Title : About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors."
link : About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors."
About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors."
I'm trying to read "How ABC changed ‘Roseanne’ into ‘The Conners’ and kept the status quo/The frustrating reality of the entertainment industry" by Monica Castillo at The Lily (which is a woman-oriented offshoot of The Washington Post). Castillo objects to the new version of the show — "Roseanne" without Roseanne — because the actors and writers employed on the old show could have been used to produce a completely new show. Castillo then gives us this paragraph (as if it supports the proposition that a completely new show should be devised to keep the the old show's people employed):Yesterday, the Directors Guild of America published their diversity figures for movie directors, revealing a shocking. but not entirely surprising statistic: There were fewer directors of colors helming movies last year than in 2013....Directors of colors? Is that how we talk now? Is there some idea that because "directors" is plural that you should also pluralize "color"? That's not the grammar rule I was taught in high school by an English teacher who justified the rule by maintaining that it is manifestly ridiculous to say to a group of people "use your heads" (because it creates the image of individuals with more than one head).
Maybe the plural seemed to express Castillo's interest in colors other than black (and "directors of color" seemed to signify only black directors). But maybe that's just a typo. Later in the column, I do see "directors of color."
But beyond that strange phrase, I don't see what the interest in employing more nonwhite directors has to do with whether John Goodman, Sara Gilbert, et al., do a completely new show or play the familiar roles of Dan and Darlene Conner. That question has to do with what will draw an audience. I wonder how the new show will be promoted. The message will be: Hey, don't you want to watch "Roseanne" without Roseanne. Remember how much you loved "Roseanne" so much that you'd love it without Roseanne, who had to go because... well, you know, for that reason we don't what to talk about anymore, and we hope that you remember so you'll know why this is "Roseanne" without Roseanne, but you won't want to reopen the question why she had to be made a total outcast from all polite society.
Putting that in writing, I'm thinking I'd be interested in a new show, starring Roseanne Barr, about the greatest woman in the history of television, who Ambien-tweeted a stupid joke that everyone took to be racist and got kicked out of her own TV house and is now ranting and raving — watching "Roseanne" without Roseanne — from her nutty macadamia farm in Hawaii.
Thus articles About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors."
that is all articles About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2018/06/about-roseanneless-roseanne-and-persons.html
Related Posts :
How did the Tories end up picking such a manifestly unfit candidate for Mayor of London?
So that Leslie Stahl "60 Minutes" interview with Trump was worth something.- What do you think of this "Your coffee deserves better" anti-Scott-Walker issue ad?
"Hopped off the plane at LAX with a dream and a cardigan..."- "Responding to years of derision by President Donald Trump and other critics, Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday released a report on a DNA analysis that provides strong evidence she does, in fact, have Native American heritage."
0 Response to "About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors.""
Post a Comment