A quick look and there's at least three actors whom are on their second marriage, with the second relationship, officially, occurring within a span of 12 months.
Tom Hanks who cheated on his first wife, divorced her, and then married Rita Wilson a year later.
Kerri Russell: had her second child with her now ex-husband in 2011. She started filming The Americans in 2012 were she had a main role with fellow actor Matthew Rhys. No official word of when Russell and Rhys started their relationship/affair, but celebrity gossip sites said that their on-screen sex scenes during the first season were so "real" that onset staff of the series speculated that "they definitely were fucking" offset. The series began filming in 2012. Russell and her now ex-husband separated in 2013 and eventually divorced in 2014. Since 2014, she and Rhys have in a relationship.
Allison Williams and her now ex-husband were separated in 2019. In late 2019, Williams started dating past co-star Alexander Dreymon. Both Williams and Dreymon had lead roles in the Horizon Line that was filmed in earl 2019. No word that Williams had an affair with Dreymon, but no doubt at least one of them, or both, had the other in mind once the separation was official. They had a child in 2021.
A pattern holds up: the following relationship of each actor has been with a fellow actor whom they shared significant screen time with; with the relationship officially beginning within 12 months after the dissolution of the first marriage/relationship.
I think the strongest argument to prefer a white actor is simply for the fact that the fable was written by a Danish person where, at the time of its writing, I'd guess 99% of all Scandinavian countries where light skinned. "Clear and delicate" may not be describing the little mermaid's skin color, but from what we know of the cultural context that Christian found himself in there's a very good chance he saw her looking like other young Scandinavian girls during his time.
Was Halle's casting based on merit, being the best out of all the potential actresses given an audition, or what it a diversity hire? It's hard to say, at least on my end. I'll have the audacity to gander that it was a bit of both. I don't doubt Marshall was impressed, but this is Disney. Many directors compromise on who their leads are too, or simply are fine with whatever actor producers out forth.
If there is ample proof that past iterations of The Little Mermaid were unfaithful to the source material there is as much proof that Disney saw Halle as checking off more than two boxes to fulfill their diversity quota (just see the entire cast of Marshall's Little Mermaid). I am sure you are well aware that since 2020 Disney has gone full DIE (Diversity, Inclusivity, Equity)
Unlike sports, tv/film acting is highly subjective where politics do factor in on who gets cast. It's who's trending and who's not. It's who has the better agent and who doesn't. It's whether the studio wants to cast an unknown, an up-and-comer or an established, prestige actor. Let's not be naive: studios, producers and agents have categorized actors like Home Depot categorizes all their stock. This is why tv and film actors are usually categorized as such on most sites of talent agencies. That's just the surface of weird things in the industry. What they don't show you is even more interesting. No doubt they have lists of "white, black, brown, blonde, brunette, redheads, black-haired etc." actors to pull from. Need a Hispanic up-and-coming actress? Not a lot of them currently, but there are some. Need a white actress? There's a lot but we need to further split hairs. Up-and-comer? No, no - we need an established one for the lead. Cast an up-and-comer for one of the two secondary female leads. (Usually for this latter group whomever has the slightly better filmography and better agent will win the role.)
Personally, I don't really buy the argument that because past iterations weren't 100% faithful to Andersen's fable that it would justify further unfaithful adaptions. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. I'd respect that argument better IF we acknowledge the reality of casting noted above and IF we see that the first "wrong" made way for present "wrongs" and future "wrongs."
But in the end does it matter? Yes and no. Yes because we know that studio execs will cast non-white actors in what were originally historically white roles under the pretense of "diversity." No because people who watch tv/film for mostly entertainment purposes will forget whomever was cast because they aren't involved in the politics of casting let alone are the ones cast. As much as I loved Brandy as Cinderella I would still prefer a white actress to play the part. Why? Because non-white actors make up a small percent of working actors, so casting a non-white actor in a historically white role will garner some questions - from me at least.
