#mlk also said

[terrorbirb]

The hr guy is printing covid denial stuff on the printer and it's annoying if only because all of the rest of the office are engineers who I actually know, due to discussions, are very on board with covid is real and we should get vaccinated.

[mossywizard]

Once again so grateful for my AP gov teacher who made us read all of Martin Luther King He’s letter from Birmingham Jail

“I have reached the regrettable conclusion that the [black people’s] great stumbling block in his stride to towards freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klan, but the white moderate, who’s more devoted to “order” than to Justice; who prefers negative peace which is the a sense of tension, to positive peace which is in the presence of Justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your direct action”: who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and constantly advices [black people] to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than abolish the misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

Emphasis by me

Thank you AP gov teacher you were scary but in the best way

[chronomally]

I'm attending an official corporate training program and they keep using the word "content" to refer to like. what they're going to be teaching us

[pragmatic-optimist]

Being a POC in fandom spaces is exhausting. It is a constant test of endurance (especially during a hiatus) and knowing how to curate your experience to find any reprieve. Even then, there is no guarantee something won't make its way through to burst your bubble with a reminder. It is knowing how to choose your battles when that bubble bursts because you don't want to be the person "always making it about race."

When you love something enough to engage in this space, you also know you'll be actively making a choice to continue engaging because there will be countless things said and/or shared in fandom that will make you question why you're still here. It is to know you will eventually be disappointed and that your expectation of it doesn't diminish how bad it feels when it happens. You work to shake it off, though, and ask yourself once more—stay or leave?

Being a POC in fandom spaces is exhausting and, often, discouraging af.

[silentlycrazy]

Just got a Prager U video as an ad on YouTube that was literally saying "blacks" don't have anything to complain about cuz if they had real civil rights issues we'd have a new Martin Luther King Jr and we don't so obviously "the blacks" aren't disenfranchised anymore.

Happy MLK day everyone -_-

[dyggot]

Okay but these people are obviously trolling. I know this is from 2015 "haha tumblr is sjw cringe" times but even by those standards no human would think this

[xoshepard]

a guy at target today was making small talk w me and i mentioned it being a holiday and he was like “is it a holiday??” and i was just like ruh roh this white man doesn’t know it’s MLK day i better just be vague so he doesn’t try to say anything else to me so i was like “uh yeah not everyone gets it off tho” and he went “oh i’m retired so idk” and i was like PHEW maybe he’s just retired and not racist dhskdhskdh

[iamjustalittlegayman]

being a teacher assistant is all fun and games until you get the most horrendous essay you’ve ever seen

[sobekc]

got to my dorm and immediately started cleaning cuz we left it absolutely nasty but now I feel slightly ok-er than yesterday

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA for writing a story where someone from 1944 is the main character, with all that entails?

I (M, white) had an idea for a story as of late. I have not written it yet but I plan to.

Basically, the plot (very summarized) is that a French soldier, J, falls through a weak point in time and space. This weak point connects a WWII battlefield in 1944 and a random meadow in Georgia in 2024, outside of Atlanta. He gets found by the other main character, M, and the story is about him teaching J about what life is like 80 yrs later.

In the story, J is a white cis man, and M is a Black/Korean trans man. Throughout the story, J unlearns biases that were put upon him by ignorance, and that includes racist, homophobic, and transphobic beliefs, among others. The point of this was to show that even a person brought directly from a very uneducated time even WITHOUT all the social movements of the 20th century can make the decision to change their ways. He and M even end up together by the end of it, as J realizes that so much of his self loathing came from internalized homophobia.

Anyway, that's the gist of it. Now for the actual conflict.

I have a friend (F, also white) whom I described the story to to get her thoughts on it. She said she was concerned that I was making my transgender character of color get with a racist, transphobic guy by the end. I tried to explain that it was BECAUSE of M that J gets put on the path to change, and that the man at the end is not the same man from the beginning. It got more heated as I tried harder and harder to explain the nuances of the story. I eventually asked her what ending SHE'D prefer, and she said she "would like it better if M beat the shit out of him, or if J got sent back to his own time and got shot."

