Western Europeans & Trump

What do Western Europeans know about Trump? 99% of their opinion of him is negative, as if they're just the European extension of America's coastal/urban/academic pretentiousness and faux social elite. 

Quick Take: "Arthouse" or "prestige" Tv and film are the lazy man's idea of art right next to Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain."

Read title. 

Disney's The Little Mermaid (2023): Halle Barry's casting - merit or diversity hire?

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. 

Some Catholics attribute to the pornification of mainstream tv/film.

EXPLCIT CONTENT (EMBEDDED PORN LINK)

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. 

Tv and film: Nudity and sex scenes resemble a porn shoot.

 In terms of content and process, softcore porn. In terms of coaxing the actors to show (more) skin while filming, hardcore. 

Those that have watched enough hardcore porn know what I'm talking about. See below.

In hardcore porn, sometimes the cameraman or someone behind the camera shoots off directions or "words of encouragement" to the porn actress, whether to look up to get a better angle or to "get at it" or something to that effect if they see she's having a hard time. 

Shower Thought: Actors and nudity.

If actors are fine being nude on film for all the world to see, for whatever artistic reasoning or chalk it up to artistic "integrity", why are (most) actors who have done nudity hesitant to pose nude in Playboy or haven't thought of doing a true softcore film, or get upset when nude photos of themselves are leaked?

People will say the nude photos were a private matter, but then again so was filming nude scenes - funded by a private company with restricted access to the set when any nudity or sex scene was filmed. Not all films and tv series see the light of day even when production is done for many reasons, one being lack of distributor or the production company withholding distribution because it'll come to a financial loss, and another politics (see: Paramount+ Heathers).

Only difference is the leaked pictures or sex tape had no consent to be released into the public. So what. Why do  actors feel violated now? If your tits were shown in that one tv series, what's the big difference of a leaked nude selfie? Not much. If not a hint of embarrassment was felt filming a nudity or a sex scene, why would the actor feel embarrassed here? I suppose one can't justify the selfie with "for artistic reasonings" but instead it falls under the common man "play stupid games win stupid prizes." They aren't seen as an "artist" who's telling a story, but as a common man without the flattering lighting and camera work, or the butt kissing of trade magazines. They don't like that. They only do nudity if it benefits their career; taking nude selfie isn't doesn't benefit the actor outside of social media circulating the pics. It doesn't give their agents much to work with. 

I can only think of true benefit: A producer sees the nudes, like what he sees and decides to cast you in a role that showcases your tits. 

Secular world and its backwards views on dating, marriage, sex and procreation.

It's assumed that, if not a given, that if you're dating someone that you're also having sex with your significant other. If you're not having sex then that's seen as utterly bizarre and foreign. 

"What do you mean you're not having sex?"

"Your relationship must be so boring."

In great irony the secular world divorces dating with marriage and sex with procreation. If anything, if wanting and succumbing to sexual urges within dating is natural if not okay, then so is seeing dating as one step towards marriage and where procreation is seen as the natural consequence of sex. But that's not the case in the secular world.

Marriage is seen as something only one does in their late twenties - the earliest. Or marriage is optional. Dating is just that - dating and the concept of marriage isn't really orbiting around the concept of dating.

If sex and dating go and in hand, while the idea of marriage is given the hand and kept at a good distance, then at least the idea of procreation is in the back of their minds, right? Yes and no. Non-religious and plenty of Christians know that there's a chance they could get pregnant while dating (we're assuming they're having sex) so they willingly sterilize themselves via artificial birth control. 

All of this to me is obvious and is a broken approach to relationships. This is like people wanting to drink alcohol excessively or suck up some nicotine without getting drunk or get addicted. And those are just the surface negatives of engaging in such soft drugs. Beer bellies, smelly clothes, being dependent on the feeling that nicotine gives you - it's almost as if one is a sex addict and cannot control the urge get off or to engage in sexual intercourse with whomever and weever - they just need to slap some skin and to orgasm. That dopamine effect is what they live for. Pathetic? Yes. Sad. Immensely more so.

To ignore that dating is the natural stepping stone to marriage and that the main purpose of sex is for procreation, to feel uncomfortable when people make such connections isn't the issue with such connections or the person making them - the issue lies with the person being uncomfortable if not disagreeing. When you isolate dating just for romantic and sexual needs you create something that was never meant to be used that way. This the great irony of the modern world. 

This also ties into sodomy and open marriages - using our bodies and societal institutions (given by a divine) in ways they weren't meant to be used.