And not by Catholics being content with watching things like Game of Thrones (explicit), Normal People (really explicit) or even PG-13 rated Servant (apparently there's nipple somewhat visible underneath the actress' hair covering her breasts if you look close enough in the sex scene). I mean by discussion of the topic.
When it comes to talking about nudity in film, whether pointless nude scenes like when an actress is undressing or dressing, or is seen the shower (i.e. Scenes of a Marriage, Take This Waltz), or sex scenes with nudity (explicit or partial) the fundamental nature of Protestants has an advantage over layman Catholics.
Protestants tend to look at not only what's depicted, or what the audience sees, but they also look at the situations leading up to the scene, the effect it has on actors, and the politics behind the inclusion of nudity. Catholics usually just look at it as an audience member are more tolerant of nudity. See here.
You see, this type of nudity was different because it was "tastefully" done and it showed the emotions the actors! Well, if softcore porn was "tastefully" done would you still excuse it? I doubt it.
This type of reasoning is what plagues Catholic discussions. But let's see a compilation of the "tasteful" nudity in HBO's Rome by the actress named Polly Walker. Apparent there are other compilations of other actresses who appeared in the tv series.
Yes, there was enough nudity and sex scenes footage in HBO's Rome from a single actor to make a 5 minute compilation. That last scene shown said "this isn't a softcore porn scene but it is, really, but it isn't. Just trust us."
What really annoys me is that too often Catholics refer back to the nudity done in the Renaissance as a precedent to accept nudity in tv and film. Part of this I feel is intellectually dishonesty - they point to partial nudity on our crucifixes or even religious art as examples as further precedence to okay more explicit nudity. They know perfectly well what critics of nudity in film and tv are talking about: the Game of Thrones, Normal People, Bridgeton and 50 Shades of Grey levels of nudity and sex scenes.
To further prove my point, some Catholics try to justify it in exactly the way I've laid out. Again, they only concentrate on (1) what the audience sees and (2) if it's "necessary" to the plot. Both lose traction once we isolate every and each nudity and sex scene. The "within context" fails since that's just an excuse to allow nudity. Funny enough, they try to refer to Church doctors who do support their stance (the Church doctors most likely wouldn't agree with 99% of the nudity shown on screen). See below -
I don't believe this poster below is a Catholic, but regardless his criticism of nudity is by far more holistic than the navel-gazing Catholics do who do seriously talk about nudity in mainstream entertainment.
Some Catholics do stand up to nudity in mainstream entertainment. Matt Fradd is one of them who did, marvelously, call out tv series like Game of Thrones for inserting softcore porn scenes into otherwise non-porn entertainment. He is more forgiving to nudity in *religious art, but then again so am I.
The Church is also rather direct in rejecting nudity within mainstream entertainment. But layman Catholics? Eh, they need to do a better job in connecting the dots. Besides Fradd, other Catholics have discussed nudity within mainstream entertainment and have touched upon points deeper than "as long as it doesn't make you sin." This is a very Protestant/Evangelical way of approaching it because it's relatively shallow. Can one watch hardcore porn if it doesn't make you sin? C'mon on now.
Some are rather direct -
And -
Other's play the "this is only an American thing" -
Though it's not being fearful - it's about rejecting nudity on screen: if Catholics, or non-Catholic Christians, were indeed fearful we'd have sex with our clothes on and shield our eyes at Renaissance paintings. This is like saying Christians are homophobic because they disagree with same-sex "marriage" and sodomy. No. There really isn't any phobia - no fear - just strong disagreement because we have strong beliefs in the concept of marriage, sex and sexuality. It's the same thing with nudity.
But do tell me, what are the cases where nudity adds to the development of a character and moves the plot forward? I can only name a handful, one being Rose's nude figure drawing scene in Titanic.
On the sex scene in Schindler's List to show Schindler's infidelity, happening early in the film -
Now the top comment of this screen cap is interesting. She refers to her own sexual drive as reasoning in that such a depiction of sexuality was "needed." Huh?
