ahead with it, like that, anyway. Oh, I shudder.
But as for their relationship, the series does a lot of ret-conning. For starters, there is at least one specific merman that Triton tries to push on Ariel that I can think of right now, possibly two. And I believe they tried to make her decision to leave everything behind for a man she knows nothing about seem less like that by having her see him a few times- the most poignant siting in my head is when he frees… something… from a net with his knife instead of killing it (as she had feared he was about to do), thus making her believe humans aren’t all that dangerous, after all, or some kinda jazz. And I’m pretty sure it’s his boot, the “thingamajigger,” that causes a lot of chaos in one of the episodes he shows up in, too.
Yes, I watched the series when I was a little girl, and some of the episodes in recent years while living with a Kindergartener. I also watched the Aladdin series, if that gives me any sort of redemption. But, if it only makes it worse, well, in the words of King Triton, “So be it.”
Ethnicity and Acting: To be fair, there *have* been hullabaloos over a white person playing a white person from somewhere else before- Anthony Hopkins for Nixon, and (as I said above) even as recently as Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. IMO, I think it’s substantially different when a white/majority person is played by another, even if they’re not from the same country. (And Memoirs of a Geisha did, in fact, cause a stir- that casting thing is blamed as one of the reasons it did so poorly, despite the director insisting he at least attempted to get Japanese actors, IIRC.) But I think the issue stems from how minorities are underrepresented in the acting business, and also how it’s blanket-categorizing them by having, say, an “Asian” play an “Asian” when what’s actually going on is a Korean is playing a person from China. Just as how Tim was saying Taken makes blanket statements about Europeans in general, lumping them all in to one package- casting minority actors that way does it to minority actors, extending the real-world, imperialist notion that all minorities are the same to fiction. It’s even worse when a white person plays a minority, but it’s not all that great to say all minorities of a certain skin tone can play anyone else, either. It’s a double standard, yes, but from a minority perspective, it sort of makes sense. British and American actors are the dominant force, and it’s less like marginalization and more like misrepresentation, especially since it’s also white people in charge of these movies- they’re making their own decisions, whereas minorities are at the behest of the majority in acting decisions most of the time. Now, there is of course a debatable topic of, What should a minority actor do when in that situation? Should they decline the role? I think no, so long as they’re conscientious and aware that they’re doing it to help minorities actually have parts in movies. Ideally, they’d make it known that they know this, but I don’t blame the actors for adjusting to the system- if they declined every “wrong” part offered, many minority actors would not be working, further limiting the general pool. But I think it comes down to the fact that you’d never have a black man cast as JFK, but a white man was cast as Gandhi (and yeah, he did a bang-up job, but it still begs the question, Were there NO Indian actors available at all?). In a perfect world, everybody would be cast on their merits, but that’s not how it works- white actors are, but minorities are not. And no, I’m not saying it’s okay- the only way to change it is to allow minority actors to take whatever roles they can get and prove themselves in them. There is no insta-cure, but we can’t pretend there isn’t a problem, either.
Christian Bale is, btw, a vegetarian and has been since he was a little kid- reading Charlotte’s Web made him vow not to eat meat.
There was Bubba Ho-Tep, but I suppose that doesn’t really count.
I hate to do this, but “well…actually…” Sir Ben Kingsley birth name was Krishna Pandit Bhanji, and his father was Gujarati Indian.
Touche, and good show. So in the first instance, maybe not “never” but at least “very rarely, and certainly not in ‘high cinema,'” instead. And in the second case, a different example, such as Gerard Depardieu as Alexander Dumas? (And I apologize for the mistake, by the way.)
My favourite example involving Depardieu is somewhat the reverse of what was discussed, namely The Man in the Iron Mask, where he plays the only Musketeer who is actually French, against the flat Midwestern American accent of John Malkovich’s Athos, Jeremy Irons English-accented Aramis, and Gabriel Byrne’s Irish D’Artagnan (and let’s not forget Leo DiCaprio’s American King Louis). This is the only case I know where a role played by an actor of the appropriate background is actually jarring and takes one out of the film — given the rest of the cast, it would have been far better for the aesthetic success of the film if Porthos had not been played by someone actually French.
That’s fascinating – I’m reading the second Musketeers book at the minute (Twenty Years After) where much is made of the regionalism of France, and indeed D’Artagnan is thought to be more similiar in character to the Italian antagonist than the other French people. BUT I imagine that wasn’t their goal. At least Man in the Iron Mask catches Dumas’s sorrow at putting his musketeers at odds (I think – it’s the final part of the huge third book) whereas the new adaptation looks abjectly terrible.
