Somethings telling me not to watch this anymore boy in a dress just no right.
Some of the posters in this thread are showing their age.
They won't be happy until the Black and White Minstrel show is back on, Jim Davidson is fronting saturday night TV and gay people are on TV to be ridiculed not understood.
Whats worse, I hear them cry is all this foreign muck in the supermarkets these days, blaming that liberal David Cameron.
If Nigel Farrage were in charge of this country we could have the gays and the immigrants taken off our tv they hope.
I read the book, an enjoyed it, but (SPOILER) the whole point of this drama was the other guys in the football team wore dresses for their football match and was ruined by the trailer that showed them all in frocks
There's always been something of the 'lavender' about Mr Walliams....... this was just another piece of PC on message stuff . Fairly tedious and predictible.
was it not just a big metaphor for embracing peoples differences and accepting people for who they are rather than judging by surface appearance?
Yes, but according to some people that makes it PC nonsense or propaganda .
Not sure if they would prefer a show where a kid is beat to pulp for wearing a dress to teach other kids an important lesson in what happens when you go against societies "norms".
//Not sure if they would prefer a show where a kid is beat to pulp for wearing a dress to teach other kids an important lesson in what happens when you go against societies "norms".//
I don't know... perhaps people would rather just see some kids actually achieveing careers and greatness through working hard at school despite the bullying and derision of others and not whether they wear a floral two piece or a ra ra skirt?
//Not sure if they would prefer a show where a kid is beat to pulp for wearing a dress to teach other kids an important lesson in what happens when you go against societies "norms".//
I don't know... perhaps people would rather just see some kids actually achieveing careers and greatness through working hard at school despite the bullying and derision of others and not whether they wear a floral two piece or a ra ra skirt?
//Not sure if they would prefer a show where a kid is beat to pulp for wearing a dress to teach other kids an important lesson in what happens when you go against societies "norms".//
I don't know... perhaps people would rather just see some kids actually achieveing careers and greatness through working hard at school despite the bullying and derision of others and not whether they wear a floral two piece or a ra ra skirt?
Well then the story needs a reason for the kid to be bullied and unfortunately kids are often bullied for being different and not fitting the norm. Whether its wearing a dress, being of a different colour, culture, religion, shape, size or sexuality. So if it was going to include bulling then it had to have some "PC" message. Plus David Walliams wrote something which he could relate to and it involved dresses.
If people want a show with no dresses and no PC then get in touch with a writer who wants to tell that story
You can read more into it but at the end of the day the book and film are just pandering to Walliam's choice of lifestyle, which is a fairly dubious activity when it's aimed at children.
was it not just a big metaphor for embracing peoples differences and accepting people for who they are rather than judging by surface appearance?
I thought that perhaps the missing mother was a factor. With a house full of men, especially blokey ones like his dad, maybe he felt the need to do something to fill the gap.
(On second thoughts, that's starting to sound more like the plot to Psycho!)
You can read more into it but at the end of the day the book and film are just pandering to Walliam's choice of lifestyle, which is a fairly dubious activity when it's aimed at children.
Walliams as well as Lucas have dressed up as women for their television show as have a lot of other comedians. Its not like they do it in their spare time for fun except for Miranda Hart he seems to be living his character 24/7 (yes I know Miranda Hart is a woman)
You can read more into it but at the end of the day the book and film are just pandering to Walliam's choice of lifestyle, which is a fairly dubious activity when it's aimed at children.
as you are an expert on his 'lifestyle' would you like to share with the rest of us what this 'lifestyle' is? Do you mean 'married with a kid'..which seems to sum up his lifestyle from what I know of it.?
My god that was some painful child acting in particular the boy in the dresses brother - woeful. Who cast that boy actor feeling he could act?
Poor Jennifer Saunders being linked to this acting monstrosity.
Bottom line with better child actors this story had potential. The black lead girl was the only child actor with potential the boy in the dress was ok the rest cringeworthy.