Other discussions brought up Game of Thrones where it was agreed that the nudity was excessive and didn't really add to the character's development or to the plot. See here, but the argument of violence is equally as conquering as nudity just doesn't gain as much traction as people think it does -
Portraying violence on screen isn't the same as portraying nudity for the sake of nudity (i.e. Rome, Scenes from a Marriage), whether standalone scenes or through sex scenes. The poster gets it right by saying a woman's breasts is for her, her husband, her child during breastfeeding and (my addition) for healthcare professionals. To be worried about violence on screen would be trotting down the path of worrying that video games with violence normalizes school shootings, mass shootings or gang violence. It doesn't. Unless you're a sociopath or a psycho, most likely one won't physically hurt another person. But sex and sexuality? That's far more potent when it's depicted on tv/film since on screen nudity 9 out of 10 times is naturally titillating. Don't lie. You know that's the truth.
Another Catholic briefly touches upon the "double standard" of violence and sex -
I think it's about time for Catholics to have a robust discussion on nudity and sex scenes in tv/film. I feel many lean more towards the secular view of accepting it, but this stance puts them in the same group with Catholics who support same-sex "marriage" on a civil level, artificial birth control to prevent birth because NFP is found difficult or, a better comparison, is "pro-choice" on the cases of rape and incest.
*Religious art with nudity isn't the same as nudity in tv/film - not even close. Anyone who argues otherwise isn't being honest: They support nudity in tv/film.
After all, many of them make money via American productions, and if not through an industry that thrives off of being a billionaire dollar industry, that allows them to pocket a handsome six figures (or more) EACH project they do. Multiply that over a decades of acting and you get a multimillionaire.
runway model, luxury goods model (perfume, fashion, jewelry)
glamour model
stripper, softcore porn actress, OF with no sex content (hardcore or solo)
hardcore porn actress, OF with hardcore content
This list isn't saying one is better than the other, like saying a mainstream actress performing simulated sex with her chest showing is better than a glamour model or even a hardcore porn star. It's to say that this is how society (unofficial) views #1 in relations to other jobs that makes women strip.
Plenty of #1 do some sort of #2. Sometimes they do #3 (which includes Playboy). Some in #2 make the transition to #1. #3 can either be found in #4 or #5. It's harder for those in #5 to be either a #1 or #2, but there have been those in #1 who have switched to #5.
What do they all have in common? Each level has plenty of women, or all, willing to shed their clothes to some degree. Only enough #2 is the most tame; it's tamer than #1 given #1 there can me either partial nudity of top half of the body, full and/or full frontal.
There are a lot of similarities between #1, #3, #4 and #5 on what can be done in front of camera due to age and how sex scenes are setup. When you have those in #1 supporting their past coworkers who decide to do #5 that's telling. And it ain't telling in a "aren't they so supportive, compassionate and openminded people!" sorta way.
People defend sex scenes in tv/film saying the actors feel awkward in doing them since there are cameras staring back at them, but they don't bring up the very fact that the same thing applies to porn to some degree. Porn actors also receive direction, there are cameras staring back at them, they need to show certain angles (which is "hitting your mark"), there is acting involved contrary to belief, and often times the act of performing sex when needed once the camera rolls can be tiring - just like switching on for mainstream acting once the director gives the green light. Mainstream actors will say that shooting a tv series or film isn't glamorous - well, ask a pornstar whether or not shooting a hardcore scene is glamorous. It's not.
How often times a young, unconnected aspiring actor goes to NYC or LA in hopes to become an established actor to be only shuffled into doing porn work, either soft or hardcore? I bet there are plenty. Why? Because producers and casting directors system of casting is relatively shallow: need a warm body, need to be somewhat decent looking and can read with the ability to memorize lines.
Am I saying #1 is the same as #5? Not quite, but again they're much closer than you'd think. If anything they're the more posh identical twin of #4.
You see, tv and mainstream acting when nudity and sex scenes enter the picture are not that much difference than their more seedier cousin down the road that is porn.