Haha, you know, I’ve seen that in other places, too. A few “serious” movies about Nazi conspirators have the majority of the actors as Brits, but the REALLY crazy one that you’re supposed to think of as pure evil/Hitler’s stand-in will have a German accent. I can’t think of any off the top of my head, but I swear I’ve seen it before.
Britain often stands in for Rome/Latin, or for Arcadia – apparently Scots as Spartans is a tradition much older than 300.
And don’t forget Scots as dwarfs in fantasy depictions — I don’t quite understand where that convention came from, but it certainly seems well established. (It would be delightful to see an “alternate casting” of dwarfs in a fantasy film as, say, Latino, or Eastern European, or Japanese…)
Oh, Gab, this is why we are comment thread BFF’s. Let’s just debate TLM in our own little corner. You watched TLM series when you were younger. I watched TLM prequel whenever it came out. I would like to blame the manatee’s adorableness but I really just have no willpower when it comes to these things.
I agree with you on ethnicity and acting. I spent a great deal of time in the background of my high school productions although I was depended upon to strengthen the soprano section while for some reason no one complained when the kind of racist Asian characters in Anything Goes were played by Caucasian students (and yes, there were other Asians in the production). The problem isn’t just that the sort of casting you discussed makes different ethnicities in given groups seem interchangeable but that people don’t seem to even have wide casting calls (even if they do). I like Zhang Ziyi just fine but it seems wrong to see the same roles goes to the same minority actors when if there was a casting call for say, a thin, blond, Caucasian actress you would at least have a number of options. Actually, what might be interesting would be to take a look at movie studios in other countries (that are not headed by white majority interests) and see if they always hire the “right” ethnicity to play that same ethnicity or if it at least happens less frequently.
This is one I’ve been thinking about recently thanks to the afore-mentioned Idris Elba – not in The Wire, where he’s a Brit playing an American, or in Thor, where he’s a human playing a godly alien, but in Luther. Luther is a brilliant detective show, but part of what makes it brilliant is that it doesn’t matter at all to his character that Luther is black. He just is. Provided Luther was big, and simmered with rage that isn’t always righteous anger, and did anything to solve a case no matter how flagrantly illegal, then he could be any ethnicity, any background. The same goes for the other detectives (who are about evenly black and white – which is better than a lot of shows, if not necessarily as diverse as Britain is). Maybe there’s lots of shows where this is the case, but I especially felt it watching Luther.
Having said this, Idris Elba is incredible and I’m glad he’s the star.
Yeah, I totally watched the pre- and sequels of my own volition. Which strikes a continuity issue with the series, made after the first movie but, obviously well before the prequel. There’s an episode of the series where Triton wants Ariel to play some awful-sounding instrument, and Flounder is already her BFF. But the plot of the movie is that music has been banned since Ariel’s mother died, Ariel softens Daddy’s heart, woo- but, more importantly, she meets Flounder in the movie. As such, it has been long enough between the end of the prequel and the start of the series for her and Flounder to be joined at the… fin?… AND for her dad to be totally okay with music and want to blab about tradition and suchandsuch with regards to it. So I guess it’s not a continuity thing, but certainly a timing issue. If Ariel’s timeline is that short, then the series must not only pick up RIGHT after the end of the prequel in the timeline, but every episode must represent pretty much a single day in her life, and in succession. And it’s interesting they’d get into an ageism debate in the original movie when he’d been trying to marry her off presumably a few weeks earlier, and the gender politics there are screaming for more analysis. Because if she was already of marriageable age, she would, presumably, not need to give the quote up ^thar^, but instead shout, “I’m old enough for you to marry me off, Daddy, so I can think for myself!” or something. To which he’d prolly still say, “Don’t take that tone of voice with me!” but then add to it, “Clearly you CAN’T, since you wouldn’t marry him anyway!” and then back to the original script with the, “Ariel, I’m going to get through to you, and if this is the only way… ::aims trident, eyes go psycho, tone gets sinister:: so be it.” Ahem.
But this gets a little screwy, too. Whenever Eric does show up in the series, he looks substantially younger. I mean, Eric’s pretty beefy in the movie, right? He’s scrawny as a twig in the series, and I’m pretty sure his voice sounds like it is either in the process of cracking or just cracked. Yet Ariel doesn’t look any younger? What if merpeople age differently than humans? How does sixteen of those mer-years compare to sixteen human ones? Presumably, then, humans age faster? So then maybe the timeline is actually quite spread out, but Ariel just ages differently than humans- so there could really be a lot of human years between the prequel and the events of the first original movie. Of course, you could chock it up to animation flubs and stuff, but that’s not very fun, is it?
