Culture Is Acting Unethical?

OP

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
I've started to wonder about something which seems stupid but probably isn't: is acting an ethical profession? That is to say, is acting immoral as a profession?

As someone who has been deeply interested in film for at least 10 years, I've taken it for granted that actors and actresses are thoroughly awful people. They're flakes, that they seem to have a high rate of emotional problems, that their personal attachments are notoriously unstable, and that they are typically liberal to the point of complete sociopathic depravity.

The novice Hollywood observer might ask, is a particular actor/actress gay? But the more experienced observer understands that "straight" and "gay" are barely meaningful designations in Hollywood. Actors and actresses are narcissists and will usually fuck anything. They are, to coin a term, narcisexual.

Working backward from what actors are, you realize that this is what's required of acting as a profession. Because the acting profession consists entirely of believably lying, showing people a reaction that isn't real. Manipulating other people to have a strong emotional reaction to the lies you are telling. Well, I've just described the narcissist playbook, and if that isn't enough, actors like narcissists crave validation and praise and are deeply wounded by criticism.

If success in some profession demands a person be mentally unwell, then whether it rewards him or not (and usually it does not), it is exploitative. This raises the obvious question of our culpability. We demand talented (i.e. severely unwell) actors/actresses to provide us with escapism, catharsis, stimulation— the more the better, we'll consoom it all. Actors become for us emotional totems.

We say art can "elevate" humanity, but what does that really mean? Get us high? Flatter us? Make us restless for something unattainable? One can readily see the elevation in religion, which causes us to transcend the self, but that isn't quite what's going on with art, is it? Art is not connecting us to each other, it is not humbling us— indeed, it seems to do the opposite. Am I wrong here?

Our best actions are those that provide something for others, because in doing so they integrate us into a larger whole and--selfishly speaking--thereby confer on us a kind of immortality. It is easy to say that acting-as-art provides us with a reward, but is it a social or a selfish reward? Are we exploiting others in our appreciation?

To complicate this question, in the modern era art is actually, deliberately used to manipulate us. It presents the world falsely, not only to amuse but to propagandize. The actors and actresses are complicit in this. Why do we accept this as normal?

Actors and their professional overseers (directors, screenwriters, producers) are engaged in a type of fraud, and I think that uneasiness about/disapproval of the nature of their project is a healthy impulse. To categorically endorse the acting as a moral profession, someone would have to think "entertainment" had much greater spiritual significance in its own right than I believe it has.

A film can take you on an emotional journey, it can provide amusement, distraction, catharsis, or whatever. Sure. But it can't do so without taking you to places that you'd find unacceptably voyeuristic if, say, your neighbor went about finding them in some other way. A person who peeks in windows (whether bedroom windows or windows into the common rooms, where conversations can still be overheard) is a creep. A person who contrived a way to make themselves invisible and walk around real war zones or crime scenes to gawk would be recognized as a misanthrope. Normal people would respond to both of these (hypothetical) peoples' insistences that "I wasn't hurting anyone" with a recognition that, while this is basically true, it's a bit beside the point; something inherently perverse is being revealed. Film and theater simulate the kinds of experiences we imagine we could have if we were all-knowing and had perfect, anonymous access to the best and worst of the real world. (This is why we praise "versimilitude" above all; we know we're being tricked, but we want to be oblivious to this fact, except on our own terms, because it interrupts our fantasy.)

The problem is the way that entertainment has gradually become a sinister, corporate product. We are not only viewing it, it is viewing us, and it wants us to embrace the dictates of consumerism— so that is what it propagandizes. It is also, as with everything in mass society, removed from the influence of one's physical community, and in effect smothers the development of local cultures.

This definitively answers the biggest never-satisfactorily-answered question on the Right: why is the entertainment industry so liberal? The obvious answer is: because it is separated from physical community. It explains why, in place of a conservative or right wing presence, there is only a smattering of libertarian types— aka liberals who just object to left-wing identity politics and perhaps have conservative lifestyle sympathies. Scan any list of "conservative actors in Hollywood" and this is what you invariably find.

A local playwright could never make a living defaming and denouncing everyone in his community, but a Hollywood creative can and does defame and denounce millions of people in order to advance the media party line. One of the occasionally noticed aspects of mass society is that, by facilitating consolidation of "extreme interests," it frees people from having to abide by the norms of local communities. It advances momentum toward individualism and away from interdependence. This is an obviously liberating phenomenon, and as social cohesion decreases it becomes more and more attractive to people because it promises to replace missing social bonds with self-affirmation and a "community of consumption" or "community of perversion."