Mainstream actors can get all offended that their sex scenes are being equated to softcore porn, or even hardcore porn (there have been many plenty of events where actual sex was done on set in a mainstream film), but what you see is what you get as a viewer. You can cut and put a softcore scene right next to a mainstream sex scene, so they're side by side, hit the play button and you'd be hard pressed nowadays to tell the difference. What scene would be the mainstream tv/film scene and what would be the softcore film? Sometimes you can tell due to better cinematography and lighting, but often they can make us hesitant with our confidence to differentiate.
As one fellow human who also thought about it said, and I paraphrase, "99% of nudity and sex scenes are not needed in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does such scenes add to the character, the narrative or move the plot forward. When nudity and sex scenes are added there's a very good chance the writers and directors got real lazy and needed to fill screen time, or just didn't know how to go about growing intimacy between two characters."
It's been my observation that actors who start to get a little "risque", and then when they're confronted by these questionable decisions raised by the interviewer, they often times say "I'm no role model." I take this as a self-preservation tactic and in a way, on the actor's part, to have their cake and eat it too. It's one of many "Get Out of Jail" cards that actors use.
Here are some scenarios:
- Actor advocates for some social cause (mainly a 'progressive' one, like PETA, It Gets Better, Human Rights Campaign, any LGBT advocacy group, Kill Malaria, some Go Green cause etc.) and actor is seen as a "role model' (actor feel good about themselves)
- Actor takes nude photo, receives a DUI or just performs some action that is mainly due to pure narcissism; actor says "I'm no role model", blames the media or their fans becomes apologists for the actors sake
Like I said, "Get Out of Jail" card.
I'm not saying entertainers should act "perfect"; most likely they're going to act like idiots more often than the Average Joe simply because (A) they have the time and (B) they have the means and opportunities to do such things. Add the six figure income, yearly, and you get an entitlement to do whatever you want. What I'm saying is there's little to no accountability - no actual real scorn or dismissive tone towards the entertainer by their fans. The DGAF mentality is usually adopted between late teens (in Justin Bieber's case once he turned 18) and early twenties. If any scorn or critical judgment is put upon them they usually resort to this "no role model"/DGAF mentality; when praise is put upon them it's usually "Thank you to all my fans, your support and your kind words. Believe in your dreams, all you need to do is to believe in yourself and let the haters hate." (Which is basically telling all their followers to adopt the DGAF mentality.)
I stumbled on a conversation talking about Miley Cyrus. One poster was critical of her - this is when the dancing bear and twerking began and caused a commotion - while the other said that Miley would make a fine motivational speaker. That's right, Miley Cyrus as a motivational speaker. The poster was serious. He noted that what Miley's going through - the whole #YOLO mentality - was what he was going through at the moment. He said "I won't let anyone get in the way of my dreams." Yes, because there's a roadblock of "ME! ME!" in your way.
When the "common people" don't admire a certain entertainer (e.g. athlete, actor, singer) the accusation hurled at the "common people" is of jealousy or lack of talent or any other shallow jabs. Besides those jabs, "laughing to the bank" to "inspiring millions worldwide" to "you work in a menial/9-5 job" ad hominems are the stock darts.
In some bizarre twist, the common man is expected to admire them and to use them as motivation (even though a good percent of the common man, I'd wager, do not want a career as a singer, actor or any unconventional creative job) while at the same time to see them as "just like us" (fair enough). This "just like us" is thrown out the window once the entertainer releases his "tell all" autobiography, or when one discovers how privileged they are, since "just like us" is drowned in their exclusive parties filled with other creatives; private transportation and, most likely, deviant relationships or multiple marriages. Such entertainers are always heralded as to have "lived a full life" since the common man are just stuck in their everyday menial jobs and routine. But, as always, when they screw up the "they're just human" is presented without fail. Their apologists will say "Like you're so perfect," in attempts to play the "throwing stones as a glass house" card. I'd say throw the stones when needed. If it crashes then it crashes -- I mean, the common man is also "just human", right?
In all honestly, I don't even believe that most of the common man - those in the USA at least - really gives two sh*ts about entertainers as the media, their handlers and their fans often times lead on. Is this some way to use the common man as a scapegoat when entertainers commit one very stupid mistake after another?