My god that was some painful child acting in particular the boy in the dresses brother - woeful. Who cast that boy actor feeling he could act?
Poor Jennifer Saunders being linked to this acting monstrosity.
Bottom line with better child actors this story had potential. The black lead girl was the only child actor with potential the boy in the dress was ok the rest cringeworthy.
I have only just watched it too. I enjoyed it on the whole, and the child actors seemed OK to me. Could have done without the David Walliams cameo though!
You can read more into it but at the end of the day the book and film are just pandering to Walliam's choice of lifestyle, which is a fairly dubious activity when it's aimed at children.
Have no idea what this is supposed to mean. A very strange post indeed!
Walliams lifestyle is questionable, he acts in a way that encourages questions about his sexuality but it's the provocation that forms his personality, not the choices he makes.
If the Boy donned a Dress to just provoke questions in the young and in turn satirize bullying then you would have a fitting drama.
If they went a 'straighter' route and crafted a drama where the Boy wore a Dress because of his sexuality I don't think you'd have so many people on the attack here as their behaviour would be deemed unacceptable.
Problems arise because very little justification is given as to why the Boy makes his choice, he likes womens magazines, his friend encourages him so he becomes a completely different (French) person?
The provocation aspect is clearly fulfilled but the drama is lacking, particularly when it's aimed at children and few adults seems to be able to grasp the concepts in play.
Walliams lifestyle is questionable, he acts in a way that encourages questions about his sexuality but it's the provocation that forms his personality, not the choices he makes.
Have no idea what you're on about, sorry.
If the Boy donned a Dress to just provoke questions in the young and in turn satirize bullying then you would have a fitting drama.
If they went a 'straighter' route and crafted a drama where the Boy wore a Dress because of his sexuality I don't think you'd have so many people on the attack here as their behaviour would be deemed unacceptable.
But then people would be complaining that being gay doesn't mean you want to wear dresses!
Problems arise because very little justification is given as to why the Boy makes his choice, he likes womens magazines, his friend encourages him so he becomes a completely different (French) person?
The provocation aspect is clearly fulfilled but the drama is lacking, particularly when it's aimed at children and few adults seems to be able to grasp the concepts in play.
As far as we know, the boy just wanted to be different. Everyone can form their own opinion as to why he chose that particular route.
Walliams lifestyle is questionable, he acts in a way that encourages questions about his sexuality but it's the provocation that forms his personality, not the choices he makes.
If the Boy donned a Dress to just provoke questions in the young and in turn satirize bullying then you would have a fitting drama.
If they went a 'straighter' route and crafted a drama where the Boy wore a Dress because of his sexuality I don't think you'd have so many people on the attack here as their behaviour would be deemed unacceptable.
Problems arise because very little justification is given as to why the Boy makes his choice, he likes womens magazines, his friend encourages him so he becomes a completely different (French) person?
The provocation aspect is clearly fulfilled but the drama is lacking, particularly when it's aimed at children and few adults seems to be able to grasp the concepts in play.
Why does he need to justify the choice? A choice that isn't hurting anyone else. Maybe thats the point he was trying to make in this story, there doesn't always have to be an explanation before someone will except a supposed difference.
And I don't understand how Walliams lifestyle is "questionable"
I should have included gender identification, there's obviously more at stake than gay/not gay.
Leaving out justification and letting people form their own opinions obviously didn't go so well. You both still question the point of the story but if it's intentions were cleary stated it would have left less room for bigotry.
Walliams lifestyle is questionable because he appears camp, cross-dresses in his career and when he is interviewed is asked 'questions' about it.
I should have included gender identification, there's obviously more at stake than gay/not gay.
Leaving out justification and letting people form their own opinions obviously didn't go so well. You both still question the point of the story but if it's intentions were cleary stated it would have left less room for bigotry.