My speculation here is part of a larger effort to rethink what our orientation should be vis-a-vis society. This starts at the idea of mass society, consolidation, and separation of work from that which produces something for those one is physically related to and that which simply facilitates the massive consolidation efforts of corporate business.

We know what the claims are as to what entertainment provides, but are they really true, are they only true in particular circumstances, and do they meaningfully support physical connectedness? But also we should question what the current structure of the entertainment business does to local forms of expression and local development of culture.

Rest assured, libertarian friends: while I believe that our culture's current relationship with entertainment of all sorts— especially the film/tv/stage triad— are deeply flawed, I don't support any ban or direct suppression of these types of activities. These exist because there's a market for them, and they always have. If we banned professional acting, we wouldn't see it end. We would see prostitutes take it back up, as they have previously when it was suppressed/approbated. Better just to stigmatize and perhaps advocate for the censorship of the worst examples, limit or eliminate one's own intake of film, and turn attention elsewhere.

It's not even about money, it's about attention. Actors and actresses prostitute themselves for money under the current arrangement, but a class of people could be found who'd do perform in movies for virtually free if it made them famous. Fame and notoriety are the coins of this realm, not money. These are people with disordered attentions who communicate disorders of attention to those who give them attention for prolonged periods of time. And attention is the realest, most finite currency. You can make more money. You can't take back attention you have already given. Once it's gone it's gone.

Being narcissists, actors and actresses thrive on attention even more than money. And no longer giving them any is free!
 
Addendum

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
ADDENDUM: Professions that are ethical do not inherently involve or lead to violations of ethical/moral standards. Usually they involve production of goods and services which there is a practical need for— a doctor, teacher, builder, cook, electrician, etc.

The question arises about actors (and other creatives) because their work involves emotional manipulation. Is producing emotional reactions in this way a form of mind control? Is this a normal vulnerability in the way our minds work? The catharsis is what we value in art, but does it come at the cost of allowing this mind control to distort how we see the world?

Whether lawyers, salesmen, journalists, and politicians also distort reality and engage in a form of mind control is not relevant to the main question (most people would agree that they do, hence these occupations share a low reputation with acting).

The question of whether we "have to put up with" such people is also beside the point. We have to put up with drug addicts and prostitutes, too. But hopefully you don't encourage your daughter to become a prostitute, or your son to become addicted to heroin. Why proudly pursue acting, when it seems to involve a little of both?

I doubt watching a good actor makes us better people in any way. More likely he makes us less critical about the world around us. This is part of the mind control. More to the point, there's no argument with being manipulated into feeling something. What makes you think that the effect of watching an actor manipulate you has ever improved you in any meaningful way? Perhaps it made you feel "good," or allowed you to make use of a hanky, but this looks to me much like the effect of a stimulant drug, because it is based on nothing real in experience. It is not like feeling the love of a parent, or bestowing love on a friend, or performing a charitable action, or serving a productive purpose. It is the empty "goodness" of vicariously experiencing a fantasy. Sure, watching a well-made film can make you feel good. But so can a glass of beer. Perhaps we get a little too much of this kind of good feeling.

No matter how good this entertainment makes you feel, if it is destroying the things around you, shouldn't you notice that and do something about it?
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
One thing you point out seems sort of the root, its them trying to use "art" to essentially change society or control it

They also know about the concept of Underdogs

They make use of this conflict by constantly giving a sort of show or use of this thing called an individual/small-group VS "society" narrative wherein the majority of people or the ruling class or government or majority culture is horribly oppressive towards groups who are the following: female, LGBT, non-white, non-Christian offshoot, Socialist/Communists

It paints them all as being underdogs, makes people think THAT is how the world works and how they have to essentially keep on "fighting back"

I think some of those celebrities have more-or-less even fallen for their own bullshit, they believe that they're revolutionaries who are making a difference in the world and want to be seen doing so and praised for it even more

If they just outright go "I just want to make money, be famous and act really well" then they will look "uninspiring" at best and "assholes" at worst

It's NOT enough to be famous for your roles, you have to be famous for the image you present to the public
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I've started to wonder about something which seems stupid but probably isn't: is acting an ethical profession? That is to say, is acting immoral as a profession?

