Subscribe via RSS Feed

John Nolte is outraged on behalf of topless women everywhere.

[ 44 ] March 23, 2010 |

It goes without saying that John Nolte will write something like this:

Annually we are showered with Leftist films created by morally superior beings who lecture us on human rights, civil rights, feminism, lookism, racism and any other “ism” they can conceive, when in real life they’re the very worst in all of these departments.

He honestly believes that because some people on the left are sexist or racist, everyone on the right is morally superior despite, you know, supporting policies designed to protect the interests of white males. In this case, his ire is raised by a New York Post article about the casting call for the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie:

The filmmakers sent out a casting call last week seeking “beautiful female fit models. Must be 5ft7in-5ft8in, size 4 or 6, no bigger or smaller. Age 18-25. Must have a lean dancer body. Must have real breasts. Do not submit if you have implants.” And they warn that there’ll be a “show and tell” day. To make sure LA talent scouts don’t get caught in a “booby trap,” potential lassies will have to undergo a Hollywood-style jiggle-your-jugs test and jog for judges.

Nolte is outraged on behalf of surgically-enhanced women everywhere:

This isn’t some sleazy porn peddler in the valley doing this, this is…Disney. DISNEY is going to subject and exploit young women desperate to be stars to the indignity of a booby ”show and tell.” DISNEY is going to have them jog in place for producers and casting agents in order to keep score of the bounciness of their breasts.

Not only is this a case of discrimination against women whose only crime was undergoing a dangerous surgical procedure in order to enhance their appeal to sexists like Nolte, it involves a particularly dehumanizing “booby ‘show and tell’” in which woman will be asked to “jog in place for producers and casting agents in order to keep score of the bounciness of their breasts.” How does he know this? It says so right in the actual, unexpurgated casting call:

Must be 5’7-5’8, Size four or six – no bigger or smaller. Age 18 to 25. Must have a lean dancer body. Must have real breasts. Do not submit if you have implants. This is a show and tell of costumes with the director and the producers. Plan on an entire day of trying on clothes and being photographed.

Sticklers might insist that the prepositional phrase “of costumes” modifies “show and tell,” and that there’s nothing in the casting call about actresses being asked to “jog in place” so producers and casting agents can “keep score of the bounciness of their breasts.” Since it’s not in the casting call, where did this idea of a “booby ‘show and tell’” in which a parade of topless women jiggle only what the good Lord gave them come from? Where else?

The imagination of John Nolte.

The man can’t even defend hypothetical women without undressing them in his mind. This isn’t to say the casting call isn’t sexist, because like most items relating to Hollywood and the female form, it clearly is. The point here, as usual, is that conservatives who like to think of themselves as morally superior to liberals when it comes to racial or gender equality always reveal themselves to be purveyors of the very ills they decry. In this respect, Nolte is no different than affirmative action opponents who offer, as proof that we live in a post-racial society, the fact that there’s a nigger in the White House.

Share with Sociable

Comments (44)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. I’m guessing the casting call is so specific because they’re looking for someone with a similar body type as Keira Knightly to replace her?

  2. commie atheist says:

    “Pirates of the Carribean” is a “Leftist film”? Really? I thought it was just a typical piece of lowbrow Hollywood trash.

  3. Hob says:

    Mr. Nolte is apparently unaware that fake tits look noticeably, even bizarrely, different than real tits and could be a bit jarring in what’s ostensibly a period drama.

    Whether his unawareness of the difference is due to his never having seen fake ones, or never having seen real ones, is hard to say.

    • Halloween Jack says:

      I don’t find it hard at all to say that he’s probably never seen real ones.

      • LDP says:

        As someone who works in cosmetic surgery, when a job is well done, you cannot tell the difference between nature and enhancement.

        Please do not generalize something you know nothing about.

        Although I do feel what Disney is doing is absurd.

  4. brandon says:

    Weren’t those motherfuckers supposed to have destroyed the institutional left by about now? I’m disappointed. There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

  5. modH1N1 says:

    your post is persuasive but i think the best thing about it is the last sentence. don’t get me wrong and think that i’m for blatant use of nigger all of a sudden, but the usage ties up a well thought out post, and is very on point. there should be an award for that.

    • Linnaeus says:

      Nah, it just proves that the real racists are liberal-leftist-socialist-communists like Scott.

    • hv says:

      An award?? Most compelling use of a racial epithet 2010?

      How do you write the thank you speech for that?

      Too bad MLKj didn’t bother to delineate that he was also dreaming of a world where people didn’t get a cheap charge out of these kinds of rhetoric.

      =============

      I found it to lack civility.

      I fear that SEK can’t even defend real black presidents without epitheting them in his mind. in his posts.

      • SEK says:

        Thanks for playing, hv, but I think the context makes it pretty clear that that’s not my sentiment, but the words of a hypocrite trying to dispel the notion that he’s racist by proving, through his choice of words, that he’s a racist.

        • hv says:

          The context does make that quite clear. Me and my small brain managed to catch on there. Unfortunately, that is not enough to absolve you.

          You are just as guilty as Nolte of making up a little extra detail to spice things up. I’m not accusing you of being a racist, I’m accusing you of being a hypocrite.