More on Race and Ethnicity…
http://www.refinery29.com/is-taping-your-eyes-to-look-asian-the-new-blackface
That hurts, figuratively. And I wonder if literally, too.
*well before the events of the first movie
NOT, “…well before the prequel”
Mr. Swann, on the Rugby World Cup (minor well actually in that New Zealand hosted and won the first one in 1987, also they’ve never really choked just come up against inspired performances from other teams, they’re certainly no ZA in the Cricket World Cup).
If you’re concerned about actors with the ‘wrong’ heritage how do you feel about players who could be seen as having a limited connection to the country they represent (thinking mostly of those qualified on residency or through one grandparent).
It’s an interesting way of thinking about what being of a nationality actually means. Taking some examples from England:
Delon Armitage, born in Trinidad, introduced to rugby by his mother’s new English husband while living in France, came to the UK at the age of 14 and came through London Irish’s academy.
Manu Tuilagi, brothers play for Samoa, came to the UK as a teenager, played age groups for England, nearly got deported and is now off to the world cup.
Dylan Hartley, raised in New Zealand, came to the UK on holiday and because of ancestry got into England age groups, deciding to stay when he got a pro contract with Worcester.
Shontayne Hape, clearly a kiwi, played League for NZ, came to the UK to play in the Super League, converted to Union and then got picked for England.
Obviously there are more and there’s the South African connections of a pile of the England (and Wales) cricket team but I’ll leave it there. Interesting reading on who was born where in this thread elsewhere:
http://www.nowrugby.com/mb/showthread.php?t=90597
Pressed a stupid button and lost my comment:
I knew I was wrong about the ‘for the first time’ thing as soon as I heard it back! I guess I meant to say ‘for the first time since the first time’ regarding both hosting and winning, but my brain did not make that clear to my mouth!
Terrific counterpoint on sportspeople. I guess my concerns are usually more for historical figures than Zoe Saldana in Columbiana, though a lot of Colombian-Americans have expressed their discontent on the internet according to my pre-show research. I was more troubled by say Christopher Lee in Jinnah.
As a Worcester fan I’m biased on Hartley, but it does raise the whole question of what international sport means, and I suppose what identity and citizenship means. Is Kevin Pietersen South African or English or most likely both? Does it matter that I’m a bit Scottish and a bit English, and will that change when Scotland leaves the Union? Should we aspire to bigger categories? (i.e. Colombian-American to Latin-American to American, English to British to European and/or Citizen of the World?)
Our choices must matter more than our heritage, otherwise we’re unfairly defined by it… so if we choose to live somewhere, support and work for their team, then we can represent them. But the situations clearly fall on a spectrum – some nations pluck players that they can get away with (I’ve heard complaints from Samoans about New Zealand doing this to players they consider ‘theirs’) and some people, like Armitage, want to play at the international level, don’t have the opportunity in a) their birthland, or b) other places they’ve been (France rejected him, apparently).
Of course, is the equivalent someone like Hugh Laurie? He plays an American, but he doesn’t live in America (by which I mean, his family remain in England and he’s only in LA for filming) and hasn’t taken citizenship. Contrast this with say John Oliver, who (somewhat seriously) is more pro-American, has his residency status and may well become naturalised after marrying his fiance, an Iraq veteran.
On nationality and sport, if you didn’t hear it, the Sinha Test is brilliant and funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcgKcQFpA0A
It’s based on Conservative Lord Tebbit saying English nationality was identified by who one supported at Cricket.
Your Samoans probably want to check their facts, there have been at total of 13 Samoan born All Blacks ever, there are 17 New Zealand born players in the 2011 Samoan World Cup squad.
Allegations of poaching leveled at New Zealand are almost always lazy journalism or driven by jealousy.
The view I’ve come to is that we’re talking about representative sport, so I want the England team to represent multi cultural England, so no issues with Armitage(s) and Tuilagi for example.
I do have a problem with players like Flutey and Hape, they are only in England because they signed professional sporting contracts having built a reputation in the Southern Hemisphere. Flutey having both already played for the Maori and naffed off to France for the money once he was capped.
Can’t think of decent terms for this ‘genuine’ vs ‘sporting’ migrants? Nor have I the faintest idea how you’d write rules to govern my views.