As someone who has been deeply interested in film for at least 10 years, I've taken it for granted that actors and actresses are thoroughly awful people. They're flakes, that they seem to have a high rate of emotional problems, that their personal attachments are notoriously unstable, and that they are typically liberal to the point of complete sociopathic depravity.

The novice Hollywood observer might ask, is a particular actor/actress gay? But the more experienced observer understands that "straight" and "gay" are barely meaningful designations in Hollywood. Actors and actresses are narcissists and will usually fuck anything. They are, to coin a term, narcisexual.

Working backward from what actors are, you realize that this is what's required of acting as a profession. Because the acting profession consists entirely of believably lying, showing people a reaction that isn't real. Manipulating other people to have a strong emotional reaction to the lies you are telling. Well, I've just described the narcissist playbook, and if that isn't enough, actors like narcissists crave validation and praise and are deeply wounded by criticism.

If success in some profession demands a person be mentally unwell, then whether it rewards him or not (and usually it does not), it is exploitative. This raises the obvious question of our culpability. We demand talented (i.e. severely unwell) actors/actresses to provide us with escapism, catharsis, stimulation— the more the better, we'll consoom it all. Actors become for us emotional totems.

We say art can "elevate" humanity, but what does that really mean? Get us high? Flatter us? Make us restless for something unattainable? One can readily see the elevation in religion, which causes us to transcend the self, but that isn't quite what's going on with art, is it? Art is not connecting us to each other, it is not humbling us— indeed, it seems to do the opposite. Am I wrong here?

Our best actions are those that provide something for others, because in doing so they integrate us into a larger whole and--selfishly speaking--thereby confer on us a kind of immortality. It is easy to say that acting-as-art provides us with a reward, but is it a social or a selfish reward? Are we exploiting others in our appreciation?

To complicate this question, in the modern era art is actually, deliberately used to manipulate us. It presents the world falsely, not only to amuse but to propagandize. The actors and actresses are complicit in this. Why do we accept this as normal?

Actors and their professional overseers (directors, screenwriters, producers) are engaged in a type of fraud, and I think that uneasiness about/disapproval of the nature of their project is a healthy impulse. To categorically endorse the acting as a moral profession, someone would have to think "entertainment" had much greater spiritual significance in its own right than I believe it has.

A film can take you on an emotional journey, it can provide amusement, distraction, catharsis, or whatever. Sure. But it can't do so without taking you to places that you'd find unacceptably voyeuristic if, say, your neighbor went about finding them in some other way. A person who peeks in windows (whether bedroom windows or windows into the common rooms, where conversations can still be overheard) is a creep. A person who contrived a way to make themselves invisible and walk around real war zones or crime scenes to gawk would be recognized as a misanthrope. Normal people would respond to both of these (hypothetical) peoples' insistences that "I wasn't hurting anyone" with a recognition that, while this is basically true, it's a bit beside the point; something inherently perverse is being revealed. Film and theater simulate the kinds of experiences we imagine we could have if we were all-knowing and had perfect, anonymous access to the best and worst of the real world. (This is why we praise "versimilitude" above all; we know we're being tricked, but we want to be oblivious to this fact, except on our own terms, because it interrupts our fantasy.)

The problem is the way that entertainment has gradually become a sinister, corporate product. We are not only viewing it, it is viewing us, and it wants us to embrace the dictates of consumerism— so that is what it propagandizes. It is also, as with everything in mass society, removed from the influence of one's physical community, and in effect smothers the development of local cultures.

This definitively answers the biggest never-satisfactorily-answered question on the Right: why is the entertainment industry so liberal? The obvious answer is: because it is separated from physical community. It explains why, in place of a conservative or right wing presence, there is only a smattering of libertarian types— aka liberals who just object to left-wing identity politics and perhaps have conservative lifestyle sympathies. Scan any list of "conservative actors in Hollywood" and this is what you invariably find.

A local playwright could never make a living defaming and denouncing everyone in his community, but a Hollywood creative can and does defame and denounce millions of people in order to advance the media party line. One of the occasionally noticed aspects of mass society is that, by facilitating consolidation of "extreme interests," it frees people from having to abide by the norms of local communities. It advances momentum toward individualism and away from interdependence. This is an obviously liberating phenomenon, and as social cohesion decreases it becomes more and more attractive to people because it promises to replace missing social bonds with self-affirmation and a "community of consumption" or "community of perversion."

My speculation here is part of a larger effort to rethink what our orientation should be vis-a-vis society. This starts at the idea of mass society, consolidation, and separation of work from that which produces something for those one is physically related to and that which simply facilitates the massive consolidation efforts of corporate business.