I replied that that was a terrible idea, that there was nothing wrong with showing a character growing, and that she sounded super twitterbrained. She called me a nazi apologist and blocked me, and now she's lying to mutual friends and saying that I said that MLK deserved it (????????????). Fortunately none of them believe her after talking to me, so...

I know she's acting insane about the other shit, but it's starting to weigh on me. Should I change J's character so he's from sometime else? Or just scrap the story altogether? WIBTA for continuing it as planned?

[council-of-beetroot]

As we see an increase in antisemitism I have reflected on my experiences how many years ago being the token Jew in my eighth grade English class and I have found some aspects about it which lead me to believe are the parts that Holocaust Education in the U.S. goes wrong

Being taught in English Classes

Often such as in my state, the Holocaust is taught as part of English curriculum. English teachers aren't history teachers and they may be lacking in the skills or knowledge required to teach in the necessary depth to discuss the Holocaust.

My mother used to teach English but she had a history degree as well. She would lecture in class about everything leading up to and during WWII. I remember reading handouts she had in her classroom while I was waiting after school about the history of antisemitism. I didn't have any of this in my English class unit, because to put it simply most English teachers aren't my mother who also has the prior knowledge of how to teach history.

Additionally, as it is part of English, there is often more focus on Holocaust literature rather than the topic itself

This is where I think it gets extremely flawed if a person's primary knowledge of a historical period is Anne Frank or the incredibly inaccurate boy in the striped pajamas. A single account or work of complete fiction shouldn't be your main lens to view any topic whether it's the Holocaust, Slavery, Civil Rights movement etc.

You're in short blurring fact and fiction when discussing these things in the context of literature.

Sense of Finality

I feel like in my classes at least there was this idea that was kind of implied that hatred of Jews began and ended with Hitler and the Holocaust. I think this leads to misconceptions about antisemitism.

I feel this is a problem as I remember mistakenly getting that takeaway in school regarding civil rights in America. It was taught that Slavery was a problem, emancipation proclamation, MLK said I have a dream, and the civil rights act was passed and bam no inequality or racism. Later on, I fortunately learned this was flawed for many reasons. But not everyone does.

Not teaching about how the Holocaust happened

If you aren't given the knowledge of how centuries of hatred lead up to the Holocaust, I feel the main takeaway becomes that it was almost a random occurrence.

Many learn the Holocaust is bad without learning the signs of thinking that can lead neighbors to kill neighbors.

So many people don't have the basic facts such as Hitler being elected rather than assuming power.

I think when you learn of an atrocity of such scale without learning the human beliefs that brought about it, you have learned nothing.

I had a girl in my college uni class who was shocked when I said that antisemitism didn't begin and end with Hitler. I can see where she would get this idea if I at ten figured that racism ended with MLK.

Using Simulation

Slavery and the Holocaust should probably not be taught using roleplay. It usually goes poorly and you can find dozens of examples of how this goes wrong.

Sanitizing History

Exactly what it sounds like. But it's a major problem in general with history education in the US. I think we downplay westward expansion, and slavery in the us. When we downplay those it's easy to see how some begin to downplay the Holocaust.

We had a kid faint on the trip to the Holocaust memorial at some of the images. I think it was because they were inadequately prepared to see the horrors in image, my teacher didn't show any pictures in class.

Final notes

I don't blame teachers. Teacher's jobs fucking suck from what I've seen and many don't have the skills or resources or experience. I guess for now I think it's good to recognize those holes in our education and fill them ourselves through self education and life long learning

With the current political atmosphere of education of the unpleasant or difficult to discuss parts of history, i can only see things getting worse if we don't change anything. But like I said in the absence of a solid education which discusses these topics, it's important to educate ourselves and confront our lack of knowledge.