          Oh and uncivil. Almost forgot uncivil. Does the context make it civil somehow?

          Thank YOU for playing.

          ===========

          PS: It is totally beside MY point (which is you are a hypocrite who lacks civility) but I still think that it would be more positive for racial relations if everyone refrained from hypothetical melodrama involving the n-word, no matter how accurate and cutting the caricature you are painting and no matter how clear from context it will be that one generally doesn’t use the n-word. Rhetorically speaking, one is free riding a lot of emotional impact from the evil baggage of that word, rather then the artistry of one’s argument.

          • SEK says:

            You’re making a category error here, hv: Nolte’s expressing his own opinion in his own voice, whereas I’m clearly paraphrasing “an affirmative action opponent” who isn’t me. (This is more clear at my place, where I included a short, personal-type footnote of the sort I don’t write here.) Put differently, my response to this:

            The context does make that quite clear. Me and my small brain managed to catch on there. Unfortunately, that is not enough to absolve you.

            Would be that if you understood why I deliberately and intentionally used a racial epithet in order to mock hypocritical racists, I’m not in need of absolution. After all, Nolte demonstrated that he’s a sexist by railing against sexism in sexist terms, whereas I pointed out that the illogic of his argument is shared by other conservatives on other issues, including, but by no means limited to, race.

            So yes, you have every right to claim that my rhetoric went too far in its denunciation of actual racists, but you can’t claim, as you do here, that I’m a hypocrite for deliberately using a culturally charged word to make a point. Only if I did it unwittingly would you have a case.

            • hv says:

              The error here is not one of category, but one of granularity.

              At the highest level, SEK’s thesis is that Nolte makes counter-productive rhetorical choices. (Reminder: SEK openly concedes that Hollywood is sexist, as Nolte proposes.) While proving this thesis, SEK makes counter-productive rhetorical choices. Just like critiques of spelling or grammar, critiques of rhetoric are easily tainted by small mis-steps. (Consider how few words one will be permitted to misspell when one writes an item on bad spelling habits. And a defense that one didn’t misspell exactly the same words in exactly the same way… laughable!)

              Ok, so at the highest view it’s clearly a bit hypocritical, but maybe we need to focus in a bit more, to make sure we are not being unfair or hasty to SEK. Quick checklist on the next level of details: both Nolte & SEK are tacking on a little extra part from their own imagination; they are both getting a little more rhetorical punch from it; both examples of rhetoric are a bit extreme, and arguably* over the line; both are putting this extremism into the mouths of their opponents in a way likely to increase his audience’s outrage. Wow. Lots of similarities.

              Of course, SEK is anxious that we continue to dial in until his fig leaf comes into focus. Please understand that many readers may be reluctant to do so… once we dial in that far, we are likely to encounter a similar fig leaf that Nolte is able to fashion for himself. One doesn’t have to be a professor of rhetoric to imagine that fig leaf: it probably consists of an admission (along the lines of SEK’s) that sure Nolte was jazzing it up but on purpose; perhaps a remark about how his audience would surely understand he was exaggerating; perhaps some random anecdote he had heard about what goes on in casting calls, etc. How could we hope to get to the bottom of that morass?

              * The strength of my criticism does of course depend on the degree to which one wishes to avoid casual or unnecessary use of racial epithets… which is a “concern” not currently being argued. Maybe I’m oversensitive to racial epithets!

          • Halloween Jack says:

            Concern troll will never apologize for his vocal concern, by God!

  6. Ed says:

    “Mr. Nolte is apparently unaware that fake tits look noticeably, even bizarrely, different than real tits and could be a bit jarring in what’s ostensibly a period drama.”

    Implants don’t always look that bad or obvious. If the casting people were serious about finding women with the look of the period, the specification “lean dancer body” would not be there and the height requirements would be quite different. As SEK says, the ad is sexist and the “show and tell” sounds humiliating, even if Nolte has let his imagination run away with him.

    • dave says:

      I guess you really don’t know anything about showbiz, then. Next you’ll be expecting them to cast ugly people as the leads in romantic comedies. And Jack Black doesn’t count.

  7. NBarnes says:

    DISNEY is going to have them jog in place for producers and casting agents in order to keep score of the bounciness of their breasts.

    Someone is imagining this scenario in far more detail than is polite.

  8. Rob says:

    Since when is Disney leftist?

    • elm says:

      I’ve long argued that Disney is Conservative, in the old, European sense of the word of defending the ancien regime. The clinching moment for me was in the Disney version of Three Musketeers when Disney described the Musketeers as a group dedicated to fighting for freedom. Takes a deeply Conservative viewpoint to state that a royal bodyguard are freedom fighters.

      Or I’m over-reading a throwaway line in a bad movie.

      • Walt Disney was a pretty hard-core anti-communist conservative. The company has a decent social liberal record, which is good for business, but takes a strong pro-corporate, pro-copyright stance in lobbying, which it spends big money on.

    • rea says:

      Since gay couples day at Disnewy World?

    • John says:

      Disney is the same company that thought it was a good idea to make Rush Limbaugh a football commentator.