We know what the claims are as to what entertainment provides, but are they really true, are they only true in particular circumstances, and do they meaningfully support physical connectedness? But also we should question what the current structure of the entertainment business does to local forms of expression and local development of culture.

Rest assured, libertarian friends: while I believe that our culture's current relationship with entertainment of all sorts— especially the film/tv/stage triad— are deeply flawed, I don't support any ban or direct suppression of these types of activities. These exist because there's a market for them, and they always have. If we banned professional acting, we wouldn't see it end. We would see prostitutes take it back up, as they have previously when it was suppressed/approbated. Better just to stigmatize and perhaps advocate for the censorship of the worst examples, limit or eliminate one's own intake of film, and turn attention elsewhere.

It's not even about money, it's about attention. Actors and actresses prostitute themselves for money under the current arrangement, but a class of people could be found who'd do perform in movies for virtually free if it made them famous. Fame and notoriety are the coins of this realm, not money. These are people with disordered attentions who communicate disorders of attention to those who give them attention for prolonged periods of time. And attention is the realest, most finite currency. You can make more money. You can't take back attention you have already given. Once it's gone it's gone.

Being narcissists, actors and actresses thrive on attention even more than money. And no longer giving them any is free!
If I recall correctly, in the past there was actually a huge question in Europe about whether writing fiction was sinful, but I forget when. Basically, writing fiction itself is lying, and lying was sinful. Further, written fiction does much of the same things you accuse film of doing (emotional manipulation).

But if we accept that lying and emotional manipulation can be ethical (and I get that's a jump), then we want to know if this type of lying/emotional manipulation is ethical? You point out what they are doing is a type of fraud, and you're kinda right, but the important part of this 'fraud' is that both sides consented to the fraud. Basically, if I go to a horror movie, or if I read a Stephen King novel, I know ahead of time that I'm going to be scared. I am knowingly signing up for that feeling. The crucial difference between an actor/writer and a salesman is that the actor is manipulating for your own benefit (you did agree to go), not to take advantage of you. Similarly, the creators of the fictional work know that they are intending to scare me.

The other part of acting/writing is that, at its height, it can convey truths about the world or human condition that aren't as easily grasped. For example, Schindler's List made the horrors of the holocaust all the more obvious and horrifying for generations to come, helping ensure that we remember the evil that happened, and don't repeat it. Animal Farm was a potent warning about the horrors of communism, that really needed to be a fictional work.

Finally, as to your complaint about Hollywood being liberal, I don't think that's really accurate. Instead, Hollywood presents a distorted mirror to America's culture, because it needs to produce what America wants to see in order to make money. It's a little slow on the uptake. Currently, it seems to be reacting to the runaway success of Black Panther by thinking Woke films sell.
 
Last edited:

SergeantBrother

Notorious Member
I don't believe that acting, or writing fiction for that matter, is inherently immoral. It does involve influencing people's emotions, but that can very often be done for the most noble of purposes, sometimes even to help the person whose emotions are being influenced. People, in fact, want their emotions to be influenced when they see a movie or read a book, that is what they are paying for. There is no deceit involved, or there doesn't have to be.

In practice, yes, acting can involve deceit and modern Hollywood is a hive of scum and villainy - both in practice and ideologically - but I see no reason why it has to be.

In my opinion, the greatest art - including acting and writing - is great because it in some way expresses truth and morality even if it does so through fiction. Lord of the Rings is great, even though there are no such things as elves and Aragorn isn't a real person. Ian McKellan is not in fact a wizard. Despite that, it still contains many powerful truths about human nature and about morality - courage, friendship, sacrifice, temptation, community. It is the truth and the virtue within fiction that makes it pleasing to us. Which might be a reason why so many things suck these days, because the people in charge of our entertainment aren't really big on truth or virtue.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
because the people in charge of our entertainment aren't really big on truth or virtue.

Thing is, I think the guys in entertainment think they ARE presenting truth and virtue, just so happens to involve portraying society as extremely bigoted and helping justify accusations directed at guys not agreeing with WOKE agendas

As Abhorsen said, they will eventually catch up, they may do episodes like admitting that MTF beating non-trans women isn't so fair to begin with
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
I think a lot of comes from the fact, that theatre and acting has historically attracted people who are already sympathetic to liberal causes and ideas.

