This week we examine the latest insanity emanating from that shining light of progressivism on the left coast, Hollywood.  That’s right, the Hollywood nuts from the land of fruits and nuts are at it again, and this time, they may have hit upon a species of so-called “political correctness” which, if enforced, could end the careers of the most successful actors in the movie business.  There have been many styles of movie-making over the years, including cinema verite’,  which tries to tell a story in a realistic, documentary fashion.  Likewise, there have been many theories of acting.  Lee Strasberg taught and described method acting as “what all actors have always done whenever they acted well.”  Strasberg trained actors to use their imagination, senses and emotions to conceive their characters with unique and original behaviors.  In short, the actor was to “become” the character he or she was portraying.  Some actors took the concept to extremes, however.  In the movie Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman played a man on the run from a Nazi dentist, portrayed by Lawrence Olivier.  In one scene, Hoffman is exhausted, having been awake for 3 days.  He told Olivier that, to give a realistic performance, he actually stayed awake for 3 days, to which Olivier responded, “You don’t have to stay awake for 3 days, just act.”  But I digress.  The latest Hollywood insanity seeks to do away with method acting, in favor of what I call Identity Cinema.  That is, the notion that, if the movie character possesses some physical, emotional or cultural characteristic, then the actor portraying that character must possess the same characteristic.  For example, a character with one leg can be portrayed only by an amputee.  If this sounds nuts, because it automatically excludes thousands of actors from taking roles which require, well, acting, it’s only because it is nuts.  The current flap concerns popular actress Scarlett Johansson.  Johansson was set to star in Rub & Tug, portraying a trans-gender man who ran a string of massage parlors that were fronts for prostitution in the 1970s and 1980s.  High art, no doubt.  But not so fast.  Johansson was accused of trying to take acting jobs away from a marginalized group.  She apparently is now a second offender, having taken heat in 2016 for being cast as a Japanese character in the film Ghost in the Shell.  There was a time, not so very long ago, when it would have been considered progressive, empowering even, for a woman portray a man, but in these days of run away identity politics, even a woman can’t play a transgender man.  Moreover, nowadays, even a so-called “cis-gender” male, also known as an anatomically correct male, can’t play such a role.  Johansson folded.  It’s apparently an ethical issue, “In light of recent ethical questions raised surrounding my casting as Dante Tex Gill, I have decided to respectfully withdraw my participation in the project.  Our cultural understanding of transgender people continues to advance, and I’ve learned a lot from the community since making my first statement about my casting and realize it was insensitive.  I have great admiration and love for the trans community and am grateful that the conversation regarding inclusivity in Hollywood continues.”  Scarlett Johansson may feel good about herself, but she is creating a precedent that threatens to keep talented actors from playing challenging roles, simply because playing such roles entails acting, not just playing yourself, which is crazy, since the ultimate goal of acting is to convincingly portray someone or something you are not.  Such a mandate would have erased many of the most compelling acting performances in Hollywood history.  Let’s review.  Concerns about cultural appropriation would do away with:  The Good Earth – Luise Rainer wasn’t Chinese; Captains Courageous – Spencer Tracy wasn’t Portuguese; Gunga Din, Sam Jaffe wasn’t Indian; The King and I – Yul Brynner wasn’t Siamese; Breakfast at Tiffany’s – Mickey Rooney wasn’t Japanese; and Gandhi -Ben Kingsley wasn’t Indian.  How about physical challenges?  That would remove: The Hunchback of Notre Dame – Charles Laughton wasn’t deformed; Richard III – Lawrence Olivier didn’t have scoliosis; The Miracle Worker – Anne Bancroft had no vision problems, and Patty Duke wasn’t blind or deaf; Julia – Vanessa Redgrave wasn’t an amputee; My Left Foot – Daniel Day Lewis didn’t have cerebral palsy; Philadelphia – Tom Hanks wasn’t gay or HIV positive; Forrest Gump – Gary Sinese wasn’t an amputee; Ray – Jamie Fox isn’t blind; and The King’s Speech – Colin Firth had no speech impediment.  Then there are those with mental and emotional challenges.  Erase: The Three Faces of Eve – Joanne Woodward didn’t have multiple personalities; One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – Jack Nicholson probably isn’t insane; Rain Man – Dustin Hoffman isn’t autistic; Silence of the Lambs – Anthony Hopkins isn’t psychotic; Forrest Gump again – Tom Hanks can’t play a man with a sub-normal IQ; As Good As It Gets – Jack Nicholson isn’t Obsessive/Compulsive.  Sexual Preference differences take away many memorable performances: Tootsie – Dustin Hoffman (a repeat offender) isn’t a cross-dresser; Kiss of the Spider Woman – William Hurt isn’t transgender; Philadelphia – Tom Hanks isn’t gay; Mrs. Doubtfire – Robin Williams isn’t a cross-dresser; and Milk – Sean Penn isn’t gay.  But why stop there?  What about animal roles?  King Kong wasn’t played by a real gorilla in any of the movies.  And what about human-being Doug Jones in The Shape of Water?  Shouldn’t they have found an actor, preferably from a marginalized group, who resembled the Creature from the Black Lagoon?  About the only actor in Hollywood who won’t be affected by this insanity is Robert DeNiro.  He  always plays a violent, sociopathic, criminal, foul-mouthed cafone.  Consider Bloody Mama, Godfather II, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Angel Heart, The Untouchables, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, A Bronx Tale, Heat, Casino, Analyze This, Analyze That, Dirty Grandpa, and The Wizard of Lies.  If actors can only play what they are, DeNiro’s good to go.  The bottom line is that progressive Hollywood is doing for entertainment what progressive politicians are doing for the rest of America, destroying traditions and defying reason to pander to a fringe group, and leaving us poorer for the experience.  Hurrah for Hollywood.