[freakenomenon]

and if i said despite the fact that ellen is my favorite in both canons her psychodrama is confusing with its tone, tone DEAF with its topics and genuinely a little hard to enjoy as a victim of sexual assault myself. it comes of as more SHOCK VALUE slop than it does an actual tasteful representation of assault victims. they treat her trigger more like a FEAR as if her confronting the EXACT EVENT would not.. make it much much worse? and the "panic attacks" seem. tacked on at best. don't even get me started on the elevator scene in general. listen the acting was great but i just don't think ALLAT was necessary at all.

it HURTS me physically to say this but even teds representation of assault is more digestible. because they don't slap you in the face with it every 5 fucking seconds. not to mention that it is implied that ellen was a prideful and somewhat ARROGANT person about her accomplishments. and even someone who is emotionally neglectful towards others AND herself. choosing to retreat and isolate herself or distract herself rather than to face a problem. having more experience with "algorithms" than with "social grace" ( again, tacked on at best as well. ) it seems like a much more interesting route to see how her outlook on her work as well as well as other people affected her relationships even OUTSIDE of romance. showing that ellen is in fact a FLAWED person just as everyone else is and did hurt people, but her actions are still not as heinous when compared to some of the others. she just wasn't an emotionally healthy person.

also im NOT saying that she CANT be a victim because it's "too heavy!" it's just that they also could've tried just a LITTLE bit to make her more of. a character. outside of her being a victim of sexual assault. like they did with TED. also hey coming from a black person ellen being called "privileged and self indulgent" because she didn't go to any MLK marches and didn't ride the bus REEKS and STINKS of racism and nobody ever wants to talk about that.

but that's genuinely all that i think i have to say, this has been the #1 ellen fan. im gonna go do my laundry now.

[wilwheaton]

”Why do racists always invoke MLK…?”

This is a comment from Reddit. I swear to god, it’s like the redditor who wrote this transcribed all the shit my racist, entitled, privileged, Boomer parents said my entire childhood. Like, word for word.

”Why do racists always invoke MLK…?”

First, you gotta understand their position, which is “Racism doesn’t exist anymore”.  Because black people aren’t lynched, because there are wealthy rappers and basketball players, and because there was a black president, racism doesn’t exist in the US anymore.  And this is especially important; when black people get upset about their lot in life, it is because they are lazy and want a handout rather than earning their way like white people do.  When a black guy is killed by cops, he was a criminal and deserved his fate.  When a black woman loses her access to food stamps, it is because she was taking advantage of the system.  When black people get into college, it is because they are given special privilege they didn’t earn.  And when black folks talk about reparations, it is because they want to punish innocent people so they can be handed their success rather than earn it.  

Because there is no racism, and anytime some white person is called a racist it is likely because they don’t support simply handing success and money over to people who haven’t earned it, and not at all because they act racist in any way.  And the term “racist” has become toxic in the US lately; people lose their jobs after being called racists unfairly.  Heck, one could suggest minorities call white folks “racist” in retaliation, knowing there will be social consequences which are completely unearned.  So to combat this unfair and, in their view inaccurate, narrative they employ a couple tactics;

1) “I’m not racist, you are for even suggesting it”.  Since racism is defacto non-existent, playing the race-card is introducing a factor that doesn’t belong.  When a black person calls a white person racist, they are not only lying, but specifically targeting someone based on their race and falsely labeling them something socially toxic with intent to cause harm.  And the white person is defacto innocent because they would see anyone as insert accusation here, not just black/brown/gay/muslim/female/handicapped/immigrant people.

2) “Black people don’t know how good they have it”.  Classic myopic delusion that assumes the complete lack of racism in the US also means any ongoing hurdles faced by black/brown/gay/women/etc people are their own fault.  The fears behind CRT are great examples of the struggle to maintain this delusion, and not have people delve too deeply into history and see how cause/effect resulted in the current socio-economic imbalance.  And since there are successes in the black community, that is proof that racism is over.  Black folks had a black president, now shut up and stop making waves.  There is an attempt to show that any calls of racism are not only unfounded, but examples of success in the black community disprove systemic racism; wouldn’t MLK be proud?  And not only proud of the success, but would side with the white folks who are now experiencing reverse-racism as the lazy black folks ask for more.  Racism, they think, is simply targeting another race purposefully, and has nothing to do with power imbalance.

