Louise wrote:
Shane wrote:
But if you wrote a slash story featuring Steve McQueen's character from
The
Great Escape being raped and tortured by Nazi guards, and then drew
some
lurid artwork to accompany it, you would have to be using Steve
McQueen's
likeness, because he, after all, played the character (whatever his
name
was -- Hilt, Hicks, something). If Steve McQueen then found out about
the
artwork, and he then expressed to you that he found the pictures of
what
is
in effect identifiably him in such a situation grossly offensive, then
it
would be rather unkind of you to ignore his pleas and instead continue
to
produce and
distribute said offensive artwork.
Personally I agree. Explicit artwork crosses my particular boundary for what is acceptable, but that varies for individuals.
Attitudes as to what's acceptable may vary from person to person, but you still can't get away from the fact that if Actor X objects to such artwork featuring his likeness, and this is pointed out to the artist, then to ignore that protest is a very selfish and cynical thing to do.
The way you phrased your original statement sounded as if
you were saying some people might draw explicit art precisely _because_
it
annoys the actors they dislike
Yes, I believe that very possibly could be true. Why ignore their protests, otherwise?
and that's where we disagree.
Why do you disagree?
I don't think you can really separate actor and the characters they
play
(Usually for many actors, just a variation on the same theme) anyway, because, having never met Steve McQueen, we have no idea what he was
really
like; therefore all we have to go by is what we see of his screen work.
It's
interesting that neither you or I could recall the name of the
character
he
played in "The Great Escape," and that we refer to him as "Steve
McQueen's
character" rather than by name or as "the blond American one with the
nice
muscles."
Annoying, isn't it? :-) Yes, but it also makes my point.
Many people have stated in the past that on meeting a particular actor
they were
surprised by the fact that they were nothing at all like the character
they
played on screen. The fact is people will see the two as the same until more direct information (meeting the actor, say) comes about, and
even
after that, the two images will coexist in the minds of many people.
But why on earth should an actor be anything like the characters they
play?
Well, it depends on the actor in question. Roger Moore, for instance, is exactly the same in everything he appears in, and then when you see him in an interview, he's still exactly the same. A character actor like the late Patrick Troughton may look very different from one role to the next, but he is often still recognisable--and frankly unless you are drawing Patrick Troughton in a white wig, a false nose and a fake beard, he's still going to look like the actor Patrick Troughton. Ever been in a situation where you are watching TV and suddenly someone says, "Hey isn't that so and so out of thingamabob?" (and you say "shut up, I'm trying to watch this!" :-) )
I'm sure Gary Oldman is a good deal nicer in reality than most of his
roles
would imply :-)
True, but let me give you another example of what I mean. Gary Oldman (an exceptional actor) is totally unrecognisable in Hannibal--but then he is under a load of prosthetics. An actor who plays a Dalek isn't going to be recognised in the street, and people aren't going to think he's going to exterminate them. However, an actor who plays a hardman in EastEnders may very well be attacked in a pub. People often blur actors with the characters they play, moreso in some cases than others, it's true, but it does happen.
maybe I'm the odd one out for completely disassociating actor from
character.
I still find it hard to believe that the two can be dissociated. Cally will still look like Jan Chappel (even if she looks like Jan Chappel did in 1978 when wearing a Nylon tunic) no matter how you try and disassociate the two. The very fact that you said "Steve McQueen" played that guy in The Great Escape" proves my point, because the character was recognisable as having the likeness of Steve McQueen. Furthermore, we aren't just talking about yourself; other people also look at the same artwork, who may be less able than you to make the distinction.
I have a slash mentality - I read and write the stuff in other fandoms. Yet despite 10 years in B7 fandom, including an early exposure to the concept of slash (indeed my original exposure to
the
concept of slash), I just do not see slash relationships in B7, even with people giving me all those examples of why they think it is there.
Again, my point exactly. You accept that you do not see slash relationships in B7, but we've seen recently that sometimes people, for whatever reason, are capable of convincing themselves that slash relationships occur onscreen even. I'll give you another example. A friend of mine told me a sad story once.
His girlfriend bought a Martin Bower teleport bracelet from Horizon a few years back. My friend told her the bracelet was not accurate to the ones that appear in the series. She said, 'they are, they were made and designed by Bower in the programme, and they are made by Bower for Horizon: QED, they are accurate.' 'No they are not,' he said, 'the pink plastic bit is the wrong shape, and it's the wrong colour--on yours it's orange; the paint job is wrong as well; the colour is too light--it's sort of gold on yours, which again is wrong.'
She replied that he was wrong and she showed him a certificate of authenticity Bower had sent to her. 'Fair enough,' he said, 'but that just tells you that it is an authentic Bower product, not that it is accurate to the ones that appeared in the series.' She told him that she knew B7 and that to her mind they looked identical. So eventually they got out an episode and compared the on screen bracelets to the one she had. They were different in all the respects he had pointed out. 'Perhaps it's a third season one, then,' she said. They looked at a third season episode; the one she held in her hand was still inaccurate. Eventually they looked at 15 episodes, and on every occasion the one she had bought was different to the ones on screen. She had bought into the idea that the bracelet was accurate. But when confronted with the fact that it might not be, she fought very hard to make it _right_, but no matter how hard she fought, or how hard she wanted to believe, her faith in her bracelet could not change physical reality and make the two images fit. So yes, people do sometimes convince themselves that something is true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is.
Exposure
to slash hasn't altered my view of the characters in the slightest.
Good! :)
If the admirable Julia Jones can see this, and has a
no-explicit-artwork
policy for her slashzines, why doesn't Ashton Press do the same?
Answer:
They
don't give a toss what the actor feels. They have no respect at all for these people. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I am going to take
this
as read.
People's beliefs as to where the right to privacy starts and finishes
vary
wildly.
But again if the actor objects, then they have to take that objection into consideration. If they have, and still produce the artwork, then I am going to ask why they have decided to ignore this person's wishes.
If you can accept the religious objections to homosexuality, why
can't you accept the different standards that Ashton Press has from your own?
I don't accept the religious objections to homosexuality. I am an atheist. If a Christian tried to impose their beliefs on me I'd fight them. Similarly, however, I like B7; I am grateful to the actors, writers and directors of that programme for giving me so much viewing pleasure. If I see these people being abused by so called fans, then I am going to ask questions. If they don't answer, then I am going to draw my own conclusions.
Is it purely because of the less tactful way that Annie puts her case?
Annie never puts her case; she makes extreme and deliberately inflammatory statements. And whenever she argues a point she always twists the points being made by the other person. I think this is very suspicious behaviour. If she can't make a straight case then there are two possibilities, 1/ She hasn't got a case 2/ If she told us why she was doing it we would raise objections.
Shane
"Faith - defined as the capacity to believe what you know isn't true." --Blake
Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
-
Shane Little