I've read through each of his statements, first without then with your commentary, and have to agree. I see him trying to politely raise an important matter of professional integrity, and questioning the future of acting if we are all placed into boxes we cannot escape from, because escaping from the boxes we are placed into is, I would say, the raison d'être of acting, the essence of why acting—and even all art forms—exists in the first place.
I would even go on to say, and I know you generally agree with this, is that this is one reason identity politics, whilst it can be useful from a certain point of view, is definitely not an ideology one should base one's entire life upon, at least not to the point where it becomes irrational and spiteful. I see Guy here making this point too, if from a narrower perspective.
I don't think you're missing anything - it's definitely not an "apology" for his views, or really an apology for the (pertinent) question he originally asked.
He does give half a nod (or maybe a quarter nod) towards a recognition of the themes of 'progressive' angst when he mentions his privilege, or asserts that a "great many" minority communities are underrepresented (just how many of these bloody 'communities' are there?), or when he describes his question as 'insensitive' (which it isn't - it's using a really hot-topic example to make a point - but any mention of 'trans' outside of, the seemingly mandatory, celebratory fawning is unacceptable).
He echoes Simon Callow's views in an interview where he states the general principle that "actors are involved in acting, rather than being".
I think Pearce should have just made his points without doing his half-hearted appeasement towards the current progressive themes, but it does, as you say, fall far, far short of the full-throated grovelling 6-step apology program that you (beautifully) outline.
I've read through each of his statements, first without then with your commentary, and have to agree. I see him trying to politely raise an important matter of professional integrity, and questioning the future of acting if we are all placed into boxes we cannot escape from, because escaping from the boxes we are placed into is, I would say, the raison d'être of acting, the essence of why acting—and even all art forms—exists in the first place.
I would even go on to say, and I know you generally agree with this, is that this is one reason identity politics, whilst it can be useful from a certain point of view, is definitely not an ideology one should base one's entire life upon, at least not to the point where it becomes irrational and spiteful. I see Guy here making this point too, if from a narrower perspective.
I don't think you're missing anything - it's definitely not an "apology" for his views, or really an apology for the (pertinent) question he originally asked.
He does give half a nod (or maybe a quarter nod) towards a recognition of the themes of 'progressive' angst when he mentions his privilege, or asserts that a "great many" minority communities are underrepresented (just how many of these bloody 'communities' are there?), or when he describes his question as 'insensitive' (which it isn't - it's using a really hot-topic example to make a point - but any mention of 'trans' outside of, the seemingly mandatory, celebratory fawning is unacceptable).
He echoes Simon Callow's views in an interview where he states the general principle that "actors are involved in acting, rather than being".
The interview clip can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIq8Pv26bAM
I think Pearce should have just made his points without doing his half-hearted appeasement towards the current progressive themes, but it does, as you say, fall far, far short of the full-throated grovelling 6-step apology program that you (beautifully) outline.
Thorough and rational as always, HP.
Love your work.