3) “I earned my success, so black folks need to earn theirs”.  And this is the crux of it all; white folks today don’t believe they are in a position of privilege because they work hard and their success was difficult.  Many of them come from poor families, struggled to pay for college, don’t have a family history of slaver ownership.  They see any minorities complaining as trying to get privilege unearned.  They assume that, because there is no more racism, there is balance and parity among the races.  Illegal immigrants are trying to circumvent the law, reparations and affirmative-action programs are unearned handouts, and special months/parades celebrating a particular group/race is promoting racism by giving them special attention they don’t deserve.  Many white people see themselves as victims because they don’t receive any overt benefits from being white, meanwhile minorities are showered with unearned benefits all the time.  The Great Replacement Theory is constantly being reenforced for them as they watch society take the side of minorities anytime someone attempts to call out this apparent imbalance in their favor.

But underneath all of this is the undeniable knowledge that they are, indeed, racist.  Whether it is a jealousy, or a fear of socio-economic parity, or ethnocentricity, they know that society isn’t accepting overt racism anymore.  And because of this, they have to hold back, watch what they say, watch how they treat people.  “Make America Great Again” was a call to return to a time when casual racism was fun, and didn’t mean anything, and people weren’t so thin-skinned.  Being “Woke” is forcing people to take difficult looks at the fact racism still exists, which is uncomfortable and threatens to challenge the current socio-economic stability, so terms like “woke” are being dismantled, misused, redirected into something that seems illegitimate.  There is an active, desperate avoidance of acknowledging racism still exists, because admitting otherwise means admitting their world-view is wrong.   invoking MLK isn’t done out of malicious intent, but out of desperate denial of a world that doesn’t fit their assumptions.  Many, perhaps most, white folks in the US have no consciously ill will towards minorities, and would recoil in distaste at the notion of being considered racist.  And they will spend all day explaining why they are perfectly justified in accepting a racist position on a topic and how that doesn’t make them racist because the minorities in question are to blame.  Deflection.  Denial.  Dismissal.  And then vote to prevent change.

(Source)

[thelaurenshippen]

finally taking the time to read through the SAG agreement summary and oof, I hope they have an AI town hall soon because...well, there are things to discuss!

so, in case folks are curious, here are my immediate takeaways from the deal as a SAG actor, a SAG producer, and person who is not any kind of expert but spends a lot of time being skeptical of contracts I sign. this is a summation/commentary, not a holistic breakdown of every point, nor even an in-depth discussion of the points I do talk about. and it is, of course, in no way legal advice or voting advice.

this post is already maybe the longest post I've ever written on tumblr (lol) and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. to be clear, nothing I'm saying here represents how I'm going to vote, how I think other actors should vote, or my be-all-end-all stance on a particular issue. this is me reading through, flagging what concerns me, and asking myself questions. and I'm here to take your questions too! though of course my expertise is limited.

(what?? something I wrote got annoying long?? in my tumblr? it's more likely, etc. huge write-up after the cut)

the good

self-tape stuff: this is one of the more niche/the thing that the general public will find least interesting, but they've put in a lot of provisions to make sure self-tape auditions have limits (# of pages, no stunts, no nudity, doesn't have to be professionally shot, etc.) which is amazing because these types of auditions have gotten out of control since the pandemic. this feels like a great gain

data transparency: in no world did I think the streamers were ever going to agree to any data sharing with either the wga or sag so even though the data is limited, this still feels huge to me.

folks who sing and dance will be paid for both of those things now, which is great

they've added MLK day and Juneteenth as holidays (about time)

a performer cannot be required to translate their own lines

principal performers are required to be given hair and makeup consultation or reimbursed for obtaining their own services - this seems like a small thing, but it's being put in here pretty much entirely because HMU services have generally been appalling when it comes to textured hair/a variety of skin tones. there's also stuff in here about working to hire more diverse HMU artists

it looks like it's going to be easier/provide a path for folks getting IMDb credits even if they're not credited on screen

miscellany: there's a bunch of gains in wage increases, P&H increases, relocation fees, franchise language etc. that all seem good to me, though my limited knowledge on those subjects prevents me from going in depth on them.

