Taking Prejudice to a Whole New Level

Actors get typecast, or some people identify an actor with one role so much that it interferes with appreciating that actor in a different roles. Amanda Dobbins wrote a piece I found at vulture.com titled "The Divergent–Fault in Our Stars Fake Incest Problem" in which she has trouble accepting casting choices because two actors who played sibling characters in a trilogy will be playing unrelated characters in another production who, at some point, are "making out."

We understand that these are made-up characters in a made-up movie and nothing untoward is actually happening, but still: This is a strange decision. Of all the possible teen actors (and there are so many, according to the fan blogs), why would you choose the one guy who is already playing your lead actress's brother in another high-profile YA franchise? It is hard enough to forget an actor's résumé under normal circumstances; now we have to bring fake incest into this?

My guess is that the people who made the casting decisions made them based on the needs of the the current production.

It makes all four (five, probably) movies ickier, for no obvious reason other than "we liked this guy, too."
Okay, icky is a bit immature.

Yes. It is.

Here's one of the better comments left by a reader...

spage6

John himself address this in a video. He said something along the lines of, 'You don't watch Silver Linings Playbook and wonder what Katniss is doing in a suburb of Philadelphia.' He also says they work well together. Probably because they already know each other. They are actors. They act!

Actors are playing roles, usually roles written by other people. This is why someone can play a soldier in one movie and conscientious objector in another movie. Furthermore, most fictional characters do some things the writers and actors who bring them to life haven't personally done or wouldn't do.

It's sad that someone is so prejudiced against consanguinamory that they project their prejudice onto nonexistent relationships between fictional characters. Who watched Bernard Hill's character in "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and couldn't accept him because they had seen his character in "Titanic?" Then, to actually bother to express to the world a personal unease or disgust over the situation is just... well, it is hurtful. That brings me to why I bring this up, in addition to the fact that actors need to make a living and do so playing different roles. There are actors, and there are audience members, who have had actual relationships with close relatives that include romance and sexual contact. Some of those relationships are ongoing. They face enough prejudice, often including discriminatory laws, without people going out of their way to basically say "Ewww, gross!" Not everyone is going to want the same love life as everyone else. Let's have a little more sensitivity for consanguiamorous people and reason and respect for actors.

"item"'>Actors get typecast, or some people identify an actor with one role so much that it interferes with appreciating that actor in a different roles. Amanda Dobbins wrote a piece I found at vulture.com titled "The Divergent–Fault in Our Stars Fake Incest Problem" in which she has trouble accepting casting choices because two actors who played sibling characters in a trilogy will be playing unrelated characters in another production who, at some point, are "making out."

We understand that these are made-up characters in a made-up movie and nothing untoward is actually happening, but still: This is a strange decision. Of all the possible teen actors (and there are so many, according to the fan blogs), why would you choose the one guy who is already playing your lead actress's brother in another high-profile YA franchise? It is hard enough to forget an actor's résumé under normal circumstances; now we have to bring fake incest into this?

My guess is that the people who made the casting decisions made them based on the needs of the the current production.

It makes all four (five, probably) movies ickier, for no obvious reason other than "we liked this guy, too."
Okay, icky is a bit immature.

Yes. It is.

Here's one of the better comments left by a reader...

spage6

John himself address this in a video. He said something along the lines of, 'You don't watch Silver Linings Playbook and wonder what Katniss is doing in a suburb of Philadelphia.' He also says they work well together. Probably because they already know each other. They are actors. They act!

Actors are playing roles, usually roles written by other people. This is why someone can play a soldier in one movie and conscientious objector in another movie. Furthermore, most fictional characters do some things the writers and actors who bring them to life haven't personally done or wouldn't do.

It's sad that someone is so prejudiced against consanguinamory that they project their prejudice onto nonexistent relationships between fictional characters. Who watched Bernard Hill's character in "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and couldn't accept him because they had seen his character in "Titanic?" Then, to actually bother to express to the world a personal unease or disgust over the situation is just... well, it is hurtful. That brings me to why I bring this up, in addition to the fact that actors need to make a living and do so playing different roles. There are actors, and there are audience members, who have had actual relationships with close relatives that include romance and sexual contact. Some of those relationships are ongoing. They face enough prejudice, often including discriminatory laws, without people going out of their way to basically say "Ewww, gross!" Not everyone is going to want the same love life as everyone else. Let's have a little more sensitivity for consanguiamorous people and reason and respect for actors.

Posted in: consanguineous,media,prejudice,stigma