A very good actor like say Patrick Stewart-he can inhabit other people through acting, he "becomes them", in a convincing manner. That's what makes a truly talented actor-someone who can convincingly become someone else for a few hours.

That talent in and of itself is attractive to people who are not especially sympathetic to "rigid" or "staid" roles.

Why is the assumption that men in theatre were "fruitcakes"-aka gay? Probably because the men who were really good actors were already the very emotional and effeminate type and thus more likely to be homosexual or in that vein.

As for modern actors-Carl has a good point in that a lot of them I think really do believe they are changing the world or on some fight against inequality, environmental degradation, persecution of the sexually deviant and so on.

Think about it-your a Hollywood Star or Starlet, you make lots of money, are in the cameras all the time, and have 10 million twitter followers. That's all well and good-but your going to get the nagging sensation of "what I am doing that is really productive, how am I helping people?, I'm just reading lines on a script, what am I using my wealth and status for, am I wasting my life?". Liberal activism becomes a salve on their conscience-its a way for them to think they are doing something "physical" by that something that leaves lasting or true impact on the real world(that is the realm of the physical-not say a particularly memorable movie). As said, traditional religion is probably not going to appeal to actors-both due to the fact of what actors are asked to do on screen, and yes because its basically paid lying. Though I don't think modern Christianity sees it that way officially anymore. And due to the fact, that usually people who are good at acting(and the arts in general) are not the kind to meekly submit to religious dictates either on their personal lifestyles or creative endeavors.

There's also social pressure to consider. No one in Hollywood today is going to come out and say "I support traditional marriage, homosexuality is degenerate". And hope to have much chance of a career after that, and they will face the ostracism of their peers, superiors, and former fans. I suppose if you were on the verge of retirement, or otherwise going to permanently leave-but still, social pressure is extremely strong, especially for extroverts which actors tend to be.
 

SergeantBrother

Notorious Member
Thing is, I think the guys in entertainment think they ARE presenting truth and virtue, just so happens to involve portraying society as extremely bigoted and helping justify accusations directed at guys not agreeing with WOKE agendas
Maybe they think that they are presenting truth and virtue when they push a leftist agenda in their movies, even if they often lie to do so. Maybe they think that they are lying for serve some greater truth.

Do Hollywood big shots think that they are acting virtuous when they molest child actors or demand sex in order to give young actresses a role? Was Roman Polanski fighting for equal rights when he drugged and raped a 14 year old girl? How about all of those directors, producers, and actors who stood in support of Roman Polanski or knew what Weinstein was doing for decades and aided and abetted him? Hollywood isn't just leftist, they are disproportionately immoral, though I suspect that the correlation is more than a coincidence.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Maybe they think that they are presenting truth and virtue when they push a leftist agenda in their movies, even if they often lie to do so. Maybe they think that they are lying for serve some greater truth.

Do Hollywood big shots think that they are acting virtuous when they molest child actors or demand sex in order to give young actresses a role? Was Roman Polanski fighting for equal rights when he drugged and raped a 14 year old girl? How about all of those directors, producers, and actors who stood in support of Roman Polanski or knew what Weinstein was doing for decades and aided and abetted him? Hollywood isn't just leftist, they are disproportionately immoral, though I suspect that the correlation is more than a coincidence.

They're insane at the same time not, they are horribly aware of many crimes and engage in them

Either actors or their agents started rolling this wheel when they decided they'd get lots of PR by standing for the "oppressed" liberal-communist types
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Do Hollywood big shots think that they are acting virtuous when they molest child actors or demand sex in order to give young actresses a role? Was Roman Polanski fighting for equal rights when he drugged and raped a 14 year old girl? How about all of those directors, producers, and actors who stood in support of Roman Polanski or knew what Weinstein was doing for decades and aided and abetted him? Hollywood isn't just leftist, they are disproportionately immoral, though I suspect that the correlation is more than a coincidence.
This isn't something unique to Hollywood, but instead endemic in systems where the members value the organization over the individual. This includes Hollywood, the Catholic Church, the Military, etc. The reason why it broke open in Hollywood is that Hollywood is a comparatively weak organization, one that only really inspires loyalty out of personal gain. People didn't report rapes not because of fear of some higher power, but because they wouldn't be employed. In contrast, the Catholic Church had the threat of damnation on its side, and the Military indoctrinates people to obey authority and to kill (don't take this as a moral condemnation, it needs to or it wouldn't function).