this is not important, but it tickled me, there's a term to replace all instances of "telegraph" in the contract with "email & text" which like...why has it taken us thirty years to do that lol.

the "...hm..."

intimacy coordinators: oof. when I watched the press conference SAG gave, I was fucking thrilled when they said that the new agreement required folks to hire intimacy coordinators for nudity and simulated sex scenes. that was almost reason enough for me to vote for it tbh - not requiring it is the exact reason I voted no on our last contract. however, reading the contract summary now, the exact language is: "Producer must use best efforts to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for scenes involving nudity or simulated sex and will consider in good faith any request by a performer to engage an Intimacy Coordinator for other scenes. Producer shall not retaliate against a performer for requesting an Intimacy Coordinator." this....sucks. "best efforts" and "good faith" are not the same as "required". IMO, an intimacy coordinator is the same thing as having a stunt coordinator or, like, any number of health and safety requirements. OSHA doesn't say you must "in good faith" put your "best effort" to providing fire exits. it's great that performers can request coordinators for any kind of scene, and this is still the strongest language we've ever had in a contract but....c'mon guys.

residuals: look, I can't speak to these new terms in any concrete way. there are increases, there are bonuses for streaming success, there's a whole thing about a fund regarding those successes that I need explained to me more in depth, but overall, it looks like we made some in-roads here. as someone who employs actors under digital distribution contracts that has no residuals (podcasts), I know how genuinely cumbersome the unholy trifecta of "views-success-profit" can be (as in views do not equal success, success does not equal profit, etc.). I also have no sympathy when the majority of companies dealing with that cumbersome trifecta are massive media conglomerates. anyway, long story short, idk if this is good enough, I'm hoping to attend the next info meeting sag has.

the bad

the new hair/makeup provisions are explicitly for principal actors. while I hope it leads to better, more inclusive HMU services all around I haaaate that this implies supporting or background actors (who oftentimes also have to sit in HMU) don't deserve the consideration. (then again, background actors are usually required to do their own HMU/bring their own costumes, but for productions where that's not the case, the same HMU provisions should apply IMO)

as with every contract, there's language that could be stronger, clarity that needs to exist, and important things missing - but this isn't the final contract and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm gonna leave that stuff to the experts.

but, "lauren", you say, "what about all the AI stuff? where does that go?" well, reader, I was planning on including that in the above but it's the hot-button issue right now and I think it's wickedly complicated, so I wanted to break it down separately, after I had a chance to point out all the good-bad-in-between stuff that's not getting talked about.

a note: in my career, I've learned there's two big things to keep in mind when reading a contract you might sign:

what is the worst case interpretation of this language (thank you to my lawyer, prince among men, for teaching me how to do this in practice (that said, anything I say here is not legal advice, he'd also want me to say that lol))

what are you willing to lose/compromise on/what are the limits of your pragmatism? contracts are not about a company giving you everything you want out of the goodness of their heart - it is always a compromise. pragmatism has to be a part of the equation.

so, with that said, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here, and a) try to find the good/the pragmatic and b) catastrophize the worst case scenario. but first, it might be handy to look at this SAG infographic for some basic definitions. let's go.

the AI good

a ton of stuff here requires consent. that is not a small thing, and the consent continues even after your death (whether it was a yes or no; though this can be complicated by your estate/your union)

the language does establish that the consent must be a separate signing from the employment contract, even if its in the contract, which is great (but more on that below - timing matters)

actors often do get paid for use of their digital replicas, though it's different based on the use/type of replica.

the actor must be provided with a "reasonably specific description of the intended use". this language is vaguer than I would like, because it allows producers to decide what "reasonably specific" and "intended" means - there's always going to be some vagueness when it comes to this specific thing, but a good start would be for producers to require not blanket consent, but conditional consent for each significant use of digital replicas.

if the replicas are being used in other mediums, that must also be consented to, thank god.