Walliams lifestyle is questionable because he appears camp, cross-dresses in his career and when he is interviewed is asked 'questions' about it.
What is wrong with any of that? Possibly you have the wrong idea about the meaning of the word "questionable".
I didn't say that there's anything wrong with it. I'm using the word questionable in the context that he commonly appears as 'himself' and displays personality traits that are more associated with the characters he performs as, creating doubt about his true self and inviting questions.
By automatically trying to place me on the negative side of an argument aren't you disproving your own point? If at the end of this children's TV show everybody had turned to camera and said 'remember kids, do whatever you want, it's those that ask the questions who are in the wrong', then I think this forum thread would have been far less ugly.
This wasn't high art so why not attempt to go for clarity on a contentious issue and educate the masses rather than questionably making an esoteric point to those already on the same side.
I usually like David Walliams but I just couldn't see the point of this. The boy liked wearing a dress but it wasn't explained why he wanted to do this. There was no real story and the ending with the headmaster was so contrived.
I thought it was pretty obvious? He had developed an interest in women's fashion/clothing styles and that evolved into trying on a dress which he seemed to like. And it went on from there. I wouldn't get too hung up on that however as I think mainly it was just the vehicle for the point behind the story which I understood to be about being who you want to be without fear of what others may think of your interests, likes or choices. Especially at a young age where there is a lot of peer pressure to conform to a particular normality for fear of standing out from the crowd. That's typically why you get "goths" at school for example who stand in a corner. It's about that sort of thing but took a different approach rather than something predictable like a goth boy who likes makeup.
You can read more into it but at the end of the day the book and film are just pandering to Walliam's choice of lifestyle, which is a fairly dubious activity when it's aimed at children.
I didn't say that there's anything wrong with it. I'm using the word questionable in the context that he commonly appears as 'himself' and displays personality traits that are more associated with the characters he performs as, creating doubt about his true self and inviting questions.
Every actor or actress puts a certain % of their own character into their performances so there will always be a merging of the two. It's really not that much of a mystery. Why should his "true self" matter? Why does it invite questions?
I didn't say that there's anything wrong with it. I'm using the word questionable in the context that he commonly appears as 'himself' and displays personality traits that are more associated with the characters he performs as, creating doubt about his true self and inviting questions.
By automatically trying to place me on the negative side of an argument aren't you disproving your own point?
But the word "questionable" is negative. It means "likely to be dishonourable or morally suspect." It's an odd thing to say about DW's lifestyle if you think there's nothing wrong with it!
If at the end of this children's TV show everybody had turned to camera and said 'remember kids, do whatever you want, it's those that ask the questions who are in the wrong', then I think this forum thread would have been far less ugly.
But that was more or less the moral of the film, wasn't it?
Comments
Some of the posters in this thread are showing their age.
They won't be happy until the Black and White Minstrel show is back on, Jim Davidson is fronting saturday night TV and gay people are on TV to be ridiculed not understood.
Whats worse, I hear them cry is all this foreign muck in the supermarkets these days, blaming that liberal David Cameron.
If Nigel Farrage were in charge of this country we could have the gays and the immigrants taken off our tv they hope.
Hillarious
Yes, but according to some people that makes it PC nonsense or propaganda
Not sure if they would prefer a show where a kid is beat to pulp for wearing a dress to teach other kids an important lesson in what happens when you go against societies "norms".
I don't know... perhaps people would rather just see some kids actually achieveing careers and greatness through working hard at school despite the bullying and derision of others and not whether they wear a floral two piece or a ra ra skirt?
That doesn't sound much of a story.
Well then the story needs a reason for the kid to be bullied and unfortunately kids are often bullied for being different and not fitting the norm. Whether its wearing a dress, being of a different colour, culture, religion, shape, size or sexuality. So if it was going to include bulling then it had to have some "PC" message. Plus David Walliams wrote something which he could relate to and it involved dresses.