The thing is, Hollywood is downstream and to the left of culture. While the rest of the US gets woke to 'wokeness', Hollywood is still chasing feminist films that it thinks will sell. This is partially because it takes years for films to get from writing to the Big Screen, and also partially from institutional inertia.

Basically, with the culture, Hollywood isn't the problem, it's a symptom. We give them way to much credit.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
There are actions that are considered unethical because they are harmful, and there are also actions that are considered unethical because they are degrading. It is in the latter case that acting is categorized along side prostitution.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
There are actions that are considered unethical because they are harmful, and there are also actions that are considered unethical because they are degrading. It is in the latter case that acting is categorized along side prostitution.

I honestly think the worst part of acting isn't acting itself, but the fact that actors have to attach so much of a sense of "importance" to themselves and their work

As I said before, you don't just have to be really good at acting, you need a reputation OUTSIDE acting

You need to pretend to be all about the environment, all about LGBT, all about Islam, all about "equality", you need to pretend to be a SAINT

You also need "connections" apparently....so you have to be those stuff related to the current modern Far Left and possibly be going to "parties" with your fellow celebrities who are doing all sorts of depraved shit behind people's backs

You can't just go back home and sorta be an ordinary person, you have to be a negative sort of ultra-socialized, everything you do has to actively involve other people on purpose

The depraved psychopathic narcissism may or may not be a personality trait developed as a side effect

Honestly, actors may actually be WORSE than whores, the latter may not develop a huge level of depraved psychopathic narcissism and mostly be doing this to survive

Unless, perhaps actors aren't as in charge of their public personality and decisions as you'd think
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I honestly think the worst part of acting isn't acting itself, but the fact that actors have to attach so much of a sense of "importance" to themselves and their work
But they can't attach importance to their work by themselves. It's other people that validate this work by purchasing it and funding it. I don't see why you are blaming them for being successful.

You need to pretend to be all about the environment, all about LGBT, all about Islam, all about "equality", you need to pretend to be a SAINT

You also need "connections" apparently....so you have to be those stuff related to the current modern Far Left and possibly be going to "parties" with your fellow celebrities who are doing all sorts of depraved shit behind people's backs
All of this only applies to Hollywood, not acting as a profession.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
But they can't attach importance to their work by themselves. It's other people that validate this work by purchasing it and funding it. I don't see why you are blaming them for being successful.

Not what I meant, they probably feel that they have to be appreciated NOT for their real good acting and roles, but for what they do outside it via pretending to be saints or pretending to 'care"

All of this only applies to Hollywood, not acting as a profession.

Okay, though perhaps it may or may not stretch to big show business even outside of Hollywood
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Not what I meant, they probably feel that they have to be appreciated NOT for their real good acting and roles, but for what they do outside it via pretending to be saints or pretending to 'care"
But then that's not a critique of acting as a profession, but what a category of actors do when not acting.

Okay, though perhaps it may or may not stretch to big show business even outside of Hollywood
Does it apply to Bollywood though? The question is whether acting is immoral, not Hollywood.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
But then that's not a critique of acting as a profession, but what a category of actors do when not acting.

Does it apply to Bollywood though? The question is whether acting is immoral, not Hollywood.

Okay, not sure about Bollywood but I wouldn’t be surprised if entertainment media of other countries all have people doing some really shady shit

Honestly, for me acting is NOT immoral, it’s just that an entire category as you say has been more or less taken over or developed a really horrible subculture of sorts
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
With increasingly advanced technologies and perhaps less reliance on big companies or rich areas

I think these cliques that form around entertainment media creation will end

Biggest problem maybe in terms of promotion or being known to exist in order for people to buy en masse
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
With increasingly advanced technologies and perhaps less reliance on big companies or rich areas

I think these cliques that form around entertainment media creation will end

Biggest problem maybe in terms of promotion or being known to exist in order for people to buy en masse
It already is. Celebrity is being democratized by greater competition. Now there are Instagram models, youtubers, streamers, etc, all taking market share from conventional celebrities.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
It already is. Celebrity is being democratized by greater competition. Now there are Instagram models, youtubers, streamers, etc, all taking market share from conventional celebrities.

Not happening fast enough in my opinion

Big entertainment media has to remember that the customer is their biggest boss, that they can’t just abandon their viewerbase for a “wider audience” whilst simultaneously expecting their original viewerbase to just keep consuming the same thing even if there are more options

This goes to other smaller companies or indies or less extremely rich entertainment producers even on youtube like Extra Credits, they too must not forget that people can turn off their channels or switch to something else
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top