replicas cannot be used in place of background actor counts on a given day - if I'm understanding this correctly, this means a production can't just have a bunch of fake background actors by themselves, they have to engage real people up to a certain number first (which in this new contract is 25 for TV and 85 for movies). we're already filling in background with digital people or copy-pasting of the same crowd over and over and have been doing so since at least the late 90s, so it's good we're continuing to put up boundaries around that.

the AI "...hm..."

it's unclear (to me) when an actor can be asked to consent. IMO, everything is meaningless if the consent is happening as part of regular contract negotiations. these things have to happen when - and only when - the actor has already been engaged in a role and feels empowered to say no

the use of independently created replicas (replicas pulled from existing footage, not created by the actor) being allowed without consent under first amendment reasoning - this is obviously concerning a lot of people bc first amendment arguments are so broad. that said, there's a pragmatism part of me that understands this is already happening/has been happening for a while and used in ways I think are perfectly fine - I was just watching the new episode of For All Mankind (one of the best TV shows right now!) and it's an alternate history, which meant that in the opening scenes of this season they had some bonkers good deep fakes of Al Gore saying stuff he never said. I think that's okay to do in a fiction show that imagines a different US history! "but Lauren", you might be saying, "Al Gore isn't a member of SAG!" are you sure? are you positive? because I'm pretty certain he is - he was in several episodes of 30 Rock, way more people are in SAG than you think (every NPR reporter for instance), and the two worst presidents we've had in the last 50 years (yes, those ones), are both definitely members of SAG (even if one is dead). now, the other side of this is that public figures like politicians are under a different social contract than actors, and if they wanted to sue, they could, unlike the average SAG actor who might have their image abused. this is why this is in the "hm" column - deep fakes and parody/satire/commentary use of replicas is already here and there's always going to be a 1st amendment argument to make, so we need to figure out how best to limit those and protect the most vulnerable.

alteration: with this language, a project can digitally alter without consent if the script and performance stays "substantially" the same. again, this language is too mealy-mouthed. I don't know that I have a huge problem with a line of dialogue getting replaced with a digital version of that actors voice if, for instance, a word was mispronounced, or wind garbled the sound or whatever - yes, it would eliminate the need for ADR, but if we put some limit on it like..."if there are more than 5 lines in a given episode/movie that require digital alteration in the service of clarity, the actor must be engaged for an ADR session or paid for the digital replacement" then I could see this being workable. I'm also personally okay with things like costumes being digitally altered but, again, we need limitations on that. digital altering cannot replace the art of costuming but, for instance, if a costume needs to be altered to include a hate symbol or something, I think that's fine (example: I have friends who worked at the VFX house for an alternate history TV show that involved a lot of Nazi costuming and set design - a huge part of that VFX house's job was to put swastikas in places, rather than props making nazi flags. I'm okay with that!) but again, these fringe cases do not a compelling arugment make, and this contract language can be interpreted too broadly for my comfort! like everything else in this "hm" category, I need to see the final contract language to decide.

the AI bad

there's a bunch of circumstances in which actors don't get paid for creating their replica/use of it and those circumstances are too broad for my taste.

synthetic performers - this is just awful. no. no, we should not be allowing AI to generate entire actors. just............no. there's some language about the producers having to talk to the union if the synthetic performer is "used in place of a performer who would have been engaged under this Agreement in a human role" but this doesn't apply to non-human characters so....wouldn't that be all roles?? leaving the producers room to be like "this role has to be synthetic, we never would've cast a human!" is bullshit. also, even if we're having AI create a magical talking unicorn whole cloth (which, like, also no, we have artists for this), that unicorn still needs to be voiced by a human person. this whole section is a disaster.

the exceptions to consent for digital alteration are bad-bad. I talked about the potential ADR replacement above and that has a whole host of issues with it that I didn't even get into, but I can see the argument. the rest are very troubling:

there is an exception under "any circumstance when dubbing or use of a double is permitted under the Codified Basic Agreement or Television Agreement" - okay, so does this mean we can replace dubbing artists and stunt performers entirely? this section is about digital alteration, but who's to say alteration couldn't turn an actor broadly miming a fight into an entirely digital, expertly performed fight that usually a stunt double would have done? with AI translation technology, does this mean we're replacing VO artists for dubs entirely? bad!