  9. As I said at Acephalous, I think “the imagination of Cynthia Fagen” is the issue: Nolte doesn’t add anything to her anatomical musings.

    He may be shrill, and not much of a factchecker (though I certainly couldn’t have told you where to look for a casting call), but let’s not tar him with Fagen’s brush.

  10. Matt says:

    I don’t think the posting is as sexist as people are saying, because it’s not for an onscreen role. It’s a for a photoshoot of a number of possible costumes for the producer and director. Note the second listing on the original article — it specifies dancers/swimmers, but doesn’t go into anywhere near as much detail about the physical requirements (and that’s definitely an onscreen role).

    I would bet money that this is a job to model costumes designed for Kiera Knightley: she’s 5’7″ and has a lean, dancer’s body. Her dress in Atonement was size 2, according to the listing when it was auctioned off, but maybe the costumes are cut large, left unfinished, and tailored later? (Or she’s no longer a size 2, which I’d certainly applaud — she doesn’t look healthy). As far as the no-implants requirement, outfits designed to create cleavage (like the one in the breast-makeup article SEK linked to) do not play well with silicone.

    Anyway, assuming the job is “modeling on clothes designed for Kiera Knightley” and not “being in a movie,” then the only sexist thing I see is the request that applicants be “beautiful.” Unless, of course, John Nolte has inside information on what the audition will actually be like and Disney’s setting up the treadmills.

    It’s certainly ageist, though — a 26-year-old couldn’t pass as a 24-year-old actress?

  11. Ed says:

    “I would bet money that this is a job to model costumes designed for Kiera Knightley: she’s 5′7″ and has a lean, dancer’s body. Her dress in Atonement was size 2, according to the listing when it was auctioned off, but maybe the costumes are cut large, left unfinished, and tailored later? (Or she’s no longer a size 2, which I’d certainly applaud — she doesn’t look healthy). As far as the no-implants requirement, outfits designed to create cleavage (like the one in the breast-makeup article SEK linked to) do not play well with silicone.”

    Makes sense.

  12. stickler says:

    But re: the question about _Pirates_, and by extension Disney, being “Leftist,” well, think about it: the big nemesis of the last two movies was a corporation, the Honorable East India Company. Which emphasized profit above justice. And whose capitalist agent kept muttering “it’s just business,” even as his mighty ship of the line exploded around him.

    And who are the pirates? Well, a communitarian band of … uh, entrepreneurs …

    Hm. Maybe this analogy isn’t working.

  13. I am OUTRAGED that there is another Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

  14. John Rogers says:

    Oy, and I always promise myself I won’t engage Big Hollywood …

    As someone who actually works in Hollywood, yeah, you guys got it right. A “costume show and tell” is a very common shorthand referring to either showcasing the wardrobe look alone, or a way to see how someone in a very small role might fit into the background. Any time multiple choices from ANY department are presented to the directors and producers, it’s called a “show and tell”. I just went on a location “show and tell” on Monday. Where, I can assure you, none of the office buildings were forced to expose their breasts.

    In this case, with the age also called out, it seems to be for an acting gig. They may well be trying to cast someone as a teenager or adolescent girl, too. You see, you want an actor over the age of 18 so you don’t run into the child labor protection rules that limit your shooting hours, but want them to look quite a bit younger, hence the slender build and smaller, ah, development.

    This is the equivalent of Nolte thinking that a “gaffer” standing by a “condor” is a guy with a giant fishing hook lurking near a large endangered vulture.

    • Matt says:

      That makes total sense; wasn’t sure what the age requirement was there for. This is all idle speculation on all of our parts, though, so I can only hope that Nolte, even as we speak, is squeezing himself into a size 4–size 6 dress for some Big-Hollywood-style investigative reporting.

      Wouldn’t you rather work in “Big Hollywood” than Hollywood, though? With the plotting and the scheming to destroy America and the breast-bounciness contests and the ACORN brothels?

    • Desert Rat says:

      Good to know John. Had a chance to run any more Dark Matter recently?

  15. Gus says:

    Can’t help but think of the SCTV sketch, “Johnny Larue’s Jumping for Dollars.”

  16. mpowell says:

    I’m not sure how you’d define a casting call as sexist. If you see a casting call like that, sure as day becomes night, you’re going to see a young, beautiful, lithe woman cast with realistic sized breasts. It would be just a waste of everyone’s time not to say what you’re looking for. The language itself seems fine. I guess the sexism occurring here is that the director has a particular look in mind for some small part and it plays to stereotype for no good reason other than male gratification? Well, sure. But don’t 90% of shows/movies include that kind of role?

  17. eleanargh says:

    Since it’s not in the casting call, where did this idea of a “booby ’show and tell’” in which a parade of topless women jiggle only what the good Lord gave them come from? Where else? The imagination of John Nolte.

    Doesn’t it actually come from the New York Post article, which he quotes? It’s that article which says “lassies will have to undergo a Hollywood-style jiggle-your-jugs test”. So his crime here is more trusting-what-the-New-York_post writes than imagining-bouncing-breasts-for-no-reason.

  18. [...] John Nolte is outraged on behalf of topless women everywhere. : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.