Also I don’t understand why Hape is in the squad ahead of Allen and/or Barritt
Rugby and Cricket complicate things of course given the limited number of nations competing at the top level vs say football. And let’s not open the can of worms that is the changing of allegiance allowed in cricket and the Olympics.
PS hadn’t seen that Sinha test thing, entertaining half hour, ta.
PPS well done Worcester on their successful return to the Premiership
Hey, I tell you what, beating Sale in the first match felt amazing. Oh yeah, Hape is well overrated.
Perhaps you should only be able to represent one team, but you’d have to establish what level that lay at: i.e. is the Maori national team a high enough level team to tie allegiance?
I think your point on representation is good but yes, hard to police. And, for example, the Georgians almost entirely play in France. If one of them had a way to play for the French team in a country where they live, play and cares a lot more about the sport, it’d be hard to say no, even if there are very few Georgians in France. It’s a tough one to work out. Weirdly, it doesn’t seem to come up as much in football.
Hey, I enjoy cricket-based comedy, have you read Andy Zaltzman’s cricket blog?
IRB rules say you can only play for one country – playing a test, for the second team, 7s or in any tour match ties a player for life. Maori is a weird case in that it’s de facto but not de jure the NZ second team so doesn’t tie up players.
I saw a news article recently I can’t find now about how some of the PI unions want that changed so they can pick players who are no longer required by NZ or whoever but that the IRB said no.
Age groups shift all over the shop (for practical reasons they sort of work on a regional academy basis), Martin Johnson famously having played U19 for NZ and for a more recent example Hugo Ellis going from U18 Wales to U20 England as captain and then vanishing off everyone’s radar as he’s too small for the top flight (to link it back to this weeks podcast).
Having looked up some more sports’ rules it’s clearly an area where no-one has come up with a perfect system.
Football works off citizenship and age group internationals tie players, but you can apply once to change nation before you’re 21. Plus whatever it is that’s going on with Northern Ireland / Eire players at the moment.
Cricket is fittingly baffling and has about four different categories of qualification and complicated rules about changing from an associate country to a test nation.
Olympics is citizenship and you can change as long as you haven’t competed for three years (or get an exception from the first nation / governing body).
I have no idea what that demonstrates beyond the fundamental difficulties in talking about nationality and heritage these days.
Well aware of Zaltzman’s Cricinfo work thanks. If you haven’t ever heard it and can track it down ‘The Mark Steel Lecture’ on WG Grace is excellent, must be 10 years or so old now though. Also have you read Ed Smith’s ‘What Sport Tells us About Life’? The whole thing is excellent but most appropriate here the chapter about how different schools of historian would interpret the 2005 Ashes.
Whoops – missed out mention of ‘bagsie’ caps like Ryan Lamb’s Saxons appearances that are the result of those rules – Ben Morgan turned down a spot at the Churchill Cup to concentrate on becoming Welsh this year of course.
Also having just seen Chris Froome’s self penned bio, cycling nationality is also confusing.
“Kenyan born, South African raised British cyclist based in Italy. Go figure…”
Getting properly excited about the RWC now though – will we see a repeat of Haka v Sipi Tau tomorrow?
I haven’t seen that Mark Steel lecture – I saw him live quite recently on his Mark Steel’s In Town tour, and it was very good.
Is there a Pakeha team in NZ that fulfils the same position as the Maori team?
Brilliant stuff about the mermaid politics,
here’s my opinion on the “latino” “hispanic” question, a lot of that is due to the specific type of colonialism that the Spanish brought with them, really Latino and Hispanic are ways to drown out any claims to indigenous heritage. Look at Zoe Zaldana, she’s called hispanic or latino more or less because she speaks Spanish but I English speaking African-Americans are not called Anglo-Americans or British in anyway. Speaking about Mexicans more specifically the vast majority of Mexicans are indigenous but self-identify as mestizos to escape persecution. It’s a lot harder to do that here because of the way the English colonized the place.
As to the different ethnicities playing different ethnicities? the question isn’t so much about that if a Dominican can play a Colombiana as it is denying work the the actors of specific ethnicities, remember white people can play just about any ethnicity except black, which is recent since they did play them back then! The Prince of Egypt movie, a white guy got to play a Persian. However a lot of the arguments for him getting the role were that yes not all Persians are alike and there are European looking people there too, but that to me is not the point, it’s more about not letting an Iranian-American actor get a spotlight and giving them some exposure outside of the evil image they get on the news!
Just my two-cents. More Mermaid politics! How does this affect ownership of the sea and fishing rights and so forth?