similarly, "Adjusting lip and/or other facial or body movement and/or the voice of the performer to a foreign language, or for purposes of changes to dialogue or photography necessary for license or sale to a particular market" - Justine Bateman has a great twitter thread on the terrible puppetry potential of this but I want to draw attention to the particular market bit - we all know that selling to china is such a huge part of studios' strategies that they'll remove entire scenes or lines around queer stuff. to me, this clause makes all of that so much easier. I know the argument here is going to be "we can replace swear words and license it for kids!" which.......sure? fine? but, uh, we already have ways to deal with that? and the potential for abuse here is terrifying to me. with all the digital alteration stuff too, there's just so much icky implication for the beauty/body standard to get so much worse.

if a background actor’s digital replica is used in the role of a principal performer, they'll be paid as if they actually performed the days for that role, which, sure, but uhhhh why are we saying it's okay for a digital replica of a background actor to suddenly be a leading role!?!?! I can't think of anything more demoralizing than going to set to act in background (a job I've done! an important job! a fun job a lot of the time! but creatively limited) and then getting a much bigger role (the dream!) and.....not being able to, you know, act that role or be in scenes with other principal actors or do the thing that you've dedicated your life to doing. nightmare stuff.

woof. there's so much more to say but I'm going to leave it there. these are the concerns I'm going to go into SAG's meetings with, and the concerns I'll be considering as I decide how to vote. I know there are things I didn't address and very possibly things I misinterpreted or misrepresented - if you're an actor, I highly recommend a) reading that Justine Bateman thread and b) attending SAG's meetings to ask questions and express your concerns. and I'd love to hear what y'all think! my ask box is open.

[hotvintagepoll]

Gregory Peck is not only a certified hunk of a man but a great actor and a genuinely good person.

He starred in the film version of the novel Gentleman’s Agreement which was “Hollywood’s first major attack on anti-semitism” which features Peck as a magazine writer who pretends to be Jewish so he can experience personally the hostility of bigots and then calls out and exposes antisemitism and this film was made in 1947 like only two years after the end of World War II so historically an important film(I love this film and think its underated like its great and like Greg looks amazing as he rails against bigots). I could make an argument, and I have honeslty thought about writing a paper on it, that a majority of his films tackle some important issue whether it be antisemitism (Gentleman’s Agreement), racism (To Kill a Monckingbird), nuclear war (On the Beach), post-war discontent and PTSD (The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit), the futility of war (Pork Chop Hill) etc.

His daughter Cecilia said “ My father was a champion of stories that needed to be told, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Gentleman’s Agreement, and On the Beach. He was not afraid of films that championed diversity, equality, and tolerance. He was deeply intelligent, and also very funny in real life.”

He was against the House Un-American Activities Committee and their investigation of “alleged communists” in the film industry and signed a letter deploring their actions in 1947. He was outspoken against the Vietnam War, while at the same time supportive of his son who was fighting there. He produced the film version of the play The Trial of the Catonsville Nine about the prosecution of a group of Vietnam protestors for civil disobedience. Peck said “I decided to make the film because the play confirmed my thinking that the Vietnam War [was] an abomination.” His outspoken-ness against the Vietnam war and general political activism put him on Nixon’s “enemies list” (honestly what an icon).

He was a vocal supporter of a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons and was a lifelong advocate for gun control.

He and his wife Veronique often hosted dinners at their home in support of the arts and humanitatian or social justice causes. His daughter

He was Catholic but took a pro-choice stance on abortion and supported gay rights.

He was the president of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (1967-1970) and postponed the awards following the assasination of MLK.

He was honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969 for his lifetime humanitarian efforts and he also won the Jean Hersolt Humanitarian Award.

He didnt just play the handsome hero on the big screen he was one in real life.

Now some photos of him looking good:

Gregory Peck vs Paul Robeson