If people want a show with no dresses and no PC then get in touch with a writer who wants to tell that story
I thought that perhaps the missing mother was a factor. With a house full of men, especially blokey ones like his dad, maybe he felt the need to do something to fill the gap.
(On second thoughts, that's starting to sound more like the plot to Psycho!)
Walliams as well as Lucas have dressed up as women for their television show as have a lot of other comedians. Its not like they do it in their spare time for fun except for Miranda Hart he seems to be living his character 24/7 (yes I know Miranda Hart is a woman)
More like Tween Wolf.
as you are an expert on his 'lifestyle' would you like to share with the rest of us what this 'lifestyle' is? Do you mean 'married with a kid'..which seems to sum up his lifestyle from what I know of it.?
My god that was some painful child acting in particular the boy in the dresses brother - woeful. Who cast that boy actor feeling he could act?
Poor Jennifer Saunders being linked to this acting monstrosity.
Bottom line with better child actors this story had potential. The black lead girl was the only child actor with potential the boy in the dress was ok the rest cringeworthy.
I have only just watched it too. I enjoyed it on the whole, and the child actors seemed OK to me. Could have done without the David Walliams cameo though!
Have no idea what this is supposed to mean. A very strange post indeed!
If the Boy donned a Dress to just provoke questions in the young and in turn satirize bullying then you would have a fitting drama.
If they went a 'straighter' route and crafted a drama where the Boy wore a Dress because of his sexuality I don't think you'd have so many people on the attack here as their behaviour would be deemed unacceptable.
Problems arise because very little justification is given as to why the Boy makes his choice, he likes womens magazines, his friend encourages him so he becomes a completely different (French) person?
The provocation aspect is clearly fulfilled but the drama is lacking, particularly when it's aimed at children and few adults seems to be able to grasp the concepts in play.
But then people would be complaining that being gay doesn't mean you want to wear dresses!
As far as we know, the boy just wanted to be different. Everyone can form their own opinion as to why he chose that particular route.
Why does he need to justify the choice? A choice that isn't hurting anyone else. Maybe thats the point he was trying to make in this story, there doesn't always have to be an explanation before someone will except a supposed difference.
And I don't understand how Walliams lifestyle is "questionable"
Leaving out justification and letting people form their own opinions obviously didn't go so well. You both still question the point of the story but if it's intentions were cleary stated it would have left less room for bigotry.
Walliams lifestyle is questionable because he appears camp, cross-dresses in his career and when he is interviewed is asked 'questions' about it.
What is wrong with any of that? Possibly you have the wrong idea about the meaning of the word "questionable".
By automatically trying to place me on the negative side of an argument aren't you disproving your own point? If at the end of this children's TV show everybody had turned to camera and said 'remember kids, do whatever you want, it's those that ask the questions who are in the wrong', then I think this forum thread would have been far less ugly.
This wasn't high art so why not attempt to go for clarity on a contentious issue and educate the masses rather than questionably making an esoteric point to those already on the same side.
I thought it was pretty obvious? He had developed an interest in women's fashion/clothing styles and that evolved into trying on a dress which he seemed to like. And it went on from there. I wouldn't get too hung up on that however as I think mainly it was just the vehicle for the point behind the story which I understood to be about being who you want to be without fear of what others may think of your interests, likes or choices. Especially at a young age where there is a lot of peer pressure to conform to a particular normality for fear of standing out from the crowd. That's typically why you get "goths" at school for example who stand in a corner. It's about that sort of thing but took a different approach rather than something predictable like a goth boy who likes makeup.
Lost for words with this particular comment.
Every actor or actress puts a certain % of their own character into their performances so there will always be a merging of the two. It's really not that much of a mystery. Why should his "true self" matter? Why does it invite questions?
But the word "questionable" is negative. It means "likely to be dishonourable or morally suspect." It's an odd thing to say about DW's lifestyle if you think there's nothing wrong with it!
But that was more or less the moral of the film, wasn't it?